Official Report: Tuesday 27 January 2015

Mr Allister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why is it that, yet again, when we are about to have quite an important statement on health, the statement is not put in Members' pigeonholes until after 10.15 am, giving us a wholly inadequate opportunity to consider the points that are to be raised? I thought that there was guidance of at least 30 minutes, which has yet again been breached.

Mr Speaker: Ministers are required to ensure that Members get statements in sufficient time. There may be issues, which, I am sure, reflect on what the Member has just drawn to our attention. I am sure that the Minister will address those in his statement.

Mr Wells (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): At the outset, I will take up the Member for North Antrim's point. My understanding is that the statement was to have been in Members' pigeonholes by 9.00 am. Given the importance of the statement, I think that it is essential that Members get proper notification.

Last year, my predecessor commissioned an examination of governance arrangements for ensuring the quality of health and social care provision in Northern Ireland. That examination was led by Professor Sir Liam Donaldson. It is now complete, and the report is published today.

I am sure that other Members will wish to join me in paying tribute to the commitment and efforts of all those working in our health and social care system. I thank Sir Liam and his team for completing the review in such a short time. I also thank all those who met his team, including clinicians, managers, patients and members of the public. All of them contributed evidence to inform the team's work and findings.

Sir Liam is a world-renowned expert. The report is far-reaching in its implications, and I agree with Sir Liam's main conclusions. That said, I will need to take more time, as should others, to consider the specifics of some of the associated recommendations.

I want to highlight a quote from Sir Liam's report. He concludes that our health-care system:

That statement should be of some comfort and reassurance to those in our community who rely on our health service.

The report makes 10 recommendations. While some focus on specialist areas of quality and safety improvement, such as maximising learning from incident reporting, others are broader and focus on our health system. Members will be aware that I have already asked my permanent secretary to look at administrative structures in the health and social care system and the organisations that support it. The purpose of that review is to ensure that the structures in place to support the delivery of health and social care are working, individually and collectively, as effectively and efficiently as possible. That work will feed into future planning cycles, including for 2015-16.

It is clear that, on a number of the recommendations, there is a need to hear the views of other stakeholders, many of whom contributed evidence to Sir Liam and his team but will not have had sight of the recommendations before this morning. There are clearly recommendations that need to be considered by the Executive, and Members will also understand that, in respect of some of the recommendations, we will need to take account of the findings of the inquiry into hyponatraemia-related deaths, which will, hopefully, become available shortly. Despite that, there are a number of recommendations that should be progressed, and I am determined that that should happen as quickly as possible, particularly those that point to opportunities for improving the quality and safety of our services.

My predecessor and I have highlighted issues with commissioning, and this is reflected in Sir Liam's report. My officials have been asked to undertake a review of the existing commissioning arrangements to ensure that they are effective. The review will also take into account the recommendations set out in Sir Liam's report. A copy of the terms of reference for the review is attached to my statement.

A key point made by Sir Liam is that, in the Northern Ireland and broader UK context, the health and social care system that we have is not the one that we need. However, while acknowledging Transforming Your Care (TYC) as a strong forward-thinking piece of work designed to address this issue, he notes that progress has been slow. I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment, but we need to be clear that it does not reflect a lack of ambition or effort. In December 2011, the TYC report set out a change vision that would take three to five years to achieve and require some £70 million of additional transitional funding. Due to a change in the wider financial context, the Executive have been unable to provide that funding to my Department. That said, TYC remains a priority. It directly addresses the challenges facing our hard-pressed health and social care system. By working to safely introduce services in primary and community care, and supporting people to make good health decisions and manage their own conditions with appropriate assistance, we will be able to ensure that service users and patients are treated in the right place, at the right time and by the right people. We need to enthuse our front-line staff and empower them to make the changes that they can make in support of the aspiration for the highest-quality health and social care service. I am determined, even though we are working in a constrained financial context, that we must redouble our efforts to speed up the implementation of TYC. The best change comes from the ground up, and I want to facilitate those at the coalface to play a fuller role in delivering transformation.

I note that Sir Liam's review recognises the potential for pharmacists to expand their role in the provision of community services, and I can confirm that I will shortly announce details of an implementation plan to guide the execution of the Making it Better Through Pharmacy in the Community strategy. That will set out the strategic direction and enhanced role of pharmacists in the community for the next five years.

In addition, I can advise that my Department will be issuing a medicines optimisation quality framework for consultation later this year. This framework complements existing policies and TYC and aims to support better health and well-being outcomes for our population by improving the appropriate, safe and effective use of medicines throughout Health and Social Care (HSC).

I wish to confirm that a statutory duty of candour will be introduced in Northern Ireland. There should be no ambiguity in respect of my expectation regarding the crucial elements of patient safety, which are openness and transparency. I recognise that despite the best efforts of doctors, nurses, social workers, other staff and managers, mistakes can and do happen. Patients, service users and the public have a right to expect that, when they do, they will be communicated with in an honest and respectful manner and that every effort will be made to correct errors or omissions and to learn from them to prevent reoccurrence. I have asked my officials to begin the process to create a statutory duty of candour in Northern Ireland, so that, supported by professional codes of conduct that already exist, we might bring about the strongest possible form of openness and transparency in Northern Ireland.

The serious adverse incident (SAI) system has been the subject of a great deal of focus over the last 12 to 18 months. Sir Liam highlights that the SAI process needs to be strengthened. I agree with that assessment. However, I want to remind everyone that it is a system for learning, and it should not be used as a source of information to attack the service or to sensationalise issues which affect people at a very difficult time in their life. Such an approach can only serve to undermine the extent to which we are open about and seek to learn from mistakes that occur. The Health and Social Care Board and the Public Health Agency (PHA) jointly manage the operation of the SAI system. I have instructed them to consider the recommendations made in this report, prioritise changes that can be made now and set out the direction of travel for recommendations that will take longer to bring about.

Shortly, I will publish the details of a look-back exercise into SAIs, which was commissioned in 2014. The look-back report will confirm the desire of professionals to involve people, but highlights how hard it can be to get this right, because people want to receive information in a manner of their choosing, which may be unique to them. It will show that reporting of deaths in hospitals to the coroner is generally carried out appropriately. Sir Liam Donaldson and his team have however highlighted that improvements could be made.

I want to reiterate today my commitment to progress to a conclusion work that was previously announced by my predecessor, which was to introduce a regional morbidity and mortality review system as well as the development of proposals, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Justice, to introduce a new independent system to review deaths in Northern Ireland, complementing the role of and working with the coroner.

A "never events" list will also be developed for Northern Ireland. Never events are serious, largely preventable patient safety incidents that should not occur if available preventative measures have been implemented. They include incidents such as wrong-site surgery, misidentification of patients and dosing errors. Some of these events are already dealt with in Northern Ireland in the context of existing SAI learning letters and other guidance issued. I have instructed my officials, as an interim measure, to urgently consider the list of never events for England and to determine its applicability to Northern Ireland.

Sir Liam restates the need to use expertise and guidance from regulators in other countries. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) already uses and will continue to use experienced professionals from other UK countries in review work and will build on those existing arrangements appropriately in future review work.

Members will recall the announcement made by my predecessor that RQIA will begin a series of unannounced inspections of acute hospitals in April 2015. Members will agree with me that unannounced inspections are often of more value than announced inspections. Best practice from other regulators is already being incorporated in that work, and it will be shaped going forward on an analysis of key trends in the HSC in Northern Ireland on a rolling basis.

I have asked my officials to investigate with the RQIA the possibility of speeding up the roll-out of this programme of unannounced inspections. My officials will also begin work on new policy proposals to review the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) Order 2003 with a view to introducing a stronger system of regulation of acute health-care providers. These changes need to be taken forward alongside changes to the current system of regulation. My Department will bring forward proposals to the Executive for changes to that system of regulation of non-acute services, with the aim of issuing the proposals for consultation later this year.

I say again: openness and transparency are vital to ensuring a system that is focused on maintaining quality and continuous improvement. The system must learn to listen to the voices of people who use it and who work in it and to make sure that those voices are heard. It is often those voices that highlight poor standards. The effectiveness of whistle-blowing arrangements in the health and social care system continues to be a cause for concern. As part of the 2015-18 RQIA review programme, I have directed that RQIA should undertake a review of the operation of whistle-blowing in health and social care bodies and make recommendations on how we can improve its effectiveness.

I am conscious of the general conclusions in the report about how the health and care service is both reported and perceived. Focusing on reviews, complaints and "never events" is important. This focus can, however, skew everyone’s perceptions about these services. I want more work to be done to measure and report patient and client experience. With this express intention, I have asked my officials to review the current arrangements for measuring patient/client experience to ensure we take the best available worldwide evidence and design a framework to strengthen the voice of patients at every level from the front line up to the Department. Monitoring patient and client experience, good and bad, is a much more effective way of driving improvements in the quality of our services. It is also an approach that will give a much more balanced view of the quality of the services being provided.

This is a time for those who are committed to the delivery of high-quality health and social care services to engage in open, honest, intelligent debate about how we move forward. The report should force us collectively to raise the standard of our debate on health and care and to focus on the prize, which is a world-class health and care service. We need to recognise the realities that we face and to arrive at the right decisions, beginning by ensuring that we are asking the right questions. Too often, discussion about the health service can be overly simplistic and focused on a simple choice between closing or keeping open a particular facility. In this context, the reaction of the local community is understandable and instinctive: a save-our-service mentality. In reality, though, it is not about saving a service, but saving a structure. The real choice that we face is an uncomfortable one for us all, including political representatives. It is this: do we want a world-class service or a service on our doorstep, which, while convenient, may be sub-optimal and compromise quality and safety? The discussion about the right structure for our services and hospitals has been going on for many years under different administrations and under the leadership of Ministers from different political parties.

The message from Sir Liam is clear — I need to emphasise this point — we now need a mature debate and we need to strive for political consensus to empower us collectively to make the right choice. Borne out of a desire for that mature debate, I have chosen to place this report in the public domain and to address the Assembly at an early stage in the interests of openness and transparency. I want to allow a wide range of stakeholders the earliest possible opportunity to reflect on the report and to begin to formulate solutions to meet the challenges in it. These solutions can only be informed by openness and honesty about where we are now and what has to be done to deliver the changes needed.

Whilst we are moving ahead with some of the recommendations that I have outlined today, I am also asking for written comments on the recommendations to be submitted to the Department by the end of April 2015. That gives an opportunity for stakeholders to reflect and engage with one another, political representatives and the Department.

I recognise that the analysis of the report will take some time and that it will need to be given careful, measured consideration. Inevitably, some of the recommendations will have financial implications, and some may require legislative change and Executive approval. Sir Liam, through his report, challenges us on what is best for the people we serve.

The report highlights specific issues on innovation, silo working and standardisation. As part of my approach to addressing those issues, I have specifically asked the six trusts to work with each other, their staff and other stakeholders to develop a combined response to the report and its recommendations. Their response should reflect the views of all front-line staff in particular. It should also focus on their ideas for improving collaboration, ending silos, increasing standardisation and promoting innovation. Front-line staff must be empowered not only as a result of that work but as part of it. In short, they hold the key to delivering on the change that is needed.

The trusts, along with other stakeholders, will be asked to provide their views and comments to the Department, again by April 2015. I accept that that is quite a challenging deadline for all concerned.

Mr Speaker, in the light of the challenges posed in the report, we must all contemplate the tough choices on improving health and social care that face the Executive. I propose to ask Sir Liam to return next year to advise me of his views on the progress made.

I will conclude by highlighting another quote from Sir Liam’s report. He said:

In summary, Sir Liam has concluded that we have a real opportunity to transform our health service into a world leader. I believe that that is an ambition that we should cherish. I look forward to the debate ahead.

Mr Speaker: Before I call the Member who will ask the first question, I inform the House that a large number of Members have put their name down to ask questions. I am sure Members will agree with me that as many as possible should be allowed to do that. For that reason, I ask Members to ensure that their questions are brief, not multi-question comments, and that they relate to the ministerial statement.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. However, I suggest that there is little in the report that heralds the new dawn, if you like, for our health and social care service.

The Minister said that we need a mature debate. That is absolutely no problem. However, the report cost £116,000 for eight months' work. It has effectively told us that Transforming Your Care is too slow; that there are concerns about commissioning, but it does not outline what those concerns are or, indeed, how they could be rectified; that the health and social care system is not the one we need; that there will be a statutory duty of candour; that there will be a direction for pharmacy; and that there is a need to strengthen the serious adverse incident system. So, how, exactly, Minister, will these 10 recommendations be taken forward by the direct actions that are required to bring our health service into the 21st century and to provide that world-class service that we all strive for?

Mr Wells: The lady is absolutely correct. I intended to reveal this anyhow: although not all the invoices are in, we think that the report cost roughly £116,000. That has to be seen in the context of an overall expenditure for 2015-16 of over £5 billion. I believe that, if properly implemented, Sir Liam's report will certainly make us much more cost-effective in many respects.

Where the mature debate is concerned, I remind her that three parties in the Assembly have had the opportunity, or the pleasure, of holding the health service portfolio and that all three have struggled with initiating the debate that Sir Liam clearly flags up, which is that, if Northern Ireland came into existence today, we would not start our health service provision from where we are now. I hope that his first recommendation will encourage us all to have that mature debate.

Although we had our concerns about issues surrounding Transforming Your Care, commissioning and SAIs, it was very helpful to have a totally independent, detached voice come in, look at the situation and confirm that our reading of that situation and our concerns were correct. That reassures me, and it incentivises me to try to ensure that we deliver what Sir Liam is saying. To some extent, at least the report is saying that Transforming Your Care is the right direction and that, strategically, it is the correct way forward. However, we need to put more resources into it. We can all agree on that.

Some of the recommendations will be implemented almost immediately. I mentioned the end of this financial year, which is quite a challenge. Some recommendations cannot be implemented without Executive support, while others cannot be implemented without changes to legislation. The Chairperson will understand that that is a long-term process. I am very keen to have a public, open and transparent debate on all Sir Liam's findings to get a sense of the support or otherwise among the medical community, service users and the general community, all of whom have a view on health and social care.

Some of this is very challenging and some of it is uncomfortable. I accept that. However, there is not much sense in our having a report that does not challenge us all. I will also be relying on the Committee to provide a sounding board for many of the views on it. I see the report as an extremely important document for the future of health in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement on the quality of care in Northern Ireland, which is of utmost importance. What will his review of commissioning examine?

Mr Wells: It is important that we distinguish the two reviews. First, Richard Pengelly, the permanent secretary, has initiated a review of administrative structures in the trusts, the board and other aspects of health care to see whether we can make more cost-effective decisions. I know that many Members have expressed their concerns about admin costs. Mr Pengelly's role — it is a challenging one, because he has to report by the end of this financial year — is to examine every aspect of administration to determine whether there is overlapping administration and whether there are ways in which to take costs out of the system.

In addition, attached to the statement are the terms of reference for the review of commissioning arrangements, which focus particularly on the role of the board. The review will have a number of tasks. It will assess the health and social well-being needs of the population of Northern Ireland and assess strategic planning to prioritise needs within the available resources, including the use of financial and other levers to reshape services to meet future needs. It will engage with patients, users, carers, families and other key stakeholders at a local level in the commissioning of health and social care. It will secure, procure, incentivise and agree high-quality, value-for-money service provision to meet the assessed and prioritised needs of the population. It will ensure the delivery of outcomes from services commissioned and evaluate the impact of health and social care services, feeding back into the commissioning process how needs have changed. It will bring recommended options to improve the effectiveness of the delivery of health and social care in Northern Ireland. We expect that report by the summer of 2015.

Therefore, there are two ongoing processes here that affect commissioning. Of course, we acknowledge Sir Liam's comment that Northern Ireland could be in a position in which we have all the bureaucracy and administrative demands of a commissioning service without any of the real, tangible benefits that commissioning should be yielding. We need to examine that, but, again, that is something that I and my officials realised was an issue before we saw the text of Sir Liam's report. At least it is good to have that independent corroboration that we need to look at this very important issue.

Mr McKinney: I am reluctant to say, "I told you so", but does this report not represent a vindication of those who have been rightly critical of a service that has not been delivering, up to and including criticism of who runs the system. I remind the House that this Minister and his predecessor have robustly and at all costs defended that system. In that light, is it not now time, not for another debate, but for decisions, finance and action?

Mr Wells: First of all, as to who is in charge, I am in charge. I will always hold the ultimate responsibility for any decision that is made. I am not surprised that the Member will maybe try to twist that. The report is quite clear that, whilst there may be confusion over responsibilities and relationships between the multiple bodies in our system — we are looking at that — at the end of the day the ministerial role is at the apex, and that is where the final decisions are made.

I believe that Sir Liam's analysis of our health and social care system is that we are no worse or no better than many others but we have massive room for improvement. I accept that. However, the Member, amongst others, has been attacking me when we have tried to make any changes in the structure and the number of buildings that we use to deliver health and social care. We need to have a realistic debate, and nobody has been prepared to grasp the nettle over the past 17 years. Do we need to make radical changes to how we deliver health and social care on the ground? If you read Sir Liam's report, he is saying that we must do that. I am not going to abdicate responsibility: this is something that will have to lead in conjunction with Members of the House. Some of what he has asked us to deliver cannot be delivered without the support of the Executive and the five main parties in the House. That is a great challenge to us all. What I notice from the Member's own party is that they tend to give a nodding acquiescence to that and then, when the final vote comes up at the Executive, they wish to detach themselves so that they can organise a guerrilla war campaign against the difficult decisions.

There is no more difficult decision in Northern Ireland than how we configure our health service. I am at least reassured that on the Budget and on welfare reform we have shown ourselves capable of making those difficult decisions. This is another one that we will have to tackle, but it will need buy-in from everybody in the Chamber before we deliver this in our community because it is a bitter pill to swallow and a difficult set of decisions to take.

Mr Swann: Minister, your statement refers to a regional morbidity and mortality review system but seems to focus solely on a review of deaths in Northern Ireland. What additional steps will you take about the number of patients now being sent outside Northern Ireland for their operations, so that anything that adversely affects their lives is also reviewed by our health service in Northern Ireland?

Mr Wells: That is a very good point and one that had not occurred to me. Whilst the review will deal with deaths and the subsequent serious adverse incidents (SAIs) in Northern Ireland, I will check with my officials to see what is the situation if they happen in other parts of the United Kingdom.

As the Member will understand, there are certain services where we simply do not have the capacity or number of patients to deliver a top-class service in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we send patients with specialist conditions such as congenital paediatric to Evelina and Birmingham and those with Duchenne muscular dystrophy to Newcastle upon Tyne. There really is not the population on the island of Ireland for Duchenne muscular dystrophy services, therefore we will have to continue to do that for the foreseeable future. The standard of care is extremely high. The results already coming back from London and Birmingham show that statistically the care is of a very high standard. Sadly, occasionally, things do not work out, and there is the passing away of a child or adult who was receiving care. I will have a look at that and write back to the Member because it is a different angle on an important issue. We will certainly do all we can to answer his concerns.

Mr McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his statement. I would like to complain that we have not had even a sight of his statement to examine one recommendation on what we are discussing.

This is yet another report. Reports and reviews are coming out of our ears. I am sure that the people engaged in providing a very good health service for our people are lost. Perhaps the Minister might be able to tell us how many reviews he is engaged in at this time. I see on page 1 of his statement that his officials have been asked to undertake yet another review on account of the recommendations, so there is another review. On page 3 —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. Could the Member please come to a question? This is not an opportunity for a statement.

Mr McCarthy: The question, Mr Deputy Speaker, is on page 3:

Could the Minister — then he goes on to say —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Please. Really.

Mr McCarthy: — "contemplate tough choices". Can the Minister tell us what those tough choices are? Be upfront with the Members of the Assembly. He knows, but he is hiding behind something. Tell us what those tough choices are, so that we can provide a first-class service for our constituents.

Mr Wells: First, Mr Allister raised a very valid point and so has the Member. I was given an assurance that the document would be in the hands of Members by 9.00 am. As soon as I leave the Chamber, I will investigate this, because this statement is far too important for Members to find themselves having it thrust into their hands five minutes before the debate on it. So, point taken. I will make certain, even if I have to go to the pigeonholes myself at 9.00 am, that the Member is not put in this position again.

The tough choices are alluded to in Sir Liam's report, where again he says that we are not where we should be in terms of provision in Northern Ireland. Our essential services and expertise are dissipated and spread too thinly over far too many buildings in Northern Ireland —

Mr McCarthy: You are coming to it.

Mr Wells: — and that, particularly at night —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. It is bad enough going on and on without speaking from a sedentary position. We really will have to do things properly.

Mr Wells: I have no doubt that, if I have missed anything he said, I will get it in next week's 'Newtownards Chronicle' anyhow. I guarantee that much of this is for the benefit of the local media rather than me.

To be fair to Mr McCarthy, we simply have to look at the way we deliver our service. When he gets a chance to read the report in detail, particularly recommendation 1, and raise it with Sir Liam tomorrow at the Health Committee, he will see that he has expressed the same concerns as numerous experts about developing better services through TYC and said that we would not start from where we are today in Northern Ireland to provide a high-class sustainable and safe service. That is uncomfortable reading, but we cannot continue to run away from this. We need an open and honest debate among all Members about the best way to provide a first-rate service.

Mr G Robinson: What is the Minister's reaction to Sir Liam Donaldson's criticism of the local media?

Mr Wells: I have to resist the temptation. Sir Liam was quite critical of the influence of the media in his final report and throughout his review. Some may wish to use the report to engage in a witch-hunt against the media or elements of it, but let me be clear that that is not something that I advocate. I recognise that the media's job is difficult and complex, and my reading of the report is that there is food for thought for all of us in Northern Ireland: those who are in public life; those working in the health service; and members of the public, including the media. The media will give this report intense scrutiny and open up the debate, which I welcome. I noticed this morning that it was the first item of news on all the broadcasts, which was good.

We need the media to give all of Sir Liam's recommendations widespread coverage, and we need to engage the entire community. I do not accept Mr McCarthy's view that this is one review too many. This one, because it is bespoke for Northern Ireland and deals with crucial issues, is complementary to other reviews such as the RQIA's review and the College of Emergency Medicine's review, which have achieved solid changes in how we deliver A&E and ED in Northern Ireland that patients have benefited from. Reviews are only mistaken if we do not act on them. Much of what Sir Liam has indicated in his report will be policy and will be enacted within this calendar year.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas ar maidin. I thank the Minister for his statement. He said that he plans to bring about an enhanced role for pharmacists: in that context, will he ensure that there is appropriate funding to accompany that new plan so that pharmacists are permitted the opportunity to provide a first-class community service?

Mr Wells: The Member for West Belfast has raised an issue, and I have to be a wee bit circumspect, because action may be taken by representatives of community pharmacists on the issue of payment. I do not know how far down the line that has gone, but I have to be relatively careful in what I say.

What I can say is that it is clear that pharmacy has so much more to offer than simply the administration and checking of prescriptions. The expertise that is so evident in that profession should be used to make certain that we deliver first-rate care. The strategy for the provision of pharmacy services in the community sets out an expanded role for pharmacists in medical organisation and public health targeted training, such as medicines adherence, brief interventions, self-care and the management of long-term conditions in the community. All those roles align with wider transformational changes in the health service designed to bring care closer to the home. Pharmacists have already shown themselves to be very useful in the minor ailments programme, for instance. There is also a proposal under Transforming Your Care that pharmacists will play a more important role, with GPs forming confederations where they can employ a pharmacist to take on the heavy burden of administering prescriptions and repeat prescriptions in GP surgeries.

I welcome the fact that Sir Liam has raised an issue, as I highlighted at Question Time yesterday, that we had our concerns about, which is that pharmacists are underutilised and their skills could be better used in the community. This will require delicate negotiations with the organisations that represent pharmacists in Northern Ireland, and I am keen to take that forward.

Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for his statement. Obviously, one of the major challenges as we move ahead is ensuring that front-line services are maintained and improved where possible. I note that recommendation 9 of the Donaldson report is about moving to the forefront of new technology. What role does the Minister believe technology could play in the key challenge of improving services for patients?

Mr Wells: Northern Ireland has shown itself to be adept in using new technology. I had the privilege of visiting Daisy Hill Hospital on Thursday to see the way that new technology is used there for speech and language therapy for stroke patients, and I was very impressed. A few years ago, the Southern Trust won the award for the best telemedicine service in the United Kingdom. That was a remarkable achievement, given the names of some of the other leading health trusts in the United Kingdom that the Southern Trust beat to win that award.

I welcome the fact that Sir Liam has mentioned this. Whilst we are not complacent, we see some very interesting ways forward. For instance, the regional radiology information service, known as NIPACS, is one of the largest systems of its type in the world. We should celebrate the fact that people from around the world have come to see and use that technology. We are consulting on a draft e-health and care strategy. That has just concluded, and the responses received will be evaluated to consider what steps need to be taken, including any steps necessary to ensure that Northern Ireland remains at the forefront of technological innovation.

Northern Ireland does this well not only in healthcare but in manufacturing. As I have mentioned before, the then Chair of the Health Committee and I were in Cuba two years ago and were very interested to see that a lot of the diagnostics being undertaken in Cuba were being down with equipment made by Randox in Crumlin. I had the pleasure of explaining to the people of Havana where Crumlin was. This offers not only a chance to deliver better medical services but an opportunity for really important secure jobs in the Northern Ireland economy. We have shown ourselves very capable of taking on new medical technology and using it to stimulate our economy and, in the case of Randox, make exports to over 140 countries. Sir Liam has come into the Northern Ireland context and recognised something that we had been concentrating on as well.

Mr Byrne: I welcome the Minister's statement. Recommendation 3 talks about reducing the need for hospital beds and suggests a solution in terms of pharmacists and paramedics. Minister, surely primary care should be advocated and enhanced through the GP system? Why is there no mention of enhancing the role of GPs in reducing the need for hospital beds and improving the general healthcare for the population?

Mr Wells: You will recall, Mr Byrne, that Sir Liam was originally brought in over specific problems regarding the Northern Trust and the Belfast Trust, particularly the reporting of serious adverse incidents and the openness and transparency within the system. In the course of his investigations, he realised that there were other major issues, such as TYC commissioning and the configuration of health provision, which were so important that they had to be mentioned in his report. He was not actually asked to look, per se, into GPs, pharmacy etc.

As I outlined yesterday, we are having real problems with workforce planning in health care, particularly at that level. We are 20% short of GPs. A quarter of GPs are over 55. We are having a workforce review to address that. Young people coming out of medical school do not see being a GP as an attractive career route. How we increase the number of young people who adopt the view that being a GP is the best career to follow is being regarded as a matter of urgency. So, whilst Sir Liam's report was comprehensive, it could not look into every aspect of health care in Northern Ireland. However, I am content that, were we able to implement fully most or all of his recommendations, many of the structural problems that face health in Northern Ireland would be resolved. I therefore welcome that, but, in the short period he had, he could not have carried out an all-encompassing review of the health service in Northern Ireland.

Mr I McCrea: I welcome the Minister's statement. Can he provide further detail on how he plans to develop clinical leaders in patient safety?

Mr Wells: The honourable Member has raised a crucial issue, and it ties in clearly with the duty of candour. When all our senior staff are empowered and feel free to report all incidents, the standard of provision will be raised enormously. At the moment, 80,000 adverse incidents and 400 serious adverse incidents are reported every year. I do not see it as a bad thing if we increase that process, so that we can learn from where we are getting it wrong or getting it right.

We have also undertaken surveys, such as the 10,000 Voices project, to give patients the opportunity to use narrative to describe their experience of the health service, using their unique stories. Patients who share their story retain anonymity from the health-care provider, and I think that senior health professionals can learn from that. Equally, however, we have some absolutely first-rate senior managers in Northern Ireland. Every time I go round hospitals and clinics, I see their work in action; I see them working well beyond their contractual hours and absolutely dedicated to their role. We need to give those individuals the confidence to come forward when they see a role for improvement, and to welcome, encourage and nurture that, rather than this reticence that we still find in some aspects of the health-care system, where proposing change is seen as negative. That should not be occurring. Therefore, again, the duty of candour that will be given to senior clinicians and managers will encourage them to regard candour not as a nice add-on but as an imperative. If they see something wrong or something that can be improved, they have a duty to come forward and be honest and open, without it being held against them in any shape or form.

Mr Spratt: I thank the Minister for his statement. The lack of treatment and services during the evening, and particularly at night, is one of the criticisms that we often hear. How can progress be made on making evening and night services as good as they are during daytime?

Mr Wells: Sir Liam has highlighted this issue. Whilst in most of our hospitals, during daylight hours, it is possible to provide a high-quality service, in the evenings and at weekends the system is under considerable stress. Whilst I believe that it is still safe and sustainable, if the workforce planning reviews are correct, we are going to find it more and more difficult, and expertise will be spread so thinly over so many units of care while expecting the same high standard 24/7. We are already finding it difficult to fill essential positions such as middle-grade doctors and consultants in many of our hospitals. I again come back to the fact that we would not start from where we are today; we would concentrate resources on a smaller number of sites. We have to initiate a very difficult debate in the Chamber: where do we take the structure? Do we simply try to make do or do we try to improve it? We may reach the stage, as we did with Downe and Lagan Valley, when the decision is taken out of our hands, and the royal colleges and the regulator will say that we have to close a service or reduce its hours because we simply do not have the staff.

I see signs of stress throughout the system, particularly at nights and weekends. It is two tier in the sense that you will still have a good outcome, but it is about how long we can sustain it, and I have my doubts. Sir Liam was absolutely right to raise the issue. It is coming to all the health authorities in the United Kingdom, but particularly so in Northern Ireland, given that, because of history and tradition, we spread our service over so many units in comparison with the rest of the UK.

Mr Rogers: Thanks, Minister, for your statement. How will patients, service users and relatives discover whether there has been a never event, particularly as we do not have a list of never events, other than by going down the legal route?

Mr Wells: Sir Liam has been very helpful in suggesting that we look at the English situation, where they do have never events. As a matter of urgency, we must devise a list of things that should never happen, and we can do that quite rapidly if we decide that it is the proper route to go down. Absolute basics such as a patient being treated in the wrong ward or given the wrong medication are never events that should not happen if there are proper procedures. Many of those will already fall under the SAI system, whereby, if things go badly wrong, they become serious adverse incidents. The duty of candour will be such that, if that occurs, people will have to be told immediately. We are talking about a tiny minority of cases. When it does happen, however, those can go disastrously wrong. I believe that a culture of transparency and candour will ensure that, when those unfortunate incidents happen — we need to put this in context, given that there are about 1·7 million procedures in hospitals every year — there will be immediate openness, and they will be reported. Basically, one common theme of Sir Liam's report is that you cannot be too open and honest with your clinicians, trusts and, most importantly, patients, so he is pushing on an open door.

Mr Newton: I welcome the Minister's very detailed statement, particularly his words about open, honest and intelligent debate on how to move forward. The implications of that are spelled out in paragraph 4.5 of the report. We need to debate the issue further. How can data and metrics help to bring forward the safety agenda?

Mr Wells: I do not want the public to come away with a negative impression of the quality of health care in Northern Ireland. The reality is that, in cold, hard statistics, in many aspects of care, we perform extremely well. In prostate cancer, breast cancer and cardiac surgery, Northern Ireland can hold its head up very high in the overall UK and European context. We gather a lot of statistics in Northern Ireland. We have a cancer register, for instance, which is a very modern tool to identify that acute condition. I do not want to indicate that Sir Liam is saying that we have a shortcoming.

I recognise the importance of ensuring that we can measure performance and patient safety and understand our progress in that area. Meaningful, relevant and timely information relating to safety and quality is essential. My Department has been working to develop a number of indicators and targets that can be used to monitor patient safety. Data relating to pressures, pressure ulcers, infections, falls in hospitals, weekend death rates and hospital mortality have all been developed within the last few years. We will continue to explore the development of further metrics as appropriate. Whilst metrics can be compared within and between trusts, we need to ensure that appropriate conclusions are reached. Any disaggregation of information has to be fit for purpose and applicable to Northern Ireland, rather than, of course, on the scale of North America.

So, that is a work in progress. We are already doing quite a bit on that statistical analysis, but it must ultimately lead to improved outcomes and better patient safety. I am glad that Sir Liam has pointed us in the direction of improving on that.

Mr Allister: I was tempted to ask the Minister how many reviews he and his predecessor need to run the health service, but I will ask about recommendation 1 instead. Surely that has to be the most totalitarian, undemocratic recommendation ever seen. It suggests that all the political parties and the public in Northern Ireland should abdicate their critical faculties, sign up to accept whatever is proposed by some faceless panel about the future configuration of our hospitals and merely deliver whatever it is they say. Has there ever been a more totalitarian suggestion?

I invite the Minister —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order.

Mr Allister: — to repudiate —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order. Mr Allister —

Mr Allister: — recommendation 1.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Mr Allister, we really need a question. The same rule applies to all Members.

Mr Allister: The question is this: will the Minister repudiate recommendation 1 on the basis that I have outlined?

Mr Wells: I detected a question in the previous statement. He is the first Member to have concentrated on recommendation 1. I will not abrogate my responsibility. Any decisions taken on the structure of the health service and provision in Northern Ireland rest with me and the Department, in conjunction and consultation with the Assembly and the Executive.

I think that where this is coming from is that Sir Liam has detected, quite rightly in my opinion, that we have looked at the issue through Developing Better Services and Transforming Your Care and will look at it again as a result of his report. We all understand the considerable pressures that MLAs come under when that is suggested.

Transforming Your Care was quite interesting. Everybody supported reducing the number of buildings and structures in which we provide health care until it came to the structure or building in their area. Suddenly, they manned the barricades and said, "No"; we need to streamline but not in west Tyrone, north Antrim or north Down", or wherever else. The barricades were immediately manned on that issue.

What Sir Liam is saying is that we will come under huge political pressure to deal with that issue, and maybe the only way that we can deliver on it is to hand the decision to somebody else. I see that as a very controversial recommendation, and I give the commitment that decisions will be taken by elected representatives in the Assembly. However, that does not mean that should not have an informed debate about whether we are spreading our expertise and clinical excellence and services over far too many buildings. The answer from every world authority that has looked at Northern Ireland is that we are doing that. We cannot keep running away, for decade after decade, from the fact that our present system is not the one that we want but the one that we have. It is certainly not the one that we need.

Ms Sugden: The Minister alluded to my question when he discussed the extended role of community pharmacists. Great savings can be made through medicines management and more efficient prescribing. How does the Minister see that moving forward, and how do we make savings on drugs in Northern Ireland?

Mr Wells: We have made considerable savings. When I first became the Chair of the Health Committee, the total community pharmacy drugs budget was £400 million, and I think that that is now down to £362 million. That has been achieved by driving up the generic prescription rate — I believe that the last rate that I saw was something like 72%. Every one percentage-point improvement in the generic rate saves us about £4 million. So, we are making progress.

We are also looking at proposals to reduce the number of smaller items that are available on prescription. It strikes me as strange that food supplements, suntan oil, Savlon and other potions and medicines available over the counter for a small price are still available on prescription. So, we are moving in the right direction as far as pharmacies are concerned.

We are also receiving money through the change fund. We made a successful bid for additional money for medicines management through that fund. That was one of our four successes. I see this as a way of improving efficiency by using pharmacists and their skills better and by bringing the medicines budget under some form of control. At one stage, I thought that it was beginning to run out of control, but at least it has now been brought under some form of control. Again, Sir Liam spotted that and made specific recommendations on how we use pharmacists. We also have to keep the community pharmacists on board, and negotiations are going on at the moment that preclude me from going any further on that.

Mr McGimpsey: I thank the Minister for his statement. He called for a mature, open, honest and intelligent debate. I was in his position for over four years, so can I suggest to him that, from my experience, his biggest problem with that open, honest and intelligent debate lies within his own party and that I think that he will have difficulties there when he calls on the rest of us? The fact is that there is not enough money to run the health service. You either increase the money or you reduce the service. Is that not —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Mr McGimpsey, could we have a question, please?

Mr McGimpsey: Pardon?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Could we have a question?

Mr McGimpsey: Yes, you have. I am just doing it. Do you accept — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Mr McGimpsey —

Mr McGimpsey: — that this is, in effect, a plan to reduce the service to match the budget that is available and that it is, in fact, a closure plan? When are we going to see the actual closures and the list?

Mr Wells: Sir Liam was not asked to and did not identify any services that should be reduced, expanded or closed. However, he said that we — the "we" being the 108 MLAs in this Building — need that educated, coherent, sensible debate on what is the best way to deliver the services on the ground. Whatever the decision, it will be made following that debate and with the Assembly's agreement. We could not deliver it any other way. There has to be that mature debate. Once again, we are reminded that a debate that Developing Better Services prompted at least 10 or 12 years ago has not really matured into a decision-making process. We can do that only if the Assembly parties unite, have the debate and come to a common policy on it in conjunction with the Minister.

There is absolutely no indication in Sir Liam's report about what that will lead to on the ground. However, I know that whatever we decide will provoke a massive public reaction. Are we mature enough, as MLAs and as an Executive, to have that debate and to respond to that public reaction in a mature way? I do not know, but I think that Sir Liam is absolutely right to flag this up again as a very important issue that has to be tackled. That is because, eventually, as I said, the royal colleges and the BMA may make the decision for us that we simply will not be able to continue to spread the service as thinly as we have up to now.

Mr Givan: I thank the Minister for this statement and his commitment to continue the strategic leadership that he has shown over the Department. It is a Department that other parties bypassed when they had the choice to select it at the Executive. They should bear that in mind when they now criticise.

Will the Minister outline who the duty of candour will be applicable to? How can we have confidence that it will provide the openness and transparency that many people expect to be in the health service already?

Mr Wells: First of all, I accept that, when Health was being selected under d'Hondt at the first Executive meeting after the election, I noticed that many parties in this room were not fighting their way to the front demanding that they —

Mr Swann: — [Interruption.]

Mr Wells: — have this portfolio. Maybe, Mr Swann, you want it next time round. Be careful what you wish for, because it is indeed a very challenging position. The fact is that two of the largest parties have already had the opportunity of holding this post and there was not exactly a huge enthusiasm from those Ministers either to implement the inherent changes that Sir Liam mentioned.

The duty of candour, which I see as crucial, will apply to everybody at every level in the health service. We are talking literally from the cleaner who sees an unsafe practice in his or her ward right up to the thoracic surgeon — the eminent clinical expert — who might see something regarding radiography, anaesthetists or something that he or she has a duty to report.
Equally, I want the public to feel absolutely safe. No retribution will be taken against anyone who comes forward with problems. Sometimes, the lessons that we learn from that openness are absolutely invaluable. People spot things on the ground or in the ward or clinic that, you would think, are blindingly obvious but are not until someone spots and reports them. Therefore, I want to instil the view that people will want to do it and do it regularly. I know that there will be the odd facetious or time-wasting complaint, but, on many occasions since I have come into this post, I have learnt enormously from people putting pen to paper, often through their MLA, to say that the service has fallen below that which is acceptable. We expect that the engagement will be based on the principles of openness and transparency. We also must ensure that we avoid any action that might promote a culture of fear, blame or defensiveness in reporting concerns about patient safety or reporting mistakes when they happen.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Spratt: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You challenged Mr McGimpsey, the Member for South Belfast. In my view, he actually challenged your authority in the Chair. I ask you to take Mr McGimpsey's remarks to the Speaker to have them examined by him.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I will share my view, as the Speaker at the moment, with you: I am more than happy that Mr McGimpsey did not challenge me.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

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

I am pleased to bring before the Assembly the draft Planning (2011 Act) (Commencement No.2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015. The order will be made under section 254 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which requires the order to be laid in draft and approved by a resolution of the Assembly. The order is the second in a series of commencement orders for the Planning Act.

The order will initially commence Part 3 of the Planning Act from 1 February 2015 for the purpose only of conferring powers to make regulations and orders. That will ensure that the Department has the enabling powers required to put in place the detailed proposals for subordinate legislation necessary to introduce the reforms to the planning system. The order will also commence Part 3 of the Planning Act for all other purposes from 1 April 2015, thus enabling the transfer of responsibility for the majority of planning decisions from central government to the new councils.

The provisions in Part 3 of the Planning Act cover a range of planning control powers, including defining "development" and setting the framework for the processing and determination of planning applications in the reformed planning system. Normally, commencement orders are not required to be laid before the Assembly. However, during the Consideration Stage of the then Planning Bill, the then Environment Committee tabled an amendment that provided that any order commencing Part 3 of the Act shall not be made unless a draft order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly. The Committee's amendment was to ensure that appropriate governance measures are in place when responsibility for the majority of planning decisions transfers to councils.

As Members will know, there has been significant progress made on local government reform, with a number of important milestones being met, including the Local Government Act receiving Royal Assent in May 2014 and the May 2014 elections, which led to the creation of the 11 new councils. Those are now operating in shadow form alongside the existing 26 councils.

Members will also be aware that the Local Government Act 2014 has introduced a new, modern statutory framework for political governance in the 11 councils and a new ethical standards framework, which includes a mandatory code of conduct for councillors. Part 9 of the code, which deals with the planning element, will come into effect in April 2015 and will set out what is expected of councillors in their new roles and responsibilities in relation to planning.

My Department has undertaken a broad range of capacity building with the new councils over recent months, and, to support the code, the most recent series of events has focused on ethical standards behaviour in relation to planning. These new roles and responsibilities have also meant that the working relationship protocol between councillors and local government officers has been revised and published. This provides a clear framework as to how the new councils should discharge their enhanced responsibilities in real, practical terms.

The necessary steps are in place to ensure the required systems and structures for the successful transfer of planning functions. This includes a broad range of subordinate legislation required to bring the Planning Act fully into operation and to establish the new two-tier planning system. Capacity building, training and the development of a planning performance management framework are on track. In addition, I am pleased to advise Members that the draft strategic planning policy statement, consolidating existing planning policy into a strategic policy framework for the new two-tier planning system, will be finalised very shortly. The planning portal is being upgraded and amended to take account of the new legislative environment and councils' new planning responsibilities. Transfer arrangements for staff, planning records and IT equipment are also well under way.

The local planning office networks have also been restructured in line with the 11-council model, and new offices have been opened. Planning applications that were previously dealt with centrally in the Department’s strategic planning division have been realigned to the new council planning offices to reflect the new responsibilities. Planning managers have been appointed to each of the new councils, and all staff have now been allocated to the relevant councils. This will involve the transfer of nearly 400 staff from my Department to local government. I would like to put on record my sincere thanks and appreciation to all those staff who are transferring to councils, both administrative and professional and technical, for all their hard work for the Department, carried out with dedication and integrity over the years.

Over the past four months, my Department has delivered an extensive capacity-building programme for elected members and council officials. To date, the feedback has been very positive. In addition, advice and guidance is being prepared on a wide variety of planning-related matters. This includes guidance on the application of the councillors' code of conduct in relation to planning matters, the operation of planning committees and practice notes on the reformed two-tier planning system. I am pleased that I have been able to provide funding to the Local Government Training Group to deliver activity on a regional basis as well as to individual councils to deliver on a more local level.

A key way to demonstrate the effectiveness and integrity of the planning system will be through monitoring performance management arrangements. The Department, in close collaboration with the councils, is developing a planning performance management framework. It is important to stress that the Department's approach to performance management, first and foremost, will be one of helping and supporting the role of councils. The Department wants to work with councils to promote good practice. The Department’s publication of a ‘Protocol for Planning Committees’, highlighting what is considered to be best practice with regards to the operation of planning committees, is an example of this.

The transfer of planning powers to councils has been long awaited, and a tremendous amount of preparatory work has already been done. I commend the efforts made by councils, officials in the Department and a broad range of key stakeholders to prepare for what is the biggest change to planning in 40 years. My staff are working with the local government sector as the final preparations are being made for 1 April, but the work will not stop here. The Department will support councils after transfer and is committed to reviewing the operation of the new system under the Planning Act at regular intervals. I ask the Assembly to approve the draft commencement order.

Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment): I thank the Minister for his explanation of the background and purpose of the draft affirmative statutory rule and for the progress made to ensure a smooth transfer of the planning function to the new councils.

The Committee was briefed by departmental officials on the SL1 proposal on 11 December 2014 and on the content of the rule at its meeting on 15 January 2015. Officials outlined how the Planning Act 2011 will introduce the framework for processing and determining applications for planning permission. They also described the range of additional governance procedures that will be put in place by the Local Government Act 2014 to ensure the effective implementation of that aspect by the 11 new councils.

The timing of the commencement of that element of the Planning Bill was something that caused the previous Environment Committee a high level of concern because the governance arrangements for ensuring equality and fairness in council decisions were not yet in place. That Committee drew the Department's attention to the equality impact assessment carried out at a strategic level on the reform of the planning system. An assessment of potential section 75 impacts indicated:

The previous Committee sought and received reassurance from the Minister that the planning functions of the Bill would not be devolved to local councils until governance structures were in place. Members welcomed that, but, mindful that responsibility for such a decision was on the verge of potential change, sought the reassurance of a legislative mechanism to prevent functions transferring to councils too soon.

Ideally, the Committee wanted to link the commencement of the Bill to that of the local government reform Bill. However, it was advised that this was not technically possible. The next best alternative was deemed to be to ensure that none of the commencement orders passing the responsibility of planning functions to councils could take place without the approval of the Assembly. Members agreed to make the commencement of Part 3, on planning control, subject to draft affirmative procedure, and for that reason this commencement order has come before the present Committee.

After taking into account the mandatory code of conduct, which will specify how councillors will be expected to address planning matters, and the level of capacity-building that is still being delivered by the Department, the Committee believes that adequate systems of control and councillor confidence will enable those provisions of the Bill to be appropriately delivered. Accordingly, the Environment Committee has agreed to recommend that the motion is affirmed by the Assembly.

Mrs Cameron: It is good to have explanations from the Minister and the Chair of the Environment Committee on the draft affirmative statutory rule before the House.

The issue predates my time on the Environment Committee, so it was useful to have the officials brief us at the Committee on 15 January. As Members have already heard, the SR will commence Part 3 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the section that relates to the devolution of planning control to local councils. I understand that the previous Committee was unhappy with that aspect of the Bill because it did not believe that there was adequate understanding of the equality implications at local council level, and that the Committee was therefore concerned that this part of the Planning Act would not come into operation until the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 had implemented appropriate governance measures to ensure that councillors fully understood their responsibilities to consider planning applications in an objective and unbiased way.

The Local Government Act has introduced the councillors' code of conduct, together with appropriate sanctions for any infraction of the code to be investigated and adjudicated by Commissioner of Complaints. The Department has also been delivering high-level training in capacity-building to local councillors and council staff to build up awareness of their new responsibilities.

Having taken all that into account, the present Committee is now satisfied that the appropriate degree of governance will be in place to ensure a smooth transition of planning functions.

I have nothing more to add to the comments of the Chair and the Minister, except to say that I, too, am happy for the motion to be affirmed by the Assembly.

Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome that the commencement order has been brought before the House. I hope that it is relevant to mention that my concerns, at this stage, are that the strategic planning policy statement, which comes later, will afford some flexibility to local government to tweak or interpret policy in a rural community, for example, where there might be strong feelings about lack of opportunities. That flexibility is an important point for me.

The Minister made some reference to my second concern, which is the whole human resources aspect of this. People will be transferred from one working location to another. That is a very difficult exercise, which is being undertaken by HR Connect etc. At the heart of that are some people who have particular circumstances and would like or need to remain in the setting in which they currently work, for health or other reasons. So there are a number of challenges in that.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the commencement order.

Mr Durkan: This order will allow my Department to provide for the transfer of responsibility for the majority of planning decisions from central government to the new councils. It is a key step towards the reform of planning to councils. I would like to thank those who have contributed to the debate for their affirmation of the motion. We have had a good contribution from the Chair of the Committee, Ms Lo, and from the Deputy Chair, and Mr McElduff never misses an opportunity to ask about PPS 21. I can assure him that the single strategic planning policy statement is very near finalisation, and I am hopeful that it will be to his satisfaction. I thank the Committee and other Members for their support.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to three hours for this debate. As two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, an additional 15 minutes has been added to the total time allowed. The Minister will have up to 45 minutes to allocate as he wishes between proposing and making a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have seven minutes. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members called to speak will have 10 minutes.

I remind Members that the vote on the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): I beg to move

The motion before the House today is one of the more important ones that this House will debate. In any Administration, the Budget is the bedrock that underpins the delivery of services and ultimately plays a pivotal role in the success of those services. Our Budget should, in so far as it can with the limited resources at our disposal, reflect the priorities of our people. I am proud to say that this Budget is one that supports key services, like health and education; underpins economic growth; provides a platform for the reform and restructuring of our public sector; and places Northern Ireland's finances on a secure footing for the future.

I do not intend to rehearse the detail of my speech last week when I presented the Budget to the House, but I want to make a few key points before we debate and vote on the 2015-16 Budget. First, I would like to express my appreciation to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for its work in shaping the Budget and providing the level of scrutiny it does, which helps give the Assembly and the wider public confidence in the Budget that has been agreed. Members will be well aware of the financial environment confronting us in 2015-16 and in the years thereafter. We do not have the luxury of excess in our Budgets. We are faced with the challenge of doing more with less. That scenario means that we must confront difficult decisions on what the public sector should be doing and what it should not be doing. Change is coming. I am sure that no one in this Assembly — or, indeed, beyond — is under any illusion about that fact. The public sector must undergo reform and transformation, and this Budget allows that to commence.

The Stormont House Agreement provided the Executive with a financial package of measures that, along with agreement between the five Executive parties on welfare reform, permits us to place the public sector here on a sustainable footing for future years. The agreement struck between the Executive parties on 19 December is a deal that allows us to move forward with much-needed reform and restructuring of the public sector. The essential agreement on welfare reform, coupled with considerable Barnett consequentials flowing from the Chancellor's autumn statement, allowed the Executive to make allocations of an additional £150 million, bolstering the budgets of many Departments over and above their draft Budget position. I am pleased that the bulk of that extra funding has gone to education, employment and learning and policing.

Given the position taken by some Executive Ministers on the Budget, I anticipate that a number of Members today will use their time to disagree with the Budget. That is their right. The truth is that this is not a perfect Budget. There will always be differing opinions on budget allocations, in times of prosperity as well as in times of fiscal consolidation. I have spoken about what I would have wanted in this Budget, but I have also listened to other Ministers, Committees and the public, and that has shaped the final Budget. There will always be those who are prepared to stand up and say what services should be funded. There are not so many that are prepared to listen to the reality that we have finite resources and that extra funding for one thing means less funding for another or more taxes for everyone.

In this week, when we mark 50 years since the death of Winston Churchill, our Prime Minister has been encouraging people to share their favourite Churchill quotes. At this point in the debate, with several hours left and many Members to make their contributions, perhaps Churchill's remark:

is most appropriate. I hope that Members do both in equal measure.

I will have plenty to say later, especially on one amendment, which, at this point in time, I would describe as very courageous. In the meantime, I commend the Budget to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Before calling the first Member to speak, I am sure that you all noted the deliberate mistake in my brief. Each Member will have seven minutes, not 10 as was indicated.

Mr Nesbitt: I beg to move amendment No 1:

I will begin by acknowledging the remarks from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, particularly that the Budget is the bedrock — nobody will disagree with that, I am sure — and also his acknowledgement that it is not a perfect Budget. Is there a little room for improvement, even at this stage?

I am acutely aware of the fact that the Executive's resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) has been cut by 1·6% in real terms. That is a big issue, but so is debt.

Nationally, the UK Government now spend more servicing their debt than they do on public services here and in Wales combined. That is not a legacy that we should happily hand on to our children. There is no party with a realistic prospect of occupying 10 Downing Street on 8 May that is not committed to tackling that debt issue, so we know that we need to plan for continued pressures on our Budget. There is nothing new about that, so why oh why was this year's Budget rushed? That was entirely avoidable. The key fact that needs to be clarified by the Minister is this: the Executive were informed of their allocation for 2015-16 as part of the UK spending round in June 2013, yet it took the Department of Finance 18 months to produce a draft Budget. Somebody was clearly asleep at the wheel.

It gave us no pleasure, just immense frustration, when the 2011-15 Budget finally disintegrated. Many Departments were forced to make swingeing in-year cuts in order to provide emergency funding to prevent essential public services collapsing. In response to the worsening state of public finances, the Finance Minister had to turn to the UK Government for a £100 million bailout — embarrassing. It was against that dysfunctional backdrop that the Budget for 2015-16 had to be prepared. Yet it was all so avoidable. We warned consistently — generically and specifically. We specifically highlighted that year 4 in the health budget was the most acute pressure point. In 2011, Michael McGimpsey said that the budget could just about work on £4·8 billion. With Edwin Poots's last-minute Damascus conversion of asking for an extra £140 million in-year, his final figure for the year was £4·799 billion. If Michael McGimpsey can see it coming to within three decimal points three years out, why did we have to go cap in hand to the Treasury for a £100 million loan when the Department of Finance should have seen it coming 18 months out?

The last four years have been a missed opportunity to get our public funding in order. There was no major reform of the public sector. While the number of civil servants in England has been reduced by almost one fifth, Northern Ireland actually saw a rise. Had workforce restructuring been looked at four years ago, the sheer scale of the proposed voluntary exit scheme could have been much reduced, and be in no doubt that the success of the proposed exit scheme is far from guaranteed. The only certainty is that it should not have been necessary to bring on such a large-scale project with a timeline that leaves no wriggle room if anything should go wrong, such as failure to attract the right numbers at the right grades to make the scheme work to budget.

I now wish to address each point of our amendment in turn. First, there is the lack of transparency. There was a fundamental lack of openness in the determination of baselines. We note that they are predominantly benchmarked on previous years. However, I have heard on numerous occasions that, during the initial consideration in October, the Department of Education's baseline increased by £75 million in the space of a couple of hours. How come? If ever a Department lacked financial transparency, surely it is our Department of Education, yet that lack of transparency appears to have been rewarded. Even if it was part of the fallout of a previous agreement on the aggregated schools budget, that should have been laid out in public, not left to a Sinn Féin/DUP trade-off.

The next point is that the failure of many Departments to produce draft spending and savings plans weakened and invalidated the process. Departments such as Finance and Culture, Arts and Leisure failed to provide even the most basic information in their spending or savings plans. It was wrong that each Department was allowed to produce plans in a manner of its own choosing. It made it impossible to compare all or even most Departments in a like-for-like manner and thus weakened and invalidated the consultation exercise. By the way, we note that our call for DFP to reproduce its savings plan has been left out of the synopsis of responses on its website. How curious.

Next, we are perplexed at how the tens of thousands of consultation responses could have been processed in just two weeks. Can the Minister indeed clarify how many consultation responses there were? The Budget document presented to the Assembly referred to over 50,000, yet he has previously referred to a number more like 20,000. Either way, how can you give those respondents due weight and consideration in such a short time?

Next is our concern that the proposals have not been based on a revised Programme for Government. The decision to simply roll over the 2011-15 Programme for Government commitments demonstrates a lack of vision and determination, two points and values that, I am sure, the Minister would recognise in Winston Churchill. In essence, the Assembly is drifting for the next 12 months.

For those who wonder what we would have done differently, let us start by removing the £26 million DEL allocated to the social investment fund. Of the original £80 million, £50 million has now been spent. Does the Minister wish me to give way?

Lord Morrow: I wish you to give way.

Mr Nesbitt: I am asking the Minister. I will give way if I have time.

As of last week's announcement of the additional £13 million, £50 million of the original £80 million has been spent. It was meant to be £20 million per year over four years. Until recently, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister could not give the money away: you know that, Minister. Whatever the intention of the social investment fund — there is a question about that — it simply has not worked. Be mature: say so and put the remaining millions to better use. Next, is the —

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Nesbitt: I would give way to the Minister, but I will make progress — [Interruption.]

Next is the relocation of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to Ballykelly. Quite simply, value for money has never been demonstrated, even though it is a £41 million project. It is like the head of a household saying to his family, "We are going to move house even though the mortgage lender says that we cannot afford it and half the family say that they do not want to go". Ballykelly should be delayed.

We called for £5 million resource DEL for the Health Department to partially alleviate the pressure on the health and social care trusts. Of course, in health spend, £5 million is not very much, but look at it like this: had the South Eastern Trust had an extra £5 million this year, it would not have had to close 20 beds in Bangor Community Hospital, six in Lagan Valley Hospital and nine in the Downe Hospital, as well as a swathe of other service reductions. We note that the Department believes that it can recoup £113 million in the form of cash-releasing efficiencies and productivity gains in trusts. I would like to put it on the record that the Ulster Unionist Party does not believe that this £113 million will be achieved in 2015-16. How are they meant to do this, especially in the absence of any strategic change from the Department?

We call for £3 million resource DEL for the Department for Regional Development to partially assist with the funding of Northern Ireland Water to its PC15 final determination. At present, there is an almost £15 million resource DEL shortfall in NI Water for reasons such as the impact of the ongoing non-domestic rate revaluation.

We call for £1·5 million resource DEL for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to partially alleviate the reduction to arts and Northern Ireland's museums. We are all aware of the campaign around culture in Northern Ireland accounting for 13p per head of population in direct funding with many millions of pounds generated in return. Do we really want to create a society that merely functions, with no appreciation of culture and the arts? That is not my vision of a new Northern Ireland.

Finally, we call for £1·5 million of resource DEL for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to partially alleviate the reduction to the Fire and Rescue Service. It is bizarre that, even after the production of the spending plan, which itself prioritised front-line services, the Health Department has no final position on what those services are. Yet, it still managed to determine that fire and rescue is not front-line. That meant that the cuts to the Fire and Rescue Service, which overall accounts for 1·5% of the DHSSPS budget, have been exacerbated. They have been cut by 9·9% —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): The Member's time is almost up.

Mr Nesbitt: I have merely scratched the surface. As the Minister says, the Budget is not perfect. Here are some recommendations to make it better.

Mr McCallister: I beg to move amendment No 2:

I will make a few observations in opening and proposing my amendment. I welcome it that, at least, after the Stormont House Agreement, there seems to have been a rebooting of the relationship between the DUP and Sinn Féin and the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.

In my amendment I note with caution the £200 million for the voluntary exit scheme because I have very limited confidence that it forms part of a strategic vision for wider public-sector reform and efficiency. I am happy for the Minister to convince me of that when he replies.

The Minister has already admitted that he does not know the terms or conditions of the interest on the loans that he is taking out and has not carried out an economic impact assessment. The Executive have ditched the policy of investing in infrastructure with a long-term economic benefit or multiplier effect for one of borrowing to make people retire or, indeed, redundant. There seems to be no wider link to a strategy for public-sector reform. What happens if the Executive do not reach their targets for voluntary redundancies? How do we avoid a brain drain of our top civil servants? Will we end up in a position similar to that of the police after the Patten reforms, where we have to bring people back at a much higher cost because there is a brain drain, meaning that the Department and Executive have not gathered the savings they had hoped for? Half of Departments show an increase in administrative costs in the budgetary period to date, while PEDU, which the First Minister set up when he was Finance Minister, and the public sector reform division that this Minister set up have achieved very little in the eight years that the Minister and I have been Members of the House.

As Ulster University's economic policy centre stated in its submission on the Budget, the Executive have still not shifted their focus from defending Budget lines to evidence-based policy that delivers outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland. I suspect that the Minister would like to go to an outcomes-based policy but struggles to get Executive colleagues and the Executive as a whole to commit to that. The public sector reform division has in some ways outsourced its work to the OECD, but that will not report back until the end of this year, which is halfway through the period in which we are supposed to be implementing a voluntary redundancy scheme. That is why I am concerned and cautious and why I want to see a published strategy accompany the Budget.

I have to say that the Executive's record on major public-sector reform projects is woefully inadequate. We have been debating the Education and Skills Authority since the Minister and I arrived in the Chamber. We debated local government reform for eight or nine years before that, and the new councillors will only take up office shortly. Transforming Your Care has been going for three years. Then there is the rationalisation of teacher training, the shared future agenda, welfare reform, a police training college and DARD headquarters. All those policies to date have failed, stalled or been greatly diminished. At any rate, virtually no savings or improved outcomes for society have yet been realised from any of these major public-sector reform initiatives. That is why I am, rightly I think, raising the question with the Executive and the Minister of whether they have the ability to deliver on the size and scale of the public-sector reform that the Minister proposes to take on. I want to be convinced that they have.

I note that the OECD will also look at health reform. You have to ask this question: why? We are now three years into Transforming Your Care. Is it now stalled? Is it ditched? Is it over? Where is Transforming Your Care? We heard today that the Minister of Health was announcing another review under Sir Liam Donaldson. The one thing that the Assembly has been remarkably good at is reviews, but we are not good at implementing a strategy or reforming, when the challenge arises. The Budget debate goes to the core of the Executive's problem, which is a complete lack of collective responsibility or any sense of strategic direction. I ask the Minister and any members of the Executive these questions: during the Stormont House talks, did they go as one Executive to the Secretary of State with one negotiating position? Were the Executive members and party leaders involved in agreeing that around the Executive table in Stormont Castle? If they did not go as one to negotiate with the Secretary of State on Budget lines, why did they not?

I am sure this point will come up in the Alliance contributions. I have some sympathy with Alliance colleagues on revenue-raising proposals, but I apply one caveat to that: why would any member of the public — any of us who is a taxpayer or a ratepayer — want to sign up to paying further taxes or charges when you look at the record of delivery of this Executive? Why would you have confidence in doing that? Generally, if you are going to put a charge on something, the public will want to know that you are capable of spending that money wisely.

I also take issue with the Finance Minister's claim that we are a low-tax Assembly. We are virtually a no-tax Assembly. The only control of tax that the Minister has at the moment is over the regional rate. That accounts for something like 5% to 6% of what he spends. Therefore, 5% is raised locally, and £10 billion —

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCallister: Briefly.

Mr Allister: Regardless of whether we are a low-tax Assembly, we are certainly a huge-borrowing Assembly. We now have the ignoble title of being the biggest borrower in any of the devolved regions of the United Kingdom. Has the Member any concerns about what that says about the burdens that we are placing on future generations?

Mr McCallister: Absolutely. The Member makes a very valid point, which I am coming to.

We are faced with a situation in which 5% of tax is raised locally, there is £10 billion of annual deficit with the rest of the UK and £2,000 more per head is spent in Northern Ireland. However, we still sound as if we want to reform only because there is pressure from the evil Tories. We have been very generously looked after by our fellow UK taxpayers, yet we still think that it is not enough. We would not have reform if we were not being forced into it. Therefore, why would anyone have the confidence to believe that we can manage the level of borrowing that we are heading towards?

We look to see whether there are any plans or strategies from the Minister and his colleagues to close the economic productivity gap. We look at corporation tax and at what Allstate NI's Bro McFerran said:

The bottom line is that the First Minister is right when he describes the Executive as dysfunctional. He is right to say that it is dysfunctional, when we have members of the Executive agreeing to things in Stormont House and then voting against them and we hear people speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the one time. That does not build courage and confidence out there with the public. The people need to hear about the difficult choices, but they also need to be sure that the Executive and the Finance Minister have a plan to deal with them.

I know that the Minister has been keen on quotations. He quoted Churchill, and one of his opening remarks was about JFK. I will use a JFK quotation back to him:

In his response today, I would like the Minister to prove to me that he and his Executive colleagues have that purpose and direction.

Mr McKay (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It was clear from the Committee’s recent take-note debate that this Budget process has been far from ideal both in the time and the information available for consultation on and scrutiny of Departments' spending plans. A number of factors caused a rather exceptional set of circumstances and a truncated process. I hope that we can now look to improving future budgetary processes, which is a point that I will return to in closing.

First, I wish to pick up on some of the developments between the draft Budget and final Budget and reiterate some of the key recommendations from the Committee’s coordinated report. Following the Minister’s statement on the final Budget on 19 January, the Committee was briefed by officials at its meeting last Wednesday. In examining the changes and allocations in the final Budget, the Committee questioned officials on the detail of a range of issues including, for example, the provision to mitigate the worst impacts of Westminster's welfare proposals, the funding for bodies to deal with the past, the financial performance of the Health Department, to which the Finance Minister has drawn attention in the past, assurances in relation to financial transactions capital (FTC) and the applications to the change fund. It was noted that the change fund was oversubscribed by five times its value, and members have sought further information on the successful and unsuccessful applications.

While seeking assurance regarding any risk of underspend in the FTC diverted to the investment fund for 2015-16, the Committee also queried the basis for the significant reduced requirement from DETI in this regard between the draft Budget and final Budget, which amounted to some £27·5 million. A further point explored with departmental officials was the reference in the Minister’s statement detailing DFP’s plans to assess the financial performance of the Health Department. The Committee asked how the outcome of DFP’s in-year monitoring work in this regard would be reported. Also, clarification was sought of:

Perhaps the Minister could provide more detail on these measures today and an assurance of their effectiveness. I request this particularly in light of the key finding in the Committee’s report that, following devolution, DFP’s role has changed from:

This raises the question of whether the provisions for assessing the financial performance of the Health Department will have the desired effect.

A further recommendation from the Committee’s report that I would reiterate is the need for DFP and the wider Executive to provide complete information on all the options across Departments for raising additional revenue through charges and further devolved taxes and duties. This should include projected costs, benefits and risks and impacts to enable a fully informed and mature public debate on how best to help meet the further budgetary challenges in coming years. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s view on this proposal, particularly in terms of assuring ourselves of available options, in the event that they are needed, to meet the challenges that lie ahead and to deliver the services that the public rightly expect.

In the coming weeks, the Committee will consider the Department's response to the Committee’s report. Other areas that the Committee will be keen to see progressed include the memorandum of understanding between the Assembly and the Executive to improve future Budget processes. Also, as part of its ongoing scrutiny of public sector reform, the Committee will wish to closely monitor the work of DFP in overseeing the implementation of workforce restructuring, particularly how this will be managed in a way that safeguards the delivery of key public services.

I want to make a few comments from a party perspective. There are a number of amendments to the motion, and we will support John McCallister's amendment. Sinn Féin has concerns about the voluntary exit scheme, which needs to be thought through and prepared properly. Mr McCallister's amendment refers to ensuring that there is improved efficiency. Generating reductions in administrative costs is something that we return to again and again in our Committee work, so we will support Mr McCallister's amendment on the basis that there is concern about the scheme and it needs to be handled carefully in the weeks and months ahead.

We will not support the Ulster Unionist amendment. Yesterday, they were attacking the rural community of Dungiven, and today they are attacking the entire rural community of the north-west and rural public servants in general. We support the transfer of public service jobs to rural communities and to rural areas such as Ballykelly. There are 800 places available, and 1,600 people want to go there, so there is more than enough demand for that. It is a shame that the Ulster Unionists are using this Budget debate to try to deprive the north-west once again.

We have made it clear that there were opportunities to make more savings in the Budget. In recent talks, we have raised proposals that concern ourselves as Members of the Assembly. We need to take a cut as well. Sinn Féin wants to see Assembly Members take a 15% cut in wages. We want to see the same cut for special advisers. We want to see a 15% reduction in ministerial salaries and an end to remuneration for Chairs of Committees. It is important that the Assembly sends a message out to the public. People are suffering and having to deal with the rising cost of living and, until recently, the rising cost of oil. There is also the rising cost of food and so on. They expect that we should take some of the pain as well. That is something that perhaps the Executive should return to. My party would certainly have no problem supporting such a proposal and ensuring that the public see that the politicians are taking as much pain as the public.

I would be interested in the Minister's position on the Smith commission and developments in Scotland. Scotland looks likely to get the transfer of powers for air passenger duty. We need to see that here. We could get it if we had a more collective call from the parties here for the transfer of that power. Scotland is moving ahead; we need to do the same. Also, interestingly, full control of the Crown Estate is due to be transferred to Scotland. That is something that we need to see here.

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

Mr McKay: That was raised by my party colleague Oliver McMullan, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's view on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately after the lunchtime suspension. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be Question Time.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): I understand that the Peruvian Ministry of Justice and Human Rights has yet to indicate that it has consented to Michaella McCollum’s repatriation. Therefore, the terms of her transfer have yet to be agreed.

Mr Allister: Is it correct that the Peruvian authorities, as a term of the transfer, would have to agree the length of prison sentence she would serve in Northern Ireland? Does the Minister anticipate that she will serve less than she would have served in Peru?

Mr Ford: I cannot go into the detail of that, but the expectation is that sentences will be worked out on the basis of our normal provisions from the time at which somebody is repatriated to Northern Ireland. That is a matter of detail that will have to be worked through if there is an agreement by the Peruvian authorities to repatriation.

Lord Morrow: If this individual is transferred to Northern Ireland, will she be eligible for early release? Does the Minister intend to authorise expenditure on legal aid in the transaction?

Mr Ford: I am not sure of the circumstances in which the issue of legal aid would arise. There are set arrangements that apply to the way in which sentences are carried through, and the precise details depend on the nature of the sentence in Peru and how matters would be considered on the basis of a sentence in Northern Ireland. Those issues will have to be worked out, if there is consent on the part of the Peruvian authorities.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. Will the Minister provide us with any detail he might have of the costs to the local public purse associated with the transfer, repatriation and imprisonment of Michaella McCollum?

Mr Ford: I cannot provide details of the cost in relation to Michaella McCollum, but I can outline the costs as they apply in the case of any prisoner who is repatriated. MPs and MLAs from a variety of parties have suggested a number of measures about the repatriation of prisoners in different circumstances. The costs are met by the receiving jurisdiction under the UK convention and bilateral agreements that the UK has. The expectation for any prisoner being repatriated to Northern Ireland is that they pay the cost of their fare. Once they are a prisoner here, their costs are met by the Prison Service from its budget.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In the event that Miss McCollum's application for repatriation is successful, will the Minister ensure that his Department's emphasis will be on rehabilitation and training so that she can successfully integrate into society again on her release?

Mr Ford: Without discussing any individual, the Prison Service's emphasis in general is on rehabilitation. One of the key reasons why prisoners can be repatriated to their home jurisdiction is to aid rehabilitation through maintaining family contacts. That is an established process under, as I said, the European Convention and a number of bilateral agreements, and that is the basis on which we seek to work with all those who are in custody in Northern Ireland.

Mr Elliott: The Minister has been quite vague in his answers about this case. Has an application or request been made for the repatriation of Miss McCollum to a Northern Ireland prison? If so, who has it been made by?

Mr Ford: I have not been the least bit vague; I have answered the questions that were put. The question related to the terms and conditions, which have not been set because there is no agreement. It is absolutely clear and a matter of public record that Michaella McCollum has made an application that has been accepted in this jurisdiction but has not yet been accepted in Peru.

Mr Ford: I have set out my plans to reduce expenditure on legal aid on a number of occasions. In my response to the Member in November, I outlined some of the pressures facing the legal aid budget. I have already reduced the fees paid to lawyers by over £22 million, with further significant reductions to be implemented shortly. However, the demand for legal aid continues to increase, and, in reality, this cannot be addressed without reducing scope. I am consulting on a range of measures.

I cannot, however, deliver the changes on my own. The reforms will be significant, and, as I have already advised my Executive colleagues, support across all areas of government will be required. I was disappointed that the reference to support for legal aid reform was removed from the Budget paper issued last week. I have made and will continue to make strong representations at the Executive for support. I hope that all Members will also support my reforms.

Mr Easton: I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister mentioned reducing the scope that he is going to look at. Can he outline what ways he will reduce the scope of how people can apply? What areas is he looking at?

Mr Ford: As I intend to speak to the Justice Committee on the issue tomorrow, I do not really wish to go into the detail of the potential. However, recognising that there will be a need to remove some items from the scope of legal aid, let me say that the emphasis will be on protecting those who are most vulnerable and ensuring that family cases, for example, continue to attract legal aid for the basic hearing; that, where we look at changing matters, it is because we are better implementing financial controls over, for example, criminal defence work, where there have been allegations of some defendants who have significant resources being supported by legal aid; and that, when money damages are being taken into account and there is the potential for payment through an insurance scheme or something similar, those are the areas where we will look to reduce scope. We will certainly do our best to ensure that we protect the vulnerable as far as is possible given the extremely difficult Budget that we now have.

Mr Lynch: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Will the Minister ensure that whatever plans he has regarding legal aid will go through an equality impact assessment?

Mr Ford: I am happy to confirm to Mr Lynch, as I confirmed to one of his colleagues at the Executive last week, that any changes will be subject to an equality impact assessment.

Mr McKinney: Can the Minister confirm that dealing with backlog issues belies the reality that there have been substantial reductions and a downward trend in legal aid cases of up to around £20 million in criminal defence?

Mr Ford: The position is that expenditure in each year from 2010-11 has been between £101 million and £110 million. That is the estimate, obviously, for the current year. All of that takes into account the significant reductions that I have already referred to, with over £20 million being taken from the criminal defence budget. The reality is that it is an indication of rising demand that, even though significant sums have been reduced, the cost continues at a very similar level. That is why we need to look at further significant reforms.

Mr Lunn: How big is the financial pressure on the legal aid budget and, therefore, his entire departmental budget? What would be the implications if the Executive and the Assembly did not support him when he brings forward further measures to tackle the issue?

Mr Ford: In round terms, the pressure that was anticipated for the incoming year is £36 million. With additional funding having been allocated in the Department's work between draft Budget and now, the pressure remains in excess of £20 million. That £36 million pressure on legal aid — not the total cost of legal aid — exceeds the cost of running the core Department. That is the scale of it. Given that the Executive's decision was to provide additional funding to the PSNI — ring-fenced to the PSNI — it actually gives very little room for manoeuvre in the 30% of departmental spending that is not policing. The pressure across the rest of the Department is unsustainable if we do not get significant reductions in legal aid. That is why I trust that I will see the Executive and the House support those necessary measures.

Mr Ford: I received the stocktake report from the independent assessors on 25 September last. The Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) accepted the nine recommendations within its responsibility and continues to work towards their implementation. Progress that has been made includes my appointment of an independent chair for the prisoner forum. The Prison Service has taken a first incremental step towards normalising the regime by allowing four prisoners onto each of the two landings. NIPS has also made changes, in line with the recommendations, to the approach to full-body searching, which is now more acutely focused on intelligence and risk. Those are clear signals that the Prison Service is prepared to normalise the regime offered to prisoners as and when it is appropriate to do so. However, that will be only in an environment where the security of the establishment and the safety of staff, visitors and prisoners remain the priority.

I made it clear when the stocktake was published that addressing the recommendations was a responsibility shared by the Prison Service and the prisoners. If momentum for change is to be maintained, I would and others with influence should encourage the prisoners to fully engage with that process.

Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat. Is the Minister satisfied that the recommendations are being addressed to ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect? To be specific but not too specific, I am concerned that a prisoner from the Omagh area has been in solitary confinement for over two years. I have spoken to his family. Can the Minister undertake to investigate the background to that unhealthy situation and perhaps communicate directly with me on the matter?

Mr Ford: Mr McElduff first asked whether everybody was adhering to the agreement. Sadly, it is the case that threats on Roe House and through social media continue against prison officers. If we are talking about everybody adhering to the agreement, let us be clear that a number of prisoners and their support groups are not doing that.

On the specific question of individuals, I believe that a small number remain in the care and supervision unit because they have not met the criteria for admission to the separated accommodation and have been unwilling to integrate into the remainder of the prison. That is clearly an unfortunate situation, but, if individuals do not meet the criteria, which are set not by me — they are for the Secretary of State — there is nothing else that the Prison Service can do to manage those prisoners safely.

Mr Ross: In recent weeks, I have met prison officers who are becomingly increasingly concerned about their safety and the arrangements in place at Maghaberry prison. Is the Justice Minister confident that the arrangements are adequate to avoid a major incident in the coming weeks and that prison officers are not under any threat because of them?

Mr Ford: My Committee's Chair asks a very serious question. There is absolutely no doubt that threats are being made, and there are concerns for the safety of prison officers outside and inside the prison. That should stop. Those who wanted the agreement to be reached in August 2010 should accept it, live up to it and encourage their colleagues outside to accept it as well. That includes ending any threats to any member of the prison staff, whether on or off duty.

The key issue of maintaining the safety of prison officers and that of all others outside the jail rests with the Police Service. I know that the Police Service is very active in its work to protect those most under threat.

Mr Ramsey: I concur with the Minister's clear comments to the Chamber about threats. Given how sensitive and volatile the situation in Roe House is and given that one of the key elements in the stocktake report was the involvement of an independent chair, is the Minister content and confident that the arrangements put in place are such that the staff and prisoners would have confidence in that person?

Mr Ford: It is not always easy to have confidence in how other people will perceive things. I certainly believe that the individual who was selected has a background that shows a degree of independence and understanding of the way in which the prison operates, as well as the ability to do the task that was requested of him.

However, the issue of how confidence is carried forward in the operation of the arrangements on both sides will depend to a considerable degree on goodwill on both sides.

Mr A Maginness: Question number —

Mr Ford: Four.

Mr A Maginness: — four.

Mr Ford: Always happy to help out, Mr Speaker. With your permission, I will take questions 4 and 7 together.

The campaign referred to, concerning the removal of childhood offences, is being led by NIACRO. I met NIACRO, with Bob Ashford and Simon Weston, when they launched the campaign. Bob and Simon's cases are compelling. However, it is a complex issue that requires the careful balancing of public protection with the need to ensure that young people are not stigmatised for the rest of their life because of a single poor choice, leading to a record for a minor offence at an early age. One aspect of that is disclosures by Access NI. I have already taken important steps towards achieving a more balanced approach. The filtering arrangements that the Assembly agreed last year have seen a significant number of old and minor offences removed from the standard and enhanced criminal record certificates issued to those who want to work or volunteer within regulated activities. Shorter timescales for removal are applied to those who are under 18 in recognition of their youth and the importance of their rehabilitation. As a further step, and one that goes beyond the position in England and Wales, I am preparing to bring forward a review mechanism for filtering as part of the Justice Bill. That means that people will be able to ask for an independent review of their case, even after the application of filtering, if they believe that the disclosure of the information is disproportionate. The new process will include an automatic referral for cases with offences committed only under the age of 18. I am happy to continue to engage with NIACRO and others on the issue to ensure that the right balance is struck.

Mr A Maginness: I welcome the general thrust of the Minister's answer, which certainly indicates sympathy with the whole idea of removing minor offences from young people's criminal records. Would the Minister support the idea of a multidisciplinary panel to look at more contentious cases? Would he be supportive of that general concept?

Mr Ford: I have to confess that I am somewhat reticent about the idea of a multidisciplinary panel to carry out what is effectively the review process that we are looking at introducing. There are clear issues around the complexity, the cost and the ease of getting a speedy decision for those who seek to be referred to the panel. If it can be done correctly by a single reviewer, there may be no need to look at the wider panel. The clear issue will be to recognise that significant progress is being made, and I am grateful to Mr Maginness for acknowledging that, and to ensure that we get a speedy way for individuals to have their case reconsidered that is not overly bureaucratic and that ensures that we make the right decisions as far as possible.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Minister for his response so far. Does he recognise that the current and proposed filtering processes mean that young people cautioned or given a discretionary disposal for a specified offence will not benefit from filtering, contrary to the youth justice review's assertion that diversionary disposals should not attract a criminal record or be subject to employer disclosure?

Mr Ford: I thank Mrs Overend for the question. It is a point that needs to be considered in detail. The reality is that diversionary disposals follow through from the youth engagement clinics, which are designed to ensure that the process is significantly speeded up. At those clinics, when the diversionary disposal is recorded, a clear explanation is given to young people as to the potential effects on that. Therefore, I am not sure that the concerns raised by some Members about the potential for that to be a disincentive have proven to be the case in practice. However, it is certainly one of the issues that we will keep under review.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. Alban Maginness referred to the particular campaign. Perhaps the easiest way in which to go forward is for the Department to define what it considers to be a minor offence and for it then to seek to legislate to ensure that such offences are not taken into account and, indeed, are taken off the record. Does the Minister agree that that is a sensible way in which to go forward?

Mr Ford: Mr McCartney's idea certainly sounds simple, but in practice it is probably easier to define what is not a minor offence than what is a minor offence. A number of issues would have to be considered, as that would also relate to how many offences there were and how frequently they were committed. There are also differences of gradation and degree, even between what might be termed "minor offences". So, I am not sure that it is that easy to say that something is a minor offence and does not count. The important thing is to find those, and I believe that the potential for review means that we can test this in individual cases perhaps rather more easily than trying to legislate to specify, at which point we will always come across those cases that do not quite fit the system.

Mr Douglas: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Recently, he referred to the filtering arrangements for minor offences, or so-called minor offences, and talked about reviewing them. Will he expand a bit more on how he will do that?

Mr Ford: I have a feeling that this could end up in an entire Committee Stage of the Bill. The key issue is to ensure that, if, when the filtering process is applied, individuals still feel that inappropriate convictions remain on their records, they get the opportunity to request a review. This will mean that there will be a second examination to assess the appropriateness of those specific instances being kept on a criminal record for a period of time.

For younger people, the filtering out will be at half the length of time than it will be for adults. Secondly, there would be an automatic referral when offences were only committed before the age of 18. So, those who have committed offences when they were young would not have to specifically apply and there would be automatic referral. I believe that those two processes working together give us the opportunity to ensure that we get things done right; but, as I said to Mrs Overend, we will clearly have to keep that under review.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gregory Campbell is not in his place.

Mr Ford: Policing and community safety partnerships evaluate the projects they fund, including those delivered by the community and voluntary sector, as part of an assessment of how the partnerships have met the strategic objectives set for them by the DOJ/Policing Board joint committee.

The recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) review of PCSPs highlighted the need for a post-project evaluation to be made against a recognised baseline of agreed measures. While there were some examples of successful projects that represented good value for money, inspectors noted the lack of evidence of value added by others and recommended the development of baseline measures against which projects can be assessed.

The Department and the Policing Board want to ensure that PCSPs make a positive difference to local policing and community safety issues through effective and efficient interventions and welcome CJINI’s recommendations. My officials are working with colleagues in the Policing Board to develop a joint management response, with an action plan, by mid-February.

Mr Beggs: I declare an interest as a member of the Carrickfergus Community Drugs and Alcohol Advisory Group. Given that many voluntary groups provide value for money and value to the community and community safety issues, how will the Minister ensure that very worthwhile projects will not adversely affect the community by their absence during the transition to the new PCSP arrangements within the new council boundaries?

Mr Ford: I appreciate Mr Beggs's point. At this stage, it is unlikely that the PCSPs will be fully operational, with the appointment of independent members, before June, whereas the new councils, which will supply the elected members to PCSPs, will be in place from 1 April. Work has been done between the Department and others to ensure there is a joining up so that work can continue during the three months in which PCSPs will not be fully operational.

I have also made arrangements to meet council chief executives and others who are involved on the community safety side of the partnerships to look at exactly how we will implement this. That will put the best possible arrangements in place for the transition period and ensure that it does not delay the introduction of workable plans for the new partnerships when they become fully operational in the summertime.

Mrs McKevitt: The grants that are available are very important to the community, particularly within our elderly population. What percentage or assessment do we have of the grants that are given for the security and protection of our elderly?

Mr Ford: I cannot give Mrs McKevitt a precise figure for the proposals for grants, as details for budgets around that are being worked out. It is, of course, the case that councils will have the ability to put funding into PCSPs as well as the grant that is received from the joint committee, so there is a range of opportunities. There are also issues about building the widest possible partnerships with potentially other providers, so that, whilst I fully accept the value of the grants, in many cases, the value is from the voluntary effort and the joined-up partnership working, rather than the money that appears from the centre, because there cannot be an expectation, sadly in the current position, that grants will continue at the current level.

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Has the Minister given any thought to expanding or developing the role of PCSPs in the broader community?

Mr Ford: It is not entirely for me to develop the role of PCSPs, but Members may recall that when the Justice Bill was going through the legislature and the Assembly had to consider the concept of PCSPs in the first year of devolution, there was talk about community planning on the horizon for councils, and I made it clear that I saw the PCSPs as being set up in a way that would aid the transition into community planning. It seems to me that the real question now is the wider community planning responsibilities and how they will fit round the existing pattern of PCSPs. It will be a challenge for the councils and the other responsible agencies to ensure that that joining up, which has happened at PCSP level, is extended into the wider community planning process.

Mr Ford: I will not be responding to the Scoffield report, as it was a report commissioned by, and submitted to, the Policing Board. My Department is taking actions to address issues relating to the injury on duty (IOD) scheme, including reviewing policy and regulations. The Department also provided new guidance on reassessments to the Policing Board on 19 December. The Policing Board also has steps to take to ensure that it meets its statutory responsibilities, including its role as the decision maker in the scheme.

Mr Brady: I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he aware that a number of the recommendations in the Scoffield report relate to new regulations or legislation that is required? Given the vast sums of public money involved in the injury on duty awards scheme, when will the Minister bring forward proposals to implement those recommendations or reform of the scheme?

Mr Ford: The Department issued guidance on reassessments to the Policing Board in December last year. The wider issues, such as looking at the potential for change, are being reviewed in relation to the IOD scheme generally by the Department. However, the specific issue at this stage is to ensure that the current arrangements are carried through, and the Scoffield report made those recommendations to the Policing Board in terms of its responsibilities.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Minister outline his Department's responsibilities in the matter, because it is my understanding that that is where the real decision and the responsibility for the decision lies?

Mr Ford: With due respect to Mrs Kelly, that is not my understanding. My understanding is that the Policing Board has the statutory responsibility for carrying out the reviews. The Department has issued guidance, but the Policing Board has the statutory responsibility for all issues relating to decisions, and it is one of those issues that needs to be carried through there with support from the Department, but not with the Department taking responsibility.

Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions. Mr Dallat is not in his place.

Mr Ford: Mr McCallister's assumption in his question is correct: that is what the Chief Constable said. However, it is not up to the Minister to ensure that community policing is maintained. It is up to the Minister from the Department to set the budget for the Policing Board and the Police Service, and it is up to the Chief Constable to implement the budget that he is given in the way that he sees will best meet the needs and statutory duties that apply to the Police Service. Many Members will be concerned about community policing in their constituency, but it has to be for the Chief Constable to assess how resources are applied.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Minister. There are many great examples in my constituency of where contact with the police in helping to address issues like antisocial behaviour has been vital. I wish that the Minister would at least give his commitment to and support for the continuation of that to make sure that it stays as a priority for the police.

Mr Ford: I am tempted to say, "Thank goodness this is topical and we won't now have five supplementaries praising five separate constituencies". Mr McCallister can make the point, but the Minister of Justice cannot direct the Chief Constable. Mr McCallister, as a constituency MLA, can meet his local police commanders to talk about how they respond and meet the needs there. I am sure that he is not the only person who has already done that or is contemplating doing it. As a constituency MLA, I met my two local commanders recently to talk about the way in which they manage local issues, but I probably need to be even more reticent than any other MLA in case there is any suggestion that it was anything other than an MLA and councillors meeting the local commander. It is one of the difficult issues that flows from the Budget that was set and the budget given to my Department, which, even allowing for the additional money given to the Police Service, leaves it in a very difficult position at present.

Mr Ford: Concerns about that are certainly being addressed. One key determinant of safety in the prison seems to be overcrowding. That is why, with the reopening of one of the blocks, there has been a reduction in overcrowding, which is providing some benefits. However, it is almost like the answer that I have just given to Mr McCallister: the Prison Service is managing with a significantly reduced budget this year and next year. That means that the work done previously on rehabilitation cannot always be done as well or as optimistically as was the situation a couple of years ago.

Mrs Hale: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that Maghaberry houses every category of prisoner within its walls — you have already touched on this in answer to my colleague — what do you intend to do to ensure the safety of prison officers so that it is a priority in Maghaberry prison?

Mr Ford: As Mrs Hale rightly points out, Maghaberry is one of the most complex prisons anywhere in these islands, given the number of prisoners. As a result of the prison review team (PRT) report, work is being done to reconfigure it into three mini-prisons so that those on remand are kept in different circumstances from those who are sentenced and those who are seen as requiring top security are managed in a different way. That makes it easier to provide support to the broad range of prisoners who are less likely to create major difficulties, but, because Maghaberry is a single prison coping with such a range of people, it is quite difficult to manage all that. I make the key point that the work that is being done on overcrowding, even against the cost problem that we face at the moment, means that there has been some reduction in internal assaults.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo.

Mr Ford: That, again, is an operational issue for the Chief Constable. It is an issue that was being looked at anyway, and, as part of the work that is being reconfigured around legacy, that work has been reinstated. Of course, the key challenge for this House and, indeed, potentially for Westminster will be to look to the formation of the historical investigations unit agreed in the Stormont House Agreement and to ensure that we find the best way possible of dealing with the legacy issues from the past so that they do not obstruct the good work being done by the police, the ombudsman and other agencies for the present day.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat. Will the Minister not agree with me that this will have an immediate impact on raising confidence in policing and justice structures?

Mr Ford: I suspect that, certainly amongst those most affected by Bloody Sunday, the work being done will add to confidence. The problem is that, as we have heard at community policing level in south Down and as we hear about a number of things, confidence in policing has to be an overall package. That requires difficult prioritisation decisions in difficult circumstances. Those who are waiting to see the investigation flowing from the Saville inquiry operating fully will have the opportunity to see that work being done, but, as I said before, there will be real challenges to ensure that we get the HIU functional as quickly as possible and meeting the needs of those who have concerns about the past.

Mr Ford: Was that the supplementary question as well, Mr Speaker? The answer is that I am consulting at the moment. I will consult the Justice Committee tomorrow afternoon and am keen to hear what it says. It is a bit rich to be asked to reconsider something on which I am consulting. I do not believe that some of Mr Kelly's points accurately represent what is proposed, because I believe that the potential for having a rolling reconstitution of the independent members actually provides for better opportunities for continuity and for experience to be built up and kept at a high level, rather than the situation that we faced four years ago when the Policing Board was reconstituted with only three of the 19 members having any previous service on it. That was not conducive to getting the Policing Board off onto a good footing four years ago. The important issue is to find the best way of maintaining continuity, and the concept of a rolling replacement is fully supported by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who believes that it is preferable to the blanket appointment that is currently the case.

Mr G Kelly: Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for the answer up to now. It is interesting that he says that it is out for consultation and then tells us what his view of it is. It seems that the Minister has already come to a conclusion about rolling change or rolling appointments, and, of course, that is the great difficulty in it because you will have independent members. Is the Minister aware that a number of councillors have already rejected this idea? He puts it to the front himself, and he will know that this will have an impact on the independence of independent members on the basis that they will be reviewed on a yearly basis. How can they be independent and maintain that position?

Mr Ford: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but Mr Kelly has got it utterly wrong if he is suggesting that there is a review on a yearly basis. What I have suggested is my preferred method, on which I am consulting, and it is not entirely unknown for Ministers to put forward recommendations when they do consultations. I seem to remember OFMDFM occasionally doing it in the past when Mr Kelly was a junior Minister. I have proposed that individuals be appointed for three years with a potential further three years. That is not an annual review, as was stated in a letter that Mr Kelly and colleagues sent to me recently; that is an appointment for three years. Others will be appointed after a year, but those who have been appointed will be appointed for a three-year process. It is utter nonsense to suggest that that would have any effect on their independence.

Mr Ford: Members will know of a number of bits of work, but perhaps it does no harm to remind people of some of the work that has been done, much of which flows from work previously done by the Justice Committee in its inquiry into the needs of victims and witnesses. First of all, we formally launched the new victim charter on 14 January. That is a major step forward in defining the services to victims of crime, and it was shaped by that work of the Justice Committee and by feedback from victims and those who represent them. It is a pretty comprehensive document, so there is an easy-read version and a young person's version. I believe that it shows the right way to set out those kinds of points.

Other things have been done recently under the five-year strategy. As well as the victim charter, we have seen the establishment of the victim and witness care unit to provide a single point of contact as much as possible for the criminal justice process. We have just seen the second batch of registered intermediaries in place. So far, they have assisted over 300 children and adults with significant communication difficulties. We have formalised the use of victim personal statements. We have extended remote live links. There is a lot of extremely good work that, frequently, does not get noticed but in which the Assembly and, in particular, the former members of the Justice Committee should take the same pride as I do.

Mr McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. He mentioned the charter for victims. Can he confirm that that will be put on a statutory footing to ensure that it becomes a fundamental part of our justice system?

Mr Ford: Yes, subject to the approval of the Assembly for the Justice Bill as it is currently in place, I hope that it will — looking across to the Chair of the Justice Committee, I see no suggestion that it will not — receive the support of the Committee at least and that the victim charter will be on a statutory footing by the end of this year, after Royal Assent to the Justice Bill. That will be a further underpinning of that work with a clear statutory basis, not just a policy document setting out intentions.

Mr Ford: I suspect that Mrs Kelly knows what David Ford's personal opinion is on the issue. As Minister, I have made it clear that the on-the-runs (OTR) scheme was nothing to do with the Department of Justice, has been nothing to do with the Department of Justice and will be nothing to do with the Department of Justice. I made known my displeasure with the way that the scheme functioned post devolution to Lady Justice Hallett, to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the House of Commons and to the Secretary of State on more than one occasion. There are real issues of challenge, given that, as the Member put it, the dreadful murder of Gareth O'Connor was significantly after the Good Friday Agreement. I certainly expect to follow up the issues that flow from that with the Chief Constable when I next speak to him about general issues.

Mrs D Kelly: Given that your permanent secretary had a role in the NIO at that time, what confidence do you have in his ability to inform you of the scale and nature of the letters that were delivered by a Member of the House, Mr Gerry Kelly, about whose role in the matter the coroner has serious concerns?

Mr Ford: It is not for me to answer for Gerry Kelly, but let me repeat what I have said in the House before: the permanent secretary of the Department of Justice did not have a role in the scheme. The individual who is now the permanent secretary of the Department of Justice previously worked for the Northern Ireland Office. Just as I do not expect senior officials who have worked in the DOJ and transferred to another Department to tell Ministers from other parties what I am up to, I would not expect anybody who transfers into the DOJ to break the confidence that they had with the Minister whom they served during the time that they were in another Department. That is the practical reality of the way that civil servants operate. That is how the code of conduct applies, and that is what I would expect. I believe that the behaviour of my permanent secretary was entirely proper.

Mr Kennedy (The Minister for Regional Development): In publishing my draft bicycle strategy, I set out my commitment to develop specific design guidance for cycling provision in Northern Ireland, which will encourage more people to adopt cycling as an everyday mode of travel. That work is ongoing, and I am keen to explore best practice elsewhere to develop the most appropriate cycling design guidance for Northern Ireland. That is why my Department facilitated a training seminar on cycling for Transport NI engineers as part of a round of visits to Northern Ireland by the Cyclists' Touring Club and the Cycling Embassy of Denmark to promote new design concepts in 2012. Sustrans also delivered training to Transport NI engineers in August 2014 on its new design guide, 'Handbook for Cycle-friendly Design'.

More recently, I hosted a very successful conference in Belfast to promote cycling. As part of that conference, Transport NI engineers attended a training workshop with Transport for London to discuss and debate new standards for cycling design.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Minister and encouraged by some of his response. No doubt he will want to spread the cycling revolution out beyond urban areas. Does he agree that it might be time to look at shifting the investment decisions for cycling and other non-motorised forms of transport from just assessing past or current use to possibly building in growth potential?

Will the Minister also reflect on the two-metre minimum standard width for footpaths? Does he feel that that puts walkers and families off using them? Will he look at reviewing that standard throughout Northern Ireland?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question and, indeed, for the encouraging noises that he appears to be making on cycling. He knows that I am greatly seized with the opportunity that Northern Ireland has to exploit cycling to its maximum, not just for sport but for broader, healthier lifestyles. There are huge opportunities, and that is what we are seeking to do with the cycling revolution. We do not want just to have it in place in the greater Belfast area but to present opportunities through the use of greenways. The Member knows about the exciting proposals for a greenway between Newry and Mourne, which is part of his area, and the Cooley peninsula, and there are other opportunities.

We continue to look at opportunities whereby infrastructure can be improved. The Member knows that Transport NI recently completed a section of shared cycle track and footway from the Burrendale Hotel towards Newcastle, which is part of his constituency. Transport NI is in the process of completing the necessary legislative requirements to designate that new facility as a cycle track.

Mr Ramsey: I welcome the Minister's response. Whatever the manuals may say, and given that you have invested a huge amount of time in cycling, are you satisfied that good progress is being made in the design of roads and footpaths to ensure that, over the next decade, there will be a serious increase in the number of cyclists using them?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for the encouragement that he offers for the overall cycling strategy. It will take time and, if you like, a change of culture. However, the benefits of adopting more sustainable modes of transport are huge for the environment, the economy and saving people money. Huge and positive tourist consequences may flow from that, and we had a flavour of that with the Giro d'Italia. Overall, we can tap into great opportunities for lifestyle and, in particular, health style. I think that we are winning the public argument and encouraging more and more people to see cycling not just as a sport or a leisure activity but as a possible means of affordable transport.

Mr Lyttle: Will the Minister give the Assembly an update on progress on the Belfast public bike hire scheme and the Sustrans on-road cycle training, which will be available in conjunction with that scheme? How does he believe that that will help to promote cycling as an active and sustainable mode of transport?

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for the encouragement behind his question. He will know that my Department has funded Belfast City Council to bring forward the cycle hire scheme. We very much hope that it will be in place later this year, in the coming months, and, hopefully, within weeks. That will give people the opportunity to see that we are serious about transforming not only public transport in Belfast, in conjunction with Belfast rapid transit, but the enhancements that we have made to rail and bus transport and the greater opportunities for more sustainable modes of transport to be used, including cycling and walking.

If it is an encouragement to the Member, I have now taken to taking serious exercise around this complex at lunchtime, and he is welcome to join me at that so that we can show a healthier lifestyle to everybody concerned.

Mr Kennedy: Following the Executive's agreement to meet my Department's bid in the January monitoring round for additional funding to repair street lights, I can confirm that I reinstated the use of external contractors on 19 January 2015 to carry out street lighting repairs to supplement my Department's internal resources. Last week, some 4,359 job cards were issued to external contractors and, together with internal resources, I estimate that my Department has already reduced the backlog of outages by some 3,000. Currently, the total number of street lights out is around 20,000.

Members will be aware that, due to pressures on my Department's resource budget, I had to suspend the use of external contractors for routine street lighting repairs on 8 August 2014. My Department continued to bid for that money at every possible opportunity. Although my Department's staff continued to fix as many street lights as possible, a backlog of defective lights has been developing since last August.

Members should understand that it will take time to catch up. Nonetheless, I am committed to having the backlog cleared as quickly as possible. Contractors have been on the ground since early last week. I want to make it clear that the funding provided in January monitoring is for this financial year only.

Mr Ross: I am sure that the Minister is grateful for the allocation from the Finance Minister to help work on that backlog. Can the Minister advise the House when the existing backlog will be finished or when he anticipates that he will be able to catch up on the backlog of some 20,000 lights? Is he introducing any new mechanisms into his Department to ensure that there is better budgeting of his resources to ensure that it does not happen again?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I will say at the outset that I need no lectures on how to manage a budget; if the budget is properly funded as it should be, there will not be any problems. I hope that the Member can bring that message back to his colleagues and that some of the games that we have seen being played out recently can be stopped.

In the period since 8 August, my Department has been notified of almost 32,000 street lights that were out. Of those defective lights, my staff repaired close to 10,000, or approximately 30%. I want to acknowledge the good work of the staff involved; they were doing their best to provide a service to the public in very difficult circumstances. As I outlined in my original answer, since I ramped it up last week, we are now repairing approximately 600 per day, and we hope to continue with that progress.

Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers so far. You have probably to some degree answered the question that I was going to ask, which was this: could the Minister confirm the number of lights repaired through DSD on grounds of safety?

Mr Kennedy: "Through DSD", the Member said. I was not —

Mr Brady: Sorry; DRD.

Mr Kennedy: As I indicated, this is where we are. The current backlog of street lighting repairs that has accumulated since last August is effectively my Department's street lighting contractors' normal workload over a five- to six-month period. However, to clear the backlog as quickly as possible now that I have secured the necessary funding, I have asked that all available resources are put to the task so that that work can be expedited.

Mr Kinahan: Does the Minister agree with me that, had Mr Ross's colleague the Finance Minister made the adequate funding available in October or maybe budgeted better when it was first requested, the backlog might have been avoided?

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his question, and I agree. The records will show that I bid for resources to cover the shortfall as far back as last year, and certainly in October. Had additional resources been provided then, some of the misery that people experienced as a result of this could have been avoided. If people want to play games, let us hope that they can be a bit more responsible in the future.

Mr Eastwood: I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Given the importance of street lighting in deterring antisocial behaviour, has the Minister done any studies to find out what impact the cuts have had on antisocial behaviour and public safety in general?

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his question. I am not aware of any significant impact at this stage — clearly, the Department of Justice may assist with the evaluation of that — nor am I aware of any significant increase in claims against the Department because of defective street lights. As I have made plain since August, I was never content or happy with this situation, and I am very pleased that my requests for proper funding for the service were finally heard and that we can now address the situation and move forward. As I outlined in my original answer, there are challenges with the new financial settlement in the Budget next year. I hope very much that we are not heading towards any repeat scenario. Everyone should have learned the lessons of this, which are that we need to keep front-line services funded and properly working for the people whom we seek to represent.

Mr Kennedy: January monitoring provided my Department with allocations of £5·2 million resource and £3 million in capital. The resource allocation came with the stipulation that it was to be used solely for addressing street lighting repairs and the operation and maintenance of roads and bridges. It was not to be used to meet the pressure arising from the £20 million release of value from Belfast Harbour Commissioners, for which I put forward an £18 million bid. As a consequence of the Executive not meeting either in full or partially the £18 million bid that I put forward for the release of value and despite the Budget review group's recommendation that the issue should be addressed in monitoring rounds, my Department faces the very real prospect of breaching its control total. I find that position astonishing, particularly given that the Finance Minister's paper identified £13·9 million of non-ring-fenced resource DEL that was available for further allocations but recommended that it be taken forward to next year.

I have made considerable efforts to reduce my Department's spend to address the pressure identified. In addition to the £19 million of cuts that the Executive's 4·4% reduction required, I have identified a further £6·8 million to go towards the release-of-value pressure, although that is not without risk. The remaining £13 million could be achieved only through service reductions that would damage core services severely and have an impact on public safety. They include stopping winter services and all routine road maintenance. As a consequence, I issued my accounting officer with a direction to continue to provide such services.

Mr Elliott: The Minister mentioned the £20 million shortfall regarding the harbour: can he outline some of the background to that and, indeed, the impact that it has on his ongoing spending in the Department?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. It is somewhat ironic that my request for the funding gap to be plugged because of the release of value was not met. It is ironic that funding was released against street-lighting repairs, possibly in the expectation that it could not even be spent on street-lighting repairs because of the issues surrounding the port and the £20 million that was extracted from my budget. I remind the Member and the House that £20 million was extracted from my budget this year and last and was spent at the centre. The previous Finance Minister replaced it last year, but, this year, the current Finance Minister has not, despite money being held at the centre to do so. My instinct is that some people are playing games and rather juvenile ones at that.

Mr Girvan: Does the Minister deem it necessary to look for monitoring round funding to deliver what are key functions of the Department for Regional Development?

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his question. In fact, he makes a reasonable point on my behalf — one that I have made consistently — about proper funding and the timing of that funding. With that in place, it makes more sense. A Department such as the Department for Regional Development gets better value for money when it is able to plan ahead with its resource budget and even its capital budget for schemes that it would like to do, including repairs and structural maintenance. All that work is better carried out at times of the year when it is warmer and there is better weather. Generally, the Department for Regional Development has always been treated like a Cinderella Department and given money at a late stage in the financial year — money that could and should be released earlier and that would allow greater value for money to be deployed for the important schemes that we want to see and the repairs that need to be carried out.

Mr Speaker: Mr Paul Givan is not in his place.

Mr Kennedy: NI Water has advised me that phase 1a, the upgrade of Sicily Park and Marguerite Park, and phase 1b, Greystown and Upper Malone Road, of the Glenmachan strategic project are planned to commence in May 2015, with a construction period of two years, subject to obtaining statutory approvals and concluding third-party land issues. The estimated combined cost of the projects is £11 million, with phase 1b being part-funded by the Rivers Agency. That part of the overall Glenmachan strategic project was advanced following the flooding of June 2012 and required extensive investigation, design and stakeholder engagement owing to the complexity of the solution. There are still some third-party land issues to conclude and statutory approvals required for this phase of the project, but progress is being made.

The attenuation of storm water in Balmoral Golf Club is integral to the scheme, and there has therefore been ongoing engagement with the golf club to reach agreement and enable commencement of the project in May 2015. The remainder of the work to complete the Glenmachan strategic project is a longer-term commitment, currently estimated to cost in the region of £110 million. I can confirm that NI Water has included sufficient development funding in its PC15 business plan to progress the feasibility, planning and design work, which will take up to three years to complete. It is important that sufficient time is taken at development stage to ensure the best solution for this significant capital investment.

Mr Spratt: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he confirm that the temporary fix work, as it was described, to alleviate the problem in Sicily Park has now been completed? Some folk there have been flooded out three or four times, as the Minister will know, and, certainly, they do not want it to happen again.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary. I confirm that NI Water completed a short-term investment in the area in September 2013 when over £100,000 was spent to improve and rehabilitate existing infrastructure and assist Rivers Agency to identify additional utility services in undesignated culverts in the area. This work proved very successful, maximising the carrying capacity of the existing storm-water sewers, culverts and watercourses in the area and reducing the risk of flooding in the short term.

Mr McKinney: The Minister has already highlighted the issue of Balmoral Golf Club. Will he confirm that officials at the club have indeed engaged in positive and meaningful discussions with Northern Ireland Water in order to achieve a positive outcome for flood alleviation? That positive outcome will not be achieved if, ultimately, it is detrimental to the golf club business.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. Obviously, the design of the scheme — I am sure he will not underestimate its importance — includes proposals to carry out works on the Taughmonagh stream within the grounds of the golf club. I understand that the concerns raised are technical in nature and are associated with the detailed plans for attenuation of the Taughmonagh stream. Northern Ireland Water has actively engaged with the management and the committee of Balmoral Golf Club to address the concerns raised and to find a solution satisfactory to all parties that will allow the scheme to proceed without undue delay. It is my hope that that progress can continue and the scheme completed, because it is important to the area. I very much hope that we will see the early resolution and ironing out of any existing issues. Any influence that the Member may be in a position to bring to bear in a positive way — I am not sure if he is a golfer — would be very welcome.

Mr McGimpsey: It is crucial that the drainage project includes Balmoral Golf Club land to provide protection for Sicily Park and Greystown Avenue. How long does the Minister envisage contractors being on site in Balmoral? In other words, for how long will golfers face inconvenience?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for indicating his support for the scheme. He has regularly lobbied me on the importance of the scheme for that area of his constituency. Clearly, in moving forward with the scheme, NI Water is seeking to find agreement with the golf club and reduce inconvenience to an absolute minimum. I do not have a timescale for the necessary work on the site of the golf club, but, clearly, every effort will be made to facilitate the club on the understanding that, obviously, it will want to continue with as much normal service as it can. We will seek to undertake to do that.

Mr Kennedy: As the number of requests for traffic calming far exceeds the budget available, my Department has established assessment methodology to prioritise those requests. My officials completed an assessment for the provision of traffic-calming measures in Ballyholland in February 2014, which indicated that there was merit in introducing traffic-calming measures in the area. However, at present, there are other locations in the Newry area with a higher merit rating, which is a key consideration when work programmes are being formulated.

Just this week, officials carried out a manual traffic count at the Temple Hill Road junction to assess that location for a junction improvement scheme to increase safety by improving visibility for road users and to confirm up-to-date traffic volumes at that location. That information will allow officials to carry out a technical assessment for improvement works at the Temple Hill Road junction, and it will be used to update the assessment for the provision of traffic-calming measures in the area. The revised assessment should be completed within the next few weeks, and I have requested that officials update you with the results. Ballyholland will however remain under consideration for traffic-calming measures when works have been completed at other prioritised locations in the Newry and Mourne area.

Mrs McKevitt: I thank the Minister for his answer. The people of Ballyholland could not put a price on a life. I take the opportunity to request that the Minister joins me in a meeting on site within a specific time. I would allow a few weeks for the assessment to take place and have the meeting after that.

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for her supplementary. Clearly, it would be sensible to wait until the assessments were carried out before proceeding to a site meeting. I have noted the request. Hopefully, we will be able to follow that through.

Mr Dunne: In relation to road safety generally, does the Minister see the recent television adverts as an effective means of reducing the number of accidents? Does he agree that more needs to be done to reduce accidents and the risk of accidents, especially in rural areas?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. The Member will, of course, know that road safety is primarily the responsibility of Minister Durkan; certainly, it is the Department of the Environment that funds and arranges the television publicity associated with road safety. That is not to say, of course, that my Department and, indeed, the Department of Justice do not meet regularly to exchange information and look at ways in which we can all improve the situation. The tragedies that occur on our road network and generally are very real to those who suffer as a consequence the enormous grief and sadness from which families rarely, if ever, recover. Whilst my Department certainly works with DOE and other agencies, our prime thoughts must always be for those who have suffered tragedy and loss as a result of road traffic accidents.

Mr Speaker: Time is up. We now move on to topical questions.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for her question and understand the rationale behind it. It may well be helpful for the Member to approach Translink, if she has not already done so, to facilitate a meeting to discuss the issue at senior official level. I am happy to be kept apprised of any outcome. I have constituency concerns that I probably share with the Member, but, initially, it is a matter for Translink to look at, assess and reflect on.

Mrs McKevitt: Will the Minister undertake to jointly engage with the likes of the Patient and Client Council and the trusts to bring urgently to their attention the matter of a direct bus link from Newry for those who rely on our public transport service?

Mr Kennedy: Again, I am grateful to the Member. I think that I heard her making a similar point yesterday in exchanges during questions to the Health Minister . Of course, I am very happy to liaise with the Health Minister or through agencies in his Department, and my officials and, perhaps, Translink can look at how best this issue can be carried forward.

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for a very helpful question. The displaced Arctic polar vortex is likely to have an impact on Northern Ireland in the coming days. The southerly position of the jet stream will pull colder Arctic air over the United Kingdom. There is the prospect of up to 10 cm of snow tomorrow, even at some lower levels. On higher ground, there is the risk of strong winds causing drifting and even blizzards.

I have been advised that commuters and travellers are likely to face winter hazards. Therefore, my available fleet of over 120 gritters is available to salt the 7,000 kilometres — 4,300 miles — of main roads in just over three hours, which is a massive logistical exercise that costs over £80,000 each time. Almost 51,000 tons of salt have been used so far this season. At the same point last year, just over 35,000 tons had been used.

That is the forecast, but I hope that we will not see the full impact of the Arctic polar vortex.

Mr Speaker: I thought that Mr Robin Swann was going to bolt for home there before the weather came in.

Mr Swann: I thank the Minister for the weather forecast. [Laughter.]

Can he confirm that a full winter service will be available in my constituency of North Antrim?

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his supplementary. I am not sure whether he wants to be Barra Best or Frank Mitchell, or wants me to be either of them, but a full service will be available in North Antrim in the coming days.

I can also confirm that six salting actions on the scheduled salted network in the Ballymoney and Moyle areas, spreading 336 tons of salt, were directed from 3.30 am on Friday 16 January 2015 until 2.00 am on Sunday 18 January. On Saturday 17 January alone, three actions were directed, at 3.30 am, 4.00 pm and 9.30 pm, spreading 178 tons of salt, with gritters ploughing snow on affected roads as they travelled.

Private contract snow ploughing was also deployed throughout the area on many minor roads. There can, of course, be no guarantee of ice-free roads, and I reiterate that road users should always be aware of the need to drive with care on the road network, regardless of whether roads are treated or not. Salting actions take two to three and a half hours to complete, so there is always a possibility that a journey will start or end on an untreated section. Rapidly changing weather patterns also presented particular challenges for officials, with snow, sleet, hail and rain showers, interspersed with freezing and thawing conditions, sometimes compromising the effect of the salt and giving rise to the possibility of icy stretches.

So far this year, an estimated £4·5 million has been spent on the winter service programme. At the same point last year, some £3·7 million had been spent. North Antrim and the Ballymena area are mainly salted from the Ballykeel and Ballymoney depots. During the current season, Ballykeel has carried out 56 actions and used 2,834 tonnes of salt.

I am not sure you need much more detail.

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his question. He will know that some 4,500 grit boxes are distributed during the winter period, and a considerable number of grit piles — in the region of 50,000 — are left at various locations. We attempt, wherever possible, to at least leave the facilities available for self-help, and we very much recognise that many communities help to distribute salt, particularly in rural areas and areas where the elderly or more vulnerable live. I welcome that, and I would like to see it continue.

Mr Moutray: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he find the timescale of over three weeks for replacing a grit box on Wood Lane, Lurgan acceptable? If not, will he investigate it, given that several minor accidents have taken place at that location since 5 January, when my office reported the box missing?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. We will undertake to investigate the reasons for that, but more especially to ensure that that grit box is restored to its place as quickly as possible, if it has not been already.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for her question. She is probably aware that, some months back, I issued future plans for rail provision in Northern Ireland. That was a 30-year plan in which I envisage the extension of rail travel across Northern Ireland in various places.

We can build in a very real way — no pun intended — on the opportunities that exist. We have found success with the purchase of the new trains, the restoration of the Coleraine to Londonderry line and improved facilities at some of our stations, including Ballymoney, Portadown and Antrim bus station. Other bus improvements are planned, including in Banbridge. We are seeing a renaissance in rail travel in Northern Ireland. Record numbers since the '60s are using the railways, and we are heading to record numbers since the 1950s, so the opportunities are there. I would like to see the opportunity being given and moneys being allocated to see how we can further develop that network.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer, which I very much welcome. I agree with everything he has just said. However, in light of the news yesterday that Irish Rail is considering an extension to its network that would allow users to travel directly from Belfast to Dublin airport, what plans, if any, are there to extend our rail link to Belfast International Airport?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for her supplementary. The railway investment prioritisation strategy that I published includes proposals for feasibility studies of extensions to the network, west along the road network on the A6 towards Castledawson roundabout and along either the M1, the A4, the A3 or the A29 corridors in the vicinity of Dungannon and Armagh. The feasibility of reopening the Antrim to Knockmore line will also be reconsidered, with an option of a future rail link to Belfast International Airport, should air passenger numbers grow towards 10 million, as is predicted by the airport operator. We are already on the case. Investment in our railways is one way in which we can make a difference in public transport and hugely transform the way in which, and the mode by which, we travel.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for her question. We continue to work through the processes on the A5. The latest consultation that was undertaken was that on Tully Bog. We are assessing the total number of representations and the quality of those representations. The next stage will be deciding whether we will need to move to a public inquiry, after the fresh statutory orders are made. A total of 18 responses to the consultation exercises were received. These have now been analysed by my Department and will be taken into consideration as the scheme and the appropriate assessment process progress.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for that detail, particularly on the level of responses. Could the Minister indicate whether he anticipates that there will be a public inquiry and give a sense of a timescale for that?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for her supplementary question. The Member will know that the next stage will be to publish the draft statutory orders for the scheme. This involves the publication of the draft vesting orders and the draft direction order, together with the environmental statement for the scheme. That, in turn, will initiate a six-week public consultation period. It will also be my intention, during this time, to hold a series of public exhibitions at venues local to the scheme. I stress that only on completion of this six-week consultation period can a decision be made on the need for a public inquiry, although I have to say that, given the scale of the scheme, a public inquiry is highly likely. If deemed necessary, a public inquiry is likely to be held later this year.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Trevor Lunn. I am afraid that we will have time only for your original question and not your supplementary.

Mr Lunn: I will ask my supplementary first then. [Laughter.]

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for asking a very ingenious question of the Minister: how to get a claim paid. I am not sure that I should be drawn into such detail in the way that I suggested he framed the question; I am having some fun with it.

Criteria have been set down and are published and available on the Department's website. If it is helpful, I will ensure that a copy is made available to you at the earliest possible opportunity.

(1)

(2)

Mr Girvan: The Finance Minister's motion is to move the spend of almost £12 billion of the Northern Ireland Executive's Budget that we are allowed to spend, and I appreciate that amendments have been tabled, which could be seen as just an opportunity to grab money and send it to Departments that parties have responsibility for. I am talking about the Ulster Unionist amendment, which relates to about 0·25% of the overall Budget. That must mean that Ulster Unionist Members are fairly happy with 99·75% of the Budget, even though they voted against it. It is interesting that some people have ideas as to what they should or should not do with that. However, the UUP amendment does something that the SDLP has not done in the past: it shows where money will come from to be dispensed through Departments. I appreciate that being included, albeit that it comes from community projects that I deem important — I am thinking of the strategic investment fund.

Mr Spratt: I thank my friend for giving way. Is it not incredible that the Ulster Unionist Party is suggesting taking money away? In my South Belfast constituency, they propose to take from the Taughmonagh area almost £1 million that was intended for the extension of a day nursery and healthy living centre that is already up and running and from Sandy Row some £800,000 that was intended for the creation of an education and training centre that is operating very well. Does Mr Nesbitt's Member for South Belfast condone that? This is all just to save the blushes of their Minister, who has mismanaged his budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind Members that interventions should be brief. The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Girvan: I agree with my colleague's comments. I appreciate that we are in a political forum, but, instead of trying to score political points, a number of Budget areas — I think of a debate in the Chamber yesterday — are associated with Ministers' vanity projects or personal agendas that they want to drive through, and they are using this as an opportunity to do so. It does not give a good impression to the public. For those from their constituencies who may have a vested interest, it might play out as good politics, but it does not help in the overall scheme of things in Northern Ireland. It does not deliver value for money, and it is important that we get that throughout the area.

To go back to the amendment, I appreciate that there were concerns over the timing of the draft Budget and the consultation period. I have to disagree with what Mr Nesbitt said when moving the amendment. In the budgets that were in place in 2011 and agreed prior to this Assembly being formed, health was an area with major concerns. Had we gone along with that, there would have been 4,000 redundancies in the Department of Health and a major reduction in delivery. Today, we have 780 more nurses than in 2011, when that budget was set, and we have over 200 more doctors and 100-odd additional consultants. It has been increasing, never mind the redundancies that everyone talked about.

I turn to the timing of the debate. On 19 January, the Budget was presented to the House. I appreciate that there is some difficulty around why we have to bring it forward in this format. I appreciate that new money became available and the draft Budget as presented had no reflection on the final outworkings. Some Departments were able to get additional moneys through the process. The Department of Health got additional funding, somewhere in the region of £200 million. I am in receipt of an email in which some Members claim to have spearheaded the fight to revitalise and rejig the Budget. I appreciate that we did not depend on certain people to rejig the Budget; they never agreed the Budget. Therefore, I have difficulty accepting those who claim to have been involved in those areas. They have not delivered and would not vote for the Budget, yet they are happy to take all the benefits that are the outworkings of the Budget, including £64·5 million going to education. We all received the emails lobbying on the problems that would be associated with schools. We took that on board, we prioritised it and we fed it into the centre. We made sure that, when moneys became available, they were used.

I come back to the point in the amendment tabled by Mr McCallister about funding and the borrowing of money. We have the opportunity to borrow money, but it is on the basis that we will get people to take part in the voluntary exit scheme. Provided that that works effectively, we can borrow against it. However, we have already had to make a business case for where those savings will be. By making that spend, we will save. In fact, we will save more in the first year than it would have cost us to deliver, providing that we get adequate uptake and the process is properly managed. I understand that the process used by the PSNI under Patten showed up glaring problems when a full tier of upper management decided that they all wanted to go at the same time. Because of ineffective workforce planning, we ended up having to re-engage and re-employ. That was a false economy. There has to be proper management of the process. That is an area that needs major focus, and we have a very small window in which to make it effective. How Ministers break up their budget is one area. Last week, I asked in the House —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Mr Girvan: Last week, I asked a question in the House about budgets and Ministers. The answer was that the Minister prioritised where he made his spend. That is a vital message.

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

Mrs Cochrane: The Budget before us for approval is not the balanced Budget that the Stormont House Agreement called for. Yes, it is balanced in the sense that it allocates money across Departments within the available resources, but it does little to make public finances more sustainable. It is not a balanced approach to budgeting for the future. The Alliance Ministers opposed the Budget at the Executive, but, unlike other parties that voiced their opposition, our reasons go much wider than the direct impact on Departments that our Ministers run. We believe that Northern Ireland deserves a more strategic, more innovative and more radical approach.

Alliance believes that, in drawing up the Budget, there should have been a fundamental reassessment of the needs of each service and that money should have been allocated to the Departments on that basis. Before anyone suggests that there was no time to do that, let me say that of course there was. The Finance Minister has been warning for some time about the need to do more with less, yet we have not been planning how best to do that.

We know that there are inefficiencies in our health and education provision. High-level benchmarking of costs and spending profiles compared with other jurisdictions highlights that, yet the Budget does not challenge those inefficiencies. Rather, the large degree of protection for those budgets creates less incentive for reform. Before it is suggested that I do not want money to be spent in those areas, let me be clear about this: I want our health and education systems to be funded in a way that ensures the best service for patients and pupils, where every pound is used to deliver the best outcomes, not where a proportion of every pound is wasted.

In his opening remarks, the Minister said that the Budget would lead to reforms, but there is nothing in the proposals that will ensure that DHSSPS properly pursues its efficiency agenda. Health reforms need to be driven forward through investing in the way that services are provided and in further prevention measures, not by using resources to simply plug gaps here and there. The Budget also does nothing to ensure that education protections are directed into schools and away from administration. It says nothing about tackling the cost of division, nothing about making savings through North/South shared service delivery and nothing about support for reforms to legal aid that will ultimately be necessary to make the Budget balance. It is a Budget that will leave us in exactly the same position this time next year. That is hardly moving Northern Ireland forward.

Given that it is not a perfect budget, what specifically would Alliance do differently? First, the economy is supposedly the top priority in the Programme for Government, so more consideration needs to be given to the wider economic impact of specific departmental reductions. For example, we know the importance of the availability of third-level talent for attracting FDI and building our economy. We would, therefore, rebalance resources between the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning, giving DEL more money in recognition of the importance of the skills agenda. As things stand, the Budget has DEL, which is already an efficient Department, making greater cuts than the Department of Education. DEL could end up cutting higher and further education places at the same time as DE presides over 70,000 empty school places. There are no empty places in higher and further education.

Alliance would also abolish the social investment fund, which needlessly duplicates what other Departments can already do. Alliance would halt the relocation of the DARD headquarters to Ballykelly. At a time of limited public resources, the cost of that project needs to be redirected to front-line services. Alliance would also include a commitment to remove certain inappropriate populist subsidies. I make no apology for being honest with the public about these things. Free prescriptions for those who can afford to pay and free bus passes for those who have not yet retired are simply not sustainable. Only by considering those options can we, as a devolved Administration, show that we are taking some real responsibility in managing the budgetary challenges. Of course, when I raised that with the Finance Minister last week, he did his best to twist my words and suggested that we wanted to take away bus passes completely, which is, of course —

Lord Morrow: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cochrane: No. I have quite a lot to get through, thanks.

Of course, that is wrong, as, in the long term, we would like to see free public transport for schoolchildren also. The additional health and social benefits of that could provide savings in other areas, but such a policy can be taken forward only when we get our finances in better order.

We would also propose a modest increase in the regional rate. A 1% rise would raise about £5 million, and the removal of rate capping, with new measures to support the asset-rich and income-poor, such as pensioners, could raise another £5 million. Those are all things that could have been taken forward in the incoming financial year.

I know that the Finance Minister has said that he is proud that we continue to have the lowest household taxes in the UK, but would he not be more proud if our public services were so efficiently run that we did not have to cut services to keep the taxes low? A sensible approach would be to offset some of the current cuts with a small proportion of revenue raising, but fair revenue-raising structures must go hand in hand with other reforms. That is a major challenge, but it is one that the people of Northern Ireland expect our Executive to deliver on.

The Stormont House Agreement also states:

The Alliance Party is once again calling for that independent audit to be a formal Executive commitment in the 2015-16 Budget. The Finance Minister suggested last week that he would be out on the doorsteps telling people about the Alliance Party's revenue-raising ideas. Perhaps he can also take the opportunity to remind the people of Northern Ireland of his party's revenue-wasting approach: taxpayers' money continually wasted by sustaining a divided society.

Of course, I know that a one-year Budget will not be the place where all those problems are solved. However, in setting the Budget, we must also consider the 2016-2020 Budget, which could see an even smaller block grant, as well as the potential added pressure of funding a lower level of corporation tax. This Budget must therefore lay the groundwork for much more radical reform, which will deliver better outcomes for all in Northern Ireland. The Executive still have the opportunity to make further improvements, and I hope that they will take the opportunity to do so.

Mr I McCrea: In considering the motion and the amendments, I was intrigued most by the amendment tabled in the name of the Ulster Unionist Party Members. The amendment, which the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mike Nesbitt, proposed, has shed new light on things. It is important that, from a Mid Ulster constituency perspective, people are fully aware of the implications if that amendment were to pass today. The Ulster Unionist Party has been very clear that it opposes the Budget, and that was clear when Danny Kennedy voted against it at the Executive. Mind you, the Finance Minister said that he did not bring forward any ideas for why that party opposed the Budget, nor did he suggest any amendments at the Executive meeting. Mind you, I do not think that the SDLP or the Alliance Party did either.

The Ulster Unionist Party believes that its amendment is very important. It sets out what it would take for its Members to support the Budget today. It details what important changes the party proposes to make to the Budget that will get it over the line to support the motion today. If what is in its amendment is all that stopped it from supporting the Budget in the first place, dear help us all.

However, I will give the Ulster Unionist Party some credit. Unlike any other party that opposed the Budget in the Executive, it has at least made an attempt through the amendment to make it right. Its only error, in my opinion, was to propose to move £26 million from the social investment fund. As Members will be aware, OFMDFM announced last week an allocation of approximately £1·4 million from the social investment fund to my constituency. I want to read into the record what that money would fund: Coagh Orange Hall, Castledawson Orange Hall, Lisnamorrow Orange Hall, Ballymaguigan Orange Hall, Kennedy's Memorial Orange Hall in Stewartstown, Moneymore Recreation Centre and An Bruach Dearg Community Centre.

Mr Douglas: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to highlight two projects that could be jeopardised if that amendment is made. I declare an interest in both projects: one is Titanic People, which is in Westbourne Presbyterian Church on the lower Newtownards Road, and the international visitor centre, which we hope will be ready by next August; and the other is a Van Morrison event that will attract a lot of international visitors next August. Does the Member agree that, if we do go down the road of shifting the social investment fund money, it will jeopardise excellent projects such as those that would help to regenerate the whole east Belfast area?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: I will deal with the amendment first. However, as the Member who has requested me to give way would earlier give way only to the Minister, I am not sure how he expects any of the rest of us to want to give way to him.

I agree with the Member: the projects he mentioned in east Belfast — like those that are receiving funding in my constituency — are important. If we were to go down the route of accepting the amendment, they would be seriously jeopardised; indeed, it is likely that they would not go ahead.

I — like many others in my constituency, and especially, no doubt, the members of the lodges in each of the five halls — welcome the funding announced last week by OFMDFM. Whilst I am the first to admit that the timeline for getting it to this stage has been long — and I am sure that any Member who has been involved in the process will understand that — not one of the representatives of those lodges has said to me, "It took too long, so, no thanks; we don't want the money". It is a fact that they are delighted and are looking forward to getting the work started and seeing the end results.

It is now time for the Ulster Unionist Party, and especially the Member for Mid Ulster Sandra Overend, to state clearly that, through the amendment, it proposes to stop any money being released to rebuild and refurbish those halls.

Mr Swann: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: I am happy to give way to any Member from the Ulster Unionist Benches — and I am glad the Member has asked — to put on record and tell the people of Mid Ulster that their amendment proposes to do just that.

Mr Swann: I thank the Member very much for giving way. I will clarify: our amendment does nothing of the sort. Our amendment talks about the SIF money that is sitting in the centre at the minute and that has not been spent or allocated. The Member talked about the delay and postponement of the projects. As a member of the northern zone SIF, which approved and assessed the award that went to those Orange halls in Mid Ulster, the Member well knows that in no shape or form does the amendment remove or threaten that money. What threatens the money and the projects that Mr Douglas referred to is the delay in SIF, which has been mismanaged by OFMDFM from the start. We have worked through the —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind the Member that interventions should be brief.

Mr I McCrea: I thank the Member for at least attempting to clarify exactly what the amendment will do. If the money has not been spent, where is it going to come from? The £26 million that the Ulster Unionist Party proposes to remove from the social investment fund will stop every project that has not received funding. The Member is well off the mark. It ill behoves any Member to call for money to be made available for projects for their constituency and then instruct their Minister to vote against the Budget.

Mrs Overend is not in her place, but no doubt she will hear about this. It is important, from my constituency perspective, that Mrs Overend and the Ulster Unionist Party tell the principals of schools across Mid Ulster why the party told them that it would do what it could to ensure that additional funding was allocated to front-line services and, when £65 million or thereabouts was allocated by the Finance Minister to Education, her party voted against it. Will Mrs Overend and the Ulster Unionist Party tell the people of Mid Ulster why, when an additional £5 million was allocated to the Regional Development Minister to help with town bus services and other roads issues, her Minister, for whom she is the assistant private secretary, voted against it? When additional money was allocated to the health service, the Ulster Unionist Party's Minister voted against it.

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

Mr I McCrea: I have some sympathy for the issues that the Ulster Unionist Party refers to in its amendment, but if we look at the crux of the issue, it is all about taking money from the social investment fund and reallocating the bulk of it —

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

Mr I McCrea: — to the Department for Regional Development, for which the Ulster Unionist Party holds the ministership.

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

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. When the Minister introduced the debate, I was musing on his journey through a number of quotations. It is interesting to note that, during this budgetary process, he began by quoting a revolutionary socialist: Nelson Mandela. He then moved on to an American social democrat, John F Kennedy, and, today, he quoted a high Tory, Winston Churchill. So, I am wondering whether there is a story in that progression through those quotations. The Minister said that the Budget was not perfect, and he was encouraging us to quote from Churchill, so I will quote from Churchill, who said:

This is a revised Budget. There has been some change in it, but there is room for more change. I say this particularly in reference to the financing of the Department of the Environment.

The DOE is facing the highest percentage budget reduction across the whole of the public service. The proposed allocation to DOE will certainly adversely impact on financial assistance to councils, particularly to the less wealthy councils. During the consultation on this Budget, the Minister of the Environment asked the Finance Minister to ring-fence grants to councils. That was to enable them to have a sound basis for local government reform. Unfortunately, this did not happen. While, as part of the final Budget, an allocation was made for the statutory derating grant paid to councils, that will only restore the existing and inadequate provision for the derating grant. DOE is statutorily required to pay this, and the amounts are determined by derating policies applied by the Department of Finance and Personnel. So, the consequence of the proposed allocation to DOE is likely to be an across-the-board cut in the order of 15% having to be applied to all other spending programmes. It will make it impossible for the Minister to provide financial assistance to local government through the rates support grant. This will affect all councils, but it will have a significant adverse impact on councils that are less well off. For example, this could mean a hit of £560,000 for Derry City and Strabane District Council and around £400,000 for the new council that will hopefully be named Newry, Mourne, Down and Gullion Council. This could mean higher rates bills for many citizens, including those who can least afford them.

Mr Eastwood: Will the Minister give way? Will the Member give way?

Mr D Bradley: I will.

Mr Eastwood: I promoted you there. I thank the Member for giving way. The rates support grant is there to look after the poorest councils, which, by the way, happen to be largely in the west of the North. I do not know why that is. Will the Member agree that, if we cut that grant, we will end up hitting long-suffering families and long-suffering businesses with rates hikes or will end up having to cut services drastically in those areas? That is no way to go about reviving our economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr D Bradley: I thank the Member for the promotion and for the intervention. Of course, I totally agree with what he has to say.

I turn to health. The SDLP has recognised that there are great difficulties at the heart of the health service. There is no strategic plan, and the health-care system is crumbling at its knees. This morning, we had a report on the health system that pointed to major weaknesses. Indeed, barely a week goes by when stresses in the system do not make the headlines. During the Christmas period, we saw the difficulties in A&E and the cancellation of operations. We do, of course, welcome the £204 million additional funding to protect our front-line service, but questions remain over the delivery of the core strategic plan that is Transforming Your Care. Shifting health-care delivery from the expensive hospital model to caring for people in the community is at the heart of this, but the plan continues not to be properly funded, and targets are not being met.

There is no measurement of progress and no strategic vision. We must therefore ask, at this time, what price we will ultimately pay for it. Are we sacrificing long-term strategy for low-hanging fruit in the short term?

If one thing sums up the lack of strategy, it is the implementation of trusts' contingency plans late last year. It is evident that there is a complete lack of strategic focus but a core focus on the financial bottom line. It is worrying that copious counter-strategic measures have already been adopted: for example, the plans to close Bangor and Armagh minor injury units, and we all witnessed the shambolic Dalriada decision. Domiciliary care packages, which consist of 15-minute visits, have been curtailed, and there are plans to further dilute the meals-on-wheels service and provide a fortnightly supply of frozen meals. We have yet to hear any detail of the £113 million targeted savings for HSC trusts projected for 2015-16. How will that impact on the delivery of health care in the community?

We must look at alternative ways of making savings. There is an obvious need to ensure that all appropriate options are thoroughly considered. We must look at wastage in the health service, where significant savings can be made. We must look at the use of bank and agency staff, the duplication of administrative roles, the prevalence of fraud and medicine wastage and appointment cancellations by not only patients but staff.

I wish to move on now to deal with public-sector reform. In principle, the SDLP supports —

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

Mr D Bradley: With regard to the voluntary exit scheme, any exit scheme must be voluntary and voluntary only. It should be agreed here and now that there will not be any other approach. As my time has now come to an end, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

Members, this is the first occasion on which we will hear from Mr Máirtín Ó Muilleoir. I remind Members that it is the convention that a maiden speech should be uncontroversial and heard without interruption.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I know that that is a warning to the Minister not to interrupt. I wanted to start, as we should when discussing matters of finance and budgets, by quoting Lennon, but, first, I want to congratulate our friends in Syriza. I congratulate the Greek people. It is a great blow against austerity. Those of us battling the austerity ideologues in London will take great heart from that, as will people across Europe.

On to Lennon — I know that the Minister snapped to attention, but I will quote not Vladimir but John, who said:

The Minister, more than most, knows that that is true, but, with money, we can set out our priorities and spell out our values, and that is what we have done with the Budget. It is a Budget that, despite the assault on our block grant from London, protects the vulnerable, builds the economy and underpins the peace that we have come to value.

Particularly for us, making sure that welfare cuts were not implemented as proposed by Mr Cameron and his colleagues in London was an absolute priority. Looking after those in the margins, easing the burden on working families and making sure that those who have lost out in the economy are looked after is essential. In the face of the slash-and-burn approach of London, the Budget — looking after the vulnerable and making sure that we grow the economy — is quite a feat.

When Minister Hamilton addressed the Committee, the figure that he gave for cuts to the block grant since 2011 was £1·5 billion. That is an absolutely staggering amount to lose from the block grant. Make no mistake: this Budget is a great achievement against that type of savage assault. In the Budget, we managed to secure £204 million extra for the Department of Health. That, I think, shows our unwavering commitment to a free health service and front-line health services.

In relation to this blitz on welfare rights, condemned by the Churches in Britain and Ireland, we have stood firm in our intention, conviction and resolve to protect the vulnerable. In his Budget speech before Christmas, the Minister quoted JFK and Nelson Mandela, as my colleague an tUasal Ó Brollacháin mentioned. I want to see his JFK and Mandela and raise him a Pope Francis because Pope Francis is the leader in the world in speaking out against inequality and for fair play and equal treatment. Pope Francis asked the question:

I speak for those of us who are in favour of this motion and this Budget when I say that we take very seriously our duty to defend those on the margins. That is why, in this package and this Budget, we have agreed a considerable kitty of £565 million to mitigate the potential loss of benefits to individuals and families under the proposed welfare cuts. We have retained a series of anti-poverty measures and set up a supplementary payment fund to provide protection specifically for families with children, people with disabilities and those who are long-term sick.

In education, to the delight of teachers and parents — all of us were lobbied on this matter — we managed to secure a £63 million uplift for the Minister of Education, his Department and schools.

In relation to DEL, the draft Budget was unsatisfactory. The major parties went to work. We managed to find £33 million extra, in the hope that the Minister would focus on those elements within further and higher education that would skill up our young people and secure jobs for them. Sadly, the Minister has instead spent most of his energy attacking St Mary's University College. Instead of talking about investment, he is talking about disinvestment and tearing the heart out of west Belfast.

I welcome the innovative efforts of the Minister of Finance to find or borrow money to ensure that we can set up new funds. I think, in particular, of the £500 million shared and integrated education kitty, which I think will be very important over the next 10 years, and I also give the thumbs up to the social innovation fund, which is in the small print. That, again, is £5 million. It solves the issue of dormant funds and releases money that we can use and faith-based groups, community groups and charities can borrow. I think that that is a little bit of a breakthrough for us. I hope that we can engage with others to increase that kitty. I know that the Minister talked about the £5 million growing to £10 million, and I hope that we can do that in the time ahead.

Tomorrow, I put on my snow boots and go to Boston, New York and Toronto. In those cities, I think we will find that those who support the peace process also want to support the growth of the economy here. I think that we will find a ready ear in the diaspora if we ask it to back, support and engage, especially with the social innovation fund, in the time ahead.

A big result for all of us in the Budget was to have the devolution of corporation tax and that gives us great potential in the time ahead as well. The Minister has focused on growing the economy. There is no doubt that he realises the threat to the economy from the London Government's assault on our Budget and funds but, at the same time, I think that he has ensured that our friends in Invest NI have the firepower to continue to create jobs in the time ahead.

In relation to the efforts to rebalance our economy, we state again that a voluntary redundancy scheme should not diminish or damage the front-line public services. We will guarantee that and stand by it. There will be no compulsory redundancies on our watch and we will make sure that, as we start to grow this economy, we will emerge stronger in the time ahead. None of us got all we wanted in this Budget, but those who criticise it come up with no alternative of any type at all.

I wanted to finish by asking my friend Mr Raymond McCartney to sing us out with "Money can't buy me love", but Mr McCartney is not here. So, instead of that, I want to pay tribute to the small business owners who form the spine of our economy. I thank them for creating jobs and growing wealth, and I want to send out the message that, as we start our recovery, now is the time to invest, build and, in particular, employ.

Mr Weir: I support the Budget. While I digress from the remarks of the previous Member who spoke with enthusiasm of the Greek election result, it is perhaps appropriate that he quoted John Lennon. As we face an age of austerity and move along the "long and winding road" of the Budget today, it is tempting to fall into the words of Paul McCartney and simply "long for yesterday". I am waiting for the next Member to start quoting Ringo Starr.

While it is tempting to cling to the position of a few years ago when, financially, it was much easier because of the wider context of public finances, I believe that the Executive have faced the very difficult challenges of the current Budget and met their responsibilities very well. I suspect that the significance of this Budget will be realised more when we look back at it in a few years' time. I highlighted some of the issues in the debate on the draft Budget, but I think that a number of aspects of the Budget are very significant. While I do not necessarily agree with the amendment that has been put forward by Mr McCallister, I will say that at least he has identified important strategic issues, and a number of important strategic issues have been identified in the Budget.

Mention has been made of the voluntary exit scheme. The criticism that can be made at times of Departments simply trying to chip away at the edges to meet financial problems was highlighted by Mr Bradley in his speech, and it is, in many ways, tackled head on. We have to realise that there is a major challenge for the public sector in how we move forward. Therefore, the voluntary exit scheme — and some have caused a degree of mischief with that — is very important for the future. Let me make it absolutely clear: as they used to say on 'Blankety Blank', the clue is in the question: it is a voluntary exit scheme. It is not an issue of compulsory redundancies; it is an issue of a scheme that is based on the voluntary principle of people choosing to leave.

Other aspects of the Budget are also significant. Mention has been made of: the creation of the change fund, which, I believe, will become increasingly significant in years to come; the Northern Ireland investment fund that has been put in place; and the social innovation fund, which is allowing the money, particularly from the dormant bank account side of it, for groups who feel that there are problems with the system. All those things are important innovations. What we are faced with is a very innovative Budget.

Since we have moved on in the past couple of weeks from the draft Budget, the Finance Minister and the Executive have done a good deal of work to try to improve the situation regarding some of the concerns that were raised in the draft Budget. One criticism that probably was made because of the tightness of the Budget before was the issue of support for the universities and the position of DEL. I am glad to see that there has been movement on that. Indeed, from that point of view, producing a joined-up approach is also vital as we face our economy. We have seen the money that has been allocated through the collaborative skills fund, which will be worked jointly between DEL and DETI. That is a very positive way forward.

For those of us who are involved in local education, the concern about the pressure that was being put on local schools was very evident from the consultation responses. The £63 million that has now been allocated, taken with the additional money that has come from the Department of Education, more or less moves that problem away from the pressure that was being put in place.

It is also the case that we must look at the issue of joined-up government. For example, the additional money that is being put in place for nurture units through the change fund is vital. Some of the changes that have been put in place by way of the social investment fund are also vital.

I have to say that I am somewhat bemused by the Ulster Unionist amendment. There are a couple of questions that need to be asked in relation to it. As I understand it, when the Ulster Unionists made submissions on the Budget, they indicated that, particularly as regards the fund, they would not be looking to alter in any way where there were already contractual commitments. Yet, at a stroke, they wipe out the entire £26 million that has been allocated to this Budget. I would be interested to hear from the Finance Minister at the end on that. Are we going to be in a situation in which things that are contractually agreed, which are legally obliged, are simply going to be rode roughshod over. The Ulster Unionist position not only defies logic but goes against its submission to the draft Budget. It runs contrary to that.

I will listen to hear that explained at the end of the debate. That would similarly impact on a number of other projects. My colleague mentioned some of those, and, in north Down, it would impact on the scoping exercise for community house facilities in Bangor and in neighbouring Ards and on the planned sport facilities in Kilcooley under the project. All those would end under the Ulster Unionist proposals. It would be similar with transition money in the south-eastern zone, which would be aimed particularly at early intervention projects looking at educational attainment and the school readiness and transition between the primary and post-primary sector. All that would be scrapped under the proposals, because that is what the £26 million is paying for. I will wait with interest to find out which Lobby my colleague from North Down goes through to see whether he is voting against those projects.

Where will the money go to? Disraeli was accused of and often gloried in being a one-nation Conservative. It seems that, with these proposals, the Ulster Unionist Party has become a one-Department party. Everything is to plug the mistakes that are being made in DRD. That is effectively where the money is going, with a few other projects and the remainder of the allocation being thrown around. The allocation is back-of-a-fag-packet economics. It is a belief that the party will take the principled stand of voting against the Budget, yet its changes in the Budget —

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

Mr Weir: — offer us a change of 0·25%. That is the shallowness of the Ulster Unionist Party analysis, and it deprives projects that are legally entitled to money to try to plug the gap created by its own failures in DRD.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will speak from the Health Committee's perspective. The Committee identified the Department's approach to the Budget as a key area of work and took evidence on it from October/November. We had planned to take evidence from expert witnesses on approaches to health spend in other countries and regions that have been applied during economically challenging times, with a view to analysing whether such approaches could be usefully applied here by the Department of Health for the 2015-16 Budget. However, given the limited time frame allocated for Committee consultation, we were able to take evidence only from one such expert witness.

Linked to the timetable issue is the issue of the information that was provided to the Committee to enable us to scrutinise the draft Budget. The Department was not in a position to advise the Committee of the areas in which the trusts would make savings in the 2015-16 Budget or, indeed, the budget reductions that would be applied to the smaller arm's-length bodies. We were told that, ultimately, that information would not be available until January 2015 at the earliest. Given that the public consultation on the draft Budget is now closed, that afforded the Committee an extremely limited opportunity to influence those crucial decisions.

I want to focus on the strategic priorities for the health budget. I will provide some context. When the former Health Minister briefed the Committee in September on the request to the Executive for the additional £160 million, he stated that the areas of spend that he would have to pull back on, which we are now witnessing, were not in any way strategic but were simply based on stopping money where it was not contractually committed. That is an important reference point. Those remarks made it very clear to the Committee that the Department has an understanding that, if spend has to be curtailed, there are areas that could be targeted that do not undermine strategic priorities. We were told that, for 2014-15, there was not sufficient time left in the financial year to do that. However, that should not have been the case for the 2015-16 Budget, given that the Department is already fully aware of the pressures that it faces, including a 6% to 7% increase in demand from the trusts. Therefore, the Committee believes that the Department should have been in a position to approach the draft Budget in a planned and strategic manner so that the allocation that it receives is spent on priorities rather than on things that are simply committed to at an early stage of the financial year and therefore cannot be pulled back on.

When the Committee turned to scrutinise the 2015-16 Budget, we wanted to determine whether the Department's proposed spending decisions flowing from the draft Budget were based on a clear understanding of its strategic priorities and whether the allocation of spend would indeed be directed towards those strategic priorities. The Minister advised the Committee that his top two strategic priorities are — number one — the provision of high-quality front-line care and — number two — the implementation of Transforming Your Care. Whilst the Committee has no issue with those priorities, it was concerned that the priorities are not clearly reflected in the Department's approach to allocating its budget. The Department's approach to allocating the budget and its emphasis seems to be much more on using the budget to maintain existing services. Whilst the Committee accepts that the Department is required to provide certain services to fulfil statutory obligations, it believes that much more consideration could now be given to how those services are provided. This should not be limited to whether a service is being provided in a resource-effective manner or whether it provides value for money. Rather, we need to look at the outcomes of the services and whether they provide high-quality front-line care and do indeed reflect the principles of Transforming Your Care — one of the Minister's strategic priorities.

During an evidence session, the Minister told us:

We are therefore concerned that the strategic priorities are not actually driving how money will be allocated. Indeed, one expert witness from whom we took evidence described the Minister's separation of strategy from spending as "disturbing". We should not lose sight of that word.

Given that the provision of high-quality front-line care is the Minister's number one strategic priority, the Committee asked the Department for its definition of front-line services. We were surprised and somewhat concerned when officials informed us that they did not have a definition of front-line services. Without such a definition, the Committee is not clear how the Department will ensure that resources are directed to that end or that the additional £204 million allocated in the Budget will be spent as intended by the Executive.

I conclude with remarks as a constituency MLA. It is important to reflect and welcome the fact that health has been protected in the Budget. The £204 million has been allocated. We now need to take the tough decisions around the current health spend, how it is allocated and how it will target and eradicate —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: — the health inequalities in our communities.

Mr Rogers: I too have a quotation: after the Government takes enough time to balance the budget, the public has the job of budgeting the balance. That is what it really comes down to. While this might be an interesting debate and there is a bit of point-scoring going on from court to court and even in the same court of Mid Ulster at times, it comes down to how this affects our constituents and the questions that they might ask. Will I be safe in my own home? Will I get medical care when I need it? Could I lose out on some of my benefits? Will I lose my house if I cannot keep making the mortgage payments? Will I get a job? Will my child get the necessary early intervention to address their special educational needs? As a classroom assistant, will I have a job next September? As a health worker, will I get my 1% pay rise? As a first-year student at St Mary's University College, will I be able to finish my degree there? Will I be able to pay the increase in rates and keep in business? Where will I store 14 freezer meals? As a farmer, how will I make ends meet after the drop in the price of milk? Those are maybe just some of the questions that they could ask.

I commend the Ulster Unionists and Alliance, which recognised Mark H Durkan's good sense and decided to exercise their vote on the final Budget. While Sinn Féin and the DUP pushed this Budget through, it is vital that the people who will be affected by the cuts know that they have a voice in the Executive.

My colleagues spoke about the impact on health in particular. One little thing comes to mind. John McCallister talked about the failure to implement a strategic plan. I do not think that there is a strategic plan for health or education. While Simon Stevens, a National Health Service chief, pushes for the decentralisation of services to cottage hospitals, we have a Health Minister who is bent on the centralisation of services. We are not prepared to look at good practice models in the other parts of the EU where decentralisation works.

I will begin my remarks on education by commending the thousands of young people, teachers and parents who made the case for education so well in the lead-up to Christmas. Providing our children and young people with a quality education makes sense for our society and economy. For young people to be fully prepared to enter the workforce or to progress to further or higher education, as much money and resources as possible must go to the classroom. Therefore, it is with caution that I welcome the additional allocation of £63 million to the Department of Education. Unlike allocations to other Departments, the Minister of Finance and Personnel did not ring-fence the additional spending. It has been a week since the final Budget was announced, and the Education Minister has yet to guarantee that even the majority of this money will go to front-line services. That would be worrying from any Minister, but it is particularly so from one who has proposed to cut the aggregated schools budget by £87 million, to cut the entitlement framework by 29% and to take a meagre £3 million from his departmental expenditure.

School principals have been given no clarity on the situation that faces them in April. The 1,000 teachers and 1,500 classroom assistants who were told that they might lose their job have not been told otherwise. Schools have agreed a three-year budget plan to which they will match a school development plan, but here we are at the end of January with two months left in this financial year and schools have no idea of their budget for next year. Before Christmas, the draft education budget sent shock waves through educational establishments. Can schools rely any more on the three-year budget plan? One school principal said to me in correspondence:

It goes on.

Paul Girvan made a comment, which I think was very valid, on the voluntary exit scheme:

We all remember the mess in the scheme in education last year where teachers who believed they were retiring had to go back to work in September.

Schools were already on a slippery slope, and the draft Budget would have caused them to collapse. Our schools simply cannot cut any more without that detrimentally impacting on our children's education. It will not only damage each child's educational prospects but will have a knock-on effect on our economy, which is already in the midst of a skills deficit.

An education is never a waste of money. Our young people will be in a much more secure position in times of austerity if they are equipped with a good education. The SDLP made clear the inherent contradiction in the draft Budget — additional funds for DETI while the budgets of DE and DEL were slashed. The Northern Ireland economy will not flourish without a pool of highly qualified and skilled young people who are ready to work. Investment in our young people is an investment in our economy.

Finally, the Education Authority offers us a real opportunity to slash wastage. I hear what the Minister said: we have to do more for less. I think that everybody is up for doing more for less, and I trust that the Minister of Education is up for doing more for less, will not squander funds and can account for every penny. We need a long-term strategic plan —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member's time is almost up.

Mr Rogers: — for education that makes our children's education the priority.

Mr Cree: We all know that this year's Budget process has been particularly difficult and truncated. In many instances, Departments failed to produce spending plans for scrutiny by the relevant Statutory Committees. The consultation extended over the Christmas period, and there is little evidence that the tens of thousands of responses were studied, analysed and taken on board by the Executive. Indeed, several Members acknowledged that the draft Budget was counter-strategic in many areas and that the Programme for Government had not been revised. Most seemed satisfied that a Budget had been agreed by the two largest parties and would do in the meantime.

Surely that is not good enough. The areas in which Departments have failed to deliver need to be considered and monitored and their failures highlighted. The social investment fund is one such example. Its budget for 2011-15 was £80 million, and it was due to be completed by March of this year. Clearly, it has not been completed, and, at the last count, something approaching half the sum had still not been expended for the benefit of vulnerable people in Northern Ireland. We are not intending to suggest that any money should be reallocated from that which has already been allocated to specific projects. We are referring to the money that remains unexpended and, indeed, has done throughout the life of this mandate, from the beginning of 2011 until today. The money was always there, but it has never been pushed out for what it was intended for.

However, we are all aware of the pressures on several budgets and of the need to protect our front-line services, even if we do not have a definition of what that means. Not to spend a budget when there is urgent need is very difficult to defend. Therefore, the Ulster Unionist Party amendment seeks to remove £26 million of resource and capital DEL and to redistribute it to other areas in which it is urgently required.

The health service is constantly in the news, with problems in service delivery right across the Province, including in my constituency of North Down, where, only last week, the elderly and vulnerable were once again being targeted by the South Eastern Trust's budget cuts. Domiciliary care packages and the meals-on-wheels service are being cut back, and, in the latter's case, without any consultation. At the end of last year, the Bangor Community Hospital had its 20-bed step-down ward closed temporarily. We all know what "temporary" can mean. Indeed, it can mean a very long time.

Our amendment would allow for £5 million of resource DEL to be passed to the Health Department to assist trusts' budget difficulties, in addition to the new moneys in the draft Budget. The Department for Regional Development would benefit from an allocation of £3 million of resource DEL to help fund Northern Ireland Water to comply with the PC15 final determination. We also propose that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure be allocated £1·5 million of resource DEL to alleviate the significant pressures caused by reductions to the arts and Northern Ireland's museums' budgets.

Earlier, I touched on the definition of "front-line services". The Fire Brigades Union provided Members with its response to the draft Budget. In it, the union set out a very convincing case for treating the Fire Service as a front-line service. I know that the relevant Minister does not share that view. He is entitled to his opinion, but the facts are that the Fire Service deals directly with the public as a result of life- or property-threatening emergencies, provides a vital service to the public at a time of an emergency and can be utilised directly at the point of need. It deserves to be treated fairly. Our amendment would allocate a further £1 5 million resource DEL to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for the use of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service.

All the foregoing allocations amount to £11 million resource DEL, and we all know that resources are very tight in the period 2015-16.

The capital side is not so critical. The Ulster Unionist amendment envisages transferring £15 million to the Department for Regional Development. That is a requirement for major water and sewerage infrastructure investment, as set out in the PC15 determination, which covers the period 2015-2021. Transport Northern Ireland has an urgent need for more capital, as it is £70 million short. The £15 million would help in both cases.

The draft Budget contains provisions for the removal of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development headquarters from Dundonald House to Ballykelly. A full business case has not been prepared. Therefore, there is no case of value for money. The condition of the buildings at Ballykelly is very poor. I believe that this is a material consideration that has not been factored in. Until these basic steps are concluded, there should not be Budget inclusion for that proposal.

We need a better system than the current Budget process, with all its shortcomings. I know that the Minister will say I am being consistent. We agreed a new financial process years ago and it is still stuck in the Executive. The existing process does not cater for meaningful involvement of parties and individual Members. It is not sufficient just to be able to ask questions and, perhaps, have some of them answered by a Minister.

I hope that Members will consider this amendment and support these changes to the Budget, which my party proposes.

Mr Ross (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I am pleased to speak in the debate on behalf of the Committee for Justice. As I outlined in the take-note debate on 12 January, the Department of Justice is facing a range of funding pressures in 2015-16. Whilst the Budget is a somewhat cruel necessity, the Committee is concerned that a number of front-line services will not be protected.

One area of particular concern is the resilience challenges facing the PSNI and the Chief Constable's ability to recruit to ensure that he has the necessary number of officers available, and the funding needed to deliver front-line policing, including community policing, and to protect public safety. The provision of an additional £20 million by the Executive, as announced by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on 19 January, specifically to address those pressures is, therefore, very welcome. In my view, it is also appropriate that the money will go to the PSNI and not be used by the Department to address other financial pressures such as legal aid, as has been the case.

While the legal aid pressures which we are very much aware of must be addressed; rather than diverting funding from other areas, it will require radical and innovative approaches. I look forward to considering the detail of the measures that the Minister has indicated he is developing as a matter of urgency to bring down the cost of legal aid within the available budget. I listened carefully to the Minister of Justice during Question Time this afternoon and he said he was going to bring forward such proposals.

The Department submitted 13 bids to the change fund totalling £6·2 million. I am pleased that the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Probation Board received £772,000 for two projects linked to addressing re-offending. One related to under-achieving boys that will support young offenders to change their lives through education, and the other is an intensive resettlement and rehabilitation project. It is disappointing that none of the other projects was successful in attracting funding.

Taking account of the additional allocations, it is clear that the Department will still face substantial pressures in the next financial year. The allocation of available resources will require careful consideration to ensure that front-line services are maintained and decisions to cut funding in one area will not have a negative impact and increase resource requirements in another.

The Committee highlighted to the Minister before Christmas the need to ensure that funding decisions took into account the potential impact on other areas of the criminal justice system to avoid false economies being made. Some examples of funding reductions that are likely to have an adverse impact on the PSNI, the Courts and Tribunals Service and the Prison Service have come to the attention of the Committee. Those include reductions in funding for drug arrest referral and harm reduction centres, funding for organisations such as NIACRO, which provide rehabilitation and resettlement programmes, and funding for the seven voluntary search and rescue services, which carry out vital work with regard to missing persons.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He will know only too well that those voluntary rescue groups, including one in my area — the north east mountain rescue group — do not only work up mountains looking for people who are missing or have been cut off due to weather; they help in cities and towns to find vulnerable people who have mental health issues or are vulnerable in other ways. The police call out those groups for help because the police do not have the capacity to do that work.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Ross: I thank the Member for that intervention. He has been very vocal on those three specific issues at the Committee. He is absolutely right, and that is perhaps one of the best examples of how spending a small amount of money in one area can save money in another area of the budget. That is something that we will want to explore. The Minister, as the Member will know, will be in front of the Committee tomorrow to discuss the final 2015-16 Budget, and we will, no doubt, explore areas such as that with him to ensure that decisions that have been made will have the impact that is required and will not have a negative impact upon other areas of his budget.

Back on 12 January, I indicated that the Department had not yet provided detailed information on the proposed allocations for each spending area or the savings delivery plans in time to inform the consultation on the draft Budget, which was regrettable. The Committee received this information yesterday, together with the results of the consultation, and I note that a number of respondents also raised concerns regarding the lack of information available to assess the budget proposals.

The Committee, in its response to the 2015-16 draft Budget, asked the Minister of Justice to reconsider the proposed budget for the Probation Board, given the potential adverse impact that had been outlined on its ability to deliver front-line services, including the very important work it undertakes on the monitoring of offenders, including sex offenders, who live within our community. The organisation has a relatively small budget and has had to deal with reductions in funding and a rising workload over the past number of years, which leaves very little scope to manoeuvre.

I am also aware of the pressures on the Prison Service and, in particular, the officers working on the front line in each of the prisons. The Committee noted the assurance provided to the Assembly by the Minister during a debate late last year that the current prison officer vacancies would be filled. It will be interesting to see how that commitment will be delivered, given the proposed reduction to the Prison Service budget. During Question Time today, I raised my own concerns about the impact that a staff shortage at Maghaberry is having on prisoner safety and prison officer safety. That is an issue that we need clarity from the Minister on. No doubt, the Committee will want to explore those issues in further detail tomorrow.

In conclusion, it is clear that the Department of Justice faces a difficult budgetary climate in 2015-16, and funding will have to be carefully managed to ensure that key priorities and targets continue to be delivered to the required standard and that front-line services are protected. I commend the Executive for providing an additional £20 million to the PSNI to assist in achieving that.

The Committee will wish to ensure that the budget allocations proposed by the Minister of Justice also support the key priorities and protect front-line services and, as I have already indicated, that short-term funding decisions will not be detrimental to other areas of the budget.

Ms Boyle: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Our achievements in agreeing both this Budget and the Stormont House Agreement should not be underestimated. The unjust, unequal, austerity-driven agenda of the Tory Administration has decimated our local budgets, and it continues to do so.

Britain is waging an unrelenting war on our welfare state, and we in Sinn Féin have stood firm on our objectives to protect the vulnerable and the disabled in our society. We have ensured that vulnerable people, disadvantaged people and people with disabilities are protected and not exploited. We have secured a package over six years of almost £565 million to protect against the potential loss of benefits to individuals and families. We have prioritised anti-poverty measures and a supplementary payment fund to provide protections, specifically to families with children and people with disabilities.

We have secured safeguards for people here who are moving from DLA and for lone parents, and we have protected local people from the bedroom tax. We must do all that we can to protect our people and our economy.

The relentless raiding of the block grant by Westminster is stifling our capacity for economic growth. For every £100 million cut by the Tories, we lose £3·41 million from our local Budget. We are caught in an austerity trap, and our people here are caught in a poverty trap. Gone are the days when poverty was about scarcity; today, poverty exists as a direct result of economic decisions and economic inequality driven by Westminster. Austerity has become the price of the union with Britain. There is no doubt that, collectively, we have to make some difficult decisions in order to live within our Budget, which has been cut by well over £1 billon since 2011.

In spite of all of this, our Budget underpins economic growth and paves the way for us to take control of corporation tax. We are investing in health, job creation, education and skills development. As my party colleague said in his maiden speech, there is a £204 million increase in spending for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that reflects our determination to protect front-line services in the health sector and means a final Budget outcome for health that is some 3·4% higher than last year.

Education has received an extra £64·6 million. This additional money will go a long way in helping to protect front-line services, such as the jobs of teaching and non-teaching staff, and ensuring that important provisions for our youth and early years continue. Sinn Féin was successful in negotiating £500 million over 10 years for our education budget to be spent on shared and integrated education capital projects as part of the Stormont House Agreement. Sinn Féin is proud that health and education will account for 65% of resource expenditure in the North next year. In the final Budget, the Department for Employment and Learning also receives a total of £33·2 million in additional funding.

Against the backdrop of Tory-driven austerity, we in Sinn Féin will continue to work to ensure that those on the lowest incomes get a living wage. We will provide security to public sector workers through our policy of no compulsory redundancies. Our approach to reform is about ensuring that we are able to protect public services in the North on which our people depend and in which they have confidence. Sinn Féin is committed to ensuring that Ireland, North and South, is prosperous, just, fair and equal. We are working for an Ireland in which all people are protected and not exploited. We believe that those who can pay should contribute to our local economy. We believe that Ireland, North and South, should aspire to a strong business sector that pays the high wages that will yield the taxes needed to fulfil the economic and social ambitions of all our people.

I pose a challenge to the House. I ask all of us to work collectively to exploit every avenue to build a progressive and strong local revenue base, one that does not harm but strengthens our people, our competitiveness, our economic security and our economic growth. Westminster promises us only continued poverty. Locally, we can seize the opportunity to do things differently.

Finally, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, I want to address the provision in the final Budget for the Audit Office, the work of which is critical to the operation of the PAC. Last week, I and others were briefed by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the impact that the proposed Budget cuts would have on the Audit Office. A rather bleak picture was painted. Achieving the required reduction of 6% in 2015-16 would inevitably lead to a reduction in staff numbers due to the make-up of the Audit Office budget. That, in turn, would lead to a reduction in services. A reduction in services would almost exclusively affect the value-for money audits that feed the work of the PAC. A reduction in value-for-money reports would restrict the number of inquiries that the PAC could undertake, and that would be detrimental to the public interest and, indeed, the public purse. The proposed budget cuts to the Audit Office would seriously weaken the Assembly's public spending watchdog, the PAC, precisely when it needs to be at its strongest in identifying areas of misspending and excess. On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, I call on the Finance Minister to reconsider his proposed 2015-16 budget allocation to the Audit Office —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Ms Boyle: — and ensure that it is given adequate resources to do its very important job.

Mr Allister: There is nothing prudent, balanced or reasoned about the Budget. It is a Budget that was cobbled together, not informed by good financial management, not informed by a clear, united vision of where the Government want to go but informed only by the necessity of cobbling together something in order to keep the Executive on the rails. Where it takes us is a secondary consideration; it was all about whatever it took to hatch this mishmash of proposals to apply the sticking plaster a little more to Stormont. It is no surprise, then, that it is such a flawed document.

You have just heard from the previous Member to speak — I am sure that it came as a surprise to the Minister — that Sinn Féin negotiated £500 million for shared education. There was our Finance Minister thinking that he had a hand in it, but it seems not. What, of course, Sinn Féin did not tell us was that it has to go hand in glove with the Treasury to spend the money. Maybe the Finance Minister will expand on how that expending arrangement will work. As I read and understand the arrangements, it seems to be that the strings attached to this £500 million very much mean that you have to get the consent of Mother Treasury. It is interesting to see Sinn Féin put itself in that position.

Of course, the net outcome is that this whole Budget is underpinned by huge borrowings that take us to that most unenviable place of being the devolved region with the highest level of borrowing per head of population anywhere — £1·8 billion and rising, as we embrace the folly of uncosted corporation tax and as we embrace the folly of perpetually underwriting no welfare reform and continuing to top up losses there from the block grant. The borrowings are likely to go in only one way. Of course, that will not concern Sinn Féin, because it is happy to bankrupt Northern Ireland. That fits entirely with the mantra of the failed political entity. They have no intention of looking for prudence or good government. They are not in government to give anyone in Northern Ireland good government. It is no surprise, then, that, when they get the opportunity, they are happy to bankrupt Northern Ireland and then Greek-like, with the biggest begging bowl they can find, they will look to the rest of the world and say, "Everyone owes us a living. Everyone must rescue us. Everyone must write off our borrowings that we foolishly ran up". That is the mentality of those who tell us that they shaped the Budget, which is leading us in very much the wrong direction.

Let us think about welfare reform. There is a distinct opaqueness in the Budget about how the new cost of welfare reform will be paid. Some things are pretty clear: we will continue, it seems, to pay 6,600 families in Northern Ireland benefits in excess of the cap of £26,000. We will continue to keep them at the standard to which they have become accustomed on public handouts, and we will do that, it seems, in perpetuity. How many millions, therefore, into the future is that? Who knows? If the cap in GB drops to £23,000, as is anticipated, at current figures, we will sustain undiluted benefits to 12,000 families. How will we pay for it? Well, quite clearly there is no new money from Westminster to pay for it, so it has to come out of the money for health, education, roads and everything in the block grant.

The choice that the Finance Minister and his colleagues have made is to fund all that by prejudicing expenditure on the real needs that are catered for in the block grant. That is an albatross that has been fitted around the neck of Northern Ireland for years to come. That is along with the unspecified cost of reducing corporation tax, which again will raid the block grant to an unspecified but, nonetheless, huge amount. Yet we have the silliness of an Enterprise Minister telling us that lower corporation tax will put £3,000 in wages into everyone's pocket — such patent, unproven nonsense. That is some of the spin that attaches to this. Here we have corporation tax being negotiated, but, when you ask the Finance Minister, as I have, to tell us the Department's estimate of how much was raised in corporation tax in Northern Ireland for the 2013-14 financial year, the answer is, "Sorry, we don't know". How then, Minister, did you negotiate in any informed way with the Treasury in the absence of such essential data? That is a further reason why I think that the whole idea around corporation tax is ill thought-out and ill produced. We will reap pretty horrendous consequences, I suspect, in the further raiding of the block grant.

This is a Budget of the Executive. But is it? We are in a unique position in the western democratic world where you can be in government, it seems, and yet vote against the very Budget of that Government —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Would the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Allister: It is unthinkable and unheard of anywhere else and indicates, of course, the absolute folly and stupidity of the system of government.

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

Mr Irwin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development): I speak as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and will represent the views of that Committee. I start by saying that the ARD Committee has just left a meeting with the Minister at 2.00 pm today to discuss the DARD consultation on the final budget allocations for DARD. I shall therefore outline a few issues that the Committee explored with the Minister today.

First, I want to raise the issue of the DARD relocation project. It is proposed that, in the final 2015-16 Budget, DARD will receive an additional £1 million of resource for its HQ relocation. From a written briefing that the Committee received from the Department on the Budget I note that the consultation responses supported the relocation of Forest Service, fisheries division and Rivers Agency but were divided on the relocation of DARD headquarters to Ballykelly. Those opposed to the move appear to have the opinion that the decentralisation of jobs should not be prioritised, given the constrained and difficult financial position. There is now another factor to consider in this, and that is the recent announcement in the media regarding the decision by the Executive to reduce the number of Departments and the possibility that some functions of DOE will move to DARD. As a Committee, we raised this very issue in our response to the draft Budget and discussed it with the Minister earlier today.

The Committee noted that farmers are subject to a range of field inspections relating to a wide range of subject areas by both DARD and other government officials. The Committee was of the opinion that there is an opportunity to drive efficiencies in the area with other organisations and bodies with an inspecting role, such as NIEA, having their functions transferred to DARD.

The Committee will want to know whether those proposed transfers of functions will be taken account of in the DARD relocation programme.

Another further change to the DARD budget is the additional £1 million of resource funding that was received for Going for Growth. My understanding is that most of the allocation will go to the farm business improvement scheme and that the focus will be on helping farmers to complete the business planning process. As the final farm business improvement scheme will involve the possibility of a grant of up to a quarter of a million pounds, the Committee will want to see proper preparation and strong planning by DARD and farmers. That is why I have proposed that we hear more about that aspect from DARD officials in the near future.

I also note that DARD has received £1 million in resources from the change fund to allow for integration of control information for EU area-based schemes. Recently, the Committee was pleased to see information that indicated that the disallowance penalties imposed by the EU had been reduced, in part due to the better controls that have been put in place by DARD. That is another step in getting our controls up to an acceptable level, thus reducing the substantial disallowance penalties that were imposed by EU auditors.

The most important issue for the Committee is that front-line services to farmers and wider rural communities should not be affected. The Committee indicated that at least a continuation of the current level of service regarding payments to farmers was its first and main priority. In exploring that further, the Committee questioned the Minister on the proposals for staff reductions and received assurances that the reduction in staff numbers would not affect the payment timetable.

I mentioned staff numbers, and there has been much discussion about the Stormont House Agreement and the reduction in Civil Service posts. DARD has set itself a target of achieving 300 fewer jobs this year, and the Committee had some concerns about, first, its ability to achieve that level of reductions in one year and, secondly, its lack of planning for what would happen if it did not achieve that. DARD's original plan was to lose 300 staff and save £5·6 million. I raised that point with the Minister when we met earlier.

The Committee noted that administration costs had risen between 2011-12 and 2014-15. When the Committee questioned officials on that, it noted that the increase appeared to be attributable to two causes: increasing pay inflation and pension costs; and increasing staff levels. The Committee agreed that it was not content with that and would urge the Minister to ensure that, notwithstanding the reduction of 300 staff posts, a very close watching brief be kept on administration costs to ensure that they are reduced immediately.

The Committee noted that the Minister has confirmed that the tackling rural poverty and social isolation programme, as with the other PFG targets, would remain a priority. The Committee considered the budget cut that the programme will be faced with in 2015-16 and noted that there was provision for £1·7 million of capital funding. The Committee questioned the usefulness of capital funding in that programme.

Given the range of cuts expected across the wider public sector, the Committee encourages the Department to ensure that other Departments remain committed to the actions in the rural White Paper and that those other Departments, in making their budget decisions, take rural proofing into account.

The final major issue that I want to cover is the new IT system: the Northern Ireland food animal information system (NIFAIS). The Committee has had a full and frank discussion on NIFAIS with officials on a number of occasions and made its view very well known. The Committee is not convinced that the NIFAIS programme, in its current format, represents value for money, and it remains to be convinced that what is proposed by DARD is not a Rolls-Royce model. I was interested to note that the Committee's concerns are shared by others and that the cost of the NIFAIS programme was raised during the DARD consultation. We raised that issue with the Minister earlier and urged her to revisit the programme to ensure that it is fit for purpose and does not have unnecessary elements.

Ms Lo: I will make some comments on behalf of the Audit Committee. It is important that we clarify the position in respect of the provision for the Audit Office, which, according to the Executive's Budget, has been reduced by 5%. No one should be in any doubt about the role that the Audit Office has played and continues to play in making efficiencies. First, it has already made substantial savings. Since 2009-2010, the Audit Committee has reduced the Audit Office requirement by 14·5% in cash terms and 25% in real terms. How many Departments have made such savings? The Audit Office has been ahead of the game in making efficiencies. If the Minister now wants to compare the Audit Office to Departments, he needs to acknowledge what has already been done. Secondly, the Committee has made it perfectly clear that the Audit Office should continue to pursue efficiencies and cost reductions wherever possible. Likewise, the Audit Office has said that it, too, wishes to build on the savings that it has achieved over the past five years.

However, it describes the cuts set out in the Executive Budget as unmanageable in 2015-16. Finally, the Executive’s Budget does not and cannot pre-empt the Committee’s role of agreeing the estimate for the Audit Office. The Audit Office is entirely independent of DFP, the Executive and their Ministers. Therefore, we, the Audit Committee, will agree its estimate, just as we do every year. In doing so, we will explore every avenue for achieving further savings. We will, of course, have regard to the advice of DFP and PAC in carrying out that function, but, ultimately, we will have to decide how much that estimate should be. We do not intend to agree an estimate that will damage the crucial service that the office provides. Now, more than ever, we need its expertise in identifying efficiencies.

The Audit Office's value-for-money programme saves the public purse over £20 million every year. Does anybody think that our public finances would be better off if we stopped funding this work? Of course not. The Audit Office is re-evaluating all its budget lines. We will look carefully at its proposals, and we shall ensure that all realistic and sensible efficiencies are realised. We are confident that we can reduce the NIAO’s estimate next year, subject to the provision of a voluntary exit scheme using the restructuring funds available to the Executive.

The Audit Office provides us with a vital service that saves all of us millions. In demanding that this service be delivered as efficiently as possible, we must not lose sight of what we would lose if we failed to provide it with adequate resources.

I will now speak as the Alliance Party's environment spokesperson. As we know, the Department of the Environment is getting the biggest cut of all. Since the last budget proposal, the only reprieve is the £1·9 million derating grant, which will go directly to local government. The Department gets no additional finance. I am gravely concerned as to how the Department will be able to carry out all its functions if cutting one third of its workforce is necessary to balance the books.

I am deeply worried about the workings of the proposed voluntary exit scheme, which is open to all posts. Given that the majority of the staff in the Department are in professional or technical grades, that could result in a disproportionate loss of such staff, depleting the Department of its knowledge-based expertise. That could have additional long-term costs if such expertise had to be bought in later on. Furthermore, the redundancy scheme is unlikely to be operational immediately; it will take time to achieve savings. There is no guarantee that sufficient numbers will opt for redundancy, especially given the lack of available jobs elsewhere.

The Alliance Party fears the consequences of the Department failing to promote road safety education efficiently, particularly in view of the rising level of road fatalities and the imminent implementation of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, which will require publicity to raise awareness about the many changes to driving. The Department relies on the voluntary and community sector to carry out many projects on the ground on its behalf, and it is expected that a number of grants programmes will be cut. Such cuts will be a false economy, as so many of the organisations deploy volunteers and are great value for money. We will also see job losses in the sector when funding is withdrawn from existing projects.

After paying staff salaries, the Department of the Environment is left with a meagre £1·2 million to run all its services. It is incredible that public funds, which protect our environment for now and for many future generations, will be cut. I cannot stress —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Ms Lo: — how disastrous that will be. The Stormont House Agreement committed to a Budget, but I cannot support this Budget when so much about our environment is at risk.

Mr McNarry: I appreciate this opportunity. Some weeks ago, the Executive were in turmoil. They were dubbed as being unfit for purpose, yet here we are with the same Executive — there is no change — up and ready and allegedly fit for purpose on the back of economic direct rule. It is a Tory-led Budget, contrived with the DUP, Sinn Féin and the Treasury. The rollovers have hung their hat on borrowing £700 million to put 20,000 people out of work, but what of the toughies — they seem sparse in their seats — who have backed the Tories into putting 20,000 people out of work? What of the toughies holding out for better terms, more money and no welfare tax? So much for their bravado. They will implement and vote for welfare tax, they got lousy terms for borrowing and they have put the whole country in hock for the next 10 years.

The same incompetent ministerial collective is attempting to crawl out of the financial black hole it created by plunging us into a debt-ridden future. Maybe somebody is thinking, "Well, what would UKIP have done?" My answer is this: we were not invited, even though they called it "all-party talks". That is the reason why this a Tory/DUP/Sinn Féin plan. It is a plan A without, it seems, a plan B.

What of the others from that fabulous five — the three amigos? They did not sign up to anything, but they did not resign. They tell us that there were talks, and then they tell us in the same breath that they were not at those talks. That sums up their integrity, so I am not going to waste any more time on them.

That soothing spin doctor's term "a voluntary exit scheme" is brutal. Five thousand workers will be knocked out of a job every year for the next four years. Is it social engineering? Is it discrimination built on the premise of age, not ability? Is it a Budget attacking the over-50s for wanting to stay at work? There are 60,000 unemployed out there now, so what is the plan to find them work and which end of the queue do the voluntary exits join?

Years ago, I warned of a black hole in our Budget.

I warned that the receipts assumed in the Budget projections were simply not coming in and that departmental spending was going out of control. I warned about relying on Departments' efficiency in spending their allocations and about the brazen use of the in-year monitoring process, and I warned about the lack of control at the centre over indefensible spending on what were and are pet ministerial projects.

I have to say that, resulting from their negligence, Ministers are talking of pain for workers today as if it were some kind of toothache. So far, there appear to be no realisable proposals in the Budget and no specific targets on asset sales or revenue intakes. Assuming that the Welfare Reform Bill reaches us before the Budget Bill does, where are the drilled-out, bottom-line calculations on the new welfare fund that the Budget will finance? They are not there.

Not only is this a Budget for departmental trade-offs, it is a Budget for a trade-off on welfare reform. Shame on those who will do it. Some have called it a Budget to catch up on Tory cuts that were implemented elsewhere. I wish that that were the only reason. This is a duck-and-dive Budget, with wide-eyed boys willing to put extra stress and strain on those in work and to pull apart those who are out of work. Frankly, it is not a Budget for a Government fit for purpose. This is a Budget of desperation to cover up years of bad departmental accounting. This is a Budget of reckless disregard for the future. Do you know what? It is exactly what the Tories asked for, and you have given it to them. They have got what they wanted. Frankly, people no longer trust this Executive, and you will hear about that later.

Mr Anderson: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the motion, specifically on amendment No 1. I have to say that I am totally flabbergasted by the amendment from the Ulster Unionist Party. If that is the level of financial expertise in that party, I am glad that it is not in the driving seat with our country's finances. The Ulster Unionist Party amendment serves only one useful purpose, which is to expose their real agenda on the Budget, for it is fairly obvious that they simply want to move some money around so that they can put a small fig leaf over the total mismanagement of the Department that they are supposed to be running. The Ulster Unionist Party is so desperate to get its hands on some extra money that it is prepared to rob the social investment fund, which does sterling work right across our community.

I am greatly concerned that, if the amendment is passed, vital funds will be lost to key schemes in my Upper Bann constituency. At a time when the social investment fund is beginning to roll out, with a number of projects approved, today we have the Ulster Unionist Party trying to pull the carpet from under its feet. This is £26 million of funding. Major projects in my constituency, such as the YMCA in Lurgan, Banbridge Orange Hall, Seapatrick parish church in Banbridge and Corcrain Orange Hall in Portadown, could all be brought to an end if amendment No 1 were to succeed. All as a direct result of the Ulster Unionist Party's Budget proposals. Those are all community-led projects that go right to the heart of our communities. There are others in the pipeline that would be under threat as well and unable to get the funding that they need so much. Much hard work has been put into those worthwhile projects, but, at the stroke of a pen, the Ulster Unionist Party wants to wipe them out.

I know that Mrs Dobson is not in the Chamber today, but maybe the Upper Bann Ulster Unionist MLA Mrs Dobson, who was formerly Minister Kennedy's APS, would like to explain the fiasco to my constituents and say why she and her party propose to scupper those very worthwhile projects, which have the ability and potential to transform our community throughout Upper Bann. I am sure that she will read Hansard, and maybe sometime she will give an explanation.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Of course, with every investment fund — even the rural development programme rolled out from Europe and administered through DARD — it takes time to administer the fund and roll it out in order to get real, meaningful funding on the ground in communities. Does the Member agree that this smacks of big-house unionism? Some things in that party can never change.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Anderson: Thank you. I thank the Member for that intervention. I certainly agree.

We are talking about rural development funding. I have just left today's Agriculture Committee meeting, where I asked the Minister what lessons can be learned in relation to getting funding out quickly on to the ground where it is most needed. The social investment fund is no different. Those who have been working behind the scenes to roll it out have been doing tremendous work, and we now see it coming to fruition. I hope that it will continue to roll out.

There has been comment today by, I think, Mr Swann and Mr Cree. I believe that what they were trying to do on the £26 million was to gloss over the fact that it is not money coming out of the Budget, but I am sure that the Minister will clarify later that it is money that is in the Budget and that would be taken out by the amendment, which would, at the end of the day, possibly scupper those projects.

In the amendment there is a proposal to give £18 million — if I read it right — to the DRD. Even if the DRD does get that £18 million by robbing, as I see it, the social investment fund, there is no guarantee that one extra street light will be repaired or one additional road gritted as a result. It would just be another £18 million lost to key projects like those that I have identified in my constituency. It would be £18 million that would disappear into the black hole of the DRD.

There are many aspects to the Budget, of which the social investment fund is only a small part. However, it is significant and vital right across the community. Even to suggest its removal and drag money through the back door of the DRD in the form of the amendment is quite pitiful, to say the least, and shows the complete incompetence of the Ulster Unionist Party, whose only motive is to cover its failure in the DRD portfolio.

Mr McCallister: Most of the comments during the debate have been directed at the Executive and are demanding that we have some strategic direction. I agree with many of those calls, but the difficulty you have with that and that, I suspect, the Minister has is that he has no way of making any of that happen. He has no control over it. He is not in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some all-powerful government body so that he can coordinate government policy or put pressure on Departments to spend. That is the problem that the Minister has when he goes to deliver any of this.

We hear calls from the various parties about strategic plans and strategic direction. When we have some of that and we have Transforming Your Care, we then hear from the Chair of the Health Committee that it seems to have stalled and we are looking to the OECD and Sir Liam Donaldson doing a review. I listened to colleagues talking about that right throughout. Consider Mr Allister's point about the debt burden that the Executive will now carry. I listened to Mr Ó Muilleoir's maiden speech, in which he congratulated the Greeks. The thing that we will have most in common with the Greeks is that they are the most indebted country in Europe and we will be the most indebted part of the United Kingdom. Is that something that we have the ability to sustain? Have we the collective Cabinet-style responsibility that we need to drive the reforms that the Minister talks about?

As I said, at no point have I heard any semblance of collective responsibility from anyone in the Executive or from any member of a party in the Executive. I happily say that I felt one of the best contributions to be that of Judith Cochrane of the Alliance Party, who made the case that we might need to look at revenue raising and that we needed this reform. However, again, it comes back to the fact that the Alliance Party is in the Executive, so it is part of this almighty mess. The Alliance Party was at the Stormont House negotiations, and it still sits on the Executive.

There are parties in the Executive that feel that they are minority parties, not properly loved, cared for, nurtured or listened to. They delude themselves and do themselves a great disservice. Many of us have heard this great line from colleagues whose party sits on the Executive: "It is different for our Minister, who does great work in the Executive. Imagine what it would be like if they were not there? Our Minister does great work in DOE or Justice or Regional Development". I am sure that they might do bits and pieces of good things, but that is not at all the challenge that faces them. It is about getting a collective strategic approach and a Programme for Government that means something and that every Minister puts their shoulder to the wheel to deliver.

The Finance Minister has to have some way of delivering on the public sector reform agenda. Mr McNarry pointed out that he has tried this, and his predecessors in Finance have tried it, right back to when Peter Robinson was Finance Minister with PEDU. Minister Hamilton is trying it now with the public sector reform division, but he has no way of delivering on any of the issues. Some 20,000 public sector workers are to go, all to be done by voluntary redundancies, with no open strategy as to how that will be achieved. What will be the consequences if it is not achieved? That is the problem that the Minister will face. How will he get into that? Without any collective buy-in, when this Minister or any other hits any difficult decision, parties will defend their own Budget lines rather than defend the outcome.

What do we hear when Minister Farry talks about the challenges in teacher training? We hear about the need to defend St Mary's University College, and the sectarian card is immediately played. That will continue until we run out of road. That is why the UK Government stood very firm —

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

Mr McCallister: — with the parties and demanded that public sector reform had to happen. In the meantime, we are borrowing and mortgaging. On a rate that we do not know what we are paying for it, we are mortgaging our children's futures —

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

Mr McCallister: — on the basis that the Minister will be fit to deliver public sector reform.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member's time is up. Robin Swann will make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1.

Mr Swann: A lot of quotations have been cited today. One of Churchill's is:

That is what a lot of the debate on the Budget has been about. Members from the DUP made reference to the amount specified in our amendment:

That is another quotation — from Nigel Dodds MP, when the DUP proposed an amendment to the 1999-2002 Budget for a total of £12 million. So there are precedents for this.

A number of DUP Members referred to and laboured on the social investment fund. Mr Anderson explained that the Minister will tell me why after I have finished. The Minister has 40 minutes and I have five, so I will not give way to him. Are some DUP Members really saying that the unallocated social investment fund is more important than extra funding for our hospitals? The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service is warning that it could be forced to lay off 100 firefighters. Is unallocated SIF money more important than that? Mr Ross and Mr Frew put the case for the voluntary search and rescue services, with Mr Ross saying that a small amount of money can make an awful difference. That is where we are coming from.

Mr Givan referred to the opportunity for amendments to be used for political point-scoring. I will give him credit — he did not. Unfortunately, I cannot give the same credit to Mr McCrea or Mr Anderson, who took the opportunity of this debate on a very serious issue to do exactly that.

Mr I McCrea: I stated facts.

Mr Swann: And the facts will speak for themselves. One of the things that comes through in our amendment is our concern about Ballykelly. At my last meeting as a member of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee — a number of Members here today were also on it — I pushed the Minister and the permanent secretary on the business case for the relocation to Ballykelly. I am not sure whether I heard this correctly, but I thought that the current Chair of the Committee said today that it had decided that it was against the moving of DARD headquarters to Ballykelly. I will check Hansard afterwards, but that was definitely what it sounded like from down here. The Committee was concerned that the timing and the finances were not right. It is amazing that, if that is so, the Committee has now taken on part of our amendment.

Moving on to the contributions from the Sinn Féin Members, I congratulate Máirtín Ó Muilleoir on his maiden speech. He said that he was in favour of this Budget. A few days ago, and probably a few hours ago, he was outside criticising it for taking away the small college premia, which, as I said to the Employment and Learning Minister, will signal the death knell for St Mary's and Stranmillis.

Mr McKay said that it was a positive Budget.

Mr F McCann: Will the Member give way?

Mr Swann: I have only five minutes, Fra.

Mr McKay said that it was a great Budget and that we were moving forward. Sinn Féin would have removed 15% from MLAs' pay and would have removed the allowance for Committee Chairs, but there was no amendment, Mr McKay, to find out how that would have played out with other Members.

Mr McKay: Will the Member give way?

Mr Swann: I have only a couple of minutes left. If I have time left at the end, I will.

Michaela Boyle said what a great achievement the Budget was. She said that everyone in the Chamber should rally round and show to the wider world what a great place we are and how we can agree. Then, she finished by saying how much more money was needed for the Audit Office and that the Budget weakened the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee. The Minister's statement referred to that body, when he dismissed its attitude because it had not made any attempt whatsoever to make any cost savings.

At the beginning , Mike Nesbitt said that there were claims, and it has been proven —

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

Mr Swann: — that the cuts to our Budget were known in June 2013. It should have been made clear then. The Executive and DFP had the opportunity then to put in place these cuts and the reductions to Departments, rather than doing so in-year and in-house.

Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): I begin by thanking Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been useful. I especially thank those who supported the 2015-16 Budget. I tried listening to those who spoke against it and noted several of the comments that they made. In the 40 minutes or so allotted to me, I will attempt to respond to as many of those as I possibly can. I hope that, given that short time, there will be an understanding across the House that I will not be able to respond to every single point raised by Members.

I will go almost in reverse order. I will come to what I described in my opening comments as the very courageous amendment that was put forward in the names of Members from the Ulster Unionist Party, but I want to go in reverse and deal with Mr McCallister's amendment first, if I might. I do not disagree with a lot the sentiment in the wording of the amendment or, indeed, in many of the comments. I am sure that the Member will appreciate and understand that I disagree with several of the comments that he made, but I could agree with the general thrust of where he was headed.

There are several points that I want to make in response to that amendment. The first is around the idea of noting "with caution". It is almost those two words that would prevent me from supporting the amendment, which asks us to note with caution the flexibility to borrow to pay for the voluntary exit scheme. We are all handling the voluntary exit scheme with caution. It is a very radical initiative that is being taken by the Executive to move forward with reducing headcount and the number of posts in the broad public sector. Some 215,000 people are employed across Northern Ireland in the public sector, and we are trying to reduce that by 20,000 posts, through a variety of means, including, predominantly, a voluntary exit scheme. That is a very radical and very ambitious plan, and it needs to be handled with a degree of sensitivity and caution. I can give the assurance, not just to Mr McCallister but to the House, that, as we take that very serious piece of work forward, it will be dealt with with sensitivity and in a cautious manner.

Mr Byrne: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Hamilton: No, I will not. I am in the middle of a point that I wish to make to Mr McCallister and, indeed, to the whole House.

With the VES, the operative word, as Mr Weir said, is "voluntary". Mr McCallister and others referred to it as a voluntary redundancy scheme. It is not a voluntary redundancy scheme. It is a voluntary exit scheme and there is a distinct and important difference between them. I brought a paper to the Executive outlining the early-stage work that is required for a voluntary exit scheme to move forward within the timetable that we and Departments need it to move forward in, which is that it opens in early March and the first tranche of people will leave the public sector in and around August/September. The business case on that is being completed. In fact, I think that it has been completed. The Executive agreed last week that the business case would be brought back to the Executive before it gets final agreement and moves forward. So, I hope that that illustrates the degree of caution that the Executive are exercising around that. Whilst we are committed, as parties in the Executive, to taking forward the voluntary exit scheme, we are handling it with a degree of sensitivity. There are lots of issues around where people will come from, what grades they are at and what areas of the public sector they come from. It needs to be handled with a huge degree of sensitivity and, indeed, caution, to use that word.

We have developed the scheme as one. I think that the Member asked whether five parties approached the Government around our plans for reform and restructuring the public sector, and the answer is yes. Whilst the Stormont House Agreement was published on 23 December, I think that the more significant work was done and agreed on 19 December, when the five Executive parties went to the Government with their proposals for reforming and restructuring the public sector.

I understand that there is a lot of focus on a voluntary exit scheme because it is so big, so radical and so ambitious, but there are other facets to it as well, including the extension of shared services across the public sector. It includes the OECD review, which the Member cited. Whilst he has been critical of that OECD review, I think that we should welcome the fact that a prestigious organisation like the OECD wishes to carry out and conduct its first ever public governance review in a sub-national and regional Government and that it has chosen Northern Ireland to do that. The timetable for completing that was, in part, dictated by the fact that the Executive took some time to agree to proceed with a review by the OECD. We took that decision back in June, and the timetable has been very much dictated by a formula that the OECD has in place and that it has used in other member states. So, it is not a timetable of my making.

Of course, we have also agreed to move forward — again, the Executive have signed off on early stages of this — with the reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine. A range of Executive agreements on various facets of reforming and restructuring the public sector go well beyond a voluntary exit scheme. Last week, we also agreed that a review group will be established to oversee the public-sector transformation fund, which will be used to fund the voluntary exit scheme. Beyond that, the review group will assess reform and share experiences from one Department right across Departments. That work will be ongoing. I think that the group is due to meet at the tail end of this week, so that work has already started.

I appreciate and understand that Mr McCallister, like many Members, will be unsighted of much of that and certainly of the detail. I am content to explore with Executive colleagues and with their agreement ways in which progress against that report might regularly be made public. It is important to do that.

I am very content with the current position of public-sector reform. We will all have different definitions of what should be reformed and what our primary, secondary and tertiary focus should be, but, having started out 18 months ago talking about the need to reform the public sector, I think that it is quite gratifying to hear Members from different parts of the House now openly talking about and discussing the subject of public-sector reform. It has moved from being seen as a bit of a sideshow or a project that was nice and desirable but not important to one that is front and centre.

I understand the cynicism. The Member is far too young to be as cynical as he is, but I can understand his cynicism about taking forward a big project like this. The absolute and essential nature of this — living within our means on a sustainable basis — means that we have to progress with reforming and restructuring the public sector as the Executive have started to do. There is no finite list to be completed. Other reforms can be added over time as circumstances dictate. I hope that I can assure the Member that the sentiment and spirit of his amendment are already being embraced, not just by me but by the Executive as a whole.

Mr McKay: I thank the Minister for giving way. I welcome the fact that the VES business case will be signed off by the Executive and the assurances that you have given. We are happy to support an unamended motion. The Minister made a point about sensitivity on the scheme. Does he agree that not only should the Executive and the main parties be sensitive about the issue but all parties should, because it is not a compulsory scheme? It is a voluntary scheme. Whatever number of workers want to sign up for it, it is up to them. Political parties should not deliberately put out any misinterpretation of that to make political points.

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his points, particularly the final one. Some people are doing a lot of scaremongering, undoubtedly for party political reasons. This is a voluntary exit scheme. It will be open, not for a short period but for four years. There is no scheme of any kind for the headcount that we are considering. It is a voluntary exit scheme and a voluntary exit scheme alone that is being taken forward by the Executive.

I will turn to other Members' comments. I will start with Judith Cochrane's comments, which were declared by the aforementioned Mr McCallister to be the best contribution of the day. I am sure that he excluded himself from that. I have to say to the Member in respect of her brave crusade in raising the Alliance Party's support for what are, of course, tax increases whilst being couched as revenue raising. I was at the Executive; others were at the Executive. We all heard Alliance Party Ministers calling for concessionary fares to be stopped. That is not scaremongering; that is what was raised, along with the introduction of water charges, and, to be fair to Alliance Party Members, they on the record as supporting those charges for a long time. They on the record for a long time as supporting significant increases in the regional rate. They also seek us to look at and scrap other subsidies, as they are sometimes referred to, or super-parity measures, which include concessionary fares.

As I said last week, I am very proud of the fact that, even in our difficulties over the past number of years, we have maintained the lowest household taxes in the whole of the United Kingdom.

That is something that I am proud of, and it is something that others in the House are proud of. I do not believe that, in the times we are in, when people still face the pressures that they do, it is right to ask them to pay more, whether through water charges, increased rates or taking away things that many people rely on. The best part about it is that the Member herself does not even agree with her party's policy. On 12 January, at a take-note debate on the draft Budget in this House, she said:

I agree. It is the job of all Ministers in the Executive, supported by the reform and restructuring plan, to ensure that we operate as efficiently and as effectively as possible. It is only at that stage that we could even contemplate increasing local taxes.

Dominic Bradley told the House that more change was required to the Budget, but no amendment was proposed by the SDLP. That is something that I will come back to with other parties. There is an opportunity to amend the Budget, which needs change in his view, and yet no amendment came forward. I am well aware of what the SDLP is against — they keep telling us — but I have no idea what they are for. They are against the Budget, but not an idea came forward from their Minister, Mark Durkan, in the Executive. Not a single amendment was made by him, and not a single amendment was put forward by the SDLP today. I have already addressed Mr McCallister's amendment, and I will come to the Ulster Unionist Party amendment, which has many fatal flaws. However, at least they came forward with an amendment; at least they put forward an alternative suggestion, something that the SDLP failed to do.

I congratulate Máirtín Ó Muilleoir on his maiden speech. It was not the first time that I have heard from him, but it was the first time I have heard from him in the House. When he said he was going to start with a quotation from Lenin, I worried that it was the great Marxist, because we are well used to Sinn Féin Members taking Marxist positions in the House, although, as Minister Kennedy once said, they sound much more like Groucho Marx than Karl Marx.

I am cautious about saying this: I too have a favourite Pope Francis quotation — not words you would expect to hear echoing from this side of the Chamber:

I was glad to hear Máirtín Ó Muilleoir focus on the economic aspects of the Budget. This is a Budget that is very focused on underpinning economic growth, and I am glad that he welcomed the progress that has been made on corporation tax. We have also made progress on welfare reform, while mitigating its worst elements. That will hopefully allow — this is something that has often been missed in the debate — for the many aspects of welfare reform that are good and positive and will help people to get back into work, giving them the dignity that was talked about.

Michaela Boyle also had a quotation. I started by quoting famous people, and now I am quoting Members. She said:

Let us not forget, Mr Speaker, that the union with Britain brings us almost £10 billion a year in the form of a top-up, a subvention above and beyond what we are able as a region of the United Kingdom to raise ourselves. That is £10 billion that we would not be able to provide ourselves and which the Irish Republic in its perilous state certainly could not provide to the people of Northern Ireland either. So whilst one has to take, because of the nature of the state that we are in, the rough with the smooth in the Union, it is the £10 billion a year subvention that helps Northern Ireland out greatly.

The Member also made comments in her capacity as Chair of PAC, comments that were also made by Anna Lo. She referred to the Budget as my Budget and said that I should review my Budget and what I have proposed for the Northern Ireland Audit Office. It is also, I remind her, Sinn Féin's Budget. The broader point, though, that I would make to her and Ms Lo, who raised concerns about the allocation to the Northern Ireland Audit Office, is why it above all others should be exempt from the difficulties, the reductions and the adjustments that Departments face. Having spoken in favour of the Audit Office getting more money, Ms Lo then makes comments about the cuts that have been placed on the Department of the Environment, the Committee of which she is Chair. You cannot have it both ways: if you want to protect and boost the Audit Office's budget, you will find that that money has to come from somewhere. If we had continued to protect that budget, we would have found that that money had to come from the very budget that she also wants to see boosted, which is that of Department of the Environment. You cannot have it all ways.

I will turn now to Mr Allister's comments on welfare reform. He asked about the lack of detail in the various aspects that will come forward. I have enough on my plate; I have enough to worry about. I will leave the detail to the Social Development Minister at Consideration Stage, which, I believe, is scheduled for a couple of weeks' time. Mr Allister will recall that the 2015-16 draft Budget allocated some £70 million back in November for a fund to mitigate the worst of welfare reform. Given what was agreed between the parties in the run-up to the Stormont House Agreement, the full cost of that package of measures for next year, 2015-16, was lower than £70 million. It was around £50 million; in fact, I think it was £54 million. As the penalties are still in and the legislation will not pass until the midway point of the year, we hope, I am hopeful that we can get that back, and we have built in to the Budget an overcommitment on that basis. Around £25 million or £26 million has been set aside in the Budget to pay for that package of measures for half a year.

There will be a cost in future years, but it is significant that Mr Allister seems to be opposed to us using our resources and the power of devolution to mitigate the worst of welfare reform. I hope that he is not arguing that everything is fine and dandy with how welfare reform would roll out in Northern Ireland if it was unadulterated or unchanged. Whilst I have long accepted that we needed to implement welfare reform in Northern Ireland, we always agreed, as a party, that it needed to be changed to reflect Northern Ireland's particular needs. That is why the previous Minister for Social Development and the current Minister worked aggressively with their counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions to get flexibilities in place that would suit Northern Ireland. If that is not the Member's position and he thinks that we should not mitigate the worst of welfare reform — irrespective of where we are coming from on the issue, that has at least united all the parties, certainly those in the Executive and those that were involved in the talks — I am happy to let him clarify that.

Mr Allister: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Hamilton: Yes.

Mr Allister: Will the Minister indicate whether it is now the Executive's position that, in perpetuity, they will continue to fund benefits above the cap level in the rest of the United Kingdom? That is the point that I was making about the albatross that we are creating to put around our necks. I think there were sensible reforms to be made about the bedroom tax etc that had to be ameliorated, but what we now seem to have committed to and what I have issue with is a far more extensive and long-lasting commitment to keep topping up benefits at a level that will not be sustained in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr Hamilton: I am glad that the Member has clarified his position somewhat. He will have more opportunity when the Bill comes back to the House. He will see at that stage that many of the aspects of the package that we have agreed are not in perpetuity but have a lifespan. He will see that in clearer detail when my colleague Minister Storey comes back to the House in a week or so. I am glad that he has clarified that he wants to see the worst aspects of welfare reform ameliorated and mitigated by a package of measures. Of course, that runs contrary to his broader political position, which is that he wants to see this place disappear. He wants to see a restoration of direct rule. That would have meant welfare reform, unadulterated, being forced on Northern Ireland by direct rule Ministers. That is what would have happened if the Member had his way. In many different ways, that would, of course, be bad for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Allister: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Hamilton: No. I will turn to a point made by Mr Allister and, indeed, by Mr McNarry about borrowing. I run the risk of repeating myself from yesterday, but there are several points that I wish to make about our position on borrowing. The capacity that we have to borrow up to £200 million a year up to a limit of £3 billion is the envy of others. A number of weeks ago, I met the Welsh Finance Minister, who is permitted to borrow only up to £400 million. She wants to borrow significantly more than that to invest in infrastructure in Wales. The borrowing that we have has ensured investment in infrastructure projects that would otherwise not have been funded or not have happened. Roads, schools and whatever else would not have happened had it not been for our ability to borrow that money.

We were also able to capitalise the costs of two significant things: the settlement of the Northern Ireland Civil Service equal pay claim and the rescue package for the Presbyterian Mutual Society. I am presuming a lot about Mr Allister, which is a dangerous game to play, but I presume that he was in favour of the rescue package for the Presbyterian Mutual Society. That was financed through borrowing that he now lambastes. That was how we financed that essential rescue package for savers in the PMS, and he now attacks the means by which we were able to help those savers out.

Mr Frew: It is easy.

Mr Hamilton: Mr Frew is right: it is easy for him. Mr Allister can just sit and object. He can be in favour of one thing one day and against it the next from his lonely position on the Back Benches.

The flexibility to borrow £700 million to pay for a voluntary exit scheme puts a slightly different complexion on borrowing moving forward. That borrowing of £700 million will, it is estimated, yield savings of around half a billion pounds by the end of the scheme. That is not a one-off half a billion pounds but half a billion pounds of recurring savings — every year. That puts an entirely different complexion on it. If we were borrowing it for just infrastructure and having to repay it, we might be in a position in which we wanted to limit what we were borrowing. However, we are borrowing to save a significant amount and in a way that is affordable. The Member can look at the Stormont House Agreement if he wishes. It costs us roughly £3 million to £4 million a year to service £100 million. It is affordable and provides us with much-needed finance for the voluntary exit scheme and infrastructure, just as it has in the past allowed us to have essential moneys for investment in infrastructure and to rescue the PMS.

Mr McNarry also had the opportunity to propose an amendment to this awful Budget that he spoke about, but he did not bother to attempt to put one forward.

I now turn to what I have already described as the very courageous amendment by the Ulster Unionist Party. Before I get on to the more significant point about the social investment fund, which I have a lot to say about, I will make a couple of other points. One concerns the consultation. I do not know how that party thinks consultations operate. I do not think that they understand how consultations are dealt with by those receiving consultation responses. The consultation opened on, I think, 3 November, when I made my draft Budget statement in the House. The first response was received that afternoon. Several came the day after and the day after that, right through the two months that the consultation was open. What we do not do is keep those responses sealed in an envelope or box, put them in a corner or lock them in a room and, almost like a Christmas present, say that we cannot open them until 29 December when the consultation ends. They are opened, looked at and analysed immediately they come in.

There were thousands of consultation responses. There were 20,000 to the overall consultation. It is interesting to note, because it is relevant to where the Ulster Unionist Party wants to spend the money that comes from the social investment fund, that a very low number of responses raised any concerns about the Department for Regional Development's budget. Out of 32,500 responses to departmental budget spending plans, on top of the 20,000 to the overall Budget consultation, only 57 were on the Department for Regional Development. It is also worth noting that many responses are part of standardised postcard campaigns, which we will be familiar with, and many are signatures on petitions and therefore do not require as much analysis as other responses.

The Ulster Unionist Party has reiterated — it does so in its amendment — its opposition now to the move of DARD's headquarters to Ballykelly. The party seemingly opposes that relocation but does not address it in the Budget. As Mr Irwin, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, pointed out, there was an additional allocation between the draft Budget and the final Budget of £1 million in resource DEL to assist the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development with that move. Yet, whilst saying that all references to the move must be removed from the Budget, the party does not propose to do anything with the money that is in the Budget for that Budget line. So, that money will not be spent or used; it will be left in DARD's budget, even though they want to do away with the move.

I appreciate that there are sensitive personnel issues — much like the voluntary exit scheme — surrounding the move of DARD's headquarters to Ballykelly, and those need to be handled appropriately over the next number of years. However, I point out, as I have done so before in the House, the capital cost of the move, irrespective of any benefits to the local area. Mr George Robinson is here, and I am sure that he will testify to the support there is in the East Londonderry constituency for the move. There is not a lot of support in the East Londonderry constituency for the Ulster Unionist Party, and perhaps that is explained by their position on the issue.

Mr G Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Hamilton: I will give way.

Mr G Robinson: I am glad to hear the Minister agreeing with me. As far as Ballykelly is concerned, it is an area where an awful lot of jobs have been lost. The move to Ballykelly would make up for a quite a lot of those job losses, and I would love to see the Minister and the Executive going ahead with the move. There is agreement that Ballykelly, Limavady and the north-west need all the jobs they can get because they have lost so many in recent years.

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his contribution. I am sure he speaks on behalf of the majority of people in East Londonderry. He would understand that, equally, there are sensitivities and concerns for those who are working in Dundonald House, which need to be dealt with appropriately over the next number of years.

As I have said in the House before, irrespective of the economic benefits this yields for East Londonderry, there are comparable capital costs in moving to Ballykelly versus refurbishing Dundonald House. I accept that there is a resource cost of roughly £41 million in the move: that is a cost over 25 years and is only marginally higher than what it would cost to remain in Dundonald House.

I turn to the substantial areas of the Ulster Unionist amendment, namely what they would do and what they would change in the Budget. I am not going to get into why our resource budget is down by 1·6% in real terms. Everybody in the House and beyond knows the culpability of the Ulster Unionist Party, who were in league with the Tory Party at the last election —

Mr Frew: Campaigned with them.

Mr Hamilton: Campaigned with them. The manifesto they shared was a manifesto of austerity. We can all recall how the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, sat and singled out Northern Ireland and the north east of England as the areas that he wanted to hit hardest. There are many Members who sit on those Benches, and indeed on other Benches, who ran on that manifesto and wanted to cut the tripe out of public spending in Northern Ireland.

At least we can now see what their opposition to the Budget was about and, unlike other parties, this is to their credit. It all hinged on less than one quarter of 1% of the total Budget of Northern Ireland. So, from a Budget of around £12 billion, because of less than one quarter of 1%, the Ulster Unionist Party is opposing it. I presume they would change their position from opposition to support if that one quarter of 1% were changed. If it were based on such a relatively small amount of money, it begs the question as to why Danny Kennedy, when he was at the Executive a fortnight ago, did not come forward with such a proposal. At least Mr Nesbitt and others have come forward with a proposal today. Moving less than 0·25% of the total Budget around is hardly major reconstruction. The corollary of saying that you want to move around less than a quarter of 1% is to say that you are happy with 99·75% of the Budget. I am happy to take 99·75%; I think that that is an A* in most examinations. They seem to be pretty content with it if all that they are arguing over is less than a quarter of 1%.

Some of the Ulster Unionist Party's suggested allocations are allocations that no one in the House, least of all me, would oppose. I am sure that nobody would oppose more money for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I am sure that, in a perfect world, nobody would argue against £1·5 million for DCAL for the arts and other things, although I want to make a couple of points around the campaign for more money for the arts. It is worth noting that that campaign seems to be more about saving the Arts Council than the arts. It is quite disgraceful that the chief executive of the Arts Council accepted and agreed on radio recently that it utilised its own communications budget, which was granted to it by the Assembly and the Executive, to campaign against the Executive. That is certainly an issue that I want to take up with the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister.

DCAL is facing an 8·3% resource DEL reduction. It has offered a degree of protection in that context, with the arts having only a 7·1% reduction. A percentage point reduction for the arts is the same as a percentage point reduction for the Audit Office. Whenever health is not completely protected and education is not protected, why should the arts be protected? It also, I have to say, misunderstands, as does the proposal put forward, that DCAL is not the only Department that funds the arts. We are aware of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister's restoration of the events fund, which she announced last week. Much of that £1 million will go to the arts community to run various events.

Whilst we would not disagree with many of the allocations that are proposed, it is noteworthy that the single biggest beneficiary of the £26 million reallocation proposed by the Ulster Unionist Party is the Department for Regional Development, which — surprise, surprise — is a Department run by an Ulster Unionist Minister; how did that happen? The Ulster Unionist Party is proposing that £18 million of the £26 million, 70% of the total, goes to its own Minister's Department. If that is not self-serving and party political, I do not know what is. That is looking after its own Minister first and to hell again with everybody else.

Mr B McCrea: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Hamilton: Very, very briefly.

Mr B McCrea: I just want to ask this question, because I have followed his advice and listened to most of the debate. Where is it appropriate to make the argument about DCAL or something else? I could answer his question by saying that, for the smallest Department with only £100 million, a 10% cut is £10 million, which is a mere drop in the ocean. We would like to make that argument, and I think that we should. Where should that argument be made if we do not have the opportunity in this place?

Mr Hamilton: I hope that it is not being taken that I am saying that people should not make those points. I have acknowledged that the amendment is a competent amendment. It balances in that it would take money from one place and move it to another. It is perfectly acceptable for the Ulster Unionist Party to do that. I am making an argument against the proposal for where it should go and more importantly — and I will come onto this — where it should come from. If you take the DCAL issue, I believe that the argument is best made to the Culture Minister. Perhaps it is a reflection of the argument that she put to me as to why that issue has not been addressed to everybody's satisfaction. When 70% of what the Ulster Unionist Party wants to reallocate is going to its own Minister's Department, that begs another question as to why more of it is not going to some of those other Departments, such DCAL, which, as you say, is facing a proportionately much higher cut.

This is the most important point: any allocation has to come from somewhere. The Ulster Unionist Party's target for where this £26 million is to come from is the social investment fund. I am the first to accept that the social investment fund has been much maligned and much criticised. I am being careful about what I say given that I am standing beside the junior Minister from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. However, I think that he, too, would agree that it was certainly slow to get off the ground. Those are fair and legitimate criticisms, but you cannot criticise it on those grounds now. The mistake that the Ulster Unionist Party is making here is that it is some sort of nebulous concept, that it does not exist, that it is money that is sitting in the centre unallocated, that there is nothing moving forward, and that there is nothing for it to be allocated towards. Quite the opposite. I am not sure that the Ulster Unionist Party understands what is going on at all. If it did, it would not have tabled this amendment. We are well used to division in the ranks of the Ulster Unionist Party. Again, its Members are arguing against themselves. In their response to the draft Budget, a response that we looked at carefully, they said that they believed that existing commitments should be honoured, a point reiterated by Mr Swann in his contribution. However, the point that they miss is that the £26 million that they want to take from SIF and spend elsewhere — 70% going to their own Minister — is the only allocation to SIF. It is the only allocation to SIF in the 2015-16 financial year. It is clearly mentioned in the Budget. If you go to the OFMDFM section, you will see that £26 million is what has been allocated to SIF in 2015-16.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hamilton: No.

In the 2015-16 year, £26 million is all that SIF has.

Mr Douglas: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Hamilton: Bear with me a second.

That means that every single project working through the pipeline — those approved and still having money spent on them or those approved and not yet started — is being defunded by the Ulster Unionist Party. Let us take a look at those. So far, 33 projects have been proposed. Every single one of them, to one degree or another, would be stopped by the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment. The question for every member of the Ulster Unionist Party, particularly every constituency MLA is this: do they support bringing an end to all those projects? Many of the projects have been mentioned by my colleagues who are deeply concerned about what is being put forward. That concern will be reflected in the communities that the Ulster Unionist Party is targeting.

It is £1 million of funding for the development of a purpose-built community doctors' surgery at Bryson Street in Mr Douglas's East Belfast constituency. Does Michael Copeland support that? It is funding for five Orange halls in the Cookstown and Magherafelt area. Does Mrs Overend support withdrawing funding from those? It is the Halls Together Now project, which would refurbish St Macartin's church hall in Enniskillen. Does Tom Elliott support withdrawing funding from that? That is what your amendment would do. You shake your head, but you are taking away £26 million — the only allocation to SIF in the Budget for next year — from those projects.

There are other projects. You are taking funding away from, as Mr Spratt mentioned in his contribution, the extension of a day nursery and healthy living centre at Taughmonagh and the development of a training and education centre in Sandy Row — close to £2 million would be withdrawn from those two projects. You are taking away £733,000 of funding for the Kilcluney community hall and the YMCA in Lurgan. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Hamilton: Is that withdrawal of funding supported by Mrs Dobson and Mr Kennedy? You are taking funding away from capital improvements to Dromore Orange hall, Banbridge Orange hall, Corcrain Orange hall and Clogher Orange hall? Are those things that the Ulster Unionist Party supports withdrawing funding from?

Mr Nesbitt said earlier, on the record, that he wanted to put the remaining millions to better use. Mr Nesbitt will be familiar with some of the projects awaiting approval. However, even if approval came, they would not get any money because you are taking all the money away from them. One is the scoping exercise to develop community houses in north Down and Ards. Another is five community-operated sports facilities, including one in Kilcooley in Bangor, which is in Mr Cree's constituency, and the Glen estate in Newtownards, which is in Mr Nesbitt's constituency, a project that I understand the Member has offered his support to in the past but for which he now wants to withdraw funding. We move finally to north Belfast. They would defund capital projects supporting the likes of Crusaders Football Club and a community-based arts group on the York Road, at the same time as wanting to give money to DCAL for the arts.

That the Ulster Unionist Party would seek to defund the whole list is a shame. They want to take money from PIPS, the suicide prevention charity, and from very worthwhile, meaningful community development projects across Northern Ireland, and give 70% of it to their own Minister. That is a shame and a disgrace, and they will be indicted for what they have done.

In fact, even if they were right in their analysis, projects such as those in Mr Nesbitt's constituency would have no money left to move forward, because he wants to take the remaining millions and put them to better use. He does not want to put them to good use in his constituency; he wants to put them to better use by giving them to his party colleague.

I have only a few minutes left. I have glossed over the fact that several letters of offer have been issued to the projects that are being funded, so actually, legally, what the Ulster Unionists propose to do would not be possible. However, it is a matter for them and their Assembly Members to justify to their constituents and the community organisations in their area why they seek to defund them and to explain why they are doing it. We will not support that amendment, as you might appreciate and understand, and I am sure that the House will also not support the shameful amendment put forward in the name of Mr Nesbitt and others from the Ulster Unionist Party.

I have never pretended that this was a perfect Budget. I would love to have more money, and I would love it if there were no more cuts. However, in the circumstances that we find ourselves in, I think it is a good deal for Northern Ireland. It supports key services such as health and education, underpins economic growth and readies Northern Ireland for the required reform and restructuring. It is a Budget of tough choices and difficult decisions. It is far from ideal. Today's debate, however, has shown that those who oppose it have no serious suggestions and no credible alternatives. I commend the Budget to the House.

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 but votes on the amendments are by simple majority only. Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I advise Members that, if this amendment is made, the second amendment will fall and I will proceed to put the Question on the motion as amended.

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

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to bring the motion to the Floor of the Assembly today. It is an extremely important issue for all of our communities and society in general. Put frankly, the abuse of elderly and vulnerable people should be a concern for everyone in our society, no less us as legislators. How we treat, respect and protect elderly residents is a reflection on all our communities and on society. Therefore, that protection should be a priority for all of us. It is nothing short of shocking that allegations of abuse against older people have increased from 1,715 in 2011 to 3,023 in 2013-14

The motion simply calls on the Minister of Health to introduce legislation to do two things: to clearly define abuse and to put in place the necessary legislative protections for our elderly population. In 2013-14, the adult safeguarding report suggested that some trusts still appeared to be under-reporting allegations of abuse. For example, in the Western Health and Social Care Trust, the accounts for allegations of abuse was for only 8% of referrals, but that actually makes up 16% of the population. It is for that very reason that legislation needs to be in place to define abuse. Abuse and, indeed, harm do not only take place in care homes and can take many forms: physical, sexual, emotional or even financial.

The findings of the recent review of the Cherry Tree House Nursing and Residential Home are deeply concerning to us all. The Commissioner for Older People pointed out how:

She went on:

Those words are a damning indictment of our society and cannot or should not be ignored.

Older people deserve to have confidence that, if they experience abuse or are at risk of it, the law can adequately protect them and punish those who inflict that abuse. As it stands, there is no single piece of legislation in the North of Ireland that protects older people from abuse. That means that people who may be vulnerable or at risk of abuse are not afforded the legal protection afforded to people in England, Scotland or Wales, all of which have dedicated laws in place to protect all older people from abuse. Professor John Williams, an expert in adult safeguarding, recently attended an evidence session with the Health Committee. He indicated that such laws must achieve a careful balance between the older person's right to be safe and their right to make their own decisions.

The BBC's 'Panorama' programme, 'Behind Closed Doors: Elderly Care Exposed', shocked us all but also highlighted the need for whistle-blowers to be protected, so that they can have the confidence to report abuse and neglect. On too many occasions, the whistle-blowers, who are aiming to expose flaws and protect our vulnerable, are expected to jump through hoops, often with very individual personal circumstances. It is important, therefore, to reflect on the definition of harm and the absence of legislation around goods, facilities and services linked to the Equality Act 2010.

The current consultation on adult safeguarding is welcome, but policy and guidance will not provide adequate safeguards and protections against the misuse or abuse of statutory powers. Professor Williams suggested that other models, where legislation is in place, be examined. He stated that England can be considered as having a minimalist approach, Scotland a maximalist approach and Wales as somewhere in between. The Scottish legislation provides significant powers of intervention. However, the lesson from Scotland is that the legislation led not to the use of those powers but to more preventative work.

It is important that, as legislators, we tackle head-on the 3,023 allegations of abuse in 2013-14 and provide safeguards and protections in a legislative framework for all of our elderly community.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important matter today. The abuse of older people is to be reviled and treated as the most abhorrent of crimes. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Commissioner for Older People, Ms Claire Keatinge, and Professor John Williams for their presentations to the Health Committee and the vital insights that they provided on the matter.

Abuse of older people can take many forms, including physical, sexual, psychological or emotional, financial and institutional neglect or exploitation. Indeed, more often than not, when one form is identified, it exposes a catalogue of mistreatment. Tackling the abuse of older people is not just a matter that concerns a small sector of our society; it is a responsibility incumbent on each and every one of us.

Unfortunately, the abuse of older people is significantly under-reported, and I believe that the figures could be the tip of the iceberg. As with all forms of domestic abuse, all too often the abuser is a family member, so-called friend or carer. The adult safeguarding policy consultation that was launched in November 2014 forms the starting point from which the Department of Health will gauge how it moves forward with protecting our older people. The policy is based on the principle that we should do all that we can to prevent the abuse, exploitation or neglect of older people. It also highlights the fact that safeguarding is the business of everyone and calls on a wide range of service providers, such as voluntary and community groups, financial institutions, the legal profession, churches and care providers to recognise the signs of abuse and report it immediately.

The central focus of the policy is on a zero-tolerance, multi-agency approach that aims to identify those at risk of harm or needing protection. Whilst legislation of varying degrees is in place in England, Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland remains the only part of the UK without specific measures to protect older people. Interestingly, with the Scottish model of adult safeguarding, which has the highest level of statutory provision, the threat of intervention has led to a great deal of preventative work, resulting in a significant drop in abuse levels. I hope that, if we are able to draw on other UK legislatures and tailor their procedures to suit Northern Ireland, coupled with policy findings, we can provide a system that will protect our older people from harm or injury. However, it is vital that any proposed legislation comes with a sea change in our attitude to how we see and treat our older generation.

In evidence to the Committee, Professor Williams described our society as institutionally ageist, which, sadly, when we look at how older people are treated, at times, in institutional and domiciliary care, is all too evident. In my constituency, I recently dealt with the case of a gentleman who, in the early stages of dementia, was admitted to a nursing home following his wife's death. As he had never displayed any violent or disruptive tendencies, his family was disturbed to find him incoherent due to a high dosage of lorazepam, which had been given to him for, allegedly, exhibiting such behaviour. Despite the family's request not to give him any further medication, the gentleman was subsequently admitted in an unresponsive condition to hospital. There, sadly, he passed away, having, essentially, overdosed on extremely high levels of drugs. I fear that that is not the only episode of residential abuse of its kind, with other such incidents, including malnourishment and dehydration, coming to the fore.

In conjunction with any changes to legislation, we must strive to ensure that our carers become a much more professional workforce. We also need to embark on an awareness campaign. We are all familiar with the campaigns on child abuse and domestic violence. Those are extremely important in raising public awareness, but it should be borne in mind that the abuse of older people is no less pertinent. The violation of a person's dignity and self-respect in whatever form must be viewed as abuse, and any awareness campaign should be welcomed and considered.

We must do more to protect our older people. Whilst a great many are on the radar of social services for various reasons, I suspect that a great many more are falling between the cracks and remain subject to examples of the abuse that I have outlined. We must do all that we can to protect those vulnerable people, and I feel that, whilst legislation is important, awareness and change in attitudes is key to removing that blight from our society.

Mr McKinney: I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate about abuse in care home settings, which is a topic that is very important to all of us. Without doubt, every person has the right to safety, free from abuse and neglect, and everyone is entitled to receive care delivered by well-trained, properly managed, committed and compassionate staff. We must be determined to make that reality. I therefore commend the rationale that underpins the motion and the fact that it focuses on abuse, but we need to be aware that abuse comes in many forms and is perpetrated by individuals and organisations that might like to forget that or even have us forget about it.

The SDLP supports the motion, but it also recognises that it is distinctly limited, given that it only concentrates on abuse of the elderly in care homes. Of course, institutional abuse involves not just the elderly but those with other care needs, such as people with learning disabilities, and it is our contention that any proposed legislation that calls for a definition, as the motion does, would ultimately lead to embracing those two at least.

Mr Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr McKinney: Yes.

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for mentioning that abuse takes place not just in care homes but outside them as well. Does the Member support tougher sentencing for people who perpetrate crimes against the elderly?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McKinney: Absolutely. Ultimately, that will become an issue for the judicial service, post a definition of abuse. We have seen footage taken, not just here but elsewhere, of the types of abuse, and anybody who perpetrates that type of abuse should be subjected to a zero-tolerance approach. I welcome the intervention.

We must question whether existing legislation, such as that on autism, is delivering to the extent to which it should and whether the outcomes of reports such as Bamford, which made important recommendations, have been delivered. Remember that we are still waiting on the goods, facilities and services legislation that will address inequalities, not just for elderly people but for the younger population. Finally, we must ask whether the system has the potential to abuse, not just in care settings but in the home, and whether the financial pressure that leads to pressure on staff, 15-minute domiciliary care packages and people receiving meals but no contact has the potential to create neglect and whether that is ultimately abuse. I refer to the Age NI report, 'Would You Eat Sandwiches for Your Tea Every Night?', which highlighted the need to focus on the needs of the person and not the finance, and I welcomed the comment, which reflected that in its entirety, in Sir Liam Donaldson's report, which was published today.

Our older population is living longer, has more active lives and is engaging in and contributing significantly to society as a whole. For example, the recent report, 'Appreciating Age', identifies that our older population will contribute something in the order of £25 billion to the Northern Ireland economy in the next 50 years. It is in part due to Northern Ireland having an increasing age population. NISRA has projected that, by 2062, there will be an additional 318,000 people over 60 compared with today, but, with a shift in our demographics, we must look at the wider picture. In reality, that increase means that we will be more heavily reliant on nursing homes and residential care homes and the provision, as I articulated, of care in our communities. If Transforming Your Care and its ambition were to be realised, that would increase care in the community and in homes, with home being the hub.

It is important to acknowledge the work that our Commissioner for Older People, Claire Keatinge, has undertaken in promoting the needs of our older generation, in raising much-needed awareness and, importantly, in advocating a change to our legal framework to protect older people. In that regard, the events that took place at Cherry Tree House and Ralph's Close are damning indictments of our current approach to protecting the vulnerable and marginalised groups in our society. It is evident that our current approach is not fit for purpose. As I highlighted, it is the same as was experienced in Winterbourne View in Bristol and in unit 3 of the bungalow in the Republic: different jurisdictions with different safeguarding mechanisms but the same abuse.

The current legal framework here is obviously disjointed and convoluted. It consists of a range of statutes, policies and guidance. We have seen at first hand that, when these rules are slack and we lose sight of the person, when monitoring and care standards are relaxed, the presence of abuse is witnessed. The adult safeguarding Bill is an attempt to bridge the gaps in our current approach by providing a more robust framework in reporting and responding to allegations of abuse and promoting greater collaborative partnerships between the various statutory bodies, voluntary organisations and the independent sector.

As I said, we must see this as an ambition, if you like, not gesture legislation. It should be seen as a platform in the ongoing journey of providing key mechanisms and safeguarding individuals from abuse and neglect. It must also act as the impetus to raising much-needed awareness. We must begin to value older people truly and to invest in their lives and care.

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

Mr McKinney: Older people should not be seen as a cost that society needs to bear. They are an integral part of our lives and community. We should value them.

Mr McGimpsey: I thank the proposers for tabling the motion, which, of course, in common with others, I support. It is important to reflect on the fact that we are talking about older people in care homes and institutional settings. Allegations of abuse have risen quite dramatically over the past three years, and that is a disgrace. We are in a position to do something about it. Guidance has been in place since 2010. The Commissioner for Older People is now saying that it is time for legislation, which I also support. It is important to bring forward that legislation.

In an institutional setting, whether a care home or a nursing home, we have the capacity to deal with the issue, not least because staff there can be registered, trained and properly inspected. It is probably easier to oversee that setting and ensure that the vulnerable elderly population in it are properly protected. In investigations of abuse, around 50% of cases are in care home settings.

Most of our elderly population are not in care homes but in their own homes. Indeed, the whole thrust of health provision is to keep individuals in their own homes for as long as possible. It is much more difficult to provide protection for vulnerable adults and frail elderly people in that type of setting. Very often, the abuse comes from family members in the form of physical, financial and emotional abuse and neglect. It is most difficult to provide protection. That is where we need legislation, penalties, as Mr Poots said, and proper investigations to ensure that we provide the best protections we can.

The elderly population is growing: the demographics are quite clear. Most older people will be supported in their own homes for most of the last third of their lives, and our responsibility lies there. I am concerned that domiciliary care packages will be cut back, because it is about more than the simple physical provision of various personal services. It is also about staff going into people's homes and having time to spend with the individuals to talk to them and to ensure that they are in good heart and are not being subjected to any form of abuse as far as they can possibly determine. I have always seen that type of inspection by our domiciliary care providers as a key part of the protections for our elderly population. One visit a day is certainly inadequate. Domiciliary care packages have been squeezed over the past number of months and longer, but they provide much more than simple physical support for our elderly: they are also a means of protection.

I have no problem in supporting this. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and what the thinking of the Department is now. It was very much in favour of guidance when I was in his shoes. I assume that he will come forward with ideas for legislation, but legislation on its own will not do it. Legislation has to be backed up. We need to hear what sort of support the Department is proposing to put in place to deal with the situation. The evidence suggests that abuse has virtually doubled — and that is in the institutional setting, so we can imagine that in the private home setting the problem is probably much greater. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Mr McCarthy: I thank the Chair of the Committee, Maeve McLaughlin, and, indeed, Assembly colleagues for bringing this very important issue to the Floor of the House. Hopefully, the outcome of the debate will be better safeguards for all our elderly constituents. All cases of abuse should be stopped, and, as has already been said, the culprits severely dealt with.

The Health Committee, of which I am a long-standing member, has tackled the issue on a number of occasions. The figures in the motion are horrific and disgusting. There can be no excuse whatsoever; whether abuse takes place in a family setting, in a care home or anywhere else, it must never be tolerated. As recently as our meeting on 15 October of last year, the Committee heard from health officials on the adult safeguarding policy and the need to consult, starting in November and completing by March of next year. At that stage, a decision will be made on whether to progress an adult safeguarding Bill.

At that same meeting, we heard from Claire Keatinge, the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland, who explicitly indicated that there were clear gaps in the current legislation, meaning that, in some areas, older people are not protected from abuse. That anomaly has to be put right. We would be failing in our duty if we did not use all the power available to us to ensure that every older person is protected.

Claire Keatinge called at our meeting for a new, single adult safeguarding Bill and offered suggestions as to what might be included, such as a power to remove the person at risk and the power to ban a suspected abuser from the home of an elderly person. Claire reminded us that most abuse of older people takes place in their own home and is carried out by family members, friends and neighbours, people with whom the older person has had — so they think — a good relationship and whom they trust. That situation is really hard to understand and probably hard to detect, as it can all go on behind closed doors. The commissioner in her submission to the Health Committee also asked for what is reiterated in our motion today: a clear and defined legislative position on which to develop further good practice.

Another very important aspect of our debate today is the need to protect from civil liability anybody who reports suspected abuse. The same must also apply to whistle-blowers, who do not feel sufficiently protected and who are therefore not encouraged to report their concerns to their superiors, who are in a position to stop any abuse and to take the necessary action against those personnel perpetrating abuse against an elder person.

I congratulate Claire Keatinge on her work to date on behalf of our elder citizens.

She and her office have published documents and offered solutions to assist our older population that undoubtedly will give confidence to all concerned. For her efforts, we are eternally grateful. Some time ago, it was asked that a commissioner be appointed. Thankfully, Claire Keatinge was appointed as the commissioner, despite a lengthy delay by the Executive. She has proved her worth. It is incumbent on all of us in the Assembly to continue to support her in her endeavours and to work with her to ensure that our elderly folk enjoy the dignity and rights to which they are entitled and to ensure that all abuse will be a thing of the past. Only this week, Claire spoke out loud and clear at the shocking proposal to have community meals delivered only once a fortnight. Let us hope that the providers of that service hear what Claire and, indeed, others have said and reconsider their proposals.

In conclusion, I put on record my sincere thanks to and appreciation for all carers for the work that they do to help our elderly citizens. That includes the volunteers and community care workers who are out in all weathers —

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

Mr McCarthy: — caring for our elderly people. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the motion.

Mr Givan: I thank Ms McLaughlin and her colleagues for tabling the motion.

Older people deserve our support. Many of us will have older relatives and friends, and we know the vulnerabilities that exist with them. Only this weekend past, I was able to celebrate with my wife's side of the family her grandmother's ninety-third birthday. She is still able to live at home with the support that is provided for her there. She is living a good life and is enjoying life. The protection of people like her should be paramount in all our minds when we conduct ourselves in the House and consider what we can do to support them.

Undoubtedly, there was universal revulsion and indignation at the scenes of abuse that we witnessed in the behind-closed-doors exposés on our TV screens. I know the thoughts that went through my mind about what could happen if you had been able to get hold of the individuals who were carrying out that abuse on people who were so vulnerable and unable to help themselves. When we read the findings of the Cherry Tree House review, we see the litany of failures. Clearly, something is wrong, and, clearly, changes need to happen. What changes need to happen? I think that is the important question that we need to consider. Is new legislation needed? That is something that, certainly, I would be open to considering. Do we need to drill down and say, "How come we've had some of these failings already?"? I read what Claire Keatinge said about the RQIA in her findings in the Cherry Tree House review. She said that it was a:

Would new legislation have resulted in the RQIA doing its job the way it should have? Would new legislation have resulted in the health trust not placing people into this care home? I do not know. I suppose it goes to Mr McGimpsey's point, which was that legislation, in and of itself, will not deal with this. It needs to be backed up. There needs to be the proper enforcement and proper implementation of the regulations. Unfortunately, the commissioner found that the RQIA was not doing that when it came to Cherry Tree. The commissioner found that the health trusts were not doing it. I doubt that new legislation would effect change in them. In considering whether there needs to be new legislation, we need to think about what will be there to back it up. What impact would it have, and how would it change what happens now? What would the legislation bring into effect?

The motion, as Mr McKinney pointed out, relates exclusively to care homes. We know that abuse of older people is much broader than just in our care homes. Of course, when individuals are placed in institutions by the state, there is a particular responsibility on the state to take action. The proposer of the motion said that the abusers needed to be punished. That is an important point and raises the issue of sentencing. When people are brought before the courts, there must be proper sentencing by the judiciary for attacks on and abuse of our elderly.

How we treat the most vulnerable in our community defines the society that we live in. Our older people deserve to be treated with dignity and treasured in our society. For the years of service that they have given to our community, it is only right that, in their twilight years, they are afforded the best support and protection that we can provide. If new legislation is needed for that, I will certainly support it. If that can be more effectively done within the existing framework, I will want the Health Minister to challenge those authorities to make sure that they are doing that, and I have no doubt that he will do that.

Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I, too, support the motion. In many ways, it is sad that in 2015 we have to deal with a subject such as elder abuse.

Part of the difficulty is that people have become a commodity. In my constituency, going back 25 or 30 years, there were a number of statutory residentials. Those have been supplanted by private residentials. At this point, I will take a moment to say that the vast majority of residential accommodation is excellent, with staff who are caring in how they look after the people in their care. We all owe a duty of care to older people, who have contributed so much to society. Like Kieran McCarthy, I commend carers, who save the health service here billions of pounds a year yet often go unrecognised and unrewarded for the work that they do. Those people are to be commended.

Part of the difficulty — Fearghal McKinney alluded to it — is that it is not in just residential care that abuse happens. People live in social isolation, which is a form of abuse in many ways. Those people are possibly suffering from depression and other ailments, physical and mental, yet are left very much to their own devices. They are the people who most need our help.

I read an article a couple of years ago about an elder abuse helpline. Approximately 5% of the population here were in residential care, and 23% of calls to that helpline came from residentials. Older people in that situation are often afraid because they have nowhere else to go. In many cases, they are paid for out of the public purse, because they have no other means. Owing to the reduction in domiciliary care, which was also referred to, people are often put in a position in which they have no choice but to go into residential care.

Paul Givan mentioned his wife's granny, who is 93 years old. I can trump that, because my mother will be 106 in approximately six weeks. I make the point that I was a very late baby. [Laughter.]

I just want to make that very clear. In many ways, it is the luck of the draw. If you have a quality of life and are mentally alert but physically frail, to live to that age is something worthwhile. Many people who are much younger do not have that quality of life but need that quality of life. It is important to make that point.

We talked about the reduction in domiciliary care. We had a trust giving people frozen meals for 14 days. Do those people have the facilities for storing or cooking those meals? Kieran McCarthy, who is no longer in the Chamber, other members of the Health Committee and I went out with meals on wheels in our constituencies about three years ago. One thing that struck me was that the person who delivered the meals was the only social contact that an elderly person had all day. Most of the people we visited were in their 80s. There was not just the social aspect: the person who delivered the meal also checked the fridge to make sure that the meal from the day before had been eaten. If not, the person might have flagged up a problem and contacted the doctor or social services.

The point has been well made that, if you introduce legislation that deals with these issues, there has to be enforcement. It is no good having legislation that does not have any effect. I repeat that we owe that duty of care to older people. In terms of what the Minister may or may not do, it is incumbent on him to introduce legislation. I commend Claire Keatinge, the Commissioner for Older People, who has done an excellent job in talking about the need for a new adult safeguarding Bill.

It is good that there is cross-party consensus in the debate. This is an issue that we are all concerned about. We realise that we have an elderly population that is continually growing. In many ways, it seems to be ignored. Money can be found for other things, for defence or other issues, yet the people who are most important — those who have given us the lifestyle and quality of life that we have — are often ignored. I ask the Minister to come forward with legislation as soon as possible and make sure that it is enforced.

Mr Poots: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the matter. At the outset, I indicate my appreciation to the many good people who provide care for our elderly population, whether it is in residential homes, nursing homes or through domiciliary care or whatever else. Indeed, many volunteers provide support to our elderly.

Abuse is wrong when it is perpetrated against vulnerable people, whether they happen to be the elderly, children, the learning disabled or whatever. It is always wrong, and we, as a society, should always take whatever actions we can to ensure that the people who perpetrate abuse are brought to justice for it. I welcome the motion and the opportunity it creates to debate a very important subject.

Mr McKinney rightly pointed out that the motion deals only with allegations of abuse against older people in care homes. We know that people in the domiciliary care setting — in their own homes — have also been victims of abuse. There have been cases where people have stolen people's food and done other things to them that have made the headlines. Therefore, it is incumbent on us and it is very important that, whatever we do, we ensure that we encompass all aspects of care of our elderly population and ensure that we offer adequate protection and safeguarding.

Legislation in and of itself may be helpful. That is something that we need to tease our and investigate further. However, legislation alone will not be enough. The truth is that we need to look at how we care for our older people. In my previous role, I expressed many times the view that the most significant challenge I had was the care of the elderly. It is not about cardiac care or cancers, because those things can be dealt with. Sometimes we have success and sometimes we do not, but there is a means of dealing with them. With the growing elderly population, we face a real challenge as an Assembly and an Executive along with the Department in how we respond to that.

There is a massive difference between care homes. Some of them are superb, and others fall well short of expectations. Very often, you will know instantly when you enter a care home — just by the smell of it — whether it is a good home or not. Very often, the care homes that deliver the best are the ones that have a fairly modest top-up of maybe £30 per week. That suggests to me that if all care homes were operating with a bit more money — not lots more money, but a bit more money — the standards would rise fairly dramatically across the system.

In Northern Ireland, we are not in a position to pay that money. That is the crude reality of it.

The truth is that, if you want to address the problem, you need to ensure that care homes can, first, employ people whom they have had the opportunity to adequately train and who are suitable to work with the elderly. Tesco is able to offer £2 or £3 an hour more for a job stacking shelves than people get for looking after our elderly. We need to ensure that care homes can take on the right people, can train them adequately and have the right management structures in place for supervision.

I must make it clear that am not against legislation, but there is so much more that can be done without legislation. We need to work closely with the care home sector and ensure that the standards that it provides are standards that we find acceptable. These people are our elderly population and our relatives, and, some day, it may well be us. It is absolutely critical that we get this one right and provide the appropriate care for our elderly population. If legislation helps, bring it on, but we need to look at a much wider picture than legislation alone.

Mr Ramsey: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate, and I thank my Foyle colleague Maeve McLaughlin for taking the lead on this.

On 18 November last year, I stood on this very spot and commended the Older People's Commissioner's 'Appreciating Age' report to the House. We discussed the positive contributions made by older people through caring, childcare, volunteering and working. The report challenged the one-dimensional view of ageing and told of the positive ways that older people contribute to all our communities day in, day out. Like the former Health Minister and Mickey Brady, I acknowledge the immense contribution that so many people make in hospital, private care and hospice settings across Northern Ireland. They give kindness, help and care painstakingly. However, unfortunately, our healthcare has not been up to par at times. We need to look at that and ensure that the examples given by a number of Members do not happen again. We must offer the best protection possible to those who are potentially at risk of harm. As I have said, I know that the large majority of staff who care for patients are kind and generous and go beyond the mark in providing that care and in giving patients what is best for them.

There clearly is a lack of planning and commitment to healthcare, especially domiciliary care. It is seen as a discretionary spend and something that is the first to be cut. I agree with Mickey Brady that it is important that there is a unity of purpose in this discussion. It is a good message to send out across Northern Ireland that the Assembly takes seriously the abuse that is happening in older people's settings. People live longer and healthier lives, which clearly means that there will be increased demand on the health and social care system.

The increase in the number of allegations of abuse of older people is most worrying. The figures from the Northern Ireland Adult Safeguarding Partnership (NIASP) report are damning and shocking. The dramatic rise is something that we should all be worried about. I echo the call from many Members for legislation to clearly define abuse, and I welcome the ongoing consultation on the adult safeguarding policy. This consultation aims to define some of the vaguer aspects of abuse, including "adults at risk of harm" and "abuse" suggesting that abuse is single or possibly even a repeated act, or lack of appropriate action occurring within relationships where there is an expectation of trust. I hope that the consultation will be able to define these aspects, thus constructing a more comprehensive policy on safeguarding adults.

I agree with the concept of changing the policy to ensure that it moves away from using the term "vulnerability", which can be misinterpreted as weakness, and towards a concept of "at risk". I am aware that there are minimum standards of protection for vulnerable adults in care homes, but they need to be more rigorously enforced and people made more accountable. I do not believe, for example, that refresher training every three years is acceptable. I suggest that it be done on a much more consistent and regular basis.

As Edwin Poots said in an intervention, we should have a policy of zero tolerance of the abuse and exploitation of adults. It is important to change the way in which society thinks about harm to adults. We should establish clear procedures, seek collaborative work, promote access to justice and ensure continuous learning among all those involved in safeguarding. Many people, after years of work, paying taxes and looking after others will come to depend on the state to supply excellent heath and nursing care. Our older people across Northern Ireland deserve nothing less. The best health care is what we expect for our families, neighbours and communities across Northern Ireland. I am pleased to participate in the debate.

Mr Gardiner: I am impressed by the Older People's Commissioner's analysis of the treatment of older people. The commissioner listed the main types of abuse of the elderly as physical, emotional, sexual or financial abuse and neglect. Her proposal for an Act of the Assembly — an adult safeguarding Bill — is one that I believe would find widespread support in the Chamber. As of June 2014, abuse referrals in Northern Ireland had risen by 76% in three years. Clearly, there is a good reason to legislate. Older people in Northern Ireland who may be vulnerable or at risk of abuse do not have the same legal protection as their counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales. I call on the Executive and the responsible Minister to frame the legislation and bring it before the Assembly as soon as the legislative timetable allows. It is important that the legislation contains provisions to allow a properly trained professional — a social worker, for example — the right to speak to an older person alone without members of the family present. Sadly, abuse is often carried out by those closest to an older person. That is particularly true of the financial abuse of vulnerable older people.

I welcome the motion and thank the Members who tabled it. The issue needs to be framed in the wider context of the general attitude to older people. I have commented on that issue many times. As Father of the House, I feel that I have a right and duty to speak up for senior citizens. We have a society that does not value age and experience sufficiently, and we are all the poorer for it. It is an attitude that shows itself in many ways. It can be as simple as a manufacturer not making packaging that older people, with reduced strength in their hands, can open. That may seem trivial to some, but it betrays the underlying attitude that what older people do is of no value compared with what younger people do. I remind everyone in the Chamber that older people have a vote that is equal to the vote of younger people and that, as a rule, older people cast their vote, while younger people do not bother. So, at the very lowest level of self-interest, every Member should seek to legislate fairly and considerately for older people. I support the motion.

Mr B McCrea: It is not often that I agree with Mr Poots, but I agree with him on this. The issue about top-ups tells the story. I have to say that many of our nursing homes are trying to make do on very scant income. One of the things that we ought to recognise is that, when you give a lot of bad publicity to nursing homes, there is no differential between the good ones and the bad ones. That actually puts fear into our community. I accept the point that he was making: that a little bit of extra money is required and that we currently do not have that money. I am also struck by the big rise predicted in the number of older people in Northern Ireland. The BBC kindly told me that the number of people over 65 will increase by a quarter by 2022. I am not the Father of the House, but I had to get my calculator out to check whether I was in that over-65 group. I only miss it by a year or two.

Mr Wells (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): Will the Member give way?

Mr B McCrea: I will indeed.

Mr Wells: Just for clarification, the Father of the House is not the oldest Member but the longest-serving Member of the House. I think it is important that I emphasise that point to the honourable Member.

Mr B McCrea: I am glad that the Minister took the opportunity to make that point. He thinks it is important. However, this is an important issue for me. I have a family member who, only this weekend, went into a nursing home in my constituency. I have also written to the Minister, as he will be aware, and I have to say I was dissatisfied with the response that came back.

I had a constituent who came to me and said that she had not been to see her mother for a short time, and, when she went in, her mother, who suffers from third-stage Parkinson's, had lost about a third of her body weight. She went through all the systems about whether there was any record of it, and they were all manual. Nobody knew how to use the computer system. When I took her to the RQIA, the response that I got back was, frankly, confused and convoluted. In fact, the message that I got from the Minister, dated 2 December, said that the trust's quality team had recently undertaken a review of some areas and that he was now happy. Well, I have to tell you that, had it not been for the energetic action of the woman's daughter, I am not sure that that would have been the case. Here is the point that she made: in this case, which I am only using as an example, there is one nurse and one care assistant to look after one wing. When somebody has a problem, they have to go and look after it, meaning that everybody else is left with no support. We have to find a way of calculating how much resource is required. When people bring out the minimum standards, they are not sufficient, and they have to be costed.

While I am on the issue of how we actually record people who are guilty of abusing vulnerable adults, I wonder what the process is. Should we name and shame? I am certainly aware of reports of people who have been dismissed over various issues, but how do we communicate to other people that they should not be re-employed or should be retrained? What I see, Minister, is a chronic shortage of well-trained, well-paid staff in the sector. That is why I started this speech by saying that I agreed with Mr Poots that we need to put additional resources into this.

I am not saying that I do not recognise the pressures; we have been talking about the Budget all day. I am not saying that I do not recognise the pressures that we will have on our budget, but for us simply to stand up here and say, "Do you know what? Somebody should do something" is not acceptable. I am really interested in how we get proper legislation and how we get some overarching, coordinated body that will take responsibility for this. I have no doubt, Minister, that you are actually interested in the issue and I want to hear what you have to say, but I am telling you that my experience, on a number of occasions, is of organisations with no clear line of communication and no understanding of what is really needed to work together. A number of people come in and say, "It's not me. Let's pass the buck from one to another".

When you get into that situation, vulnerable people are at risk.

I will conclude by saying this: some people in here have said, "Do you know what? Abuse takes place in other areas outside care homes or whatever". This is a specific area where we can and should do something. We are behind with legislation in comparison with other parts of the United Kingdom. There is a pressing need to deal with the issue, and I am quite sure that the Minister would get a lot of support if he were to bring forward legislation soon. He would have my complete support, and I will write to him again about my constituent's concerns.

Mr Wells: At the outset, may I say that it is remarkable that Mr Brady's mother is doing so well and is about to reach the ripe old age of 106? I am sure that he is aware that Mrs Brady is entitled to a telegram from Her Majesty The Queen, not only for her 100th birthday but for each subsequent year, so she could be owed seven telegrams. If he requires any assistance, I have quite a lot of experience of doing that and have a contact in the palace. I could arrange the seven telegrams that I am sure she is missing at the moment.

I listened to the debate carefully and am grateful for the opportunity to respond. Let me start by making my position very clear. As people like Mr Poots, Mr Givan and Mr McCarthy said, the abuse of any adult who cannot protect himself or herself is intolerable, no matter where it happens or who is responsible. It is particularly abhorrent when it is perpetrated by individuals who are entrusted with their care or support needs, whether they are a carer, someone in a residential setting or a family member in the adult's home.

Statistics produced by the Health and Social Care Board-led Northern Ireland Adult Safeguarding Partnership (NIASP) show an increase in adult safeguarding referrals, not just in relation to older people but in general. Referrals were also received relating to adults who were experiencing mental health difficulties or adults with a learning disability.

The statistics also show that harm was perpetrated outside the care home system. The NIASP annual report for 2013-14 shows that the majority of adult safeguarding investigations — some 70% and covering all programmes of care — did not take place in care home settings. It is, of course, highly probable that the true extent of harm that is caused to adults in their homes is unknown as a result of under-reporting.

Many Members quoted the dramatic statistical rise for abuse referrals. Whilst that rise is shocking and absolutely intolerable, I urge Members to exercise some caution. The issue has had a much higher public profile in recent years, and there is no doubt that many people are more aware of the subject and are also more aware of how to report it. To some extent, that explains the very significant increase in the figures, but the statistics are still very worrying indeed.

The NIASP report recorded a total of 7,782 referrals concerning potential adult harm for 2013, an increase of 36% on the previous year. Some 39% of those referrals — more than 3,000 — related to older people, 52% of which related to potential physical harm. The next most prevalent form of harm to older people was financial abuse, which accounted for 20% of all referrals.

The most recent available statistics are for April to September 2014. They show 4,500 referrals during that period, 1,596 of which — just over 35% — related to older people. Some 825 of the reported cases involved regulated facilities or services relating to older people's programmes of care. The most prevalent type of harm to older people continues to be physical abuse. During the same period, 33% of all referrals — some 1,493 — related to adults with a learning disability. The remainder related to the acute sector and the mental health, physical health and disability programmes of care.

I should point out that not every referral or allegation results in the implementation of a care and protection programme. Approximately 28% of total referrals in 2013-14 categorised under the older people's programme of care were screened out at different points in the process. Screening out can happen for a variety of reasons; for example, the matter can be addressed through an alternative process such as the complaints procedure or the allegation may be withdrawn. The latest available figures for April to September 2014 show that 33% — 529 of the referrals for older people — were screened out and 947 care and protection plans were implemented. Nine hundred and forty-seven is still a worrying figure, but it is in stark contrast to some of the figures quoted earlier. By quoting those statistics, I am making three points: first, unfortunately, adult abuse extends beyond our adult population; secondly, not all elder abuse takes place in care homes; and, finally, not all adult safeguarding referrals require an adult protection response.

Members should note that the increase in adult safeguarding referrals coincided with increased awareness-raising of adult abuse by my Department and the Northern Ireland Office. It also coincided with increased investment in adult safeguarding and with the establishment of NIASP, the new regional adult safeguarding partnership, and the local adult safeguarding partnerships (LASPs).

As I said earlier, it is not unreasonable to assume that the increase is due in part to increased awareness — it is a good thing that people are now aware of the problem and are reporting it — and the adult safeguarding developments more generally. Media reports of harm to adults may also be encouraging more referrals. We have been made very aware of that by undercover camera procedures in some care homes, in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom, and we have seen some shocking images on our television screens, and I think that that has also raised public awareness of the problem. When I was first elected to the Assembly in 1998, the issue was seldom mentioned; now it is more and more in the public domain.

As we continue to raise public awareness of adult safeguarding, it is likely that referrals will continue to increase. That does not necessarily mean that adult abuse is more prevalent in Northern Ireland; it is more likely to mean that it is now recognised and that we are less willing to tolerate it. That has to be welcomed. However, it has to be said that, as we get an ageing population — Mr McCrea quoted the figure of a 25% increase in the over-65s coming along quite quickly — there will be more elderly people to abuse. Certainly, the amount of abuse may increase, if not the percentage.

My Department, jointly with the Department of Justice, has developed and is running a public consultation on a draft adult safeguarding policy. Therefore, I very much welcome the input of Claire Keatinge, the Commissioner for Older People. It has been timely and has encouraged further debate on the subject. Therefore, she has made an extremely important contribution to raising awareness of the issue.

The policy will provide a framework within which social workers, social care providers, health-care providers, police officers and those involved in the community can work to prevent harm from happening, to recognise it and respond to it when it happens, and, equally important, to help those affected to obtain the justice that they deserve. The draft policy includes the terminology "adult at risk" in place of "vulnerable adult". The definition is more extensive and reinforces the point that while adults may have characteristics or life circumstances that increase their exposure to risk, including age, those risks become real only when others abuse or exploit those characteristics or life circumstances or are neglectful of the needs that they may generate. The development of the policy is one of a number of safeguarding measures that are packaged in the Programme for Government commitment, the aim of which is to improve safeguarding outcomes for adults and children at risk. The package includes the Mental Capacity Bill, which will be put in place and will improve safeguards that go beyond those that are required under the law. We expect that legislation to come before the Assembly by 31 March this year, and it is essential that that happens in order to get it through in this mandate. That will be a crucial part of the Department's legislative programme. The aim is to introduce the Bill and to have it enacted in the current mandate.

NIASP, which the Health and Social Care Board leads, was established in 2010. It has been tasked with setting the strategic direction in Northern Ireland. In October 2013, it published its first strategic plan. NIASP is also leading on the implementation of a financial abuse action plan. Actions in the plan cover raising awareness at strategic and operational levels and agreeing regional standards for all agencies, including those involved in the management of clients' finances. It also includes reviewing the contract management system for residential and nursing homes.

Throughout the debate, many Members called for the introduction of legislation. I have no hard and fast view on the matter, although it is important to realise that NIASP already covers some of what Members asked for and that the Department could introduce some of that without legislation. I think that there is a tendency to believe that the new legislation would be a panacea, but it would be effective only if it included measures such as effective enforcement and sentencing. It is wrong to think that simply adopting legislation will inevitably improve the situation considerably. I welcome some of the comments, as they help as an input to the policy. Greater training was requested, for example, but again, under the present policies, there is nothing to stop us introducing more effective training.

We had a very tight regulatory system. Many people mentioned Cherry Tree House and Ralph's Close, which, I understand, is in Londonderry in the Chairwoman's constituency. We had inspections and legislation in both cases, but, unfortunately, we also had neglect. There were certainly elements of care going on in both institutions that were clearly well below standard.

I could be convinced either way. I mentioned the mental health and incapacity Bill. It will certainly not be possible to introduce legislation in this mandate. There is simply far too much going on over the last year of the mandate to bring in a major piece of legislation such as that and to get it through all its stages and a full consultation in time for the election of May 2016. Equally, there is nothing to stop someone bringing a private Member's Bill at some stage, but that would not be successful within the time span either. However, that does not mean that we are not giving it very serious consideration. I could be swayed either way. I welcome Ms Keatinge's comments because I think they help to stimulate a debate that is needed. At the end of the day, whatever is best for the protection of the elderly people of Northern Ireland, that is the route that we will go down. That might require legislation, it might require awareness raising, or it might simply require a change of policy through the present legislation. I do not know. I am not going to give a black-and-white view on the matter. I am very keen to engage with Claire Keatinge and her team to further consult on the issue.

Members will be aware that the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority registers and inspects establishments and agencies delivering a wide range of health and social care services. That, of course, includes residential homes and nursing homes, which operate within a regulatory framework and which are inspected against minimum care standards. My Department publishes that information. RQIA can apply a range of sanctions and enforcement measures to protect the safety of service users and the drive to improve services. However, I accept all Members' criticisms that, in the case of Cherry Tree House, that did not go far enough. We and RQIA have learnt some very hard lessons from that whole incident. I suspect that inspections have improved dramatically because of those lessons learnt.

My Department, in conjunction with RQIA, has recently reviewed care standards for nursing homes. Those are being finalised and will be published in March this year.

In addition to requiring robust arrangements for whistle-blowing and complaints, standards relating to staff recruitment and safeguarding have been updated, and the new standards on personal care and on individual rights to privacy and dignity have been added.

I hope that the announcement that I made this morning on the duty of candour will be helpful in this respect. From now on, it is simply not enough to have regard for openness and transparency. Part of one's responsibility in this sector will be an imperative that, if something that you see is going wrong and you have concerns, you must report it. You must bring it to the attention of the regulators, the Department or the appropriate body. That is a positive step forward in looking after our elderly.

I am running short of time. I thank all Members who contributed. This has been a useful debate, and I thank the Chair of the Committee for tabling the motion. It will help us as we make up our mind about what we can do best to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis deireadh a chur leis an díospóireacht thábhachtach seo inniu. I welcome the opportunity to make the winding-up speech in this important debate, a debate that raises the very worrying issue of abuse against older people. First, I am pleased that there is agreement across the board that it is an issue of the utmost importance and that protection of the elderly is a requirement and a responsibility for everyone. Moreover, I am pleased that everyone welcomes the work of Claire Keatinge, the Commissioner for Older People.

Bhí an coimisnéir do dhaoine scothaosta iomlán soiléir nuair a thug sí freagairt don athbhreithniú faoi Cherry Tree House. The Commissioner for Older People was very clear in her response to the Cherry Tree House review. She described the entire review as a:

Perhaps most worryingly, the health and social care trusts continued to put older, vulnerable people into care homes that failed to meet even minimum standards. In Committee, we heard disturbing evidence from Professor Williams about an owner of eight care homes in Wales in which there were 110 victims of serious abuse and neglect and the deaths of 60 people in suspicious circumstances. No charges were brought, and no prosecutions took place. Clearly the law was inadequate in those cases, and that is why we must get it right here.

Caithfimid bheith i gceart anseo faoin cheist seo. What is required is a single adult safeguarding Bill to place a statutory duty on all relevant organisations to cooperate in the protection of older people. It needs to be clear and unambiguous so as to provide a proper platform on which to develop good practice in this important area. Chomh maith le reachtaíocht, ba chóir do oiliúnt chuí, treoir agus acmhainní bheith in áit don fhoireann. Along with legislation, there must be appropriate training, guidance and resources in place for staff, as well as a public awareness campaign to ensure that there is unity of purpose between the public and the relevant organisations.

I now wish to pick up on the important and relevant points raised by Members who participated in the debate. Maeve McLaughlin, the Committee Chair, was the first Member to speak, and she talked about the protection of the elderly being a priority for us all. She said that it is important that abuse be clearly defined and put in legislation. She made comment about the 'Panorama' programme 'Behind Closed Doors'.

Pam Cameron talked about the need for zero tolerance and said that there must be a sea change in attitudes towards treatment of the elderly. She also outlined the disturbing case of one of her constituents, who experienced negative treatment in a care home.

Fearghal McKinney talked about the right to be treated with respect, and he said that abuse comes in many forms and affects people in institutions and individual homes. He also flagged up the fact that there are other care needs, not just of the elderly but of people with learning disabilities and with autism. He also mentioned the recent report 'Appreciating Age'. Michael McGimpsey talked about levels of allegations of abuse rising and said that most elderly abuse takes place in the person's own home. He said that it is much more difficult to afford protection to people in those circumstances but that it is important that legislation cover that.

Kieran McCarthy also commended Claire Keatinge and the work that she does. He talked about protecting those who report cases, making it easier for people to report, protecting whistle-blowers and encouraging more people like that to come forward.

Paul Givan reminded us all that we all have older relatives. He mentioned the 'Panorama' programme as well. He talked about the failure of the Cherry Tree House home and said that it was compounded by the failure of the regulators. He asked whether new legislation was necessary.

Mickey Brady talked about how people have now become a commodity. He talked about his mother, who is one of those older people at the age of 106. The vast majority of residential care is excellent, but we need to be sure that all care is excellent, not the majority.

Edwin Poots talked about the work of those who give care and support. Legislation alone would not be enough. He mentioned that there was a massive difference between care homes. Some are great and some are not, but, if there was more money, standards would rise in all of them.

Pat Ramsey talked about the positive contribution that older people make to society and said that they deserved the best protection possible. People are living longer, so there will be an increased demand for services. That was a common feature throughout the debate.

Sam Gardiner flagged up the different types of abuse and said that people in the North do not have the same protections as those in England, Scotland and Wales because of different policies and legislation. As Father of the House, he felt that it was his duty to speak up for senior citizens, and I think we can afford him the place to say that.

Basil McCrea talked about top-ups and the rise in the number of older people. He also flagged up a concern about a constituent of his and said that we should name and shame perpetrators.

The Minister then talked about the harm perpetrated against those with learning disability and mental ill health, so it is not just the elderly and not just in homes. He also flagged up the fact that most abuse takes place in private homes and not in residential care. He laid out lots of statistics that are relevant to those cases, which I will not go into here. He is not persuaded that legislation is needed and remains to be convinced. He flagged up the important work of the commissioner, Claire Keatinge, and the other pieces of work that are coming through the Department. I urge the Minister to heed what people are saying here and to carefully consider the need for legislation on the issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. As a valid petition of concern was presented on Thursday 22 January in relation to the motion, the vote will be on a cross-community basis.

Mrs Cameron: I beg to move

I rise not only as the Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee, who was neither informed nor consulted on the matter, but as a unionist who, yet again, is being forced to defend our constitutional place within the United Kingdom and fight not just for the symbols of nationality, which we hold in such high esteem, but for our identity.

It is my intention — I hope that others will follow it — that the debate should not descend into "whataboutery". It would be very easy to indulge in flag point-scoring, but I aim to resist that because, although we are talking about the reproduction of a national flag on licences, this is about much deeper issues. It is about basic governance, equal rights and accepted identity. I would prefer, instead, to use the debate to establish exactly what was behind the Minister's decision, why he took that decision without consultation and whether he has any idea what the officials in his Department are doing.

Let us be clear: this is a decision that the Minister and his officials seem to have taken on their own and without any meaningful consultation. This Minister and his officials seem to be carving out a niche for themselves in acting in isolation and without any due regard for process or broader politics. I have noted the responses that the Minister has already provided at Question Time and in writing to other representatives. On closer inspection of those answers, it seems that either he or his officials are deliberately misleading the House and the Committee, because, if they are factual accounts, the answers given display an alarming lack of awareness of the seriousness of the issue on the part of both the Minister and, perhaps even more worryingly, the officials in his Department. For either of them to take the view that the issue is not cross-cutting or is unlikely to be controversial is simply beyond belief.

Of course, it is not the first time that this has happened. When the announcement was made that 300 jobs would be lost at Coleraine, the Minister and his officials were taken by surprise. We were told that they knew nothing about it until an announcement was made in Westminster and a letter arrived in the Department. We also found out recently that, for provisional licence holders in Northern Ireland, the costs are double those in GB. How was that allowed to happen? And here we are again: the Minister and his Department knew nothing about this issue until another letter arrived on the Minister's desk. It seems somewhat telling that, when it comes to driving and vehicle licensing matters, the Minister and his officials have been asleep at the wheel.

I turn to the answers that the Minister has already given on the subject. Let me see if I can understand correctly his version of events.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I hope that this is a point of order.

Mr McElduff: So do I. [Laughter.]

The Deputy Speaker can rule on the accuracy or otherwise of this attempted point of order. Is it legitimate for a Member to attack officials in the way that the Member is doing? It is fair game to attack Ministers and political, elected figures, but a theme seems to be running through that speech, which is attacking officials.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): When we speak, we all need to be careful about what we say. On this occasion, I did not hear anything out of order. Please continue.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

In 2012, the UK Government announced their intention to include the Union flag on Great Britain driving licences. The Transport Minister, Mike Penning, wrote to the previous Minister to advise him of that intention. Mr Penning's letter noted that driver licensing was a devolved matter but that DVLA printed our driving licences under contract. Mr Penning indicated his intention that DVLA would continue to print Northern Ireland driving licences without change to the existing design. He asked for a view on that. My first question, at this point, is to ask the Minister whom his officials consulted to reach that view.

In his previous answers, the Minister goes on to state that, further to that correspondence, officials in his Department engaged with DVLA to ascertain whether it would be possible to provide individuals with an option to choose whether to include or exclude the flag. DVLA, however, indicated that that would not be possible, as the costs involved in making the system and the associated changes required to offer such a choice were prohibitive. The end result —

Mr Humphrey: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does she agree with me that, as the licences across the kingdom will be printed with the flag on them, the cost is for those who are sufficiently offended by the Union flag to have it removed? The cost is actually from the point of view of nationalism, not from the point of view that the licences themselves are being printed with the Union flag on them.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for his intervention. I was just coming to that. The end result is that the flag will be applied to all GB driving licences, with no ability for individuals to opt in or opt out.

The Department, having considered the issue, responded to DfT in December 2012 confirming its agreement with DfT's intention to continue to print NI driving licences without any change to the existing design. As no change came forward, no further consultation occurred. I assume that the term "further consultation" was used loosely, given that none took place in the first instance. Let me just check this: the cost of offering an opt-out would be prohibitive, as it would mean maintaining two systems and producing two sets of licences. So, to deal with that, it is proposed to — guess what? — maintain two systems. Minister Penning and the DOE get to decide that the people in Northern Ireland keep the non-flag version while everywhere else in GB gets the Union flag version. That is a brilliant example of devolution in action — not.

Can someone help me out here? Even suspending disbelief and assuming that all events to date are as described, if this is purely about cost, surely the cheapest option of all was a common licence for everyone in the United Kingdom. Given that that option was not followed up or, we can only presume, even considered, we can assume that it was not a decision taken on the basis of cost and that it was a political decision to ensure that no nationalist or republican should suffer the offence of having to be tainted by the image of the Union flag. So much for equality, tolerance and human rights.

The principle of consent is central not just to our agreed constitutional position but to every aspect of how the Assembly is supposed to work. Although Members on the opposite side of the House are keen to raise the subject of tolerance and respect when it comes to parades and language, they seem loath to acknowledge it when it comes to any basic manifestation of Britishness. The fact is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. We are British citizens and subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Everyone knows that flags and emblems are some of the most contentious issues in communities and in government. Time and time again, they provide the biggest stumbling blocks to building the stability and progress that the public are crying out for. No one has come out of the flags debacle with any credit — on any side of the argument. However — this is important — just because there is an element of farce to certain aspects of the flags and emblems protests, that does not mean that there will not be times when those issues are of genuine and serious concern to those who value that culture and identity. I extend that to all sides of the community here. That is why it beggars belief that, just days after the Stormont House Agreement, which is supposed to be some kind of road map for leading us out of the abyss of the past few years, this Minister, on his own and without any agreement anywhere, chose to completely disregard the basic identity and right of even the most moderate unionists by forcing them, once again, to be stripped of any symbol of identity or recognition. Minister, would it be easier for you if we all just went away? Is it so unbearable for you to allow unionist people to express their identity that you feel the need to discriminate against them with this crass decision and attempt to blame London when, in fact, the responsibility rests locally? It is completely the Minister's responsibility, and he needs to accept that.

The SDLP Minister, in making the decision not to permit citizens of Northern Ireland to display the Union flag on their driving licence, has displayed blatant disregard for the constitutional arrangements and principles to which his party signed up in the Belfast Agreement. We were told endlessly by nationalists and republicans that this was the holy grail and must be upheld at every turn. The Minister undermines the good work of those in his party who have stood up for the rights of everyone, including unionists, even to their own electoral and personal detriment. This policy is not fit to be identified with the party that he represents.

The UK driving licence is widely accepted as a form of identification by all forms of government, yet the Minister sees fit not to allow citizens the right to display the national flag on an official government document. Today, I call on the Minister to reverse his overtly politically motivated decision. The very least that I expect from his Department is to fight to allow the people of Northern Ireland the choice of whether to have the flag on their driving licence or not. I am not persuaded by the earlier smokescreen of cost.

Identity is important. We know that only too well, and we continue to struggle with all that the history of this place has bequeathed to us. I do not ever wish to deny the Minister or anyone on the opposite Benches the right to carry an Irish passport if that is what they choose to do. He is, I suppose, fortunate that, in fact, he freely has that choice. It is just a pity that he is not prepared to extend the same basic right or the same spirit of generosity to me and the people I represent.

Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The business of passports and emblems and symbols on driving licences does not seem like an accurate comparison. It does not stand up because, in this society, one can apply for and receive either a British passport or an Irish passport.

An chéad rud a ba mhaith liomsa a dhéanamh ag tús na díospóireachta seo ná. I want to express our party’s opposition to the motion. Many will view the motion as a waste of time. Many will believe that the subject received sufficient ventilation during the Environment Minister's Question Time on Tuesday 20 January. The motion refers to the Union flag as the national flag, and, of course, the definition of national flag in this society is contested, to say the least. Certainly, those who elect me to come here and almost half the population of the Six Counties do not view the Union flag as their national flag. That is the way it is. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. No comments from the Back Benches, please.

Mr McElduff: You might wish it to be different, but it is not different.

Mr Humphrey: Will the Member give way?

Mr McElduff: No, the Member will have adequate opportunity during the debate to make his points, and I will take some time now to make mine.

The definition of the national flag is contested, to say the least, because, speaking personally and on behalf of very many people in the North and more people throughout Ireland, we view our national flag as green, white and orange. That represents unity and peace between Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter. It is even more inclusive. That is my view and the view of very many people throughout Ireland and very many people who elect people to this Chamber. People talk about "the kingdom", but all that language is contested. To me, "the kingdom" is the kingdom of Kerry, and, in Gaelic football terms, the flag of the kingdom is green and gold. That has been told to me often by the voice —

Mr A Maginness: The question is this: is Kerry —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. We will have one Member on the Floor at a time and no comments from a sedentary position. Please continue.

Mr McElduff: I have often listened to the voice of Radio Kerry, my good friend Weeshie Fogarty, and he maintains that the kingdom is indeed Kerry and that its flag is green and gold.

To desist from being facetious, I want to say that it does nobody any favours for some unionist politicians to constantly impose this agenda. The obsession with the Union flag being put in our faces comes across as politically immature, intolerant and insecure. One of the best tweets of the last week was a tweet that celebrated the fact that Craigavon council will dissolve on April Fool's Day after its decision on imposing the Union flag against the views of people as expressed in a consultation in that community.

I have read Hansard from the Environment Minister's Question Time. The Minister rightly quoted, in answer to me, the Good Friday Agreement, which talks about all participants acknowledging the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes. We exist. We are entitled to equality. People elect us to come here to represent their views and their sensitivities.

If there is one issue that I might like to see addressed, in perhaps striking some common purpose with Pam Cameron, the Member who proposed the motion, it is clarification of who actually took the decision. The Minister said that he did not take the decision. There is maybe a wee inconsistency, because, in the 'Derry Journal', a party spokesman for the SDLP claimed that it was the Minister's decision. It would be good to have that cleared up. I have just digressed from my script to make that one and only other point.

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

Mr McElduff: I would say this: we exist. The nationalist and republican people of the North of Ireland exist, we matter and we want equality as well.

Mr Eastwood: We are back here again. We have spent a few hours debating the Budget, which many of us have difficulties with, but we will not go into that again. We are living in a situation where serious austerity is being brought down on our people. We have issues with the health service, education, joblessness and emigration, but tonight we are talking about a very important issue: whether we can put a flag on a small driving licence. I just do not understand it. This place has a credibility problem. Every time we have a debate like this, we end up making it worse.

People on the opposite Benches have lauded the Stormont House Agreement. Part of that agreement was to set up a commission to look at all these issues. It will be set up, I think, before the summer.

Mr Humphrey: I thank the Member for giving way. At least he is engaging in debate, unlike the previous Member.

I want to make a point to the Member about the Stormont House Agreement. We have a situation in which agreement was reached — your party was involved in it and so was mine — yet, within a short time, that announcement comes from the Minister. I ask the Member this in all sincerity and being completely genuine: why has the SDLP signed a petition of concern on the issue?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Before continuing, I remind all Members that good temper and moderation should be shown and respect to whomever has the Floor. I ask all Members from both sides to do so. Please continue.

Mr Eastwood: As far as I know, the timing of that announcement came from DfT; it was not from the Minister here.

The crux of the matter is, and it is interesting —

Mr Humphrey: What about the petition of concern?

Mr Eastwood: You would never sign a petition of concern about anything.

We believe that this is about equality. The word "equality" has been bandied about by DUP spokespersons today. It is good to hear that they are now on the equality side of the argument. We believe that equality is not about shoving things down people's throats. It is not about making people feel like second-class citizens in their own area. That is what we have done for far too long in this part of the world.

I am delighted to hear DUP Members quoting the Good Friday Agreement to us. If that means that they are now supporters of the Good Friday Agreement, that is a very good thing. That agreement talks about acknowledging the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, acknowledging the sensitivities, not just your —

Mr Storey: What about our sensitivities?

Mr Eastwood: Do you want to listen? It is not just your sensitivities but everybody's sensitivities. The idea that your identity has somehow been eroded or the fact that we are part of the UK — unfortunately, in my opinion — has been eroded —

Mr Storey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Eastwood: Briefly, please.

Mr Storey: Will the Member accept that the sensitivity that his party showed when it supported the taking down of the Union flag at Belfast City Hall was an expression of how that sensitivity is displayed? He could not find another way to outdo the Sinn Féin element that is creeping behind him electorally. They thought that that was the best way to resolve the issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Eastwood: Do we want to do this again? I do not understand unionism sometimes. Maybe I do not understand it a lot of the time, but I try my best. The Ulster Unionists and the DUP got the SDLP and Sinn Féin to support and vote for the flying of the Union Jack — the Union flag — over Belfast City Hall for the same number of days as it flies over this Building, by the way. You did not claim victory; instead, you claimed defeat. It always happens. You told your supporters that they were losing something and that their identity was being eroded, when, in fact, you had nationalists voting to support a flag to which we have no allegiance being flown over Belfast City Hall in the same way as it is flown here. Instead of upping the ante all the time, creating antagonism and encouraging your supporters to be angry, why not try to be more confident in your position? Let them know that the Union is safe until I and people like me can persuade enough people to change the constitutional status quo. That is a position that we have accepted, a position that Sinn Féin has accepted and a position that the nationalist people across Ireland have accepted. We have accepted that we cannot change the constitutional position of Northern Ireland until we persuade enough people to do that. Surely that is a victory. Can you not claim that as a victory? Instead, you wind up your supporters by putting out 40,000 leaflets, and you create mayhem. You create an issue about drivers' licences that nobody was talking about before.

The DUP has had the Environment Ministry. Maybe it was before my time, but I do not remember previous Environment Ministers looking to have the Union flag on driving licences here. Why can you not just be a bit more generous and understand that it is easier for you? By the way, the word "UK" is in big letters in the European Union flag on the driving licence. I do not necessarily like that, but that is how it is, and we accept it. Why do you then need to shove it down people's throats even more by putting the Union flag on it? This issue has been created by UKIP in Britain and acquiesced in by the Tory party, and the DUP and the Ulster Unionists are jumping all over it. You need to learn the lesson and understand that equality is not just for me or just for you —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Would the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Eastwood: — it is for all of us, and it is about parity of esteem.

Mrs Overend: I support the motion. When the inclusion of the Union flag on new driving licences was announced by Westminster Transport Minister Claire Perry on 30 December, it emerged that, while drivers in England, Scotland and Wales would be issued the new licence with both the Union and European flags, drivers in Northern Ireland would not be treated in the same manner. I echo the comments of Ms Perry:

That is an important point. It is a major anomaly that what is probably the UK's most widely used identity document was dominated by an EU flag and no other symbol.

It is a matter of regret, however, that drivers in Northern Ireland were denied the opportunity afforded to those in the rest of the UK by the Minster of the Environment. The Minister's SDLP colleague, John Dallat, spoke yesterday about how, 16 years ago, 71% of the people in Northern Ireland endorsed the Belfast Agreement, an agreement that, as Mr Eastwood said, recognises the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom until the majority of people decide otherwise, something of which I can happily say there is no prospect in the foreseeable future. That agreement allowed people to see themselves as British, Irish or Northern Irish. I realise that this diversity of identity would always have meant that putting the Union flag on drivers' licences would be contentious; that is why the Department would have been commended for showing caution. However, instead of caution, it has shown blatant disregard and indifference to the many people who are now being treated differently. After all, it is the sovereign flag of the United Kingdom.

The question has been asked before, but I will ask it again: for the majority of people living in Northern Ireland who identify with the Union flag, why is there no option to have it included on new licences? The power is devolved, so in theory the Minister should have the ability to set the policy. Is the printing of licences non-devolved? The Minister has said that the DVLA indicated that it would not be possible on the grounds of cost, but he needs to provide the details, not least the exact scale of that additional cost and why it was seemingly insurmountable. The Minister may, I think, have said the other day that Northern Ireland licences are printed on a separate line. Is that the case only because of this difference? If not, what savings could be made if all licences were printed on the one line with the Union flag on it?

In the past, the SDLP has defended the Belfast Agreement, as it has done today. Unfortunately, in taking this politically motivated decision, they now seem to be abandoning support for a key principle of that agreement. Now the SDLP, not content with trying to block the national flag being displayed on the Northern Ireland driving licences of those who want it, joins Sinn Féin to sign a petition of concern and block the debate and the vote on the issue.

The SDLP's behaviour over recent days is stifling the democratic process and has been disappointing. It serves only to make that party appear to be joined at the hip with Sinn Féin.

Northern Ireland is and continues to be an important part of the United Kingdom, something that the Prime Minister acknowledged just this morning when he called for the inclusion of our parties in the election debates.

The recent Scottish referendum revealed a wide cross section of support for the Union across the political spectrum and the regions. However, it is only here in Northern Ireland that motorists will not be able to have their national flag on their driving licence.

I realise that some others do not feel that this is an important issue, but let me reiterate the feelings of unionist people right across Northern Ireland who feel totally disregarded because of this decision. I certainly would like the option of having the Union flag on my driving licence, and I promise not to wave it.

Ms Lo: As other Members alluded to earlier, during last week's Environment Question Time, the Minister was asked to explain his decision not to include the flag of the United Kingdom on Northern Ireland driving licences and to explain why it had not been consulted on. The Minister's convoluted response suggested to me that he was trying to shift the blame on to the Minister for Transport. The Minister's argument was that, in 2012, his SDLP predecessor saw no need to consult, as driver licensing is a transferred matter and the Department of the Environment is responsible for it. As no change of policy was proposed, he felt that consultation with anyone was not necessary. However, when the Minister for Transport advised Minister Attwood that he would be putting the UK flag on licences in England, he asked for his view on that. At that point, he had the opportunity to consult on the matter, and he did not. Furthermore, when Minister Durkan received a letter from the Minister for Transport in December 2014 regarding the plans for the GB licences, he could have requested time to consult, but he did not.

Flags are an incredibly sensitive issue in most societies, especially Northern Ireland. The Minister should have known that that approach could be controversial. There are a good number of reasons why the matter should have been a subject for consultation. First, as part of the Good Friday Agreement, all parties now support the principle of consent that says that Northern Ireland is and remains part of the United Kingdom until or unless the people decide otherwise. Secondly, in matters of nationality and culture, we have divided and overlapping identities, and finally, in matters of esteem, all must be treated with dignity and in the spirit of equality. However, it is also worth noting that what the public might care about most where driving licences are concerned is that we will have to pay twice as much as our GB counterparts for a provisional or a renewal of licence. The public might prefer us to discuss, among other matters, improving health services, the creation of more jobs, housing issues, racism, water supplies, the arts and the huge cuts to public services. There is plenty more for us to discuss.

The point is not that flags do not matter but that attitudes and feelings are strong. For that reason, there is now a commission to deal with them. As a result, my view is that the Assembly's time could be better spent debating other, more pressing issues. We are tasked with great responsibility as a legislature, and I resent motions being tabled with the sole intent of political point scoring. Nevertheless, we have to respond to the motion and take a decision.

Members may have their own views on the wisdom or otherwise of the need for flags on driving licences, but once other parts of the UK take that decision, Northern Ireland must respond. Ultimately, the deployment of the Union flag in these circumstances is an expression of sovereignty. So far, no compelling case has been made for Northern Ireland to be treated differently that breaches that position.

The Alliance Party will support the motion, as a standard UK-wide licence could be acceptable. However, if people want standardisation across the UK, I look forward to the DUP changing its stance on issues such as the gay blood ban, equal marriage and the Climate Change Act, which, so far, it has rejected on the basis that we are different.

Lord Morrow: Needless to say, I support the motion, as my name is on it. That will not come as any surprise, I suspect.

It seems to me that the Minister has made a deliberate decision to trigger more friction. How else would one arrive at any other decision? He resides here in Northern Ireland — although I suspect that he will talk about the "North", wherever that is — and he seems to think that the best way to keep his Department going is by causing friction.

I was struck by something that the Minister said at Question Time last week and that he also stated in a response to a question for written answer from my colleague Ian McCrea. He said that he rose up out of his bed one morning and once again flags were in the news. Well, yes, Minister, flags are in the news thanks to you. You have put them back on the agenda. It does not come across very well when those who want to keep the issue on the agenda accuse others of doing so.

For 30 years and more, we had in this country of ours what some call "conflict", but I call it "genocide". That was the terrorist campaign that was initiated by the Provisional IRA, supported by, and participated in by some from, Sinn Féin, which seemed to think that it could bomb and blast every British person out of Northern Ireland. It took them 30 years to catch on and realise, "Look, this is not going to work. These people are not going to go away". As somebody else said, "We haven't gone away, you know", and we know who said that and the context in which it was said.

However, let us make it clear: despite what Sinn Féin may think, and it seems to have the SDLP on board too on this, this British lot over here are not going away. You have tried to bomb us, kill us and murder us. You have tried all that, and the IRA surely should have the wit and wisdom to advise Sinn Féin today, "You know, that didn't work. That didn't break their resolve".

Mr Humphrey: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a valid point. The SDLP talks about sensitivities. I would listen to its words much more intently and believe them if I were not mindful of the fact that that party ignored the sensitivities of the unionist community when it took the flag off the City Hall, called a play park in Newry after a terrorist and campaigned to get dissident terrorists out of jail. It should not be for the Minister and his political dogma to dictate whether there are Union flags on driving licences. It should be up to individuals themselves. Does the Member agree?

Lord Morrow: Yes, I do certainly agree. It ill behoves the Minister to try to make little of the matter and to give a round of applause. That is not the way in which a Minister should be responding here today. He should take his position a wee bit more seriously —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Can all remarks be made through the Chair?

Lord Morrow: — and show respect and regard to those of us who hold dear our Britishness. I accept that the SDLP did not join in the war, as the Provos called it. It was not a war but a genocide, but the SDLP did not join in. What it has now joined in in is an attempt to hollow out all the Britishness that exists here, whether that be with symbols or in some other way.

The SDLP may try that, but let me serve notice today: this will be very short-sighted policy. Let me be clear: if this party gets the Department of the Environment, you will get it back. You can be sure of that. This will be returned to you in kind, and perhaps not in the way in which you even want it. That is ahead of you. The Minister could have taken a very clear line on this and said, "Right. I don't particularly like to put the flag on all the licences, but I'm not going to deprive those who feel that this is their identity. I'm going to give them the option.", but no, the Minister said, "Look, you will do it my way. We will work as a dictatorship here, and we will ensure that it is our way or the highway." I want to make it clear that that highway will come one day, and when the thing turns full circle I suspect we might have a similar motion saying something slightly different from the Members opposite.

We have a petition of concern signed by the SDLP and Sinn Féin, yet when Mr Eastwood was challenged on why he felt it necessary to sign that petition of concern he decided not to answer. He has that privilege: he does not have to answer, but, one day, he will see the answer, and it may be coming quicker than he thinks.

There are those who think that they have scored some victory on the issue of licences. This is an attempt to show that this part of the United Kingdom is different from other regions in the United Kingdom. However, I serve notice today that it will not work: this will be reversed when we take over the Department. Maybe then, it should be returned in kind and no option will be given. I say to everyone here, "Just wait and watch. It's coming ahead of you."

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am amazed and appalled that we are having to debate this. This place faces serious social and economic problems, and we are here debating the issue of a driving licence. It is a complete waste of time and energy. I am genuinely puzzled that the DUP does not think that we have anything better to talk about.

The language they use is not really helpful. Some of the things they are coming out with are quite frightening. Members of the DUP and the UUP want a situation where people either opt in or opt out of having the Union flag on their driving licence. It is very ironic that this proposal is being put before us on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, because in those days people were forced to wear the Star of David to help identify them so that they would be rounded up. I notice that some Members opposite are wearing commemorative badges for the day, so it is a bit daft for them to come in here and bring this proposal.

The unionist parties want a system whereby one's preferred constitutional status can be easily assumed with the inclusion or exclusion of a Union flag on your driving licence. That is a very daft and irresponsible position to take. Such a proposal would easily mark people out and leave them vulnerable in some situations. I ask Members opposite to imagine a nationalist going out in a mixed or largely unionist area, trying to get into a pub or nightclub that has unionist or loyalist doorkeepers, being asked for ID and presenting a driving licence that does not include a Union flag. That would single that person out as not being a unionist and not sharing that outlook.

The conflict did not start in 1969, like Maurice Morrow wants people to think: he should know better because he lived through a lot of it. Sectarianism did not suddenly arrive in 1969: it has been going on for centuries. Those on the Benches opposite need to realise that an opt-in or opt-out system would easily mark people out. I ask them to reflect on young nationalists who may want to go out in a mixed or unionist area and recognise that such a system would leave them open to targeting.

What about a unionist who wants to go out in a largely nationalist or republican area? How would they feel, going into a pub or a nightclub with nationalist or republican doorkeepers and being asked to display their driving licence for ID when there is a Union flag on it? Would they not feel intimidated? [Interruption.]

Deputy Speaker, there are a lot of remarks coming from sedentary positions. Is that going to be allowed to continue? Obviously it is. It is fine: we have to respect a Union flag on a licence, but Members — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order, order. I will intervene when I think it is necessary. Please continue.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Point of order, Mr Flanagan.

Mr Flanagan: Surely, under Standing Orders, comments from a sedentary position are not allowed to be made. I ask you to uphold Standing Orders when I am trying to address the Chamber.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Please carry on, if you wish to.

Mr Flanagan: On a point of order —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): If the Member wishes to pursue this, we will move on. I will give the Member another chance.

Mr Flanagan: Is this my point of order, or —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): If you make a point of order, I will move on.

Mr Flanagan: This is excellent, nearly as good as Claire Byrne chairing a debate on RTÉ last night.

People who want to allow people to be marked out by the inclusion or absence of a Union flag on their driving licence are very irresponsible. [Interruption.]

Maurice, I ask you not to speak from a sedentary position, if you do not mind.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. I ask Mr Flanagan to take his seat. We will now move on. I call Alex Easton.

Mr Flanagan: On a point of order —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I have asked you to take your seat. We are now moving on to Mr Easton. Thank you.

Mr Easton: I am absolutely outraged and extremely disappointed that Northern Ireland is to be the only region in the United Kingdom that will not display the Union flag — our national flag — on the new driving licences. The Transport Minister, Claire Perry, said:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order, Members. I ask you to operate with courtesy, good temper and respect for all. A certain amount of chitter is allowed in debate, and it is a difficult task for whomever is in the Speaker's seat to find that balance. Ultimately it is the Speaker or Deputy Speaker's decision. I hope that Members will respect that. Please continue.

Mr Easton: Claire Perry continued:

Unfortunately, this statement does not apply to us. As a British motorist, I am quite hurt that, unlike my counterparts on the mainland, I cannot fly my flag with pride on my driving licence. It is a very sorry state of affairs and so much more than just regrettable. I am aware that Northern Ireland differs from the rest of the UK in some ways, but what does not differ is that the Union flag is our national flag too. It saddens me when we are continually made to feel that we are doing wrong by wanting to express our identity. It is simply wrong that we are the only part of the UK that is treated differently and unfairly.

What we need to know is the truth behind the decision. In the 'News Letter', the SDLP stated that it was that party that stopped the union flag being displayed on our driving licences. However, in answer to a question for oral answer that I asked, the Environment Minister stated:

The Minister is saying here that it is not him but his Department that is responsible. What are the facts of the matter, Minister? I demand to know which is correct: the statement by your party that it was responsible or the statement made to me in response to my question for oral answer? Is it the UK Transport Minister? You will have to outline what the facts are.

I also find it strange that, while the Minister also apparently asked the UK Transport Minister if it would be possible to provide individuals with an option to choose whether to include our flag, this was rejected for some reason. Where is the proof from your Department that you were looking at this? Can you provide papers so that we can get to the bottom of the issue? In response to my question for oral answer, you also said:

If it is able to print both types of driving licence, where is the extra cost? The driving licence across the rest of the UK is actually cheaper than the driving licence in Northern Ireland.

Why can an application form not have a simple box to tick to show whether you want to have the flag of your country or the European Union logo on your driving licence? I do not see what the problem is. If you could decide whether you want the Union flag or not, everybody would be happy with their licence, and nobody would feel alienated. As I said in my question for oral answer, Minister, over half the population of Northern Ireland —

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Member for giving way. I just want to say that the European Union logo will remain on the driving licence. It does not disappear. It remains because it is part of the European directive in relation to driving licences, and that is a matter of law.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Easton: I thank the Deputy Speaker for the extra minute. Nobody is arguing about the European Union logo. What we are arguing about is that the DOE has denied our right to have the Union flag on our driving licence. That is unacceptable.

Mr A Maginness: That is not what you said.

Mr Easton: That is what I said.

As I said in my question to the Minister, over half the population of Northern Ireland has been offended by this. You owe it to them to tell the facts of the matter. Is this down to your Department? Is it down to the UK Transport Department? It is down to you? Is it down to a bit of both?

Mr Eastwood: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member and other Members of his party have talked quite a bit about the right to have the Union flag on the driving licence. Can the Member point me to any international law that says that you have that right?

Mr Easton: Across the European Union, most countries are putting logos on their driving licence, including the Irish Republic, which is putting a harp on its, so why can we not have the Union flag on ours? I have to ask this: five months out from the election, was this a stunt? Is the SDLP concerned that it will lose —

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

Mr Easton: — its two MPs? The Minister really needs to step up to the mark and start treating our side of the House fairly. If he is not able to do so, we will have to express deep concerns about —

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

Mr Easton: — how we are being treated and return that in kind.

Mr A Maginness: I have listened carefully to the debate. I recognise the sense of concern raised by the Members opposite. My party and I understand their affection for the Union flag. I also recognise that the proposer of the motion emphasised two points. One was that everyone knows that flags and emblems are contentious. The second point she made was that identity — political or national identity, I assume — is important. I agree with both statements.

The fact of the matter is that this initiative was taken by a British Government at the Westminster Parliament on foot of the rather jingoistic surge in UKIP's electoral support. It was a response to that right-wing, anti-European, very jingoistic form of British nationalism. The British Conservative Government and, unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats agreed to this. For many years, the British licence simply had the European logo on it. That, in our view, was sufficiently neutral in the context of our situation, in which, as the proposer said, symbols and identity are contested issues. Having a neutral symbol such as the European logo should satisfy most people in Northern Ireland because it does not offend anyone's national identity. It is simply an expression of our Europeanism and our membership of the European Union, which is very important to us and has brought us a lot of economic and social benefit.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member accept that, across Europe, most countries are moving to the same style of driver's licence and are including flags or emblems or a symbol of their country on their licence? Actually, the UK is playing catch-up with the rest of Europe by going down this road.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr A Maginness: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Member for her contribution. I think what is happening is that the Conservative Party is playing catch-up with UKIP in a British context, contesting that right-wing, jingoistic, nationalist space. This is the outworking of that, and it is very sad. Look at our situation here: as you have said, emblems and flags are contentious. If that is true, is it not better to have a neutral symbol such as the European logo? Is that not better than having a situation where you impose a Union Jack on somebody or impose a tricolour on somebody?

Mr Humphrey: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. To be fair to him and to my colleagues who have spoken in the debate, we are not asking anyone to have a tricolour imposed on them. We are not asking anyone to have a Union flag imposed. We are asking for people to have the option and not to have it dictated to them by a political party that has political dogma behind the decision.

Mr A Maginness: Let me come to that point. I am sure the Minister will explain his position and that of the Department, but, as I understand it — I am subject to correction on this — officials in the Department explored the possibility of having an option in relation to the Union flag. That option was deemed to be prohibitively expensive, and it could not properly be done in the context of a realistic budget in relation to the production of the licences. That, I believe, is the situation. The Member can shake his head, but the Minister will speak in due course, and, if I am wrong, the Minister will express the official view of the Department and give details of that. However, that option was explored.

My view is that it is better not having options, and I will tell you why. It creates a situation where somebody has, say, a Union Jack on their licence and some other person has not got a Union Jack or indeed has some other symbol — a tricolour or a harp or whatever — and that identifies that person politically. We end up with an apartheid type of identification in our society. That is entirely wrong.

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

Mr A Maginness: I will. The Minister acted reasonably here and recognises, as we do in the SDLP, the difficulties involved in symbols and flags and emblems.

Mr Elliott: I will commence by saying something that may surprise some Members on the opposite side of the House: I actually agree with some of the sentiments of the Members on the opposite side, those sentiments being that the debate should never have come to the Chamber at all. It should have been dealt with properly by the Minister, but it has not been. If it had been dealt with properly, it would have no need to come to the Chamber for us to debate this evening. I think that —

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Member for giving way. If the Member was the Minister, what would he have done in such circumstances? Would he simply have imposed a Union Jack on people here, or would he have created a situation in which there were options?

Mr Elliott: The chances of me being Environment Minister are probably pretty limited, Mr Maginness. Anyway, I will come to your question in a few moments, when I have time to explore the issue.

As we said, we see no difficulty in providing an option. We are part of the United Kingdom, and it is a sovereignty issue. You and your party, Mr Maginness — through you, Mr Deputy Speaker — voted for us to remain part of the United Kingdom. You accept that we are part of the United Kingdom, so why can you not respect that? I respect the fact that those who live in the Irish Republic are part of the Irish Republic. They are Irish, and I accept that. I even accept that, as Mr McElduff said, people up here have a different cultural identity. I accept that. Why can others not accept the reality that we are constitutionally part of the United Kingdom?

Mr Humphrey: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree with me that, on the very same issue, someone who lives in the United Kingdom — a member of the SDLP, for example — and pays tax to the British Exchequer can travel on an Irish passport because of the consent principle that they signed up to in the Belfast Agreement? They are now denying people here — citizens of the kingdom — the chance to have a Union flag on their driving licence.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Elliott: Yes, absolutely.

I come to the matter of the option that has been suggested. As I said, I would prefer that licences had the Union Jack, but, as a matter of respect for and courtesy to those who may not want that, there is an option to allow people to have it or not.

I heard Mr Maginness and others say that that would cause problems for people and would identify what they are. There does not seem to be any difficulty for those who carry an Irish or a UK passport. That does not seem to inhibit the people who carry those. I have as much respect for those who carry an Irish passport as for those who carry a UK passport. Indeed, I know some very good nationalists — they would claim to be good nationalists — who carry a UK passport.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Elliott: Indeed, I know a few people who are unionists who carry an Irish passport. I am happy to give way to Mr Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: I am glad to hear you say that you know unionists who carry an Irish passport, and I know that there are a few on the other Benches. Do you not also agree that, if you want a Union flag, you can wear one on your lapel, as many Members do? You can fly one outside your house, as many Members do. You can put a sticker on your car. You can have as many Union flags as you want.

Mr Elliott: I am pleased that Mr Sheehan mentioned the car sticker. I used to have a Rover, and, if any of you recall, old Rover cars had a little Union flag on the back. I went to a place that would not be great for a unionist politician — Bundoran — to take part in a debate between the Orange Order and the GAA. The chair of the meeting followed me out to have a chat with me outside. We were standing behind my car, and he happened to see the wee Union flag on my car — it was a small thing, if any of you remember. He warned me. He said "I would advise you, Mr Elliott, never to come back with that again". He did not make a huge issue of it, but he was sending out an obvious warning to me that that Union flag was not acceptable in that area or in that community. I note that people wish to fly the Irish tricolour in this part of the United Kingdom, and that seems to be acceptable to some.

All that I ask is the respect that we do not seem to have. I plead with the Minister to show his counterparts across the Chamber and those who vote for us some tolerance and respect. Is it a case of the old adage of anti-Britishness? Do you not want anything that is British or that shows a sign of the United Kingdom? That is what appears to be coming from my colleagues across the Chamber: "You are not wanted here. This is our country. This is our place" —

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

Mr Elliott: — "and you who show any allegiance to the United Kingdom or Britishness are not welcome".

Mr G Robinson: I support the motion tabled by my DUP colleagues.

The Department for Transport has proudly boasted that United Kingdom driving licences will display the country's Union flag, but, despite Northern Ireland being part of the UK, that will not apply here. Indeed, the Department is going to the expense of:

It is bad enough that we lost our DVLA service in Coleraine, but to have our licence tarnished is an insult, and we were shocked to see that decision taken by the SDLP.

We are told that Northern Ireland is British, but Swansea and the Department for Transport do not, apparently, understand that. It is another example of how Westminster is caving in to the agenda of nationalists and republicans at the expense of those loyal to Her Majesty and the law. During the debate on the DVLA jobs in Coleraine, I warned that the service that Northern Ireland would receive would deteriorate. I must confess that my assumptions are coming true. It is bad enough that I have had to fight to have Northern Ireland driving licences recognised as UK licences by some UK bodies in the recent past, but to exclude the national flag from the licence really is heaping insult upon injury for the Northern Ireland people.

I welcome my colleague's recognition that the SDLP has acknowledged that there is not a majority for constitutional change in Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future. Since that is the case, why do they refuse to acknowledge that fact in their actions? I look forward to the explanation.

It is my belief that the decision reached by the Environment Minister is in direct opposition to the majority community's view of Northern Ireland's constitutional position. If we are part of the UK, then the national flag — the Union flag — should be on our driving licence. Taking all that into consideration, I ask the Environment Minister to reflect on his and his party's position and to reach the logical conclusion to reverse the undemocratic decision given to the Department for Transport. In light of the evidence, it is the only fair and equitable decision.

Mr Allister: I support the motion, and I think that the Minister has acted in a wrong-headed and inappropriate way. I believe that he had equality-proofing obligations under section 75 that he did not pursue whatsoever, I believe that he had consultation obligations that he did not pursue altogether and l believe that he had obligations under the strange arrangements of this place, this being a controversial matter, to take the issue to the Executive. In making that case, I pick up the point that Lord Morrow made and say to nationalist and republican Members that if, at a future point, a unionist Minister were to decide that there now shall be a Union flag on the driving licence, would not each and every nationalist and unionist in the House say, "You must section 75-proof that; you must consult on it" —

Mr McElduff: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: In a moment.

"It is controversial, and you must take it to the Executive". Of course they would, because they would say that that would be changing the status quo. However, it is precisely the status quo in the United Kingdom that has been changed in this situation. The status quo that has evolved for the rest of the United Kingdom is the Union flag on the driving licence. The Minister wants to depart from the status quo; therefore, the Minister had an obligation to consult, an obligation to recognise that it was controversial and an obligation to pursue his section 75 obligations. In failing to do that, the Minister failed in his responsibilities.

Then the Minister tells us, "Oh, we cannot have the option of having the Union flag. That isn't possible". I remind the House that people in Northern Ireland pay more for their driving licence than the rest of the United Kingdom. The Minister's colleague had a consultation in 2012 on the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) Regulations, and the consultation was to increase, exclusively in Northern Ireland, the fees for driving licences from the UK standard of £50 to £62·50. Why? The consultation said that it was because there was a separate production line for Northern Ireland driving licences and that the fee is too small to sustain it at the £50 level. We know that that option exists. Therefore, it follows that, by virtue of that already paid-for separate provision, there is the option, if the Minister wanted to take it, of affording the Northern Ireland licence holder the right to have the Union flag on their driving licence.

I very much regret the attitude that the Minister has taken. Even yet, he should review this. It really brings home to one the hypocrisy of those who talk about equality. When it comes to equality for unionists, it is just neutrality; it is never equality. It is never respect for what they want. They talk about parity of esteem, but, when there is an opportunity to tear down the flag from City Hall or to make sure that it does not go on driving licences, it is pursued, grasped and taken. Those who pursue that course of action need to examine their stance the next time they feel compelled to make one of those effusive speeches about parity of esteem, equality and all that. This is a shameful decision and is one that the Minister should reverse.

Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment): I welcome the opportunity to reply to the debate and to provide some clarification on the addition of the Union flag to Great Britain driving licences and the role of my Department and its responsibilities for Northern Ireland — Lord Morrow — driving licences. It would have been helpful if Members from various parties here today had sought that clarification before they ran to radio stations and other media outlets to lambaste the decision, as they put it.

From the outset, it is important to clarify that Great Britain and Northern Ireland driving licences are issued by separate and independent licensing authorities. Whilst GB and NI driving licences are mutually recognised, driver licensing is a transferred matter under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. There is, therefore, no such thing as a "UK driving licence", which the motion refers to, nor can there be any such thing as a "UK-wide scheme", as the proposers suggest.

Under the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, my Department has responsibility for a broad range of matters relating to the licensing of vehicle drivers, including the form of the driving licence. Those provisions must be compliant with EU directive 126/2006 on driver licensing. The directive states that the EU flag must appear on all driving licences issued by EU member states. On that basis, it might be useful to summarise the interactions between the Department for Transport and my Department on the addition of the Union flag to GB licences.

In 2012, when the UK Government announced their intention to include the Union flag on GB driving licences, DfT Minister Mike Penning wrote to my predecessor to advise him of that. Minister Penning's letter rightly noted that driver licensing is a devolved matter and acknowledged that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of the DfT prints our driving licences under contract. Minister Penning indicated his intention that DVLA would continue to print Northern Ireland driving licences without change to the existing design. He asked for a view on that.

Further to that correspondence, officials in my Department engaged with DVLA to ascertain whether it would be possible to provide individuals with an option to include or exclude the flag. DVLA, however, indicated that that would not be possible, as the costs involved in making the system and the associated changes required to offer such a choice were prohibitive. The same approach has, I note —

Lord Morrow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Durkan: I will see how I get on. I might let you in later, Lord Morrow.

The same approach has, I note, been taken in Britain. The flag will be applied to all GB driving licences, with no ability for individuals to opt in or opt out. I also note that that approach has not been universally well received in Britain.

The issue was considered, and a response was made to DfT in December 2012, confirming agreement with DfT's intention to continue to print NI driving licences without any change to the existing design. Given that no change was brought forward, no further consultation occurred. My Department heard no more of the UK Government's plans for GB driving licences until a letter from DfT Minister John Hayes was sent to me, dated 23 December 2014, indicating that the plans for GB licences would be announced over the Christmas period and that Northern Ireland driving licences would continue to be issued without the Union flag.

I listened very carefully to all Members who spoke during the debate, and I thank them for their contributions. I want to make some comments on some of the points raised. Mrs Cameron did not want the debate to descend into "whataboutery" or flag point scoring. I thought that that was the whole point of the debate, to be quite frank. She said that she had noted the answers that I had previously given and the answers that I gave to questions on the issue in Question Time last week, but clearly she did not note them very closely or carefully or else she would have noted that it was not "this Minister", to which she constantly referred.

I welcome Mr McElduff's valiant defence of my officials, and, certainly, it is not and was not appropriate to make assertions and cast aspersions in the manner that Mrs Cameron did. She referred to the need to outsource the printing of our licences and the impact of that on costs. The decision to outsource printing was, I believe, taken by a DUP Minister of the Environment. I have finally managed to convince the Executive of the need to invest in a new IT system that should enable us to print our own licences and thereby reduce costs to our constituents. That is something that I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will welcome.

I will not dismiss all the points made by the proposer. I do know that some people feel that their Britishness has been somehow compromised by this decision, and I have heard from quite a few of them and received emails from quite a few more. I have assured them that the playing-out of this issue across the airwaves has been far from accurate. I have also heard from a great deal of unionists — proud unionists — who feel that they do not need a flag on their licence to remind them where they are from or who they are. For Mrs Cameron to say that I took this decision days after the Stormont House Agreement is just plain inaccurate. DfT wrote to me on 23 December and subsequently released a press statement, and that was the first that my Department had heard on the issue in practically two years.

Mr McElduff in his contribution said that many people might view this debate as a waste of time, and I think that he makes a very valid point. His contribution was fair and balanced. He raised a query around the 'Derry Journal' article, and I know that one of his party trolls has been tweeting about that quite a bit. I ask the Member to read the article. It refers to "our Minister". It does not name anyone.

Mr Eastwood spoke about the real issues out there and the ones that we should be focusing on in here. On a day that parties in the Chamber forced through a Budget that will result in thousands of job losses and massive pain to many people, one cannot help but wonder whether this debate is a convenient distraction.

The details around the cost of providing an option that Mrs Overend would like to have would need to be sought from DfT, but I am happy to do so and provide those details to the Member and, indeed, to the House. However, it is my belief that there is no material cost difference for printing licences with or without the flag. She said that the SDLP is joined at the hip with Sinn Féin. I find that quite laughable, particularly having heard members of her party and the DUP over the airwaves competing in what seemed to be some kind of indignation Olympics to see who could jump up and down the hardest about this issue and who was more offended.

Ms Lo said that the Department should have consulted on the issue. There was no change in policy. I do not recall any clamour from any quarter to have Union flags put on driving licences. Lord Morrow claimed that I made the decision to cause friction. Then Mr Humphrey, no stranger to causing friction himself, could not help but invoke the ghost of the Raymond McCreesh play park. I do not know how many times it has to be said that we got that wrong. We have admitted that.

It seems that, from Lord Morrow's contribution, we can now look forward to the DUP taking this Department, or its successor, in the next mandate and ensuring that people get Union flags on their licences. It is something for their manifesto, I guess, but, given their record of delivery on manifesto pledges, I do not think that will happen any time soon. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order, Members.

Mr Durkan: Mr Flanagan made valid points about how the inclusion of flags on some licences could lead to people being, in effect, branded, singled out and, potentially and realistically, put at risk.

Mr Easton was confused on this issue last week. Despite clarification, he still seems to be a bit in the dark. I have outlined the process that led to the situation again today.

Mr Easton: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly.

Mr Easton: Can the Minister explain why his party put out a press statement claiming the credit for stopping the Union flag going on driving licences when he is claiming that he has nothing to do with it? There is a lot of hypocrisy going on from the Minister.

Mr Humphrey: Tell the truth. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. Members, I remind you of good temper and moderation.

Mr Durkan: I do not know the press statement to which the Member refers, but chronology is clearly not his strong point. Given that I assumed this role in July 2013 and that the last correspondence with or from my Department on the issue was in December 2012, I would need to have a DeLorean parked outside to have made that decision. It was a suggestion from the DfT Minister. My predecessor Alex Attwood concurred with what was a sensible position from a DfT Minister.

Mrs D Kelly: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am sure that he will also want to put on record the comment of his fellow Derry man and the world's greatest Irish man that "You can't eat a flag", even if it is on a driving licence.

Mr Durkan: No, you certainly cannot eat a flag. Given the difficulty that people are having getting their meals on wheels delivered, that is what they might have to resort to.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order, Members.

Mr Durkan: Do the Members opposite, who point to other European jurisdictions and their inclusion of symbols on their licences, really equate that to our circumstances here, where, for years, flags have been used as a tool by some and as a target by others to cause division in our society here in Northern Ireland?

Mr Sheehan intervened, quite usefully in my opinion, and said that people could wear a Union flag on their lapel or put a sticker on their car. What they can do is put a sticker on their licence if they really wish to do so. There is no problem whatsoever with that.

Let us get one thing clear in response to a point made by Mr Elliott. I am not, and my party is certainly not, anti-British. That was an irresponsible remark from Mr Elliott.

On Mr Allister's point in regard to section 75, the Department gave regard to its responsibilities under section 75(2) of the Northern Ireland Act to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations. Equality should be, and is, at the core of everything that my Department does and everything we do individually and, in particular, collectively in the Assembly.

Mr Allister: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Durkan: Yes.

Mr Allister: If the Minister says that he had regard to equality under section 75, then it follows that he concluded that there were no adverse equality consequences to this decision. Is he serious in saying to the majority of people in Northern Ireland that repudiating for them the right to have the practice of the rest of the United Kingdom does not have an equality impact adverse to them? Is he serious in saying that?

Mr Durkan: Given that the option —

Lord Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just noticed that the time clock is stopping. Is that to facilitate the Minister?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Will the Minister please continue?

Mr Durkan: The clock might yet go back to December 2012, if we stay here long enough.

Mr Eastwood: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly.

Mr Eastwood: Will the Minister inform the House how many letters he has received since he took office — I am not sure on what date that was — asking for the Union flag to be shown on the driver's licence?

Mr Durkan: Prior to the press release from DfT that came out over the Christmas period, I had received no representation from anyone on this issue. It was obviously not one that was high up. [Interruption.]

With reference to our constitutional arrangements, hopefully I have explained that there are two independent driver licensing authorities within the UK.

Mr Elliott: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Durkan: I am not sure how much time I have left.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): You have 15 minutes in total.

Mr Elliott: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the Minister giving way. I have just a quick question. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order, Members.

Mr Elliott: You indicated earlier that people could put a Union flag sticker onto their driving licence if they wanted. Are you recommending that people deface an official UK document?

Mr Durkan: The addition of a sticker does not qualify as a defacing of the document. In Mr Elliott's case, if the Member was going to put a sticker on his licence, I would suggest that he put it over the photograph. [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I ask everyone in the Chamber to show good temper and courtesy for all Members.

Mr Durkan: With reference to our constitutional arrangements, I have, I hope, explained that there are two independent driver licensing authorities within the UK. One of them decided to change the design of its licence and, out of courtesy, informed my Department. In so doing, it confirmed that it would, under contract, continue to print our driving licences to the approved design. There never was a UK-wide scheme, and there never has been a UK-wide driving licence.

With the constitution in mind, I would like to reference the Good Friday Agreement, which states:

Taking account of that, I believe that it was appropriate for my predecessor to retain the status quo, rather than seek to introduce additional symbols and emblems onto our driving licence. I believe that the decision was a sensitive and sensible one, and it is one that I would not and will not change. I commend it to the House and cannot, therefore, agree with the motion proposed.

Mr I McCrea: In considering the comments that a number of Members on these Benches have made, it is obvious that the Minister was involved in a decision. He does not claim responsibility for it but he will accept that he had some role in it. According to him, he was in receipt of a letter. His closing comments that he will not change his decision are regrettable. He has an opportunity. Unfortunately, there is a petition of concern, so we will have to wait and see what the numeric vote tells us.

I think that the Minister should take cognisance of Members' comments on that. I will go through some of those comments now.

Pam Cameron proposed the motion and referred to this being a cross-cutting or contentious issue. I do not think that the Minister truly dealt with that matter, and other Members, including Mr Allister, referred to it being a cross-cutting or contentious issue and asked why he did not bring it to the Executive. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to respond.

A Member: He will not.

Mr I McCrea: Indeed. It is important that the Minister takes responsibility. Many on this side of the House certainly view it as a cross-cutting or contentious issue. So, there was a responsibility on the Minister to bring it to the Executive. Mrs Cameron referred to it being a devolved matter. Other Members said that it was not happening due to the prohibitive cost of maintaining two systems. The Minister referred to the reasons for that. However, I think that —

Mr Weir: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: Yes.

Mr Weir: The Member said that the Minister seemed to feel that this was not, by definition, a contentious issue and did not, therefore, bring it to the Executive. Yet, if it is such a non-contentious issue, why have the Minister and his party signed a petition of concern to block it? Does the Member not see an element of irony and some double standards in that?

Mr I McCrea: I thank the Member for his intervention. I could not agree more. When people reflect on the debate, those who said that it was not a cross-cutting or contentious issue will find it difficult to explain that to the public.

It came as no surprise that Barry McElduff was opposed to the motion. He went on a rant about the kingdom of Kerry, allegiance to the flag of the Republic of Ireland and all the rest of it. I wrote down his closing comments, and it is important that he and maybe others reflect on those. "We exist" was one comment that he made. In this debate, it is important that those who oppose the motion consider that we on this side of the House and the unionist community exist also. If that is how Mr McElduff tries to encourage this side of the House to accept his argument, I ask that he at least consider the same in respect of our argument.

Mr McElduff: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: Yes.

Mr McElduff: The essence of my contribution was that this is a contested issue. Will the Member accept that half the people of the North of Ireland view the Irish national flag of green, white and orange, inclusive of its own tradition, as being their national flag? When I say that we matter, we count, which, in Latin, is cogito, ergo sum.

Mr I McCrea: I do not know what to say in response to that, to be honest. [Laughter.]

Mrs Overend: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: I will in a second. The Member is deluded in thinking that half of this population aligns itself to the green, white and orange.

Mr McElduff: It is your tradition.

Mr I McCrea: You will not find that it is much about my tradition, other than maybe the orange. I will give way to Mrs Overend.

Mrs Overend: I just wanted help the Member out by clarifying that only 25% of those recorded in the most recent census, in 2011, identified themselves as being only Irish.

Mr I McCrea: I thank the Member for that intervention. Any recent opinion polls made it clear that the majority of people want to remain part of the United Kingdom, no matter whether Martin McGuinness has issued recent statements to say that a united Ireland is close or not. He is living a pipe dream if he thinks that.

Colum Eastwood's opening comments were that he did not understand this. By the time we got to the end of his contribution, he still did not understand it, and we did not understand what he was trying to say in response to any issues that had been referred to. He talked about the issue of equality and acknowledging the sensitivity of identity. For the most part, all that we on this side of the House are asking for is sensitivity to our identity. The Minister's closing comments, when he said that he would not reconsider this, does not show much sensitivity to our identity.

Sandra Overend referred to the issue of cost and the SDLP being joined at the hip with Sinn Féin. Signing the petition of concern has proved that.

Lord Morrow of Clogher Valley, my esteemed colleague, referred to the ongoing genocide by republicans for over 30 years. It did not work, has not worked and will not work. The Minister is attempting to join republicans in hollowing out our identity. Lord Morrow made the important point to be very careful what you wish for, because, if we get it — it is not an election manifesto campaign; it is a fact — we will change it.

Phil Flanagan; what can I say?

Mr Flanagan: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: He —

Mr Flanagan: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: He — [Laughter.]

He started —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. The Member has not indicated that he will give way. Please proceed.

Mr I McCrea: He started by suggesting that the motion is a waste of time and energy. He spent most of his time and energy trying to get a point of order from the Deputy Speaker. That summed up his points. It was just point of order, point of order, point of order. He expressed concern that some people would be intimidated in republican areas if they were to show up at a nightclub and show a licence with a Union flag on it to a doorman. That says it all.

Many other Members referred to their outrage. All my colleagues who spoke are outraged. I think that any right-thinking person should be outraged at this. As Tom Elliott said, we are part of the United Kingdom, so respect it.

One other point that I feel is important to —

Mr Girvan: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: I will.

Mr Girvan: I was not here for that part of the debate, but what was said indicates the intolerance of that community if someone showing a flag on their licence will be intimidated and persecuted because of that. That says more about them than it does about anything else.

Mr I McCrea: Indeed. I wholly agree with that.

The Minister referred to there being no such thing as a UK licence. Maybe that is the case and maybe it is a Great Britain and Northern Ireland licence, but, on every licence in Northern Ireland, in the top left-hand corner, "UK" is printed within the European flag. So, I am not so sure if that argument stacks up. The Minister has an opportunity. He referred to getting approval from the Executive for a new system to print our own, which will be cheaper. That is the Minister's opportunity to show this side of the House the respect that we require.

Mr Eastwood: Will the Member give way?

Mr I McCrea: I have 20 seconds. I do not think that 20 seconds will be enough for the Member's time and my time to respond. Nonetheless, it is important that we —

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

Mr I McCrea: — consider the issue. When the Minister gets the funding to look at the issue, he should show respect to this side of the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind Members that, as a petition of concern has been placed, the vote will be on a cross-community basis.

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

Ms J McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Let me say at the outset that I will not be taking the 15 minutes because I am very conscious that, given that this is such a serious debate, a number of my colleagues want to speak on it. So, I will try to get through what I have to say as quickly as possible.

Our party asked for this debate to highlight the level of concern at the proposal to remove the £1·1 million special premia allowance from St Mary's teacher training college. That, in effect, amounts to 20% of St Mary's total government funding. Together with the 10·8% proposed reduction in the college's recurrent grant, it would, if implemented, ensure that the college would become financially inviable and, therefore, could no longer continue to exist. That is the seriousness of the debate tonight.

I welcome Minister Farry's attendance and the meeting that he had yesterday with our party delegation, which was led by the deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness. Again, I make a direct appeal to the Minister to see the important contribution that St Mary's makes to education and, indeed, to the wider community and to listen to Members' concerns and the breadth of feeling that we have seen on this issue across the North in recent days.

The premia funding was introduced in 2008 and was specifically designed to ensure the financial sustainability of the university colleges. The funding model, which included the premia, was supported by the Committee for Employment and Learning and formally endorsed by the Executive. The small and specialist funding is an additional element of grant funding that is paid to the colleges to recognise the additional cost associated with the small, specialist nature of their academic provision. The removal of that funding, together with a general reduction of funding, as I said, would mean that St Mary's would face cuts in its budget for 2015-16 of 31% compared with 10·8% for other universities. Minister, how is that fair? Where is the equality in that?

I am aware that, when the Minister announced a review of initial teacher training education infrastructure, he indicated his commitment to seek an agreed way forward. I know that the MP for the area, Mr Paul Maskey, together with Professor Peter Finn, the principal of the college, and many others have been looking at ways to explore how academic integration can be deepened. They have also looked at the role of St Mary's in assisting the development of a shared approach. It is, therefore, crucial that the small and specialist funding is retained for St Mary's to enable those discussions to take place with the Minister and to achieve that agreed way forward. St Mary's, which has approximately 1,000 pupils and staff, has been a feature of the west Belfast community for over 100 years. It is unique in so many ways. It is a regional college, but is also important to the people of west Belfast. It is part of the local community infrastructure and a great asset to the local economy. It has played an outstanding role in the North's Catholic education system and is an essential part of the Catholic educational tradition. It continues to be valued as such, and has been for generations, by the parents and pupils who have attended Catholic schools and colleges.

The breadth of feeling about this issue is evident in the numbers that we saw even today attending protests up here, but also the huge numbers joining the campaign to save the college. I believe, and many people out there, Minister, believe, that the decision to remove this funding is not one that you have taken in the interests of higher and further education. It is more to do with the party political ideology of the Alliance Party. It is and will be viewed as an attack on Catholic education. I therefore —

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Will the Member take a point?

Ms J McCann: Yes.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: The focus tonight is on St Mary's University College. We have not heard as much from Stranmillis University College, not least because the Minister, who I am delighted to see here, appoints its board of governors. However, the principal of Stranmillis has spoken out strongly against the cuts, and I quote her:

Do you accept that Stranmillis University College is also against the removal of the premia?

Ms J McCann: Yes, and I know that my colleague has on many occasions made that precise point.

I appeal to the Minister once again to restore the premia funding and to work with the college to find that agreed way forward that he talked about, which will ensure the sustainability and continuation of St Mary's on its current site.

Mr Ramsey: I thank the Member for West Belfast, Jennifer McCann, for ensuring that this debate takes place. St Mary's teaching college has provided first-class training and produced first-class teachers for the past 100 years. Thousands of teachers have been trained there. The strength of community support shown last week and this week is a testament to the fantastic job that St Mary's does.

This is an Alliance Minister attacking a Catholic school for ideological reasons. Already, the Northern Ireland Executive support, to the sum of £60 million per year, students from the North to go across the water for university. A number of students do not take up jobs in the North and do not contribute to the economy in coming back home. The Executive should be doing all in their power to stop the so-called brain drain. If Northern Ireland is to have a sustainable and thriving economy, we need a pool of diverse and well-trained graduates to take up the jobs that we have. Yet we have an outstanding teacher training college and a hub for Irish language and culture in the heart of west Belfast, and the Minister is forcing it into an untenable position. If the special premia are not restored, St Mary's will be forced to close, and outstanding teacher training will be lost. This is not simply a case of losing provision for trainee teachers. We are threatening the quality of the education of our young people, which will have a knock-on effect on society and the economy for years to come, particularly in west Belfast.

This debate comes at a pertinent time. This is the seventh year of Catholic schools week. Primary and post-primary Catholic schools achieve academic excellence and provide faith-based pastoral care. Many parents want their children to be educated in Catholic schools. To meet the parental demand for Catholic schools, we need a college of the calibre of St Mary's to train teachers, champion the Irish language and encourage and motivate the Irish culture and our communities.

Minister Farry, you must recognise the excellent work that St Mary's does and consider the devastating and detrimental effect its closure will have, not just on west Belfast but on schools across Northern Ireland. By undermining St Mary's, the Alliance Party is undermining all those parents who value the right to choose their children's education. By attacking St Mary's, which the Minister is doing, he is attacking all Catholic schools.

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

Mr Ramsey: He is attacking those who benefit from the outstanding teachers and liberal arts graduates it provides. The Minister is progressing an acceleration process between Queen's and the University of Ulster. Does he want them to do his dirty work for him?

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Príomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Agus molaim an rún seo faoi Choláiste Ollscoile Naomh Muire. I commend this topic for the Adjournment debate on St Mary's University College, an institution that plays a pivotal role in the educational, cultural and social life of west Belfast. Tá sé de rún agam labhairt faoin Ghaeilge agus tábhacht Naomh Muire maidir le Gaeloideachas. I intend to keep my remarks focused on the Irish language and the importance of St Mary's to Irish-medium education. My colleagues are covering all the other issues that affect St Mary's college.

This year, St Mary's will celebrate 20 years in Irish-medium education. Rather than having this debate about its uncertain future, would it not be more appropriate for us to be having a celebration of what that institution has achieved over 20 years.

Seo na fíricí suntasacha. These are the salient facts. The majority of teachers in the primary Irish-medium sector are trained by St Mary's. That sector continually goes from strength to strength. Specialist teacher education for the Irish-medium sector was introduced by St Mary's, and it remains the lead institution in the country, delivering an undergraduate BEd programme, a PGCE and a master's-level programme, which all offer a strong specialist dimension for Irish-medium professionals. Twenty PGCE students complete their one-year specialist programmes in the college every year. Agus téann an formhór acu ar aghaidh i bhfostaíocht i mbunscoileanna i ndiaidh céime. The majority of those students go on to take up employment in Irish-medium primary schools after graduation.

Principals of Irish-medium schools in the North continue to report a shortage of qualified teachers for the sector, and more teachers are required, particularly to provide temporary cover. The need for qualified specialist teachers for Irish-medium schools is being supplied by St Mary's currently, and that supply needs to continue.

St Mary's is the lead partner in a collaborative sharing relationship with Queen's University and the University of Ulster, delivering an Irish-medium specialist dimension to the PGCE for post-primary student teachers. Tá áiteanna Gaeloideachais á n-ofráil d’ochtar mac-léinn iar-bhunscoile dul ar na cúrsaí seo. Irish-medium places are offered to eight post-primary PGCE students on those courses.

Furthermore, St Mary's carries out research into immersion teaching methods and produces teaching and assessment resources for the sector. Agus seo an áit fosta a bhfuil an tÁisaonad lonnaithe. It is also in that environment that the Áisaonad is located, where books and resources of the very highest standards are produced for Irish-medium schools and children.

The college's partnerships with Irish-medium schools is one of the vital signs of a higher educational institution that is connected with its community. Agus go háitiúil tá ról lárnach aici i gCeathrú na Gaeltachta. Locally, it plays a pivotal role in the emerging Gaeltacht Quarter.

This higher education resource in west Belfast is irreplaceable because it encourages young people to aim high, demonstrating a functional, dynamic, positive sense of purpose to their educational endeavours and their linguistic and cultural development.

Agus mar fhocal scoir, glaoim ar an Aire smaoineamh arís agus déanamh cinnte go bhfanann doirse Naomh Muire oscailte. I call on the Minister to think again and ensure that St Mary's doors stay open. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Príomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I commend the many students from St Mary's who came to protest today: they are very enthusiastic about St Mary's because it is an excellent institution.

I want to cover three areas that the Minister has argued are the reasons for him wanting to withdraw the premia, which will ultimately result in St Mary's closing. First is the reduced budget. Secondly, he says that there are too many teachers. Thirdly, he wants a pluralist system and does not want St Mary's to exist as a Catholic institution. Let us look first at the budget. Yes, all the budgets have been reduced. However, the withdrawal of the premia from St Mary's and Stranmillis means that they are going to get a 30·8% cut. All the other further and higher education institutions are getting only a 10·8% cut. That is unfair and unjust. If the Minister is going to be fair about it, he should distribute the pain across all the further and higher education institutions. The university colleges receive only 1% of the overall DEL budget, yet the Minister wants to make 3·5% savings from cutting the university colleges' budgets. That is wrong.

The Minister has argued that there are too many teachers in the system. That may well be the case. There may be too many at the minute, but the fact is that enrolment is going to begin to rise again in 2018. There needs to be fat in the system to deal with that. If there is a cutback in teachers now, we will face a shortage of teachers when enrolment begins to rise. There need to be enough teachers in the system to cope with increased demands.

I know many young people who have emigrated over recent years. A large percentage of them are graduates. Indeed, young lads from the houses next door to me on either side have emigrated to Australia. One of them is a graduate, but he is not a teacher. I know other graduates who have emigrated: engineers, pharmacists, doctors, graduates in the humanities and the arts. None of those graduates came from St Mary's, but no one is arguing that we should cut back on the number of graduates in all those other disciplines. It seems that the Minister is happy to make an arbitrary decision when it comes to St Mary's in spite of the fact that, as he well knows, 94% of graduates from St Mary's get jobs within three months of leaving St Mary's.

On the issue of a distinctive ethos, a number of Members have said that this is Alliance Party policy. It is as fundamentalist as anything that we hear from some of the other Benches in here. The Minister wants to steamroller through forced integration. He should take a leaf from the Minister of Education, whose model is not about forced integration but about giving parents and students choice about where we should have shared education. Certainly, there should be greater cooperation and sharing of resources and experience between the universities and the university colleges. I listened to the Minister talk yesterday about the ending of religious institutions in Dublin and Glasgow.

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

Mr Sheehan: This is not Dublin or Glasgow. This is Belfast. We are a city that is still coming out of conflict. We are a divided society. If the Minister tries to force integration, he will be wrong. It is a political decision. He needs to think about it. He needs to think about his decision, enter into a conversation with St Mary's now and suspend his decision to cut the premia.

Mr F McCann: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank my colleague Jennifer McCann for bringing this crucial issue to the Floor of the House today. St Mary's is rooted in west Belfast. It grew with the population of west Belfast. When it opened its doors 115 years ago, it brought with it hope for an impoverished Catholic population. It offered the tools to ensure that education would be delivered to a Catholic population that, at that time in our history, found Belfast to be a cold house for housing, employment and education. St Mary's changed that, and many thousands of young people have advanced educationally because this institution provided the teachers to educate. It is historically engrained in the west Belfast community, not only educationally but economically.

For the past 115 years, it has provided the economic clout for the community to grow. For the constituency that I live in and represent, this is the biggest issue on people's minds. West Belfast without an institution like St Mary's is unthinkable. In many ways, it could be the last straw for the surrounding community, which faces serious social deprivation, high unemployment, poor health and an economic base of small businesses, such as shops, restaurants and others, that will not survive the closure of St Mary's.

Yesterday, we had a meeting with the Minister for Employment and Learning and stressed the urgency of reversing his decision to withdraw the premia. We advised that, if he does not change the course he has set himself on, not only will over 160 people in St Mary's lose their job but that could be tripled in the surrounding community with the closure of businesses, which could add to the decline of this part of west Belfast.

At a time when this part of west Belfast is being promoted as a Gaeltacht quarter, a place where the Irish language is treasured and spoken, where culture is rich and is practised daily, the institution of St Mary's is to the fore in providing the teaching base to ensure that the Irish language is taught and promoted in a growing number of Irish nursery, primary and secondary schools. It is an institution that, in the past years, has integrated itself with the heart of the west Belfast community.

We advised Stephen Farry that this Executive of ours had travelled far and wide to bring jobs to the North. For the sake of just over £1 million investment, he will throw away hundreds of jobs. Where is the sense in that? It was obvious from yesterday's meeting that he was not listening to the arguments being put to him. He seemed determined to continue his crusade against St Mary's, regardless of the consequences. He is more concerned about implementing Alliance Party policy than about those who will suffer the impact of the decision to remove the premia. For a number of years, he has tried to find ways to close St Mary's and Stranmillis. That is not because it is a bad university. In fact, its excellence is recognised throughout the world. It is ranked top in 'The Guardian's' specialist college performance list, which described it as a higher education pioneer because of its liberal arts programme.

The Minister for Employment and Learning totally ignores those facts. He also ignores the ability of St Mary's graduates to find employment. He excludes the social and economic impact that his decision will have on this constituency. He is so caught up in his ideological opposition to the Catholic ethos of St Mary's that he will go to any lengths to ensure its closure. I urge him to take on board the growing number of voices speaking in support of St Mary's and pull back from this attack on St Mary's and the constituency that I represent.

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I would just like to add a few words to my colleagues' comments so far. I thank Jennifer McCann for bringing the motion to the House this evening.

The point that I want to make was rehearsed with the Minister yesterday at the meeting that other colleagues have referred to. Since the establishment of the Assembly, St Mary's training college has been under threat from a number of parties in this institution. I was very disappointed — maybe I should not have been — when, at the meeting yesterday, I was left in no doubt that the threat to St Mary's training college under the leadership of this Minister is probably the most sustained and gravest threat against the survival of St Mary's training college. As I said, I am very disappointed about that, even though perhaps I should not be. Having spoken to the Minister yesterday and listened to his logic and arguments, I was left with the clear impression that he is on a mission to close St Mary's training college as we all know it and have known it for many years.

Colleagues have already made the point that we see that as a threat against the choice of the vast majority of people not only in west Belfast, where the college is based, but much further afield throughout the broader Catholic and nationalist community across the North. We see it as an assault on that ethos, which is very strongly valued and remains the choice of most parents in that community and will, I presume, remain so for some time. It is also a threat to the success of future generations of the Irish language community, which is very much a burgeoning sector in the education system.

The Minister outlined yesterday his view that the experience in Dublin and Glasgow had shown that delivery models for that type of education could be changed. Pat Sheehan has already made the point that this is neither Dublin nor Glasgow. You only had to listen to the previous debate, which went on for an hour and a half, about the need for flags on driving licences to let you know that we are still far from what might be described as a normal society.

Mr McElduff: I thank the Member for giving way. Like many, I have and have had close family and community links with St Mary's. Members who, principally, represent Belfast constituencies rightly emphasise how damaging this would be to an area of social deprivation. I want to point out from a slight distance that student satisfaction surveys constantly put St Mary's up there. I know this anecdotally from speaking to many students from rural parts of the North and from over the border. I commend the way in which the Belfast Members are speaking about the damage it will do —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask the Member to keep his intervention short.

Mr McElduff: — in social deprivation, but this is everyone's business.

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

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh LeasCheann Comhairle. As I said, I was left in no doubt at the meeting yesterday with Minister Farry that he is on a mission to close St Mary's training college as we all know it. I make the point again: this is neither Dublin nor Glasgow. I have heard — the Minister made the point yesterday at our meeting — in discussions with Queen's University or the University of Ulster that those institutions might take up the mantle of providing a similar education. A US president turned a sod in west Belfast when Queen's University was supposed to be coming there, but that never happened. I have no confidence in any of those institutions delivering what St Mary's delivers now.

We made a constructive point to Minister Farry that, if you are serious about entering discussions with St Mary's about further integration with the other institutions and universities for teacher training, you would not pull the rug from under an existing institution that is providing excellent training. You would nurture and consolidate St Mary's as you enter into negotiations or discussions with it about what future steps might be taken. I do not like to have to say it, but my mind is very clear that this is an Alliance Party ideological mission. It is not the wish of the vast majority of people here, despite the Alliance Party's mandate, which it is entitled to. The wishes of the vast majority of people who do not support the Alliance Party also need to be taken into consideration. People in the broader nationalist and Catholic population will see this ongoing assault on St Mary's as an attack on a particular community and particularly —

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

Mr Maskey: — an attack on the Catholic education ethos, which is held in so much esteem in the broader community.

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for securing tonight's Adjournment debate. I know that it is an Adjournment debate, and St Mary's is named because it is based in west Belfast. However, I thank Máirtín Ó Muilleoir and the other Members who mentioned Stranmillis, thus bringing both teacher training colleges into the debate. It is not right to single out one college without bringing the other into the debate.

Since I took over the Chair of the Committee for Employment and Learning and even before that, the Committee has done a lot of work over the years on the future of teacher training in Northern Ireland. As far back as 2012, the Minister initiated the Grant Thornton review of the financial sustainability and future of the two colleges. One of the review's remits states:

The removal of the premia is nothing new. Sir Reg Empey introduced them when he was the Minister for Employment and Learning, and they were introduced for exactly the reason that Sinn Féin Members mentioned: the need for special premia to sustain the smaller teacher training colleges.

I fully agree with Sinn Féin that Minister Farry has used this agenda to bring the issue forward in the timeline. In 2012, he initiated the Grant Thornton review. There was then a panel of international experts who made four recommendations, and the Committee spent a lot of time discussing those recommendations and taking evidence. When the draft Budget came before the Committee on 4 December, the Minister's savings identified £2·2 million that was being removed from the institutional premia to teacher training colleges.

It was evident to every member of the Committee that that was exactly what the Minister was doing. He was advancing that Alliance Party policy, and using the Budget to do so. I have said that in the House before, and that is why it amazes and surprises me that Sinn Féin has brought the issue to the House as an Adjournment debate. You are apt to do that, but why did you not do it before now? Why did you not put that £2·2 million down as an amendment to the Budget?

When we pushed the Minister and asked him whether he had Executive support for his inclusion of the £2·2 million reduction in his identified reductions in his draft budget, his words to us were:

He told us that on 10 December. So while I do not deny or question that the timing of the removal of that funding from St Mary's and Stranmillis was opportune by the Minister, I believe that the reaction could have been managed in other ways. It could have been managed by an amendment to the Budget, through the Executive and, surely, by other Ministers. If it is such a concern to them now —

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

Mr Swann: — surely it could have been raised through the Executive and argued there.

Mr Buchanan: I speak as the Deputy Chair of the Committee. I noticed that Fra McCann said that this was the biggest thing to come before the House. It is not really. The biggest thing to come before the House was welfare reform.

Mr F McCann: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buchanan: No. I believe that there is clear evidence —

Mr F McCann: Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I did not say that. I said that it was the biggest issue that is affecting people in my constituency, not the House.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member —

Mr Buchanan: OK. I believe that there is clear evidence that reform is required in the way in which we train teachers in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that anyone in the House, even at this late hour, could agree that providing teacher training through five institutions in Northern Ireland is sustainable any longer. It simply is no longer economically viable. That is hitting us all in the face tonight. That is the reality of the situation. It simply is no longer economically viable to continue to provide teacher training through five institutions. As a party, we have continually called for the centralisation of teacher training, and while we acknowledge the good work and the training that has been provided over the years by these other institutions, the reality is that the status quo is no longer viable. Therefore, we must look at what is the best way forward, and to do that we need to look at where training is excelling and where top results are being produced.

As a party, we believe that the best option financially and for the long-term sustainability of teacher training is to utilise the estate at Stranmillis to create a national centre of excellence for teacher training. Of course, that has the added value of being in close proximity to Queen's University, where students could also avail themselves of the expertise that is delivered there. We acknowledge that there is a short-term hurdle that has to be overcome to reach the longer-term goal. Therefore, there needs to be creativity in the Budget, and we need to consider ways in which short-term sustainability can be achieved to reach the end goal.

We have not been in the dark about this. As the Chair of the Committee said, we knew that it was possible that the issue would come to the fore. I do not believe that we can continue — or indeed that there is any merit in continuing — to prop up St Mary's. It is no longer financially viable, either in the short or the longer term. I ask everybody in the House to be real about this and to live in the real world. Is it financially viable to continue to prop up St Mary's? Is it sustainable? I do not think that anyone can put their hand on their heart and say that it is. I know that there are those in the House who will not like the view that I am putting forward, but, as politicians, our aim should always be to do what is best for Northern Ireland. At times, that might mean making hard decisions in order to deliver the best results.

I fully understand the position of the Member who secured the debate and the folk in the West Belfast constituency who have brought the issue to the Floor of the House. St Mary's is in the midst of their constituency, but we need to put narrow sectoral constituency issues behind us if we want to deliver what is best for the people of Northern Ireland in order to move forward in a meaningful and positive way —

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

Mr Buchanan: — in the best interests of teachers and pupils in Northern Ireland.

Ms Lo: First, I want to make it clear that the Alliance Party is not trying to close down St Mary's or Stranmillis, which Members may know is also facing cuts; rather, our aim is to find agreement on a new model. It is quite odd that the MP and an MLA for South Belfast went to protest in west Belfast for St Mary's but not for Stranmillis in their own constituency.

Our current system is fragmented and not cost-effective. We now have an opportunity to create a structure that is financially stable, efficient and simply more realistic in the current economic situation. In Northern Ireland, it costs more to train a teacher in a teacher training college than in a university by 32%, and it costs more to train a teacher in Northern Ireland compared to GB by 40%. The premia act as a subsidy to the teacher training colleges in recognition of their smaller size. However, being the only premia paid —

Mr Maskey: Will the Member give way?

Ms Lo: No, I am sorry.

However, being the only premia paid to the teacher training institutions in the UK, it is hard to justify that luxury at the best of times, but certainly not in times of pressures on budgets when front-line services are being cut. With a fixed budget, there is a stark choice between maintaining the premia and passing those cuts on to the rest of the higher education sector, potentially removing several hundred places and escalating our brain drain.

Apart from the financial implications, the fact is that we are training too many teachers when there is not the demand for them. It is unfair to lead such high volumes of our young people towards an unstable sector, which is contemplating making thousands of teachers redundant. We are giving them no other option but to source a career outside Northern Ireland. We need to be realistic about the opportunities available in the future economy and give advice that will set young people up for success — success in our economy.

The status quo is not sustainable. We do not need four separate institutions to train teachers from a population of 1·8 million. That is absurd. We want to facilitate teacher training for a diverse, pluralist education system. That does, of course, include faith-based schools, but the Alliance Party believes that that can be implemented in a single system. There are models as to how that can be done through reforms in Glasgow and Dublin. I know that the Minister for Employment and Learning is considering how we can best facilitate the continuation of higher education in west Belfast, perhaps using the facilities of St Mary's.

Mr Attwood: We all owe Mr Buchanan some thanks because, out of the blue, in the middle of this debate, the cat came flying out of the bag when Mr Buchanan said that the issue now was the short-term sustainability of St Mary's with the long-term goal of putting teacher training on the Stranmillis site. For a long time, people have skirted round the issue, but, tonight, the DUP came out for the first time and said clearly what the agenda was: some short-term sustainability, money for you to go away for a few years whilst we conspire to concentrate all teacher training on the Stranmillis site. So the question is not to the DUP; it is to the Minister for Employment and Learning. Does he dissent from the view of the DUP, which curiously it has suddenly put into the public domain tonight?

Mr Buchanan referred to narrow sectoral interests. Let me tell him something: this is not about narrow sectoral interests; this is about the sustainability and viability of an economic and wider community of which St Mary's forms part.

Mr Sheehan said that it was, after all, only a 10·8% cut that the colleges in Northern Ireland were going to have to accept. That is a curious way of explaining a Tory Budget. Putting that aside, if the Minister's view prevails in the short term, you pull the rug from under the viability of that community and the economic family that the Royal, the shops, the pubs, the retail outlets, the Gaeltacht Quarter and St Mary's provide. You will pull the rug from the sustainability and viability of so much of the economic life of a disadvantaged area of the city. The question to the Minister is this: have you conducted an equality impact assessment of the catastrophic proposal that you have made in respect of St Mary's, which is also a policy change in the funding of teacher training?

Let me put down a caution. Two scenarios will be deployed over the next number of days and weeks. The first is the right argument, which is to maintain the ethos of St Mary's University College. The fact that it is Irish and Catholic and other needs to be remembered. We need to maintain its autonomy as an institution and its financial independence. If you do not adhere to all three of those principles around this issue, you will have what Queen's or UU want, which is the slow death of St Mary's. When the next financial crisis hits the Budget over the next three or four years, that will be the pretext, especially for some in the leadership in Queen's University, for the further financial run-down of St Mary's —

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

Mr Attwood: — the end of that college and a concentration at the Stranmillis site. Those are the two options. Will the Minister accept the principles of ethos protection and financial viability —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Mr Attwood.

Mr Attwood: — and autonomy? If he does not, he is with the DUP tonight; he is not with the people of west Belfast.

Mr Rogers: The debate comes at a suitable time: across Ireland, schools are celebrating Catholic Schools Week. The particular theme of Catholic Schools Week is that we are called to serve. Education is a platform from which we are all called to serve, whether we are teachers, parents or students.

I voice my exasperation at the scale of the cuts set to devastate St Mary's University College and my deep concern over Minister Farry's removal of the £1·1 million in special funding premia from the institution. I do not need to give anybody a history lesson, but the premium fund exists to recognise the importance of small specialist colleges such as St Mary's, which provides the highest-quality education training in a specific Catholic ethos. The Tories have allowed premia for similar colleges in England. We talk about Tory cuts; here we have a Minister with worse than Tory cuts. I find myself, once again, dismayed at the Minister's recent decision and what could be perceived as the Alliance Party's apparent anti-Catholic education agenda. Certainly, none of the current proposals allows for St Mary's to retain its current autonomy or unique character. I am very wary; perhaps the Minister's aims for the college are for it to be absorbed into other institutions to streamline teacher training across the North, even to the North's detriment.

The SDLP supports the principle of shared education, and I have spoken in the Chamber on our support for it. There is already a level of cooperation between St Mary's and Stranmillis. I would be keen to see that expanded through a more collaborative partnership model. That would allow the colleges to pool resources while keeping their unique identity. The SDLP will continue to support shared education, but we will not support the forced secularisation that the loss of St Mary's may eventually lead to. St Mary's has a clear mission to make a distinctive contribution of service and excellence to Catholic tradition in higher education. The college has a distinctive Catholic and Irish identity, and, where Catholic higher education is found throughout the world, it seeks to integrate intellectual, personal, ethical and religious formation to unite high academic achievement with service to others. St Mary's requires the autonomy to deliver that mission, but the Minister's proposal is a direct attack on it.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister, Mr Stephen Farry. The Minister has up to 10 minutes.

Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the first occasion that I have had to formally congratulate you on your election to your post. I also welcome the opportunity to respond to the Adjournment debate. I note that, given that this is an Adjournment debate, the debate is naturally based on one institution in a particular constituency, but ultimately this is an issue about the full spectrum of how our teacher training infrastructure should and must be reformed in Northern Ireland. Already, I have made three statements to the Assembly on teacher training over the past number of years.

We have had a focus on institutions — mostly St Mary's, with the occasional reference to Stranmillis. We have had conspiratorial references to Queen's and the University of Ulster. I want to say very clearly that I am not interested in talking about institutions; what we are talking about here is the quality of the training of our teachers for the benefit of our current students in the schools of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the future students in the schools of Northern Ireland. I want to see the very best in that regard, and, where we have the capacity to do better, that is what I am committed to doing. That is why the second of our reports that we commissioned was entitled 'Aspiring to Excellence'. That gives us the clear sense of direction that we can do better in Northern Ireland.

Let me also be clear at the outset around the distinct issue of the premia. I am not willing to divert resources into what I believe is an unwarranted subsidy at the expense of places in universities and colleges. I want to make it very clear to every person who advocates the retention of the premia that, on a fixed budget for my Department that is declining, I have given a commitment to do my best to protect the front line in terms of opportunities for our young people in universities and colleges. If we retain the premia, that means that deeper cuts will be experienced by our universities and colleges. That will mean fewer places for our young people, who will either leave Northern Ireland to study elsewhere and probably not come back or not have the opportunity at all to go to college. That would be a huge shame because we were not prepared to contemplate change. Hopefully, people will reflect on what they say about the importance of the economy and the importance of the future of our society in that regard. Indeed, we had a motion last week to the Assembly about the importance of protecting the front line. We are not prepared to do that tonight.

We have a fragmented system in Northern Ireland and a costly system in Northern Ireland. We train too many teachers. At present, we have about 1,500 unemployed teachers, according to the GTCNI. Future trends are not favourable. We have still 70,000 empty desks in our schools.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Minister for giving way. He talks about there being 1,500 unemployed teachers: can he confirm that, once a qualified teacher gets a job, they are automatically removed from that register?

Dr Farry: Let me be very clear on this, because a number of points have been made about employment figures etc: the employment figures that people are talking about are for jobs, not necessarily for teachers. We pay more to train teachers than we do for training other people through our colleges and universities. That creates a certain distortion in the system. It is also worth saying that the Sinn Féin Education Minister is adding places over and above what the teacher demand model suggests our future education system requires because of a view that we have to somehow focus on the sustainability of our teacher training colleges.

That builds up the hopes of our young people who want to be teachers, only for them to be dashed down the line.

We also have to focus on quality.

Mr Maskey: I thank the Minister for giving way. I know that he has a lot of ground to cover. Just a moment ago, the Minister referred to the fractured nature of our education system and the differences that are there, but he just concluded the Stormont House negotiations in which he was a participant. We actually got almost half a billion pounds additional from the British Government because the five parties united on the argument that we are a different society. We are coming out of a conflict, and we have differences. Does the logic not then follow that St Mary's training college, which is part of that plateau, should be given the support it deserves? Any cut to the premia is a totally disproportionate cut to that institution.

Dr Farry: What I have heard, particularly from the Sinn Féin Benches, is that, because we are a divided society and are somehow different to Glasgow and Dublin, we are not prepared to change and have to accept that as Northern Ireland's reality. I do not believe that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to accept that we are divided. I think that people want to change in a different way.

We also have to focus on quality. In one respect, we could be doing considerably better on how we link in with the international trend of teacher training being done much more in a university context, where there is access to multidisciplinary opportunities and a very rich research infusion. Those simply do not exist in our current teacher college provision.

It is also important to bear in mind that all our providers are open to the whole community. I should point out that while St Mary's is itself run by the Catholic Church, it is open to people from all backgrounds. It is not just for Catholics. It is important that people bear that in mind, given some of the language that has been used. While we have a segmented system in Northern Ireland, which has often included our teacher training colleges, we also have to bear in mind that we are moving more and more towards a shared and integrated society. That is, indeed, the Executive's policy. There are also equality issues about differential access to the certificate of religious education in the current system, which creates tensions in that system.

We have conducted a two-stage review. The first looked at financial issues. Anna Lo summarised some of its conclusions. We are spending more to train a teacher in Northern Ireland than is spent in England to the tune of 40%. It is also more expensive to train a teacher in the teacher training colleges than in the universities to the tune of 32%. Therefore, we do not have a level playing field. The system is fundamentally unfair because we are investing more in teacher training places than we are in places for engineers, historians, lawyers, architects and the whole host of other subjects. Is that a fair situation?

Mr Ramsey: It pains me to hear this from the Minister. I have served on the Employment and Learning Committee for a few years now. You and the departmental officials repeatedly came, after Grant Thornton and after the independent panel, and told us emphatically that you were determined to bring forward a consensus on the way forward to resolve the issues in the college. Why are you now bringing forward a process involving Queen's and the University of Ulster, when they and others believe that they are doing the dirty work for you and are going behind the backs of Stranmillis and St Mary's to do it?

Dr Farry: We have a report that set out a number of options. Option A is for enhanced collaboration; B is for two centres, one in Belfast and one in the north-west; one for is a federation; and the final one is for a single provider for all Northern Ireland. Three of the four providers at present have given their endorsement to option D. We are open to discussions with all the providers, and we want to find a consensus on the way forward, but change has to happen.

I have my own views on where we should be going, but I want to listen to the stakeholders on that. It is not something on which I am on the same page as the DUP. The DUP will issue its own statements on the issue, just like any other party. What we are trying to do here is to get the best for Northern Ireland as a whole.

Mr Attwood: Will the Member give way?

Dr Farry: Unfortunately, I am running out of time.

Let me just address a couple of points and stress a couple of issues. First of all, we want to see the continuation of higher education in west Belfast. I understand the importance of that as a driver for the local economy, and there is a range of ways in which we can do that, either through a continued teacher training presence or some alternative higher education presence. Perhaps the more fundamental point is that, just because we have and may continue to have a Catholic-maintained sector at primary and secondary level, it does not follow that we must have a Catholic teacher training system on top of that. We can train all our teachers together in a shared environment in Northern Ireland, but, in doing that, we can provide for a diverse and pluralist education system. We have examples in Glasgow and Dublin — they have been mentioned already — from which we should be learning lessons.

Northern Ireland is not a place apart. We do not want to condemn ourselves to be some place apart from the rest of the world. We want to be a society that is normalising. We also have the example of the University of Ulster at Coleraine, which has an interfaith forum. It has been training teachers in a shared environment, including for the Catholic-maintained sector, for many years, very successfully.

It is also worth putting on record that the sharing between Stranmillis and St Mary's at present is very minimal. In particular, at leadership level, they are not even talking to each other.

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

Dr Farry: There is a lot we can do to change the system.