NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY Tuesday 12 June 2007 Executive Committee Business Committee Business Private Members’ Business Adjournment The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Welfare Reform Bill Second Stage The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie): I beg to move That the Second Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill [NIA 1/07] be agreed. The Welfare Reform Bill makes provision corresponding to the Welfare Reform Act 2007 and is therefore a parity measure. Following the Bill’s First Stage, I outlined the policy of parity and social security and the arguments for maintaining this long-standing policy, not least of which is financial reality. I trust that all Members accept the benefits of parity. As a society, we cannot afford to be denied the skills and talents of many people who want to work but who, in the past, found themselves excluded from the workplace due to disability or incapacity. More importantly, we cannot deny such people the right to work if we can help them to do so. We are all too well aware of the corrosive effect of economic inactivity, not just for individuals but for entire communities. The Bill aims to break, once and for all, the idea that people should be consigned to a life on benefit simply because of a health condition or a disability. Although the aim is to help everyone play an active role in society, there is no question of moving away from the firm foundation of a sound medical assessment of each person’s individual capabilities and limitations. The Bill has, as its guiding principle, the development of a welfare system that tackles poverty and social exclusion and that matches rights and responsibilities. Part I of the Bill provides for the employment and support allowance, which will replace incapacity benefit and income support on grounds of incapacity. The replacement benefit will incorporate the contributory allowance and an income-related allowance. It is estimated that eight out of 10 people who apply for incapacity benefit want, and expect, to get back to work. However, the stark reality is that if they are on incapacity benefit for more than two years, they are more likely to retire or die than to get another job. Little is expected of claimants and, outside the Pathways to Work pilot schemes, almost no support is offered to them. The Bill seeks to change that. The new benefit is founded on the concept of measuring and building the capability of individuals rather than writing them off as incapable. It offers a radical extension of the support available, which will be underpinned by the roll-out of Pathways to Work by April 2008. The new personal capability assessment will identify those who are capable of undertaking work-related activity, and the support and interventions that will be necessary to help them prepare to get back to work. As is the case with the current personal capability assessment, the scores from the physical assessment and the mental-health assessment will be combined. Following the assessment phase, the majority of claimants would become entitled to additional benefit in the form of the work-related activity component. The personal capability assessment will identify separately people who are so limited by their illness or disability that it would be unreasonable to require them to undertake any form of work-related activity. Those people will be entitled to additional benefit in the form of a support component. They will, however, be able to volunteer to participate in work-related activity and access all the appropriate support available. For the vast majority — those who are not in the support group — the new benefit will have a clear framework of rights and responsibilities. In return for the additional support provided by the roll-out of the Pathways to Work programme, claimants will be required to attend regular interviews and to complete action plans. There are no plans at present to introduce mandatory work-related activity. However, the Bill contains a provision that would allow the work-related activity component of the employment and support allowance to be reduced if a claimant fails, without good cause, to undertake such assessments, interviews or activity if required to do so. All claimants will be treated sensitively. However, people with mental-health problems will be treated with particular sensitivity and sympathy. Additionally, there will be safeguards geared to people with mental-health problems. The current gateway to benefit, the personal capability assessment, is known to deal less well with mental-health conditions, not least because, in the years since the assessment was created, there have been many changes to the types of conditions being presented and the available treatment options. The personal capability assessment is being transformed into a more positive assessment that focuses on what a person remains capable of doing and identifies the help that they need to overcome their problems and return to work. Specifically, the mental-health component of the assessment is being reviewed to ensure that it is up to date, evidence-based and deals effectively with the problems and needs of those with mental-health problems. The revised assessment will ensure that people with mental-health conditions are better identified and that their problems, needs and the support that they require are correctly assessed. We do not want to write people off; we want to ensure that they get all the help that they need to fulfil their potential. The personal adviser is at the centre of the team, which also draws on the expertise in mental health and other disabilities in the Department for Employment and Learning’s disablement advisory service and the healthcare professionals who deliver the condition-management programme. Local experience of the Pathways to Work programme suggests that people with mental-health conditions welcome the support and opportunities offered to them and are usually very willing to commit wholeheartedly to the process. Since 2006, some 260 people have volunteered for the support available, including those with mental ill-health and people with learning disabilities who heard about the Pathways to Work programme from organisations such as Action Mental Health and Mencap. We believe that engagement with the community and some form of work-related activity will benefit most people. We do not expect that the power to reduce benefits for people who refuse to engage with the help and support on offer will need to be widely used. Experience of the current Pathways to Work areas in which extra conditions have been imposed shows that less than 0·5% of claimants have been sanctioned. Our aim is to encourage and to assist, but it is vital for the fallback position of this sanction to be available where it is absolutely necessary. The Bill amends existing social security law to ensure that the rights of appeal to an independent appeals tribunal apply to the employment and support allowance. Over time, existing claimants will migrate to the new employment and support allowance. However, the current benefits of existing claimants will be fully protected. I stress again that the Bill is not about forcing people off benefit and into work. It is about offering people help and support to get ready to return to work, and, in return, expecting claimants to engage with that help and support. Part 2 of the Bill concerns housing benefit. In particular, it makes provision to simplify the existing housing benefit system; to improve work incentives and encourage personal responsibility for housing choices; and for the introduction of a local housing allowance across the private-rented sector. The local housing allowance is designed to ensure that the same amount of benefit is paid to tenants in similar circumstances residing in the same area. The intention is to provide a better, quicker service based on simpler rules, while ensuring that people on low incomes can afford a decent home that meets their needs. The Bill provides a regulation-making power to allow payment to be made directly to the tenant. As I made clear to the Social Development Committee, and during the debate last week to grant the Bill accelerated passage, I will not seek to exercise that power until I have considered the matter further and fully discussed the issues with the Committee. The Bill also provides for a reduction in housing benefit where someone has been evicted from their home on grounds of antisocial behaviour and who then refuses to co-operate with the support that is offered by the Housing Executive to help them improve their behaviour. Members are all aware of the problems caused by antisocial behaviour. No one wants people to move from one property to another and continuing their antisocial behaviour. Equally, we need to ensure that our efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour get things right. For that reason, I will only consider bringing that provision of the Bill into force once pilots in 10 local authority areas in England and Wales have been evaluated. The evaluation will cover all relevant areas, including effectiveness, the effect on antisocial behaviour and the impact on housing and homelessness. Furthermore, the provision will cease to have effect on 30 December 2010 unless a further Bill, which provides for it to continue after that date, is introduced. Part 3 of the Bill contains several measures to improve the administration of social security, including powers to allow greater sharing of information to improve the take-up and delivery of benefits — something I particularly want to happen. For example, where pensioners are entitled to both pension credit and housing benefit, common information on personal and financial circumstances will need to be given only once. Part 3 also provides more power to tackle benefit fraud by strengthening the rules in relation to the loss of benefit for commission of benefit offences by extending from three to five years the length of time over which previous benefit fraud offences can be taken into account. It will also provide the Housing Executive with clear powers to investigate and prosecute offences relating to other social security benefits where it already has powers to prosecute fraud against housing benefit. 10.45 am Finally, Part 4 of the Bill contains a number of smaller, but important, measures to correct anomalies in the current benefits system. Those measures include ensuring that recipients of disability living allowance who are around 16 years old do not lose up to three months’ benefit entitlement; and continuing the simplification of the budgeting loans scheme, which enables the social fund to play a crucial role in providing interest-free loans or grants to assist the most vulnerable people — those with no recourse to mainstream credit. Part 4 also contains technical measures on the payment of benefit for bereaved persons, and clarifies the law on payment of disability living allowance and attendance allowance to care-home residents. The Bill also eases the relevant employer condition, making it simpler for a person who suffers from certain dust-related diseases, including mesothelioma and other asbestos-related conditions, to claim compensation. The legislation will allow us to harness the power of modern advances in health and employment support, and to foster a society in which there are genuine equal rights and opportunities for all. The Bill is a parity measure, and an important step in the ongoing process of welfare reform. It encourages people into work, while supporting those who cannot work. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Mr Campbell): I understand that it is the intention of the Welfare Reform Bill to break the link between welfare and dependency. That is to be welcomed. The Bill provides practical measures to support that aspiration as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform and modernisation of the benefits system. The Minister and her officials have appeared before the Committee. They briefed us on the Bill’s principles and details, for which the Committee is grateful. As the Minister has outlined, the Bill will introduce a new employment and support allowance to replace the current incapacity benefit. That new allowance will help to support individuals who wish to remain in, or return to, work. The Committee welcomes any efforts to help such individuals and encourages the Minister to consult with the Minister for Employment and Learning on the resources that may be required in order to provide that allowance. The legislation will also introduce a local housing allowance across the private-rented sector. The Committee welcomes that local element and hopes that it will go some way to alleviating the current difficulties that those who must top up their housing benefit experience. An associated change, however, will allow local housing allowance to be paid directly to tenants. The Committee is glad that the Minister agreed with its strong reservations on that issue. At our specific request, she gave an unequivocal undertaking to consider the matter further and consult with the Committee before taking any action. The Committee will pay close attention to how the Housing Executive uses its wider powers to investigate and prosecute benefit fraud. We hope that the introduction of those powers will increase the scope for effective joint working between the Housing Executive and the Department. The Committee supports measures that will make it simpler for people who suffer from certain dust-related diseases to claim compensation, and indeed, it supports the other provisions in the Bill that clarify existing legislation, thus making it simpler and easier to understand. Although the Committee will not be able to conduct a detailed examination of the Bill due to its receiving accelerated passage, it will consider the practical implications of welfare reform in the course of its scrutiny of the Department’s work. Mr Speaker: Before we continue, I remind Members that we are debating the Bill’s principles, not its substance. Mr F McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Although the Committee for Social Development agreed to its being given accelerated passage, the Bill by no means had the Committee’s full support. In fact, accelerated passage was only ensured when Committee members were informed that people’s benefits would cease should passage of the Bill be delayed, and after we received a commitment from the Minister that certain clauses would be brought back to the Committee for discussion. It is my understanding that on 23 January 2007 the Minister voted against the Bill, in that she voted against the wording of a motion that was moved by my colleague from Upper Bann, John O’Dowd, and voted in support of an amendment that was proposed by her colleague from Upper Bann, Mrs Dolores Kelly. The wording of the motion, as amended, read: “That this Assembly expresses deep concern about the implications of the Welfare Reform Bill, particularly the introduction of a new coercive regime into benefit administration, and its impact on a number of vulnerable groups, especially those people with mental ill health.” — [Official Report, Vol 21, No 14, p421, col 2]. We now have the strange situation where the Minister is putting her reputation on the line by supporting that same legislation, which has reached its Second Stage today. Perhaps the Minister could explain to the House what has changed in the Bill to warrant her road to Damascus conversion. Although I welcome her commitment to come back to the Committee for Social Development to deal with the issue of housing benefit, I ask her if the clauses relating to housing benefit in the Bill have changed? If the Bill were to be passed in its present form it could lead to many people falling into debt and finding themselves on the street for deciding to feed their families rather than pay their rent. Has the Minister reviewed the clause on sanctions, which could have a detrimental impact on people’s health and mental well-being if threats to reduce or take away benefits are followed through? Can she guarantee that personal advisers have been given the training needed to assess, and have the experience to evaluate, those suffering with mental-health problems? Will she stand over the opinions of a personal adviser or a GP in relation to a mental-health assessment? Have staff been trained to understand the needs and capabilities of disabled people? Can the Minister guarantee that clients who attend work-focused interviews, if classed as fit for work, will move into employment, and into jobs that fit their requirements and capabilities? Has she seen recent statistics, which state that fewer than 40% of employers would employ a person with a mental illness? In addition, 75% of employers stated that employing someone with schizophrenia would be very difficult or impossible. Can the Minister say if there would be any way that she could guarantee that those who most need our protection from discrimination and prejudice would be better off were some clauses in the Bill to be passed? Alternatively, is the House setting people up for a fall? The information that the Minister is relying on in relation to housing benefit was collated through surveys carried out in 18 or 19 towns and cities in England that are completely different from those here. People here are on lower pay, and the cost of living here is greater. Some years ago, it was the norm, in this state, that housing benefit was paid directly to people. The situation was changed to one in which direct payments were made to landlords because people were getting into debt. They found it difficult to control their finances, especially people who were paid at the poverty level, such as those on income support or low earners who struggled to pay their bills. Rushing to pass all clauses in the Bill would be a mistake. The Department’s insistence that people will lose benefits if the Assembly does not complete the passage of the Bill quickly is an attempt to get it through without any real debate. Members have the power to ensure that people’s benefits are not delayed. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that, in the rush to get the Bill through, we do not trample over the rights of people who expect us to do right by them — those with disabilities, those who suffer from mental illness and those who live in poverty. Will the Minister say whether there will be jobs available for all those who attend work-focused interviews? Many people believe that the Bill has little to do with benefits and more to do with forcing thousands of individuals off benefits completely. Let us not be hasty. Let us make sure that we get the Bill right. Too much depends on this, especially as regards the vulnerable groups who rely on Members to make things right for them. Go raibh maith agat. Mr B McCrea: This is a very sensitive issue. Welfare reform is something that one can get badly wrong; therefore, it is important to strike a balance in matters such as this. I understand why the Bill is being taken forward under the accelerated passage provisions. However, that rings a few alarm bells with me. I start from the position that there seem to be many more economically inactive people in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom — roughly 30% as compared with 20%. We must ask ourselves why the difference exists. A very informative report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded that there are two significant issues. The first factor is that elected representatives in Northern Ireland are much more aware of the situation and are therefore able to provide the necessary support to people who deserve to receive disability living allowance (DLA). Indeed, many people in other parts of the UK who deserve DLA do not claim it. The issue is therefore not simply one of people in Northern Ireland claiming more than they are due. The second, and more interesting, point comes from the report’s examination of the various subsections that make up DLA. The report concluded that in every single quota bar one, Northern Ireland is identical to the rest of the United Kingdom as regards perception. The one area where Northern Ireland is different is that of mental illness. The report explored why that was the case. As might be expected, 30 to 40 years of civil war has had an effect. The report found that it is not unreasonable that our society as a whole should suffer considerable mental stress and that a way must be found to deal with that. I was interested in the Minister’s point about encouraging those with mental illness into the workplace. Prejudice is undoubtedly a problem. Many employers must be encouraged to take on people with a mental illness. Members should note that in New Zealand, for example, 25 times more per capita is paid to tackle such prejudice. However, we must also be careful that people are not pressurised into work for which they are not capable. The reality is that people with a mental illness or a mental disadvantage have different issues than those of us who are more fortunate. I am pleased to report that the Pathways to Work initiative has been piloted in 14 out of the 35 jobs and benefit offices across Northern Ireland. The Department for Employment and Learning has an interest in that scheme. The initial response in Northern Ireland has been relatively positive. However, there is always a danger of getting excited. In reviewing the work of the Department for Work and Pensions, Rethink, a major mental-illness charity in the UK, recognised that, as yet, no statistical evidence exists to show that the Pathways to Work initiative supports those with a mental illness in returning to work. The situation must be tackled and kept under review. How we treat those with mental illness is a very important part of a civilised society. There are a number of issues to consider. I shall say what everyone is thinking: many people think that DLA and housing benefit are abused. That perception is not helpful to society, and I welcome the Bill’s moves to address such issues, whether they concern antisocial behaviour or people with recurrent problems who live in Housing Executive homes. Evicting someone from a Housing Executive home can take years. That is absolutely unsatisfactory. It is not that we want to penalise anyone, but a way must be found to reduce the amount of overheads required to manage the systems, because all money must be focused on the front line. The Ulster Unionist Party is very supportive of the Minister’s proposed reforms in the Bill. We promise to keep the matter under review. In the years to come, we will, no doubt, return to this important issue.The ethos of providing a more positive and individual approach to claimants is also to be welcomed. 11.00 am People want to work, and the reforms have the potential to help many individuals, while also losing the stigma of being perceived as not wanting to work. The proviso is that people who are genuinely not able to work should not be forced into it. I also welcome any help for people currently moving from benefits into the job market, as there is inadequate support at present to help people move into employment. However, Government needs to be cautious that the reform is not just a means to move people off benefits into work. It should be borne in mind that Northern Ireland has higher levels of poverty, health problems and unemployment than the rest of the UK. Incapacity benefit is claimed by 15% of Northern Ireland’s population. People who are on incapacity benefit are generally the most vulnerable in our society in terms of ill health, educational levels, housing status and employability. Quite often they are the people who are least able to come off benefits to get into employment. Government needs to provide meaningful support to them to make the transition into employment a real incentive in economic and self-development terms. The aim should not be to merely remove them from our benefit statistics. To do this there is a need for joined-up services to be put in place right across the benefit, employment and health sectors. The independent advice sector should be resourced and trained to give effective advice and information to enable recipients to make informed choices about moving from benefits to work. Measures should be put in place to protect people and encourage them to come off benefits rather than to penalise them. An adequate infrastructure needs to be established before a new system comes on stream to support people to move into employment. That infrastructure should include affordable childcare and meaningful job opportunities rather than mere token job placements. It is fine to say that we need to get people off benefits in order to move them into work, but we must have a safety net to ensure that people have sufficient income to live on in order not to fall into poverty. It is essential that the new system and forms be simplified. Sometimes even elected representatives struggle to help constituents, due to the complexities of the process. For claimants whose first language is not English, Members can imagine the difficulties in completing such forms. In addition to benefit simplification, the Social Security Agency (SSA) needs to address the issue of bureaucracy to ensure that the transition from benefits to employment runs smoothly, without causing hardship. Mr Hilditch: I support the Bill at its Second Stage. The Bill has received accelerated passage, and I thank the Minister for Social Development, Ms Ritchie, for coming before the Committee for Social Development to seek support for that process, and to answer questions on the concerns raised by the Committee. The majority of the Bill is concerned with maintaining parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, which I welcome. There are several broad areas of principle that deserve a mention. The employment and support allowance will replace incapacity benefit and income support on the grounds of incapacity benefit for work on disability. The underlying principle across the entire benefits system should be to target those who are in most need, and to ensure that those who should not be in receipt of benefits are removed from the system. Every Member finds that to be a sore point in their constituency. The proposed 13-week assessment phase means that claimants will be required to provide medical evidence of their inability to work. Although that may concern some people, the majority of claimants have nothing to fear from any measures that are designed to reduce fraud. Those who cannot provide the required medical evidence within the 13 weeks will have benefit back-paid on receipt of that evidence. I welcome that provision in principle. Once those who cannot work have proven that incapability, the focus can move on to those who can be helped back to the world of work. That is what the benefit system should be designed to do: it must ensure that people do not become stuck in the benefit trap by showing how they can move back towards employment. I am glad that the Minister has recognised the Committee’s concerns about housing benefit payment; indeed, several times she mentioned that she shared those concerns. I welcome her assurance that no moves will be made on housing benefit without full discussions taking place and evidence being produced to support any decision. I look forward to the Minister returning to the Committee to discuss the matter. The proposed amendment to the regulations on certain dust-related diseases will benefit many people. The proposed provision will widen the group of dependants who may make a claim. I am particularly pleased with that proposal; some of my colleagues may remember that part of the campaign for sufferers of such diseases and their families began in my constituency several years ago. Many people suffer from diseases that were contracted as a result of their employment. As well as ensuring that not only can relatives make a claim, making it easier to make a claim against an employer or an insurance company will be a great relief to those who suffer as a result of those terrible conditions. Although accelerated passage means that the Bill will not be subject to the scrutiny that Committee Stage affords, Members have highlighted several issues. I hope that there will be support across the House to ensure that, as well as parity being maintained, those aspects of the Bill that benefit the community across Northern Ireland will be implemented. I support the Bill. Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Although the Welfare Reform Bill is an important piece of legislation, it is merely a rehash of what has been tried previously. It proposes to change housing benefit with the introduction of a local housing allowance rate. That is calculated according to the number and range of occupiers as well as the locality of the claimant. Some Members — and the Committee for Social Development — were concerned about the proposal to introduce regulations to allow direct payment of housing benefit to claimants instead of to landlords. That raises an obvious problem in that more money may go into a weekly budget but may not necessarily be used to pay rent. However, the Minister has given an undertaking that until that has been discussed further with the Committee for Social Development, she will not introduce any regulations that will change the current method of payment of housing benefit. Mr McCarthy: Is the Member aware that the Housing Executive, as I understand, has already notified landlords and, possibly, tenants about a possible change in the payment method? Will the Member accept that if that is the case, the Minister’s undertaking may not be realistic? Mr Brady: That may be the case, although it is our understanding that the Committee for Social Development will consider that matter further. If the Minister decides not to implement that change, the Housing Executive will presumably be informed. Tenants will have their housing benefit removed if a possession order has been made against them on the grounds of antisocial or criminal behaviour. Other sanctions can be applied. The Minister has said that those sanctions will not be imposed until pilot schemes have been studied and their results are in the public domain. Benefit fraud was also mentioned, and it is a recurring theme in social security legislation. Out of £150 million that was lost by the Social Security Agency last year, less than £30 million was lost in fraud. Presumably, the other £120 million was lost through error. It has been mentioned that the Bill proposes changes to the age conditions regarding entitlement to the care and mobility components of disability living allowance. The proposal is to alter the age conditions from those who are 16 years old to people who are around the age of 16. The Bill also makes welcome proposals to amend the Pneumoconiosis etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, to ease the “relevant employer” condition and widen the group of dependants who could make a claim to include, in particular, civil partners. The main principle behind the Bill is to support and encourage more people in receipt of incapacity benefit to move into employment when they are able to do so. Although some of the reforms are welcome, other provisions in the Bill may create particular problems for people with mental-health issues, who make up approximately 40% of all incapacity benefit claimants. One in six people here will suffer from a medically identified mental-health illness at some time in their life, and recent research has found that almost a tenth of our working population claim benefits for mental health. Those figures are worrying and raise major questions about how the area of mental health should be dealt with. A large amount of responsibility is to be placed on personal advisers. The Bill obliges a claimant who fails to attend a work-related interview to provide a good reason for that failure within five days. That timescale is too short and must allow for the unpredictable nature of some mental-health problems. Presumably, the Minister will reconsider the timescale. When the personal capability assessment was introduced in the 1990s, 50% of people were supposed to be taken off benefits — that simply did not happen. A more holistic approach to that assessment is required. Examining doctors must be fully trained and have a thorough understanding of mental-health issues to ensure that the test is applied fairly and effectively. It is essential that proper resources be allocated for that purpose. Although the move to encourage and support more people to return to work is welcome, many on incapacity benefit will face practical issues. People with mental-health problems still face prejudice and discrimination in the workplace. Recent statistics confirm that less than 40% of employers would employ someone with a mental illness and 75% would not employ someone with schizophrenia. Urgent action must be taken to reduce the stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental-health problems. Finally, a Cheann Comhairle, parts of the Bill are welcome, but many aspects must be properly resourced and dealt with in a humane and sensitive way. Go raibh maith agat. Miss McIlveen: I welcome the passing of this important piece of legislation: it is imperative that there is parity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in such areas. As a member of the Committee for Social Development, I found it of great assistance that the Minister attended the Committee to brief us on the Bill. Particular aspects of the Bill should be highlighted to the Assembly. The Housing Executive will be given clear powers beyond its current perceived remit to investigate and prosecute benefit fraud. That will provide an effective tool with which to tackle fraud and free up funds that can be distributed to their rightful recipients — the Province’s needy. Fraudsters are a blight on society; they steal from the poorest and embezzle the taxpayer. Therefore, I welcome the provision in clause 45, which extends the period during which time someone convicted of benefit fraud will lose the right to benefit for five years as opposed to three years. Furthermore, I note the provisions contained in the Bill at clause 31 and, although it is not intended that the measure will be introduced until the pilot scheme in England has been evaluated, it must be introduced without delay if such sanctions are shown to be successful. The public purse should not be used to facilitate thuggery, bullying and antisocial behaviour. Recipients of housing benefit should be mindful that being part of a society that has at its heart the support and protection of the vulnerable by the payments of benefits means that those receiving the benefits have been assessed as vulnerable. People who have been shown to be thugs and bullies are not vulnerable. 11.15 am Along with the members of the Committee for Social Development, I happily note the provisions contained in clause 52, which makes important changes to the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. Any means of supporting those who are suffering from such horrific industrial diseases is to be wholeheartedly endorsed. The introduction of measures to simplify the means by which sufferers can be compensated is laudable. I have my reservations regarding the payment of a local housing allowance directly to the tenant rather than to private landlords, as outlined in the Bill. Like the Chairperson of the Committee, I welcome the Minister’s undertaking to the Committee on this matter. The introduction of such a measure may have the opposite effect of its intention: instead of encouraging budget management and the paying of bills, it could place pressures on an individual who has fallen into debt and is tempted to pay off that debt rather than pay for his accommodation. The landlord will suffer, and there is the possibility that private landlords will be disinclined to offer accommodation to those eligible for local housing allowance. The Bill is only the skeleton to which the flesh of ministerial regulations will be attached, and, as a member of the Committee, I look forward to scrutinising the practical effect of the legislation. However, I remind the Minister that some of the main concerns regarding the legislation in Great Britain have been about the impact on those suffering with mental-health problems and the willingness of employers to absorb them into their workforce. I welcome the Minister’s earlier remarks on that. We must be mindful that regulations will have to be sensitively drafted, so that the most vulnerable in society are not cast adrift from the benefits system. I am happy to support the general principles of the Bill. Mr Burns: I support the Welfare Reform Bill. As Members of the Assembly, we have a responsibility to do our best for our constituents and for Northern Ireland. There is also a strong need to maintain parity. In relation to the employment and support allowance that will replace incapacity benefit, it is positive that there are work-related conditions that build on the Pathways to Work programme. Will the Minister outline how Pathways to Work has worked so far in Northern Ireland, and will she confirm that her Department is working with the Department for Employment and Learning on that programme? The Minister has expressed concern about the proposal to pay the local housing allowance directly to tenants, and I share the Minister’s concerns. Increasing the sense of responsibility of tenants might be a good idea, but we must ensure that any possible increase in debt or evictions does not happen. My primary interest in the Bill is in the provision for dust-related diseases such as asbestosis. The Bill provides for an easement of the “relevant employer” condition, making it easier for people suffering from asbestosis and mesothelioma to claim compensation. We must ensure that people suffering from those diseases do not have any further delays in making their compensation claims. It is encouraging that the group of people eligible to claim compensation will be widened. Those who have found it difficult to identify their former employers will now find it easier to make claims. There are many reasons to maintain parity. Social security is an area with a long-standing policy of parity, as provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I support the Bill. Mrs McGill: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Social Development Committee agreed to this Bill’s receiving accelerated passage because it was told by officials, and by Minister Ritchie, that claimants would suffer if the Bill were delayed, and that there needed to be parity with England, where the counterpart Bill was passed in May. However, there was very strong resistance to the Bill in England. The irony of that is that there was so much resistance precisely because of the suffering that the Westminster Welfare Reform Bill would cause if passed. The Coalition Against the Welfare Reform Bill (CAWRB) protested against that Bill at the Labour Party conference in September. It demanded that the British Government rethink their welfare reform policies and recognise that the poor, the vulnerable, the disabled and the genuinely unemployed would be seriously disadvantaged and punished if the Bill were passed. The Bill was variously described as unjust, draconian and unworkable. I know that we are debating the general principles of the Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill, but clause 31 deals with the loss of housing benefit following eviction for antisocial behaviour. We all accept that antisocial behaviour is a scourge; therefore, Governments must tackle its root causes. However, instead of doing so, they rely on reactive punitive measures; indeed, Basil McCrea referred to penalties. I agree: every single case does not warrant penalty. Clause 31 proposes that the Housing Executive be given the power to reduce housing benefit by 10% for the first four weeks, 20% for a further four weeks, and eventually by 100% for a period of up to five years from the repossession of the accommodation. Will that encourage someone who has been evicted to behave positively? I do not think that it will. Where will the evicted person live? Clause 31 proposes that the sanction be withdrawn or reduced depending on the Housing Executive’s assessment of whether the evicted person has co-operated with rehabilitation, and I accept that that has been addressed. A lower rate of benefit reduction will apply if families are deemed to be in hardship. However, does that make the sanction all right? A household may experience hardship if, for example, someone is seriously ill, pregnant, has caring responsibilities or there are children. Despite the lower rate, however, a reduction would still apply. The Housing Executive can act with flexibility: sanctions can be stopped or restarted. That must be a bureaucratic nightmare. I note that the removal of housing benefit for antisocial behaviour will not be introduced until the piloting of the sanction in England has been evaluated. Indeed, the Minister referred to that pilot. I thank the Minister for giving the DSD Committee the commitment that there will be no changes to housing benefit or the method through which it is delivered. However, given Kieran McCarthy’s contribution, I wonder whether that commitment still stands. I am sure that we will hear from the Minister about that at a later stage. Accelerated passage has denied the Committee the opportunity to discuss fully the implications of the proposed changes. That is not good for democracy, and in this case, it would have helped if the Committee had been able to discuss the Bill. We need a Minister who is not only a Minister for Social Development but who has a social conscience. The Minister gives the impression that she has a social conscience; however, parts of the Bill do not reflect a social conscience. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Craig: I welcome the Welfare Reform Bill. I note with great interest that there is more enthusiasm from some quarters of the House today than there was when the original Bill was debated in the Transitional Assembly. Perhaps some of those parties have managed to make a leap between grandstanding in opposition under direct rule and the realities of life under devolution. I welcomed the Minister’s attendance at the Committee for Social Development to provide more details on the issues that are contained in the Bill. Parity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is crucial. I welcome the fact that other Members seem to be thinking along the same lines. I support the fact that the Bill ensures that Northern Ireland is kept in line with Great Britain. The issue that received most attention in the Committee was the possible introduction of a local housing allowance. Although the Minister gave a welcome assurance that it would not be introduced without further consultation with the Committee, it is worth a mention in the debate. There is great concern about a change in the direct payment of housing benefit away from the landlord to the tenant. Tenants can experience great pressure when deciding how best to spend their benefits, particularly when at their most vulnerable. The direct payment of housing benefit to tenants would put those people under further pressure. Recipients of housing benefit are among those with the lowest incomes, and there are many competing pressures on their limited budgets. Although there is the argument that people should be able to budget for and pay their rent when in work, the direct payment of housing benefit to tenants will only put increased pressure on those recipients, who may have to choose whether to use that money to pay their rent or to heat their homes in order to keep their children warm. At times, that may put them in an almost impossible position. My hon Friend, the Chairman of the Committee for Social Development, stressed the importance of that issue to the Minister and ensured that the Committee was given her commitment that further consideration would be given to it. I hope that she will stand by that commitment. Measures to reduce benefit fraud will be welcomed by the many honest benefit claimants in Northern Ireland. The Bill will encourage those who are in receipt of benefits to go back to work, which can only be good for the economy. Northern Ireland receives taxable income contributions of £2·3 billion. As a Committee member, I was shocked to learn that £2·25 billion of that money is spent on benefits. The long-term effects of that must be examined. Northern Ireland’s economy cannot sustain itself under the present circumstances. To enable the economy to grow, the Assembly must assist people to get back to work while ensuring that those who cannot go back to work are looked after. I caution the Minister against the introduction of direct payment of housing benefit to tenants without detailed examination of its effects. However, I support the broad thrust of the Bill, and I urge the rest of the House to do likewise. Mr A Maginness: Northern Ireland is in the most curious situation of having one of the highest levels of people who are economically inactive throughout these islands: its level is certainly higher than that of any region of the UK and possibly of the Republic as well. 11.30 am At the same time Northern Ireland has a serious skills shortage. The problem of economic dislocation in the workforce and the high numbers who are economically inactive must be addressed thoroughly and seriously. Part of the Bill is intended to do that. People have become economically inactive, are in a benefit trap, dependent on benefits and unlikely to get out of that situation. We cannot sit back and allow that to continue indefinitely. It is not good for those people, for society in general or for the local economy. All of us in the Assembly want to see the economy reshaped and reformed, so that it responds to the needs of the community at large. The Welfare Reform Bill is part and parcel of an attempt to address that situation. Others have pointed out that it is a parity measure, and it is important that the Assembly supports it. Most of us in the Chamber would prefer to legislate for social welfare ourselves, and we might make a better job of it, going by the interesting ideas that have been introduced this morning. However, that is not possible because the need for parity has been accepted, and that will continue indefinitely. The SDLP accepts the financial realities. A figure of £2·5 billion was quoted as being spent on benefits in Northern Ireland. That is a huge amount of money; however, as we must maintain parity, we have little option but to accept the legislation. As with most legislation, there are good things and bad; however, the main thrust is good. If we are going to make economically active those who are inactive — and not all of them are benefit recipients, though they are a goodly number — then we have to employ new means of encouraging people to work. The main vehicle for that is similar to the Pathways to Work approach, which is a good thing. My colleague Fra McCann, who spoke this morning, and I sit on the Employment Services Board (ESB) in Belfast. That is a community-based organisation, financed partly by the Department for Social Development — and I am grateful to the Minister for continuing that finance. I am sure that Mr McCann agrees with me. Essentially, what the ESB does is precisely what Pathways to Work does, but on a community level. People who are disconnected from the statutory agencies are brought into to a community context where, by talking to them, advising them and interviewing them, they are encouraged back to work. In fact, I used the wrong phrase — some of those people have never been in work in the first place. The ESB aims to encourage them to think differently, about working instead of being on welfare benefits, and about getting out of that culture of dependency. Mr McCann would agree with me that that approach is working in West Belfast. Mr F McCann: I agree with Mr Maginness, with whom I sit on the West Belfast Employment Services Board (ESB), which is trying to make a difference. However, the difference between the ESB and Pathways to Work is that the board’s work has been done in a stronger community setting and in a more community-friendly manner. For many people, the barriers that have been mentioned exist in the benefits offices, which seem intimidatory. That dissuades people from going to benefits offices and leaves them on the back foot. Mr A Maginness: Those arguments will continue after the passage of the Bill. Many will say that they want a more innovative and friendly way of dealing with people who are out of work. I am sure that the Department for Social Development will take those points on board, deal with that matter and become much more friendly in dealing with people in that situation. The differences among Members are not about the substance of what is intended by the Bill, but the methods by which some of the delivery will take place. We must be constructive in debating the ways and means of proceeding. Unfortunately, we cannot have an Employment Services Board in every part of Northern Ireland. We all would love that to be the case, which would lead to a much friendlier, more community-based approach. However, the realities of life are such that that measure cannot be translated to a wider scale. Mr McCann and others have said that the Department must be sensitive to people’s needs, including those who have real — particularly mental — disabilities. I accept the Minister’s assurance that a sensitive approach will be taken when dealing with people with those difficulties. It is important that DSD works out ways and means to engage with people, over and above the normal, more bureaucratic methods. I would welcome that, and I hope that the Minister could offer assurance on that. We have had the experience of the Pathways to Work programme, which was offered by 14 benefits offices. The outcome of those experiments and that experience will be important in informing this debate, and I look forward to that. I do not wish to get into the detail of clause 31, but I understand why people say that they object to punitive measures and do not wish to see people, effectively, left without any support in the community. However, antisocial behaviour is an appalling problem in many housing estates and neighbourhoods throughout Northern Ireland. It may be only one family that is causing the problem, but that has a ripple effect. It is not just the immediate neighbours who suffer; it is the whole neighbourhood. If we do not hold some type of sanction on people, over and beyond what exists at the moment, how are we going to control effectively such situations? Such measures as sanctions are possible with the Bill; however, the Minister has assured us that she will examine the pilot schemes that have taken place in Britain. That should inform our debate and it would be useful to see exactly what happens in Britain. If there is no threat of sanction, will people listen? Will behaviour improve? We are all human beings and there must be some sanctions at the stage when behaviour is completely out of hand. That provision is not intended to deal with people who are simply negligent; rather, it is to cope with a hard core of completely antisocial people who defy the normal rules of society. I hope that the Department will seriously consider the provisions relating to the mentally ill, and that the Minister will assure the House that that issue will be dealt with in a sensitive manner. I welcome the provisions relating to those suffering from asbestosis and other diseases. I know, from professional experience, that that will assist people to bring claims for compensation by helping to overcome the evidential difficulties in establishing claims related to events of 20, 30 or, in some cases, 40 years ago. Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I have two brief points. I ask the Minister to clarify her position on the increasing tendency for the Department, in establishing the personal capability assessment (PCA) and eligibility for disability living allowance, to require proof of professional psychiatric intervention in order to establish that a person suffers mental ill health. That appears to be a growing issue; and I am concerned at that trend. I am anxious that provision of that proof should not become a prerequisite. In many cases, a social worker or a general practitioner is the person who is best apprised of the mental-health difficulties that an individual suffers. It is a misnomer to call the programme a pathway to work, since, for many, it does not lead to work. People want to know whether it will be financially disadvantageous for them to return to work, even under the present inadequate benefit system. We must grapple with that issue, which impinges on education, job skills acquisition, further education and benefit entitlements. We must take a longer-term view on that matter. For many, the economic calculation does not stack up. In the longer term, a cross-departmental approach must be taken to develop a better means of bringing people back to work, rather than tackling social security aspects in isolation. Members have no wish to rubber-stamp policies that will, in practice, exacerbate poverty, rather than tackle its root causes. Ms Ritchie: I have listened carefully to all the points made by Members during the debate. I will address their concerns. At the outset, however, I stress that the Bill, and its accelerated passage, was supported by all members of the Executive. I must also address the issue of parity with the rest of United Kingdom. I acknowledge that that principle is, to some extent, frustrating to an Assembly that is keen to pass its own laws and form its own policies. Both as a Minister and as a Member of the Assembly, I would like to be able to do that. 11.45 am However, I caution Members that Northern Ireland’s social security system is not self-financing. The cost of paying benefits in Northern Ireland is heavily subsidised by Great Britain. During the debate on accelerated passage for the Welfare Reform Bill on Monday 4 June, I said: “For example, in 2005-06, to meet its benefit obligations, the Northern Ireland National Insurance fund needed a transfer of £185 million from the Great Britain National Insurance fund. In the same period, expenditure on non-contributory benefits, which are demand led and financed from taxation revenue, was more than £2·26 billion. The funding depends on parity. Therefore, when Members ask what reason we have for maintaining parity, the answer is that there is approximately £2·4 billion worth of reasons.” — [Official Report, Vol 22, No 8, pp261-2]. Those points must be made. Some Members have used their misconceptions about the Welfare Reform Bill for party political coat-trailing purposes. I have a social conscience, and I firmly believe in the principles of social justice. I come from a family that worked extensively with people who suffered from mental illness, so I have always been aware of the principle that people come first. Some Members: Hear, hear. Ms Ritchie: I now move on to the concerns that Members expressed. I am grateful to the members of the Committee for Social Development and its Chairperson, Mr Campbell, for their support of the Welfare Reform Bill, and I look forward to working with them over the coming months. Fra McCann mentioned my “Damascene conversion”, but it appears that the road to Damascus is very crowded now. [Laughter.] However, having explored the issues thoroughly with my officials, I am reassured about the implementation of the Bill’s provisions. My Department’s aim is to support and encourage people with mental-health conditions, and to treat them sensitively, not to impose sanctions on them. Full account of the fluctuating nature of certain mental-health conditions will be taken, because we must respect the fact that people may be well at certain times and less well at others. We must be particularly sensitive to that. I fully empathise and sympathise with people in that situation. For example, more than 20% of interviews with people suffering from a mental-health difficulty are deferred due to the fluctuating nature of their illnesses. Personal advisers will be fully trained to assist and support people with mental-health problems. I have already assured the members of the Committee for Social Development that I will discuss the issues associated with direct payment with them before we move ahead. I thought that I had made my position clear, but some people may have chosen — again for party political reasons — not to listen. The Executive Committee, including Fra McCann’s colleagues, endorsed the Bill. I did not hear any dissent on that day. Likewise, the members of the Committee for Social Development, including Fra McCann, unanimously supported accelerated passage for the Bill. Furthermore, since the introduction of the Pathways to Work programme — Mr F McCann: May I make a point of information in order to clarify the position? Ms Ritchie: I wish to continue. Mr F McCann: The Committee for Social Development was told — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Please address your remarks through the Chair. Mr F McCann: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Committee for Social Development was told — [Laughter.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr F McCann: The Committee for Social Development was told that accelerated passage was required; otherwise the payment of benefits would be affected. That was why I, and my colleagues on the Committee, went along with it. Ms Ritchie: I thank Mr McCann for his intervention. However, I had already explained the principle of parity and the financial reasons for driving the Bill through by way of accelerated passage. As the Minister for Social Development, I want to ensure that nobody will be worse off financially as a result of the Bill. That was the point that the members of the Committee for Social Development wanted me to take on board. Mr Campbell: Will the Minister confirm that, when she spoke to the Committee for Social Development, the circumstances and rationale for seeking accelerated passage for the Welfare Reform Bill were exactly the same as the circumstances and rationale in the Assembly today? Ms Ritchie: I thank the Member for making that point. I agree fully with him. The conditions remain the same. Therefore granting accelerated passage was vital, as is the Bill’s content. That is why, because of the principle of parity, we must move forward. Since the introduction of the Pathways to Work programme in October 2005, more than 790 employers have recruited those in receipt of incapacity benefit. Dr McCrea referred to mental health. I am well aware of the mental-health issues. Indeed, they happen to be one of the legacies of the Troubles. There is no intention to force people, particularly those with mental-health problems, into work if they are not ready to do so. I agree fully that we must focus our energies on front-line services. Anna Lo referred to language difficulties. My Department is aware of such difficulties and will take them into account as we implement the employment-support allowance and the work-related activity requirements. I can also assure Ms Lo and the Assembly that the Bill is not about benefit statistics but about genuinely wanting to help people to realise their potential. Mr Brady referred to mental-health problems and the role of personal advisers. I emphasise once more that, since the Pathways to Work programme was launched, more than 790 employers have provided work to those on incapacity benefit. Departmental disablement-employment advisers and Health Service professionals support my personal advisers in assessing needs. GP advice is sought if necessary. Personal advisers are trained in how to recognise the impact of mental-health conditions. I assure the Assembly that they receive a high level of training. I thank David Hilditch and Michelle McIlveen for their broad support of the Bill’s principles. Once again, I have noted the concerns expressed about the proposal to pay housing benefit directly to tenants, and I hope that my reassurances during this Second Stage debate will go some way towards allaying those concerns. I have made it clear that, until I have discussed the issue with the Committee, I will not invoke regulations or introduce commencement Orders. To do so, I must be absolutely satisfied, and, at present, I have grave reservations and concerns. Mr McCarthy: This point returns to my earlier intervention. Over the weekend, I had in my hand a letter from the Housing Executive that advised landlords that, come 1 April 2008, housing benefit would be paid directly to tenants. Will the Minister confirm or deny what is going on? Ms Ritchie: I will make the position clear again. I sought advice from the Housing Executive on direct payments. In its advice to me, the Housing Executive said that it wanted housing benefit to be paid directly to landlords. Mr McCarthy: Hear, hear. Ms Ritchie: In light of Mr McCarthy’s intervention and other related comments, I will raise those issues with the Housing Executive. As Minister, I will not invoke the regulations for direct payments or introduce commencement Orders until I have gone back to the Committee. Like members of the Committee, I must be satisfied that such a system would be a success. At present, I have no reason to believe that it would be a success. Thomas Burns referred to the Pathways to Work programme. I hope that I have reassured him of its success. Claire McGill referred to anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs). Her concerns about tenants’ being evicted for antisocial behaviour encapsulate my reasons for wanting to study the outcome of the pilots being run in England. Those have to take place first. Nor will the sanctions be introduced until a further Bill is brought before the Assembly. I thought that I had made that clear this morning. I am grateful for the support of Mr Craig, and I hope that my reassurances on housing benefit have allayed his concerns. Alban Maginness gave some statistics and supporting arguments. I can also provide some statistics: in Northern Ireland, 10·7% of the working-age population is economically inactive due to ill health and disability, compared with the UK average of 7%. Everyone must move forward to help people reach their potential. We cannot consign so many people to a life of benefit dependency. The Department is asking people to engage in some work-related activity, but it is not forcing them into work, because I am mindful of people with severe disabilities and mental ill health, and of the periodic impact that that poor mental health can have on their lives and situations. I guarantee Patsy McGlone that no one who moves from incapacity benefit to employment support allowance will be worse off. There will be provision for any individual who tries to go out to work but is prevented from so doing due to disability or illness — which can happen, as Members know — to return to the higher benefit rate, rather than having to start again. All evidence will be taken into account, but the personal capability assessment is an objective assessment that is carried out by specially trained healthcare professionals. Mr McGlone asked about disability living allowance; I will have that investigated and respond to him in writing. I am sure that there are also concerns about people leaving care and the need for a joined-up response across different sectors to facilitate their successful reintegration into society. I will draw to the attention of the Health Minister the comments that were made today. Gregory Campbell, the Chairman of the Committee for Social Development, and other Members mentioned the need for discussions with the Minister for Employment and Learning about the requirement for resources to be invested in employment and training. I am fully aware of that, and I will be having discussions with the Minister. I have informed him of my concerns on that matter, and we have talked about them and hope to make progress. I hope that I have addressed all the points raised today. I will read Hansard carefully, and if any Member has raised a matter that I have failed to address or that needs to be dealt with in more detail, I will respond to him or her in writing. I commend the Bill to the Assembly. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Second Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill [NIA 1/07] be agreed. Mr Speaker: I remind Members, though reluctantly, that there is no time limit on speeches. The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): I beg to move That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 3/07] be agreed. This debate follows the Bill’s First Stage, which took place yesterday, and the Supply resolution for the 2007-08 Main Estimates, which was also considered and approved yesterday. 12.00 noon The Bill can be given accelerated passage because the Committee for Finance and Personnel has confirmed that, in line with Standing Order 40(2), it is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill. That condition has been met and confirmation was given in a letter, dated 23 May 2007, from the Chairman of the Committee for Finance and Personnel to the Speaker. I welcome the Committee’s assistance in this matter. The purpose of the Bill is to give legislative effect to the resource Estimates approved through the Supply resolution passed yesterday. Copies of the Main Estimates volume, the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members. However, for the benefit of Members, I wish to summarise briefly the main features of the Bill in accordance with the nature of the Second Stage debate envisaged under Standing Order 30. The principle of the Bill is to authorise the use of resources totalling £7,922,535,000 by Departments and certain other bodies and the issue of £7,079,776,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in respect of the Main Estimates for 2007-08. Those amounts are additional to the Vote on Account passed at Westminster in February 2007. I emphasise again that the Executive have adopted the financial allocations for 2007-08, as originally set by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland prior to the restoration of devolution. As I said yesterday, although this is not ideal, and the Executive will wish to review the plans in the longer term in the context of their own priorities, it represents the most pragmatic and sensible way of ensuring the continued and uninterrupted provision of public services. The Executive will also have an opportunity to review spending plans, particularly in the context of any emerging flexibility, through the normal in-year monitoring process. Any and all reallocations of funding will be made in accordance with the Executive’s own priorities, rather than those used by the previous direct rule ministerial team. The Assembly has important responsibilities in this area, and I was most interested to hear the views of Members during yesterday’s useful debate. The nature of those debates means that they are wide-ranging — that is important because financial provision is fundamental to each of our public services. I welcome the interest that was demonstrated by Members on those issues yesterday. I recognise that, as Members had a full opportunity to speak on those matters yesterday, there is unlikely to be a long debate today. However, I will be happy to deal with any of the points of principle that may arise. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In writing to the Speaker on 23 May 2007 to confirm the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s decision to support accelerated passage, I also addressed the context in which the Committee made this decision. At its meetings on 16 May 2007 and 23 May 2007, the Committee was briefed by senior officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel on the Budget Bill and on the related Main Estimates, which contain the Department’s detailed spending plans for the financial year 2007-08. The Committee was informed that, because of the timing of restoration, the Assembly and the Executive are, in effect, inheriting a direct rule Budget, which requires Assembly approval. This approval provides the legal authority for the balance of resources and associated cash requirements, as detailed in the Main Estimates, which were debated and voted on yesterday. The Bill would normally mark the end of a process, lasting approximately 18 months, during which the Assembly — and especially its Statutory Committees — would be extensively consulted by Departments and the Executive on the preparation of the annual spending plans. Although the opportunities for the levels of consultation that would normally have occurred in the annual Budget cycle did not exist under direct rule, the Committee received clarification on a range of issues in respect of the 2007-08 Budget and on the arrangements for consultation with the Assembly Committees to be included in the annual Budget process in the future. The Committee is aware of the consequences for departmental spending and the potential effect on front-line services should the Bill not reach its Final Stage by 3 July 2007. It was in that context that the Committee declared that it was satisfied that there had been appropriate consultation on the public expenditure proposals in the Bill, in accordance with Standing Order 40(2). At its meeting on 23 May, the Committee agreed that the Bill should proceed with accelerated passage. I support the motion. Go raibh míle maith agat. Mr McNarry: I look to my left at the crew of the DUP’s starship Enterprise — and a fine-looking bunch they are too. Surely even the DUP’s most travelled voyagers will admit that going where no unionist has gone before takes a lot of fuel. Indeed, the DUP leader was quoted in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ on 14 March this year as saying: “There is no use putting a beautiful engine on the road and saying, ‘Here is devolution, here is a wonderful form of Government’ if there is not the money to pay for the fuel, the fuel to run that engine.” That was only a few months ago, and the cost of fuel has fluctuated, as have the DUP’s promises and pledges. Here we are, debating the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. To put that in context, let us return to 2004 when Ensign Storey and Chief Engineer McCrea were just getting used to party statements that moved along at warp 3. How they will greet the Budget Bill remains to be seen. No doubt, we will hear. However, in September 2004, the now Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Mr Doods, told the ‘News Letter’ — and this is good stuff: “To underpin stability we are proposing an economic package, a peace dividend, to give Northern Ireland a good start to any return of devolution.” Mr Dodds was soon followed in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ in December 2004 by the now Minister of Finance and Personnel, who was speaking after a party delegation had met the then Secretary of State, Paul Murphy. Mr Robinson said: “The whole idea of a financial package for Northern Ireland in the event of a comprehensive settlement was initiated by the Democratic Unionist Party and first publicly mooted by myself in a speech to the Small Business Association in Dublin back in September.” What he said in Dublin, he failed to say when presenting his Budget Bill to this House in Belfast. Way back, the DUP’s party policy compass was set in the direction of going where unionists had never gone before and taking the crew of the DUP starship Enterprise on a journey that it might never get over, let alone recover from. By 2006, the great negotiators — the strong men whom members of the party could trust with their money — had moved from warp three and were hurtling along at a roller-coaster speed of warp six. “We are star trekking across the Province,” was the DUP cry. “There are Klingons in the east wing now, Ian. Yes, they are Klingons, Ian, but not as we know them. They are republican Klingons, and they are everywhere. Commander Worf McGuinness is on the bridge with his hands on the controls, Ian. Our own Mr Spock has taken over the ship’s arts and culture activities, and Lieutenant Uhura, God bless her, is in charge of the environment. The fellow we need to build new roads is a right trekker. He is not sure whether he is here or there, and the rest of us are not sure either, Ian.” Let us hold fast at warp six — let us not get ahead of ourselves. Let us stop for a while in 2006, when the DUP declared that it would take the finance portfolio. The DUP declared that it would prepare for a Budget Bill in June 2007 and that it had over a year to show London who the bosses were in Ulster. Who would have thought, after what the DUP said about financial and fiscal imperatives throughout 2006 — indeed, right up to only a few weeks ago — that we would be witnessing a DUP Minister of Finance and Personnel delivering the Second Stage of a direct rule Budget Bill today? Direct rule is still laying down the terms and conditions. That is no inheritance. That is how Gordon rolled over Peter — not once, not twice, but three times. Who encouraged the bravado behind crowd-pleasing spending? Who delivered such rashly arrogant assurances that only served to raise the expectations of the people; and who disappointed them and retreated from stargazing election promises? The DUP junior Minister — one of the “I am no pushover” financial negotiators — in September 2006, when he was speaking at a meeting of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, said: “Before the rubber hits the road, we need to get a signed-up deal on finance with the Government. What would be on the blank page of that deal? We must identify the critical issues so that, when we do put our foot on the pedal, the car goes in the direction that we want it to go”. — [Official Report, Bound Volume 20, pSG125, col 1]. If one attempts to factor that statement into the Budget Bill, it simply will not go. On 30 October 2006, Mr P Robinson, when speaking to the Preparation for Government Committee about the financial package, said: “If the package is zero, there will not be a deal. The package is an essential ingredient as far as we are concerned. We are not going to the Chancellor to give us something to keep us happy. If we do not have a decent package, we are not going forward.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 20, pCPG494, col 1]. Where are we going with this Budget Bill? On 1 November, speaking before the political parties met with the Chancellor at Downing Street, Mr Robinson said very publicly that the financial package was: “a necessary precondition for any restoration of devolution. Unless the financial package is satisfactory, then there is little benefit in any return of devolution.” Where is the benefit in this Budget Bill? On 15 February 2007, while we were still at warp six, the ‘News Letter’ told its readers that DUP sources said that the financial package was a “deal-breaker”, and that if the money for devolution was not enough, there would be no Government. They also said that there was no point in setting up a Government to fail because the Government need the tools and resources to succeed. Which deal did it break — are we not in a devolution situation now? What is this Budget wizardry about? How did the DUP go into Government when it is clear that its members have even broken promises that they made to themselves? How can they present this Bill today when they said in their manifesto: “If a satisfactory financial package is not secured now, it is unlikely to be obtained after devolution returns when the pressure is off the Government? When did you take the foot off the pedal, Ian Junior? When did the pressure stop? The DUP stated: “If a satisfactory package is not secured now”. My oh my — are we to believe that a satisfactory package has been secured? Does the DUP believe it, or is it unable to admit that it has been knocked over, and that there is no package, satisfactory or otherwise, to be delivered? The DUP’s own words in its own manifesto — in its commitment to the electorate — stated that without a package before devolution: “it is unlikely to be obtained after devolution”. Does the DUP stand by that statement, and would its Members tell the House that that is their view? Devolution has returned, and yet there is no sign of a satisfactory financial package in this Budget. Indeed, judging by this Bill there is little prospect of it, and as far as Gordon Brown is concerned, he will move into 10 Downing Street in two weeks time, giving these great negotiators nothing. Do not get me wrong, the UUP knows all about roller coasters. Whereas Klingon ships have cloaking devices, I am afraid to say that the Klingons that we met did not know when to remove their cloaks of deceit and sleight-of-hand tactics. As for broken or shattered promises, we have experiences of Government that say little for those whom we encountered. It is not enough of an explanation for Dr Paisley to say, as he was reported to have done, on 6 May, that: “he was disappointed with the negotiations and that Mr Brown should not take the local parties for granted.” The script was added to on 7 May — as Members might recall — when the ‘News Letter’ quoted Dr Paisley taunting democrats by saying: “All we have to say is, ‘all right have your little pantomime on Tuesday but we’ll not be there’.” Well, he was there. The very next day, on that Tuesday, the pantomime curtain was rolled up and the pantomime performed, with both Mr Paisley and his deputy playing leading roles in that “Come into the parlour” scene, in which Tony, Bertie and Martin were treated to tea and cakes. This House is no pantomime set, nor should we ever allow the impression to be given that we do not mean business; so let us be businesslike. Let us be open and transparent by admitting — more than people have been prepared to admit — that, in 2007-08, all Departments will struggle to live up to expectations; cuts will be made; water charges will not be resolved; many improvements will not be made; and expectations will be lowered. That is what the Budget will deliver. Much has been made of some people’s superior negotiating skills — the point was rammed down our throats — but they have been found out. Those who claimed that a financial package was an imperative and a deal-breaking condition for going into or staying out of Government have singularly failed to deliver. That has been exposed today. However, we need to tell the people not about the failures, but how we intend to make headway despite those failures. That is what we expect to hear today about the foundations that we hope will be laid in the Budget Bill. The next time that a devolved Minister of Finance presents Budget proposals to the House, he or she should also come with their position on the line. Last October, like all my colleagues on the economic challenges subgroup, I agreed with Mitchel McLaughlin when he stated: “A clear demand is emerging for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and create a level playing field for us, the upcoming Assembly, and a future Executive. They should give us a chance to deliver a Programme for Government and not destroy us before we start.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 20, pSG 172, col 1]. That was the challenge that was laid down for any Minister introducing a Budget Bill. In October, Edwin Poots — who is now Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure — made sense when he rebuked a member of the Preparation for Government Committee by saying that the Member in question “seems to have a defeatist attitude before we go to the Chancellor. I am quite hopeful that we will get a package. If we get zero, all the parties should withdraw, including those who were sent forward to negotiate in the appropriate manner.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 20, pCPG 494, col 1]. However, we got zero, and some parties were withdrawn. That was another way of excluding people to make way for Peter Robinson alone, or for Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness together, to conclude the negotiations. The truth is that not once or twice but three times they failed to negotiate successfully a financial package, without which this Budget Bill has little relevance to our people. Having begun with a comment from Nigel Dodds from September 2004, let me finish with another of his comments — taken from the DUP website — from no later than 23 May this year, when reality was perhaps finally dawning. He said: “It is absolutely essential that the right economic and financial package, which was promised to the people of NI, is put in place so as stability can be achieved in Northern Ireland.” I agree. That is Mr Dodds’s most realistic statement for a long time. That statement means that his colleagues surely need no longer be in denial and can move on from the blame game that they want to continue playing. This situation is not Gordon’s fault; this is the devolved Minister of Finance and Personnel’s first Budget Bill. A financial package was indeed promised, but it was not promised by the “giver”. The package was promised by the “askers”, who became the “demanders”, then the “negotiators”. Ultimately, however, they have become the losers, and we have all lost as a result. Mr O’Loan: Members will be glad to hear that the duration of my speech will not emulate that of Mr McNarry. Its content may also differ somewhat. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel said, most of the issues were thrashed out yesterday. I want to take this opportunity to wish Ministers well. I know that they will all approach the task of discharging important public functions seriously. Everyone will benefit from that. The Department for Social Development’s budget will be over £1·8 billion, and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s budget will be £1·9 billion. Those are large sums of money. I do not want to pre-empt this afternoon’s debate on industrial rating, but I wish to comment briefly on the issue. This year has seen a lower income from industrial rating than had been planned, and I have no doubt that provisions have been made to allow for that. All parties will have to consider the effects of the future controlling of industrial rates. The budget for the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation is £272,000. I was struck by that figure. That office is crucial, and we could all learn a lesson from its relatively small budget. Consumers and citizens are seriously under-represented in the public process. That situation ought to be redressed, and the Minister and Members should think hard about the development of that issue. Recently, the Consumer Council has made huge achievements, which, in the context of the Budget, were done at a very small cost. The important health, education and social security sectors need more, rather than less, consumer and citizen representation. An independent person to deal with complaints should also be factored in; elected representatives should not see that as an arrogation of their democratic prerogative — quite the opposite, in fact. Such a position would benefit citizens and assist Members as we make policy, legislate and allocate resources. During yesterday’s debate on the Main Estimates, my party leader referred to a revenue regulator. The Minister responded, if not lightly then briefly, that he exercises the role of a revenue regulator. However, there is more to it than that. Independent bodies, as well as elected representatives, play a significant role in representing the consumer. They are not a threat to our position, but rather an assistance. Considering the myriad measures that have financial implications for the public, it would benefit us for an independent body to consider the issue. That small cost would be of benefit to us. I urge Members and parties not to dismiss that idea but to consider it further. Dr Farry: Yesterday, the Alliance Party supported the Supply resolution, albeit with a heavy heart; we will do so again today with the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. There is a need to ensure the continuation of services in Northern Ireland, but my party accepts that it is an inherited Budget from direct rule Ministers. That said, however, it is also a flawed Budget. No Member in this Chamber should be under any illusions about that. In line with the general principles of the Bill and the amount that is being drawn down from the Consolidated Fund, we must be conscious of the interaction between the size of our Budget and the Northern Ireland economy. The subvention from the UK Exchequer is almost £7 billion. That is almost half the Budget, which highlights the relatively small size of the tax base and the very large public sector share of GDP. I was pleased that the Minister acknowledged yesterday that that issue must be addressed, and that the answer is to grow the private sector as rapidly as possible to ensure that local resources are in place to deal with the demands for public services that the people of Northern Ireland are rightly putting before us. Although, in many respects, our economy may be converging with that of the Republic of Ireland, and there is much more scope for North/South co-operation, in fiscal terms we are not converging with the Republic of Ireland. Judging by the long-term aspirations of some Members, that issue will have to be considered. Although it is relatively easy for a population of 60 million people across the United Kingdom to maintain that level of subsidy for Northern Ireland, sustaining such a subsidy would be a much bigger challenge for the Republic of Ireland’s population of four million. That factor must be taken into account. The Alliance Party and I are here to raise issues in a constructive manner. As the opposition in the Assembly, we are here to hold the Executive to account, to scrutinise, to challenge and to put issues on the agenda. However, we are not here to engage in “yah-boo” politics about who did what or who promised what and has not delivered it. The people of Northern Ireland expect a proper discussion on the serious issues that they face. Although Mr McNarry is not in the Chamber at the moment, it is worth pointing out that if the Assembly had addressed the issue of a financial package in 1999, or even as part of the Good Friday Agreement, perhaps so many opportunities would not have been wasted over the past number of years. The issue is on the agenda at the moment, and the Alliance Party wishes the Executive well in trying to reach a positive result. That said, we on these Benches take a different perspective on what a financial package for Northern Ireland should be. We should not simply try to get more money out of the Chancellor solely in order to distribute those funds to public services in the existing way. Frankly, that would be a huge missed opportunity. Short-term relief would be gained from taking tough decisions for two or three years, but, two or three years after that, the same problems would remain. Any financial package must be linked to a serious package of reforms. The Alliance Party has stressed time after time that any financial package must be linked to the concept of investment to save. We should ask the Chancellor for additional funds because we need to spend money in the short term in order to change the way in which we conduct business in Northern Ireland. In the long run, we will be able to generate more local taxes in order to sustain our own economy rather than having to depend on the British people to the extent that we have done over the past 35 years. That message would find much more favour with the UK Treasury. As part of that, we need to be realistic about setting targets for how the Assembly will seek to address the financial and economic challenges facing Northern Ireland. We should be held to account for our ability to achieve those targets, or not, as the case may be. 12.30 pm One of the key demands from the local business sector is for the differential rate of corporation tax to be part of any financial package. The Alliance Party is very keen on that, as are many other Members. Under the Azores ruling, we must be conscious that we need to address the issue of lost revenue as a result of those financial arrangements. That cost may run into several hundreds of millions of pounds. That should not be a reason not to pursue that measure, but we need to be aware of the fiscal implications. According to the economic model, it might be 2013 before the revenues raised from a larger economy through lower corporation tax would allow us to break even, and that is a major challenge. The Budget is flawed because it contains many inefficiencies and distortions, and it does not address certain challenges. The Alliance Party has focused on the cost of segregation. Approximately £1 billion is wasted every year in Northern Ireland by trying to manage a divided society. That is a huge missed-opportunity cost. By investing in division we forgo the opportunity to reinvest in quality shared public services for the entire community. It was welcome that yesterday the First Minister and the Minister of Finance recognised that at least it was a genuine issue. The Institute of Directors, and others, such as Mitchell Reiss the former US special envoy to Northern Ireland, have also recognised the issue and reflected on it. Division presents the Assembly with a serious challenge, which it must recognise and try to address. The Alliance Party is under no illusion that it can be addressed in one, two, three or five years; it requires a long-term programme of radical reform of the way that we do business. It is important that the Assembly starts now, during the comprehensive spending review. Even in the short term, we should be able to realise some funds for reinvestment elsewhere in the system. I also want to focus on education. One of the major challenges we face is the segregated system we are currently running. Yesterday, my party leader referred to the fact that more is spent on education per capita in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom, but, bizarrely, we spend less per pupil. A lot of money is wasted and diverted elsewhere in the system. No one should run away from the challenge of 50,000 empty school places. There must be rationalisation, and we must be straight with people that the education system will have to change. The Bain Report provides a structure for change, and I look forward to the Assembly debating it soon. The Alliance Party will advocate integrated education as being the most viable model not only academically and socially but economically and financially. We are concerned that the Department of Education sees integrated educated as a further break-up of an already fragmented system rather than a solution. If schools come together or transform, they can create a more sustainable model for preserving education in local communities. Education will need to change and schools must be considered as part of the overall framework. Tough decisions will have to be taken. We are not essentially talking about moving to an integrated model for all of Northern Ireland’s schools, but it is important that we look for opportunities to promote integrated education whenever and wherever they arise. Other systems will, inevitably, survive alongside that, but all sectors are aware of the need for sharing and collaboration. I welcome that as another approach to addressing the issue. As regards transport, the Assembly must be aware that not enough is spent on public transport relative to our competitors elsewhere in these islands. About 65% of the local transport budget is spent on roads, and only 35% on public transport. That is almost the mirror image of the spending pattern in Great Britain, where there are also large rural areas. There is scope for changing the balance of the transport budget over time. That does not necessarily mean that it requires additional funds; it means that we must prioritise our resources as best as possible. The Budget Bill is essentially a precursor to the big discussion that must follow on the comprehensive spending review for the next three financial years. That is the opportunity for the Executive and the Assembly to re-examine everything in the detail of our expenditure plans in order to see where we can make additional investments to meet the demands of the people of Northern Ireland for, for example, free personal care. However, we also need to revise budgets, and that will mean cutting budgets in some areas in order to reinvest elsewhere. Our Budget process must be a constant process of change. Sometimes budgets will go up; sometimes they will go down. Circumstances change. Circumstances are never fixed, so budgets can never be fixed either. In the meantime, my party supports the Bill. Mr Hamilton: Before I come to the thrust of what I want to say, I cannot allow the spaced-out contribution of the sole Ulster Unionist representative from Strangford to pass without comment. I notice that he is not in his place; perhaps he has been beamed back up to his mother ship along with Elvis and the former Ulster Unionist representatives who have vanished without trace in recent times. Elvis is more likely to be spotted than some of those characters. It ill behoves any Ulster Unionist to belittle the attempts to obtain a financial package for Northern Ireland — attempts in which the Ulster Unionist Party has been intimately involved. Mr McNarry himself attended several key meetings, both here and across the water, on the issue. His rather infantile contribution in the Chamber today exhibited his complete lack of knowledge of what is happening. He said that “zero” has been achieved. Anyone who looks at what actually has been achieved will see that it is far from zero. We have had reform of the reinvestment and reform initiative, undoing the damage that was done by the Ulster Unionist Party, whereby we could only borrow in so far as we closed the gap on expenditure-raising with the mainland — something that led to huge rises in the regional rate, and for which the Ulster Unionist Party was responsible. To date, we have had an additional £2 billion of capital expenditure; at least £100 million in guarantees for the CSR period; a review of tax policy in this part of the kingdom; and guarantees on end-year flexibility and on where the proceeds from asset sales will go. Compared to UUP standards, that is certainly a sizeable package for Northern Ireland. Mr McNarry’s contribution also raises the question of what the Ulster Unionist Party did in 1998. The answer to that is “zero”. His party did absolutely nothing and allowed the issue to go without mention. Mr Weir: Does the Member not agree that that is a little bit unfair on the Ulster Unionists? After all, although they did not achieve a single penny for the Northern Ireland exchequer, they did manage to negotiate a couple of knighthoods.[Laughter.] Mr Hamilton: I welcome that contribution, which shows where the UUP’s priorities lay at that time. The party was feathering its own nest rather than assisting Northern Ireland to develop a better economy. What would the UUP have done in 2007? Having read its election manifesto, everyone knows that it would again have done nothing. The Ulster Unionists would have entered Government on 26 March irrespective of the addressing of any issue. That analysis was roundly rejected by the electorate. Were he here, I would remind the Member for Strangford of the result in his own constituency, where he is now the only representative of the Ulster Unionist Party, compared with four from my own party. He talked frequently about Klingons — [Interruption.] I am sorry; I will acknowledge the Member from the Alliance Party who was also elected in Strangford. Lord Morrow: How could you forget him? Mr Hamilton: Indeed, how could I forget him? In many boxes that we saw being emptied, he was beating the Ulster Unionist Party. Mr McCarthy: Absolutely. Mr Hamilton: I am sure that he is glad to hear that. There were plenty of references to Klingons. The Ulster Unionist Party has been clinging on to my party’s coat-tails. There was talk of pantomimes taking place in this Building. If any pantomime is taking place, the Ulster Unionist Party is certainly participating in it, and that must mean that the Minister of Health and the Minister for Employment and Learning are the ugly sisters. Mr Storey: Does the Member agree that it is ironic that we have sustained a tirade of criticism from the Ulster Unionists this morning? Having had the opportunity to stay outside the tent, the Ulster Unionists decided to take their places in the Executive. Therefore it ill becomes them to attack the Minister of Finance and the proposals before the House today. Mr Hamilton: The Member makes a valid point. I am not sure what the Ulster Unionist Party’s position is on that matter. I hear one thing from some Members and something else from others — surely not a divided Ulster Unionist Party? Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way? Mr Hamilton: Unlike the Member for Strangford David McNarry, I will give way. Mr Beggs: I am fascinated by the Member’s comments about the Ulster Unionist Party’s deciding to take its places on the Executive. Is that not exactly what the Member’s party did in the previous Executive? Why is he criticising the UUP for doing the same? Mr Hamilton: The Member knows well that DUP Ministers did not take their seats around the Executive table. His party leader and others lambasted the DUP and said that Members of my party were outside the Executive. The Member cannot have it all ways. Now that I have got that off my chest, I wish to turn to the issues that I want to raise. With the exception perhaps of Mr McNarry, Members are aware that this Budget has been inherited by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. It is not to every Member’s satisfaction, but, sadly, we do not start with a blank piece of paper. However, this debate provides a good opportunity to look forward to future Budgets. Members have and will use today’s debate to make a special case for increased expenditure in particular Departments or on pet projects in which they are interested. I wish to make the case for a greater concentration in future Budgets on the economy. That is an area of public policy that has been sidelined and ignored for far too long in Northern Ireland. Many public services have been so underfunded in the decades of direct rule that it is understandable that the issues of hospitals, schools and housing dominate political debate. I fully sympathise with and support those views. However, I believe that the new Executive’s principal focus should be on economic development, and I sincerely hope that, when published, the new Programme for Government will centre upon that matter. In recent times, Members have grown accustomed to good news stories about the local economy — high employment, high manufacturing output relative to other UK regions and a growing tourism sector. Unfortunately, Members are also well aware of the many structural weaknesses that the economy suffers from: the highest proportion of economically inactive people in the UK; an over-dependence on the public sector for growth and jobs; a small private sector; the decline of the manufacturing base, which, I am sure, will be touched upon in the debate later today; an over-representation of the service sector; low levels of research and development; and the difficulties inherent in evolving from some 30 years of civil strife, during which time the economy was often a target and bore the brunt of terrorist violence. The challenges that must be overcome were summed up in a report in ‘The Economist’ from June 2006. It found that, in Northern Ireland, the public sector accounts for 61% of GDP, only 65 private sector firms employ more than 500 people and 10 firms account for half of all exports. I do not ask that the Executive prioritise local economic growth simply to put more pounds into people’s pockets — although that would be nice. All Members wish citizens to be prosperous and working in well-paid jobs and for Northern Ireland to be the best that it can be. The main focus of the Assembly, its Executive and its expenditure ought to be the enhancement of the economy because a transformed economy, through sustainable wealth creation, can be the key to unlocking better public services. Earlier, Members took part in the debate on the Welfare Reform Bill, and we all want to see as many people as possible ceasing to be economically inactive, coming off welfare and getting into work. The transformation of the economy can assist in the achievement of that noble aim. I do not argue simply for increased budgetary allocations for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI), although I am sure that my hon Friend the Minister would not mind if I did. What I am suggesting is a genuinely cross-departmental approach to economic development. Members have heard that all policy should be rural proofed, or equality and human rights tested. It is time, however, for the Executive to insist that economic development is the primary emphasis of Departments, legislation and spending. There is an assumption that economic development is the domain of DETI. That assumption is wrong. DETI has a co-ordinating role, and I welcome the Minister’s comments on how he intends to perform that role. 12.45 pm Hardly any Government Department is without an important part to play in rebuilding our economy, whether it is the Department for Regional Development in improving our infrastructure; the Department for Education and Learning in retooling our workforce; the Department of the Environment in reform of our planning process; the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in overseeing our number one industry; or even the Department of Education in laying the foundations for an educationally-equipped workforce. Every aspect of the work of Government is paramount in rebuilding our economy. The Department of Finance and Personnel has an important overseeing role in respect of our economy. I welcome the comments of the Minister who, on his first day in office, stated that helping to create a competitive economy for Northern Ireland was a priority of his tenure. Furthermore, I welcome the work that the Minister has already engaged in with the European Commission, which will help the Executive and the local business community to identify opportunities in Brussels to develop our economy and create jobs. That is a much better use of the EU than we have made in the past. We have watched other European regions use the benefits of Brussels to develop their economies, while we have wasted millions on abstract and woolly notions. It is a gross understatement to say that the economy and its development have been a secondary matter during the decades of direct rule. To pick up on a theme, discussed by Dr Farry yesterday, government policy has made us, at times, and in many respects, nothing better than a Soviet-style satellite state, dependent on central handouts to survive. We must end that dependency culture at every level and begin to stand on our own two feet. The best way to do this is to grow our own economy. We have a proud economic history in this part of the world. Reclaiming it for a new generation, and those that will follow, should be at the top of the Assembly’s agenda. Mr O’Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the Bill — which may surprise Members, coming from my party’s position. However, we are where we are. The Finance Minister and the Executive have inherited the Budget from direct rule Ministers and the British Government. It is a British Labour Party Budget. In the Transitional Assembly, I brought my single transferable speech to every debate and stated that we needed to be in power and to make decisions. Thankfully, we have reached the stage where we are in power, and we continue to work through a process in which we make the decisions. Undoubtedly, if I speak in a Budget debate this time next year, I may have to — and if I need to, I will — attack the Department of Finance and Personnel on its Budget. At this stage, that would not be a worthwhile use of energy or time in this place. It will come as no surprise that, as republicans, we want to develop an all-Ireland economy. We want an all-Ireland economic development plan, and we want the amalgamation of Invest Northern Ireland and the Industrial Development Agency, Ireland (IDA), with a remit to support indigenous industries. However, we do not want that out of some ideological stance because we are who we are. Rather, we believe that it is a practical way forward in developing the economy in all parts of the island of Ireland. Mr Storey: Given the fact that the Member advocates an all-Ireland economic plan, how much of a disappointment and a setback was the Republic of Ireland’s rejection of that economic plan? Effectively, the people of the Republic of Ireland have said that the reason that Sinn Féin was not fit for Government there was because its economic policies were not fit for purpose. Mr O’Dowd: I thank the Member for his intervention, and his interest in all-Ireland politics: that is welcome. Before the elections we were told that we were economically illiterate, and Fianna Fáil told the electorate that the economy was doing well. However, the day after the election results were announced the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, told the electorate that the economy was going to slow down and that they may be in for a difficult ride. So, who is economically illiterate — Sinn Féin or Bertie Ahern? Perhaps he was not as truthful as Sinn Féin was about the economic situation. I do not wish to digress too much. Sinn Féin had a bad day at the elections, but it was not rejected and it will return. The party will dust itself down and it will be back again — something of which I am sure Members are well aware. The all-Ireland economy — something that was discussed in the Programme for Government Committee during the Transitional Assembly — is a benefit to all of society. Unionism says that it will get involved in any all-Ireland activity only if it is practical, and not if it is political. Members will get no arguments from Sinn Féin on that matter. Mr Beggs: The Member indicates that he wants only things that are practical. Does he accept that the rest of the United Kingdom is, by far, the biggest region to which Northern Ireland exports? The last figures that I saw showed 45%, whereas only approximately 15% of our exports go to the Republic of Ireland. It is surely not practical to be linked to an economy to which most of our exports do not go. Northern Ireland, being within the United Kingdom, is part of the sterling currency regime. It would not be practical to move into the euro zone as that would add huge costs to our exporters and lead to a whole host of other complications. Does the Member accept that his proposal is not practical? Mr O’Dowd: No one in Sinn Féin seeks an isolationist policy, where an all-Ireland economy is formed and we sit out in the Atlantic on our own. The party wants to work with all its neighbours, and it would be crazy not to develop stronger economic links with Britain as a whole. Sinn Féin is not about isolationism; rather it is about creating a vibrant new beginning — part of that involves an all-Ireland economy, but we can also work towards it in a transitional period, too. I certainly do not wish to turn this debate into a question-and-answer session on Sinn Féin party policy. I am more than happy to hold one-to-one sessions or to participate in party sessions on the matter. There are a number of issues, some of which have already been raised today. The Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive must deal with the Budget and the financial package before them. I commend all the political parties for strongly lobbying Gordon Brown and Tony Blair to increase the financial package to the North. In very difficult circumstances, they did what they could do. Those negotiations must continue. There is no need for the Ulster Unionist Party’s short-termism, or for it to attack any political party in this Chamber or to break away from that work at this point. We must remain united and focused on continuing the negotiations. The Barnett formula is also part of the problem; it is not beneficial to the people of the North. We must continue negotiations with the Exchequer on that issue. Sinn Féin wants the Executive to have a borrowing facility, as opposed to the reinvestment and reform initiative, and for the Assembly to have tax-varying powers. If the DUP gave the UUP a bit of stick about its involvement in that initiative, I may give the SDLP a bit of stick about its involvement too. We must secure a financial contribution towards the peace dividend from not only the British Government but the Irish Government as well. Any Budget from this Administration must have at its core a commitment to tackling disadvantage and discrimination and creating a new beginning for people. In the previous debate, on the Welfare Reform Bill, several Members pointed out that many people are economically inactive. We must ask why that is the case, and why there are pockets of high unemployment and deprivation across the North. There are clearly historical reasons for that, and the Executive have a duty to tackle those issues in this Budget and particularly in the next Budget, which will be their own. We must create investment incentives in areas of high unemployment. This week, the Committee for Public Accounts will consider the Springvale project in north and west Belfast — an imaginative Government intervention in an area of high unemployment and deprivation. We must, of course, examine why that project went wrong. However, the Executive must also be imaginative and must consider how they can implement such schemes in other areas of high unemployment and deprivation. We must press on with the decentralisation of Government Departments. There is no need for the Government to be centred within a one-mile radius of this Building. Areas such as west of the Bann could benefit from the decentralisation of public-sector jobs. There has understandably been much talk of the large number of people employed by the public sector and the role of the public sector in our economy. I will focus on the health sector. The power of procurement in that sector alone is massive. Ensuring that that procurement is used to tackle unemployment and deprivation would be a productive use of public moneys. Many hospitals and health units are situated in areas of high deprivation. Therefore, why not use that budget to ensure that the services that are provided to hospitals are situated in the localities of those hospitals? Fermanagh and South Tyrone, for example, comprises rural areas. Why should the new rural hospital in Fermanagh not be used as an economic as well as a health unit in ord |