Official Report: Tuesday 14 June 2016

Mr Allister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it compatible with the processes of this House for the Finance Minister to authorise his officials to give evidence tomorrow to the Finance Committee about the June monitoring round and, today, pre-empt and nullify that process by choosing to make the June monitoring statement in advance of that? What sort of way is that to do business?

Mr Speaker: Mr Allister, I think you are aware that Standing Order 18(4) makes provision for a Minister to make oral statements at short notice. I am satisfied that those procedures have been followed and that the statement is in order. As you know, the Speaker does not become involved in Committee matters. Committees or Members who have concerns regarding the timing of statements should address them directly to the Minister.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chris Lyttle has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

Mr Lyttle: It is a privilege to have the opportunity to present this petition of over 6,000 signatures to the Education Minister on behalf of the Parents for Equal Education Coalition, calling for full-time nursery provision for children with special educational needs in our community to be maintained.

Children like Charlie and parents like Angela and the many others who have gathered at Parliament Buildings today have been an inspiration to me and many other MLAs. The dignity and commitment that they are showing in their fight for full-time special educational needs nursery provision for their children is in stark contrast to the totally unacceptable approach of the Education Authority, which has failed to disclose to this Assembly parental and principal opposition to its proposals and to engage with parents meaningfully on the issue.

I call on the Education Minister to avoid becoming associated with that flawed approach and to make clear his support for full-time special educational needs nursery provision in our community.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for accepting this petition on behalf of the over 300 children who are only three years old and face having their future made more uncertain. I hope that the Minister of Education will receive this petition. As I said, over 6,000 members of the public agree that we should be giving our children with special educational needs the very best start in life and should be maintaining those vital early education services. I know the Education Minister is monitoring this extremely serious issue. I call on all MLAs to wake up to the urgency of the issue and work together to ensure that the reductions do not happen.

Mr Speaker: If you bring forward the petition, it will be lodged with the Minister of Education and a copy will be sent to the Committee.

Mr Speaker: The Minister of Finance wishes to make a statement on June —

Mr Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Allister alluded to this to a degree, but this morning, the Assembly was given less than an hour to consider a 37-page statement on the monitoring round. In addition, as far as I am aware, no Committee has been given a detailed briefing before today's announcements. Any opportunity for scrutiny has been strangled by the DUP/Sinn Féin Executive, who appear to be genuinely terrified of genuine accountability. [Interruption.]

As such, under Standing Order 16, I am formally asking —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to take his seat. That is not a point of order. If you have a point of order, raise it.

Mr Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 16, I am formally asking for this item of business to be adjourned until next Monday, 20 June, to give parties time to consider the content of the statement.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: We need to take time to consider that. I ask the Member to clarify under which Standing Order he is making his request.

Mr Smith: It is Standing Order 16.

Mr Speaker: Standing Order 16 refers to a debate:

This is not a debate. It is a statement by the Minister. Therefore, Standing Order 16 does not apply.

The Minister of Finance wishes to make a statement on June monitoring. Minister.

Mr Ó Muilleoir (The Minister of Finance): It was good to hear children's voices in the Gallery earlier. Occasionally, we hear childish voices in the Assembly, perhaps from all sides, but certainly children's voices give a right good lift to the day. If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, in relation to Chris Lyttle's proposal, I want to say that, in this monitoring round, we will allocate £5 million for special educational needs. I know that that will bring cheer to him and the parents who are with us today.

There have been two attempts to delay this statement. There have been concerns about the style of the statement and the monitoring round. Let me say to all my colleagues that this is what streamlined, efficient government looks like. This is the earliest monitoring round presented to the Assembly. This, in my view, is an example of a Government that deliver, and this is an indication of how we intend to do that in the time ahead. So take it, a Cheann Comhairle and Members, as a statement of intent to deliver for all our people.

A Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt duit as deis a thabhairt domh an ráiteas seo a chur i láthair an Tionóil inniu. Is é seo an chéad bhabhta monatóireachta den treimhse nua seo, agus tabharfaidh Comhaltaí faoi deara nach ionann é agus na babhtaí a chuaigh romhainn ar chúiseanna a mhíneoidh mé ar ball beag. Mr Speaker, I thank you for affording me the opportunity to present this statement to the Assembly. This is the first monitoring statement in the new mandate and it signals a marked departure — as Members have noticed — from previous formats, for reasons that I will explain shortly.

The monitoring round presented the new Executive with a number of very significant challenges. Many of those challenges emanate from the austerity agenda that the Westminster Government seek to impose upon the devolved Administrations. No doubt, we will return to that later in the Budget debate and rehearse some of the arguments we heard yesterday about how the Tories have no mandate here, what their wishes for our people are and how we are going to resist those. The imposition of an austerity agenda is entirely unacceptable, and I will make best endeavours to prevent the least-well-off from shouldering that burden.

Despite the challenges, the Executive have been able to conclude the monitoring round without having to engage in a draconian cuts exercise, confounding, may I say, the predictions of the naysayers. Given the pressing need to bring clarity to Departments and Ministers on the 2016-17 in-year position so that they can get to work with the money I am allocating, and in the interests of efficient governance, the Executive have agreed to my request to expedite the monitoring round through the urgent procedure mechanism. This is the earliest point at which any Finance Minister has announced the June monitoring outcome, and the quick conclusion of the process signals my intention, and the intention of my ministerial colleagues, to conclude business in a timely manner. I believe that the next Executive meeting will be at the very end of the month, and I think that this is a much more efficient way to proceed for all the people we serve.

Turning to the substantive issues within this monitoring round, let me begin by highlighting that the Executive’s deliberations have actually delivered many positive outcomes that citizens will warmly welcome. The allocations are a signal of intent, as well. They show where our priorities lie.

Here is the detail. The starting point for the June monitoring round has to be the outcome of last year’s provisional out-turn. That determines how much money we have carried forward from the previous financial year into the monitoring round. I therefore begin with the 2015-16 provisional out-turn. Provisional out-turn is critically important for the Executive. Not only does it provide a strong indication of departmental budget management performance during the last financial year, but it determines the amount of resources that the Executive can plan to carry forward through the devolved Administration Budget exchange scheme (BES).

In detailing this position, as well as in relation to the June monitoring round, my focus will be on the non-ring-fenced resource departmental expenditure limit, as that is the element that funds our important public services. I will refer to that as "resource DEL" for simplicity hereafter. I will touch on the non-cash ring-fenced resource DEL element, which is handled separately, since that is strictly controlled and cannot be used for any other purpose.

Under the Budget exchange scheme, the Executive may carry forward a limited level of underspend, based on a percentage of the final Budget for the year. For 2015-16, the limit of 0·6% resource DEL equates to £59·5 million within the 1·5% capital DEL limit, providing for up to £11·5 million, including ring-fenced financial transactions capital (FTC). Members should note that any underspends recorded above those amounts would be lost to the Executive.

Before I turn to the amount that the Executive have been able to carry forward, I would like to highlight the individual departmental position. I will start with the departmental outcome. In their provisional out-turn returns, Departments registered total underspends of £44·4 million for resource DEL and £20·8 million for capital DEL. That is detailed in the tables attached to this statement. The level of departmental underspend in resource DEL is a little higher than I would have envisaged, given the budgetary challenges faced by Departments during 2015-16, although I recognise that an element of the underspend relates to the allocations made from the public sector transformation fund for voluntary exit schemes, where actual costs were often dependent upon the decisions of individuals and, therefore, as Members will understand, difficult to forecast.

The total departmental underspend of £20·8 million in capital DEL comprises £9·5 million relating to conventional capital DEL and £11·3 million relating to financial transactions capital. We will come back to that issue. The level of underspend of financial transactions capital is indicative of the challenges associated with developing suitable schemes that can utilise this funding, which can be used only for the purpose of loans to, or equity investment in, the private sector. I put out that challenge again — it was put out yesterday to Members — to find imaginative and innovative ways to use financial transactions capital.

I will move on to the implications of the carry forward of resources. The Budget exchange scheme carry forward is determined at block level. Therefore, account also needs to be taken of the various centrally held items that impact on the overall block position. The main component of these is the year-end overcommitment position, which, following the receipt of some additional Barnett consequentials and easements identified by Departments, amounted to £9 million of capital DEL, with £9·2 million of resource DEL being held unallocated for carry forward. In capital DEL, an element of the departmental underspend related to projects funded by borrowing. As the actual level of borrowing drawn was reduced to take account of that, some £1·3 million of the departmental underspend is not included in the block underspend position.

As a consequence of these adjustments, the Executive have marginally exceeded their conventional capital DEL control by £0·8 million. In line with the Budget exchange scheme rules, this will be deducted from our resource DEL carry forward. Therefore, there will be no carry forward of conventional capital DEL into 2016-17. However, the Executive can carry forward in full their underspend of FTC totalling £11·3 million.

With respect to resource DEL, the unallocated £9·2 million, combined with lower than forecast reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) interest payments and a small increase in regional rate income, has resulted in the carry forward of £56·1 million of resource DEL into 2016-17.

In conclusion, and most importantly in relation to provisional out-turn, no spending power has been lost to the Executive as a result of year-end underspends. As the tables show, there is an underspend of £11·5 million on ring-fenced resource DEL, which would exceed the amount available for carry forward. However, as that may be used for only the non-cash costs relating to depreciation and impairments, it has no impact on the level of funding available for public services and is, instead, a technical accounting matter. As the Executive have ample funding for these non-cash costs, no additional benefit would be gained should it be possible to carry forward that amount. Whilst I remain concerned by the level of underspend on ring-fenced financial transactions capital — as I said yesterday, and say again — it is pleasing that no resources have been lost to the Executive and that significant resource DEL can be carried forward under the Budget exchange scheme to help address the many pressures in the June monitoring round.

I turn now to the June monitoring round. Before getting into the specifics of the monitoring round, I think it is worth highlighting that the Executive have secured £4·5 million from banking fines to establish an air ambulance service. I know that Members across the House called for that air ambulance service. That funding will be received over three years, and £1 million will be allocated to the Department of Health in this monitoring round. I think all Members will agree that this is a welcome development that will greatly benefit our community. I think it will be particularly welcomed by those outside the city of Belfast.

I will turn now to the specifics of the June monitoring round, starting with a number of adjustments relating to centrally held items. Members may recall that the Budget 2016-17 held £30 million of the funding, previously identified for mitigating measures for tax credits, pending the results of Professor Evason’s work on welfare reform mitigations. As you know, Professor Evason’s report recommended that the Executive should introduce measures costing £64 million in 2016-17. With £75 million having already been allocated to the Department for Communities, the £30 million held centrally is now available for reallocation.

Updates to forecasts of regional rate income and interest payments on borrowing provided an additional £2·3 million, while the block grant adjustment for air passenger duty (APD) being lower than provided for in the Budget contributes a further £0·2 million.

The Chancellor's March 2016 Budget provided additional Barnett consequentials of £5·8 million of resource DEL and £3 million of capital DEL, which are now available for allocation.

As I set out earlier, the Executive can now plan to carry forward £56·1 million of resource DEL and £11·3 million of financial transactions capital under the Budget exchange scheme. Of course, that amount is subject to review once Departments have provided final out-turn information, based on their audited accounts. Any adjustments to the amount carried forward will be handled in a future monitoring round.

I turn now to the central pressures, of which Members will be aware. In 2015-16, receipts from the carrier bag levy exceeded allocations to environmental programmes by £0·5 million. Receipts from the levy must be used to support environmental programmes, so the Executive must now return £0·5 million to DAERA for that purpose.

The Executive must meet the cost of the May 2016 Assembly elections. It is currently estimated to be £5·3 million, and that amount has been transferred to the Northern Ireland Office. Adjustments will be made later in the year when final costs are confirmed.

Under legislation, the salaries of statutory office holders are met directly from the NI Consolidated Fund (NICF). Those include the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Lands Tribunal and judicial salaries. The salary costs also show in the relative Department's resource DEL budget, but, as they are a direct charge on the NICF, the costs are funded centrally. The latest estimate indicates that an additional £1 million of resource DEL funding will be required in this year, and it will be transferred to the relevant Departments in this monitoring round.

In total, taking into account the opening overcommitment and other central issues that have been noted resulted in £87·7 million of resource DEL and £3·2 million capital DEL being available, before taking account of departmental reduced requirements.

Departments declared reduced requirements in this monitoring round of £35·1 million of resource DEL and £18·5 million of capital DEL. Full details are in the tables provided with the statement. The most notable item on the resource DEL side is the reduction of £35 million from the Department for Communities for welfare support measures reflecting the outcome of the Evason review, which I mentioned earlier, and slippage in the roll-out of welfare reforms — the welfare attack.

I turn now to internal reallocations. With changes to departmental structures and new Ministers taking up post only in May 2016, there is clearly a risk that the departmental budgets for 2016-17 are not aligned to ministerial priorities in the new Departments. I think that that is understandable. In that regard, the Executive agreed, through the Budget process, that the first monitoring round of 2016-17 should provide an opportunity for new Ministers to realign their own 2016-17 Budget allocations. Ministers have therefore been afforded the opportunity in this monitoring round to move funding across spending areas without recourse to the Executive. New unit of service tables aligned to the June monitoring position and reflecting ministerial priorities are detailed in the tables accompanying the statement.

Departments may also, for a number of reasons, seek to reclassify expenditure from resource to capital, or vice versa. All such reclassifications need Executive approval, and those are also shown in the tables accompanying the statement.

Departments may also, subject to Department of Finance approval, seek to move budget between the ring-fenced and non-ring-fenced resource DEL categories. The impact of those moves is shown in the table detailing the ring-fenced resource DEL position.

All the adjustments impacted on the total amount of resource available to the Executive in this monitoring round. Once all the issues were taken into account, the Executive had £126 million of resource DEL and £17·7 million of capital DEL available to allocate.

Before turning to the mainstream allocations, there are a number of other important issues that I wish to highlight to Members, starting with ring-fenced financial transactions capital (FTC).

After taking account of the carry-forward of £11·3 million of FTC from 2015-16, the Executive have a total FTC budget of £124·8 million this year. Of that, £55·8 million has been set aside for the planned investment fund.

Departments have declared reduced requirements in this round of £11·4 million, while the Department for Communities has been allocated £5·5 million to support co-ownership housing, which is welcome news, in particular given Jonathan Bell's comments yesterday and the concerns of all Members. The £5·5 million towards co-ownership housing will contribute to delivering social and affordable homes over this mandate.

As a consequence of those changes, the Executive exit this monitoring round with £17·2 million of financial transactions capital remaining unallocated. Our capacity to identify suitable projects that can spend the FTC available to us remains an area of concern, and I have therefore asked Ministers actively to seek opportunities to utilise the funding through loans or equity investments in the private sector.

I now turn to central funds. As part of Budget 2016-17, the Executive set aside £14 million resource DEL and £15 million capital DEL for Delivering Social Change (DSC) in this financial year. The Executive Office has confirmed a range of allocations under the Delivering Social Change banner to be processed in this monitoring round, including the following: £13·8 million resource and £6 million capital to the Executive Office for various social investment fund and Delivering Social Change projects, which will cheer everyone; £1·6 million resource and £0·7 million capital to the Department of Health for the Bright Start school-age children scheme and Delivering Social Change; and £0·3 million resource to the Department of Education for Bright Start childcare. All those allocations will be welcomed across the House.

The Executive have also agreed to the transfer of £1·7 million from the Atlantic Philanthropies fund to the DSC programme to provide sufficient funding for all the allocations detailed. Any time we mention Atlantic Philanthropies and its generosity towards this Government, we should also salute the great Irish-American philanthropist Chuck Feeney. The Executive also agreed the transfer of £0·4 million capital DEL from DSC to the shared future programme. Following these allocations, there is now £7·9 million capital DEL and no resource DEL unallocated relating to the Delivering Social Change programme.

Budget 2016-17 set aside £8 million resource DEL for the Atlantic Philanthropies programme, which I referenced. The Executive Office has advised that an allocation of £3·6 million resource to Health for the early intervention and dementia programmes should be processed in this monitoring round. Taking account of the transfer to the Delivering Social Change programme, this means that £2·6 million resource DEL remains in the Atlantic Philanthropies fund.

Colleagues will recall that, in Budget 2016-17, the Executive set aside £7·1 million resource DEL for a change fund, including £1·5 million for estate rationalisation led by the estate management unit in conjunction with the reform of property management programme in the Department of Finance. A further £4·5 million was set aside for cross-cutting reform projects and £1·1 million for a pilot small business research initiative challenge fund. I can now report that all that funding has been allocated to Departments in this monitoring round.

The Fresh Start Agreement secured £60 million over five years to support the creation of a shared future. The Executive’s Budget 2016-17 set aside £12 million resource DEL in this year and the Executive Office has advised that the following allocations should be processed in this monitoring round: £7·4 million to the Executive Office to cover a wide range of shared future measures; £1·5 million to Education for summer camps and shared education campuses; £1·5 million to Communities for shared housing and cross-community sporting events; and £1·1 million resource DEL and £0·4 million capital DEL to the Department of Justice for the removal of interface barriers. That is all good news. My officials will engage with the Treasury in securing access to this funding through the Westminster Supplementary Estimates. Following these adjustments, £0·5 million of the funding available for a shared future remains unallocated.

The Department of Justice has been provided with the requested £0·8 million resource and £0·5 million capital from the funding provided by the Executive to progress measures to tackle paramilitary activity. This will fund the cost of a three-person panel and supporting secretariat, a Fresh Start implementation team, a publicity campaign, and the purchase of specialist forensic science equipment.

I now turn to other allocations in the June monitoring round. Allocations totalling £140·1 million resource DEL and £29·1 million capital DEL have been agreed. The individual allocations are detailed in the tables and include £67 million resource DEL to the Department of Health, bringing the total additional funding provided to health in 2016-17 to £200 million. In anyone's language, that is a significant commitment to health. However, as we are all aware — it has been repeated across the House from all sides — continually providing additional funding to Health does not address the underlying issues. Therefore, it is vital that the reforms identified as a result of the work led by Professor Bengoa be implemented. The Executive have agreed to support the Health Minister in delivering substantial reforms to our health service.

Thirty million pounds in resource DEL has been allocated to the Department of Education. This comprises £20 million for schools in line with the commitment provided to the previous Education Minister by my predecessor. There is a further £5 million for special educational needs, which I mentioned at the start of my statement, and £5 million for the drawdown of school surpluses under the schools end-year flexibility (EYF) scheme.

Twenty-five million pounds in resource DEL has been allocated to the Department for the Economy. This comprises £20 million for skills in line with the commitment provided to the previous Minister for Employment and Learning by my predecessor; that is three commitments in a row kept. There is a further £5 million for the drawdown of further education (FE) college surpluses under the FE college end-year flexibility scheme.

The Department for Communities has been allocated £8·3 million resource DEL to cover pressures, including £4·3 million for maternity grants and funeral loans.

It also includes — I am very pleased and proud about this — £2 million to honour the commitment in the Fresh Start Agreement for welfare advice centres. This will help those most in need to receive their full benefit entitlement. The remaining £2 million will be used to address other inescapable pressures in the Department, such as the derating grant.

A total of £1·5 million resource DEL has been allocated to DAERA for the knowledge transfer scheme to address the skills gap in the farming sector; £3 million resource DEL to the Department for Justice for a number of central pressures; and £5·3 million resource DEL to the Department for Infrastructure for road maintenance and flood prevention, another issue that came up yesterday.

On capital DEL — I know that Members will welcome this — the Department for Infrastructure will receive £22·9 million, with the majority going to improve our roads infrastructure. Flood prevention and Waterways Ireland are also to receive allocations.

The Department of Health will also receive £5 million capital DEL. Each year. the hearing of approximately 25,000 babies is screened here, with around 450 babies requiring referral to diagnostic audiology services. This funding will provide a robust mechanism for recording the results of these tests, ensuring that the right treatment is provided to babies where that is necessary. It will also enhance the communication systems between ambulance control and crews, providing for more reliable 999 responses.

I have spoken, at Committee and to the media, several times since my election about the importance that I place on the regeneration of border regions, which are on the periphery of two economies. Cross-border cooperation, however, puts those same communities at the heart of the all-island economy. That is why I am proud to be the first Minister since 2010 to make a capital allocation to a cross-border body in a monitoring round.

On Friday past, I visited the headquarters of Waterways Ireland. I met the amazing team leading it and saw the transformational work that they are involved in to make the Loch Erne waterway a beacon for tourism. With 6,000 boats on the Erne, Waterways Ireland is on the cusp of creating the most outstanding blueway in Europe, which will boost tourism, create jobs and revive the border region. I am allocating £1·4 million to the Department for Infrastructure, which will assist Waterways Ireland with its bold capital investment plans.

I have also provided the Department for the Economy with £1·3 million to complete the HMS Caroline museum project, which will also boost our tourism sector. This project — I was at the launch — benefited hugely from Big Lottery money, but we need to complete the project if it is to fulfil its tourism potential, so I am pleased to make that allocation also.

Ring-fenced resource DEL is strictly controlled, and funding cannot be moved out of this area. Changes to the area are shown in the tables accompanying this statement. Colleagues will note that we exit this monitoring round with £15·6 million of ring-fenced resource DEL unallocated. This funding may be used only to address pressures within the ring fence — depreciation and impairments — it is therefore not available for allocation by the Executive.

Before concluding, a Cheann Comhairle, I would like to update Members on the public sector transformation fund. Colleagues will recall that, in the Budget 2016-17, the Executive agreed allocations totalling £117·8 million, including £84·7 million for voluntary exit schemes and £33·1 million to restructure the teaching workforce. The Executive also agreed that £25 million of the £200 million available to the public sector transformation fund in 2016-17 should be used for capital projects, leaving some £57·4 million available for allocation through the 2016-17 in–year monitoring process.

The public sector reform division has, over recent months, liaised with Departments to identify easements on allocations agreed in the Budget and any new allocations to schemes with capacity to deliver further savings for the Executive’s Budget. Changes to allocations in this monitoring round under the public sector transformation fund are detailed in the tables accompanying this statement.

As a result of the allocations detailed above, we exit this monitoring round with a £13·5 million overcommitment in respect of resource DEL and £11·4 million on capital DEL.

Earlier this year, we had a lengthy debate in the House on the renewable heat incentive scheme and the problems with it. Members who were there or who read about it in the media will be aware that a potential additional resource DEL pressure exists in relation to commitments under the renewable heat incentive. I am not proposing an allocation to the Department for the Economy in this round as the Executive are determined that every effort be made to reduce this pressure. I ask Members to support any measures brought before them that would help to mitigate what would otherwise be a considerable ongoing pressure on the Executive’s DEL. I would also like to assure Members that this potential pressure has been considered when developing these monitoring round proposals, and I am content that it can be managed within our DEL controls.

Before I conclude, I would like to make Members aware that the Executive have agreed a draft timetable and approach for the upcoming Budget that will set resource DEL plans up to 2019-2020 and capital DEL to 2020-21. It will come as no surprise that there are a number of strategic issues facing the Executive over this period, not least the need to work in parallel with the Programme for Government process to allow the Budget to support the Executive's priorities while ensuring that those aims are realistic within the overall funding envelope. In light of this, the Executive have agreed that Department of Finance officials will work closely with Departments over the summer to form a view on the funding each Department requires.

In conclusion — and this is the conclusion, a Cheann Comhairle — as I said at the start of the statement, I am strongly opposed, and we will hear it later today, to the austerity agenda and the constraints that it inflicts and imposes upon the Assembly. I will continue to fight against austerity at all levels and, alongside that, seek to develop innovative funding options. However, despite the constraints inflicted upon us, I am pleased that the June monitoring round reflects a positive outcome with additional funding being provided to key public services — around £170 million in funding for Departments if I have got my sums right. This monitoring round has delivered extra resources for health, education, skills, roads, housing, welfare and tourism.

Mar sin, a Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom an babhta monatóireachta agus an ráiteas seo a mholadh don Tionól. I commend the June monitoring outcome to the Assembly.

Mr Smith: The Minister said that today's statement is significantly different from those of previous monitoring rounds. He is right in that this Assembly used to be informed not only of allocations but of bids. Looking at his statement today, I see no indication whatsoever of the pressures Departments had identified and bid for. Can the Minister explain why this information was left out of the statement? Can he give a commitment that, after today's proceedings, he will circulate it to the House?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think that it is appropriate for Mr Smith to take up the points that he said earlier in an attempt to delay the statement. I think that I might be the first Minister to go in and see the Committee for Finance, maybe simultaneously with the Executive Office Ministers. I intend to have very collegial and honest engagement with Members from all parties. This morning, I became the first Minister in some time to brief the Chair and Deputy Chair. My predecessors, God bless them, briefed only the Chair on these matters. I intend to stay with that tradition of seeing the Committee often and seeing the Chair and Deputy Chair.

I will say this: this is the choice that you have made. We want to have an effective, streamlined, efficient Government delivering for all our people. You want to be in an Opposition that is in the back seat. You want to drive from the back seat. You want to hold progress up. Our intention is to ensure that we do things. We deliver the actions. We do the deeds. Others may be strong in words, but this Government will be very strong in deeds moving forward. You can be assured of this: the Assembly and the Committee will have my full cooperation, but you cannot hold back progress. Scrutinise and challenge, certainly, but let us move forward. People want us to make progress swiftly.

Mrs Little Pengelly (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I would like to thank the Minister for the very strong statement this morning and in particular the swift agreement by the Northern Ireland Executive on June monitoring. I particularly welcome the additional £67 million to the Department of Health along with the increase at the beginning of this Budget period of an additional £133 million. This does meet the commitment of the Executive to that additional £200 million each year. As the Minister will be aware, and we have discussed this already, much more is required than just resources to put Health on a sustainable footing. Transformation is required. I notice from his statement that there is £69 million of unallocated financial transactions capital and £59 million unallocated in the public sector transformation fund. Will the Minister give a commitment to work constructively with the Committee to look at those unallocated funds and opportunities around funding and initiatives in order to bring about the necessary transformation to put the Department of Health on a sustainable footing?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: You can take it that this is not a spectator sport. You are right: there are parties in government and in opposition, but I think that ideas on how we be more efficient in delivery of services should come from all sides. It cheers me that we have reached a place in this House where people are not saying that the solution to the pressures that society and the community face is always to spend more money.

I think we all agree that on health the solution is to have better outcomes, to use our money wisely and to adopt the Bengoa proposals. That, in many ways, is depoliticising health. So, on all the matters you raise and in the interests of cooperation and making sure we get the biggest bang for our buck, you can be assured that I will work positively with colleagues.

Mr O'Dowd: I agree with the Minister that the public out there are more interested in product than in process and want to see changes being delivered to our society. Will the monitoring rounds form part of a strategic delivery of product to our people out there? Will they form part of a budgetary process to see resources being directed to where they are required?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Aontaím go huile agus go hiomlán leat gur tábhachtaí le daoine táirge ná próiseas. I agree with you entirely about delivery of product rather than process. This was not a horse-trading exercise. We have a positive Government with the DUP and Sinn Féin and with Claire Sugden as Minister of Justice. We did not engage in having the wish lists that I have seen in previous Governments where Ministers put in bids that they know are not realistic. We had a hard-headed negotiation with all the Ministers. They understand, as I understand, that we are all in this together. This is a holistic Government. For years, people in here have complained about a silo Government and silo Departments. This is a Government acting with common purpose, moving forward together. So, in that regard, the monitoring round has to fit into our overall ambition for this Government and for our people. It should not be a wish list, horse-trading or hoping that one Department will get money and deny it to others. In fact, what I saw with ministerial colleagues in our private discussions was that they understood that, if there is a greater priority, you need to step back. If we need to finish a project or fund a project and your Department does not need it as much, you need to step back and say, "What is for the greater good?" This is a Government fuelled, I think, with common purpose that shows by this monitoring round that we are intent to deliver, but I take entirely on board what you say, and this has to be part of our strategic approach.

It is early days. This, I think, is a good outcome for us today. We have managed to allocate £175 million. We have made a significant difference, but let us keep up the good work. Let us keep our shoulder to the wheel because we need to repeat this later in the year not only in relation to the Budget coming up for 2017-2020 for resource and 2017-2021 for capital but in other monitoring rounds.

Ms Hanna: We appreciate the Minister's energy, but we support the view that there has not been sufficient time to scrutinise the statement. The first big report of the mandate was the paramilitary report. The First Ministers completely bypassed the Assembly on that occasion. At least you have taken questions, but one hour for Members to scrutinise is not sufficient.

I am looking at a couple of the figures here. Despite having significantly reduced powers in this mandate, £19·2 million has been allocated to the Executive Office for the social investment fund and Delivering Social Change, and a further £7·4 million has been allocated for shared future measures, as well as money that has gone to other Departments for the same purpose. Will the Minister clarify what that shared future measures money for the Executive Office will be spent on?

Can I get clarity on one other item? On page 6, you refer to a £126·2 million resource DEL and £17·7 million capital DEL, and, on page 8, it refers to a £140·1 million resource DEL and £29·1 million capital DEL. Will you outline the reason for the discrepancy in those figures?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that only one question is allowed.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I thank the Member and thank her for attending the briefing this morning. She is right: I have some sympathy. The sympathy I felt for Mr Nesbitt yesterday was to do with the 138 pages of Estimates. We need to make government work for the people, and there is a chance now to look at what we have done and to comment upon it, and you are welcome to do that. The figures are right, and I am happy for you to drill down into them.

I want to say this: this is the second time in two days that the social investment fund has been attacked and traduced in this Chamber. I am going to read again where the social investment fund is making a difference. Those who are trying to pillory the efforts of working-class communities, especially in Taughmonagh and Sandy Row because that is where the target has been, need to visit those communities and meet the heroes and pioneers who are trying to build up those communities, which have not received an adequate peace dividend, whether it is Tigers Bay, the Markets or the New Lodge.

With your permission, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, I am going to state again some of what the social investment fund has done. It provided £1 million to make the Bryson Street Surgery happen, which people know is at a very difficult interface, and of course, the build is complete and operational. On increasing community services, there is the Best of East Visitor Centre. That build is complete and will commence operations in the coming weeks. In fact, I think that it has perhaps commenced operations, because some friends have visited it. Who is not proud of the marvellous work being carried out by our friends in EastSide Arts and the East Belfast Partnership?

Again, on increasing community services in Belfast, there is £1·7 million for the community centre at Finvoy Street, the Greenway Women's Centre and the centre at Castlereagh Street. Again, that is another marvellous result from the social investment fund. There is £99,000 for the Short Strand Community Centre, for which a letter of offer has been issued. The list goes on, and those projects are being delivered.

Was that too slow for my liking? Yes, it absolutely was too slow, and I am determined as Finance Minister to be swifter. When we are swifter with the social investment fund, I hope that people do not come to the House and say, "It's too fast. You are getting the money into communities to rebuild them and transform lives too quickly", because, for me, that is very much our job.

The shared future fund goes through the Executive Office to other Departments. The district councils' good relations programme is £0·6 million. Summer intervention funding is £0·11 million. The central good relations fund is £3 million. Summer camps funding is £0·2 million. I will do what I did yesterday for the Member and email her this later.

Ms Hanna: You can tell us now.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I will have to continue to read this then. Urban Villages is £0·7 million. Urban Villages is £1·6 million. Contested spaces is £0·2 million. Together: Building a United Community shared future promotion publicity is £0·03 million — that is £30,000. Shared future staffing for Urban Villages is £0·149 million. I think that we will leave it like that, but I could go through the whole list.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members to make all their remarks through the Chair.

Dr Farry: I congratulate the Minister on his efficiency with the June monitoring statement. I do not believe that any procedures have been broken by the manner in which the statement has been brought to us today, but there is a genuine issue around transparency on the full pressures being faced across Departments. Hopefully, the Minister can rectify that gap.

On the additional money for skills — I welcome his following-through on the commitment made by his predecessor — does the Minister recognise that the £20 million will only avoid further cuts happening on an in-year basis? If we are to see proper investment in the transformation of our economy through future Budget rounds, there needs to be a further ramping-up of investment in skills across apprenticeships, FE colleges and, indeed, our universities. Will he clarify whether the £20 million is to be baselined, as was the intent of his predecessor in his correspondence to me in my previous role?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. I thought that the former Minister might have more of a smile this morning. I am disappointed to see that the glass is still half empty, because when Mervyn Storey left those IOUs, I was not obliged to honour them, but I thought that it was important to do so. You are absolutely right about the need to invest in higher education and to point out that we cannot really build for corporation tax if we do not have a strong tertiary-level education system delivering first-class graduates.

This is my first bite at this particular cherry. I have tried to honour your commitment. I have met both vice chancellors, Paddy Johnston and Paddy Nixon: one in Derry and one in Queen's University. You know that they make a strong case, and you know that it is a cogent and logical case, but we do not have money to do everything that we want to do. I do not want to promise further than what we have done today. The £20 million is, of course, not only for universities. I am a big fan of the Belfast Met and the other community colleges — I suppose that that is what you would call them — and they have to get some money out of it as well.

The Member should be content that, even though he has left the post, the thrust of what he wanted is being delivered. There is much, much more to do, but I understand the vital importance of third-level education to the success of this community, and I want to make sure that as many people as possible can access a third-level education.

Mr E McCann: Will the Minister allow an intervention?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, there are no interventions allowed during questions to a statement.

Mr E McCann: OK.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask the Member to resume his seat. Thank you. The Member will have opportunities for questions.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I think that Eamonn was going to mention Magee, so we might get to that as well.

Anyway, I believe, as was said previously, that access to university should be based on your ability to learn, not on your ability to pay. I commend the stance that the Minister took previously. Maybe he did not get the funding when he wanted it, but I think that we are on a different trajectory now, and I hope that this is the start of continued investment in building up our universities and further education colleges.

Mr Girvan: I welcome the statement and thank the Minister for it. I appreciate that two amounts have been set aside for capital and resource for the Department for Infrastructure. Each and every one of us has concerns about the road maintenance budget, which has already been cut in the projected budget for this year. The maintenance budget is £5·3 million, but I would like clarification: was there a bid for additional moneys for the maintenance budget for the forthcoming year?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I thank the Member for his question. The interest in roads — it was referenced yesterday — is twofold. We want efficient roads that are passable, that we can be proud of and that we can drive on, but we are also concerned about the construction industry and making sure that the many jobs for the people who are out maintaining our roads — we see them every day — are still available when we release the budgets.

When I met my ministerial colleagues, all wanted more at first cut, but, after mature discussions, the bids from Departments were, by and large, realised. I think that you will find — I am sure that the Minister for Infrastructure will speak about this — that this will make a significant difference in-year to the number of repairs that we do on our roads. It is not really a very wise policy to have potholes, because people then claim against the Government and we lose money, but you will find that this will make a significant difference in the time ahead. I do not know whether it will cheer you entirely, but I think that you will find that it makes a significant difference.

Mr McElduff: Tá ceist agam, agus moladh agam, don Aire. I encourage the Finance Minister to continue, where possible, to support early intervention programmes and special needs programmes in education. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he and the Education Minister will support and give a good listening ear to school principals, who, at this time, feel under pressure because of the with additional pressures on school budgets. I appreciate the financial constraints imposed on the Minister by the Westminster cuts.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt don Chomhalta as an cheist sin a chur. Is ambasadóir láidir é ar son an oideachais, agus tá a fhios agam go bhfuil dea-chaidreamh aige le príomhoidí, le múinteoirí agus le tuistí i gceantar s’aige. The Member is a strong ambassador for increased investment in education and always carries the standard for principals, teachers, parents and children.

I am pleased that we have been able to make an additional allocation to schools. I am a supporter of the Bright Start programme. The discussion on how the money will be used is now with the Education Minister, Peter Weir, but the views of the Member and my views are perfectly aligned. We understand the importance of early intervention, making sure that all children have a great opportunity in life, and it has to start very early. I am heartened not only by the passion of the advocacy by educationalists and parents but by the fact that, across the Chamber, Members from all parties agree that education is a priority.

Given that we never have enough money to do everything that we want to do, it is fair to say that we understand where the priorities are, and that is why there is extra money in this monitoring round for education and for special educational needs. I want to make sure that we reinforce the delivery of initiatives such as pathways, and I wish the Education Minister well as he endeavours to make sure that we make an even greater positive impact for our young people.

Mr Wells: I am sure that the Minister will accept that he is building on the strong foundations laid by his predecessors Mr Hamilton, Mr Storey and, of course, Mr Wilson.

Mr Allister: And Mrs Foster, no?

Mr Wells: And Mrs Foster, yes. [Laughter.]

Mr Allister: And Mr Robinson.

Mr Wells: And Mr Robinson. And Mr Dodds. Will he accept that, as my colleague has already said, whilst the monitoring round improvements in funding for road maintenance are indeed welcome, if we do not, through either the monitoring rounds or better funding in the main Budget, deal with the situation soon, we are storing up huge problems for the future? If we do not maintain our roads, in 20 or 30 years' time we will have a vast expenditure, because we will have to fundamentally rebuild them.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I do, Mr Wells. I think you have forgotten Finance Minister Durkan. I do not think that goes back before your time; it certainly goes back before the time of many Members here, but I think you were here for that period as well. You are absolutely right: penny wise, pound foolish. We need to invest in our roads infrastructure; we need to get this right. It is important that, as we do face constraints, we do not ignore investment. If we do, what will happen is that a year or two down the road we are landed with a huge financial headache. We take that on board. It has been a position voiced by many Members, about not only the roads in Belfast but the rural and minor roads as well. We need to make sure that we invest in this network — it is important for our people, it is important for the success of our society, it is important for tourism and it is important for visitors. Your point is well made.

Each of the Finance Ministers you mentioned — whatever about the Finance Minister I mentioned; that was before my time — was prudent and aware of the pressures which impose upon our spending, and they always tried to act in a wise and prudent fashion. I intend to do the same to make sure that there is no neglect in investment which will create a headache at a later date.

Mr Swann: Minister, you mentioned the renewable heat incentive and asked Members to support any pressure brought before them because you have not made a bid in this monitoring round. Can you therefore give us guidance as to what the timescale is for those measures that are going to be brought? Also, I see you are content that any pressures can be managed within your current DEL controls.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I thank the Member for his question. I think, Robin, you were here for the debate on the renewable heat incentive. I was, like other Members, very energised by the way the scheme was operated. It is clear there are a number of flaws and fault lines in that scheme. I have pressed back hard on officials in relation to how we are going to rectify this problem. I do not want to make an allocation for it now, but I am preparing for an allocation if that is necessary. We need to study this carefully, but we also need to act rather swiftly because until we rectify the problem it will continue to gather pace.

Of all the issues we address in the time ahead, getting a handle on this renewable heat incentive is absolutely vital. In England they got a handle on it when it was thought there was going to be an overspend. I look forward to my colleague Simon Hamilton's proposals. He is equally energised about this issue and is focused on finding a resolution and coming to the Assembly, and to me, as early as possible, with a strategy for dealing with the problem. It is not a secret to Members, because we did discuss it at length, that it has not been a well-run scheme. I look forward to Minister Hamilton bringing forward his proposals.

Mrs S Bradley: First, I, like others, have obviously not had sufficient time to read the report in great detail. I welcome some of the headline figures, particularly the news that there will be funding for roads. I will be watching carefully to see how that funding is allocated regionally. I know in particular there is a need in south Down for more tarmac —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Has the Member a question for the Minister?

Mrs S Bradley: Certainly, yes.

I also welcome funding for Waterways Ireland. Until now there has been a real danger of some of the cross-border bodies withering on the vine because they have not had adequate funding or support. The Minister did comment that he has had —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Will the Member ask her question, please?

Mrs S Bradley: Yes, thank you.

He mentioned that, during frank discussions with the Executive, some projects may have to be set aside. Given the renewed commitment to cross-border bodies, I hope the Minister can give an assurance that Narrow Water bridge project has not been set aside. Given his commitment to cross-border projects, he could give that assurance to the people of south Down.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that it should be a question to the Minister and not a statement. I ask Members to make their questions brief.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I thank Ms Bradley for her question. She is right to focus on rural roads — those of us from Belfast are accused occasionally of forgetting that there is anywhere outside the city limits — so I intend to do that. You are fortunate in that I think that Chris Hazzard does not live too far away, so he can certainly visit and view those roads with you.

In terms of Waterways Ireland, I think that part of the Ulster canal may be in your constituency. I am happy to visit it and to look at it with you to see how we might progress that project. That is another example of a project that has been around for too long and that we, as Governments, have not delivered on, yet it is a transformational project. In fact, as Jeffrey Donaldson reminded me, if we can get from Belfast to Lough Neagh and then to the Shannon, we will have a new all-island highway, or an old highway reopened. I am with you on that entirely.

It is a statement of intent, and I, of course, have to work with other Ministers. Do I believe that it is to the benefit of all our people, as Sir George Quigley believed, to develop an all-island economy? Yes, I do. Do I believe that communities in the border regions are on the periphery of two economies, yet could be at the centre of an all-island economy? Yes, I do. Do I believe that border communities — I know that you represent some of them — deserve a bigger slice of the peace dividend? Yes, I do. You will find me an ally for any proposals on constructive cross-border cooperation that encourage the all-island economy and encourage cooperation between our communities and peoples in the time ahead.

I remain a fan of the Narrow Water bridge project. As I said to the Committee last week, I generally support bridge building; it is a good way of moving forward. I saw that project before I was returned to the House, and I will be working with you and with other Members to realise the dream of having a bridge at Narrow Water. The work starts. It is not, of course, with my Department, but you can be sure that I think that that project is a priority, and I hope to see it realised in the time ahead. In the House, "the time ahead" sometimes can mean a long time, but I hope that we can get stuck into that project.

Mr Dickson: Minister, thank you for your statement. I want to return to the renewable heat incentive. Can you give us an assurance that that matter, regardless of the sums involved, will be dealt with directly by the Executive rather than being left to the Department for the Economy, the sole role of which should be to transform our economy and which should not be burdened in that respect? Will he give the House an absolute assurance that that matter will be dealt with directly by the Executive?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I thank the Member for his question. You were in for the debate earlier this year. It is one of the most vital and pressing issues that we face and it is the right decision to move it to the centre. I look forward to seeing the proposals. It will be our friends in the energy section of the former DETI who will deal with it — they are dealing with it daily. It is a crucial and vital question.

We will move to allocate it to the centre if necessary. You can take it that, wherever it sits, it is a priority for me to get a handle on it and make sure that we have a solution.

Mr Aiken: I apologise for not having had the chance to go through the statement forensically as the Minister knows that I would have liked to have done, but there are a couple of questions to which I would quite like answers if he has the opportunity to do so.

Despite the increase of £25 million, much of which will go to restoring part of the issues to do with the skills shortage in Northern Ireland, I note from the ring-fenced resource DEL that there is a reduction of £34·2 million. Again, we have not seen those figures, and we would like to see the reasoning behind them fairly soon. On the second issue, I would particularly like —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind the Member that it is one question to the Minister.

Mr Aiken: In that case, I shall sit down. Thank you.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is a matter of great disappointment that you have had 15 minutes and have not forensically examined all those figures, Mr Aiken, because I know that you are well capable of it. I do not have the full reasons for that fall. I did not realise that there was a fall. I am not sure which Department you are referring to, but I am happy to discuss that with you.

Overall, I think it is a good monitoring round. Many of the issues that have been raised by the Opposition since I came here are addressed as well. Those issues are priorities for the Government parties, but the reality is that some of the big issues we have addressed were raised by colleagues in the Opposition parties yesterday. We can all stand over that. Your priorities are addressed in this monitoring round, and I think that is a reason to welcome it. There will be an opportunity, with individual Ministers or with me, if you wish, to go through each reason for slippage or underspend. There are all sorts of reasons for that, and some of them can be very genuine. Welfare mitigations have not moved ahead as swiftly as we thought, thank God; so there is some money being returned to the centre. There are some Barnett consequentials as well. When I went back to Departments and asked why they had not spent money, it did not seem to be through inefficiency; there seemed to be other factors at play. It was, in my view, justifiable and correct that they should surrender the money for reallocation. I am happy to pore over the figures with you at a later date.

Ms Mallon: The Minister has made much reference to the importance of delivering on actions and I welcomed the fact that he said yesterday that housing is a priority for him. Considering that there are 40,000 households on the waiting list, 22,000 of which are in housing stress, how many affordable and social homes will be built from this allocation? For our most vulnerable people, a roof over your head is important but also, critically important, are wrap-around services. Where is the funding for projects like Supporting People and the housing first model?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Stephen Farry's glass was half-full. Ms Mallon, I think your glass is about a third-full. There was no indication, in any of the media reports before this announcement, that there would be anything here.

One of my esteemed colleagues in the Alliance Party talked about the unravelling of budgets. Mr Attwood talked yesterday about bringing urgent statements to the House regarding the Budget situation. In fact, this is a very positive outcome across Departments and, in particular, for co-ownership housing. We need to come up with more ways to spend this financial transaction capital but we have managed, and I have said this candidly to Members, to find £5·5 million for the co-ownership scheme. That will be for social and affordable homes. It is not the preference of everyone. It may not suit some of the people we are talking about, but it is my intention, and we talked about priorities, to provide the funding where I can do so, or ensure that we can find ways to raise money or borrow in a prudent fashion against a revenue delivering project, to build the homes that we need.

Before the election, Sinn Féin committed to building 10,000 new homes, but even that is not enough. As I said yesterday, you cannot have a family if you do not have a home. The figures and the level of housing stress and homelessness are really worrying and are an indictment of our society. We need to make a start in tackling it. That is why I welcomed the £280 million from the European Investment Bank (EIB) last week for two of our housing associations — Apex and Choice I think. That is why I will make housing a priority. If the Minister for Communities comes to me with other proposals about enhancing support for the homeless and those seeking homes, I will be very sympathetic. Nothing is more important. Nothing is a greater test of our ability and efficiency as a Government than delivering homes.

We have made some progress: £5·5 million is not enough, and the Member can work out for herself what she thinks that will deliver in terms of homes and the cost of them. The sum of £280 million from the EIB is not enough. We need to find a way of allowing the Housing Executive to borrow off balance sheet so that it can get on with what it is good at, which is building houses and making them available to families. So, if she wants to prioritise housing, especially housing the homeless, I suggest that she brings that, robustly, to the Minister for Communities. She will find me an ally with a very sympathetic ear. If she works in concert with the Minister for Communities on housing, she will find that I will be very supportive in doing what we can to ease housing need.

Mrs Dobson: I, also, thank the Minister for his statement and, like others, welcome the additional £72 million being allocated to the Department of Health. Equally, I welcome the realisation from the Minister that this does not address the underlying issues. He will remember that I touched on this yesterday. What guarantees can the Minister give that our health service has the capacity to use these additional multi-million pound allocations? Also, the statement lacks clarity on what the £67 million resource —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member is entitled to one question.

Mrs Dobson: — and £5 million capital will be used for. Can the Minister break it down for us?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister to answer one question of his choice.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I thank Mrs Dobson for prioritising and focusing on health again, and reiterating what everyone is saying, which is that while this additional money is very welcome — it brings to £200 million the extra amount we have allocated to health this year — money alone is not the solution.

I have honoured some of the commitments made by Simon Hamilton, the outgoing Minister, to the health service. I have worked with my officials and Health Department officials to make sure that every penny of this is used. I will not be pleased if any Department comes back and says, "The money that we bid for in June monitoring, we didn't or couldn't use". That would be a bad marker to put down with me, because we really made sure the bids were realistic. We really worked hard with other Ministers and officials to make sure that the money really was needed and will be used.

In terms of how it will be used, there is demand for unscheduled care. New and unplanned attendances at emergency departments have increased, as you know and highlighted, since 2014-15. Funding is therefore required in a number of areas to improve patient care and unscheduled care, including winter pressures, as well as capacity expansion on acute sites and staffing in emergency departments. Key aspects of the social care system remain under significant pressure in 2016-17, with additional investment required in domiciliary care in the statutory and independent sectors, as well as in children's services, learning disability and psychological therapies. This allocation will help to address front-line pressures and improve patient flow. I am happy to meet you to talk in more detail about where that is going, and I am sure that Minister Michelle O'Neill will be as well.

I will say what I said on housing: please highlight health. It is not my Department but, as with housing, I want to remain an ally and advocate for wise and prudent spending that delivers better outcomes in health.

Mr McGlone: Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire cá mhéad den chaiteachas sna hearnálacha éagsúla, thar na tréimhsí áirithe, a thagann ón Aontas Eorpach. How much of the total amounts in all key spending areas is sourced from the EU?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt don Chomhalta as an cheist sin. Bhí tú sa Chathaoir mhór aréir; anois tá tú arais i measc na dtuataí. Tá a fhios agam cá bhfuil tú ag gabháil leis an cheist sin, agus molaim an treo ina bhfuil tú ag gabháil fosta. Tá tú ag iarraidh fíricí. Baineann an caiteachas seo leis na Ranna s’againne amháin; seo caiteachas s’againne. Gan amhras, áfach, cuirfear airgead ón Eoraip leis sin. Sílim go bhfuil €280 milliún ag SEUPB agus thart faoi €270 milliún ag INTERREG.

I welcome the Member's question. I know and applaud where he is going on the question. This is our departmental expenditure, but European funds are essential to the delivery of services. The Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), and Members might correct me, provides, I think, around €280 million, and INTERREG provides around €260 million. Without that funding, and without referencing Brexit, we would not be able to deliver the vast majority of the projects that I know you are interested in, for example in rural and border areas.

This is our commitment to the kitty, but without European funds we would not be able to deliver the services that are so vital to our people. So, your resolve, like mine, is to make sure that on 24 June those funds are still available.

Mr Beggs: I thank the Minister for his statement, but I must say that I find the new format unhelpful. Like others, I am concerned about the lack of transparency. I believe it is healthy to be aware of the bids, choices and pressures that were there. Can the Minister advise whether there were bids to, for instance, provide additional capital funding to improve health centres — there is an issue with those in my constituency — or, in education resource funding, to address some of the effective cuts to our schools? Were there any unsuccessful bids, and will the Minister publish all the bids?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I thank the Member for his question. The bids in my negotiations and discussions with ministerial colleagues are, of course, confidential. What I can say is this: you always find at your first meeting with Ministers that they want the earth, the moon and the stars, but we had realistic discussions very early on. This is a new style of government. I do not think it would have been to the benefit of any health centre, school or community project to have unrealistic bids trawled for a month through Committees, exercising all types of commentary and speculation, when it is much better, in my view, to have a Government of common purpose, focused on a holistic response to all the pressures facing us, making realistic bids to me, discussing those with me and understanding what their sister Departments need. That has never happened before, because before, of course, in the five-party Government, it was every man and every woman for themselves.

What I can say is that every Minister — that includes not only DUP and Sinn Féin Ministers but Claire Sugden, the Minister of Justice — left content and realising that, although they would love more money and there is more they want to do, there is not enough money in the pot. As you said, some people made a strong case on issues that were of particular interest to them but that we could not meet at this time, so I will return to those discussions with ministerial colleagues in the time ahead. This streamlined, efficient style of government will make sure that we deliver the type of projects you are talking about in the time ahead.

Mr Kennedy: I welcome the Minister's statement. Whilst the allocations to the Department for Infrastructure are welcome, will the Minister take steps to address the stop-start nature of funding to address road repairs and defects in structural maintenance? Will he undertake to put in place proper financial planning and a proper system to ensure that adequate funds are allocated at the earliest point so that contractors and the road construction industry can properly plan and road maintenance is no longer treated as a political Cinderella?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I thank Mr Kennedy for that question. I would have thought that you left a fairly healthy budget to Minister McIlveen. Now it is coming to me. If stop-start had not been part of the Department's approach, it will certainly not be part of my approach. I agree with you entirely. I want to deliver on those projects not only for the construction industry but for those who want to see projects, some of which, Mr Kennedy, some may say were stop-start under your tenure — the A5 and the A6 for example. There is very bold ambition on the A5 and the A6, and I want to deliver on them in a strategic fashion. There are always difficulties. There may be a planning inquiry here or a difficulty there, but I agree with you entirely: there needs to be a cogent, forceful, passionate approach to building up the road infrastructure that we need. Our people who use the roads need that; our economy needs that; and our construction industry needs that.

I will say finally that, although the majority of money that I have allocated in this monitoring round is to do with road maintenance and so on, occasionally, with respect to the A5 and the A6, people who meet me talk about the north-west city region of Derry — Londonderry, as you would say, Mr Kennedy — and how they need to get to Belfast, Dublin or wherever. What is really clear when you visit Derry, as I did last week, when I met the Donegal County Council CEO as well, is that the contribution they will make to the wider economy of Derry and Donegal through a proper transport infrastructure will help all our people right across the country. It is the enabling of their contribution to us that will be the real genius of the A5 and the A6. I know that not as much progress was made on it under your tenure as perhaps you would have liked, but we make a commitment here that we will deliver in a consistent, informed, strategic fashion the road infrastructure our people need and our economy requires.

Mr Agnew: The Minister previously made reference to the benefits of the social investment fund, as he sees them. Does he share my concern, however, that there are those receiving SIF funding who wear the air of respectability by day but direct criminality by night — people who, by night, cause community tensions and, by day, seek funding to resolve them? What will the Minister do to ensure that public funding is withdrawn where evidence of such practice exists?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: You will note that I made an allocation towards strategies to end paramilitarism. I know that all Members will join me in this, but I doubt that there is anyone in the House who endorses or condones paramilitary activity. I know that there have been a series of worrying problems in your constituency and a concern on the part of ordinary people that the spectre of paramilitarism still lingers. You can take it from me: I stand four-square behind the community of North Down, of South Belfast and of every constituency in facing down the paramilitaries. However, I also want to say that I have worked with former paramilitary leaders in Sandy Row in South Belfast, and they have kept every commitment that they made to me. They have kept the peace every time that I have asked them to do so, and every engagement that I have had with them has been respectful. I believe that they are committed to the path of peace and building up their communities, and I will stand with them.

If Mr Agnew or anyone else has evidence against anyone involved in any of our programmes — I am not sure about singling out the social investment fund, as we spend money right across the piece — they should bring it to the PSNI and demand rapid and effective action against paramilitarism. We have come too far to let anyone drag us back. I will set aside your singling out of the social investment fund — if there is a project that you want to bring to the attention of the police or the authorities, please do so — but, that to the side, I stand with you in making sure that we have a society free of paramilitary influence.

Mr Allister: The Minister is anxious to impress with the speed with which he brought the statement to the House. It is certainly quicker than last year. We never had a June monitoring round, and we all know the reason for that: it was because Sinn Féin was involved in a sham fight for welfare before it rolled over —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Does the Member have a question for the Minister?

Mr Allister: I want to ask the Minister specifically about a matter in table four. Now that he is a custodian and not just a spender of public finance, is he satisfied that it is good value for money to have sold 621 acres at Shackleton for £1 million? Was that value for money for the taxpayer?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I thank Mr Allister — go raibh maith agat. This is the can't-do corner. It is not even a corner; it is only a small redoubt in the Assembly. I do not mind people who say "You can't do". Most of the Opposition say to me, "You can do. You can do more, and you can do it faster and more efficiently", but it is refreshing to have a can't-do corner. Every time I hear from the can't-do corner, I will respond as positively as I can, because eventually, the can do — as proved by 107 Members — outnumbers, outshines and overshadows the can't do.

On Shackleton, obviously, I did not sell it; I have only been in post for two and a half weeks. If you believe that it was not value for money and you believe that what is proposed is not to the benefit of all our people, raise that issue and bring it to us. I want to see us move from a society that had symbols of division and the past at every turn to a better, more prosperous place. I am not sure that you want to be there, Mr Allister; I think that you would be very comfortable in the past. For today, this is a monitoring round about the future. This is a can-do monitoring round. Will it be tested? Will there be challenges? Of course there will. This is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a step forward — [Interruption.]

I understand that you would like to come back: you will have plenty of opportunities to come back, because we will be here for a while.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask that all Members make their remarks through the Chair.

Mr E McCann: The Minister said earlier that we are all in this together. This is a phrase that, in recent years, has been mainly associated with Mr David Cameron, who repeats it at every occasion. As he puts the boot into the poor, he assures them, "We are all in this together".

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Does the Member have a question?

Mr E McCann: Yes, indeed. I want to put that together with the Minister's suggestion that there are two vice chancellors in the North. He said that there is one in Belfast for Queen's and one in Derry. That is not true.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Will the Member ask his question?

Mr E McCann: Will the Minister give an assurance now that the management of the University of Ulster has no need for, and should call to a halt, the redundancy programme that is closing courses and getting rid of lecturers at Magee? How can we listen to all the promises about the expansion of Magee when what they are actually doing is contracting Magee?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I do not know whether there is a "can't-do" corner, but there is the "can't-hear" corner. I mentioned British Prime Minister Cameron's reference that we are all in this together to denounce it and say clearly that it is a lie and a canard. That is why I used the expression; I did not do so to endorse it. You have to listen to the entire sentence and the one before and the one after, but you can check the Hansard report.

I went to Magee last week because I wanted to state clearly at this early stage what I was told by the chief executive of Derry and Strabane District Council, the chief executive of Donegal County Council, the business community, the Chamber of Commerce and others I met before I left the city, and vice chancellor Paddy Nixon, namely that the entire success in the future of what I am happy to call "the north-west city region of Derry" hinges on the success of the University of Ulster campus at Magee. I am happy to see that numbers there have increased. I am a big advocate — I have said this to my colleague and friend, the vice chancellor of Queen's University — of anthropology, the Irish language and history. I have a degree in two of those three subjects, though not a very good one, and I would like to see, and I have said this to all those involved in our universities, those particular disciplines grow in the time ahead as well as other disciplines. The way to grow our universities is to provide funding. We have done that today. I do not know if the Member heard — maybe he missed it — but we have just provided £20 million to make the type of investment that Dr Farry called for.

Mr Ó Muilleoir (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle as an sos. Thank you for the break. This Second Stage debate follows the approval of the Supply resolution by the Assembly for the expenditure plans of Departments and other public bodies as detailed in the 2016-17 Main Estimates. That happened in time for the second half of the Ireland and Sweden game, which was a good result, as today's monitoring round has been.

As Members will undoubtedly be aware, accelerated passage of the Bill is necessary to ensure Royal Assent prior to the end of July. There were some concerns expressed earlier about the urgent process we use for monitoring rounds, but I am grateful, perhaps even more so because of that, that the Committee granted accelerated passage for the Bill. If the Bill did not proceed by accelerated passage and receive Assembly approval before the summer recess, Departments and other public bodies could have legislative difficulty in accessing cash, which would threaten the effective delivery of public services prior to our return to the Chamber in September.

I am glad to note, however, that the Bill can be given accelerated passage, because the Committee for Finance has confirmed that, in line with Standing Order 42, it is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals contained in it. That is an example of opposition and government working together. I hope that we see more of that. I thank the Committee for its work in agreeing to accelerated passage.

The Bill's main purpose is to make further provision of cash and resources for use on services, in addition to the Vote on Account provided in the Budget Act that was passed by the Assembly in February, up to the requirements of Departments and other public bodies set out in the Main Estimates for 2016-17. Copies of the Budget (No. 2) Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members today. The 2016-17 Main Estimates and the Statement of Excess 2014-15 were laid in the Assembly on 1 June 2016.

The Bill will authorise the issue of a further £7,986,369,200 from the Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £8,693,136,600 by the Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of each schedule. Of course, those amounts are in addition to the Vote on Account passed by the Assembly in February, bringing the total amount of cash provided for 2016-17 to over £15 billion. In addition, the Bill sets for the current financial year a limit for each Department on the use of accruing resources — current and capital receipts — totalling £2,340,215,000. Therefore, the resources authorised by the Assembly in the Vote on Account in February and the resources and accruing resources now provided in the Bill bring the total resources for use by Departments in 2016-17 to over £19 billion. Of course, those amounts of resource include not only the departmental expenditure limits (DELs), on which our Budget process mainly focuses, but departmental demand-led annually managed expenditure (AME).

Clause 2 provides for the temporary borrowing by my Department of £3,993,184,000. That is approximately half the sum authorised by clause 1 for issue out of the Consolidated Fund. I must stress to the Assembly that clause 2 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund or convey any additional spending power, but it enables my Department to run an effective and efficient cash-management regime and ensure minimum drawdown on our block grant on a daily basis. That is very important when contemplating the daily borrowing by our Departments.

The Budget (No. 2) Bill authorises £68,328,183 — there is also a very important 78p there — which was used by the Department of Finance and Personnel in 2014-15, and £952,921·37 for the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was used in 2014-15 by way of Excess Votes. The need for additional resources for the Department of Finance arose from using an incorrect rate when calculating the interest on the principal Civil Service pension scheme liabilities. The need for additional resources for the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission arose from an inaccurate assessment of the pension liability of the Assembly Members' pension scheme. The Public Accounts Committee has considered both issues and recommended that the Assembly provide the additional resources through an Excess Vote.

In bringing the first Budget Bill of this Assembly mandate, I am making clear my intention to deliver for the people whom we represent. The expenditure being approved in the Bill will see investment in high-quality public services and, most importantly, a commitment to oppose the austerity programme being driven by the Westminster Government. I aim to work with all our local communities to create a prosperous shared society and to help grow a stronger economy with opportunity for all. This Budget will serve our people well. I am proud that, with this Budget Bill, we are delivering the most generous welfare protection in these islands. I am proud that, with this Budget Bill, we are continuing to block the Westminster Government's bedroom tax. I am proud that, with this Budget Bill, we are preventing the imposition of water charges. I am proud that, with this Budget Bill, we are keeping university fees for our students affordable.

As I made clear in the Supply resolution debate yesterday, I will be taking every opportunity to continue to oppose austerity. I am meeting the Finance Ministers of Wales and Scotland tomorrow and Thursday to fight collectively for enhanced fiscal powers that will allow us to make decisions in the interests of all our people rather than have decisions imposed on us. I have sought an urgent meeting with Chancellor Osborne to drive that agenda forward.

It might be hard to translate the figures that the Bill that we are considering today contains into real-world public services. However, it is important to emphasise — some members of the Opposition mentioned health centres earlier — that every doctor and teacher, every road improvement, every hospital and every public service provided for under the authority of the Assembly is affected by the Bill. It requires legislation to operate legally in this financial year. I think that this is probably the fourth time that we have had an opportunity to talk about our funding priorities. It is crucial legislation for our public services. Ba mhaith liom an Bille seo a mholadh. Is féidir go mbeidh díospóireacht thintrí againn air seo, ach tá a fhios agam go bhfuilimid uile ar son leas an phobail.

I look forward to the debate. I know that it may be heated at times, but I believe, even though we divide between Opposition and Government, that everyone in the House is united in wanting to see a better society and that this Budget is the bedrock of that.

On that note, I conclude. I will be happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget Bill that Members may wish to raise.

Mrs Little Pengelly (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I speak first in my role as Chair of the Finance Committee. As already outlined, the Bill makes provision for the balance of cash and resources required to reflect the departmental spending plans in the 2016-17 Main Estimates. These are based on the Executive’s one-year Budget for 2016-17, which was approved by the Assembly in February.

As outlined, the Bill also includes provision for excess cash and resource requirements by the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission and the Department of Finance, and we touched on that in yesterday's debate. The Committee noted that this matter has been considered by the Comptroller and Auditor General and reported on by the Public Accounts Committee, which recommended that the necessary sums be provided by Excess Vote in the Assembly.

As on previous occasions, the Department of Finance has highlighted the need for the Bill to progress through the Assembly before summer recess. In that regard, at its meeting last week, the Committee agreed to grant accelerated passage to the Bill under Standing Order 42(2), on the basis of having been consulted appropriately on the expenditure provisions in the Bill; and I wrote to the Speaker to confirm that decision.

There was positive engagement with the Minister during his first appearance before the Committee last week, and I hope that that sets the tone for further meetings. I, in my role as Chair, and the members of the Committee, will scrutinise the work and hold the Minister to account, and, if he is found wanting, we will call him out on that. However, we want to have a constructive working relationship with the Department. It was evident, during the Minister’s evidence session, that there is some common ground, most notably in the need to consider the regional economic impact of the Budget over the coming years. I believe that we all share the view that local needs and circumstances have to be taken into account and respected.

Therefore, as we move forward in this mandate, it is critical that all Departments engage constructively with their Assembly Committees, particularly in relation to budgetary matters. The provision of this information is important, for both the Finance Committee’s cross-cutting scrutiny role and the role of all Statutory Committees in monitoring progress at a departmental level. The role of the Assembly Committees in scrutinising spending and monitoring savings, as well as service delivery, will continue to increase in importance, given the budgetary challenges that we will inevitably face. Thorough scrutiny can add real value to the Budget process in that regard.

At tomorrow’s meeting, the Committee for Finance will consider how we, as a Committee, can look to shape and influence the process on the forthcoming Budget for 2017-20.

In terms of the immediate business before us, however, and on behalf of the Committee for Finance, I support the general principles of the Bill.

As a DUP Member, I welcome the Minister moving swiftly on with the core business of finance. I welcome the level of agreement across the Northern Ireland Executive, as that is both necessary and critical if we are to tackle the key challenges that we face. I know that the Minister understands the urgency and importance of those issues.

We heard from some Members — I see that Stephen Farry is still in his seat — during the election that they stood under the banner of "Forward. Faster."; it seems now to be "Forward. Slower.". Sometimes, there is a sense from Opposition Members that they want to slow things down. However, I know that the Minister agrees with me that delivery is key, and we are determined to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. The multi-year Budget will be the core opportunity and foundation if we are to meet the key commitments in the draft Programme for Government that, with some amendments after consultation, should become the Programme for Government. If we are to make those commitments a reality, finance and the Budget will be the foundation. Therefore, although sometimes these things can seem a little dry and dull, they underpin absolutely everything that we do in government, and they are critically important.

There is a new outcomes- and impact-focused approach outlined in the Programme for Government. It must also happen, I think, that we take a different approach to our processes and how we deal with the Budget. I know that the Committee will consider this in the next number of months as we move towards those Budget discussions.

We have heard some discussion in the Chamber about the social investment fund, for example, which is having a positive impact on the ground. The Minister outlined some of the fantastic projects in Belfast South. I know that that is common across Northern Ireland. Employability South employs hundreds of people, and fantastic capital builds are supporting communities in need — communities that, perhaps, could not access funds previously. Yet, the social investment fund gets a hard time from certain parties and Members. I have talked to the Minister about this, and the difficulty and slowness with the social investment fund is not that there is a lack of agreement about what we want to achieve. There was commonality: we wanted to help communities; we wanted to talk to communities about the problems that they face; and we wanted to listen to them proposing solutions to those problems. That is very much what we did in the social investment fund.

The difficulty related to the business cases processes and procurement. I have spoken to the Minister. If a Department has a policy, but it takes years to go through the processes, those processes are not meeting the need, not delivering for the Northern Ireland Executive and, more critically, not delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. The Minister and the Committee are keen to look at this and ask, "How do we change not only the way that we do business in the Northern Ireland Executive but our processes and systems in order to produce better results for the people of Northern Ireland?". That is a huge piece of work. It is about public-sector transformation and doing things differently, but there is a commitment to do that. I look forward to working with the Minister on that important work.

Mr Smith: Yesterday, the Minister and his colleagues in the DUP referred to the Ulster Unionist Party as:

because of its electoral relationship with the Conservative Party two elections ago. I will give a quick reminder for those with a short memory — a bit of a history lesson. Under Prime Ministers Blair and Brown, the Labour Party racked up, by 2009-2010, an annual Budget deficit of £170 billion. Proportionally, that is higher than when we required the IMF's assistance in 1978. You will, of course, remember the infamous quote from the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne:

That, of course, left the coalition Government with the task of moving the country away from bankruptcy by reducing public-sector debt as a percentage of GDP and adopting a fiscal model that would balance the books. Whilst we disagree with many of the Westminster Government's spending priorities and policies, we do not wish to see Northern Ireland emulate the disastrous New Labour policy of borrow and spend, especially to cover revenue shortfalls rather than making capital investment. It is the Government equivalent of using the mortgage to pay for a shopping spree and a few good nights out.

In yesterday's debate, Mr Storey said that there was no "money tree" in Stormont. I hope that the Minister took that point on board. I believe that there are a number of actions that the Minister could implement to instil greater confidence in his borrowing and spending intentions. First, will the Minister echo the commitment in the 2016-17 Budget:

Secondly, will the Minister provide an update on the commitment in Fresh Start to establish:

especially its commitment:

Thirdly, does the Minister agree that the UK Government's previous statement that they would legislate to ensure:

makes any plans to increase borrowing dependent on Treasury approval?

Yesterday, the Minister and others said that they wanted proposals from the Opposition, although the attitude of the Executive to date in providing information and facilitating the opposition process suggests otherwise. However, there are certainly potential areas for revenue generation.

Mr Stalford: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. His introductory remarks show that whilst you can take the UUP out of UCUNF, you cannot necessarily take UCUNF out of the UUP. With regard to the way in which the information is being provided, the Member will be aware that, in Westminster — the system that the Ulster Unionists tell us that they want us to move towards in the House — Budgets are provided, and Jeremy Corbyn gets the equivalent of an hour to respond to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Member has been given much more information and much more time than that to respond.

Mr Smith: I thank the Member for his intervention. I believe that the resources and how opposition is facilitated in Westminster is fundamentally different from what is on the cards here. That needs to change, or we will not have the effective government that we need in this country. That is something that needs to be improved.

As I said, the Minister and others said that they wanted proposals from opposition. I have a few that he can maybe review in due course. First, the asset management unit in the Strategic Investment Board has calculated that the Executive had over 1,100 hectares of industrial land on their books, little of which has been disposed of in recent years. Secondly, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive also holds significant amounts of land: 500 surplus and nearly 300 underdeveloped hectares, both of which could be considered for further divestment. Thirdly, we could bring forward a cull of arm's-length bodies or quangos, as was agreed in 2011 but, surprisingly, since forgotten, especially as they are now under the auspices of more streamlined Departments, which should facilitate that change. Fourthly, we could focus on reducing administration costs in Departments, as six of the outgoing Departments have increased their spend since 2011.

Overall, as I said yesterday, the Budget challenges are exacerbated by the failure of the previous Executive to reform and to drive change. Of course, some change has happened — the reduction in the number of Departments, for example — and I welcome that, but, to date, too little has been done to free up the resources needed to target our key front-line services.

Mr McElduff, Chair of the Education Committee, rattled off a number of figures relating to education yesterday. From memory, I think that he talked about £35 million coming in for pensions and £20 million more in the monitoring round process. Bearing in mind how little notice we had today, I would be keen to get Mr McElduff's lottery numbers for the weekend, because he could predict what was coming out today. He also talked about pressures that education faced. He talked about £1,000 per teacher for National Insurance increases and a further £10 million pressure for every 1% rise in teachers' pay. The key question I have is this: what is the net impact on our schools? We have heard about the increases today — I welcome them — but when will heads know what their real budgets are and be able to plan the delivery of education for the next school year?

The health budget continues to grow as a percentage of our total Budget. In 2010, it was 42%, and now it is over 47% of the overall funding pie. We know that reform is needed as well as investment, although I was surprised yesterday at how Mr Storey again couched some comments about opposition parties on the issue. From memory, I think that he asked us whom we wanted to sack as part of the change process; I do not believe that that is a measure of anybody's commitment. I do not want to sack any doctor, nurse or health professional, but I want change in how we deliver our health service. That is a very different approach. The £67 million that the Minister announced today is very welcome, but, as he says himself, it does not address the underlying issues.

I may have misheard the Minister during yesterday's debate, but I thought that he said that Northern Ireland would be better off outside the UK. I assume that I was hearing things, as I cannot believe that anyone would be able to make that case when we still require a £9 billion subvention from Westminster. We all wish, obviously, that that was not so, but I look forward to the Minister maybe detailing his proposals to reduce our dependence on the wider UK public purse.

There was also much comment yesterday about corporation tax and its reduction. We all know that it is a key policy to transform our economy. I heard commitments from the Minister — Mr Murphy and others commented as well — stating that all would be fine and we were just working out the details and getting the best deal. Does the Minister believe that potential investors will understand those subtleties, or does he share my concern that we are, at best, sending mixed messages?

The Minister also said that he would be creative in borrowing, asking whether we had ideas to allow the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to borrow off balance sheet and pay off via rents. The Minister asked for positivity, and I am happy to be positive on the issue. The potential should be explored. The Housing Executive should be reclassified to allow it to borrow money and build its own homes rather than relying entirely on housing associations. It could borrow against its assets of 90,000 houses and the income stream of £280 million a year.

It is estimated that £6 billion is required over the next 30 years to upgrade our housing stock to a minimum standard. Also, the Housing Executive said that refinancing £410 million of historical debt at cheaper interest rates could release additional funds for investment. I see potential there, and I am more than happy to work in partnership to drive that forward if that is a suggestion the Minister wants to proceed with.

It is my belief that the Budget does not meet the needs of Northern Ireland and is a symptom of inaction and failure to reform in the previous nine years. That is the critical point: the Executive failed to change and failed to reform, resulting in today's financial pressures, which are leading to a deteriorating service, despite the monitoring round additions today. The Budget just highlights the scale of reform and change still required. As I said yesterday, it is using sticking plasters to cover major financial wounds. We will oppose it.

Mr O'Dowd: I welcome that we are here today discussing the Budget (No. 2) Bill, which is further proof that we have a fresh start, that politics in this society can change and are changing and that the Executive are up for delivering public services in very difficult financial circumstances. That is when you prove yourself, and that is when politicians and leaders have to prove themselves — in the most difficult of circumstances. It would be easy to be in an Executive or in government during good financial times or under the financial management of a Government who were not wedded to austerity, but our leaders in the Executive have set themselves a task, and I believe that task can be delivered, even though it presents many obstacles.

In most Parliaments, a Budget Bill contains not only the spending plans of that Government or Executive but their tax-varying powers. That is what is missing from our fiscal process — tax-varying powers. That presents a challenge to politics in this society.

Mr Agnew: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in a moment. Those who formed the Opposition or Oppositions told us they were doing so because they wanted to normalise politics and to bring greater normality to our political system. I do not believe that was their motivation, but that was their statement of intent: they were going to normalise politics. Then I think that, if we are going to normalise politics in this society, we have to normalise it in its totality. We, as elected legislators, have to take on the responsibility of fiscal authority over our society.

Before I move on, I give way to Mr Agnew.

Mr Agnew: I thank the Member for giving way. He refers to tax-varying powers, and, of course, to date any powers we have or have sought have been to reduce taxation and reduce the income for public services. Is the Member looking for more tax-varying powers to introduce more cuts to public services?

Mr O'Dowd: No. I deliberately used the term "varying". Any Government coming forward with a Budget would present their tax-varying powers on how they propose to raise taxation to deliver the services they believe to be important. We have Governments in Dublin and in Westminster that raise taxation to deliver public services in a limited way. I believe we can collect taxes in varying ways to support our public services, not to cut them. There is a challenge for the Government and the Administration in that.

I will give you an example. As I was driving down to the Assembly today, I was thinking this: what taxes am I paying today? Some commentators may doubt that politicians actually pay taxes, but we do. When I got up this morning, I went downstairs and turned on the kettle. That is automatically a tax: you are taxed on your energy. Thankfully, when I filled the kettle with water, I was not paying a tax, because the Executive have blocked taxes on our water. I sat down and looked at the messages on my phone. I am paying VAT on my phone. I have no control of that whatsoever, as a legislator, as a citizen or in the Executive.

My children were getting ready and watching TV. I count the TV licence as a tax: we have no control, authority or power over that tax. I had my breakfast, I left the house and I got into my car. I pay vehicle excise duty on my car: we have no control or authority over that tax. I turned on the engine. I pay fuel duty: we have no control or authority over that. I pay VAT on new tyres and parts for the car: we have no control over that. When I come into my place of work, I pay income tax, National Insurance and pension contributions: we have no control over that. Yet we are standing here today voting on a Budget Bill as legislators.

Folks, that is the challenge for us going forward. All those taxes and levies are placed on us by the Westminster Government. Can we use them in a different way? Should we raise some of them? A Government govern largely in two ways: legislation and taxation. That is how you set society on a pathway. The classic example is taxation on tobacco products. Governments across Europe decided, rightly, to place heavy taxation on tobacco products to persuade people to give up smoking for health reasons. That is a classic, blunt example. However, if we as governors and legislators want to start making changes here, we will have to take on the mantle of not only spending tax but governing how and when that tax is raised and what purpose it is used for in alignment with the Programme for Government and our priorities for this society.

The other challenge coming down the road at us in relation to the processes for future Budgets set by the Executive is Brexit. No one knows what the outcome of the vote will be next week, but it is already creating uncertainty in terms of investment and potential investment. If the electorate — largely in England, it would appear, at this stage — votes for Brexit, then we are in a totally different landscape. European funding for this society would disappear over a number of years, and no one knows whether the current British Government or successive British Governments would fill that black hole. Just for the record — Members will know this — £236 million in direct payments for farmers comes from Europe annually and £186 million for rural development. That is only in the rural/agriculture sector. How will the Executive fill that black hole if we vote for Brexit? How will we ensure that European Peace moneys and the other funding that comes into our society continue to be delivered through our budgetary processes? All those things are unknowns and will have impacts moving forward.

There is one thing that is coming at the Executive and employers here next year, and that is the apprenticeship levy, another form of taxation imposed on us by the Westminster Government with little or no consultation and no approval by our Executive that will place a further burden on Executive finances and on private-sector employers. While everyone thinks it admirable that we should promote and invest in apprenticeships, is the apprenticeship levy the best way of doing so? Is the apprenticeship levy a blunt tool that will impact on public services and the private sector? Should that not have been done anyhow through general taxation and a sensible programme run by central government? Of course it should, but yet another levy is being placed on our Executive by the Westminster Government, and that will have a major impact on Budgets moving forward.

In winding up, I welcome the Budget (No. 2) Bill, but, if we want normal, mature politics and if we want to be true legislators, we have to get to the point where we set the taxation base and rate for this society. Not only are we, therefore, collecting revenue but, through the collection of that revenue — how we collect it and where we collect it — we set a pathway for this society and the shape of society that we want going into the future. I support the Bill.

Mr McGlone: We return to the Budget with little having changed from the debate on the Executive's expenditure proposals for 2016-17 in the previous Assembly. The SDLP could not support that Budget, and we cannot support this one. That Budget was characterised by being cobbled together by two parties intent on staying in power, and this one is simply about treading water while they work out how little detail they can get away with in their Programme for Government.

For its part, the Budget has little in the way of investment in people. For example, we had experience of the prior Executive's dabbling in childcare, a project that failed because of its structure, not its aim. Helping parents with young families to rejoin the workforce and improve their prospects through education and training is paramount. Support for working families, particularly for working mums and, indeed, for those who have been forced through necessity to leave work rather than pay often expensive childcare, is crucial if we are to help those working mums reach and elevate themselves through the glass ceiling that exists to their advancement in the workplace. That should be, I would hope, a key element of the Budget's outcomes and indeed its policy direction.

The British Government are bringing forward an apprenticeship levy. Where is the Executive's investment in apprentices? We had a notional nod in that direction today through the allocation of funding to FE colleges, but perhaps we need that to be expanded a bit more and coupled with investment in higher education. The supposed Fresh Start Agreement promised the devolution and reduction of corporation tax to attract foreign direct investment without investment in our people — a highly skilled and motivated workforce — which is a key element of attracting that FDI to the North. Whether that is through investment in childcare to help more women back into the workforce or in additional skills and the acquisition of those skills, this is key to the success of corporation tax. Indeed, stability is key to that, and the instability offered by Brexit would certainly not help with the potential successes of corporation tax. Not only that, but the Finance Minister has told the Committee for Finance that he wants to reboot the negotiations on corporation tax. Whether that reboot is expected before or after he attempts to borrow an undisclosed sum from the Treasury is not entirely clear. What is clear is that the Finance Minister has reintroduced the uncertainty over corporation tax that has seen companies delay decisions on investment here. Those loose words risk sinking the economy.

The sustainability argument over corporation tax is of course a smokescreen to hide the division within Sinn Féin over a policy to which the deputy First Minister claimed to be fully committed. A commitment that was given on the eve of an election should have come with that significant health warning. That division will, once again, lead to a potential stalemate in the Executive as it has so often done before — the same old, tired stalemate that can lead to the deadlock with the same old, tired parties in this two-party Executive. However, we cannot risk the economy suffering as a result and our people suffering as a consequence.

The establishment of the new Department for the Economy, which I welcome in principle, was supposed to present an opportunity to deliver key economic development policies in a collaborative, cohesive and targeted manner. I trust and hope that the divisions that we see within Sinn Féin does not delay a key economic development policy and lead to damage to the prospect of devolution of further fiscal powers.

On 8 June, the Secretary of State told the House of Commons:

No sustainable finances — what sustainable finances? — and no devolution of corporation tax. The Secretary of State went further:

Do the two-party Executive recognise the potential for further fiscal powers going to them? Do they recognise that, if there is failure to deliver on corporation tax, that will scupper the prospects of further fiscal powers going to the Executive?

In the previous Assembly debate on the 2016-17 Budget, it was asked by party colleagues of the then Enterprise Minister whether an assessment was being done on the drop in funds that a Brexit would bring about or on how a Brexit would impact on Budgets. I now ask the Finance Minister — I referred to this earlier — how it is likely to impact on Budgets.

From 2007 to 2013, we had investment here of £2·4 billion. In the 2014-2020 programme of EU funding, there is the potential to raise €229 million under one of the EU programmes. Under INTERREG, there is potential for another €240 million. We had projected targeting by the then Department of Enterprise of the drawdown on Horizon 2020 funding for research and development — a key element of our economy — to develop research and innovation to help bring such jobs to the North, drawing on the resources, wherewithal and specialist knowledge of other parts of the EU and working collaboratively to help our economy rise, help our skills rise, help our knowledge base and improve our attractiveness to other investors.

Furthermore, with that comes the potential to realise €40 million and €42 million respectively in match funding. Has any consideration been given to, or any assessment made at departmental level of, the potential impact of the loss of those funding streams? I have mentioned some of them. What assessment will be made by the Economy Minister, or will he agree with an assessment by the Finance Minister? These are key parts of our way forward, as is trying to assess and accommodate their impact post-23 June.

The output of the Northern Ireland economy is estimated to be £33 billion per annum. Research shows that a Brexit could lead to a 3% fall, which is a £1 billion per annum effect on the Northern economy. Where is the two-party Executive's contingency plan for the impact of a Brexit, for which at least one of the parties is campaigning?

The PwC economic outlook report of 2015 stated that our local economy has been characterised as a job-creation economy rather than as an economy driven by productivity. That suggests that we have been able to create jobs despite productivity levels being low. Educational underachievement is present. The OECD international comparison study of last year demonstrated that, in the North, academic ability among 16- and 17-year-olds is among the lowest in the United Kingdom and that wealth generation options are relatively low due to the size of our private sector. Our private sector accounts for only one third of our total economic output. The Executive have previously failed even to propose the development of a manufacturing strategy to help address that. As a result, a heavy burden is being placed on the public sector — a public sector that the two-party Executive plan to cut.
Our low-wage and low-skill economy is not best equipped to perform well and create prosperity, but those are the challenges facing us. Therefore, I come back to my original point. I challenge the Executive and the Minister. Have they ducked these questions? Have they ducked addressing the hole that there is likely to be in the public finances? Have they ducked the challenges that face us consequently?

Those are the questions that I leave with the Assembly. We have been provided with some information here today. However, we need much more information to absorb the direction of the Executive. Have the Executive sat down and worked through the void that there inevitably will be post-23 June if the wrong decision is made? Those are key elements for our Executive, the Assembly and, more importantly, the people whom we represent.

Dr Farry: Yesterday, we tested the views of the various political parties and MLAs on the current Budget situation. That was the first opportunity that we as an Assembly have had to do that since the election and the start of the new mandate. With the passage of the Supply resolution yesterday, we are now locked in much more tightly to the Budget situation as we find it. That said, we still have significant concerns about the Budget, and it is worth developing and highlighting some of those in a bit more detail today.

At the outset, I want to touch on the issue of skills, which was raised this morning and, indeed, has been touched on by a number of Members already in the debate. As the Assembly, and the Minister, will know, skills are critical to the transformation of our economy. As we look ahead, especially to a lower rate of corporation tax, we need to ramp up the investment that we are making in skills across a very broad front, including universities, our FE colleges, apprenticeships, and what we are doing with marginalised young people. All those interventions are critical. There is a range of policies and programmes already in place that can help us to do that, but we need to scale those up considerably.

The Minister is disappointed that I have not been more warmly welcoming of the allocation of £20 million. It might be useful to explain why I am not as enthusiastic about that allocation as some would have expected. We have had a number of cutbacks to skills interventions over the past four or five years, in particular. If we look to our universities as a key area of intervention, we see that there are three particular aspects that are important to bear in mind. First, the cuts that have been passed on in recent years have seen a reduction in student places and staff posts and, indeed, the consolidation of some courses. A lot of that is counterintuitive and will have an implication for our widening participation agenda. That is of massive concern to a lot of people and, indeed, to the future of our economy. Those cuts are still in the system; we have had only one year of them working their way through, with the second year about to hit us in September 2016.

On top of that, we have a structural gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, which manifests itself in the amount of money that we spend per student. Depending upon the course of study, that varies between £1,000 and £2,500 per head. That will go to the heart of the quality of what we produce. The issue is not simply the volume of graduates that we produce in Northern Ireland but their quality. We know that Invest Northern Ireland is setting this area as an investment location based upon the quality of our universities and our graduates, so it is important that we do not allow that to erode.

The third issue is our expansion demand. If we are to meet the needs of local companies and investors coming in, what do we need to put in place to ensure that they have the pipeline of talent and, indeed, that that pipeline is being directed to the most appropriate areas? Not all of that will be the traditional model of a university degree; it may be a high-level apprenticeship. So, it is important that we have a mix, and we have to be mindful of that.

Based upon the figures of my outgoing Department, beyond the £20 million that has been allocated and confirmed today, by 2019-2020, we will need to spend an additional £85 million per annum on skills if we are to achieve those outcomes and meet the expected demand in our economy. Some of that may dovetail with the hoped-for expansion of the Magee campus in Derry. I am very enthusiastic that that happens, and I have done a lot to make it happen, subject to the constraints of resources. We have, potentially, a very exciting future there, but it is important that everyone in the Government fully understands the scale of what is required on skills interventions if we are to meet that demand.

The £20 million that was confirmed today is already factored into the budgets of FE colleges, universities and apprenticeships. It will not provide new starts as we stand today, but it will head off further cuts in the current financial year. I certainly welcome that, but people should be under no illusion that this substantially addresses the skills pressures faced in our economy.

John O'Dowd referred to the apprenticeship levy, and I very much agree with his sentiments. This is not about investing in apprenticeships but about a different form of raising money from our business community, and it does cover the public sector. It is designed to address the deficit in terms of the UK as a whole and to try to pump-prime the English approach to what they term apprenticeships, which is a dumbing down of what is involved.

In Northern Ireland, we are much more in tune with the European standards of apprenticeships. We try to base what we do on quality and ensuring that we provide what employers need. In addition to the funding challenges that will come from this, it will come as a Barnett consequential to the centre. We will still need to ensure that we fund apprenticeships at the appropriate level, and that money may not necessarily be enough. It might help to cover other areas of youth training or working with companies on what they are doing with their existing workforce, but we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that the money will simply address all our apprenticeship needs. Hopefully, we can return to this issue in the future.

There are structural issues in the Budget, and I want to highlight a number of themes that we need to be very mindful of. First, we still face an embedded cost of managing a divided society. We have had a succession of reports, the most recent of which was from the University of Ulster's Economic Policy Centre, which was published by DFP in March this year. It is important that that does not sit on the shelf but becomes an active document whereby Departments are challenged on how they can do better in the provision of their services in the context of a divided society.

We also have inefficiencies in what we do in education. Part of that is obviously related to the fact that we have a number of sectors and a degree of segregation in our system. It is worth stressing that it is a very heavy degree of segregation. As my colleague Trevor Lunn mentioned yesterday, we are still talking about around 70,000 empty school desks. I believe that our school-age population is about 320,000 or 310,000, so we are talking about potentially 20% of our school places being empty. That is a level of inefficiency that most societies will struggle to justify. It has to come down. It will not be easy, but there are tough decisions ahead on rationalisation, which will, of course, be helped by an integrated area planning process rather than the piecemeal approach that has been adopted to date in many respects.

I am still very concerned about the big headline commitment that has been made by the DUP and Sinn Féin to an additional £1 billion for health. I appreciate that there is a need for additional spending in health. Healthcare inflation, based upon our current model of provision, is running at something like 5% to 6% per annum, which is an incredible fact to try to get your head around. That stems from a changing demographic, an older population and more expensive drugs and treatments.

In many respects, it is a good thing that we are faced with these challenges and opportunities, but, if we try to match that healthcare inflation, the distortions in the rest of our budgets will be massive and unsustainable. This has to be a very important driver of reform. Stating what your input will be cuts across what is the outcome-based focus of the Programme for Government framework document. To be clear, my party is comfortable with the ethos of that process but sceptical about some of the measurements, targets and indicators that have been set out. Health reform is important. We need to decide what change we will make and then resource that change, rather than simply making a very bold promise on the amount of money that will go into it.

A number of people have commented on the social investment fund. I said yesterday that I believe that this fund, in its entirety, was a mistake and should be done away with. That is not to negate the importance of government engaging with communities, particularly marginalised communities, and seeking to ensure grass-roots community development and economic development. The difficulty that I have with the fund is that the governance risks are substantial.

There are also risks with fragmentation and how money will be spent. While people can point in absolute terms to the success of the fund and say, "This would not have happened without the fund", it does not take into account the relative opportunity that exists of working through Departments. With the Department for Communities and the Department for the Economy under the current structures — the Department for Social Development, the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment under the previous system — the opportunity existed for new schemes to be run through Departments for which there would be tighter governance and a much tighter audit process.

Departments can work in partnership with the community and voluntary sector. I did that with the NEETs strategy, Pathways to Success, and we distributed money on a sustainable basis to a number of different groups, some of which are actually benefiting from the social investment fund as we speak. The evidence is there that that can be done on a more sustainable basis.

Importantly, when money was earmarked for the social investment fund, it was in the context of cuts being passed on to Departments, so a lot of work that could have been done by Departments was hampered by the fact that our budgets were trimmed to produce that ring-fenced money for the social investment fund.

Mr Stalford: I appreciate the Member giving way. He will be aware of the importance of localism, and his sister party, the Liberal Democrats, majored on that for many years. One of the great assets of the social investment fund is the fact that the local area working groups, which are responsible for administering the fund and making the decisions on it, are drawn directly from local communities. They are local people who know the situation on the ground better than any Department or official ever possibly could.

Dr Farry: I recognise the argument in favour of local delivery, but that does not negate my point that you can set up structures, through which there is much tighter control on governance and audit issues, and still create delivery structures with advisory groups that help in that regard. For example, with the Pathways to Success strategy, we have a very active NEETs forum that helps and advises officials on the allocation of funding. A lot of what is being achieved could be achieved differently but without the degree of risk that has been run. I hesitate to make predictions, but there may be some adverse comments in due course from the Audit Office about the value for money in public spending when the schemes have bedded down for a significant time.

Comment was also made yesterday about teacher training and the opportunity for its reform. The amount of money for teacher training may be relatively small in the big picture of budgets, but, in some ways, it is the front line of the challenge as to whether parties are serious about investing in a shared future and a different way of doing things. If we cannot train our teachers in a single, shared system it begs the question of how on earth we will get our schoolchildren in substantial numbers into that type of format. I was disappointed, not least that Mike Nesbitt very readily dismissed the fact that his party voted to overturn the steps that I was trying to take, both in the Executive and on the Floor of the Assembly, as did the other four parties in the Executive at that time.

That leads into the issue of the resources that are being used with the public sector transformation fund in education. I see that that scheme is now unwinding, and money is being surrendered back to the centre. I found it bizarre that we were going to spend public resources to encourage existing teachers to leave their jobs to try to provide job opportunities for young people who had trained as teachers but who could not find a job because we are training too many teachers in the first place. The most logical thing to do would have been to address the flow of teachers being trained rather than keep the tap flowing as ever before and simply try to spend more money, having already spent money inefficiently on teacher training in the first place, to address the problem that was created. I do not think that is a good example of the wise use of public money by the Government.

I am conscious of the need to break for lunch soon, but I want to make a couple of very brief points. We need to look actively at the issue of revenue raising, and that needs to come in the context of addressing the cost of division first and looking at issues of tackling waste and inefficiency. Just to remind the Assembly, we have some existing powers; for example, the use of the regional rate and the removal of rates capping. I appreciate Sinn Féin is now dabbling in this area, but there have been votes in the past 10 years in the Assembly where that party has not supported an increase in the regional rate and where the opportunity has been forgone to overturn rates capping. Rates capping removal would raise only a few million pounds to begin with, but, again, it is symbolic. It is about our values and trying to have revenue as consistent with progressive forms of revenue raising as we possibly can.

I also think the Minister needs to come back and clarify what he is intending to do on corporation tax, because despite what was said yesterday, there is this latent uncertainty in the process. The Minister is saying he is confident that he will negotiate what he needs to negotiate on the resources from Treasury, but as the Minister will well know, any negotiation is never certain. If there is an uncertainty in the system, what are the implications for the long-term position of the Executive and the message we are communicating to businesses, not least given that Invest NI is out courting businesses to invest in Northern Ireland on the basis of there being a lower rate in 2018? Between himself, the Economy Minister and the Executive as a whole, I think we need a shared, collective statement across the piece, rather than one party saying one thing and a different party saying something subtly different so that people see that there is, in practice, a difference of emphasis, if I can put it no more strongly.

In the context of where we sit with regards to London, I certainly accept there is a need for the UK Government to rebalance their books. Where I have a fundamental difference is on the speed and rate at which they are doing it. They have had options on that, so they do not need to pay down the deficit at the rate they are. There is a point for us to continue to make on that.

I am concerned, however, that if we simply focus on what London are doing vis-à-vis ourselves in Northern Ireland, we will take the eye off the ball of the need to reform ourselves here. I think, frankly, if we have that very strong process of reform, we have a much stronger foundation for asking for additional borrowing, especially if that borrowing is then going to be linked to funding that process of reform, essentially on a massive invest-to-save basis that would make our public finances more sustainable in the long-term.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. 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. After Question Time, the first person called will be Doug Beattie. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

Mr Speaker: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in his first Question Time.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for those warm words. I trust that Members will go easy on me in my first Question Time. I suspect — [Interruption.]

I was about to say that I suspect that that will fall on deaf ears, not least among my own colleagues.

I thank Mr Durkan for that question. The Member will be aware that, as part of the Fresh Start Agreement, the Executive are committed to the introduction of the welfare elements of the Welfare Reform and Work Act as introduced at Westminster last year. Officials are working with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to take forward an Order in Council and accompanying regulations at Westminster later this year. My Department has previously published a detailed analysis of the impact of the planned reduction of the benefit cap from its current level of £26,000 to £20,000, and this information has also been placed in the Assembly's Library. This analysis showed that the number of households impacted on by the benefit cap will rise from the current level of an estimated 500 households to an estimated 2,440 households. The Member will also be aware that the Executive are committed to mitigating the full impact of the benefit cap, and I can confirm that the legislation and operational arrangements to make payments to protect households are now in place.

Work has been completed on the impact of the changes to a range of elements within universal credit, and I hope to be able to publish a detailed analysis of these changes in the next number of weeks. The alignment of the amount of benefit paid for the work-related activity element of employment and support allowance with that paid for jobseeker's allowance is projected to impact on 2,300 new claimants in the next financial year. This figure is based on the historical level of claims made in each financial year over the past three years.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for that answer and congratulate him on his appointment. I remember how easy the Member went on me during Question Time — [Laughter.]

— and I shall reciprocate.

I just want to double-check that the Minister is confident that the £500 million mitigation fund, as established by Fresh Start, will cover the new, and in some cases unforeseen, cuts contained in this subsequent legislation.

Mr Givan: The welfare mitigation measures that the Executive are committed to — some £0·5 billion — have been dealt with through Professor Evason and the report. That deals with what flowed from the 2012 Act, which we gave effect to in 2015. Obviously, there are new measures coming that are not in Professor Evason's recommendations.

Ms P Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer and congratulate him on his new post. Is the Minister aware of the projected financial savings for Northern Ireland, with the benefit cap being reduced from £26,000 to £20,000?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her warm wishes. The draft Welfare Reform and Work (Northern Ireland) Order 2016 introduces the benefit cap at a threshold of £20,000 per annum for couples and households with children in Northern Ireland. At the £20,000 threshold, it is estimated that 2,440 households in Northern Ireland will be impacted on by the cap, with an anticipated saving of approximately £8 million per annum. At the original £26,000 threshold, it is estimated that the cap will affect up to an estimated 500 households, with an anticipated saving of approximately £1·1 million per annum. The benefit cap at the £26,000 threshold is being brought into effect, and the final actual caseload affected will be known in the coming weeks. It is anticipated that the £20,000 threshold will be implemented later in 2016. These measures flow from what was in 2012. Of course, the Executive have decided to mitigate the costs in the benefit cap. Therefore, the homes that this will impact on are going to be protected until 2020.

Mr Allister: On the secondary legislation that the Minister has yet to bring to the House on welfare issues, does he intend to persist with the obnoxious and amoral proposal that a terrorist who suffers a disability by his own hands, by his own terrorist act, should have his benefits protected on the same basis as an innocent victim of terrorism?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Social security benefits have always been blind to why people are suffering from their injuries, in the same way that the National Health Service is blind when treating people who present themselves to it. That is how it will continue.

Mr Givan: The Housing Executive is carrying out an economic appraisal to assess a number of future investment options for Clare House. It has indicated that it is not likely to have this appraisal completed until late July 2016. However, once an outcome is known, the Housing Executive has committed to consult with its tenants in Clare House.

Mr Murphy: I thank the Minister for his response, and I also wish him well in his post. I know that he is only just through the door. I did have a chance to meet the previous Minister, the Social Development Minister, and press the case for this. I think that the current Minister will be aware, from a brief look at the notes, that this property is very badly in need of renovation and needs a serious amount of money spent on it. The original deadline for completing the appraisal was in June, but the Minister's answer suggests that it will now be in July. I ask him to ensure that a sense of urgency is given to the assessment and that a decision is taken in consultation with the residents. This scheme has been awaited for a long time and is very much deserved by the residents, many of whom have lived there for the full 50 years that the flats have existed.

Mr Givan: As he said, the Member raised this issue with my predecessor, and work was carried out. There are 13 tenants for the Housing Executive to deal with. It met all of them individually to discuss their needs, and some of those needs have been addressed. However, the Member rightly raises a broader issue that was highlighted in the survey report, and, obviously, there are issues that the Department and the Housing Executive will need to consider. This issue is not unique to Clare House; it is one that affects other buildings of this nature in the Housing Executive stock and, therefore, there is a process to look at all schemes of this type, subject, of course, to our budgetary situation. I will certainly keep on top of this area.

Mr Dunne: I too wish the Minister well, and trust that he will remember the North Down community as he carries out his duties. What progress has been made with implementing the Housing Executive's long-term investment plan based on new asset management?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question and congratulate him on the prestigious recognition that he received from Her Majesty The Queen in the Birthday Honours list.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: North Down is incredibly well represented, not least by Mr Gordon Dunne for his years of service, as a councillor and an Assembly Member.

Mr Dunne: Thank you.

Mr Givan: The Housing Executive has a new asset management strategy that sets out its long-term investment approach. The Housing Executive is drafting a ten-year investment plan for its stock, which is a practical reflection of the strategic approach set out in the strategy. This will prioritise and shape its long-term investment and it is planned to commence in April 2017, but will necessarily be constrained by the level of funding available to the Housing Executive.

Mr F McCann: I also wish the Minister well in his new post. Can he tell me how the Housing Executive and other housing providers will have the necessary budget to ensure that adaptations for tenants with disabilities are provided?

Mr Givan: This is a question that I will answer in more detail subsequently, but issues regarding disability and people who need wheelchair access, particularly into their homes, are very important to the Housing Executive.

In Northern Ireland, there are 457 people on the housing waiting list who require wheelchair access. This is an important area, and it is one that we all have experience of in our constituencies from trying to support people. It is something that we want the Housing Executive to work on. There is progress on that, which I will outline to one of his colleagues.

Mr Givan: I am aware that Libraries NI is considering a range of savings measures in response to the previous Executive's decision to reduce the budgets of unprotected Departments by 5·7%. I recognise the concerns that many in the community, including people with disabilities, older people and people who are socially isolated, will have about the impact of the reductions on their library service. I assure the Member, however, that, whilst Libraries NI will wish to continue to review the efficiency and effectiveness of the Homecall and mobile library services, neither will be affected by the current budget reductions exercise.

I regard the mobile library and Homecall services as important ways of ensuring that library services can reach people who are unable to access local branch libraries. They are particularly valuable to rural communities, older people, those with disabilities and parents or carers of children without access to private transport. They also make an important contribution to combating social isolation, which is one of the reasons why I am content that they are not affected by the budget reduction exercise.

I can also confirm that my Department received a bid for additional in-year resources from Libraries NI to help it meet some of its other existing pressures. That bid forms part of a wider budget review exercise that is being undertaken across my Department. I will, of course, be considering Libraries NI's bid in that context. Until all considerations are completed, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that issue.

Mr Maskey: I thank the Minister for his response so far and for his commitment, in his new role, to support those who access libraries. The library service received substantial support throughout the previous mandate. The Minister has identified categories of people who are in most need, so I ask him once again to do his best to ensure that those who are most in need — he listed the categories — will continue to be able to access library services.

Mr Givan: I am happy to give that commitment. Libraries play a vital role in Northern Ireland. Within a two-mile radius of libraries and mobile stops, nearly 90% of our population are within reach. They are a shared space and are valued by all of the community. People avail themselves of them, and it is important that they continue to play an important role in our society. It is an area that I am considering, given the pressures that Libraries NI is under, but there are particular vulnerable groups that need support, and I want Libraries NI to continue giving that support.

Mr McPhillips: I thank the Minister and offer him my best wishes. You have probably answered my question, but, for clarity, can you give us an assessment of the impact of the budget cuts on libraries, particularly for users with disabilities, older people and the socially isolated?

Mr Givan: A number of those issues were dealt with in my initial response.

I congratulate the Member on being elected to the House. I assure him that this in an area in which I invoke my experience in my constituency. I remember arguing that it was right to close a particular library because it was small and we were getting a new library. Of course, there were people in the specific locality who did not want to see the closure of that library, but it facilitated a new library being built in Lisburn. Sometimes, those are the difficult decisions that political representatives need to take. They need to provide that leadership to the community, because, when you can see the bigger picture, you need to go out and sell it to people. This is an area that Libraries NI is acutely aware of. There have been investments in new libraries, and there are opportunities for the functions that libraries deliver to be broadened to include other aspects of government. That is something that I want to see Libraries NI continue to do.

Mr Stalford: First, I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him all the very best. I hope the Member for Lagan Valley — the Minister — will show kindness and deference to the people of South Belfast, as I am sure he intends to.

Will the Minister outline for the House the practical steps that the Department intends to take to address the deficiencies in disability access to the public library on the Lisburn Road?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that welcome from one representative of a great city to another representative of a city. I am delighted that Mr Stalford is here in the Assembly. I remember him well from our Young Democrat days, so I am particularly pleased that Christopher is here in the Assembly.

The Member raised issues around the deficiencies at Lisburn Road library. There are also issues with deficiencies at Coleraine library. I am delighted that capital funding has been secured for the redevelopment of the Lisburn Road and Coleraine libraries: up to £1 million is being provided to Lisburn Road and £250,000 to Coleraine library in this financial year. That funding will enable Libraries NI to begin to address any existing deficiencies and to provide modern libraries for the whole community. The total cost of each project is estimated to be £3·5 million, with £1·5 million for Lisburn Road library and just over £2 million for Coleraine library. It is envisaged that work at the Lisburn Road library will begin in December of this year, with work beginning on the redevelopment of Coleraine library starting in January 2017. Both projects will take approximately one year to complete.

I trust that that answer will be helpful to the Member. My colleague Mr McQuillan has been engaging with me in respect of Coleraine library, and I trust that that will be helpful.

Mr Dickson: Congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. Minister, many small libraries are valued by their communities. I place on record my thanks to the staff, who are highly dedicated in the service that they deliver to the public. They quite often go over and beyond that which is required of them as library staff. What assurances can the Minister give to my constituents in East Antrim that small and rural libraries will be retained and enhanced and their service delivery improved?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question and his best wishes. Libraries NI has work to do. It has had to deal with a 5·7% reduction in its budget and is looking at ways in which it can do that that will minimise the impact on front-line services. Obviously, having access to a library is vital, but so is having stock in it. We need to make sure that the libraries that we have will provide the services that the public expect. It is not always about maintaining bricks and mortar; it is about what is inside. I am keen to make sure that libraries continue to play an important role in our community. There has been investment in libraries in the past number of years, and I want to see Libraries NI continuing to do that.

Mrs Barton: I congratulate you, Minister, on your appointment. Will you give an assurance that Libraries NI will not transfer to local government?

Mr Givan: Thank you for the question. Maybe the Member has caught me out on this one, but I am not aware of there being proposals for libraries to transfer to local government. I am certainly happy to look into that issue and allay any concerns that the Member may have about it.

Mr Givan: The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has responsibility for managing the social housing development programme. It carries out annual housing need assessments of all district councils, examining the supply and demand of social housing, including wheelchair-accessible accommodation. The Housing Executive has advised that there were 96 applicants on the waiting list for wheelchair accommodation in the Belfast local government district as at March 2016.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Minister for his answer, and I add my good wishes to you in your post. On behalf of those 96 families in the greater Belfast area and on behalf of the Forbes family in my constituency, who, since March, have been sleeping in the living room because they cannot get a home that suits their needs in terms of the mother's disability and the son's, I ask what assurances you, Minister, can give those families that you intend to review the policy on the provision of social housing for those with disabilities?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question and congratulate her on her election to this place. Her predecessor is someone whom I got on very well with and had a lot of respect for. I trust that I will have a good working relationship with Ms Mallon.

In the last financial year, 121 new starts were of wheelchair-accessible standard. This is an area that we will continue to work at. Does more need to be done? Yes, it does.

How people adapt their homes is an area that I have concern about as well. When, sometimes in emergency situations, people end up having disabilities, how quickly do we respond to their needs by adapting their homes? We need to address that. For minor adaptations, the time frame is six weeks, with the exception of showers, which can take 10 weeks to adapt for urgent cases and 40 weeks for non-urgent cases. The target time frame for major adaptations is 34 weeks for urgent cases and 50 for non-urgent cases. Those time frames concern me, and I want to consider whether we are providing a response quickly enough for families put into situations that, I believe, are often unacceptable. I have had experience of that in my constituency, as, I am sure, have other Members. It is an area that I want to keep under review.

Mr McQuillan: I also wish the Minister well as he takes up his new role, and I welcome his announcement on the Coleraine library. What actions have the Department and the Housing Executive taken to ensure the better management of the allocation of bungalows?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. I am sure that we have all had experience of the allocation of bungalows, and it needs to be considered. A review of the design and space standards associated with wheelchair-accessible housing in Northern Ireland has been carried out, and the Department intends to introduce new wheelchair standards as part of the social housing development programme, which will involve a programme for new wheelchair-standard accommodation. That should, in time, lead to a reduction in the waiting list for this type of accommodation. Furthermore, my officials have sought assurances from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that initial and future allocations of this specialist accommodation will be retained for applicants who require ongoing wheelchair accommodation, and not used as a general needs allocation.

Mr Chambers: I offer my congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. Can he advise how many applications from individuals for assistance to adapt their properties have been turned down due to lack of funding?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. I undertake to find out the specific answer and relay it to the Member.

Mr Givan: My Department is committed to promoting and protecting the interests of older people by building on the good work previously achieved across Departments. My Department will continue to take forward and implement the Executive’s Active Ageing strategy, which was launched in January of this year.

The key message of the strategy is that keeping active physically and mentally as we get older is the most effective way to enable as many of us as possible to enjoy the benefits of living longer and to minimise the problems that some older people face. That means addressing the problems that older people face now and encouraging people at midlife to live more active, healthier lives.

The strategy will be implemented using an outcomes-based approach. Six key outcomes have been identified. This is not dissimilar to the outcomes-based approach we are developing through the Programme for Government. Each outcome will be supported and measured with specific indicators. I understand that the Executive Office is completing an analysis report following consultation on the Active Ageing strategy indicators. This work had commenced prior to the policy responsibility transferring to my Department. My Department will take forward the outworking of the analysis report.

As work continues to develop a social strategy and a new Programme for Government, my Department will ensure that, by working across Departments and engaging with stakeholders, we play a pivotal role in helping transform attitudes to and services for older people.

Mr Lynch: I thank the Minister for his fairly extensive answer. What steps has he taken to work with the Commissioner for Older People?

Mr Givan: The Commissioner for Older People has a very important role to play in this, and I want to take it forward by engaging with her. I will request to meet her to find out how I can take that forward. It is vital that we send out a message to our older people that they are very much valued, supported and respected. That will be a key principle for me in my role in the Department.

On this one, I do sign up to the United Nations principles in respect of older people, which are ensuring that they have independence, participation, care, self-fulfilment and dignity. Those are principles that we would all do well to abide by in how we take forward our policies.

Mr Lyons: I join in the chorus of congratulations to the Minister on his appointment and wish him well. I also highlight the importance of the East Antrim constituency, which, I have no doubt, he will be wanting to visit very soon. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the social strategy have a budget?

Mr Givan: The social strategy is part of the new Programme for Government. Obviously, strategies relating to older people and all strategies around social inclusion are going to feed into the social strategy. Currently, it is under development and a budget has not been aligned to it. Going forward, this might change once the proposed Programme for Government action plans are developed, but we will also be looking very carefully at our existing budgets to ensure that they are using resources to best effect.

Mr Givan: Alcohol is not an ordinary product, and the sale of it must be regulated to ensure the protection of public health and the preservation of public order. I recognise that certain aspects of liquor licensing law in Northern Ireland are in need of reform, and I have copied to my Executive colleagues a paper that seeks agreement to introduce a licensing Bill. Provisions in the draft Bill mainly flow from the consultation that was carried out by one of my predecessors in 2012. The Bill includes a number of measures to tackle practices that may encourage alcohol misuse, safeguards for children and young people and minor changes to opening hours.

In recent years, drinking patterns in Northern Ireland have changed. Some 70% of drink is now sold for consumption at home rather than in the relatively controlled environment of licensed premises. It is important that our legislation is updated to take account of these changes.

When I have received comments from my Executive colleagues and agreement to the introduction of the Bill, I will publish full details of the measures in the Bill.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for his comments and wish him well in his new appointment. He and I have shared a number of Committees, and I am certain that he will bring dedication to the post; there is no doubt about that. It is well acknowledged by Hospitality Ulster that the food and hospitality sector sustains upwards of 60,000 jobs here in Northern Ireland. Does the paper that he has introduced address the anomalies that exist around the licensing hours on the Saturday after Good Friday and Easter Sunday, for example, and the anomaly that exists with regard to the situation —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to come to a question.

Mr McGlone: Will it address the licensing for certain locations where there will be under-18s, as that even leads to the very big anomaly for people attending church events?

Mr Speaker: The Member has asked his question.

Mr McGlone: OK. Thank you.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for those questions. Easter is a period of special significance in Northern Ireland, and that is reflected in liquor licensing law by the placing of restrictions on opening hours for licensed premises over the period. I have listened to the arguments put forward, but Members will be aware that there are restrictions around this time in other countries. The sale of alcohol is prohibited all day on Good Friday in the Republic of Ireland, and there are restrictions on opening hours for pubs during Easter in other countries, such as New Zealand and Australia. This is an issue that I have considered. The way in which the Easter period will be dealt with will be covered in the Bill. Clearly, Easter is a significant time for a lot of people in Northern Ireland, and I think it is right that we reflect that in public policy around different issues, not just this one.

Mr Speaker: We have time for a quick question from Mr Douglas and a quick response from the Minister.

Mr Douglas: I join the crescendo of congratulations and wish the Minister the very best. Currently, there is a voluntary code of practice for licensed premises. Will the Minister consider making that a statutory requirement?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. He is right to highlight the voluntary code of practice that exists. It was brought in by the industry to deal with irresponsible drinks promotions by people who have licensed premises. There was outrage at the consequences of a lot of those promotions and how they impacted on people. That will be dealt with in the Bill, and there will be penalties associated with it. For those who engage in these promotions, when it comes to reapplying for a licence, that is an issue that the magistrate will be able to take into account and that there will be penalties for.

Let me conclude on this point: alcohol is a substance that needs to be regulated, and rightly so. Gone are the days when you would go to people's houses and they would say, "Would like milk and sugar with your tea or coffee?"; now it is, "Do you want red or white?". There is a societal issue in how we deal with alcohol. We all know the consequences of it and its impact if it is not controlled sensibly, and that is the approach I intend to take in the Bill.

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

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. Let me make this clear: the outcome on 23 June will have no impact whatsoever on the contract that has been entered into with the European Investment Bank. I should also say that the European Investment Bank invests hundreds of millions of pounds outside the European Union, and, therefore, there is absolutely no detrimental impact in the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and continuing to get support from the European Investment Bank and other private lending institutions, which will be critical in taking forward developing social housing in the future.

Mr Mullan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you will be aware that your party claimed that detailed discussions were ongoing about leveraging further finance from the European Investment Fund for social housing and urban regeneration. Will the Minister update the House on those discussions and the effect that Brexit would have on the central plan of his party's manifesto?

Mr Givan: Let me thank the Member for that supplementary. Ongoing discussions on securing investment from the European Investment Bank will not be impacted by the outcome of the referendum on 23 June. What would have a positive impact is this: should the United Kingdom leave — I hope that it does — that will allow us to take back control of our borders and to have a sensible policy on immigration and a sensible policy on the movement of peoples. We, as a society and a community, have a very tolerant approach, and that is right, but, ultimately, we need to be able to integrate and accommodate people. You cannot do that effectively without being able to control immigration, and you will not have that for as long as the United Kingdom remains within the European Union.

Mr Givan: The Member raises a very important point; that is, the pressures we face in meeting the need that exists for housing. In the current year, the target is to build 1,600 new social homes. The Housing Executive has said that, over the next five years of this mandate, we should be building 2,000 homes each year. I would like to do more, but achieving that target in itself is going to be incredibly challenging. There are issues in how money is to be raised to finance the building of new homes. That is an issue that we need to be preparing ourselves for, because the Office for National Statistics is looking into the way in which housing associations are classified in Northern Ireland. If the direction of travel follows what has happened in England and those associations become recognised as public bodies, that is going to have very serious consequences for the way in which we want to fund new social builds.

Mr McMullan: Look at the current figures for housing stock in urban and rural areas: there is a vast difference between them. The rural areas are lagging far behind in the numbers of houses that are being built. In my constituency in the glens — in areas of Cushendall, Cushendun and Waterfoot — no houses have been built for years. Will you ask your officials to look at this and carry out an investigation as to why houses have not been built? There is the land for them, and we still cannot get housing. We are losing young people out of rural areas who are moving into urban areas.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to come to his question.

Mr McMullan: Building houses is part of regenerating rural communities.

Mr Givan: I have a huge amount of sympathy for the Member's point. The Executive have been looking at ways in which we can support local communities in rural areas in order to facilitate them with new housing. That is not always in respect of social housing; it is also about how the private sector can do that. Colleagues have been raising this issue with me from the point of view of social need and the new builds that the Housing Executive can take forward. I want to see our rural communities being supported, and part of that mix has to be the provision of social housing. I am happy to take the issue up with the Housing Executive.

Mr Givan: The question is a timely one, given the tournament that is taking place in France. The new national football stadium at Windsor Park continues to progress well and is nearing the end of its construction phase. The majority of the project was completed in March 2016, delivering an operational stadium with a seated capacity of almost 15,000. The final phase, which is the reconstruction of the west stand and completion of the education and heritage centre, is due to be completed as planned in September this year. This will bring the seated capacity up to 18,500. The then DCAL contributed £28·75 million towards the national stadium project, funded by the regional stadia budget, and the Irish Football Association (IFA) contributed an additional £4 million. The project will be completed on time and to the agreed budget.

The Department has also invested in the redevelopment of the Olympia leisure centre, directly adjacent to Windsor Park, in partnership with Belfast City Council. That project is part of the council's investment in leisure transformation, with DCAL contributing £2·75 million from the regional stadia budget to the total £21·7 million cost of the project. The first phase will be completed in November 2016, with final completion in late 2017. On completion, the new leisure centre and sports village at the rear of the west stand will completely transform the area.

Mr Logan: Will the Minister also provide an update on the subregional programme for soccer?

Mr Givan: There was a 12-week public consultation on the subregional programme for soccer, which ended on 22 February 2016. There were 1,280 responses to the consultation document, which will help to shape the programme going forward, including the eligibility criteria for the programme. My officials are currently carrying out detailed consideration and analysis of the responses received, together with all the relevant information, before making recommendations to me on the way forward.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for raising this issue. All of us, collectively, in the House express our sympathies and condolences to the family of Malachi. We know of the tragic circumstances in which he lost his life. In the first instance, the incident is a matter for the organisers of the race, the Coleraine and District Motor Club, and the governing body of the sport, the Motor Cycle Union of Ireland, to investigate. It is their responsibility to look into how this happened.

Sadly, motorcycle racing is a dangerous sport, but it is one that is supported by huge sections of the community. Dangers are not unique to this sport; there are dangers in a huge range of sports. What is important to me as sports Minister is that we ensure that the environment in which road racing takes place is as safe as it can be. There has been investment to enhance safety measures, primarily through 2 & 4 Wheels, but I will actively look, within my Departments, at measures that I believe may be helpful in supporting these flagship events, particularly the North West 200 and the Ulster Grand Prix.

Mr Robinson: A lot of the focus has been on safety at the North West 200. Will the Minister assure the House that the Department will do all that it can to promote safer road racing throughout Northern Ireland?

Mr Givan: I am happy to give the commitment that we will try to ensure that events, when they take place, are as safe as possible. Sadly, that will not prevent something of this nature happening again. We need to work with the sport to make sure that it is as safe as possible. From 2009-11, there was £2 million investment to support the sporting industry on this matter, and I will consider the issue going forward.

Mr Givan: This measure for allocating positions was introduced during the previous Assembly. The process is used in the Assembly, positions are now being allocated through it, and councils have had a number of years to embed it in the way in which they do business.

Mr McKee: There seems to be confusion across the country about the law concerning the allocation of committee places and positions of responsibility in the case of councillors who change their party designation midterm. Will the Minister consider amending the legislation to ensure consistency across the board?

Mr Givan: Members know that, at times, there will be changes in all parties. I suspect that where an individual has been elected because of the party they belong to, that party will feel that the seat was theirs and was endorsed as such by the public. We no longer have by-elections, and that is appropriate given the circumstances. For example, a by-election in a predominantly nationalist area, after a unionist loses the seat, may not return another unionist because of our proportional representation system. I suspect that there will be times when members of all political parties feel that the way this measure is being used is appropriate and times when they will not.

Mr Givan: This issue has to be taken forward by my Department. There is a range of strategies that come under social cohesion and inclusion that I need to take forward. The Member will know that the Programme for Government has set up an approach through a social strategy that will align with an economic strategy. All the strategies need to be incorporated in the social strategy that needs to be taken forward. I am committed to taking all those areas forward, including the issue that the Member raised.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lynch, we need your supplementary question and the Minister's response to be quick.

Mr Lynch: I was just going to ask that the Minister give a commitment to the strategy and an assurance, which he has done.

Mr Givan: I am happy to affirm that.

Mr Hamilton (The Minister for the Economy): My Department is committed, through delivery of the new outcomes-based Programme for Government and the refocused economic strategy, to increasing the competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy and to growing employment and prosperity for all. In doing so, it will be important to ensure that growth goes hand in hand with improvements in people's living standards.

It is a matter of record that earnings in Northern Ireland have historically been lower relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. That partially explains why Northern Ireland's level of gross disposable household income per head has continually been lower than in other parts of the UK. On a more positive note, in April 2015, median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees in Northern Ireland was £485, up 5·4% from £460 in 2014. That represents the largest annual percentage increase in earnings since 2004 and the first increase in inflation-adjusted earnings since 2009. The median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees in Northern Ireland is now 92% of the UK level and is at its highest since the survey began in 1997.

High inflation has the effect of eroding earnings growth and therefore reducing any possible increase in gross disposable household income. At the height of the financial crisis in 2008, inflation was running at over 5%. However, inflation has been at historically low levels for some time now. In April 2016, inflation, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), was 0·3%. With wages growing faster than inflation, that will result in higher gross disposable household income.

The most effective way of increasing household income is to have more people in better jobs. Since 2012, we have seen 40,000 new jobs created, with 26,000 fewer people claiming unemployment than in February 2013. We know from research that businesses that are innovative and invest more in R&D are more likely to be successful in global markets, employ more people and pay higher salaries — more and better jobs. Continuing with that policy will make a massive contribution to increasing local household incomes.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Minister for the answer and wish him well in his new post. Does he accept that there has been a failure to close the prosperity gap, as evidenced by the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, which state that Northern Ireland has the lowest gross disposable household income of the four home countries and that, based on a comparison with the previous year, we are demonstrating negative growth?

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his congratulations. I do accept that the level of gross disposable household income is disappointing. The latest figures for 2014 show that £14,645 per head is the average figure in Northern Ireland, which is about 81·5% of the UK average. That is not good enough. I could stand here and say to the Member and the House that it is something that has historically been the case and that Northern Ireland has always had far lower earnings on average than the rest of the United Kingdom, and just accept that as something that we cannot really do much about, given that we have done little to erode that gap over the past 10, 20, 30 or more years, but I do not want to do that. I want to make sure that, in trying to create a better, stronger economy for Northern Ireland, that entails bringing in not just more jobs but better jobs. By "better jobs", I mean jobs that pay more money to people in Northern Ireland. It is one area in which one of the factors that we can influence, or at least try to influence, as a Government is to try to attract more and better jobs.

Yes, we have managed to bring in 40,000 jobs over the past five years. I want to see that continue, grow and do better over this Assembly term. Just out of interest, I will say that, between 2011 and 2016, of the jobs that the Executive were able to attract into Northern Ireland through Invest Northern Ireland, 64% of those that were created by locally owned companies were above the private sector median wage and 72% of those that were created by external investors into Northern Ireland were over the private sector median wage.

Targeting our work with Invest Northern Ireland on more and better jobs that have higher wages will also increase the gross disposable household income for people across Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: The DUP understands the importance of low taxation and, in particular, low household taxation. Does the Minister agree with me that the policies that the Executive have put in place have helped with disposable incomes in Northern Ireland?

Mr Hamilton: I share the Member's pride in the fact that we are a low-tax party and have rightly earned that reputation over the years in local government and in the Assembly. Taxation is a factor in disposable household incomes. There are others, including the size of a household, and, in Northern Ireland, households tend to have more children in them. There are also factors around inflation, as I mentioned, and earnings, but taxation is a factor. There is little that we can do to affect income tax, although the changes that Her Majesty's Government have brought in to increase the personal allowance will disproportionately benefit people in Northern Ireland because of their lower incomes.

As an Assembly, we have a proud record of keeping household taxes down. We have the lowest household taxes in the whole of the United Kingdom: the average household bill in Northern Ireland in 2015-16 was £842. That compared favourably with Scotland, where it was £1,300, England, where it was £1,400, and Wales, where it was over £1,500. When you total that up over the five years of the last Executive, the average householder in Northern Ireland saved £2,500. Add to that the policies that the Executive have pursued such as free transport for the over-60s and keeping the lone pensioner allowance in place, many of which are policies that some in the House, never mind people outside the House, told us to that we needed to get rid of because they were too expensive and we did not need them any more. Some, in fact, ran during the recent election on a platform calling for increased rates and the introduction of water charges and so on. Maintaining a policy of taking pride in having the lowest household taxes in the UK and withstanding the pressure inside and outside the Assembly to increase local taxes has helped to ensure that gross disposable household income in Northern Ireland is not worse than it is.

Mr Lyttle: The DUP claims to deliver low household costs, along with Sinn Féin. However, childcare costs for which they have been and continue to be responsible are second only to mortgage payments for many people and prevent many people from accessing employment. Will the Economy Minister, therefore, support an increase in the free hours of early education and childcare available to families in Northern Ireland to at least 20 hours per week?

Mr Hamilton: Everybody in the House recognises that there are long-standing, deep-seated structural issues with childcare in Northern Ireland and that it is not as good as we want it to be or does not compare favourably with provision, for example, in Great Britain. I want to support seeing more free childcare places provided to people across Northern Ireland, but I do not wish to intrude on the departmental responsibilities of other Ministers, and I think that that is a responsibility for the Minister of Education, if I am right. I will leave it to the good offices of my friend and colleague Mr Weir to advance that in a sustainable way.

It is brave of the Member to stand up in the House and lecture me and my party about costs to households and taxation in Northern Ireland. His party ran in the recent election, and, at least, to be fair, it was honest in running on a platform of wanting to see water charges introduced and rates increased and wanting to do away with the proud record that we have of having the lowest household taxes in the whole of the United Kingdom. As Mr Nesbitt's question elicited, gross disposable household income in Northern Ireland is lower than we would like it to be, but it would be far worse if the Alliance Party had its way and people in Northern Ireland were paying £400 or £500 water bills and radically increased rates bills as well.

Mr Allister: Will the Minister agree that unrestrained immigration, to which we are subjected by virtue of our membership of the EU, has a downward pressure on wages and income and thus suppresses household incomes and thus is their opportunity on 23 June to do something radically positive about that?

Mr Hamilton: I commend the Member on his innovation in introducing the EU referendum into a question on gross disposable household income. It is that sort of innovation that I would like many of our companies in Northern Ireland to display. If they did, we would have a fantastic economy.

The Member raises a good, pertinent point. There are clearly issues, perhaps less so in Northern Ireland and more so in other parts of the United Kingdom, with immigration and the effect that it has on the local, regional and, indeed, in some cases, national economy. I think that we in Northern Ireland have benefited from immigration as well. In the public sector, many staff, particularly in our NHS, are immigrants — I had the privilege of being the Minister of Health for the last year — and we would not be able to cope were it not for those people coming into Northern Ireland to provide much-needed services. Similarly, many staff come from other parts of the world to work in agrifood businesses — I represent a constituency that has many such businesses — and those businesses would not be able to survive were it not for that support. I absolutely understand and take on board the Member's point. If, indeed, there were unrestrained immigration into the United Kingdom, it would have a depressive effect, as the Member indicates, on household incomes and the economy generally.

Mr Speaker: Before we move to the next question, it was remiss of me, Minister, not to welcome you to your first Question Time in your new role. I think that that is because we have become so used to you being at the Dispatch Box. I also inform Members that question 7 has been withdrawn.

Mr Hamilton: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your comments.

Business investment in R&D is critical to economic growth. It leads to new, innovative products and processes and increases in productivity and can drive sustainable export growth. To deliver our vision of a more dynamic and competitive economy, Northern Ireland needs many more companies engaging in R&D and innovation. In recent years, through the excellent work of Invest NI, our universities and our colleges, we have made positive progress in this area. Their support has helped to create the conditions in which our companies now invest more than £400 million annually in research and development — that is up 25% since 2009. Most encouragingly, we now have more firms than ever before investing in R&D.

In the last year alone, Invest NI has supported businesses, the majority of which are local companies, small and large, to invest £70 million in research and development. That has created a strong foundation for us to drive forward our ambitious plans for the economy. My Department, through its delivery bodies and by working in partnership with the private sector, will continue to focus on getting more companies engaged in R&D. A range of interventions is already in place to deliver that, whether it is the Invest NI monthly R&D clinics, the financial assistance from the grant for R&D programme, the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) run by universities or the employer support programme run by our colleges. The challenge that we face is supporting companies to take the risk to invest in R&D. R&D is a risk, but it is a necessary one to drive sustained company growth.

Mr Maskey: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. The Finance Minister today referred specifically to allocations for skills and further education. The Minister has addressed the fact that Invest NI, skills and further education are key components in assisting local businesses. Will he give us some assurance that Invest NI, the further education sector and the skills sector will embark on work to ensure that local companies get enough support to attract, in particular, inward investment?

Mr Hamilton: It is incredibly important to have skills to attract inward investment into Northern Ireland and to help our indigenous firms to expand and realise the opportunities out there in the global marketplace. Developing our skills is a key component of our new draft Programme for Government framework. One of the indicators, as I am sure the Member will know, is to improve the skills profile of our population. A range of strategies is in place — I will not bore the Member or the House with those — to ensure that we have the right skills in place, whether that is delivered through higher education, further education, apprenticeships or youth training.

As I indicated, there are some measures in place already through Invest Northern Ireland, colleges or universities to try to work with firms. It is a process of working with them to encourage them, and, in many cases, we are trying to get firms that have tentatively, or perhaps never before, been involved in research and development to do that for the first time in the hope that they will continue to do it.

There are a range of schemes in place. As I mentioned, there is an Invest NI grant scheme, R&D clinics and various funds in higher and further education. There are also national schemes such as an HMRC tax credit scheme and the patent box scheme, which reduces corporation tax to 10% for patents that are registered in the UK. There is also a small business research initiative, which was utilised by my Department initially on a small-scale project on tourism apps but has more recently been used, in concert with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development as it was — it is now DAERA — on a project involving poultry litter. I hope to be in a position to make a positive announcement on that in the not too distant future. There are a range of measures in place to try to encourage businesses, whether they are indigenous firms or external investors and whether they are small-, medium- or large-scale businesses, to get into R&D and to continue to try to use it as a way to improve our economy.

Mr McPhillips: Thank you Minister for the answers thus far, and I wish you well in your new post.

Traditionally, most investment in research and development has gone on in the greater Belfast area. Can the Minister outline how he plans to increase investment west of the Bann, especially in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone?

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his question and welcome him to the Assembly. I thank him for his kind comments.

I am tempted to say that the First Minister will ensure that I do my best to bring investment to the Member's constituency. That is stimulus and motivation enough for me to do my job in that respect. I had a discussion on this issue with one of the Member's party colleagues last week during a debate on manufacturing in Northern Ireland, and there is a perception that there is an imbalance in where investment and job creation goes in Northern Ireland. I can understand that. A lot of Members who represent constituencies that are not even west of the Bann but are in and around the greater Belfast area could perhaps point at elements that suggest that they do not get as much investment as they would like. Of course, everybody will fight very hard for their constituency.

There are, however, some interesting figures that show that, from 2011-12 to 2015-16, investment in the east of the Province was 282 jobs per 10,000 head of population but that, in the west of the Province, it was 301 jobs per 10,000 of the population. Obviously, more people live east of the Bann and in the east of the Province, but, if you look at it on a population basis, you will see that job creation through Invest NI assistance has been greater in the west of the Province. I am sure that the Member will be familiar with some of those examples in his constituency. Dunbia recently made an announcement on the creation of 209 new jobs in Dungannon, and Westland Horticulture will bring 70 new jobs to Dungannon, with an investment of £9·6 million. In Fermanagh, Teleperformance in Enniskillen has committed to creating 800 jobs. I can give the Member the assurance through the new Programme for Government as well, which has an outcome right at the head that says that we prosper through a strong, competitive, regionally balanced economy. We want to create wealth, develop and improve our economy, and create jobs for the whole of Northern Ireland, but we want that to be regionally balanced and spread right across Northern Ireland so that everybody in Northern Ireland can prosper.

Mr Storey: I welcome my friend and colleague to his first Question Time and wish him well in his new role.

The Minister will be well aware of the turbulent times that the manufacturing industry has had in my constituency of North Antrim. Will he outline to the House the benefits that R&D has brought as a result of investment in North Antrim? I am thinking particularly of companies such as McAuley Engineering and others that have been beneficiaries. Will the Minister give a commitment to that continuing?

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his question and for his best wishes.

The Member's constituency has had a rougher and tougher time than probably any other constituency over the last six, nine or 12 months in terms of the impact on jobs, given the decision of the two huge firms, JTI and Michelin, to close their operations. Of course, as a Department, we will do everything that we possibly can to try to soften that blow for the workers in both firms. I hope that we will also be able to continue to work with businesses in that area so that they can grow and expand and take on more employment.

One way in which we can do that, as the Member said, is to increase investment in research and development. I am very pleased that in the last financial year some £1 million was invested through Invest Northern Ireland's grant projects in the North Antrim constituency, and that was supporting a total investment of just over £4 million pounds. An example he mentioned is McAuley Engineering — a firm I visited with the Member some years ago in a previous role. It is an exceptional firm and goes from strength to strength.

Another great firm that we are all very proud of, no matter what part of Northern Ireland we come from or represent, is Wrightbus. It has received £5 million of assistance, which unlocked £26 million of overall investment over the last five years. That has allowed it to remain a market leader by investing in innovation, and to continue with exports to Hong Kong, Singapore, India and elsewhere. There are other examples of investments of small and sometimes modest amounts of money which unlock investment by the firm itself, which in turn stabilises the business and allows it to grow and take on more people. I know that is something that is very dear to the heart of the Member, and indeed other Members who are representing the North Antrim constituency.

Dr Farry: I too wish the new Minister well in his post. Given that Northern Ireland has a much higher dependence upon European funding for R&D spend than most other regions of the UK, how does the Minister envisage making up the shortfall in research funding in the event of a Brexit? We cannot rely on the UK Government to replicate the level of funding, not least given that the Barnett formula would not essentially cover what we are losing, even if the Government were minded to actually meet the Barnett formula level of funding?

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his question and his good wishes — as well as the innovative Member sitting two rows behind him in introducing this subject. I will not stand here and deny to the Member, or the House, that Northern Ireland has been a beneficiary in terms of R&D funding and innovation funding coming from the European Union. Horizon 2020 is obviously the big funding stream at this moment in time. The Member will know, from his previous role, that Northern Ireland has set ambitious targets to increase our drawdown from Horizon 2020. Northern Ireland researchers have secured just over €28·6 million, and there has been an additional €23·5 million for a Queen's University project about innovation within medicine. In total, just over €50 million has been drawn down between January 2014 to November 2015.

The Member asks me a question as to how we might make up that difference. The Member knows full well that, whatever disputes there might be about the number, the UK is a net contributor to the European Union. I cannot imagine any UK Government, whatever its complexion, that will not want to spend money on research and development or in encouraging universities, colleges and businesses in Northern Ireland, and the rest of the United Kingdom, to invest in R&D.

The Member also talks about an uncertainty as to what any UK Government might do, but we also have the uncertainty about what any European Commission might do. With an expanding and growing European Union heading in a direction which brings in more countries which have greater need than Northern Ireland, there is every prospect that the money available to Northern Ireland, and to the United Kingdom as a whole, will diminish over time.

Mr Hamilton: Universities and colleges are a core part of national and regional economic infrastructure, generating employment and output, attracting export earnings and contributing to economic growth. They are also part of local, regional, national and international networks influencing the political, social, cultural and economic climate. At a time of global economic difficulty, Governments across the world are looking to their universities to provide ways to support the national and regional economies, through development of new ideas, products and services from university research, as well as through continuing to raise the education levels of citizens and our capacity to innovate and adapt.

The economic importance of higher education institutions is particularly visible in our regional economy. The knowledge and skills of higher education graduates contribute to the creation of a more flexible and adaptable workforce, which is key to enhancing our region’s economic competitiveness. If we are to attract sufficient investment for our economy to grow and for high-quality jobs to be created, we must in turn invest in the right high-level skills to attract that investment. The higher education sector is a key enabler in establishing a competitive skills system for investors to see Northern Ireland as an attractive place to set up and do business.

I assure the Member that I and my Executive colleagues will be examining a variety of options to ensure that our universities remain well positioned to deliver the skills required by the current and future Northern Ireland economy.

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire. Guím gach rath ort san Aireacht úr. I wish you all the very best in your new Ministry.

Further to that, Minister, have you had a chance to assess the development proposal for the expansion of Magee university? Do you agree that the successful development of that project is essential to addressing the endemic patterns of inequality west of the Bann?

Mr Hamilton: I recognise the importance that representatives of the Foyle constituency and the north-west in general have placed on the expansion of Ulster University at its Magee campus. As the Member will know, my Department has recently received an outline business case that was submitted to the Department with support from a wide range of stakeholders from the north-west. That will be considered on its merits, as you would expect, and in the context of wider policy implications, particularly the sustainable financing of the sector.

I recognise that Ulster University has an aim of increasing undergraduate numbers at Magee, and I am absolutely certain that doing so would have a positive impact on the economy of that area, both through a direct impact on the economy and the wider and more positive impact it would have in making it a more attractive place to invest. You would expect me to consider all those points in the context of the budget available to me and, more widely, the Executive and of the implications for the wider policy on student numbers.

As I said, the outline business case has been received by the Department, and I will give it careful consideration. As the Member would expect me to, I will want to do that in concert with dialogue with Executive colleagues.

Mrs Barton: Minister, I also congratulate you on your appointment. Clearly, universities are not being funded properly to deliver the skills needed and have not been for some time. Do the Minister and the Minister of Education have a plan to deliver a funding model for third-level education that will allow universities to offer more undergraduate places and reverse the cuts that have been imposed on them in recent years?

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for her question and her comments. I also welcome her; I think this is my first opportunity to welcome her to the Assembly.

The responsibility for this resides with me, not the Minister of Education. We obviously received good news today with the conclusion of the June monitoring round, which has seen £20 million of additional expenditure to my Department, much of which will go to higher and further education to deal with some of the challenges and pressures that the Member has highlighted. I want to see the financing of the sector placed on a long-term and sustainable footing. I want to consider all the potential options on that.

The previous Department for Employment and Learning conducted a consultation on this that set out a range of options. I want to study the responses to that consultation and the options in it, and I want to do that alongside discussions I intend to have with the vice chancellors of our two universities. I have had passing conversations with at least one of them, who mentioned that he had some ideas and proposals that he wanted to put to me. I look forward to receiving those, and I will obviously give them careful consideration. It is incredibly important that we get the university sector on to a sustainable financial footing so that it can continue to make a contribution to our economy and produce graduates with the skills we require not just now but in the future to ensure that our economy grows in the way we want it to.

Mr Speaker: Mr Buchanan for a quick question and a quick response from the Minister.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you. Can the Minister advise on the main sectors where graduate skills and employment are likely to drive the economy?

Mr Hamilton: All the indications and the analysis that we are doing show that there are five sectors that are displaying and will continue to display employment growth opportunities in Northern Ireland. They are ICT, professional scientific and technical skills, manufacturing, administrative jobs, and hospitality and retail jobs. In spite of the narrative that has developed around the pressures and challenges on the sector, its financing and making sure it is on a sustainable footing, we have a very strong skills base and a record of producing graduates whom businesses need. In ICT, for example, which is one of those growth areas for employment, we are producing highly skilled graduates. In Northern Ireland, 41% of staff in financial services are educated to degree level, and that compares with just 36% in the whole of the UK and 21% in the Republic of Ireland. Seventy per cent of IT and telecoms professionals in Northern Ireland hold a higher-level education qualification, compared with a UK average of 62%. In spite of the challenges that the sector has faced and will continue to face, Northern Ireland has a good record of producing highly qualified graduates with the skills that businesses in Northern Ireland need.

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

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his welcome. I am sure that this will be the one and only Question Time in which I am welcomed to the House. I congratulate the Member on his election to the Assembly.

The issue of John Lewis coming to Northern Ireland is long and protracted. It is one that we have all observed, some from afar, representing other constituencies, and some very intimately involved, particularly those in the Lagan Valley area. There was an opportunity to bring John Lewis to Northern Ireland, not just to have a store at Sprucefield but to bring the centre of operations for, I think it was intended, the whole of Ireland. Unfortunately, we have missed that opportunity up to now. I know that others take a differing view, and I look at you nervously, Mr Speaker, as you are a representative for Belfast. There have been occasions when I think we have got the reputation, generally and usually through the planning system, of not being receptive to certain types of new investment. I know that people will take a different view on it, but I am very supportive of John Lewis coming to Northern Ireland. I hope that the opportunity has not been lost and we can secure that investment to Sprucefield or, indeed, wherever in Northern Ireland they wish to invest.

Mr Butler: Thank you for your answer, Minister. Given the regional significance of the Sprucefield area and its strategic location on the Belfast to Dublin corridor, what is your assessment of the full development of that site and its environs?

Mr Hamilton: Because of its location, Sprucefield, much like the Maze site not that far away, has huge investment opportunities. The benefit derived from investment in either site would not just go to the local area and the city of Lisburn but further afield and probably the whole of the region. The development of that site is probably more of a planning issue that resides now with the Department for Infrastructure in terms of strategic planning policy for Northern Ireland. I will leave it to that Minister to take that forward, but there are huge opportunities across Northern Ireland. We are on the cusp of what could be exciting economic times for Northern Ireland. There will be huge opportunities over the next number of years, but we cannot do things that lock down sites and make them unavailable for development in the future.

Mr Hamilton: The growth in the number of cruise ships coming into Northern Ireland is a very recent phenomenon. Ten years ago, the very idea that cruise ships would come into Belfast would have been something that people laughed at.

This year, however, it is expected that 77 cruise ships will dock in Belfast, and there is a new terminal in the harbour estate for them. There has been a huge increase in the number — effectively from zero to 77 — in very short order. That is a vote of confidence in Northern Ireland generally, and in our overall tourism product. If we did not have things such as the Giant's Causeway, in the Member's constituency, Titanic Belfast or Mount Stewart in my constituency, for example, people would not necessarily want to stop here and it would not be a destination on the itinerary of all these cruise liners.

It shows the huge progress made in Northern Ireland as a whole but also the particular development of our tourism sector.

Mr Logan: Thanks to the Minister for that encouraging news. How many visitors do you envisage cruise ships bringing into Northern Ireland and what are they expected to generate for the local economy?

Mr Lyons: Bring them to Larne.

Mr Robinson: Limavady.

Mr Hamilton: There are several bids for cruise ships behind me.

Fifty-nine cruise ships docked in Belfast last year, bringing in over 116,000 visitors, including crew. That figure, because of the increase in the number of ships, is estimated to go up to 143,000 guests and crew. Last year's 59 ships and 116,000 people brought £6 million of visitor spend into Northern Ireland, so we would expect to exceed that this year with a greater number of cruise ships coming into Belfast.

We did not think that this was imaginable at one time. We should warmly welcome them. With the investment by Belfast harbour in a new terminal capable of hosting vessels of all sizes, and our developing and improving tourism product not just in Belfast but all around Northern Ireland, we would hope to see the number of cruise ships increase and, similarly, the number of visitors and amount of spend.

Mr Hamilton: Not specifically. I am fairly new to the post, as the Member will appreciate, and will want to take some time to consider a range of projects that will in some way or other come across my ministerial desk.

I know that this is a long-standing project and ambition of people in not just the Newry, Mourne and south Down area but across the border in County Louth. I have some experience of it in a previous role as Finance Minister, particularly around funding. Unfortunately, funding was not able to materialise for of a range of reasons a number of years ago. As the Member knows, it is a project to which the Executive, and the Irish Government as well, remain committed in principle.

Ms Ruane: I welcome the Minister's positive tone. Will he agree with me that it is important that this Executive deliver infrastructure projects such as the Narrow Water bridge?

Mr Hamilton: Developing our economic infrastructure in whatever way, whether it be roads, telecoms or energy infrastructure, is incredibly important to improving our overall economy. In any measure, improving our economic infrastructure is key to increasing competitiveness and productivity and to ensuring growth. Part of that is increasing and improving our connectivity. It is a small project in the connectivity that it would deliver, but I understand from listening to people, particularly from Warrenpoint and the surrounding area, that it is something that they see as having huge potential to grow the tourism economy and attract visitors into their area.

I have not had time to assess it. I do not know exactly whether there is a bid in for funding. That will not, I am sure, come across my desk, but it may come across the desk of other Ministers, and I would not want to say anything to prejudice the process that they would have to go through. As I said, it is a project that the previous Executive and the Irish Government were committed to in principle.

Mr Hamilton: I am not aware of the specific research, but, now that the Member has raised it with me, I will study it closely. The Member's comments are a very good example of the point that I was making to Mr McPhillips earlier. There is a perception that all investment goes to the greater Belfast area. The Member's point is one that I am familiar with. There is a perception in our constituency that we do not get the same level of investment. I think that, in some respects, that is because of our proximity to Belfast. Yet, the Member will be aware, as I am, of the many great firms and businesses in our constituency, particularly in the agrifood sector, that are thriving and have grown considerably over the last number of years, creating employment in our area and helping to grow an incredibly important sector of our overall economy.

Mr Smith: I thank the Minister for his answer and comments. As he rightly says, the Strangford constituency, which includes Ards, is close to Belfast, but so too are other areas that have fared much better: Newtownabbey, for example, got £295 of investment per person and Antrim got £265, compared to just £33 in Ards. What actions will the Minister take, unlike his predecessors, to ensure that Strangford receives its fair share of funding in the future?

Mr Hamilton: Of course, both as Minister and as a representative for that constituency, I want to see increased and improved investment in Strangford, just as I want to see it in every constituency across Northern Ireland. I will be doing my level best to improve and increase investment in every constituency, particularly Strangford. The Member touched on Invest Northern Ireland figures and compared the former Ards Borough Council area unfavourably with Newtownabbey, for example. There are other indicators, and I am happy to furnish the Member with the precise detail.

Take tourism investment, for example. The Member will know that the local economy of subregions has different constructions. The local economy in the Strangford area has a higher proportion of tourism businesses that, I am sure, will have received more investment than many of the other council areas that the Member mentioned. We are biased of course, but I believe that we have the most beautiful constituency in the whole of Northern Ireland. As a result, it has received many more visitors, which has seen our tourism product develop and grow over the last number of years. There are some figures that you can look at to show that it is not as good, but there are others that you can look at to show that other elements of the economy have received appropriate levels of support. I am happy to provide the Member with that detail.

Mr Hamilton: The Member touches on high levels of unemployment. That is of course a fact in some parts of Northern Ireland, particularly peripheral parts. Invest Northern Ireland, whatever the perception may be of its track record in trying to bring investment to areas such as the Member's constituency, actually does have a good record of trying to bring investment and jobs to that constituency and others in the west of the Province. I cited some of those examples to Mr McPhillips earlier. I know that the Member is very fond of Strabane, and I met the huge investor Allstate, which has a presence there. When you have international companies of that size and stature seeing the merit in setting up in Strabane, that is a beacon for others to see the opportunities presented by Strabane and the skilled workforce that is there.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to be quick in asking her supplementary and the Minister to be quick in giving his response.

Ms Boyle: Given the recent job losses in the Derry City and Strabane District Council area, particularly in Derry, will the Minister undertake to come to the council to meet the north-west regional task force and hear its proposals for job creation and infrastructure?

Mr Hamilton: Yes, I intend to visit the north-west, just as I intend to visit all parts of Northern Ireland. I am keen to work with anybody and everybody — the council, the Chamber of Commerce in Derry and others — to ensure that whatever help and support I can provide through my Department and its agencies to attract investment and increase jobs in the area will be provided. The Executive as a whole recognised the need to have a regionally balanced economy in the draft Programme for Government framework, and we need to follow through on that with a clear action plan for how we will deliver it.

Mr Speaker: Time is up. Members may wish to take their ease while we change the top Table.

Mr Beattie: I wish the Minister well as he takes up his new undertaking to safeguard the finances of our country. I view him neither as a rogue nor a renegade, but I hope that he will listen. I hope that he will engage. I hope that he will be magnanimous to those who do not sit in government and accept, in the right spirit, any criticisms that we may have. I will aim not to be overtly critical, but criticism is not necessarily a bad thing. It can highlight issues and alternatives, and all you need do is look between the lines to see what those alternatives are. Criticism is not just about poking the finger — you have to drag out what you can get from it.

I will try to be quite frugal and direct while talking about the Budget. Any Budget will have a financial action that creates a financial reaction and effect: giving money to one Department will have an effect on other Departments. The DUP and Sinn Féin manifestos stated that they would give an extra £1 billion to the Department of Health over the next five years, and that will have an effect on other Departments. The important thing is to make it have a positive effect on other Departments by making sure that they work together. You can easily see that giving money to the Department of Health can have an effect on the Department for Communities and the Department of Education.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I will look at the Department of Justice, and I look forward to debating that at Committee on Thursday so that I can get into the finer detail. When I look at how the DUP and Sinn Féin have aligned the moneys for that Department's budget, I find it interesting that they have used the following three criteria when allocating to the different directorates:

So, what is possible? The non-ring-fenced resource DEL for the Department of Justice is reduced by 5·7%. The PSNI's part has only been reduced by 2%, but overall the figure is 5·7%. Is that an outcome-based approach, as described in the draft Programme for Government framework, or are we looking at a finance-driven effect? There is obviously a need for that because money is finite, but, before we have a Programme for Government and before we have decided what we want to achieve, we have divvied out the money. So the finance has come before the outcome in this case. With the Department of Justice, we are hoping, after we get this year's Budget through, that the next Budget will run for the following three years. That should realign and fix itself in the long term.

I have concerns that the underfunding of the Northern Ireland Prison Service of 2·9% will have a serious effect, as we continue with the separated prisoner regime, which invariably costs more money. I mentioned that before, and I mention it now because it was forced on us in 2003 by a direct rule Minister, and we have not yet had a chance to debate it. We are being held to account by a direct rule Minister from 2003, and we are paying for it. So I hope we have a chance to debate it and come up with a solution, whether that involves keeping the regime going and taking the additional cost or suspending it and moving forward, as we all hope to do.

I have concerns about the PSNI budget. Does it have resilience in the funding of policing in the present while looking after policing from the past. We all know about the ongoing issues with the Stakeknife investigation. That could cost £30 million, which will have an effect on the PSNI's budget.

Mostly, I am concerned that the Department of Justice's budget will fall seriously short if all the recommendations from the three-person panel are put in place. Thirteen of those recommendations fall directly to the Department of Justice, with a further 10 implying a justice input. Those include moving back to community policing, restorative justice initiatives, working with the Probation Service to prepare paramilitaries for their return to society and integration. Those are all good things — I have no issue with them — but they are all going to cost money. The £10 million that has been set aside to cover that is nowhere near enough. There needs to be more, and there needs to be more of a commitment. There we have the effect: if we have more of a commitment to that, somebody else is going to have to lose out. That is why we need to combine the effects. Every effort must be made by everyone in the House to try to unlock the £150 million that is available for the setting up of bodies to deal with the past. That is in everybody's interests, and we need to work together on it.

We need innovative ways of using our Budget better. Everybody is saying that you have to stand and offer different and innovative ways of doing things, and it is very difficult to do that when you stand here. Just by talking, maybe I imply that there are innovative ways. The PCSPs are resourced and paid for by the PSNI, yet communities have a big input in them. Why can PCSPs and the Department for Communities not work together in cross-departmental groupings to resource that particular strand of justice? Likewise, the Probation Board, working with the Department of Education and the Department of Health, should share resources and cost. We should advocate different Departments sharing costs and resources to have the same outcome.

I am not being overly critical of the Budget. I am trying to be constructive in what I say, but I am concerned. I am concerned about all the pressures on all the Departments.

I believe that, in its current form, some of those pressures are not sustainable.

I am also concerned that we, as a group of people, particularly the Government, are far too busy blaming the Tory Government for all our ills. Yes, of course, they are partly to blame, and yes, austerity is coming from them. I am not defending them in any shape or form, but we cannot keep looking back at the past and blaming it for what we want to do in the future. We need to come up with a sustainable system, we need to come up with something that deals with all the issues and we need to use that money productively to help the people whom we all represent.

Mr Wells: I sat on the Finance Committee for several years with the incoming Finance Minister, and I noted his criticism of the then Finance Ministers, Mrs Foster, Mr Hamilton and Mr Storey. I took note of those criticisms. It is interesting that already he has broken one of his golden rules. This morning, he gave us the monitoring round figures, but for the first time ever, I think, in the history of the Assembly, he failed to provide us with the information on the pressures that the various Departments had made known to him, so we are left somewhat in the dark. Far be it from me to congratulate the Opposition, but I thought they were absolutely right to raise this as an issue, because how —

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Wells: I would bottle that, because it is the first and last time it is going to happen. I can do it early in my career in this five-year term because it will be forgotten by the next election.

We were left with absolutely no idea of the pressures the various Departments are facing. We have no idea of the urgent bids that were made and how many of them were unavoidable. I do not want to quote his words back to him, but I would like to think he feels suitably chastened and will not dare do that again to the House. That is totally unacceptable. Similarly, I would like to think that he will not issue a statement and give us all less than an hour to digest such an important amount of information. Previous Finance Ministers from my party would not have dreamt of doing that because it would have been treating the House with total disdain. Maybe the lesson has been learnt. The other criticisms he made in the Finance Committee will, no doubt, come back to haunt him.

I was worried because he was hardly into office — I suppose you could say he hit the ground running; he might have been running in the wrong direction, but at least he hit the ground running — and was talking about borrowing money to meet the gap for essential services in Northern Ireland. The last thing that he wants written on his tombstone is, "Here lies the body of Minister Millar, the Minister who left his children and grandchildren with a huge debt that they will never repay". I know he is a regular visitor to the Irish Republic; he is up and down to the Dáil — the Irish Parliament, in English — on a very regular basis. Surely he must understand the calamity —

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Will the Member take a point?

Mr Wells: Yes.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I have been to the Dáil once in your august company. I believe everyone knew you by name and was able to say hello. No one at all knew me. [Laughter.]

Mr Wells: I am glad that comment was made in the early part of the mandate.

He knows the calamitous situation his counterpart in the Irish Republic is facing. I have not checked the recent statistics, but I understand that every man, woman and child in the Irish Republic owes the IMF and the European Central Bank €50,000. Every child born in the Irish Republic inherits that debt. That was because his equivalent in the Republic tried to bridge the gap by borrowing money they could not afford to have lent to them. The result is that a vast proportion of the Irish Republic's income is spent on servicing that debt. At the moment, of course, interest rates are low —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): All this is fascinating, but it is not directly addressing the motion. I bring the Member back to that.

Mr Wells: Mr Deputy Speaker, that never stopped you in the past. [Laughter.]

However, as I do not want to impugn the integrity of the Chair —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): I trust that you are not being disrespectful to the Chair.

Mr Wells: I am not being disrespectful; I have the highest respect for the honourable Member. I am just saying that, if part of the Minister's plans in the Budget is to try to bridge the gap through borrowing, I urge him not to do so, because it will leave future generations with a debt that is unsustainable. Northern Ireland has at least got through the recession with a modicum of debt which is serviceable. I do not think that we should go any further.

I return to the main subject, which is of course Health. I have had some experience of the Department of Health, albeit rather short. I applaud and agree with the commitment made by my party and his to bring about a £1 billion increase in funding for Health over the five-year period of this Assembly. That is welcome. It is very welcome that the two main parties have agreed to do that.

I accept what Mr Beattie says. We cannot say that we are going to fund Health to the tune of £200 million extra per year and not find it from somewhere. However, I know from the election that I have just fought that Health is the bread-and-butter issue, apart from Brexit. Of course, the Minister will look forward to spending the extra money that he will get under the Barnett consequentials when we leave the European Union on 23 June. He can look forward to our hypothecated roughly 3% of that. It is extra money that he will receive to spend on essential services, and some of that can go towards Health. So there is some good news coming the Minister's way, when we get out of this machine — this institution which drains blood out of the coffers of the UK to the tune of over £10 billion per year. I reckon that our proportion of that is about £290 million, and that will be extremely helpful as he seeks to bridge these gaps.

However, there is absolutely no doubt that, if the health service is to continue to deliver the first-rate care that we enjoy, that is the right decision. One thing I learnt in my time at Health is that the rate of inflation in Health far outstrips that in the ordinary economy. When I was there, inflation in Health was running at between 4% and 5%. Inflation in the real economy, of course, was only between 0·5% and 1%. The health trusts implemented a series of efficiency savings, and I was full of admiration for how they dealt with those very difficult calculations. However, those efficiency savings eventually got to the stage where there were no inefficiencies from which to produce efficiencies. In other words, they had looked at all the issues where they felt that money could be saved, and they were getting down to rock bottom. Having forced the Department of Health to do that, and got a leaner and fitter health service, I think it incumbent on us to reward it by bringing about a real-terms increase in Health funding. Despite all the problems that Health had inflicted on it last year, and under three DUP Ministers, its budget of £5 billion came in within 0·4%. That is an extraordinary performance: to land that spaceship of public expenditure on that postage stamp, and bring home a balanced budget. However, that is becoming more and more difficult.

I welcome the Minister's decision this morning to inject further money into Health but it must be a priority, over the next five years, to ensure that there is real-terms growth in health provision. That will have a knock-on effect on the economy generally, because 70% of health expenditure is wages and salaries. Therefore, the more money that we pump into health, the more employment we generate and the better for our economy generally. So it is not wasted money in that sense. Therefore, I welcome the Minister's commitment to that.

I do not welcome for one moment the Minister's commitment to further expenditure on the cross-border bodies. The cross-border bodies, frankly, are a wee bit of a sideline to the main expenditure Departments in Northern Ireland. Whilst they are a nice add-on, some of what they do is not the essential core services that are represented by health, education and employment. No doubt, that gives the Minister and his supporters a comfort blanket, so that he can say, "Look, I am upping the budgets for cross-border canal routes". That is all very interesting, but it is not a priority. The Minister has to focus solely on those issues which we know are going to be absolutely, desperately difficult to resolve over the next few years.

I am not wanting to be a prophet of doom. I will watch with great interest to see how someone from a party that has a Marxist-Leninist economic viewpoint runs a part of Her Majesty's realm. It will be very interesting to see how that happens. It is a first. Up to now, the Finance Department has been in relatively safe hands. Now we have this —

Mr Stalford: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He raises the issue of the Marxist-Leninist economic philosophy of our friends across the way. Does he also think it strange that a party that prides itself in its belief in national sovereignty should be so badly on the wrong side of the Brexit debate?

Mr Wells: When one reads the outpourings of his party about the European Union from, say, even 15 years ago, and sees the almost sycophantic relationship it has with Brussels and Strasbourg, one is surprised; but the good news is that the opinion polls indicate that he is going to get a very nasty surprise come Friday 24 June. I think that it is very clear where this country is going, and not a moment too soon. That will change his outlook, and he will have to adapt to the new situation which is that we are no longer going to be part of Europe. In the next two years, he will be directly involved in helping take the United Kingdom out of the European Union. I think he will find that a very interesting challenge, to put it mildly, but at least he will have about an extra £300 million a year to spend on essential services in Northern Ireland. That has to be a good thing.

So, we are watching very carefully. I am back on the Finance Committee, and I have taken a note of all that he has said. It will be interesting to see what difference there is between Mr Millar the Back-Bench Sinn Féin Finance Committee member and Mr Millar —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): I remind the Member that Members and Ministers are entitled to be called by their chosen surname.

Mr Wells: — the Finance Minister. It will be interesting to see how he reacts when the boot is on the other foot.

Mr McAleer: I take this opportunity to welcome the Budget (No. 2) Bill that is before us. Speaking from an infrastructure perspective, I believe that the Bill has the potential to contribute to the Programme for Government objectives of improving transport connections and increasing the use of public transport and active travel. I also note and welcome the Minister's statement earlier that more than £20 million has been set aside to improve the roads infrastructure. That will be hugely welcomed, particularly in rural areas in the west — areas that I represent. I am conscious that this will be the topic of an Adjournment debate later this evening, so it is not something that I will delve into in any depth.

The Infrastructure Minister was at the Committee, last week. He made the point that the infrastructure projects that are in place, and which will be financed by the Budget, set the parameters for the next generation. They are not for just this year or next year; they are for the next generation. In fact, they will set the parameters for the next 20 to 30 years. The Budget (No. 2) Bill, which we are looking at today, sets out and maps out that trajectory for the time ahead.

In the west, some of which I represent through my constituency of West Tyrone — indeed, there are members from there around the House — we have been living with an infrastructural deficit that has stunted growth in the area. Last week, at the Infrastructure Committee, I made the point that the last train left Tyrone 50 years ago. I welcome the commitment in the Budget to major projects, such as the A5 and the A6, which have the potential to redress that historical imbalance. Of course, that feeds into one of the Programme for Government (PFG) strategic outcomes of trying to move towards regional balance.

I also welcome the commitment towards other strategic projects such as the Belfast and Derry hubs and, of course, Narrow Water. There is also a very welcome commitment to Waterways Ireland, which, I know, the Finance Minister spoke about earlier. He is very enthusiastic about that. There is also a commitment towards cycling and greenways. Indeed, the timing is opportune, given the fact that we are at the implementation stage of the DRD bicycle strategy, which you, Deputy Speaker, as the former Minister for Regional Development, very heartily endorsed and were involved in from its inception. All of this feeds into another PFG outcome of promoting healthy and active lifestyles. Good infrastructure is also vital for the economy and for achieving the other PFG outcome of achieving regional balance.

I welcome the Budget Bill. Again, I am speaking as the party's spokesperson on infrastructure. I know that the Finance Minister and Infrastructure Minister have been working very well together, and I am aware that the Infrastructure Minister has been looking very closely at not only how to use our block grant, but how to maximise the opportunities that lie within the EU by maximising drawdown for projects. The Minister is making a good start. He will be in Rotterdam, next week, at an important TEN-T conference, where he will be promoting, encouraging and making sure that we get a fair slice of cake for regionally significant strategic projects here in the North.

In bringing my comments to a conclusion, I commend the Bill to the House. It sets the trajectory for the time ahead.

Mr Girvan: I speak, as a member of the Committee for Finance, in favour of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. There are a number of areas in which, I think, discussion would be to our benefit. We are working with an ever-decreasing Budget, irrespective of what anyone says. We had a number of years in which we were taking cuts to our block grant — cuts of almost £4 billion over the previous Assembly term. There were those who suggested a doomsday scenario. They said that everything would not balance and the country would be bankrupt. Well, we are still here. I appreciate that some people might have concerns about borrowing. I, too, have concern about applying too much debt, but I believe that debt that can be serviced and used to deliver savings or to prime the pump to help business to move forward is not necessarily bad debt.

I sit on the Infrastructure Committee as well. One of my concerns relates to the area where I live. In Ballyclare, we have a difficulty in that the town is hamstrung by traffic congestion. I know that I speak for my colleagues who represent the area. They would all say the same. A relief road was proposed for the town, and, as a consequence of funding difficulties, it was agreed that the road would be delivered by the private sector when a housing development was proposed. We have a Minister who says that he is willing to think outside the box and to work with others to come up with imaginative ways in which to fund such projects. I ask that we look imaginatively at reasons to move forward with investment, which will allow the release of development land, in order to bring jobs to our economy for development, to sustain schools and to create employment in the building sector and construction industry. Those are all areas that we need to focus on, and spend will be made there. Mechanisms are there that are used elsewhere, not only in Great Britain but in the rest of Europe.

Mr Aiken: Will the honourable Member give way?

Mr Girvan: Yes.

Mr Aiken: I fully echo the view of my fellow MLA from South Antrim. We need to look at more innovative forms of financing, particularly when going ahead with significant infrastructure projects. I ask the Finance Minister to look, with a degree of urgency, at how we can have partnership and partnership arrangements for future financing to enable us to get to that position.

Mr Girvan: I thank my colleague. He makes the very point that I wished to come on to. We have had engagement with those who wish to bring forward the project, and we believe that there is a mechanism to enter into a partnership deal and to claw back the money over the next 25 years without costing the public purse or our block grant a penny. Some of the European bank loan funds could be used to access that funding to move forward with the project.

Those are areas that we should be focusing on. The extra billion pounds for health is a necessity, and there is the commitment to and, already, the demonstrated delivery of additional moneys, as made in today's statement on the June monitoring round. The £67 billion — the £67 million, rather, although £67 billion might help — brings us up to our £200 million commitment for the current financial year. I believe that additional moneys are required. Most important, however, is probably the reform that needs to take place not just in the delivery of our health budget but in the delivery of healthcare in the Province.

It relates to exactly the same thing in infrastructure when you have a pothole. You might spend thousands of pounds on claims dealing with that pothole when £200 might have fixed it.

There is also a scenario in the health service where people from our Province are shipped across to England or down to Dublin. We put their families up in hotels and are pay exorbitant costs to get an operation done, but, if we were doing it properly and dealing with it correctly, it should be done here for better value for money, costing the Northern Ireland public purse less money. Those are areas that we need to focus on to ensure that we get the best bang for our buck.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way. He has outlined some of the reforms that could take place so that we can save money and spend our resources more carefully. To that end, is it not more important to reform our public services and get better value for money, rather than going to the public, for example by imposing water charges and saying to them that they should pay up and give us more? Should we not spend the money that we have better rather than asking for more?

Mr Girvan: That is the very point: we need to bring forward reform of the delivery of services. Some people might have a fear that we are trying to sell off the whole public sector and get rid of it and have delivery by the private sector: that is not the case. We need to ensure that we get value for money from what we pay for. We need to ensure that services work efficiently.

I appreciate that each Department has delivered cuts over the last number of years. Each and every one of them had to take pain when the 3% cut was delivered in efficiencies year on year from 2011. We have shown that those cuts did not come without pain, but we now have to consolidate and move forward. That opportunity is there for us.

In future, I look to see that we can work together to deliver for the betterment of Northern Ireland. We must invest in our young people to ensure that those who go into further and higher education are not coming out of our universities with degrees that are not worth the paper they are written on. I do not mean that from an academic point of view; I am saying that people are coming out with degrees that do not have jobs identified with them. There needs to be more engagement on the delivery of higher education so that we have degree courses that are geared towards growing our economy and we ensure that the people who come out of our universities have the skills and ability to take up jobs that we can and should lead the world in. We have demonstrated that in the past and have every opportunity to do it in future.

I support the Bill; it is the way forward. I am keen to see that things go forward fairly quickly in this mandate. Some people had a doomsday scenario, but I appreciate that we are trying to hit the ground running and we have to get the Bill through before recess. I understand the time constraints, but it is interesting that, when you have people around the table who are willing to work and to deliver, you can make it happen. That is what I want to see happening in future.

Mrs Barton: In rising to speak on the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill, I will make some comments on the mid-year Estimates in relation to the education budget for 2016-17. In doing so, I seek clarity about the budget and greater transparency within it. Many school principals are looking for answers when it comes to their budgets, about which they have already been notified by the Department of Education.

I listened with interest to the contribution made yesterday by the new Chair of the Education Committee, Mr McElduff. He noted that, overall, the resource and the capital budgets for education had increased. While acknowledging the challenges for schools, he appeared confident that the Executive would find more money, although he did not say from where. It turns out, indeed, that £5 million has been found from somewhere for the aggregated schools budget.

Reference was also made yesterday to a wish or a hope that an extra £20 million would be allocated to education in the June monitoring round. From this morning's statement, it appears that £30 million, not £20 million, has been found. We were told:

That was the £20 million announced in February, before the election, by former Minister O'Dowd. I am really not sure why there was any doubt about that money.

My colleague Sandra Overend recently asked the new Minister:

and also:

The answer she received was:

As of 10.00 am, the outcome of the June monitoring round is known: £30 million for the Department, with £20 million for schools, £5 million for special needs and £5 million for the drawdown of school surpluses under the school end-year flexibility (EYF) scheme. The £15 million extra promised for the aggregated schools budget was included in the budgets that schools were notified of in March. From the answer to Sandra's question, it seems that the £15 million extra for the aggregated schools budget — the money that goes to schools — had been accounted for in the March 2016 allocations. This morning, an extra £5 million has been found. The statement suggested £20 million for schools.

Is that £5 million enough? What is that when divided among all our schools? All MLAs must be aware of the concerns raised by school principals and boards of governors across the country. Their budgets have been squeezed, and boards of governors will be forced to declare staff redundancies. That can only mean bigger class sizes, with all the consequences that that will have for educational outcomes. Despite Mr McElduff's claim yesterday that all is rosy in the garden, that is not what I hear from those working in the education sector. The mixture of superannuation pay rises, National Insurance rises and inflationary increases means schools having to look at cuts in their budgets of some 8%, which is worse than most schools expected. Schools are past crisis point and are having to submit budget deficits, which is totally against their professional standards. Some are considering refusing to propose the cuts. The continual cuts over the last five years are taking their toll, not just on teachers and principals but on all angles of school life. The stress on those who have given their life to excellence in our education system is putting unacceptable pressure on professionals.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way. She is absolutely right about the concerns that many principals and boards of governors have about school finances.

Would she agree with me that one of the ways in which we can solve this problem in the long term is to devolve more autonomy to schools and have more of the budget for schools going to them directly rather than being held centrally in the Department? That was a commitment that we made in our manifesto. I am sure that the Member will support us in that.

Mrs Barton: We also did. Thank you.

The budget difficulties have come completely out of the blue to boards of governors. They have had no time at all to prepare. Schools are actually using funds raised by their excellent parent-teacher associations (PTAs) to help to fund teachers and basic classroom activities. I see that in yesterday's 'Belfast Telegraph', Minister Weir said that he is "acutely aware" of the pressures on school budgets. He is quoted as having bid for extra cash in the June monitoring round. We now know that the extra cash turned out to be £5 million. Clearly, he has found either the money tree or cash down the side of the ministerial sofa, but is it enough to plug the school budgets gap? I sincerely doubt it.

That is short term. The longer-term issue is the structure of the Department of Education's budget. In reply to a question for written answer that I put down on the first day, the Education Minister confirmed that:

This fact has been a bone of contention for a number of years. It is something that the Minister's party pledged in its very brief manifesto to change. It stated that:

Indeed, we have heard that this afternoon. That, on the face of it, is a long way from the reply to another question for written answer that I received from the Minister last week, when he said that:

However, we shall see what emerges in the months to come. In the shorter term, we need clarity on the deficiency in the aggregated schools budget for 2016-17 as schools head towards the summer break in an atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety.

Finally, higher and further education, which is now a responsibility of the new Department of Education, is an area that cannot be ignored any longer. As my colleague Mr Philip Smith said yesterday:

with their Government grant being reduced by 24% between 2010 and 2015 and no sign of a process to build a sustainable and equitable model to finance third-level education into the future. The mid-year Estimates give no answer to this question, but the issue cannot be put off by the Executive much longer.

To sum up: the budget for education remains a cause for real concern.

Ms Dillon (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak today as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and to outline the views of the Committee. We received a briefing from officials on 9 June.

The Committee recognises the significant challenges faced by the newly established Department. Last week, we heard from the Department's permanent secretary that DAERA will face significant budgetary pressures and must manage a £12 million resource reduction. The Committee is aware that the Department is undergoing a significant change programme. We heard that it has an ambitious change programme to help it become more modern and digitally driven. The outcome of the voluntary exit scheme saw the departure of 318 full-time equivalent staff from the old DARD and 370 full-time equivalents from the new Department. According to the Department, that should save around £6·5 million a year, but, as a result, the Department has lost people with significant experience and expertise.

The Department is also undertaking a major relocation programme that may lead to further changes and loss of corporate memory. DAERA is a very geographically diverse Department and has 70 different locations and offices, including 12 DAERA Direct offices. It has already moved its fisheries division to Downpatrick, Forest Service will move to Enniskillen and Ballykelly will become the new corporate headquarters. The Committee has heard that those locations will also be reviewed. The Committee will look forward to scrutinising the review of DAERA's estate strategy to ensure that the Department makes optimal use of those locations, which, in turn, might make money available to manage its other pressures. Given that the Department's remit also includes rural affairs, I have already outlined my expectation with the Department that, notwithstanding the difficulties faced by staff as a result of the relocation programme, DAERA's offices should not all be located in the city.

It is imperative that the Department manages the programme efficiently and that it is fit for purpose. I have no doubt that members of the Committee will wish to scrutinise the implementation and delivery of the change programme as we move forward in the mandate.

I shall now outline other concerns and issues raised by members during the briefing with officials on the Main Estimates. On resource, the Committee is aware that the £215 million budget is net of the EU funds administered by DAERA, which is a significant element of the Department's work. Given the budgetary pressures facing the Department, the Committee sought a detailed breakdown of the £48 million income generated by the Department. DAERA's income capacity will be crucial to address the challenges ahead. The Committee will keep that under scrutiny and seek assurances from officials that money is allocated correctly and swiftly.

The Committee is aware that, following changes in Treasury guidelines on research and development, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) will benefit from the reclassification from resource to capital expenditure. The Committee welcomes that development. It accounts for some £0·8 million moving from resource to capital.

More than three quarters of the budget of the Department's veterinary service animal health group is allocated to tackling bovine TB in herds. That is a significant budgetary commitment from the Department. Around £12 million of that expenditure goes towards compensation costs alone. I am aware that was a priority for the previous Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, and while the new Committee has yet to set its priorities, I have no doubt that bovine TB will feature as a major area of scrutiny.

Moving on to capital expenditure, the Committee noted that IT capital projects account for over 40% of the Department's overall capital allocation. The Committee sought assurances that, where there might be slippage in those projects, the Department has shovel-ready projects in the pipeline. It is something we will keep a watching brief on.

Members of the Committee also sought additional information on the modest £0·3 million expenditure on broadband and have sought clarification on where the money will be spent and the criteria for receiving it.

In conclusion, the Committee recognises the importance of its role in scrutinising the Department's expenditure and delivery of projects. I look forward to updating the Assembly in the future on budgetary debates about the work of the Committee on the matter.

As Sinn Féin spokesperson and an MLA for the large rural constituency of Mid Ulster, whilst again accepting that all our Departments are under budgetary constraints, I sincerely hope that there will continue to be a focus on tackling rural deprivation and isolation. I ask that the Minister develop a strategy with the Economy Minister to tackle the lack of rural broadband provision. A proper strategy and joined-up working within government would surely ensure that broadband providers are held to account in a more efficient manner. It has been outlined today that not everything has to be tackled with money and that there are other ways of tackling things and coming up with strategies that do not necessarily incur budgetary constraints.

Without proper broadband, our rural children are being disadvantaged in their education, our rural businesses are less efficient and unable to grow and our farmers, who are being asked by DAERA to submit forms online are unable to do so. We have to tackle head-on the attitude that appears to exist that it is easier to move businesses out of rural areas.

My constituency of Mid Ulster has over 8,000 VAT-registered businesses — that is the greatest number of VAT-registered businesses outside Belfast city. We in central government need to support indigenous businesses and put a proper focus on this, as those businesses will be what sustain the rural economy. The reality is that, while FDI will be an economic driver in urban areas, indigenous businesses will be the economic driver in our rural areas.

I met a number of businesses from the east Tyrone area at a recent meeting organised by Dungannon Enterprise Centre. Their issue is that they are outgrowing their premises and cannot obtain larger premises in the local area. That may seem to be a good dilemma, but our fear is that we will lose those businesses to larger towns and cities. They do not want to move out of the rural area, and we do not want them to leave. I highlighted a number of these issues last week when I spoke in the PFG debate, and I will continue to champion our rural communities and businesses through the Committee structure and on the Floor of the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): I call Mr Richie McPhillips. As this is the first opportunity for Mr McPhillips to speak as a private Member, I remind the House that it is the convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption.

Mr McPhillips: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First of all, I begin by extending my best wishes to the Minister in his new role. I welcome the opportunity to make my maiden speech to the Assembly, and I do so as an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and as a member of the Committee for the Executive Office.

Before I turn to the 2016-17 Budget, I take this opportunity to thank the people from across the community in Fermanagh and South Tyrone who have given me the opportunity to represent them in the Chamber and in the Assembly. As I said on the day of my election, I do not care where anybody goes to church on a Sunday; I am here to represent everyone for the benefit of all the community. I have no immediate SDLP predecessor; however, I wish to mention Mr Tommy Gallagher, who served the constituency with distinction for 13 years, and thank him for all that he did for the constituency.

The 2016-17 Budget, as outlined to the House earlier this year, is unique, as it is a one-year Budget put together in the aftermath of the Stormont House Agreement. This Budget promises many things, but one of the major issues that it fails to deal with is investment and job creation in the west. Up to 2014, only 3·9% of Invest NI's funding went to my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. That is despite the fact that the unemployment rate is sitting at 5% and almost a third of people are reliant on some sort of benefits. In this Budget, I do not see any attempt to redirect much-needed funding and investment back to the west. My constituency, and Fermanagh especially, does not even get the crumbs from the table. We are the poor relations, in my opinion, of the Six Counties.

However, it is not just job opportunities that are lacking in the west. One of the big disappointments in many rural areas across the North is the vexed question of no or poor broadband services. A failure to improve broadband services has severely impeded existing small and medium-sized enterprises from developing and has discouraged start-ups and enterprising activity. Many people are trying to run small businesses in places right across our constituency, from Belleek and Garrison at one end to Aughnacloy and Clogher, but the standard of broadband is extremely poor. In 2016, people in Belfast can boast about having download speeds of 200 megabytes, but there is no provision for those sorts of speeds in places like Fermanagh. We have seen broadband services in the likes of Lisnaskea and Enniskillen fall far below the standard required, and businesses and people there have not seen broadband improvement in years. In 2016, that is simply unacceptable. I have come to understand that the former Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment had been spending significant amounts of money to rectify the problem, but that has not reached Fermanagh and South Tyrone in any tangible way yet.

There is no doubt that the Infrastructure budget faces serious challenges. The average spend on our roads over the previous mandate was roughly £70 million. What is it this year? Twenty million pounds. I ask this question straight away: what is that going to do? One can only believe that a lot less will be done in the coming year. I can only imagine that rural constituencies such as mine will also be one of the first to fall foul of a budgetary decrease. I want to comment on our rural road infrastructure in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and the terrible state of the roads around Lisnaskea and Newtownbutler. We have been promised repairs after the flooding, and the much-needed Enniskillen bypass has yet to see the light of day despite ministerial announcements in the last year. I hope that these are not to be empty promises of proper investment and improvement, especially in the west. The theme of empty promises is not alien to the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

This Budget has many problems as well as Infrastructure. Last year, we witnessed a crisis in the farming sector, with many farmers teetering on the brink of existence. Farmers have been facing an income crisis and that has not yet been resolved. The new Minister needs to use all budgetary resources available to her to ensure the implementation of the rural development programme, including the farm business investment and agri-environment schemes, to ensure better access to finance for the farming industry and the payment of emergency assistance schemes for farmers affected by last year's flooding.

A potential exit from the European Union is adding further difficulties to the farming community as it faces possible uncertainty over CAP payments and cross-border trade. It is important to remember that today's Budget and future multi-year Budgets are predicated on EU funding streams, and, with no viable funding alternative in place, a complete removal from the EU will have dramatic implications for future funding allocations.

The Education budget for 2016-17 comprises £1·9 billion, but there are cuts to student support, libraries, museums and public services across the North. The west will ultimately feel the brunt of those cuts. I met principals from schools across my constituency recently who have genuine concerns about their school budgets. This means fewer teachers, bigger class sizes and limited support for students with special educational needs. In fact, the changes to superannuation arrangements in the last mandate are adding further pressure to school budgets, with many schools in my constituency in financial difficulties and having to let staff go in order to balance the books. One member of a board of governors called me just last week to say that they were having to let one full-time teacher and two ancillary staff go because of the imposition of the superannuation scheme. This is a serious issue at present. How is this beneficial for our children and their futures?

In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the past 10 years have ushered in the closure of schools, post offices, rural banks and businesses. Health and social care services have also been dwindling, with seemingly more people being transferred from the South West Acute Hospital than are treated in it at this point in time. Fifteen-minute care packages have become the norm for the elderly and vulnerable, and, as we have learned recently, there has been a significant underspend in learning disability services, leaving many parents and families without the necessary help and support they need. Day-care centres, which are a necessary resource for rural communities, are being closed, leaving some of the most vulnerable and elderly people in isolated places like Rosslea and Garrison without that service. This is morally not right. A community that cannot look after its old and needy is failing them.

The people in my constituency are concerned about the gradual erosion of services; therefore, it is important that the issues raised are given appropriate consideration by the new Executive. The Budget before us today does not offer that support. It is a one-year Budget that will not restore economic balance or fairness between the west and the rest of the North.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): As this is Kellie Armstrong's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, I remind the House that it is convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption.

Ms Armstrong: I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Members and all colleagues for the warm welcome that I have been given by the Assembly. I also wish the Minister well in his new role. I would like to put on record that it is an honour and privilege to be appointed to represent the people of Strangford. I am immensely proud of the constituency that I have lived in all my life. Strangford is simply the most beautiful, warm and generous constituency, and I will use the privilege that, as this is my maiden speech, no one in the House can contradict me on that one.

I am committed to ensuring that only the best services are provided for my constituents. Therefore, it is appropriate that I give my maiden speech in the debate on the Budget (No. 2) Bill, which, after all, will determine the resources that will be spent on providing services to all our constituents in this financial year.

I am very aware that I am following in the footsteps of my predecessor, Kieran McCarthy, who represented the Strangford constituency with exceptional ability and tenacity. Kieran was an outstanding Member of the Assembly, and I am sure that the House joins me in wishing him and his wife, Kathleen, a long and happy retirement. There are many happy miles of motoring left for Kieran to enjoy in his beloved Morris Minor and hours of playing with his growing number of grandchildren.

Kieran voted against the 2016-17 Budget when it was debated in the Assembly back in January because it missed an opportunity to take strategic decisions to look ahead to help resolve issues with the health service, education reform and the cost of a divided society. Today, I challenge the Finance Minister, as I do not believe that the Executive have got the balance right. He outlined his opposition to austerity, yet the Budget does not invest enough in front-line services that will help those who are impacted on by cuts.

Today, we have been presented with a Budget Bill that is letting down the community and voluntary sector. Today, two and half months into the financial year, there are community and voluntary sector organisations that have still not been told what financial support they will be working with in this financial year. That is an unacceptable norm. It is becoming an annual ritual for Departments to leave those organisations in limbo, with staff on notice of redundancy and without the ability to plan for sustainable services. There is no reason why Departments have to wait for this legislation before letting organisations know what financial support they will be getting, because the Assembly passed a Vote on Account in February that gave Departments the resources that they needed to make those commitments by the start of the financial year. I ask the Minister how he expects the Budget to deliver for our community when we are already letting down the very partners that we need to deliver services on the ground. Minister, I ask you to confirm whether you think that that makes good business sense or whether you agree with me that it is wholly unacceptable.

Today, we are presented with a Budget Bill that keeps spending a disproportionate amount of money on high-profile flagship projects such as the A5 and A6 roads, the Belfast rapid transit scheme, the Belfast transport hub, Desertcreat training college, the women and children's hospital at the Royal, and regional and subregional sports stadia. It is not that those things are not needed. My concern is that we cannot afford all those things at the same time while basic needs are not being met. Why is it acceptable to have an almost £1 billion backlog of roads maintenance? Should we not be dealing with the miles of potholes and crumbling rural roads rather than investing all the capital money in a handful of shiny new projects just because they give Ministers photo opportunities?

I have to ask this Finance Minister what has changed. When Simon Hamilton was Finance Minister, he stated on several occasions that we could not afford to build the A5 and the A6 simultaneously, yet, here we are, both the A5 and the A6 are in the capital budget, at a time when expenditure on roads maintenance is at an all-time low. Even with the surprise announcement of an additional £5·3 million for roads maintenance and flood protection today, the expenditure on roads maintenance, coastal defences and flood protection is way below where it needs to be. When I was growing up, I was taught to look after what you have first. Therefore, if your roof was leaking, you replaced the broken slates. You did not spend all your money on a new conservatory. Our deteriorating roads and crumbling sea defences are the equivalents of a leaking roof. The small amounts of money that you have allocated today will not fix the problem.

The Budget does little to take forward the opportunity to remove silo-working. It does not force Departments to work together enough to improve the lives and well-being of the most vulnerable in our society. For example, in the Bill, Departments continue to cut investment for support for learning disability and autism services. I do not see any commitment in it to the £2 million that was promised by the previous Health Minister to help reduce waiting lists for autism diagnoses. Will the Minister confirm whether the £2 million for autism is in the Budget or in the additional money that was announced in the June monitoring round? In the past weeks, parents have contacted me to complain that waiting times are increasing and not decreasing.

At the same time, the Education Authority is moving to cut preschool nursery support for children with special needs. Multiple studies and reports confirm that early intervention makes a substantial and lifelong difference to children with learning disabilities. Diagnosis delays and the removal of early years support will only create higher costs for Health and Education in the long run. The lack of appropriate Budget planning means early years support is not being given the money that it needs to help children. Without that support, vulnerable children with learning disabilities are being left behind, not receiving the same level of investment as other children. Is this how we should be balancing our finances: by taking from the most vulnerable or by funding services dependent on the crumbs from the table given out during monitoring rounds?

My challenge to the Finance Minister and to the Executive is to treat the community and voluntary sector like a partner and to ensure that all letters of offer are supplied before the end of this month for this financial year, and that all future grants are confirmed before the start of each financial year; to review our commitment to major capital projects; to fix what we have first before embarking on long-term, high-cost photo-opportunity projects; and to invest in the most vulnerable in society. Cutting early years support may save one Department a few pounds now but in the long run will cost all Departments so much more and have a lifelong detrimental effect on people with learning disabilities.

I have listened over the past few weeks to various Ministers berate Members sitting in Opposition for not presenting solutions. This Budget does little to create solutions for the most vulnerable and isolated in our society. Alliance proffered solutions to Sinn Féin and the DUP through our five priorities. However, those parties chose to maintain division for their own purposes. If the Executive want to make a difference, it should work harder to end the amount of money being wasted on division. Let us see real change through investment in building an integrated society, in jobs and skills and the economy, and to end all forms of paramilitarism.

This Budget actually places further pressures on our community by investing in headlines instead of front-line services.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): I gently remind all Members that when a Member is making a speech, particularly a maiden speech, proper respect should be shown. Even in private conversations, Members should speak quietly.

Mrs Palmer: I commend Kellie on her maiden speech. She certainly echoes the thoughts of, I am sure, every Member.

At last week's Committee meeting, the Minister for Infrastructure said that we needed to be innovative and consider all options. I was delighted to hear him say that and assure him that, if he delivered on those promises, he would have my support. That is exactly what this Department needs. An approach that welcomes innovation and considers all options would mark a welcome departure from our experience of some previous Sinn Féin Ministers, where a blind adherence to ideology and party policy, regardless of the results, was the order of the day.

I appreciate that there is a need to operate within the budgets and to set priorities accordingly. The Department has a number of flagship projects that were shared with us at the Infrastructure Committee last week: the Belfast rapid transit project, the A5 and A6, and Narrow Water bridge. I am fully supportive of the Belfast rapid transit project, which has the potential to make a real difference to the lives of many who work and live in Belfast. With regard to the A5, however, I sound a note of caution to the Minister. The proposal that was shown to the Committee last week could only be described as a gold-plated design. It accounts for a significant proportion of the budget and has been around for quite some time. I cannot but wonder whether a more-streamlined proposal would better suit the new financial reality in which we find ourselves and still deliver improvements in road safety and journey times in a carriageway.

When I looked at the maps and the alignment of the new road to the existing road, I saw that we were bypassing bypasses, that we were avoiding —

Mr Stalford: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. The urban strategies report 2014 said that the Belfast transit hub could:

The vacant sites include communities such as Sandy Row. Does she agree that it is a lot more, and much more positive, than simply a "photo opportunity", as it was described?

Mrs Palmer: I thank the Member for his intervention, although I am not sure what it has to do with my contribution.

I return to the maps. It looks like a gold-plated delivery. There are bypasses along that carriageway that are being bypassed instead of utilised. Brand new roundabouts are being bypassed. As you well know, Minister, there are issues with land vesting and the PAC. There are a lot of major concerns here. I believe that, if there were a proper review of the A5, we could come to a fair Budget that would deliver the road without the extra expense, allowing the Minister to fund other areas.

Anyone who commutes to Belfast knows how badly we need investment in the transport infrastructure. At the risk of being accused of being a tad parochial, Minister, I would like to remind Members that virtually all traffic approaching Belfast from the south and west converges at Sprucefield in my constituency of Lagan Valley. Every morning, the traffic news bulletins tell of all the delays around Sprucefield, the Blaris intersection and the Westlink. In fact, I sat in traffic for nearly an hour this morning. For traffic approaching the city from the north, there are the often-quoted delays at the Nelson Street off-slip and the hill section of the M2, which is another bottleneck. There is no question that significant sums are required to address the issues at these locations. Perhaps, if the gold-plated A5 were reviewed, there may well be some funding in the Budget to look at the bottlenecks coming into the city of Belfast. There is no doubt that any improvements would benefit tens of thousands of commuters, not to mention freight travelling to the Port of Belfast and Larne, through reduced journey times. It is time to get moving on the York Street interchange project, and I look forward to Budget proposals to make that a reality.

On other budgetary priorities, Minister, we need to mention the A6, which should, having been identified as needed, be delivered fairly rapidly. Grass-cutting is an issue in constituencies all over Northern Ireland. I drove through Antrim to Lisburn and could barely see the roads for the 4-feet high grass along the main arterial route. It is an absolute disgrace. Perhaps the Minister would look carefully at projects in which communities could get involved. There could be some form of service-level agreements with community groups to maintain the grass in their area. That might assist with grass-cutting.

Whilst we are on the subject of infrastructure, we cannot ignore the state in which our electricity grid currently finds itself. I am well aware that it falls under the responsibility of the Department for the Economy, but there is no doubt in my mind that a Department that is titled "Infrastructure" must have more than a passing interest in this. Quite simply, the electricity grid cannot cope, and we now have a situation in which wind farms cannot link to it. We also have to grasp the nettle regarding the North/South interconnector. In addition, the Moyle interconnector has experienced problems since 2011 and currently operates at a reduced capacity.

You are always looking for suggestions, Minister, so I have a suggestion for what to do with any savings from the A5 project that your review might find. It is a suggestion that would provide a real boost to the Northern Ireland economy. It is long past the time that the relatively short distance between Belfast International Airport and the M2 was graced with a dual carriageway. Surely it is not too much to ask that the main point of entry and exit to Northern Ireland for air travellers should have its road access upgraded.

I will touch on the Narrow Water bridge. From my time as a councillor and sitting on the monitoring committee of SEUPB, I know that it was a peace-driven, cross-community, cross-Ireland, vanity project — and I say vanity project because when we look at all of the serious infrastructure neglect on our roads and elsewhere, this project should be in the back of the filing cabinet until such time as we can actually deal with it. You said yourself, in the Chamber this morning, that you wanted all Departments to look at their priorities and that if it was deemed that there were more important priorities, then you should deliver them. I put it to you, Minister, through the Chair, of course, that the gateway to the Shannon and the Lagan Canal Trust and their vision to open up those waterways is more important than sticking a bridge that would have no significance whatsoever across — I do not even know where it is, but I am sure that everybody else knows where the Narrow Water bridge is.

Minister, I commend you today. It is not that often that you get commended, but you looked favourably upon co-ownership and announced today the delivery of over £5 million, which is certainly welcome, to help to deliver social and affordable housing through that. However, I am concerned that, as you said, the housing associations have not bid or planned for the additional moneys. That is probably down to the planning constraints and the securing and development of land, but then the history of housing delivery, even given the current budget requirement, has been difficult. We heard earlier from the Minister of the new Department for Communities that it is a difficult scenario for housing, and it seemed to be the most topical issue for his Department. I will go one step further here and say, as you said in the Chamber, we should be getting the solution right for the Housing Executive to start building homes again. That will contribute to better infrastructure and create the growth and job opportunities to strengthen the economy.

I suggest that the loss of the block grant is more than compensated for by the borrowing to deliver improvements and new builds. It is wrong to describe this as a loss to the block grant, and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive would have to compensate with a dowry to the centre, as a payment for the housing stock transfer. Glasgow Housing Association is a perfect model of excellence in managing this process. Staff leaving the public sector would create a reduction in public sector liability. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) looked at the model, and it is very doable, and I implore you to look at it. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive would need to increase its rental income by about 1% above inflation per annum for the next 15 years to address some of those issues. However, a Northern Ireland Housing Executive transfer saves the exchequer £200 million-plus per annum with a capital payoff for the housing stock transfer, so why would the Government not look at this option?

I know that there are other options, which I will not share with you today, but I would certainly like to meet with the Minister if he is like-minded in making sure that we move. I sat on the Housing Executive board for nearly eight years, and for five of those years it stagnated due to the lack of will in the Assembly to move housing forward. We are in a rut, and this is a serious issue. There are 40,000 people on the waiting list, and I believe that you are the right person to address that, Minister. I hope that will you look at it favourably.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): I call Mr Gerry Mullan. As this is the first opportunity for him to speak as a private Member, I remind the House that it is convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption.

Mr Mullan: Like two of the previous Members who spoke, Richie McPhillips and Kellie Armstrong, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate on the Budget. I do so as both the SDLP Member for East Derry and a member of the Finance Committee.

I am extremely proud to have been elected as a representative for East Derry. As this is my maiden speech, I begin by paying tribute to two former East Derry MLAs. Arthur Doherty, who sadly is no longer with us, was for me the quintessential gentleman and scholar whose passion for politics and the arts is the reason I am here today. For that, I owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. John Dallat also served the constituency of East Derry with distinction for many years, and I especially want to take a moment to commend him for the dignified way he represented the people of my constituency in what were some of the darkest days of our history. He did himself proud, he did his family proud and he did the SDLP proud, and I sincerely wish him and his wife, Anne, all the very best in his retirement.

My constituency has a fascinating history and some of the most stunning areas of natural beauty across this island. From the award-winning blue flag beaches of Benone to the stunning views of Binevenagh mountain, on top of which, by the way, now stands the famous Manannán Mac Lir statue. We have scenic river walks in the Roe Valley and the much loved promenades in Portstewart and Portrush. But the truth is that, in my constituency, it is not all great. We have watched our town centres deteriorate, with places like Dungiven and Coleraine practically unrecognisable. We have watched our communities decline, with young people leaving in their droves in search of greater economic opportunity, and we have seen vital public services withdrawn due to budgetary constraints. Local businesses face significant financial pressures, with high rates, poor broadband services and limited access to finance all hampering their ability to grow and prosper.

Against that backdrop, it is vital that we use all resources available to the House to ensure that we grow our economy and ensure that this is an attractive place to invest in. A key component of that has to be a properly trained and skilled workforce, but, in the last number of years, we have seen budget cuts in further and higher education, with 1,250 student places lost at Ulster University's Coleraine campus alone, and a total of 210 job losses. Those are cuts to modern language and science degrees that have dramatically disadvantaged my constituency as a place to invest in and have severely disadvantaged not only local students but students from right across the North and beyond. As we debate today's Budget, it is vital that the House begins to learn of the importance and value of higher education, especially in considering the planned introduction of corporation tax in 2018. In this year's Budget, I do not see any real evidence of that.

It is a sorry state of affairs that a Tory Chancellor has announced extra spend for the completion of the Coleraine enterprise centre. Coleraine will now be the only area in Northern Ireland to offer enhanced capital allowances to large capital-intensive projects that have the potential to promote highly paid jobs and further investment in the area, but cuts to higher education mean that places like Coleraine will not reap the many rewards that an enterprise zone should bring.

Education is not the only area the Budget fails to deliver on. In the Justice budget, £17 million is allocated to capital projects. Surely one of those needs to be a new build for Magilligan prison, which has long fallen short of the standards required, with the current infrastructure outliving its useful life. It is now critical that we see a new build at the site to relieve pressure on staff and to allow prisoners a genuine opportunity for rehabilitation in a modern environment. A new-build capital project would also provide a welcome stimulus for the local construction industry, which has continued to struggle throughout the economic downturn.

It is fair to say that the delivery of capital projects was a key failure of the last Executive. After empty promises and undue delay, I welcome the renewed commitment to deliver the A6, as it will be the lifeline for many communities in East Derry and further afield. Funding for the A6 faces a substantial shortfall of £300 million, which will provide little comfort for places such as Dungiven. In the absence of a critical bypass, people there are faced with living in one of the most polluted and neglected towns on this island through no fault of their own. The funding announced for the A6 is but a small part of a mammoth task to be undertaken. I sincerely hope that the Executive come through on their promise and deliver the full A6 project — I repeat: the full A6 project — before the end of the mandate.

I will focus my final remarks on the health budget. Throughout my constituency, serious concerns have been raised by local staff, hospital users and the general population concerning the future of the Causeway Hospital. The Causeway Hospital provides a first-class and vital service for all living in the area, but A&E services, palliative care, midwifery and the hospital's relationship with Ulster University are all now at risk following various reviews and reports conducted in the last mandate. In the new mandate, it is vital that those local hospital services are not only retained but enhanced, especially as other primary and community care services have been left teetering on the brink of existence, leaving many patients with nowhere to go. Local GP provision is at breaking point. There is little out-of-hours service, and care packages, as you all know, have been stripped back to 15 minutes. That all leaves many patients in extremely vulnerable positions. That simply cannot continue.

I come back to the Budget. As the Executive work towards a new Programme for Government and multi-year Budget, it is important that these issues and the many more facing my constituency are dealt with. We cannot have any more empty promises, any further delays to capital projects or any further stripping of public services.

Mr F McCann: I welcome the opportunity to speak here today. I was going to be very brief, but — I said this at a Committee meeting last week — I cannot let the comments of Jenny Palmer pass without comment. It seems that she is against road-building everywhere except in her constituency. She does not want it in Narrow Water because she does not know where it is. She is trying to deny people west of the Bann a motorway that they have cried out for for years; she called it "gold-plated". She said that she supports the rapid transport, but I think that, last week, she wanted part of it to run through her constituency, which would have cost an extra fortune, all because of the bottleneck at Sprucefield. I had to remind people at the Committee last week that there is a bit of an anti-Belfast attitude. The reason there is a bottleneck is that everybody is going into Belfast to work. The constituency that I live in and others in Belfast have huge deprivation and high unemployment. They would be only too glad to take up the jobs of some of the constituents she talks about.

I will go on to what I was going to say; I have no doubt that I will pick up on that again. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Budget debate today. As in many other years, I urge the Finance Minister to prioritise funding for social housing. Year after year, we have been informed that we were reaching the Programme for Government figure for social housing provision. However, as I kept reminding people, the PFG figure was a minimal figure; it in no way allowed housing providers to keep pace with the growing waiting lists.

In fact, at the end of the last mandate, there were as many affordable houses acquired as social houses built. That imbalance did not take into consideration the relatively small number of applications for affordable houses. Co-ownership is estimated to be less than 1,000, but there are social housing waiting lists of 40,000 people, 20,000 of whom are in housing stress.

The pressure continues to build on people who are on waiting lists, many of whom have languished in hostels for the homeless, some for as long as three or four years. I was speaking to young parents recently. The child of one young mother was born just before she moved into a hostel. Four years later, that young family is still in a hostel, though the child has started primary school. This is a terrible situation and an indictment of a system which has failed people.

The case I speak of is not an isolated one. In areas of high demand, such as Derry, north Belfast and west Belfast, waiting lists continue to grow. In many cases, families are living in overcrowded conditions under the same roof, a situation which is a throwback to the 1950s. In my constituency, 200 points would not get you a house. In some areas in my constituency, things are so bad that there is a waiting list to get into hostels, which is impacting on the mental and physical well-being of people. Not having a home impacts on education and employment and upsets family life.

If we are ever to move on as a society, we need to look after those who are most in need. Housing is one of the issues that needs to be tackled, and that can be done only by an injection of financial resources. Those resources have to be directed to where the problems exist and have to be allocated on the basis of need. To manage that, housing providers need to be encouraged to tap into other resources to build houses. We need to get the Housing Executive back to building houses. Its 88,000 houses could be used as a huge resource and could go a long way towards making an impact on the serious need that exists; but that can only be done if the commitment exists to make it happen. We all have to ensure that that commitment is there.

At some stage, we need to look at the warnings that are coming down the line. Things do not get easier for people, waiting lists are rising, and homelessness is a serious problem. Unless we start to tackle that, along with a number of other issues, we have lost the plot.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): As this is the first opportunity for Mr Harold McKee to speak as a private Member, I remind the House that it is the convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption.

Mr McKee: It is an immense honour to have been elected to the Assembly as the Ulster Unionist Party Member for South Down. I am humbled that the electorate has endorsed me as its MLA.

Ulster Unionism has now returned to South Down after a hiatus. Although the previous Assembly election indeed saw an Ulster Unionist Party member elected — John McCallister, who supported me, and I him, in the campaigns of 2011 — his subsequent decision to leave the party meant that South Down had no Ulster Unionist Party representation from February 2013. The personal impact of that was that I fought three successful campaigns without any MLA support and, indeed, South Down has been without an Ulster Unionist Party MLA. I intend to ensure that it will be of huge benefit to have a functioning Ulster Unionist Party office opening very soon in South Down, and I am wholly committed to serving all the people of South Down and promoting the interests of South Down in this seat of government.

I was first elected to Newry and Mourne District Council in 2011, and again to Newry, Mourne and Down super-council in 2014. Last year, I topped the unionist poll for Westminster, and I felt deeply honoured to have received endorsement from so many in South Down. I come from a working-class background and have first-hand experience of many of the issues that concern local people. As a Christian, I have always used the Bible as my compass and endeavour to demonstrate clear standards of integrity, honesty and respect. I respect the right of everyone to hold their views, as I hope they respect my right to hold mine.

The Ulster Unionist Party always intended to play a proactive role in this Assembly, but our decision to move to formal Opposition owing to the vagueness of the Programme for Government provides an assurance to the Northern Ireland public of scrutiny and challenge to the Executive that was previously lacking. Of course, we can all be assured that, where they are robust, the processes and plans will be able to withstand that scrutiny. The public should therefore have renewed confidence in the structures of government in Northern Ireland as we move into this new era.

I am delighted to have been appointed Ulster Unionist Party spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. As a Mourne man born and bred, I have a strong interest in the area's core industries: fishing, farming and construction. As many of you will know, south Down is a largely rural and typical farming area, with the largest fishing port in Northern Ireland. However, physical and infrastructural constraints are limiting the development of the fishing industry. There is a strong case to be made for the development of a new outer harbour, which would see potential financial gains in the region of £25 million-plus per annum. That is something that I intend to work on actively to progress.

As this is the Northern Ireland Year of Food and Drink, I feel strongly that we, as political representatives, should prioritise support for our local farming industry to ensure its survival. It is crucial at a time when incomes have plunged by more than 40%, from £312 million to £183 million. As a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I will do my utmost to promote that cause.

Another issue that directly impacts on my constituency is the proposed Narrow Water bridge project. Although it may benefit cross-border tourism, it will do nothing to reduce the volume of heavy goods vehicles that enter Newry city every day. The early introduction of the southern relief road would provide more tangible benefit for south Down by removing from Newry 600 daily lorry movements, which are creating traffic issues and polluting the air.

Roads have been mentioned. It is accepted that the condition of Northern Ireland roads is of vital importance to the economic and social well-being of the country. We are an export-focused economy. Most of our manufacturing business depends on excellent connectivity with our ports and airports in order to allow businesses to transport their products quickly and efficiently to their customers. Therefore, regardless of the result of the EU referendum vote on 23 June, there needs to be a clear plan for those core industries.

It is disappointing that the previous two Agriculture Ministers used their important role to pursue their own flawed political agenda. A perfect example is the proposed relocation of the old DARD headquarters to Ballykelly, despite some concerns. Costs for the project are growing significantly, with the recent estimates now in excess of £41 million, with over £10 million in this year's Budget alone. In addition, value for money for the project has never been demonstrated, and officials from several Departments have expressed deep concern. Even the former Finance Minister Sammy Wilson refused to sign off on the project, not least, I suspect, because only an outline business case was ever produced. In fact, the only option considered was to relocate to Ballykelly.

In reality, it was a process with a predetermined, Sinn Féin-favoured outcome. That is deeply concerning. If the costs of the project cannot be contained, it will be farmers and rural communities who will be left paying the price for years to come. I hope that the new Minister revisits the issue to ensure that value for money exists and that other possible locations, such as the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) offices in Coleraine, are at least considered. In addition, I would be grateful if the Finance Minister could advise on which of the old DOE and DARD headquarters is now the lead DAERA headquarters and whether DAERA's proposed headquarters in Ballykelly will include workstations previously located in DOE headquarters.

Another issue is the growing concern over new IT systems for the Northern Ireland animal and public health information system (APHIS). Although the allocation for this year was £2·7 million, the reality is that the estimated cost will climb sharply in the years after. I will be keeping a close eye on that over the coming years.

Finally, many farmers will be infuriated to learn that, whilst DARD continued to put obstacles in the way, it has allowed its own administration costs to spiral. The total cost of administration was £45 million last year compared with £5 million less than five years ago. Whilst there is a broad consensus that the agriculture and fishing industry here is still faced with too much red tape and was forced to jump through too many hoops with previous Ministers, I do not believe that there has ever been a genuine willingness to tackle it. So I call on the Minister to consider what steps she can take to reduce the administrative burden on our farmers.

Mr Lunn: At the outset, I wish the Minister well in his unenviable task of trying to bridge the unbridgeable gaps here. There is no doubt about it: if we continue with the financial model that we have in this place, and we try to work within the Budget that we have, it is absolutely impossible. I will look forward with interest, as the months go on — I hope that it is not too many months — to see the outcome of the outcomes-based assessment of our draft Programme for Government framework. We will see where we go from there and whether it is possible. I believe that it is a model that has been used elsewhere; if you work backwards from that and decide where you want to be, well, OK, but the jury is out.

I am afraid that I might repeat one or two things that I said yesterday, but I think that a lot of people have done so, so I will not be embarrassed.

Like a lot of others, I will start off with education. I have just spent nine years on the Education Committee; I have now been released and placed on the Justice Committee. I must confess that, in those nine years, I did not see much of what I could call progress in any aspect of our education system. I certainly could not see it in the schools estate. I could see some improvement at the top end of our results spectrum, but not much at the bottom end. Apparently, we still have 70,000 empty desks in our schools. On that basis, we must have schools that we do not need.

We have schools operating out of Portakabins. I can think of one school that I visited not so long ago in Mr Girvan's area that is operating out of Portakabins that are 22 years old. They are not built to be occupied for 22 years. On one of the occasions that I was there, the previous Education Minister was there as well. He is a sizeable man, as we know, and was advised by the caretaker not to go into two of the buildings, because he would probably go through the floor. Other people, I must say, advised him to go into the same buildings for a different reason, but that is by the way.

We are maintaining schools that probably should be closed or, preferably, merged, but we are still having to pay money to maintain them. That is an unnecessary drain on our resources, and it is affecting our ability to proceed with capital builds in education. Some schools have been promised a new build, and the best that they can hope for is that they may have it in 10 years' time. That is how bad it is. I know that some are under way, but there has been a whole round, every year, of schools being added to the list of capital builds on a promise — the money is not there and will not be there unless we change the way we do business. So, again, the challenge for the Minister is to bring some of that about, although it is probably more to do with his ministerial colleagues than with him.

I could talk about area planning — I prefer to call it sectoral area planning, because that is what it has been so far. CCMS has gone its own sweet way, and I can hardly blame it, because nothing would have been done otherwise. It has made some progress with the rationalisation of its estate. We have the, frankly, scandalous situation with special educational needs, which has been well referred to in the last few days. We have problems in early years and with the balance of funding between primary and secondary, but particularly with the highly formative first two or three years of a child's education, which are not being properly dealt with.

We have a situation with the priorities for education — the STEM subjects, for a start — which is not being properly addressed. Funding for primary-school language projects has been cut — just done away with. Some primary schools are still trying to paddle their own canoe and do something about that using their own budget, restricted as it is. The necessity for a second language is well proven. It is essential that our children have a second language, in the same way as most children on the continent have English as a second language. It is formative, educational and good for children.

In the STEM sector, I could mention Sentinus, which, I believe, had its annual awards yesterday. Funding for Sentinus was cut and cut again by the previous Minister. I have some sympathy for him because he could not square the circle of funding. No Department can do that at the moment, so I will go back to my original point: you have to take serious decisions in some of these situations.

Look at teacher training, which one or two other Members mentioned today. If you look at the statistics for the output from all our institutions five years ago, you see that only slightly more than 60% of those graduate trainees have obtained a teaching post. Those figures come from the General Teaching Council (GTC). They are not even full-time posts. Teachers who qualify and manage to obtain one term's worth of full-time work are regarded by the GTC as being in employment and are counted in that figure. Nobody knows how many of them have gone into proper full-time work.

Of course, we also have the inconclusive scheme that was introduced in the last mandate to try to persuade some teachers to retire early and allow new graduates into the profession. We could not even agree about that. I presume that it is still there and still on the long finger, but somebody has to address it.

I will get off education and talk about infrastructure for a moment. I sat on the all-party construction industry group here for some years. The construction industry is on its knees, along with the quarry products and aggregates industries. They are suffering so badly that, eventually, they may well get to the point of no return. We have lost so many major employers in that sector, going right back to Patton and so on, that you just despair sometimes. Yet, we have the major construction projects that people are talking about, such as the A5 and the A6, which have now been promised. I do not envy Mr Hazzard his job because he has to try to deal with the promises made by his predecessor, Miss McIlveen, in a storming run-up to the last election, when, I think, she promised to reconstruct every road in Northern Ireland, if that was worth anything.

We will see where that goes, but let us consider the A6 in particular. I forget who mentioned Dungiven — perhaps it was Mr McAleer — but try telling the people of Dungiven that we are about to provide them with a bypass, and they will look at you with the same cynical eye as they have done for the last 30 years. I can remember travelling up and down to Derry as a relatively young man in the 1970s, and people talked about a bypass for Dungiven then. That was in 1971, and here we are now, 45 years later, with still no date for it. There is no budget for it — where will the money come from? It is the same for the A5, although there is still the possibility of some help from the Southern Government.

In the Lisburn area, the famous Knockmore link is part of the infrastructure around Sprucefield that Mrs Palmer was talking about. It, too, has been promised, but promised for when? You could go on and on with this, but, in the meantime, our construction industry has been decimated.

People have talked about the Narrow Water bridge. There is an amazing number of views on it. I will make one point that has not been made: when the First Minister was Minister for tourism, she invested £7·5 million, I think, in the tourism industry in the Mournes. To do that and then to refuse to provide a link to other major tourist destinations in the area that happen to be on the wrong side of the border — Carlingford and Omeath — defies logic. At that time, it was going to cost the Assembly about £3 million, at an overall cost of £20-something million. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. Well, the DUP managed to do it.

I will talk about housing briefly. The loan arrangement to housing associations was much mentioned yesterday. That is very welcome. Where does the money come from? The European Investment Bank. Those who advocate Brexit — it is so topical that I cannot resist talking about it — really need to look at that. Mr Girvan thought that we could still draw on money from the European Investment Bank if we went for Brexit. I query that, and I will tell you why in a moment.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lunn: OK. [Laughter.]

Mr Allister: Is it not a fact that, currently, the European Investment Bank has £8 billion of loans outside the EU and something of the order of £60 billion inside? Is it not a patent nonsense to suggest that the EIB does not service debt outside the EU?

Mr Lunn: I will come to that in a second.

Back in the day, I can remember Dr Paisley — God rest him — advocating it as DUP policy that we should milk the European cow for as much as we could get until it ran dry. The comment was repeated by the present Speaker — not you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I have figures that indicate something different. Ten per cent of the EIB's annual lending is outside the EU, primarily focused on developing economies in neighbouring regions. That hardly includes us. Over the last eight years, the EIB has provided €43 billion for long-term investment in the UK and £1 billion to all the European Free Trade Association countries combined; that is Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein. There has been €43 billion for us in the last eight years and £1 billion for the countries that Mr Allister and his like think we will join when we are still inside the European party but outside the loop. He called my comment nonsense. I will repeat the word: his figures are complete nonsense, as so much of the Brexit argument has been.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lunn: No, I will not. [Laughter.]

I am tempted to keep it going and let him. Go on.

Mr Allister: If the Member had prepared his remarks a little better, he might have looked up the EIB website. If he had, he would have found a graphic illustrating the points that I made: £8 billion went outside the EU.

Mr Lunn: Maybe I will have a look at that. The figures that were given to me were completely different. It hardly makes —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. I take the opportunity to gently remind the House to come back to the Second Stage of the Budget Bill.

Mr Lunn: I apologise; I was sidetracked.

I will just say a few words about health. The health budget is half of what we spend. Our health service is clearly massively inefficient. That is not to say that it does not do great work; of course it does. Nurses, doctors, consultants — everybody involved in the health service — do their best to provide an excellent service for all our people. In a lot of ways, they are succeeding, but at what cost? I wonder when we will take the major decisions and pay attention to John Compton in 'Transforming Your Care', Sir Liam Donaldson's report and Professor Bengoa, in another report about to come before us. Is that going to lie on the same shelf as the other reports, or are we going to actually take action on it?

The Health Minister has a difficult job, but there are difficult decisions to be taken. I would make one comparison. If you look at the area of Strathclyde in Scotland, you see that it has about the same population as we have. It is rural plus urban. It has one major hospital. We have five in greater Belfast, and I include Lisburn. I do not say that you have to close them all, but there has to be a major rationalisation of the health service in this country or we will just continue to grapple with the unachievable and run out of money. That is not what any of us wants.

I am on the Justice Committee now. Let us talk about the Prison Service and the PSNI. Both have suffered major cuts. They are vital services. The Prison Service in this country is close to breaking point. Prison Service staff are close to breaking point. Everybody knows that. The level of absenteeism, stress-related problems and pressure that those people work under is intolerable. The service is still being starved of money through the Department of Justice, which itself has been starved of money for some years. We could say much the same about the PSNI. The demands on the PSNI budget are quite intolerable. Something will have to give. We could start talking about all the new demands that are coming along with Stakeknife and so on. It just cannot go on on that basis. We will see what the new Justice Minister can do to help you out, Minister, as you grapple with those problems. It is only a small matter, but I wait with interest to see whether she continues with the closure of courthouses across Northern Ireland. I absolutely think she should — including the one in Lisburn, before anybody asks. You have got to make savings where you can and try to square the circle.

I will finish with this: as I said yesterday, we need to work at eliminating duplication and waste — the waste caused by a divided society. I cannot stand here as an Alliance Member and not talk briefly about the costs of division in this country. We need to consider revenue-raising opportunities. I think the Minister and I agree about this. He sometimes nods his head but does not smile. I think perhaps there may be some scope there. We have got to take the major decisions. We have got to organise what we are doing here. We can borrow judiciously in a controlled way, but let us not pretend that borrowing is some sort of silver bullet and we can borrow our way out of problems: we cannot. Again, borrowing at highly competitive rates from the European Investment Bank is one way to move forward. I have to disagree with Mr Allister: the priority for that bank is obviously to lend money within Europe. The figures that have been given to me bear that out big time.

I will leave it at that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know I have done the rounds there, but there are questions for the Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. As there are still a number of Members to speak on the Second Stage of the Budget Bill, it would seem an appropriate time for a short break. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to have a 10-minute suspension. The sitting is, by leave, suspended until 5.40 pm, when the next speaker will be Steven Agnew.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order, Members. We resume the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Mr Agnew: We have to ask ourselves this: how does the Budget measure up against the promised outcomes and the new outcomes-based approach in the draft Programme for Government framework? How does what is effectively a 100%-cuts Budget lead to improvements in well-being? That is what we have. We are unique in these islands in that we put all the weight of austerity on cuts to public services. Despite the Minister's remarks earlier in concluding his speech on the June monitoring round, when he said that he would fight austerity at all levels, he comes to the House today asking us to pass legislation for an austerity Budget. I accept that the Minister is new to the post, and I welcome him to his new role. However, although the parties in government may have changed somewhat, the parties in power remain the same. This was always a DUP/Sinn Féin Budget, and those parties and their Ministers must take responsibility for it.

Whilst the Minister will rightly point to the impact of Tory cuts on our finances here in Northern Ireland — and he would receive my support in calling out the Tory Government — he cannot hide from the fact that the record of the last two successive Executives in Northern Ireland has been to use the limited powers we have to take money out of public services rather than to invest in them.

Mr O'Dowd earlier made a case for greater fiscal autonomy for Northern Ireland, and I am not opposed to that in principle, but look at the practice of those parties in power. What have they done when we have had tax-varying powers?

First we lobbied for air passenger duty. To do what? To cut it; to abolish it on long-haul flights, with an impact in terms of cuts to public services. Our greatest tool is the rates; they were frozen for a number of years, and then frozen in real terms, again resulting in cuts to public services and seeing a freeze on the taxation of property at the expense of investment in public services. The champion cause of the last Executive was the gaining of powers to vary corporation tax. Again, to do what? To cut them; to give a subsidy to large businesses at a cost of £200 million per year to our public services.

Now the DUP, and I recall a response to something I raised with Mrs Foster in particular, take pride and say, "We are proud that Northern Ireland is a low-tax economy". And that is OK — that is their politics — but in doing so they must take pride in the fact that Northern Ireland has the longest waiting lists in the whole of the UK. I wonder how that approach measures up to indicator five:

They must then take pride in the crisis within our education system, where school principals are struggling to provide teachers for all classes. Indeed, the additional pressures on resources of providing proper additional support for those with special educational needs is a consequence of our low-tax economy. Again, I question how that reconciles itself with indicator 13, "Improve the quality of education".

As a coalition partner, the Minister and Sinn Féin have to share in that pride and have to share in the blame. The maintenance of the cap on rates is effectively a rate relief for the wealthiest in our society.

Mr Stalford: I appreciate the Member's giving way. The Member will know that in constituencies like mine — and indeed in constituencies like his own, in places like Bangor West, Ballyholme etc — there are lots of elderly people, getting on in years, and whilst they may be asset-wealthy in that they own a home, they are not cash-wealthy. The rates cap exists to protect vulnerable pensioners who, without it — he knows this as well as I do — would be pushed below the waterline and forced to sell their homes. Does he not accept that, for those people, the rates cap is an instrument for good?

Mr Agnew: The Member may well be aware — and should be aware, making that point — that before the rates cap we did have a deferral system for rates payment for people in exactly that position. It was rarely used, which suggests that the numbers of people in the situation he describes are low. Even if we accept it, there are also those in my constituency who are asset-poor and cash-poor, and they are subsidising the rates of those in homes worth over £400,000.

We have the bizarre situation — the unjustifiable situation — in which those in million-pound mansions have their rates subsidised by those in modest housing, and those living in the Kilcooley estate in my constituency subsidise the rates of those who own estates in Cultra. We cannot maintain a rates cap at a time when finances are so tight and cuts to public services so severe.

As a revenue-raising measure, this would be a modest step, but it would at least be symbolic that, first, this is an Executive prepared to ask those who can afford to pay more to pay more —

Ms Mallon: I appreciate the Member giving way. I am sure that a significant proportion of your constituency work involves dealing with housing cases, as does mine. You referred to crises in hospital waiting lists and in our education system. All of us here have constituents, individuals and families, who are homeless, who are living in substandard accommodation, who are waiting for basic and significant repairs, and who have disabilities and are waiting and waiting and waiting for adaptations to afford them the basic dignity of having access to a shower. Those constituents, whom we are trying to help, and the 40,000 households on the waiting list will want to know what is in the Budget for them.

The Member referenced revenue-raising powers. Earlier, the Minister's statement on the June monitoring round said that the Executive were short on ideas when it came to the allocation of the remaining £17·2 million of financial transactions capital. The SDLP has two ideas that it would like to share with the Minister. The first is the empty homes scheme, which would enable housing associations to draw down funding to purchase vacant and repossessed properties; the second is enabling them to access that money to build. We look forward to hearing, as I am sure you will —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): I remind —

Ms Mallon: We would like to hear the Minister's views.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. I remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point.

Mr Agnew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for her intervention. I am in the position of not having a time limit on my speech, so I have no problems with her intervention. She raised a serious point.

I mentioned the health and education crises, and housing is also a huge issue. As somebody who used to work in the homeless sector, I am aware of that. I worked in a hostel in west Belfast, and I remember people — most were young women with children — waiting for at least two years for housing. Those were people on the priority list, so, if you were seen as non-urgent or a non-priority, you could effectively forget about it. It is an area that we need to invest in, and we need to look at measures such as financial transactions capital and other ways of being creative and getting money into the system.

As I said, the Budget is without any revenue-raising measures. We are unique on these islands in not seeking to at least mitigate the cuts by asking those who can afford to pay more to pay more. The other benefit of raising or lifting the cap on rates would be to make our rating system somewhat more progressive. It is a property tax and a tax on wealth, but the cap ensures that it is regressive and, as I pointed out, that those at the lower end subsidise those in wealthy areas. It would at least give us a platform from which we could look at possible further measures for raising revenue. It would make the system progressive and give us options that we could debate sensibly and maturely on how we could bring in extra finances to invest in public services.

The other tax-varying power, of course, is corporation tax, which has been negotiated by the DUP and Sinn Féin in particular. It amazes me that we were the one region that was not content with the level of cuts handed down to us by the Tories.

We went to the Chancellor, collectively. The old five-party Executive asked, in unison, "Please can we have some more? Can we have more cuts, Mr Osborne? Can you give us power so that we can further slash our budgets because, clearly, you have not gone far enough?".

We still have a health service and more can be done. This is where, if we are going to talk about A Fresh Start, I would like to see a fresh start from this new Executive. We cannot afford to take a further £200 million a year out of our public services. It is estimated that we need our economy to grow by a third to make up for the tax receipts lost through such a cut, but that is not the agenda. When I was a member of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, I raised this point — I am not sure whether the Minister was at that meeting — and the economic advisory group pointed out, and was very clear, that we are not seeking to recoup that money. This is a permanent shift from public to private. Effectively, the group was saying that this is a permanent cut in our public services. I come back to the draft Programme for Government framework and ask this question: how will a permanent cut in our public services improve well-being?

Earlier, Patsy McGlone chided the Minister somewhat for the apparent discontent within Sinn Féin at the policy, the apparent challenge from within that was undermining the policy. There should be discontent. What worries me more is that there is not discontent within the SDLP. Why are they so willing to support a policy that is going to see such a devastating cut to our public services?

The only cut we should be looking for is a cut in the waste in our system. I give, as an example, the recent EnergyWise consultation initiated by the Department for the Economy. That is looking at energy efficiency, something that I am very passionate about. On the surface, it is about cutting the wasted energy in houses by seeking to bring in income to invest in energy-efficiency schemes. The problem is that the EnergyWise scheme, if it goes ahead, will be added to the affordable warmth scheme, the boiler replacement scheme, winter fuel payments and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive energy-efficiency schemes, including the double glazing replacements. It is one of a plethora of piecemeal measures to tackle energy inefficiency in our society.

In the last mandate, we had an opportunity, another wasted opportunity, to seek to bring these things together under a one-stop shop under the green new deal. As somebody who gives advice to constituents who want to improve energy efficiency in their homes, I know that I have to ask them about their income, their tenancy, and I have to ask a plethora of questions to get to the bottom of which particular scheme they should be applying for. There is not a single number or a single operator for all these schemes. The one thing they have in common is that they are all publicly funded, but each Department has to do its own bit separately, and I question why that is. Given that it is all public money, why can it not be administered under one roof, saving money that could go into the scheme and into those households, rather than be wasted on systems, administrations and bureaucracy. Bring them together. If this is a fresh start, and we have this great new cooperative Government of two parties working in unison, let us bring our systems together, increase energy efficiency in our housing and increase the financial efficiency of those schemes.

Members will know of my interests around children's services and, in particular, early years provision. I make a similar plea regarding the budgets and investing in children's services. I was grateful to the last Assembly for passing the now Children's Services Co-operation Act. It calls for Departments to work collaboratively in delivering children's services.

At the request of the Minister's predecessor, an amendment was made to the Bill to give the Department of Finance the power to put in the guidance for Departments to pool budgets. Take special educational needs and some of the wrangles we have seen in previous years about who should pay for services. For example, if somebody needs help with a health condition in a school setting, is it the Department of Health or the Department of Education that pays for it? We then get the wrangling back and forth. I know of one case that took two years to resolve with the intervention of the Children's Law Centre and legal action having to be taken. They were fighting over which pot of public money the service would come out of, while a child waited for two years to have full opportunity to access education. We need to pool those budgets, we need to stop those wrangles and we need to govern as one. I hope that the new outcomes approach will lead to more of that type of working.

I appreciate that we are not yet debating a longer-term Budget, but in meeting the indicators, I ask that we look longer-term at investing in early years. All the evidence shows that doing so will help us to meet a number of indicators in a much more cost-efficient way but, more importantly, in a way that will have a much more beneficial impact on children and families who receive the supports.

The cost of maintaining our current education system was highlighted in the recent review on the cost of division. At the top end, it could be up to almost £100 million to maintain our segregated system — money that is being wasted in keeping our children apart, rather than educating them together. Stephen Farry highlighted the inefficiency of empty desks. There were opportunities to address that through area-based planning, had we taken an integrated approach. Instead, when we saw two schools in an area that were under capacity, rather than bringing them together as one school, we said, "Let's maintain two schools, perhaps in one building or even on two campuses, with some sharing of facilities".

I note that Professor Alan Smith from the UNESCO Centre at Ulster University estimated that the cost of a shared education system is greater than that of our current system. Previously, when I spoke on this, I sort of said that the one advantage shared education has is that it will reduce costs but it won't reduce divisions in our society. I am alarmed to hear that it might not even reduce costs.

We have the opportunity to move towards greater integration and children sharing not just classrooms but experiences. I think we should, in this mandate, make much more progress on that, from a financial point of view and also for societal benefit.

If we are serious about improving well-being, we must invest in our public services and we must invest in our children. I encourage the Minister to look at areas of waste, including those I highlighted, to consider ways of raising revenue for investment and always with a mind to doing so in a progressive manner, ensuring that those who can afford to pay more do so. We do not need a three-month consultation, Minister, to tell us that cutting public services will be detrimental to our well-being and contradict the approach outlined in the draft Programme for Government framework.

Mr Attwood: I apologise to the Minister and the House for being absent without leave during this long debate. I hope not to detain the House too long with my contribution — too long. [Laughter.]

I will start by acknowledging Mr Trevor Lunn. It is many a long day in the House — and you have been here a long time, Mr Kennedy — when a Member takes an intervention, not least from Mr Allister, and the only reply to his response is for Mr Allister to repeat his initial question. In that moment, you got an insight into the debate on Europe. Mr Allister put forward a proposition, and it was Mr Lunn who immediately and comprehensively rebutted that proposition. The only thing that somebody who will be voting to get out of Europe could do was to repeat the proposition that had been rebutted.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Little Pengelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: I will give way in a second. There are two in one; that is a good start. That was a very powerful —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. I listened rather intently to that Brexit debate; more intently than I thought I would. We are not debating Brexit at this stage. This is the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Mr Attwood: I will give way to the Member, then.

Mr Allister: We are not really meant to use graphics, but would the Member like to look at the website of the EIB and see the graphic that I quoted, which shows €8 billion of EIB expenditure outside the EU? Mr Lunn's point was that there is no expenditure outside the EU and that, if you leave the EU, you forfeit any right to claim any money from the EIB. Wrong. He was wrong then, and he is still wrong. The Member is now perpetuating that inaccuracy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. I exhort all Members to return to the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Mr Attwood, you have an additional half an hour. [Laughter.]

Mr Attwood: I will respond to that very promptly. Of course, that is not what Mr Lunn said. Hansard will have recorded the fact that Mr Lunn acknowledged that money was going to places outside the European Union. He made the point that it was developing countries —

Mr Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: — because that is part of the European project. If we have best practice and good learning in Europe, let us try to help those countries that are struggling as they emerge from whatever situations.

Mr Stalford: In the interests of accuracy, would the Member —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order.

Mr Attwood: I think that the Deputy Speaker is going to put me in my place very shortly if I do not move on. I tend to accept all interventions; that has been my practice. I am prepared to accept that one, but I think that I might be ruled out of order. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. I have to stress it this time — I am getting a little bit more worked up about this — that we need to return to the Budget (No. 2) Bill debate both in main contributions and interventions.

Mr Stalford: This does relate to the Budget (No. 2) Bill, in that it was said during a debate on it. What Mr Lunn actually referred to were developing countries and neighbouring regions. We are not a developing country but, after Brexit, we will be a neighbouring region.

Mr Attwood: We will be competing for a tiny bit of the EIB pie. If 90% goes to EU members and 10% is spread towards neighbouring and developing countries, you can imagine how much of that money we are going to get. In the very moment when the Ulster University is able to relocate — into a very ugly building, I have to say, and I have had that argument with the Ulster University — rightly, in a strategic move to rebuild the north side of the city of Belfast, where there are enormous opportunities — and I would love to have a conversation with the Minister in that regard — and is able to draw down hundreds of millions of pounds from Europe, and when housing associations are about to draw down hundreds of millions of pounds from Europe, we are saying, "Let us compete for a bit of the pie rather than all of the pie."

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order —

Mr Attwood: With that, I will move on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. I bring the Member back to his remarks on the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. I have been tolerant, and that tolerance is beginning to stretch.

Mr Attwood: I stand corrected.

Going back to Mr Agnew's point, he asked why the SDLP is not shifting ground — those were not the words he used — on corporation tax. Hansard will confirm, especially since the Stormont House Agreement, the repeated points of reference and warnings that we have put down in the Chamber. On at least three occasions, it was me who put them down. The reason I make that point is to go back to the Budget debate and the narrative around corporation tax and to ask the Minister a question.

Apparently, there has been some dispute between the DUP and Sinn Féin about whether a corporation tax deal has been signed off. The DUP's view is that there is a date and a rate and that therefore the matter is concluded, but the Minister's point is that there is still business to be done. As is the nature of the DUP and Sinn Féin, they are both right and both wrong. Let me put on record again what I have said in the Chamber, on three different occasions, about where we are in respect of corporation tax. There is a reason why they are both right and both wrong. The DUP is transparently wrong, because it is one of the custodians of the Stormont House Agreement, as is Sinn Féin, and the financial annex to the agreement — this is the point that the Minister might want to address because he is going to be the main man in the room with the Treasury in respect of all of this — states that the legislation, which has now been passed, will also include a commencement clause. So the DUP believes that there is a rate and date and that that has all been signed off, but London does not see it that way, because they say, and no doubt they wrote these words:

The section concludes:

Mrs Little Pengelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: I will give way in a second. I am not surprised that the Member is on her feet, because it is much more than date and rate: those who are most loyal and faithful to the Stormont House Agreement have to live with the consequences of those words. The consequences of those words, when it comes to the devolution of corporation tax, is that this Executive, a two-party-rule Executive, have to agree with London the terms beyond the date and rate, including reform measures. I will give way to the Member.

Mrs Little Pengelly: I find it incredible that the Member, once again, wants to do Northern Ireland down by trying to create absolutely unnecessary uncertainty in relation to the date and the rate. It is absolutely clear, and I refer the Member to many statements by the deputy First Minister on this matter, that the date and the rate are agreed. That is the proposition that Invest NI, the Department for the Economy and many others are putting out there to make Northern Ireland work, grow our economy and provide jobs for the many thousands of young people whom we want to stay here, work here and contribute to our economy. What is not agreed is the changing position of the UK-wide corporation tax rate. So the exact amount to be paid is dependant on that. Of course there are details that will be dependant on those external variables, but it is very clear that the date and rate have been agreed.

Mr Attwood: My observation on that remark, and everybody will have heard it, is that it was valiant but weak. Valiant but weak because I did not dispute that the date and rate are an issue any longer.

Did anyone in the Chamber hear me say anything about date and rate? I referred to the reform measures that Stormont House states explicitly have to be agreed with the British Government for them to activate their commencement power in respect of devolution. If you do not understand that, with all due respect to you through the Chair, it is a huge lack of understanding. That is what the DUP and Sinn Féin have loyally been signing up to since the Christmas of Stormont House.

What is the corroboration of that? Mr Agnew will recall — I have read this into the record on a number of occasions in the Chamber — the exchange between Mark Durkan MP and a senior Treasury official at the Committee that interrogated the legislation on the devolution of corporation tax. It should set alarm bells ringing for those who claim that the deal is done on corporation tax. Mr Durkan said:

Do you know what the Minister replied? He said:

He would not go beyond the wording of the Stormont House Agreement, which was, "You will agree to our reform measures if you want me to commence the power to devolve corporation tax". That is why the DUP is in a false place on that. It is clear that there is an enormous negotiation yet to do. That is why I encourage the Minister in those negotiations in that regard. However, this is where Sinn Féin is both right and wrong: what else does Stormont House say about the devolution of corporation tax? In the paragraph on corporation tax, it says:

It adds — this is the challenge for the Minister because he has, quite rightly, made it an issue of negotiation with the London Government — that the UK Government will look at direct and behavioural effects but:

The Minister said that, as part of his negotiation with the Treasury — I think that he indicated that he wrote to the Treasury in this regard — he wanted second-round effects on other taxes to be part of the negotiation. The London Government have said explicitly in Stormont House, which the DUP and Sinn Féin say that they are loyal to, that second-round effects on other taxes are not part of the negotiation. I hope that the Minister is successful in making that part of the negotiation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. I encourage the Member to return to the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Mr Attwood: I have a good —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. The Bill addresses the resources for the year ending 31 March 2017. Not included in that are corporation tax or Brexit.

Mr Attwood: I will conclude those remarks now, but corporation tax was weaved in and out by Mr Lunn most recently. The Minister is negotiating on something that London have said explicitly in Stormont House that they will not negotiate on, and the DUP and Sinn Féin have both said that they are loyal to Stormont House. Sinn Féin is not loyal to Stormont House when it comes to that issue. Explain that, Minister.

I will move on to deal with childcare. I read the Minister's reply to the debate yesterday on the Supply resolution. The one thing that he did not reply to, or certainly not in any detail, was the contention that we put to the Minister that, in this financial year — it therefore very much touches on the Budget that we are discussing — if it were the case that the Minister of Education came forward with a proposition to increase childcare for three- and four-year-olds to 20 hours a week, costing about £15 million according to the Minister of Education, would the Minister of Finance be inclined to support it? I think that those figures are right because we have had them confirmed to us.

I ask that question because, in the debate last week on the motion on childcare, which was passed unanimously by the House, the Education Minister said that the Barnett consequentials from the London Government's commitment to roll out extra childcare support, starting in September 2017, had come across to the Northern Ireland Budget line. He added, subject to what the Minister of Finance says and what Hansard records, that they had come across in an "unhypothecated" way, which is the practice. The Barnett consequentials do not come across ring-fenced.

My question therefore to the Finance Minister is this: have there been Barnett consequentials from the proposed uplift from London as a result of the delivery of increased childcare provision for three- and four-year-olds in England? Have the Barnett consequentials come across? I would be a wee bit surprised if they have done in advance of the money being allocated in London, because that scheme does not start until September 2017. However, I would like to know whether they have come across. If they have come across, what was the amount of money? If an amount of money has come across, what is it being spent on, if it is not being spent on childcare?

I return to my question to the Minister of Finance. If the Minister of Education comes forward with a proposition in this financial year to increase free childcare provision for three- and four-year-olds to 20 hours a week, will he be able to find that money, just as he has, in a welcome way, been able to find some money for in-year pressures for school budgets? We need to have an answer because there seems to be some tension between money that seems to have come across, subject to what the Minister might say, and the fact that it does not seem to have been spent on childcare. I think that is a fair question in the week that is in it, when the Assembly unanimously passed a motion that stated that, whatever about the how, why and when, it wanted to see more money spent on childcare within the life of this year's Budget.

I ask the Minister a second question, arising from the adjusted Budget that we now have for this year. The Budget has been adjusted, as of today, for this year, with the additional provision going to schools. I might be corrected on this as well, because I only got wind of it in the corridors, but we picked up this afternoon that the Minister of Education might not be giving a briefing to the Education Committee tomorrow on what June monitoring might mean for our schools budget. The Minister talked about new moneys going to our schools, and that is very welcome, but the definition of what it will be spent on is, as we speak, somewhat unclear.

If it is the case that the Committee may not be briefed tomorrow about what might have happened today, can the Finance Minister brief the Assembly about the uplift in the Education budget that now impacts on the overall Budget for the year and, in particular, on whether those moneys are going to be allocated to help schools with the in-year pressures that they have around employers' contributions, National Insurance and cost-of-living increases? I ask the question to make a general point. The Minister will be aware that — again, I am subject to correction — the reason why the pressure has, in one argument, come in-year for our schools is that the Treasury is now saying that any adjustments in employers' contributions, National Insurance and cost-of-living increases have to be paid by Departments.

If that is a pressure in the school system, which it clearly is, will further pressures now arise in respect of every other head of spend by Departments when it comes to salaries and wages? Are we facing a replay of what has happened in our schools across the life of our public sector and Civil Service in the North? I would like to hear what the Minister has to say today, or, if he is not in a position to answer those questions today, afterwards. We need to create certainty on whether something is coming from London or has come already — we saw it in the Department of Education budget line — that we will see in the hospital budget line, the public-sector budget line and across a whole lot of other budget lines that touch on salaries and wages. Should we anticipate that?

That was one of the reasons why I asked the question yesterday — the Minister responded to it — about the potential of the Minister being required, under Fresh Start legislation, to come to the House with a statement, at the insistence of the London Government, on any budgetary changes that might arise for whatever reasons. My sense is that bad news is coming and that it is coming independently of what happens on Thursday week in respect of the European budget.

The Minister's statement today — it adjusted the overall budget line for the year — made new allocations to welfare mitigation and the giving of advice. I welcome those, but I have to say to the Minister that he really is misguided if he holds to the argument, in respect of all that and the budget lines that have now been created, that he made yesterday in the Chamber. Talking about where money should be spent and where to find new money, he said about putting more into welfare mitigation and where it should come from:

It is as if the SDLP had not been making an argument about all of that for the last couple of years. It was not Sinn Féin and the DUP that tabled amendments in the Chamber that tried to put into law some of the things that the Minister has put into practice through today's Budget allocations and further to the Budget for 2016-17. Today, the Minister allocated moneys to the advice sector that will change the Department for Communities baseline in this year's Budget — rightly so. However, would it not have been a position of greater strength to take the advice of the advice sector, which wanted to put into law a right to independent advice on welfare? The experience of so many in London, Birmingham and Edinburgh — across Britain — is that, because they have not had a right to independent advice, they have gone into a reformed welfare system with inequality of arms. All the resources and powers are in the hands of DWP and not in the hands of the individual claimant. Would it not have been a stronger position to put all of that into law as an independent right to statutory advice on welfare?

When the Minister says that this is the missing element — putting more into welfare mitigation but not saying where it should come from — it is a false argument, because the SDLP put forward reams of proposals in the Chamber through legislation and in negotiations on welfare. In the Fresh Start negotiations, we put in a 14-page document on welfare mitigation — 14 pages — that I shared with the DUP and Sinn Féin. I gave it to Minister Storey, who then shared it with the DUP and Sinn Féin. We have yet to see any document from that time about what the DUP and Sinn Féin were proposing, not just on welfare but on anything.

The SDLP put in 13 documents, in real time, in response to the real situation in the negotiations across the issues in 'A Fresh Start', and we shared some of those documents with the other parties. The Alliance Party shared documents with us, but the DUP and Sinn Féin did not share documents with anybody until they published 'A Fresh Start' half an hour before the Executive meeting at which we were asked to endorse it. I am not taking any lectures from any Minister about the good authority of the SDLP when it comes to these issues, including proposals on welfare mitigation. If they had listened to us when we proposed those in law in January and February of last year, the welfare situation would be in a position of strength. If you look at Eileen Evason's proposals, you can see not just the SDLP's thinking but that of other parties; you can see the streams of thinking through those proposals from those who gave advice in that matter, and that included the SDLP. I could go on and on in relation to all those matters.

It is welcome that the Minister has provided additional money for the independent advice sector today that will change the budget line over the course of the year. However, where are we in respect of the second element of Eileen Evason's recommendations around financial capability, namely the need to address food poverty in Northern Ireland? The Minister and the Department for Communities seem to have taken forward some of the work in respect of independent advice — I welcome that, even though there is no statutory right to independent advice — but I would like to hear whether anything further is coming in respect of food poverty.

In that regard, I refer the Minister to appendix 5 of Eileen Evason's proposals, where she has two pages of documentation about what interventions on food poverty might look like, including a spend of £50,000 this year, rising to £675,000 in year 4, with 11 sites facilitating distribution to those who are food-poor. While we would not want it to be like that, that is the reality of life for growing numbers of our citizens and communities. There was a budget line in that regard, Minister: £50,000 in year 1, £350,000 in year 2, £575,000 in year 3 and £675,000 in year 4, totalling £1·65 million. I acknowledge what is now happening in respect of the independent advice sector, but I would like to hear more from the Minister. He is probably waiting to do that, and I acknowledge that this is probably going to be in his reply. He would probably like to hear more from the Department for Communities, and, hopefully, progress will be made in that regard in the next monitoring round, if not earlier.

There are two further issues that I wish to deal with. One is the issue of welfare reform in general, which is now emblazoned, if you like, across the Budget (No.2) Bill because of the financial interventions to deal with the punitive actions of London. I want to put to the Minister again today what he did not seem to respond to yesterday, which is the consequences of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, which has now received Royal Assent and is the legislation that governs the social security aspects of welfare reform and work in this part of the world. I would remind the Minister that, on a certain date in November last year, he voted for the legislative consent motion (LCM). He voted with his colleagues in the DUP for the LCM that transferred and surrendered welfare powers from this place to London. Those who negotiated the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland Act 1998 made a point and a virtue of trying to maximise the devolution of powers at that time.

One of the ways of doing that was to have, unlike Wales and Scotland, devolution of welfare and social security legislation. That was abandoned in the course of an afternoon.

The point I want to make to the Minister is this: as he concluded his statement last night, he said that he was opposed to austerity. I put it to the Minister yesterday, and I put it to him again today: is austerity not reducing the benefit cap to £20,000 for people in Northern Ireland? That is what Sinn Féin and the DUP signed up to in the legislation. Is austerity not a freeze on social security benefits and tax credit amounts for four years? That is what the DUP and Sinn Féin signed up to in November last year. Is austerity not the London Government changing support for mortgage interest into a loan, which then becomes a charge on the property of the people who take the loan? Is that not austerity the same as all the other measures — the social security measures — that are now part of the social security regime in this part of Ireland? When the Minister rightly rages against austerity, will he confirm that all those interventions are austerity and that the DUP and Sinn Féin signed up to it?

Will the Minister comment on what I thought was a brazen remark from the Minister for Communities in his first Question Time? When he was asked, "Was there any mitigation of any of the social security measures that are now part of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016?", he said, "No, there is not". All these measures are now part of the experience of our citizens in Northern Ireland: freezes on welfare for four years; the ability of London to unilaterally change the benefit cap when the Chancellor thinks national economic circumstances — whatever that means — merit it; and all the rest, including the most punitive proposals on ESA. That is austerity in capital letters. Do not let anyone pretend otherwise. Let everybody in Northern Ireland know it, for all the welcome mitigation, which is more than for any part of Britain, as we acknowledge. The authors of the proposals are many and multiple. I acknowledge all those people, not least Eileen Evason and her team, and the advice and other organisations that informed her thinking. Let us not pretend, however, that we are all raging against austerity and not actually doing austerity, even to the point of handing over powers to an austerity Government to impose their austerity on people who suffer the burdens of austerity. A little honesty about that might be a bit helpful and move things on.

I want to conclude. Mr Lunn was not in earlier. I will not go back over it, but I acknowledge the very skilful and understated way he spoke. That is his nature: all his speeches are understated, but they are all very telling and forensic in their political points, and we saw the evidence of that a short while ago.

One of the Minister's most curious and inviting remarks — I hope the Committee or parties have the opportunity to explore this further with the Minister — was "What are we going to do about housing finance?". There was some reference to that — I have it in my notes somewhere, but I will not find it now, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister made a point yesterday about the Alliance Party, and I could make some comments about the Alliance Party and about the ups and downs and toing and froing that you have had over the last six months on Budget votes. You abstain; you vote for; you vote against; then you stop money going to Supply resolution. It is a right muddle, but I am not even going to indulge in that. To borrow a phrase from Ms Bradshaw yesterday, it is mystifying, but we will move on from that.

The point I want to make to the Minister is this: we have the papers to prove where we have tried to put forward discerning and crafted interventions to the Programme for Government or on welfare or whatever it might be. The issue of housing is really one of the great challenges of this mandate. I think that the Minister, to be fair to him, is beginning to think laterally and imaginatively in that regard. Whilst I ask him to confirm that he endorses austerity, I confirm that he seems to be endorsing a lateral approach to housing. In that regard, we got the money from the European Investment Bank to allow Choice and Apex to build 4,700 houses, but the need is for about 12,000 houses over the next five years. I think that the Minister will be very aware of that. We need to get back to the levels that were being built when, to be fair to us, Margaret Ritchie and I were housing Ministers. Mr McCartney is giggling, but these are the facts: in recent years, the budget line for housing is down to 1,500 or less. In those four years, the budget line for housing was 2,000 or more. In the year that I was housing Minister, there were 2,300 new-build starts. Those are facts; you cannot really dispute them.

Mr McCartney: Where did you get the money from?

Mr Attwood: The point was that we negotiated hard for the money. We did it in a context where we were reducing discreetly the grant aid that was going to the housing associations so that they had to rely on some of their own resources. The investment bank is a very welcome thing, not just for the university or housing but for other opportunities going forward. I think that the Minister is thinking about where else he can go in that regard. That is why any imaginative thinking that might come out of DOF in that regard will have the rug pulled from under its feet by what might happen on 23 June.

These are my questions, because there might be a bit more of a crafted approach. Will there be the match funding to enable Choice and Apex to build those 4,700 houses? The European money is predicated on the fact that there will be match funding or at least substantial grant aid. I think that the grant aid might have gone up in the last couple of years. Will there be that funding? That is a strategic decision. That is an outcomes-based approach to housing in the Programme for Government that has to be front and centre in the Budget and PFG when they come back here later this year. How then will we move beyond 4,700 to 11,700? That is what we will have to do. This goes back to real-time issues in the Budget.

If you speak to the housing associations and bodies, they will tell you that they are scrambling for land and that a lot of the new build now is on small sites, whereas they need to scale up and have big sites. Yet it is my understanding that the work that the Strategic Investment Board was doing on an audit of public land in the North, which has been going on for three or four years, has been passed back to the Department of Finance to take forward. The Minister might want to confirm what is now happening in the Department of Finance in regard to a land audit to identify where there can be social and affordable housing, not land for private developers, even though Choice and Apex may do some private development themselves. Where will they get the land? They might have the money from the European Investment Bank and they might get match funding from government, but they cannot build unless they have the land. I do not know what happened to the work that the SIB was meant to be doing, but it has now gone back to the Finance Department. Maybe something is about to mature, and land release could happen. We would like to hear that. In that regard, I ask the Minister —

Mr Agnew: Will the Member give way —

Mr Attwood: Yes.

Mr Agnew: — just in case he is moving on from his point on housing. He is a former Minister, and I remember asking his predecessor Margaret Ritchie — if I have got the order right — about the developer's contribution back at the time. Does he remember that, and is he aware of any progress on that issue?

Mr Attwood: This sums up the last Government. When I was in the Department for Social Development, I argued for a developer contribution, and the planning Minister blocked it. Then, when I was planning Minister, I argued for a developer contribution, and the housing Minister blocked it. You can join up the dots in that regard.

We made the argument and, on both occasions, a DUP Minister, but in different Ministries, blocked it. We need to go back to that.

There are other initiatives as well. That is why the Minister's comment on housing and housing funding — I think that there was a reference to the Housing Executive — was either just a warm phrase or the words were pregnant with something. Maybe he could explain, not today but some time.

I remember when I was housing Minister, I would come to the House and make statements on housing issues. When a lot of stuff was happening around the Housing Executive — it was not good stuff — that did not take away one iota from the huge contribution of that body over the last 50 years. When there was bad stuff going on in the Housing Executive, I came and gave a statement to the House in that regard. When I was housing Minister, I had a fundamental review to try to protect the legacy and future of the Housing Executive while recognising that it was time for radical reform, including the terms for the separation of housing from other functions. However, that work got derailed by DUP Ministers who were trying to play politics with the Housing Executive rather than deal with the housing crisis in the North.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. I ask the Member to return to the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. Biographical detail, interesting though it is, is not at this stage an important feature of the debate.

Mr Attwood: You are right. The Minister might want to touch on that. He may not want to explore it in great detail — well, he might — but it is an area where, in protecting the legacy of the Housing Executive, its integrity and its future, you can do things, and it will be useful to consider that.

I want to conclude, if I could, with a comment in respect of the Budget and the PFG and the shallow narrative that is about the place and was referred to yesterday by somebody in relation to our approach to the PFG. We opposed 'A Fresh Start'. We voted against 'A Fresh Start', and this goes back to comments made by Mr Lyttle, Ms Bradshaw and Dr Farry yesterday. This will be my concluding remark. Were we not wise to endorse the good in Stormont House and try to rework the bad? As I said in my opening remarks, look at the sword that London has hanging over this place in respect of corporation tax: "You will do it on our terms or you might not do it at all". Watch that one.

We opposed Stormont House where it needed to be opposed and supported it where it needed to be supported, and we voted against 'A Fresh Start'. Then there were discussions around the Programme for Government where we sent people in with a watching brief, and the document that came out said that there was no political endorsement. Meanwhile — this is the point that the Alliance Party needs to face up to — we were telling organisation after organisation to get their proposals in not just to the parties and Ministers but to the officials in OFMDFM who were responsible for the PFG. If you go and check, you will find that quite a number of organisations put on record with officials and elsewhere in OFMDFM — now the Executive Office — proposals in respect of the PFG negotiation. We believe that the PFG negotiation which informed this Budget — I will finish now —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): I remind the Member that this is not the PFG; this is the Budget.

Mr Attwood: I will conclude now. That was meant to be a proper 14-day negotiation. This is my final remark. The one thing that surprises me about the Alliance Party is that even it thought the PFG negotiation was meant to be more than it was. Why would you put in your proposals to beef up the PFG framework if you did not think that that negotiation was meant to be something more than what we ended up with, which was the DUP and Sinn Féin telling all the other parties, "It is government on our terms. Take it or leave it". Were we not right not to take it?

Mr E McCann: I will deal with a couple of preliminary matters. I do not have as much to say as Mr Attwood. Let me put it another way: I will not speak for as long as Mr Attwood.

What slightly puzzles me about all of this is that, of course, all the proposals in and components of the Budget slot into the Programme for Government; otherwise, they would have no meaning at all. I am worried about the way in which we are going to measure these things. I am worried about this new scheme called — what is it again? —"outcome-based", which is very popular these days in certain circles. It really is the thing among those who want to be fashionable about the way in which they approach these matters. The idea is that you define what the outcome will be, and then you have things for measuring how you approach it.

We are told that there is experimental evidence that it works and makes things better. Over and over again, we have been told that some states in the United States have adopted it, as well as Scotland and Finland. What I have not heard and what I would like to hear is some reference to specific items of policy that they can say have been better realised than they would have been under any other system. I do not believe that they can do that. If they could do it, we would have heard it. What measures? In which states in the United States? What has improved in Scotland? What difference has it made to austerity in Scotland or even to the ameliorating measures in Scotland? Tell us that, and then you will have made a case for it. I think that it is dodgy.

Let me give you an example of how this might work, and then I will show you how this is a practical example. Let us imagine that the desired outcome is that everybody deemed to be in need of or entitled to visits from home care workers in the North should get them. That is a terrific outcome to desire. How would you measure it? Here is a way of measuring it: you calculate the number of people receiving care in that way, and then you look at the number last year and see whether it has improved. It sounds simple, does it not? It sounds obvious. It is anything but.

Imagine a scenario in which thousands of people in receipt of a 30-minute visit every day — not a lot, is it? — are told one fine day, "Sorry, things are tight and budgets are down, so you are now getting 15 minutes a day". You could, through that exercise, say, "We can do twice as many people at 15 minutes than we can do at 30 minutes". If the measurement is the number of people in receipt of that care and those services, you can produce a figure that says that we are doing twice as well now as we did beforehand, but you are doing exactly the same. Could that happen? I think that it could, and one of the reasons that I think that is that it is happening now. Care packages and care visits are being cut back at the same time as we are being told that the statistics will show us that things are as fine as ever they were. One of the reasons that I bring that up, and this is to do more directly with the Budget and not just the way in which the Programme for Government is framed —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. I gently remind the Member that this is not a debate on the Programme for Government but a debate on the Budget. I ask him to remember that.

Mr E McCann: OK. One matter that, I am sure you will agree, falls within the Budget is the funding. There are references here to the funding of various aspects of our life — our social, economic and political life. The whole idea of the reduction in corporation tax is relevant to what we are talking about here, because it is relevant to the amount of money that is calculated or forecast to be available for fulfilling all the functions of government. Of course that is relevant, but it is also nonsense. It has been talked about around here, and it is accepted that it will boost the private sector and that our Budget situation will be easier because we will have a booming private sector, tax receipts and all the rest of it. In fact, what will happen here, which will have a devastating effect on budgets — I am talking about the Budget — is that shedloads of money will be shovelled into the coffers of major multinational companies. That money will not then be available for the day-to-day spending that ordinary people need, whatever that is: £200 million or £300 million.

At the same time, note the reference in the Budget to the money that will be necessary to pay off people in the public sector. We are borrowing money to destroy jobs at the same time as we talk about boosting employment and getting proper jobs. The effect is that, while we talk about job creation, we are indulging in job destruction. We have people being paid off.

Incidentally, the philosophy behind that is, "Private sector good; public sector bad". The public sector is all these staid, fuddy-duddy, superannuated, feather-bedded people producing nothing while the private sector is slim and dynamic and roaring forward. What a load of old nonsense. Look around the world at the private sector and the market system: the public sector is a model of efficiency compared to the private sector. That is our big problem when we talk about job creation and about how the Budget will relate to creating jobs. The reason that we talk about this is that the private sector has failed Northern Ireland. It is the private sector that has not provided jobs, so the state has to move in and subsidise it, and, while subsidising the private sector, we take jobs away from the public sector.

Loads of people in Derry, for example, and in Newry, west Belfast and north Belfast — I do not want to be accused of concentrating only on Derry, but that is the place I know, so that is the one that I will talk about. Half my time in the last couple of months has been spent talking to public-sector workers and their unions about the threat to jobs and the number of people living under acute anxiety because they do not know what will happen in the future. Will the offer be, "You can have a transfer to Belfast or take redundancy."? I am talking about reality here and about people who gathered last night so that I could talk to them and try, as best I could, to advise them. None of that will be dealt with in the Budget outlined here. In fact, the Budget will make all these things worse.

We could raise more money locally; there is no question about it. I want to deal with whether we should lift the cap on rates. Somebody pointed out — I forget who it was — and it is commonly pointed out that this will catch people who are asset-rich but cash-poor. There are a lot of people in that situation, mainly older people who have houses that are now worth loads of money. Here is one way of handling it: link the rates to ability to pay and to wealth. There is no question that that can be done. That will deal with the question of somebody who is 70 or 80 years old and living in a house that is suddenly worth £1·5 million but they only have a pension. Link the two together. Why is that never suggested? I will tell you why it is never suggested: because that would hit people in the upper echelons of the earning range and we do not do that, do we? We live in a society in the North in which the kingpins of casino capitalism are pursued and bowed down to all the time while we say, "Here is more money. How much profit are you making? How much corporation tax do you think you will have to pay?". It is OK saying that we will alleviate it. They are the people who are feather-bedded. Casino capitalism is feather-bedded in the North and elsewhere. The richer you are, the softer the bed you get to lie on in this society. I think that the Minister may well agree with some of the things that I am saying, but he is constrained by the system that he is operating —

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Can I stop you mid flow and ask you to take a point?

Mr E McCann: Absolutely.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: My mother still fixes my collar at the back, but I do not know if that is a collar that you are leaving up deliberately, Eamonn. The person who you heard speaking about lifting the rates cap may have been my good self, because we have been speaking to the Committee about it. There are those perils in it, and it is not our intention to catch people who are cash-poor but asset-rich. I agree with you entirely — it may be the only time tonight — that there is work for all of us to do in trying to raise extra money. I think that Steven Agnew said this earlier: the people at the bottom should not be subsidising the people at the top. We have work to do on that. We cannot do it overnight, but I think that we can do it in the next 12 months. Apologies for interrupting.

Mr E McCann: There is no need to apologise. I welcome that, and, if we can move towards a situation —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Order. I remind Ministers as well as Members that all remarks should be made through the Chair.

Mr E McCann: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will bring my remarks to a close.

I welcome what the Minister just said. I hope that, if I have to make a contribution to that discussion — I would welcome the opportunity — the outcome-based result will be a system that raises more money for local spending and one that gets and harvests that money in a fair way that does not bear down disproportionately on poor people.

Ideology is hardly ever discussed in politics, but it is relevant to the Budget, to all spending and to all tax-raising powers. It used to be that we had two ideologies: one was orange, one was green and "never the twain shall meet." Now, perhaps, we have two ideologies: one is to do with a socialist ideology — you can have that in as broad terms as you like — and the other is to do with a capitalist ideology that is based on the interests of the system and the market, and letting the market rip through every aspect of our daily lives and all the rest of it.

Sometimes, the old ideologies in this part of the world led to constitutional crises, did they not? People ran around saying, " We have to avoid this crisis" or, after the crisis developed, " We have to solve this crisis". How about this for a constitutional crisis? Run it up to the wire. When they talk about imposing austerity, and the Treasury says, "There is not another penny", stand up to them and say, "Go to hell. We are not accepting that". We do that on all sorts of other things. We did it on policing. We did it on decommissioning. We did it on loads of things. We said, "We do not care what the British Government says. Do your worst — we are not budging".

Would it not be wonderful to have a constitutional crisis in Northern Ireland that had nothing to do with an orange versus green dynamic but had to do with being anti-austerity and the rights and interests of the people at the bottom in society. I tell you what, if that happened and there was a constitutional crisis because of the refusal of the Executive to implement austerity, among the other outcomes would be this: it would electrify millions of people across the water in Scotland, in Wales and in England — in the industrial heartlands of England — that we had taken on that fight.

We can give a lead; we have done it before. People in Ireland, and in the North of Ireland, can give a lead and light a beacon for others to follow in the fight against austerity instead of — Alex Attwood is right about this — introducing and implementing an austerity Budget in ways that we cannot precisely measure but which we know will disproportionately affect, and affect badly, the people least able to take the hit that is coming their way. Thanks very much.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): Thank you, Mr McCann. I am advised that, apparently, you can tell the Government to go to hell, but you cannot tell other Members to go to that place, which is interesting.

Mr E McCann: Say that again.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Kennedy): No. You can read it in Hansard.

Mr Allister: The debate was at risk of becoming predictable and a little boring, and then Mr McCann spoke. I am sure that it was a timely reminder to Sinn Féin of their oft-forgotten socialist credentials. I do not know whether it was a reminder to the Minister — I am not sure just how much he ever espoused the socialist credentials — but I am sure that it was a reminder to the Back Benches of the socialist credentials that they once espoused, or seemed to, before they joined, or became, the establishment. It was, not least from that point of view, an interesting intervention.

There was another interesting intervention when we were debating these financial matters this time last year. That intervention came from the current Finance Minister, who was then, I suppose, a mere Back-Bencher. Uninhibited by the burden of office, he was able to speak freely, and he declared to the House:

Ms Ní Chuilín: Hear, hear. [Laughter.]

Mr Allister: What a difference a year makes, because that is precisely what the Finance Minister is doing today. He is carrying the water of austerity through this House. He does not want to face that or admit to that, but the very Bill that we are discussing tells us that. If you pick up this Bill, and pick up last year's Bill, which became the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, and compare them, you will soon discover just how much water of austerity is oozing from this Bill.

Clause 1(1) sets out the figure for the Consolidated Fund. It tells us it is just shy of £8 billion. What was it last year in the Act that was passed? It was £350 million more, so this Bill cuts, courtesy of this Sinn Féin Minister, £350 million out of the Consolidated Fund. If you then go to schedule 2 to the Bill and look what it does in respect of resources, the amounts of resources authorised for use and amounts of accruing resources that may be used in the year ending 31 March 2017, it tells us that the cumulative figure is £8,693,000,000. What was it last year? It was £9,004,000,000 — another cut, this time of £311 million.

So, the Minister deceives himself and, perhaps, hopes that others will likewise be deceived with this pretence that he is not here to carry water for English Ministers and is here to fight, not implement, austerity. It is patently obvious that this legislation is doing the very thing that he avows not to do. He tries to kick up a whole storm of dust to try to cover the fact that this is exactly what he does, so he finds nice, flowery, effective language about fighting austerity, finding resources elsewhere and making sure that no one loses out, but he still brings a Bill to this House that has cuts in it of £600 million.

So, away with this nonsense that this Sinn Féin Minister is not in the business of cuts. Of course he is. The Bill speaks loud and clear to that.

I said that a year had made a big difference. Also, it has made a big difference for the DUP. Indeed, two months has made a big difference, because for years we were told that you could not trust Sinn Féin with the Finance portfolio. Indeed, two months ago, Arlene Foster was telling us of the great divergence between her vision and the vision of her partner Martin McGuinness and how he would take us in the wrong direction. Now, of course, when the election is safely over and the gullible for whom that sort of language was designed have swallowed it, it is back to business.

Mr Agnew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: Yes.

Mr Agnew: I am sure the Member will recall as well the statement from the then Finance Minister that she had to remain in post while other Ministers vacated theirs for fear of "rogue Ministers" taking over. Does the Member interpret that as a suggestion that, in the First Minister's view, we now have a "rogue Minister" in place for the next five years?

Mr Allister: That was the statement of convenience at the moment it was required, but it is quite clear that all this talk saying, "We can't trust Sinn Féin with the Finance Department" has evaporated as the price of office.

Mrs Little Pengelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: Ah — indeed.

Mrs Little Pengelly: This is just a short intervention simply to clarify this: are the Member and Mr Agnew aware that the Budget (No. 2) Bill has been agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive, which DUP Ministers are members of? This is not something being proposed by the Minister; it is being proposed by the Executive.

Mr Allister: That did not bring much light, because that is pretty obvious. The point is that that which was unacceptable, anathema and beyond the pale is now, as the price of the joint office, more than acceptable. Suddenly, those for whom gatekeepers were required and who could not be trusted can now be bestowed with that wonderful office of looking after the purse strings. Of course, all the past rhetoric from the DUP Benches has been closed down, except that someone forgot to tell Mr Wells.

Mr Wells made two pretty catastrophic mistakes in the rule book of nua DUP today. He forgot to show due deference to his dear leader because he forgot that she ever was Finance Minister, never mind that she was so important that she was the gatekeeper. He then forgot that you are not meant any longer to attack Sinn Féin and that you are meant to cover up for them and excuse them — "We are all in this together". As Mrs Pengelly says, "It is our Budget too." Gone are the days of Sammy Wilson when he used to —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to return the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Mr Allister: Yes. Many's a time in the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill did we hear Mr Sammy Wilson talk about the economic illiteracy of Sinn Féin. [Laughter.]

Many's a time.

We are in this wonderful place tonight, where to cloak the reality of what he is doing, the Finance Minister draws on this mantra of attacking austerity, while all the time he is carrying the water of austerity. Those who used to think he and his colleagues unfit now sing dumb when it comes to criticism on all these matters. Yet, there are some things that are irrepressible.

The flagship economic policy of this Executive is the reduction in corporation tax. Mr Attwood very effectively set out the dichotomy between the approaches of the two parties. One embraces the language that says, "Date, rate, set, deal done, job done, it's over," and one, in the words of the Minister yesterday, asks itself rhetorically:

Conor Murphy said:

It is pretty clear, despite all the sticking plasters, that that key flagship policy is fraying at the edges, pulled in one way by one partner and interpreted and pulled in the other way by the other partner. Indeed, there is nothing but absolute confusion reigning as to whether there is a memorandum of understanding. The Minister told the Committee last week that there was not, then his official said, "Well, there is a sort of one, but it's not really one." So whether there is or there is not is a bit of a mystery.

What are the mechanics for working out the ups and downs of corporation tax? As Mr Attwood pointed out, the Stormont House Agreement has some things to say about the British Government's position, and they are reiterated in the Fresh Start Agreement. At paragraph 6.2, the UK Government make it clear that, even when it comes to the ex-post review of the costs of the devolution of corporation tax, four years after the implementation of a devolved rate, which, on present reckoning, will be about 2022 if it does not move yet again:

The very sort of topic that the Minister would have us believe is not settled is settled. It is settled in the Fresh Start Agreement that he signed up to, in which the British Government could not be clearer that, even in the review in four years' time, second-round effects are out of consideration. So there needs to be a lot more clarity and honesty with the watching public as to the position on corporation tax. We have a First Minister and a deputy First Minister jetting round the world and selling corporation tax as if it were a done deal, yet back here we have the Finance Minister telling us, "Not at all. No done deal. Negotiations haven't even started on the affordability issue." As several of the Sinn Féin Back-Benchers have pointed out, only if it is demonstrably affordable will it ever happen.

Who is fooling whom on this central flagship policy? Of course, we have heard nothing from the DUP on this subject because it does not want to rock the boat. The Minister has been given a bit of a leash to talk as he talks. Eventually, some day, perhaps the issue will have to be faced.

There are other interesting issues that we have heard very little about. Mr Philip Smith made reference to them in the early parts of this debate. Fresh Start sets up an independent fiscal council. Will the Minister tell us whether its terms of reference, which have to be agreed with the Treasury, have been agreed? Are there any appointments to the independent fiscal council? Will he expound its relationship with the Office for Budget Responsibility and HM Treasury? Who has the veto on the terms of reference of the independent fiscal council? What, under its terms of reference, is it going to do?

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to return to the debate on the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Debate about future spending plans beyond the current financial year is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr Allister: Of course, Fresh Start did not tell us when the independent fiscal council was going to be set up. I am enquiring whether it has been set up. If it has, it would govern the Bill. Fresh Start simply says:

Under the cycle of this Budget, will there be prepared by the independent fiscal council a report on the sustainability of the Executive's public finances? Will that part of Fresh Start be implemented up to and including April 2017, or when is that going to kick in? We are entitled to know when that is going to happen.

Could the Minister also shed light —

Mr Stalford: I am very grateful to the Member for giving way. I want to return him to the issue of corporation tax. Does he recall issuing a press statement on 13 December 2005 — it is available on the archive of jimallister.org — in which he said:

Mr Allister: I do. The critical point that the Member made no reference to was that that predated the Azores judgement, which changed everything as far as corporation tax is concerned. It introduced the imperative that you must deduct from the block grant that which is lost in corporation tax. It was an entirely different animal at an entirely different time. However, in this debate, although it is a matter of record that I think that it is folly in these circumstances to go for fiscal distinction from the rest of the United Kingdom, I have not discussed the merits of corporation tax. I accept that it is a flagship policy of the Executive, and I have been asking questions around that.

Returning to the independent fiscal council for Northern Ireland, has it been set up? When is it going to be set up? Are its terms of reference agreed? Is it going to do a report on the sustainability of public finances? All of those are informed by issues in this Budget debate. The point that I was getting to before I was taken back to corporation tax was that Fresh Start says:

Can the Minister tell us where the discussions about that are? Are they impacting on this Bill? Will legislation yet to be passed by the UK Government impact on the spending plans articulated in the Bill? If not, when is the expectation that that will happen?

I turn to the subject of borrowing. Mr Wells very effectively dealt with the issue and raised the alarm as to the folly of simply thinking that we can spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow, with no thought for tomorrow or for whoever has to pay it back. The starting point in reality is that every penny borrowed has to be paid back, and out of our DEL. Therefore, the interest charges diminish that which we have available to us.

The Minister seems to be so attracted to this random, cavalier attitude to borrowing. The very first utterance that one can discern he made publicly after becoming Minister was that he was in the business of wanting to stretch the flexibilities on borrowing. Who is he going to borrow from? The arrangements are quite clear. You can borrow only from the National Loans Fund, and that then increases the national debt. There is no other mechanism open to this Executive to borrow. Is that what he wants to do? He already has an inflated ceiling for borrowing of £3 billion. Is he wanting to increase that, and, if so, to how much? I think that we are entitled to know from a Minister who is bringing a Budget what his borrowing ambitions are. If he has a borrowing ceiling of £3 billion, and he thinks that that is not enough, are we not entitled to know what he thinks will be enough? Of course, we are already the most borrowed part of the United Kingdom. This small Administration have borrowings of £2·1 billion, yet we have a Minister at the helm who wants to borrow more.

We really have a lot of doublethink here. We have a Minister who brings a Budget Bill with £600 million of cuts in it, which include some self-imposed cuts — the approximate £100 million this year that has been shaved off the block grant to pay for welfare mitigations. It is not all Westminster's fault in that sense. Then, as it were, to cover the cuts, he talks blandly about borrowing. Borrowing what from whom when? I think that this House is entitled to know. Then, when the steam runs out of borrowing, he will say that we need more fiscal powers.

The Minister, as I understand him, is a great enthusiast for the Belfast Agreement. That agreement is implemented by the 1998 Act, and schedule 2 to that Act is very clear that taxation is an excepted matter. It is beyond the reach, happily, of the Minister. Only in special-permission circumstances can an Executive raise any taxes. It is in the financial guidance that the Department operates under that the presumption is that any taxes raised go to the Treasury. How the Minister thinks that he is going to unstitch the very clear, established constitutional devolution arrangements on taxation is really beyond me. Instead of a lot of the flannel and pretence, we really need some straight answers to all those things.

I will finish on a point that I first raised at the beginning of today's business: the procedures used in respect of this. In my naivety, I always assumed that monitoring rounds, which change the opening balance, as it were, on the books, could occur only after the opening balance had been established, and the tradition was that it was established by the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Once you had established the opening position, you could then legitimately change that through the monitoring round. Before we ever established the opening position, the House was told — not asked to agree; the House was told — that the opening position was being changed by the monitoring round. I really am surprised that departmental officials, who seemed to have, for years, followed the precedent that you pass the Budget (No. 2) Bill, establish the opening figures and then move to your monitoring announcements, gave advice — if they gave advice — that, in fact, you could reverse that order. That does surprise me. I am also somewhat surprised that the Business Office thought that that was an appropriate way to go.

The overriding message of that, from the fact that a Committee is due to meet tomorrow to get a briefing on what will happen in the monitoring round when it has already happened, is the contempt shown for the processes of the House. Therefore, I think that it starts off the whole budgetary arrangement on very much the wrong foot, in terms of any transparency and cooperation with the House, that we are told, in the arrogant words and manner in which we were told, that this, effectively, is joined-up government at work. "Whether you like it or not, this is how it is going to be. We will not even tell you what the bids were, because who are you? You are only MLAs, and why would you need to know that? We know, and that is enough." That, Mr Speaker, is not good enough.

Mr Carroll: I am sure that you are aware that there are many figures in the Budget Bill, and figures are important. One of the key facets of modern-day politics — or, rather, one of the chief deficiencies of modern-day politics — is that politicians and Governments tend to use figures to bamboozle people, to distract them and to deflect, through statistical noise, the real agenda. I have to say, and I do not say this lightly, that one thing that I have learned in my short time in the Assembly is that there are lies, damned lies, and Executive figures. I say that because behind every one of these figures are the lives of people and the lifeblood of our communities; behind every one of these figures are people's jobs and the services that people need and rely on, day in, day out. So when we look past the statistical noise in the Bill, we have to ask ourselves this: what effect will these figures have on the lives of ordinary, everyday people?

Take, for example, today's announcement that there will be a reallocation of £30 million to Education, £5 million of which is due to go to special educational needs. If this was indeed extra money — if it was indeed an extra £30 million — it would be welcome. Of course, however, we know that the previous Minister of Education said that, in 2016-17, there would be a £72 million cut in the Education budget. So, the truth is that there is not £30 million extra in this Budget; there is £42 million less for Education. I repeat the point that there has been a cut of £42 million in Education.

Mr Agnew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will, yes.

Mr Agnew: I am sure that it will be of interest to the Member that the £30 million in question was itself raided from welfare mitigation measures during the last Assembly mandate.

Mr Carroll: Absolutely, and I thank the Member for his point.

Every day, I am contacted by distressed parents who have nowhere to go and are worried about their children's education. It is a disgrace and a travesty to those affected by it, and it is a shame on the House for allowing it to continue. Given the way that these figures have been presented, can we really say that we are being honest with parents, honest with teachers and honest with classroom assistants about the scale of the cuts that are coming?

The Minister of Finance, in his opening speech today, asked — without any manners, mind you — whether those of us who sit in this section of the Chamber could hear him. He should apologise for that comment and withdraw it. We can hear loud and clear, Minister. Given that you can hear, Minister, we ask you this question: can you and the Executive be honest with those in the education sector and in the community and voluntary sector? Can you say that these figures mean that cuts and more cuts will be bestowed upon on them and that the Assembly has failed them? Will he ask the Executive whether they will be honest and tell the people who elected them that these figures mean that they will face more austerity and more cuts?

Let us set aside the figures for now. I want to ask the Minister whether he will commit to being honest about the cuts that are coming. Will he and the Executive at least have the decency to warn those on the receiving end of the cuts how deep they will go? The very least that he can do for those who pay our wages and the wages of the Executive is to be honest with them. Tell the teachers, tell the classroom assistants and tell the workers about the cuts that are on the way and how deep they will be.

If the Executive are really prepared to stop austerity, they should be honest to those who are on the receiving end of it. They should be honest and say that the Executive have failed to stop austerity. Give those people a chance to organise against them and prepare to fight back. Give them a chance to do what the Executive have failed to do: stop austerity.

Mr Robinson: As an elected DUP Member for East Londonderry, I support Second Stage. I appreciate that, from Department to Department, it is not perfect because of Budget constraints, but we must all remember that, in 2010, the Tory Government took £4 billion from the Northern Ireland block grant, which left a massive hole in our finances. Successive Finance Ministers have been left with the fairly onerous task of trying to plug the financial gap.

Hopefully, the monitoring round will go some way towards helping Departments, including the Education Department and the Department for Infrastructure, which deals with roads, with the upkeep of vital services. From a health point of view, the Health Minister needs to look urgently at out-of-hours provision in my constituency. A service that should be available until 11.00 pm each night closes, on occasions, at 8.00 pm or 9.00 pm, leaving the Limavady area without GP cover. I would like to think that the long-awaited A6 road project, encompassing a bypass around Dungiven and the much-needed Greystone Road junction roundabout in Limavady, where quite a few road accidents have taken place, will be built.

I was amazed to hear Mr Harold McKee, the Ulster Unionist, criticise the Executive's decision to relocate the DARD headquarters to Ballykelly in my East Londonderry constituency. I remind Mr McKee and the Ulster Unionist Party that this site was gifted by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to the Stormont Executive and that the move will create hundreds of much-needed jobs. In line with the Bain report, these jobs will be created in an area of the Province's north-west that has lost hundreds of jobs, including those from Daintifyt, Desmond's, Seagate and the army camp itself. The relocation is coupled with the sale of the remainder of the site, where, hopefully, hundreds of essential and much-needed jobs will be created.

Without sounding too critical of a unionist, fellow MLA and his party, if an Ulster Unionist MLA had been recently elected in East Londonderry, I wonder whether the UUP would be making the same comments regarding the relocation of the Agriculture Department's headquarters. Or have they now forgotten about the north-west economy? I certainly am glad that my DUP colleagues and I supported the potential creation of much-needed jobs in the north-west.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I want to start by apologising to Eamonn McCann. I made a remark earlier that was wrong. I said that he could not hear or did not hear; but he was not here yesterday, so I will repeat what I said, which was that I do not believe that any of us, Government or opposition parties, accept the Westminster Government's claim that we are all in this together. He may have heard me talk about the "togetherness" of the Executive. That is, as they say in Irish, Ní neart go cur le chéile — there is unity in strength or together we have strength. However, there was a reference to Mr Cameron yesterday.

It may be appropriate to start at the end, because I know that Mr McCann has a long journey home — maybe he has started it — as has Mr Allister. Let us start at the end, and then, if we have time, we can catch up with all our other colleagues, many of whom made their maiden speech.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le gach duine a labhair le linn na díospóireachta inniu. Tá sé riachtanach tuairimí agus tiomantais gach Comhalta a chluinstin. My message for both our colleagues from People Before Profit is that the figures are important. I started the day — it seems a long time ago now — by announcing £175 million extra for front-line services, for tourism, the economy and further education. What we have to do, and this is my message to everyone in the House who is against austerity — I was being generous there, as I am not sure that everyone is — is mobilise, stand firm and be very cognisant that we have not stopped the juggernaut from London. The austerity ideologues in London have not been stopped in their tracks. We do know this, however: when we united with one voice, we managed to halt the progress of the juggernaut.

I am very conscious, again, of what the Anglican bishops of England said, which was that austerity is unacceptable because it places the greatest burdens of the recovery on those with the narrowest shoulders. Let us hold firm to that. I am not terribly given to ideology. I was accused today of being a Marxist-Leninist, amongst other things, but I am in favour of social justice, and if that is an ideology, then I pin my colours to that particular mast. That is what I stand for. The money that we made available today —

Mr E McCann: Will the Minister take an intervention?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I will.

Mr E McCann: I just want to reassure the Minister that there are people on the opposition side of the House who would not accuse him of Marxism. [Laughter.]

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I am happy to leave that appellation to others.

We believe that we need to stand against austerity because we have roots and a connection with those who come to us every day in our constituencies, who meet us in the streets, who we canvassed at election time. They are getting it hard and realise that it is tough out there, that there is too much unemployment and that, while the figures are improving, they are not improving fast enough. They know that, while we have made significant investments, the pace of change has not been radical enough.

We stand, for example, with the parents of children who are waiting to be tested for autism. We stand with those who are on hospital waiting lists. We stand with those in working-class communities, like Tiger's Bay, New Lodge, Ardoyne or Ballymurphy, right across Belfast and in the Creggan in Derry, who are trying to change their lives and want government support to do that. I say to everyone that we have a choice to make here. We can come to make statements or to support deeds. Today, we had deeds; in this Budget we have deeds.

I thank the Members, Chairs and Deputy Chairs who have contributed to the debate. It is wonderful, as Finance Minister, to hear so many views.

It is also not only illuminating but inspiring that you can start a debate about borrowing. Some people say, "We should sit on our hands. There is nothing we can do. Wrap up and go home". I have started a debate about borrowing, and all the different factors have been brought in. Some are in favour and some have innovative ideas, but everyone is saying, "Let us try and match the scale of the ambition of our people". As I said yesterday, the NI Science Park has a £100 million plan on the table. Of course, that includes the North West Regional Science Park, which unites Derry and Letterkenny. What are we to say to them about that £100 million plan? "It is nothing to do with us. We are sitting on our hands. Go somewhere else"? That certainly is not my concept. My concept is that we work with all our partners who are trying to build this community and create jobs and we find ways. We have the genius, imagination and innovation to find ways to grow the funding pie. That is the challenge. Other ideas were put forward today that we need to explore in the time ahead.

I thank the Committee for allowing us to move swiftly with the Budget today. I thank the Committee Chair for her comments at the start of the debate, which was a long time ago. She has promised not only to be constructive but to scrutinise the activities of the Finance Minister. I look forward to that.

Philip Smith, who responded to my opening remarks, made a number of points, some he also made yesterday and some that, I think, were carried on from the debate on the June monitoring round. It is my conviction that, whatever about the ideology of the Ulster Unionist Party and its views on austerity, I will leave it to the Ulster Unionist Party to say whether it is against austerity. We will not go into the history of that argument again now —

Mr Lyons: Go on.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: No, we will not, because Christopher will ask to make a point and interrupt me.

What I will say is that you are questioning the commitment of the government parties to put funding where it is needed to make sure that our front-line services not only survive but thrive and that our young people have access to university. Let us go through some of the numbers under 'A Fresh Start'. I know that Mr Carroll has some concerns about numbers, but they are important because they change lives. Under 'A Fresh Start', we set aside £32 million for security funding to be allocated to the Department of Justice to relieve pressures there; £10 million for tackling paramilitary activity, which Mr Agnew brought up; £25 million for fraud and error to the Department for Communities; £75 million to the Department for Communities for mitigating measures of which we are very proud; and £60 million set aside for tax credits. That is why we received that back, Mr Agnew; it was not rated. Mrs Evason has given us that back.

Mr Smith also suggested that we reclassify the NIHE to allow it to borrow. Mrs Palmer brought that up as well. There will be hurdles to clear, but if you, like me, believe that we have to be imaginative in how we grow the funding pie, you will find me an ally in that work. Last week, I thought you did not want any borrowing: "There is nothing we can do, so let us sit on our hands". This week, you are suggesting that maybe we should look at that and that now maybe we should allow the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to borrow and build, which I introduced yesterday. Certainly, I am up for that if the Housing Executive is. It has played a key role here over 50 — almost 60 — years.

Let us look at what the Minister for Communities comes forward with. It is an interesting post to be the Minister of Finance, but I am not the Minister for Health, Communities, the Economy and AERA as well. For answers to many of the questions that were brought up, you need to go to those Ministers. Mr Attwood, for example, brought up the education budget and what was going into childcare. That is an issue for Peter Weir; I am not going to micromanage his budget. What I am saying is that today I got him extra financial firepower — I know that that is a term that Mr Allister particularly likes — for his budget, and I hope he will make positive changes with that money.

This is one of the great conundrums. The Alliance Party is in favour of closing a number of things — Mrs Armstrong suggests that we close down most of the flagship projects, but we will get to that — but the Ulster Unionist Party will not tell us how it will move even one line in the Budget. I think it was Mr Nesbitt who said yesterday that there were 323 or 338 pages. Surely in there somewhere is an item of expenditure in the Budget that you disagree with and can say, "We want to take that out and put this in". If that is your view, that is opposition; that is an alternative. In fact, all we received today was, "You should do this", "You should do that", "There is a problem with this" and "There is a problem with that".

You know, doing problems is relatively easy; it is doing the solutions. The Alliance Party proposed some solutions today. I am not saying that I agree with them; in fact, I disagree with the flagship projects being closed down. Mr Smith said, "We challenged the Executive over their administration costs", but of course the Civil Service and my Department have just led the largest ever restructuring through voluntary redundancy. People have left with a good package and with dignity. That has led to a 17% decrease in staff in my Department. The VES is delivering savings to our pay bill. You say that you want to see money going into services: this is how we make it happen.

Mr McCann mentioned the pressures on working-class people. The magic for me is that we need to get more money into the north-west. We have reduced 12 Departments to nine. I do not think that anyone can argue that you need as many staff for nine Departments as you need for 12. If some people go with dignity and a good package and we take that money and put it into the Free Derry Museum, the Siege Museum in Derry or additional cross-border activity that creates jobs, I do not think that any of us can argue against that. When Mr Smith points out that he thinks the administration cost is still too high, he needs to understand a little more about the pain that has been taken.

Can we do more as a people to be more effective and efficient? I am sure we can. What I will say to Mr Smith is this: "You have made a number of points today. My door is open." — I have said this to many Members about visiting their constituency — "Bring forward proposals that can deliver change". That is particularly important in respect of the health service. Everyone is united that they welcome the additional money today that brought it up to £200 million extra this year. Everyone is also united in saying that money is not the only solution or the solution, so we need to back the Bengoa plan. If Mr Smith has proposals around health or wants to give his support for the Bengoa report, I look forward to seeing that in the time ahead. As I said, we need to depoliticise the health issue if we are going to make real progress.

Mr Smith and Mr Allister mentioned the fiscal council. The terms of reference for the operation of the fiscal council have been agreed. A process is now under way, and it will conclude in the next few weeks.

Mr Farry talked about skills, apprenticeships and the apprenticeship levy. I, too, am opposed very much to the fact that London came in over your head to impose that apprenticeship levy. It is much better when our Ministers have control over these matters, rather than letting London conduct a raid on our economy. While he focused on skills, he also mentioned health. What he said yesterday was "Would it not be wonderful if we did not need a billion?". You are right: it would be wonderful if we did not need a billion. That would really take cooperation on health unprecedented in these islands, but we travel in hope. Perhaps, we will see that. He and the Alliance Party are not afraid to talk about raising the rate. They are opposed, as I understand it, to the rates cap, as are some of our other colleagues tonight. There has to be discussion around those issues, but as for Stranmillis College and St Mary's University College — those two wonderful beacons of education in the city of Belfast with their store of knowledge and erudition — those we will defend in the time ahead.

As we have a more mature discussion around the regional rate, there are points to be made. We have raised it in line with inflation. I am not in favour of it being raised by more than that, but that is what we call a mature discussion about how we can grow the funding pie in the time ahead.

Some people say that it is not new money when you honour a commitment, but, if you go to the pub tonight and someone says, "I am going to give you £50 next week", you do not have it until next week, and, if they give you it next week, you are doing well. That is what happened. The Minister was not in the pub with the former Minister for the Economy, but he made a commitment. The Minister of Finance said, "We will try and find that extra money for skills", and we found it today. Be under no illusions: it was found today. It is money that could have gone to other services and other matters.

Dr Farry: We have spent it already.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: It is not spent just yet, but there are plans to spend it.

My colleague Patsy McGlone may have hit the high road home by this stage. Tá sé anseo go fóill. Níl sé ag gabháil a thacú leis an Bhúiséad. Tá suim ar leith aige i gcúram páistí agus a bheith ag cuidiú leo, agus sílim gurb é sin an rún atá againn uilig. Labhair sé ar Brexit. Mar Aire, tá cosc orm labhairt ar Brexit, ach sílim go bhfuil muid ar an leathanach chéadna.

As a Minister, I say to Patsy McGlone that I think we are on the same page on Brexit, but I will not comment on Brexit while I have my ministerial hat on. He referred, as many Members did, to corporation tax. Let us remember why we are in favour of reducing corporation tax: to create thousands of jobs and, in particular, to get a step change in areas that, since the 1920s, have never enjoyed full employment or a strong economy. It is our view that, if we can have the same rate of tax as pertains in the South of Ireland, where the Green Party, of course, backed a 12·5% corporation tax rate, we can see a transformation and an uplift in the number of jobs created. Those jobs are our only interest. It is our intention to have many corporations and companies here of all sizes, which will then increase the tax take, because it is not just about foreign direct investment.

This morning, I wrote to Mr Osborne. I think that I still have the good wishes of everyone here in the negotiations ahead. Some people are indicating that I should throw in the towel and accept whatever is on the table. I have never been in a negotiation like that. A negotiation involves going in and asserting your case. You put your best case, which you will argue for and gather and garner support for. If people speak with one voice, I will be able to say that everyone in the House believes that I should fight for the best deal. That is certainly a card to play, and I believe that that is the case. I am confident — I heard Mr Lunn earlier saying, "Don't despair" — that we will make that deal. We have the rate and date set, and we will, in 2018, introduce a corporation tax that it is achievable and affordable. Wish me well in those negotiations. Remember, however, that our great friends in Scotland settled the income tax negotiation only about a month before the election was called — actually, they were in the throes of the election — so we cannot expect an announcement immediately. We hope that, once the negotiation is concluded, we will move to the commencement clause and move forward positively.

Ms Hanna has a wonderful statement out about Marlene. I had not seen it; I thought that only young people said that, but, of course, you are much younger than me. Under the heading, "Hanna: Monitoring round sees funding bonanza for Marlene", it states:

Let us take —

Ms Hanna: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I will give way before I finish, but let me finish my point.

Let us take a breath here. Let us make sure, if we are going to go out all guns blazing attacking a £175 million monitoring round, that we get our facts right. That is the way to do business. We are not going to agree. There is an Opposition, and there are government parties.

The supposed discrepancy between the two sets of figures is, in fact, not a discrepancy at all. The figures that Ms Hanna refers to were the resources available to the Executive and the amount allocated. If Ms Hanna had read to the end of the statement or listened to my comments, she would have realised that the supposed discrepancy was in the level of overcommitment that the Executive had agreed was prudent. The £24·9 million she referred to, made up of a £13·5 million resource DEL and an £11·4 million capital DEL allocation, is clearly stated on page 10 of the statement. There is a further point — I know that this is a sore point because I have had to defend the Executive Office several times here — that Ms Hanna makes about how I am providing £27·2 million to the Executive — in fact, it is £26·2 million, but that is irrelevant. This is not funding for the Executive Office; it is to get money into communities. This is going out the door from the Executive, and it is going on things like Delivering Social Change and a shared future. In fact, today, you insisted that I read through the whole list of where the money is going. I give way.

Ms Hanna: I thank the Member for giving way. You will see from Hansard and from our website that, 20 minutes after we were given the figures, I asked for clarity on the difference between the figures.

If it was so simple, perhaps you could have responded to me at the time when I asked for clarity. You did not. You clearly found the discrepancy on your lunch break.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to make all her comments through the Chair.

Ms Hanna: Certainly. I asked for clarity because it underlines the point that this Government are doing their business behind closed doors. You bypassed us on the paramilitary report and you bypassed us on this, and, if you give people 20 minutes' notice to peruse 37 pages of figures, we are entitled to ask for some clarity.

Regarding the second figure, you will see that it was correct in the tweet at £27·2 million. With SIF, nobody is criticising the fact that money is going to social change; we are criticising the fact that it is a slush fund for invited guests only and that it is not open, on an equal footing, to all organisations. [Interruption.]

You say that money is getting out; it was not getting out for four years until the month before the election.

Mr Speaker: The Member asked for an intervention. The Member is not entitled to make a speech during an intervention.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: That is a fairly generous giving way. Maybe we will get through this speech and all get home. There is an old saying, "When you are in a hole, stop digging". I suggest that, when we read out statements, if anybody here does not understand something, come up to the office and we will sort it out that day. If you cannot get it sorted out that day, issue the press statement, but do not rush to the laptop; it is always a mistake.

Mr Stalford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is now, I think, the fourth time since I have been elected to the Chamber that a fellow Member for the Belfast South constituency has effectively questioned the character of the social investment fund. When she uses words like "slush fund", does she realise that she is maligning the character of the groups that were the beneficiaries of it? She is saying that community groups in her own constituency were the beneficiaries of a slush fund.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to address all his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Stalford: She should withdraw that remark and apologise.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: We will perhaps have one point per person, and everyone may go home happy. John O'Dowd mentioned the apprenticeship levy. This is the only point that you are getting, Mr O'Dowd. It is clear to all of us that what is raised in the apprenticeship levy must be returned in full to our local economy, and I will make that point as strongly as possible to our counterparts in London. It was part of the austerity agenda, in my view, when they came over the head of Stephen Farry to impose and lift the apprenticeship levy.

Mr Beattie was critical of the Budget, but, again, there were no alternatives. He had real concerns about justice and about the expenditure on justice. I will not micro-manage Claire Sugden's budget. What would you do differently, Mr Beattie? That is the question, and that is what we need to find out in the time ahead. You might say, "Here is the Budget. We would take £100 million out of education and put it into health or we would take £100 out of tourism and put it wherever". We need to see those alternatives. Mr Beattie pledged his opposition to Tory austerity, but then, I think, hedged that one. I go back to the point that the people behind the austerity agenda here did not even get 10,000 votes across 18 constituencies. Let us remember that they have no representatives in the House, and I hope that they have no proxy representatives either. Mr Beattie also highlighted the paramilitary panel. That work is being taken forward, and, of course, we provided £10 million for it.

I move on to my dear friend Jim Wells. I have been spending the last week telling everyone not to call me "Minister" but to call me "Máirtín"; I am telling Jim to call me "Minister", not "Máirtín". [Laughter.]

He makes points about the streamlined and efficient manner in which we introduce June monitoring. We will have that discussion in the time ahead. We wanted to get work done and wanted to put our best foot forward. We did that today. Committees and Committee Chairs should feel free to have the discussion about how we manage this streamlined, efficient, fast-moving Executive. It is incumbent upon us to do that. I have no fear of that. If Mr Wells wants to lead that charge, he is welcome to. No one ever suggested borrowing to serve our overruns and costs. We have started a debate about how we may grow the funding, and part of that, of course, will be borrowing. I will leave Mr Wells, even though he made more points than that.

Mr McAleer is very concerned about the amount of money placed into the roads infrastructure, as was Mr Kennedy earlier. Those from rural constituencies are particularly concerned about that, as is Mrs Palmer. The Member welcomed the investment that the Budget Bill represents for the roads infrastructure, particularly with a commitment, as you would expect with Mr McAleer, to the A5 and A6 roads. He raised concerns about the standard of road maintenance, as did some of our colleagues in the DUP. I agree it is crucial that we invest in maintaining our roads infrastructure, and I am aware of the concerns, particularly for people in rural areas. The opening position for capital investment in structural maintenance in 2016-17 is some £26 million of capital, and the additional £20 million that I announced this morning will allow the Infrastructure Minister to allocate further investment in structural maintenance as well as other road projects. I saw someone involved in construction commenting on the monitoring round with a brevity that we would envy. He put a "thumbs up" and a "full marks" in emojis, as I believe you call them, and I think that sums up our commitment to roads.

Mr Girvan asked about innovative ways — can we do something different? He has a landlocked site that would provide housing for hundred of people in his constituency. I am keen to be innovative as well. Why would we not put people to work on a project if all it requires is a new way of thinking? You have asked what can be done in the time ahead. Can we form partnerships? I am a fan of what Belfast City Council has done. It has made a partnership with McAleer and Rushe to take over the old 'Belfast Telegraph' building and create a dynamic, vibrant cultural quarter in a part of the city that has been underserved in recent years. Let us talk about doing things differently in the short time ahead.

Mrs Barton had real concerns about education. Mr Weir had the great, good fortune not to be here at all — oh, he is here now. He had the great good fortune not to be here for the whole debate, but Mrs Barton's comments are very pertinent and relevant. I hope, Minister Weir, you will address those concerns in the time ahead. She has said that all is not rosy in the garden, and I think we all accept that. There are real pressures, and I know you will welcome the extra money today, but much more needs to be done. Mrs Barton mentioned special educational needs, and, from our conversations, I think that is a priority for you as well.

The Chair of the AERA Committee, Linda Dillon, expressed concerns about how she can ensure that rural communities and farmers get the investment they need and are not left to the side. That is our commitment as well. I know a new Minister is in post, but it is my commitment, as Finance Minister, to provide DAERA with the money it needs to make a real difference. Mrs Dillon mentioned broadband — it came up several times — and it is an issue. We are telling people that we have 100% coverage. Sadly, in many rural areas, that is a myth.

I want to congratulate Richie McPhillips on his maiden speech. He rightly said that the west has not had its fair share. It is my intention, as Finance Minister, to do everything I can to ensure it is treated in an equitable fashion. Last Friday I deliberately went to Enniskillen because I want to make it clear that being west of the Bann is important to me. We need to make sure that the opportunities in every area are seized and that everyone shares in the peace dividend. He makes strong points about the cuts we have had to make in many areas of society due to the cuts from London. We need to find out in the time ahead whether we can do better. I am happy to do more for Fermanagh and South Tyrone in the time ahead. It would not be appropriate to say anything more about that in a maiden speech.

Mrs Armstrong made one of the most exciting contributions of the day. It was, I believe, her maiden speech as well, and from the wonderful, beautiful constituency of Strangford, she asked for more investment in front-line services. To give her her due, she knows where to get the money. She is not going to build Casement Park, because Windsor and Ravenhill are already built. She is not going to build the women and children's hospital. She is not going to build the A5 or the A6, and she wants to stop the Belfast rapid transit. That is fair enough, because Strangford is a long way from the A5 and the A6. That is an alternative. I would be very keen to take those ideas on board, but maybe we can temper some of them, and certainly I do not consider the women and children's hospital to be a shiny new project.

Mr McElduff: Will the Minister give way briefly?

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Yes.

Mr McElduff: Minister, is it any wonder that the Alliance Party is not doing particularly well west of the Bann in Tyrone or Fermanagh? [Laughter.]

Mr Ó Muilleoir: I will not comment on that.

Let us be clear: the seven flagship projects are affordable, and they are very important to us. Before and during the election, people asked us for delivery. We have identified seven projects, which are ambitious. They are not, in my view, just photo opportunities. They will change lives, and they are crucial investments in infrastructure. The Strangford ferry is due to be completed this summer, and I have been watching the conundrum of the Portaferry aquarium over many years. I am committed to making sure that we deliver the flagship projects. It will not be easy. They are bold and ambitious targets, but we are doing well and will continue to do well in the time ahead.

Mrs Armstrong brought up a quick point about community organisations and contracts. I also find that unacceptable. We need to make sure that we prevent that happening. People should not have to wait until the eleventh hour to have contracts of employment renewed.

I thank Mrs Palmer for her service over many years to the community. She is an exemplary public servant. She also had some ideas or some boats that will not, I am afraid, be floating. In particular, I am a fan of the Narrow Water bridge. I know that it is a long way from Lisburn, but I think that it will unlock the potential of Warrenpoint, Carlingford, Omeath and Newry, so I support it. On traffic issues, the one area that we can agree on is the need to make progress on the Lagan canal. Whatever about the A5, which you want to stop, and whatever about the traffic going past Sprucefield, which Mr Kennedy may have been able to help with in a previous life, we can make common cause on the Ulster canal, and certainly on the Lagan canal with its 27 miles and 28 locks or 28 miles and 27 locks. I am delighted that Belfast City Council is to spend the first money on the canal system for probably 30 years, when it replaces the Stranmillis weir. I am not sure about stopping the A5 — even for you, Mrs Palmer — but I think that we can work on many other issues. I intend to visit Narrow Water, and we might change your mind. You are very welcome to join me on that visit.

Gerry Mullan, from the great and beautiful constituency of East Derry, made strong points about investment and trying to create an infrastructure and an ecosystem that encourage investment. He talked about the enterprise zone, and I would like to find out more about that. Its cheerleader was our dear friend Gregory Campbell, who has moved on to a greater reward in the House of Commons. We need to see what the benefits of the enterprise zone are, if any, because Mr Mullan is right: it comes from London rather than from this House. I know that Mr Mullan had concerns about the A6 and the A5, but I am convinced that we will deliver both projects.

Trevor Lunn said that there was no money for the A6. We will deliver the A6. The Executive's Budget for 2016-17 allocated £258 million from 2016-17 to 2020-21 to improve that corridor. That will enable construction of the A6 Randalstown to Castledawson scheme to commence this autumn, and I know that that will be very welcome to some of my colleagues who come in from Dungiven and the west in the morning. I think that the Member expressed some concern about whether we could make all of the capital investment. I do not know whether he said "I despair" or "I don't despair". I think that he said, "don't despair", and we will go with that. Rather than despairing about our ambitious capital investment, we will deliver it. I look forward to hearing more from the Alliance Party on what its alternatives will look like in the time ahead, whether they be water charges, increases in tuition fees, prescription charges, rates increases or whatever else.

Fra McCann asked that we prioritise funding for social housing, and Nichola Mallon made that point as well. Fra McCann is a legend when it comes to defending social housing and arguing for more housing, and the point has been made in the House over recent days that housing is an absolute priority for us all.

I congratulate Harold McKee from South Down, who made a number of wide-ranging comments. They were wide-ranging, but there were no suggestions or concrete proposals for what he would do differently. That is fair enough; it is early days. I hope that the UUP, perhaps before the summer break, will come up with an alternative Budget for the time ahead.

Mr McKee said that he is a Christian and:

I am not a person of faith, but I have great admiration for Christians, so I preach the gospel of social justice when I can. The people whom I admire most are those who preach the gospel without using words, and I look forward to working very positively with Mr McKee in the time ahead.

Steven Agnew from North Down was heard from again, but it was the wrong debate. This is not the Programme for Government Budget debate; that will come later in the autumn and I look forward to locking horns with you on that one.

My colleague, Ms Nichola Mallon, proposed that we get financial transactions capital and use it to make empty homes habitable again. She challenged me to take that idea on board. We need that sort of creative and innovative thinking, but it is not really that innovative and creative because we are actually doing it at the minute and have allocated financial transactions capital to the empty homes scheme. We need to be a little more creative, and my door is open in that regard.

That almost brings me to the end, but I want to mention Alec Attwood. It is difficult to know where to start. I want to be fair to everyone. I think there were seven questions last night and 15 questions today. There is a wonderful saying that I hear often from the Derry business man, Garvan O'Doherty: "Smart boy wanted. Last boy too smart". By and large, the Fresh Start Agreement and the Stormont House negotiations are in the past. What our constituents are concerned about is today and the future. I ask everyone to get onto the same page as the government parties because we are standing in the present but looking confidently to the future. If anyone really wants to rehearse the Stormont House negotiations or go over the Fresh Start negotiations, then not during this time, if at all possible, or, at the very least, not in every debate.

I am committed to supporting childcare. There are no Barnett consequentials yet; there cannot be, as the money has not been allocated, so it cannot be among the money allocated today. We need to do more to support Eileen Evason. The commitment of the government parties and, perhaps, all parties in the House is to support the proposals she comes forward with within the funding envelope we have given her. If she needs more, we look forward to her coming back and asking for it. At this stage, Mrs Evason is doing an absolutely wonderful job. All of us who understand, meet and know the hardships being experienced by those who are homeless and those who are hungry should make sure that we continue to back her efforts to ease the worst effects of the welfare assault on the most vulnerable. I say that because the Presbyterian International Meeting Point on the Lisburn Road is the type of programme that we need to support. It is an oasis of welcome, tolerance and diversity where people with few financial means can come and be fed at lunchtime and find company, solidarity and solace from the Presbyterian Church and from many other people who live in the area. We need to support the Trussell Trust. Food banks always create a dilemma: you really want to have a city that does not have them, but you admire people like the Trussell Trust or the Common Grounds Café who step up to the mark. It is particularly the Protestant Churches that are providing food banks and sustenance to the hungry in a way that also affords them dignity. I think, in particular, of the Rosemary Presbyterian Church on the Antrim Road and the food bank that it runs, which I have visited. It is inspiring. The commitment, generosity, giving and, if you wish, the approach taken by those people of preaching the gospel without words is something that we should all emulate.

We will enter the negotiations around corporation tax confidently. Mr Attwood should not over-read anything; I know that I have his support. We have read and my officials have read the Fresh Start Agreement. We will go into the negotiations knowing that they will be tough. I also know that we have the support of everyone in the House, certainly in the government parties, in making sure we get the very best deal.

Have we finished with Trevor Lunn yet? No. You make strong points about eliminating waste. I cannot believe that any of us would like to have waste occur in a system and money spent on it because we know the urgent need out there of the many groups we work with. You talk about the cost of division. That also distresses me, and it is something we have to tackle as well. I think we are on common ground on that. How we approach those things is another day's work. I got your quote right: you said, "Don't despair". I would say more than "Don't despair"; I would say, "Have confidence. Have confidence". We are a Government — I think this applies to some of the opposition parties as well — with a common purpose, and for the first time in quite a while you can see the difference that is making in the morale of the community, the spirit of our constituents and our desire as a House to get things done, and I think we will continue to do that.

I want to finish with Mr Allister. The Department of Finance has these wonderfully talented, superintelligent civil servants because sometimes figures and finances are a bit difficult. Anybody who has to balance a budget at home, never mind a business and never mind a Government, knows that. Finances are a bit tough. Let me say this to Mr Allister: the figures he quoted are off the wall. There is no reduction in capital and no reduction in resource in the 2016-17 Budget. In fact, the good news that I am happy to send to the can't-do corner is that pages 20 and 21 of the published Budget document show that our resource DEL — the money we spend on services — and capital DEL increased in cash terms compared with 2015-16.

We started with a good news story in the monitoring round that we had found £170 million, and we managed to turn it around quickly to get it on to the front line to make a difference and a change. The even better news, which Mr Allister reminds me of, is that the money in the 2016-17 Budget is more than the money in the 2015-16 Budget·

A Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leat. I say to all Members — people whom I agreed with or did not agree with — that my door is open. I am keen to visit all those constituencies to see the problems on the ground. I am not the Minister for Communities, Health or the Economy, but I am keen to understand and be sympathetic when those Ministers come forward.

I could continue debating the issues, but I will draw my remarks to a close. I hope I have responded to as many issues as possible. I am confident that our Departments will exercise sound financial management in the time ahead with the resources from the Budget. I, therefore, respectfully ask Members to support the Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2016-17 beyond the provision of the Vote on Account passed by the Assembly in February.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I advise the House that, as this is a Budget Bill, it requires cross-community support.

Mr Speaker: As we move to the Adjournment debate, I ask Members who are intent on leaving the Chamber to do so quietly.

Mr Speaker: The proposer of the topic will have 15 minutes. All other Members who wish to speak will have seven minutes.

Mr McElduff: When the new Assembly term started, it was my determination to submit to the Business Office early on an Adjournment topic request along the lines of the condition of rural roads in West Tyrone. West Tyrone is mentioned because that is the constituency that I represent. I am sure that the poor condition of some rural roads extends beyond West Tyrone, but, of course, this is a constituency-related debate. I walked to the Business Office and submitted a request for an Adjournment debate on this very topic, even before Minister Hazzard was appointed and d'Hondt was rolled out. I did that so soon because, in the recent Assembly election campaign — I am not really talking about elections; I am talking about weeks of talking and listening to people and, in many cases, being on country roads — people said to me that the big issues were rural roads and rural broadband. If I am to be an effective MLA for West Tyrone, joined by other effective MLAs for West Tyrone, we have to address those issues, so the condition of rural roads in West Tyrone is this evening's topic.

I appreciate the presence of the new Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Hazzard. At the outset, I am very pleased at his stated commitment to the macro-project: the A5. That is not what is under the microscope here today at all. Nor is the A32, although we need great connectivity between, for example, Omagh and Enniskillen in respect of hospitals etc. What I am talking about here are essentially C-class roads and others. They are not necessarily A- or B-class roads, although in some cases there are defects and problems that need to be remedied in those as well. My emphasis is on rural roads. I have to say that there is serious frustration and annoyance — a feeling of hopelessness, even — on the part of rural residents who are expected to tolerate large, crater-style potholes in C-class roads, for example, for what seems an inordinate length of time.

In the corridors of this Building, earlier in the evening, a Hansard staff member asked me whether they were going to have to listen closely this evening for all kinds of rural roads and townlands. I will try to spare them that, but, at the same time, rural people matter. The point that I am making is that this issue is more about people than roads. It is about rural people mattering; rural people and rural roads matter.

Let me give you just a few examples, not too many, because I know that there is a good distribution of Assembly Members here, in geographical terms, in relation to West Tyrone and beyond, who feel strongly about the condition of rural roads. For example, I was contacted by a lady who resides at Devesky Road, Carrickmore, who, for close on six months now, has not seen the remedying of a large crater-style pothole on her road. I was on my way home about 10 days ago, and I travelled on a country road off the main Ballygawley to Dungannon section, via Barnaghs Road. At one large pothole, I took off my shoe and placed it in the middle of the pothole and took a wee photograph for scale. My shoe is size 7, not 9 or 10. You could hardly see the shoe in the pothole because it was of such dimensions. At Gleneeny Road, maybe half the road had eroded away. In a similar state are Cashel Road, Greencastle; Mulnafye Road, close to where Declan McAleer MLA does his thing and resides in the Loughmacrory area; and the Garvallagh Road. I will not give many more examples, but I am talking about C-class roads where there seems to be almost a sense of abandonment.

There is a human side to this; it is more about people than roads. People have to go to work and school. They want to socialise and mix. They want to do business and go to the shops. They pay taxes and rates, and they are fed up hearing: "We cover 80% of the traffic by attending to 20% of the network." We do not like to hear things like that, in respect of gritting in the winter or whatever. There is an 80/20 rule that always seems to work against those of us in rural communities.

Last winter was very bad, and roads were not adequately repaired. Verges were not maintained and gullies were not cleaned out. Street lighting and related issues of community safety arose. In Omagh alone, in places like O'Kane Park and Castleview, where there is a large number of elderly residents, people saw street lighting taken out, disassembled and removed.

The reason why I speak about the issue in this manner is because I get it in the neck from constituents, and I am sure that other MLAs and councillors do as well. Some people think that I work for the Roads Service. Older men, especially over 60 and 65 years, have a memory of local councils, pre-1973, maintaining the roads. They think that I am a councillor, not an MLA, and they want to know why I am not fixing the roads. I told one gentleman that I had tabled a request for a debate in Stormont about rural roads, but I think that I lost him because he was not really interested in the debate. He was interested in when his road was going to be fixed. I can understand that.

Some time ago, I met the divisional roads manager, Conor Loughrey, with one of his senior colleagues, section engineer, Harold Henry. I was accompanied by a number of party colleague councillors.

We did what we should do: we brought with us a list of local roads on which problems were not being properly remedied within a relatively short period. We expressed exasperation at the length of time that it seems to take to repair a pothole. These potholes get larger. Of course, there is a ritual of surrounding them with different colours of lines and markings — yellow markings and yellow lines or, sometimes, blue markings and blue lines.

I am told that cyclical inspections happen less frequently now. I understand that there is a very difficult financial context involved and — I say this to the Minister through the Speaker — I am aware of the financial constraints imposed by the Westminster Government on the Department, but we need something to break. We need something to happen. I am pleased to note that, in today's monitoring round announcement, there is additional money for road maintenance, and so there should be. People are reporting damage to their vehicles, and I believe that the number of claims for liability has gone up.

What I am looking for is a determined effort on the part of the Minister to achieve more resource funding for rural roads. I am a big supporter of the A5. When we lobby for the A5 to be expedited and completed, that is stuff for the big room, but there needs to be room for this debate as well. There needs to be room for a case to be made for better maintenance than there has been in the recent past. I know that the business of financial constraints is part of the reason for that, but roads have to be brought up to the requisite standard. What is the maintenance backlog? Does the Minister see any hope of substantive improvements? Does he intend to use future monitoring rounds to address the problem? Those are some of the issues that I want to bring to the Minister's attention in my submission to the debate.

I know that the Minister has a busy diary, but I invite him to come to West Tyrone to view some of the C-class roads that I am talking about. That would take an hour, say, with the roads being in close proximity of each other. I have to say, genuinely, that I am not questioning local management. I am not questioning the determination of people such as Leo Owens, Harold Henry or any of the people whom I have become used to lobbying and whom we ring to bring to their attention another defect or road issue. However, they need to be supported with greater resource funding.

It is a very serious issue. I am not lightening up on this one. I am not making light of rural townland names and their intricacies, because all those people matter. If I say, "Outside Greencastle, in the townland of Binnafreaghan", it sounds poetic, but those people pay rates, they pay taxes, they go to work, they go to school, they socialise, and they expect a better return on their investment in respect of the maintenance of rural roads.

Mr T Buchanan: At the outset, I commend the Member for bringing the issue to the Floor. He talked about two issues that he gets it in the ear about: roads and broadband. They are the very same issues that we get it in the ear about. It is interesting to note that there is an Adjournment debate next week on rural broadband in West Tyrone. West Tyrone is getting a good hearing in the House, and let us hope that it makes a difference.

The Member said that it was not really about roads; it was about people. That is absolutely correct; it is about people, but this is what affects the people, because the rural roads affect almost all our constituents in West Tyrone. Not only does it affect them, it affects me because, over this past number of months, my mailbox has been overflowing with issues regarding roads, especially rural roads, in West Tyrone. Those of us who represent it will know that it is a constituency with one of the largest land masses represented in the House. Therefore, it has one of the largest networks of roads among the constituencies represented here.

For example, in West Tyrone, there are 113 km of A-class roads, 415 km of B-class roads, 749 km of C-class roads and 2,006 km of what are known as unclassified roads. So there are only 528 km of what we would call the "Rolls-Royce" roads — the A- and B-class roads. Those roads are in reasonably good shape, but when we look at the other roads, the ones that service isolated rural communities, that is where the problems lie. Something like 2,800 km of those roads in rural areas serve the agricultural community, the business community and other community organisations that are doing great work. Organisations that care for elderly people have to get to their homes every day to look after them and to ensure that they can stay in their own homes. Rural dwellers and all those types of people are being affected. Therefore, it is good that the condition of these roads is being highlighted in the Assembly this evening.

The repair and maintenance of these roads has, over the last few years, I believe, been left behind in the wake of other major road projects. While we need those major projects, and we lobby for them, we must always remember that we cannot leave these other roads behind, because they feed right into the isolated rural communities. Sometimes, the people on the ground say that these roads are the Cinderella of roads funding. It is no reflection on the employees or the management in the area, but it seems that the budget programme for the maintenance and repair of rural roads has been continually reduced over the years. That is something that needs to be considered, and we should seek to put more finances into that to address the problems.

Checking for defects on minor roads used to take place on a three-monthly basis, then it was moved to a six-monthly basis and now it is done every 12 months. In West Tyrone, we are standing back and watching the fabric of the minor roads network crumbling in front of our eyes, and it raises concerns. We fully understand the tight budget constraints that Departments are under, but this is something that, I believe, needs to be given consideration.

Recently, I had an engineer out on site to look at a few areas in West Tyrone. When we were driving from one area to the next, I stopped on the road where there was quite a big pothole. The engineer got out and looked at it and said that he would send me an email about it. Here is what he said:

This pothole was large but it was only about two and a half inches deep. He was saying that their instructions were that, unless it was four inches deep, it was not to be filled. That is causing concern because, as the old proverb says, "A stitch in time saves nine". If we do not do something soon about the condition of the rural roads, I believe that we are going to find ourselves with serious problems.

I will read an extract from an email from another constituent. It states:

That is probably one of the more difficult cases, but it gives some indication of the problems that we are facing with the rural roads network in West Tyrone.

As I said earlier, I understand that budgets are tight, but I appeal to the Minister that he look at some sort of funding programme for the maintenance and repair of rural roads. In his job as Minister, I appeal to him to look at that and to ensure that we get proper funding in place to bring our rural roads network up to the proper standard again.

Mr McCrossan: I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his recent elevation and also to thank my constituency colleague Barry McElduff for bringing forward this Adjournment debate.

Before dealing specifically with West Tyrone, I welcome the Finance Minister's extra £25 million for the Department for Infrastructure. However, I would like to point out that, last week, we heard that the cost of repairing Northern Ireland's crumbling roads has reached a staggering £1 billion. That £1 billion is only to bring our roads up to the requisite standard. It will not give us pristine roads. An extra £25 million in the June monitoring road is merely a drop in the wider ocean of this huge problem.

In the past week, we have also learnt that the Department for Infrastructure's budget will be cut by 9%, and I can only imagine that rural constituencies, such as West Tyrone, will be the first to fall foul of such a budgetary decrease. I call on the Minister, and I am glad that he has stayed to respond to the debate, to outline the nature of the cuts and how they will impact on the roads maintenance budget, especially in the west.

I am a strong proponent of green energy and the use of public transport, but public transport across my constituency is not at a level that is required for our people. We have no railway service, and buses do not serve many of our rural communities, at least not consistently enough. The people of West Tyrone are thus heavily reliant on their own transport for work and to access health services, hospitals, education facilities, banks and post offices. Access to those services can be a big challenge, and it is vital that the communities have the proper roads infrastructure in place to accommodate such need.

There is growing anger and frustration among local people about the decline in the state of the road network. They are angry that the issue does not get the attention that it deserves from the Executive. Nearly every day, my constituents, like Mr McElduff and his Sinn Féin colleagues', as well as Ross and Tom's, are telling me, "We pay our rates and road tax like everybody else, so why are the roads in such a terrible condition in West Tyrone, and why are we being ignored?" In West Tyrone, it is well known, given that we are a border constituency, that Donegal's roads are quite terrible, and I have heard many comparisons of late suggesting that our roads are very similar, if not worse in certain parts, to those of our neighbouring county.

On a more serious note, unrepaired potholes can cause serious damage to many cars on our roads. Last year, it is understood that there were 600 claims made against the Department for Regional Development for damage to vehicles caused by the state of rural roads, almost 200 of which came from the west of the Province, which is a testament to the state of our roads and what gave rise to Mr McElduff's debate. In the previous mandate, I tabled a question for written answer to the Minister on the number of potholes reported and filled in across West Tyrone. The figures are stark. In 2013, 96% of road surface defects were corrected. In 2014, this figure dropped to 87%. In 2015, the figure dropped significantly to 63%. If that is not evidence of the blatant neglect of our roads, nothing is.

Every single week, we receive complaints from constituents in our offices about their cars hitting potholes or other road surface defects from places like Gortin, Fintona, Plumbridge and Castlederg right across to Victoria Bridge, Newtownstewart, Ballymagorry, Artigarvan and as far as Garvaghy. People come to me with photographs of crater-like potholes, as referred to by Mr McElduff, right across the constituency. I have to ask why successive Ministers have let our roads get into such a terrible state. I know that budgets are constrained, but when you travel from Belfast to Bangor or along the Ards peninsula, you see that the roads are nearly pristine in comparison with ours. It almost highlights the level of neglect in rural constituencies such as my own.

The last point that I want to focus on is deaths on the roads. A report conducted this year by 'Detail Data' revealed that a staggering 74% of road deaths occur on rural roads. This includes drivers, pedestrians, motorcyclists, passengers and cyclists; practically anyone who lives in a rural constituency. A number of issues arise here, such as the provision of street lighting, whether more crash barriers are needed and enforcement of rural speed limits. Too many people, especially young people, are losing their lives on rural roads.

To conclude my remarks, it is important that the Assembly invests properly in rural roads infrastructure in West Tyrone. It is not just about ensuring that potholes are filled, but that the most dangerous roads — those that are turning on corners and those that have not got sufficient signage or barriers on corners — also receive the attention that is required from the Department. An example, if I am going to be very local and parochial, is the Ballee Road in Strabane, where you are going along the old Strabane glen. Michaela Boyle will be familiar with this road. The road almost goes off like a cliff. It is a very narrow road, so when two cars meet, one has to pull in. On a dark night, it is very difficult to tell, especially if you are a stranger, that there is no actual banking there, and you could end up going over the ditch to quite a height. I arranged to meet Roads Service officials on numerous occasions. They told me on countless occasions that it was not their responsibility because it was privately owned property, but there was a verge there that could have accommodated the concern of the people who brought it to our attention.

I will finish by saying basically that too many vehicles are being damaged unnecessarily as a result of these roads. It is something that frustrates everybody, because many homes now have possibly three cars, particularly in rural constituencies, where they depend on their own transport. It is one of the biggest concerns, next to rural broadband. I welcome that debate next week because it is a very real issue that has been highlighted right across the constituency in recent weeks and months. I thank the Minister for listening to the remarks. Hopefully, his Department will do what it can to accommodate them.

Mr McAleer: I want to take the opportunity to commend my colleague Barry McEduff for tabling the Adjournment topic, the Minister for coming here and, indeed, all the MLAs for taking part.

High-quality infrastructure is absolutely essential for economic growth and competitiveness, but also for safety on the roads. Quite a lot of airtime is passed in the Chamber on the high-profile projects — the flagship projects, like the A5 and A6 — but, as has been quite rightly stated here, the local road network is just as important to the quality of life of people who live in rural areas. We represent a constituency that is very rural, from the top of the Sperrins right down to the Donegal border and across into neighbouring counties. It is very rural and isolated. Roads are a huge issue.

Barry is quite right: when we were out on the campaign trail, the state of rural roads was the biggest issue by a country mile. The number of complaints that were raised about the state of rural roads was endless. Quite rightly, the issue of broadband was raised a lot as well. I commend Tom Buchanan of the West Tyrone constituency for tabling an Adjournment topic on that for next week. Both of those issues, along with many other things, combine to create a sense of being disconnected and a sense of isolation in rural areas. I think that we all got that very overwhelming sense when we were out and about recently, and we get it all the time in our constituency offices.

I know that that is shared not just in West Tyrone but throughout. When the Minister came to the Infrastructure Committee last Wednesday, he heard very loud and clear from MLAs across the Six Counties that that was a big issue.

As I said, public safety and cars are one thing, but health is also a very big issue. I live in the village of Loughmacrory, which is right in the middle of Tyrone. It is over 40 miles to the nearest acute hospital on country roads, apart from the A32 and the A505, and you would really struggle if you were in an ambulance and had to get quickly to the hospital in Enniskillen, which is the closest acute hospital. It is important that we have good roads for our health and safety.

In fairness to the Minister, he has not been in the job long; he has been in it for only a few weeks. He came to the Committee last week and listened intently. Daniel raised the backlog, and the Snaith report identified a backlog in road maintenance. We need to start somewhere, and it was good to note today that an allocation has been made to road maintenance — £5·3 million — and of the £22·9 million allocated a good bit of it has been identified for road improvements. That is good news. It is important that the Minister looks at roads from a planned, strategic point of view. We learned, as many other members of the Committee will know, from the House of Commons report that reactive patching costs ten times as much as planned maintenance. It is important that the Minister and his officials take that on board and put the spotlight on rural roads.

To conclude, I commend Barry for securing the debate. It is great to see Members here from West Tyrone and throughout the constituency, along with the Minister and officials. It is important that we shine the spotlight on a very serious issue that affects a lot of people in West Tyrone and beyond. I hope and am convinced that the Minister has got the message loud and clear in the time that he has been in office, and I hope that he will put a focus on addressing this serious issue in the time ahead.

Ms Boyle: I take the opportunity to thank my party colleague Barry McElduff for bringing this Adjournment debate on rural roads in West Tyrone to the House today. At the outset, I also take the opportunity to thank Roads Service officials in my area of Strabane for the good work that they continue to carry out on our roads year on year to make them safe for travelling on. They do that in all weathers and in all conditions. I thank them for the recent work they have carried out on my behalf and on behalf of constituents who have put their concerns to me about issues that range from removing signs that obstruct entrances to their homes and cause a nuisance to traffic calming and upgrading footpaths. I want to pay particular thanks to Sam Young and Geoff McGillian from my area, who have worked with me on many issues. Recently, we had issues on the Melmount Road to do with St Mary's school crossing, and they worked tirelessly to come to some resolution.

Like others, I thank the Minister for his statement today. He has pledged funding for the A5 and A6 to progress. He also said that he would continue to work with Departments and councils on road infrastructure and funding where it is necessary.

As an elected representative, I know that my office, like others, is at times inundated with calls about a range of issues, and most of them have been aired here today. However, potholes are an issue that we get all the time, particularly the ones that have existed for long periods after heavy rain and adverse weather conditions. In rural areas like Aghabrack, Aghyaran, Killen, Ardstraw, Glebe and Clady, all the complaints come through my office. Some potholes exist for long periods and are never fixed, and some are fixed. After extensive lobbying, some are fixed and some are not, and you are still going back to issues.

It has been said here today too that, at times, roads in rural areas hamper school buses, the emergency services, door-to-door services and transport for the elderly — all that day-to-day business. I know that some school buses will not go down a road because of the condition or the narrowness of it. I suppose that that is to be expected: there is nothing that you can do about the narrowness of a road, but you can about its condition.

I want to mention Newtownstewart, which is located along the River Strule and is adjacent to the Owenkillew river. It is situated at the foot of Bessy Bell Mountain, is overlooked by the glorious landmark of Harry Avery's Castle and is a gateway to the Sperrins. However, if you travel along the roads there, you will see that there is underinvestment in that part of my area. If we want to attract tourism to the Sperrins gateway, we have to look at how we can invest further in the road infrastructure around it. Many towns and villages have developed over time and have a distinctive character. I think of Sion Mills, and, if you will allow me to stray a little, Mr Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank the emergency services who attended a fire at the mill at the weekend. I commend them for the work that they did in trying to retain the mill. We need to work collectively to keep the character of our villages, and the upkeep of our roads and footpaths is important in doing that.

If you travel from Gortin to Plumbridge, you will see that there is potential growth there. There has been growth for local businesses and the wide-ranging community facilities there, but, again, rural areas like that need proper road infrastructure to sustain businesses in the area. I know people who have travelled in the opposite direction and added extra miles to their journey to avoid potholes in rural areas. That is detrimental to small businesses in rural areas, because they are bypassing the local shop and going elsewhere just to avoid potholes.

When I was out canvassing recently, I was made aware of an incident involving a family whose daughter was getting married. The bride's wedding car could not come up to the house because of the state of the road, and she had to walk to the end of the road to get into the car. That is not acceptable in this day and age.

One of the biggest issues in rural areas is school buses not being able to pick up children because of the condition of the road. We have signage that is covered by overgrown bushes, which causes confusion and is hazardous. I travel the roads to Castlederg, Donemana and Artigarvan, and there is still some signage blighted by overgrown hedges there. That is a danger because people do not see the miles-per-hour or whatever signage. I also want to say that, following sustained representations from my office and others, the weed-spraying programme will now start in Strabane next Monday. I commend the local authorities —

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Boyle: I will.

Mr McCrossan: Does the Member agree with me that another huge issue that came up whilst we were canvassing and that comes up when speaking generally to constituents who come in is the condition of the roads and the access to homes in the winter, particularly for people in very rural areas like Cranagh, for instance. It is important to state it on the record during the debate that people there are almost entirely cut off from schools, health services — everything. There is a huge concern about the maintenance of roads in the winter, and we must ensure that they are accessible.

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

Ms Boyle: I conclude by inviting the Minister to my area, in particular Clady, which, despite being a small village, has heavy articulated lorries driving through it. We have asked previous Ministers to reduce the tonnage of the lorries that go through the village. I invite the Minister to the area to see for himself the problems there.

Mrs Palmer: First, I apologise to the House for the absence of Mr Hussey, who has had to leave. I see Mr McElduff breathe a sigh of relief, but I am afraid that Mr Hussey has prepared a speech that he has asked me to deliver on his behalf. I am led to believe that Narrow Water bridge is not in West Tyrone, so that will clear that matter up. The delivery of this speech will be difficult because, obviously, I do not have a Tyrone accent, and I do not have the charm and the width — sorry, the wit — that Mr Hussey has. It is well said that he wrote this.

I will begin by paraphrasing the late Reverend W F Marshall, the bard of Tyrone. If he were alive today, he might have written the following ode. My apologies to the residents of Drumlister. I am sure that you will know where that is; I do not. The ode goes:

Mr Hussey has suggested that he may take to the pen when his political career eventually ends, but I do hope not.

He goes on to say that it was once said that there was more tar in a cigarette than there was on the roads in Donegal. There are some who believe that that claim to fame can now be passed on to County Tyrone. During the election campaign, Mr Hussey and many of the West Tyrone MLAs travelled on many of the rural roads in Tyrone. He has asked me to identify one example and that is the Garvallagh Road, Seskinore, on the outskirts of the town. The pothole that he was asked to see was so deep that he decided to place a resident's youngest daughter — not a shoe — into it. It came up over her ankles. You will be glad to know that the pothole was filled. Well, actually, it was half-filled; maybe the budget cuts only provided half a bucket of tar. As seeing is believing, he included the photographs in his speech of the pothole and the pothole with the child.

The old A5 that used to travel into Omagh along the Dublin Road into the county of Tyrone is now virtually down to the base level. As you drive along it, you believe that you have four flat tyres because of the condition of the road. The road, too, has been virtually abandoned. Perhaps, in the not too distant future, we will hear how much money has been spent on compensating drivers for damaged tyres and vehicles and how much compensation was refused because the offending hole was protected by a spray of yellow paint.

In conclusion, I thank Mr McElduff for bringing this matter to the House this evening. Prior to my party leaving the Executive, the Finance Minister continued to raid the DRD budget and deliberately allowed the roads in rural areas to downgrade to the point where they are virtually tracks. In the previous debate, many were sidetracked at every opportunity. You do not have a clue what a sidetrack is unless you have travelled the rural roads of West Tyrone. We will get the roads back up to the standard or all bets are off in favour of the A5. Yes, it will pour millions of pounds into Tyrone to upgrade an A-class road, but what about the future of our B- and C-class roads?

Ms Armstrong: I thank the Member for bringing forward the debate tonight. You may be looking at me and wondering why a Member for Strangford is talking about West Tyrone, but, as somebody who has delivered rural transport for almost 20 years and has family members in Fintona, I know the roads very well.

All roads are connections that enable us to live our lives and, as such, facilitate economic growth, but I have calls of complaints not just about potholes but about the harm being caused to people in wheelchairs who are travelling on rural buses because of the rocking backwards and forwards. I can say that it is causing isolation because people are deciding to no longer travel because it causes them pain and distress. It is quite frightening for them to be at the back of a bus. I invite the Minister to pick any of the rural community transport partnerships that he funds and see what it is like sitting in a wheelchair in the back of one of those buses. Please do.

As others have said, there has been consistent underinvestment in rural roads, and that is restraining growth in West Tyrone and across Northern Ireland. I am a rural dweller in Strangford, and I wish that I knew the Ards peninsula roads that the Member was driving on because mine has grass up the middle of it.

Members have called on the Minister to invest in rural roads, especially in the maintenance programme, and I agree completely with that. However, we might want to consider something further: is it time for the creation of a regional infrastructure panel-type group to identify the most important long-term infrastructural needs of West Tyrone and Northern Ireland? It could examine the associated costs and use that evidence to create a single strategic plan for infrastructure, as was talked about by the House of Commons Select Committee. We know that patching costs 10 times as much as a strategic or planned maintenance schedule. We could then use that plan to source additional funding from the EU — I will not talk about Brexit, thank you. I also believe that many rural roads are shovel-ready today and that, should money become available at short notice, we could be straight in there.

I am concerned that the regional development strategy talks about the integration of land use and transportation to improve safety and reduce congestion and the need for car journeys. As a rural dweller, I know that I could not live in a rural area without a car. The regional development strategy also talks about an attractive and prosperous rural area based on a balanced and integrated approach to the development of town, village and countryside. That is OK, but what happens when you do not have footpaths or street lights, there is grass growing up the middle of the road and you are getting complaints from people that they cannot get out of their road because their sight line is limited by four-foot high weeds?

I was grateful to the Minister when he came to the Committee for Infrastructure and recognised that there is an issue with road maintenance. There is an opportunity going forward with this debate and the other investment that we have heard about today to consider a better and more strategic way forward for road maintenance.

Mr Hazzard (The Minister for Infrastructure): I start by congratulating the Member for West Tyrone, Barry McElduff, for securing the debate. He promised me that he had tabled it before I came into post, so I am happy to believe him on that. I concur with many tonight that it was a prominent issue during the last election. As someone who represents a rural constituency, South Down, I am only too aware of a lot of the issues, especially connectivity in rural areas and rural isolation. I have a lot of sympathy with the concerns that have been raised, and it is something that I want to take forward as I look into the post.

A network of some 23,000 kilometres of B, C and U roads connects our rural communities. Often, they are colloquially termed "rural roads". In starting my response, I should explain that the West Tyrone constituency, as many here will know, lies within Transport NI's western division. It comprises all of Omagh, from within the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area, and Strabane, from within the Derry City and Strabane District Council area. My Department is responsible for the maintenance and improvement of the road network and delivering services through capital and resource-funded programmes.

I turn first to capital programmes. Capital structural maintenance programmes, such as resurfacing, surface dressing and drainage activities, provide good value interventions that protect the long-term integrity of the road network. Structural maintenance is an excellent example of what was referred to earlier as "A stitch in time saves nine", as early intervention prevents long-term degradation of the network. The current structural maintenance budget for the western division of Transport NI is £17 million, which will deliver significant road improvements in 2016-17 in the division, including large parts of West Tyrone. That is significantly better than the starting position in 2015-16 and an investment that will make a difference to those rural communities. It is also an investment that will be welcomed by the local quarrying industry. It will deliver over 400 kilometres of surface dressing on the rural network in West Tyrone over the summer months, together with a number of resurfacing schemes.

Members can be assured that I will work with Executive Colleagues to enhance structural maintenance funding during this year in order to invest further in structural maintenance for roads in rural areas. I am pleased that the Finance Minister has announced additional funding for road maintenance in the June monitoring round today. That was very welcome.

I turn now to resource funding, which covers the delivery of day-to-day maintenance services, such as pothole repairs, grass cutting, gully emptying, street lighting repairs, the winter service and bridge maintenance, which have all featured in the debate this evening. As Members will be well aware, the Department faced budgetary pressures on resource funding in previous years. Those pressures have been present since August 2014, and, since then, the Department has been unable to provide normal levels of routine maintenance. At present, grass verges, for example, are cut only once.

Only the highest-priority potholes — those greater than 100 mm deep — are being repaired on rural low-traffic roads. Following today's announcement by the Finance Minister of additional road maintenance funding in June monitoring, I have asked officials to immediately enhance grass cutting, gully emptying and the repair of potholes right across the North.

There is no doubt that reduced levels of maintenance have had a negative impact on the network, and this is now being seen in West Tyrone and other areas. The majority of routine maintenance services are currently being provided by in-house operations and maintenance staff. The pressures on resource funding have led to some positive new approaches to road maintenance within Transport NI to improve efficiency; for example, we now have the new NI Direct online system, where members of the public can report issues online. Transport NI has also been working with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council on the Don't Mow, Let it Grow initiative to promote biodiversity in areas where grass cutting is not seen as essential. On the engineering side, more and more shorter machine-laid resurfacing schemes are being implemented to target problem areas, and new deferred-set materials are being used by operations and maintenance staff for emergency pothole repairs.

I concur with the Member for Strangford on the roads on the peninsula, having often gone from Kircubbin to Newtownards. A message probably to get out is that we have an issue in a lot of our rural communities; it is not unique to West Tyrone. There are areas of south Down and right across the North where it is true. You mentioned some innovative initiatives that I am more than happy to come back to you and talk about. No doubt your experience in community transport is vital in discovering and putting together some of those ideas.

As we go forward, budgets will remain tight, so we must show innovation and look at community-style initiatives. Engineering solutions will be the way we get around this. I think there is an appetite for doing that and an appetite from the public to give us a bit of space to allow us to develop that sort of approach.

I am fully aware of the issues being raised by rural communities on the number of potholes and the lack of grass cutting and maintenance of gullies and drainage. I recognise the concerns that Members have raised here today, and I hope that the outcome of the June monitoring will go a long way to addressing some of those concerns. As Minister for Infrastructure, I want to support rural communities. As Mr McElduff said at the outset, this is more about people than about roads. My Department's responsibilities, linking directly to the Programme for Government around connectivity, are about tackling rural isolation. Talking about connectivity between rural communities is so relevant.

I assure all Members here this evening that Altamuskin, Aghyaran and Binnafreaghan are just as important to me and the Government as Belfast and Bangor. It is a message that should go out to the people of West Tyrone, and, hopefully over the next five years, they will see that in action.