Northern Ireland Assembly Monday 25 June 2007 Ministerial Statement Executive Committee Business Private Members’ Business Oral Answers to Questions Private Members’ Business Private Notice Question The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Speaker: The Rt Hon Peter Robinson raised a point of order, during the Consideration Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill on Monday 18 June, in relation to a Member’s having a right of reply under Standing Order 17 when speaking to a notice to oppose the Question that a clause stand part of a Bill. It was an interesting and genuine point of order — I can assure Members that genuine points of order can be scarce in this House. The Member’s point of order concentrated minds. I have considered the matter and have noted that Standing Orders 34 and 35 provide the Speaker with discretion to allow a Member to speak more than once during a debate on the Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage of a Bill. I intend to use that discretion to allow Members to wind up when a notice to oppose the Question that a clause stand part of a Bill has been published on the Marshalled List. Mr P Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Should I conclude from your ruling that Members do not have an automatic right to do as you suggest, but that it is entirely at the grace and favour of the Chair? Mr Speaker: Once again, the Member is absolutely correct. The key to this matter is that there is a slight difference when a notice to oppose the Question that a clause stand part of a Bill has been published on the Marshalled List. We could debate this matter all day. However, Erskine May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’ is quite clear that notice of an intention to leave out a clause or schedule may be shown and numbered on the Marshalled List. One would ask the question, if the clause had been voted on, and rejected, in the House, would it have ended up as an amendment to the Bill? That is where the issue of procedure comes in. June Monitoring Outcome The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Executive about public spending in 2007-08, following the June monitoring round. I also want to highlight the actual spending by Departments in 2006-07. As Members are aware, the in-year monitoring process seeks to underpin the effective management of the overall public expenditure position by identifying emerging pressures and flexibility across all Departments, and seeks to offset such issues on a strategic basis. Therefore, the process is a key mechanism in the system that allows emerging or unanticipated issues to be addressed without detriment to other public services. That is achieved by asking Departments to identify reduced requirements, which are amounts that were allocated to Departments in previous Budget processes on the basis of Estimates of cost and demand for services that were not required in the light of emerging and more up-to-date information. Any and all such amounts should be surrendered for central consideration and reallocation rather than retained in Departments. Furthermore, the monitoring process offers Departments the opportunity to identify emerging pressures or to firm up issues that could not be fully quantified at the time budgets were originally set. An additional factor that has a major impact on managing the in-year position is the planned overcommitment of resources. The concept of overcommitment has its origins in the previous Executive, and reflects that, as a consequence of a combination of factors in the early part of this decade, Northern Ireland Departments experienced some significant underspends. In response to that, the previous Executive, and subsequently direct rule Ministers, adopted a planned overcommitment approach, which means collectively allocating more to spending programmes before the start of the year than is actually available, on the basis that some underspend is inevitable. Therefore, the actual end-of-year spend will be within the upper limits of what is available. That approach is designed to maximise the actual spending in any financial year, and, if it is to be considered sensible and pragmatic, it must be used with caution. The Executive have inherited an overcommitment of a little under £153 million on current expenditure for this year. That means that departmental allocations are £153 million more than is available to the Executive for spending this year. Although I have already mentioned that some year-end underspend is inevitable, up to £100 million should be retained during the year by exercising a first call on any reduced requirements that emerge in monitoring rounds. That reduces the in-year flexibility available to the Executive. Therefore, reduced requirements are not available for reallocation to emerging pressures. Assuming that the underspend is in the region of £50 million, that £100 million must be found in-year. Hence, the level of overcommitment must be reduced to that figure by the end of the year to ensure that the risk of exceeding the amount available to the Executive is minimised. That illustrates how managing the in-year position and seeking to reduce departmental underspend by the use of overcommitment are inextricably linked issues. On the one hand, the allocation of more than is available helps to reduce underspend by anticipating average levels of reduced requirements and, accordingly, adjusting the total level of resources allocated to programmes. On the other hand, during the course of the year, we need to manage the position through the assimilation of reduced requirements. Failure to assimilate reduced requirements reduces in-year flexibility and the capacity to respond to any in-year unforeseen pressures. We must strike the right balance between the two. As I have said, the use of overcommitment can only represent a sensible approach to financial planning if it is not taken to extremes. I must say that the position that we have inherited from our direct rule predecessors for the current financial year tends towards that extreme position. With that in mind, I plan to review the level of overcommitment in future financial allocations. The challenge is to strike the balance between facilitating long-term planning — and, hence, optimum value for money through spending — and the creation of an environment in which some flexibility will occur to provide the capacity for the Executive to deal with emerging pressures. I will return to that issue when I present the draft Budget in the autumn. I wish to provide some more detail on the current financial year. The starting level of overcommitment that we inherited from the direct rule Ministers was in the region of £153 million. Reduced requirements declared by Departments during the June monitoring round amounted to some £11 million. Members will find summary details of those figures in table 1 attached to the printed copies of my statement that I have provided to Members. Alongside the reduced requirements, some resources that have been held centrally and not previously allocated — largely as a consequence of the Chancellor’s most recent Budget, which was announced after the financial allocations for the 2007-08 financial year were set — and some other minor adjustments, reduce our overcommitment to a figure in the region of £138 million. By the end of the financial year, the final level of overcommitment should be in the region of £50 million. That means that, between now and the end of the financial year, we require a further £90 million of reduced requirements to be identified and offset against the level of overcommitment. I am advised that, in previous years, a level of reduced requirements in the region of £120 million to £140 million has been the norm. However, in the June monitoring round, Departments identified and declared only £11 million of reduced requirements, as against previous patterns of savings in the region of £30 million to £40 million at this stage of the financial year. That difference suggests either that Departments have been reluctant to declare reduced requirements, or that the financial position for many Departments is considerably tighter than in previous years, and thus the previous level of reduced requirements may not be repeated in the remainder of this financial year. I have, therefore, emphasised to my Executive colleagues the absolute necessity of undertaking a robust review of the financial position in advance of the September monitoring round, with a view to declaring any and all reduced requirements at that stage of the financial year, rather than leaving it until the second half of the year. A further issue to consider relates to the flooding that occurred in the past two weeks. Members will know that the Executive made up to £5 million available by way of response to the needs of those in crisis. That amount, of course, did not exist in any Budget lines and, therefore, represents a potential further call on the overcommitment position, taking us from £138 million to approximately £143 million. My Executive colleagues and I agree that making up to £5 million available was a necessary and proportionate response to the issues that arose. However, allocating that money does place a further pressure on the in-year financial position. In view of what I have outlined, at this early stage of the financial year, the Executive have concluded that we must adopt a prudent and cautious approach. Therefore, at this time, we do not have any scope for additional current expenditure allocations to Departments. We will, of course, review our position in the September monitoring round. The June monitoring round has focused primarily on current expenditure. The position on capital investment will be the subject of further and separate consideration, following the conclusion of a departmental capital re-profiling exercise. The aim of that exercise is to set sensible and deliverable capital investment plans for 2007-08 by allowing Departments to reassess their capacity to deliver their planned capital programmes this year. The outcome should provide an opportunity for the Executive to address any emerging in-year capital pressures. 12.15 pm I now wish to turn to actual spending by Departments in the last financial year, 2006-07. Details of the provisional out-turn for each Department, in terms of both current expenditure and capital investment, are set out in tables 2 and 3 attached to the printed copies of my statement that I have provided to Members. Total current expenditure by Departments amounted to some £7·5 billion, representing growth of over 2·5% in real terms on the previous year. Although, as I indicated earlier, we can accept that some underspending is inevitable, last year’s performance in a number of Departments suggests that there is scope for improvement. In 2006-07, the total capital expenditure of Departments was in the region of £1 billion, sustaining the level of investment in 2005-06, which represented a significant increase over previous years. Aligned to that, the level of underspend — at just under 9% — represents a significant improvement on previous years. Again, however, there is scope for improvement, and the development and roll-out of firm capital investment plans represents the key challenge for us in the months ahead through the development of the second iteration of the investment strategy for Northern Ireland. I will emphasise two key points. First, the public expenditure control environment in which Departments operate means that some underspend is inevitable. The challenge for Ministers and officials is to ensure that, while maintaining the integrity of the control system and ensuring that unauthorised spending does not take place, we maximise the impact of the available resources and achieve as high a level of spend as is possible within authorised limits. Secondly, we must recognise that none of the underspend is lost to Northern Ireland. All amounts available for spending, but not spent, in 2006-07 will be available to be carried forward for use in Northern Ireland in the future. Although access to this stock of unspent resources represents an ongoing issue with the Treasury, I emphasise that that is an issue of timing. In the continuing discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the financial package for Northern Ireland, we have made some good progress on both current and capital expenditure. Members will be aware of the public expenditure climate across the United Kingdom and the severe restrictions that the Chancellor is placing on such issues, both for the devolved Administrations and for Whitehall Departments. Therefore, the progress that we have made so far is meaningful and helpful to us in the planning and delivery of public services. However, we will not stop there; we will continue to press the Chancellor as necessary for further improvements in our position. In conclusion, the June monitoring round has not offered the Executive the opportunity to make any reallocations of expenditure. However, the exercise has been helpful in that it has clarified for the Executive the extent of the challenge, both of the overall public expenditure climate and the position that we have inherited from direct rule Ministers. In the coming months, the key task for the Executive will be to identify any and all flexibility in those existing allocations in order to manage the high level of overcommitment that we have inherited and to generate some flexibility to deal with emerging issues at local level. The exercise has also served to remind us of the constrained public expenditure position that we face and the need to ensure that any and all financial pressures are considered in the context of the overall position and in the light of the strategic priorities for Northern Ireland. We must all bear that point in mind as we move forward to the remainder of this year’s monitoring process, and also when we consider the draft Budget proposals in the autumn. I look forward to working with my Executive colleagues and with the Assembly on all these matters. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his statement. I also thank him and his officials for the briefings that they have provided to the Committee in the past few weeks, and to the Deputy Chairperson and me this morning. The briefings have been useful in dealing with the complexities of managing cross-departmental issues. The Minister has spoken in some detail about underspend and overcommitment. The Committee has discussed those issues, which have been of some interest to it in recent weeks. We will work with the Minister and his team to develop proposals or recommendations. During the Committee’s discussions on the underspend, the added costs of inflation on capital projects was of particular concern. Mr Speaker: Could the Member focus on a question? Mr McLaughlin: I am coming to a question. I welcome the information in the Minister’s statement on the reduction in scale of the underspend this year. However, we must recognise that underspending remains to be resolved satisfactorily. The Minister has set out the rationale behind what might be regarded as a phenomenon: the planned overcommitment of £153 million. That is £153 million more than is actually available to the Executive. Although there may be a rationale for that, the Minister has recognised through his statement that it can lead to sloppy financial planning and budgetary management in Departments. I very much welcome his commitment to addressing that. My question for the Minister, you will be relieved to hear, Mr Speaker, is this: will he bring specific proposals to his Executive colleagues on reducing the underspend and the planned overcommitment that he addressed in his statement? Mr P Robinson: I again emphasise that I am happy to work with the Committee, as are my officials. A well-informed Committee will have a greater contribution to make to the debate. The Chairperson of the Committee raised several issues. On capital expenditure, I hope to provide the Committee with some papers on the underspend on capital projects before the end of July. The Executive will presumably wish to take a position on whether they will reallocate the funds or on whatever stance they wish to take. My Department and I will be happy to hear the Committee’s views at that stage. The Chairperson specifically enquired about the advice that I might give to the Executive on the planned overcommitment and the underspend. I made it clear in my statement that an overcommitment is a useful planning tool. I understand that the concept was first introduced during the tenure of the Member for Foyle as Minister for Finance and Personnel. I wish to continue to have that planning tool, but not perhaps to take it to the extent of £153 million. That would entirely remove the flexibility that might be available in a year. At the same time, however, the overcommitment may have to be reduced in stages, rather than doing so in one fell swoop, as that would clearly have consequences for the overall shape of the Budget. As far as the underspend is concerned, the financial year 2005-06 showed an underspend somewhere in the region of 1·9%, moving up to 2% in the last financial year. The optimum would be to reduce the underspend to close to 1%. That will require the co-operation of all Executive colleagues. It will also require the early identification of any flexibility that their Departments may have. Having been a spending Minister myself at one stage, I know the reluctance of such Ministers to hand back funding to the centre that they think could be reallocated elsewhere in their Departments. However, earlier identification of the amount of underspend will allow a much better spending programme, rather than throwing money at projects where it can be spent at the last minute. I am seeking to reduce the underspend and the overcommitment. Mr Speaker: I remind Members that it is vital that, when they rise to ask a question, they actually do so. When Ministers are making statements to the House, Members are continually making statements themselves, and then asking questions. I remind the House that Members should ask questions of the Minister about his statement. Mr Storey: In order to ask my question, Mr Speaker, I will have to set it in context and, therefore, make a statement. [Laughter.] I thank the Minister for his statement. I also thank his departmental officials for the briefings that they gave to the Committee, as mentioned by the Chairperson of the Committee, and for their help in trying to ensure that the Committee had an understanding and a grasp of these difficult and complex issues. The Committee, in its scrutiny role, examined the spending in respect of the priority funding packages, which cover children and young people; skills and science; and the environment and renewable energy. In particular, the Committee examined the actual spend for 2006-07 for those packages, which have an overall budget of some £77·7 million. The Committee found that, during direct rule, the resource underspend for those three funding priority packages amounted to 23% of the available funding. The capital underspend on the packages was over 28·2%. In that context, can the Minister — and here is the question, Mr Speaker — [Laughter.] Given the importance of the priority funding packages, can the Minister comment on how they will be progressed in the current financial year? Mr P Robinson: Department of Finance and Personnel officials are already in discussions with officials in the other Departments that have the lead responsibility for advancing those priority packages. It has become apparent from those discussions that there may be some underspend in those packages. I shall therefore look to the September monitoring round for any reallocation that may take place as a result. Mr Beggs: Can the Minister confirm that Northern Ireland Departments can declare underspend on a number of occasions throughout the year? What is the Minister doing to ensure that, in future, Departments declare any underspend early in order that money can be spent in a planned fashion? Does the Minister accept that Northern Ireland Departments are performing less well than their Scottish or Welsh counterparts and, furthermore, that we need to ensure that money is spent in a planned fashion? Mr P Robinson: I entirely agree with the Member that any money that is not spent should be declared as such as early as possible. I hope that all Ministers, including those from his party, will take his very good advice. As far as the Northern Ireland position in relation to the other devolved institutions is concerned, the latest available UK figures for the end-year flexibility, at the beginning of the 2006-07 financial year, show Northern Ireland stock of end-year flexibility to be 3% of the annual budget. That was lower than Scotland, where the end-year flexibility was 4%; lower than Wales, where it was 3% of the annual budget; and lower than the Northern Ireland Office, where it was 27·3%. The Northern Ireland stock of end-year flexibility (EYF) was also lower than the UK total, which was 3·4%. The Member’s point about the early identification of underspend is important. As I have said, I am examining ways to ensure less underspend at the end of the year. However, I point out that underspend does not mean, or equate to, lost money. Mr O’Loan: This Assembly was elected by the people to address an urgent agenda. As such, what assurance can the Minister give the Assembly — and, more importantly, the people who elected us — that resources will be available in this financial year so that the Assembly can be seen to be making a real difference to people’s lives? Mr P Robinson: The Assembly has considerable resources at its disposal in respect of current expenditure and capital expenditure. I do not think that a Minister with responsibility for finance will ever appear before the House and indicate that he has more money than he needs. We could always do with more finances. If we had more finances, we could use them — and, I believe, use them well. However, it is the job of the Executive to operate within the allocation of resources from the Treasury or, alternatively, to supplement that through the regional rate. We must ensure that spending plans take account of what is available and what our ratepayers can afford to pay. 12.30 pm Mr Hamilton: The Minister referred to the opening allocations and to last year’s departmental underspend, which I understand is based on a comparison between the actual spend and the final allocations, thereby taking into account any adjustments made as a result of the monitoring rounds. In recent years, what proportion of the opening allocations was not spent on those projects to which that money was allocated? That information might give Members some understanding of any flexibility that there might be in the opening allocations for this financial year. Mr P Robinson: I think that the figure that the Member is looking for is about 4%. We need to be very careful; during the course of a year, Departments need to have some degree of flexibility. Equally, however, there is a tendency for Departments to hold on to resources that could be reallocated from the centre. I know of examples — Ministers may not think that I know of examples, but I do — where funds could come forward at this stage, but do not. We need more of a collective agreement among colleagues that when resources are available, they are brought to the centre. We have a significant overcommitment to reduce, and there are significant pressures that could be met through reallocation. Therefore, approximately 4% of departmental funding has been reallocated. It is good sense to allow for that reallocation because, from the time when budgets are set to when they are operated in Departments, changes will take place and new pressures will emerge. To some extent, we rely on underspending to meet those unforeseen pressures and issues. Mr Attwood: I would like the Minister to clarify a matter. Could it be that the issue is not Departments having more money than they need; rather, is it that Departments have more money than they think? Last Wednesday, at the Committee for Employment and Learning, the Department’s deputy secretary reported that the amount of money returned to the Department of Finance and Personnel in increased receipts and reduced requirements was £5·5 million. However, the tables attached to the statement that the Minister made earlier give a figure of £4 million. There may be an easy way to reconcile those figures, today or subsequently. The Committee was advised that the Department for Employment and Learning’s increased receipts and reduced requirements amounted to £5·5 million. Does the Minister agree that it might be helpful, both to him and to everyone else, if, in addition to the tables that he has attached to his statement, a table indicating the current pressures in each Department at the end of the first quarter were included? Again, the Committee for Employment and Learning has been advised of current pressures in the Department totalling £5 million. Mr P Robinson: Officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department for Employment and Learning produced the figure in my table based on their consultation. I will ask my officials to look back at the available information, and if the Committee has come across an issue, I will write to the Member about that. As far as the wider issue is concerned, Departments will always want to have the funds available to meet all their needs, but the Department of Finance and Personnel will never be able to meet the hopes and aspirations of every Department at all times. I cannot quite recall the Member’s second point. Mr Attwood: It was about the pressures and increased demands each quarter. Mr P Robinson: During the monitoring rounds, Departments could be invited to bring forward bids based on the pressures that they might have. The fact is that we have not received any bids, because we did not ask for any, which in turn was because we had a fair indication that there would not be an allocation. However, if Departments were experiencing pressures that they could not bear, I am sure that the Ministers responsible would have brought them to our attention, and we would have sought to address them in some other way. It is, therefore, unhelpful to encourage people to make bids when the necessary resources are not available. However, I would be surprised if any Minister with pressures in his or her Department had not been whispering in my ear before now. It appears that Ministers have been able to deal with the pressures within their existing allocations, and the Executive will listen to any Minister who has not. Mr Weir: There are significant pressures to increase spending in certain areas, and I am sure that every Member could suggest worthy projects on which twice the value of the Budget could be spent. However, does the Minister believe that a Department’s historical underspend — when its actual spend is compared with its opening or February position — should be considered when that Department’s baseline is being set in the Budget process this autumn? Mr P Robinson: That is an interesting question — if there are serial offenders. The Department of Finance and Personnel has to consider the demands that are made for funding, and when they outstrip the amount that is available, we must prioritise. When we look at allocations, we have to look at a Department’s track record in how it has spent previous allocations. That is one of the elements of assessing the robustness of any bid. However, I exercise some caution. I am not advocating that Departments should spend for spending’s sake simply to minimise their underspend. I fear that, if my Department punished others for their past practices, such a situation might arise. Following a Department’s bid, I look at its plans and not only test them against the Department’s past record, but seek assurances that they are capable of being delivered within the allocation period. Dr Farry: I thank the Minister for his statement. Is he concerned about the large underspends that are recurring in the same Departments every year — and not necessarily the highest-spending Departments? The Minister said that an underspend of 1% was considered to be acceptable. Do the Executive have plans to impose that limit on all Departments for future financial years? With regard to the budget-setting process, what plans does the Minister have to move from making incremental changes to the Budget to a system of determining outputs and then calculating the resources that are required to meet those outputs? Mr P Robinson: The Member’s question is not dissimilar to the previous one in that it relates to Departments that have a history of underspending. It is more difficult to make calculations in some Departments than it is in others. For instance, some Departments can ensure that they have less underspending because their money goes out to other agencies in a fixed way. In such cases, the Department can see the money being transferred and used. The Finance Department commissioned a review by PKF (UK) LLP. It looked at a number of possible ways of tightening monitoring and of ensuring less underspending and better delivery. That review is available for Members to see. What was Dr Farry’s second question? Dr Farry: I asked about imposing a 1% underspend target across all Departments. Mr P Robinson: That was not the Member’s second question. His second question was about future budget-setting processes. The Member said that he had two questions and has managed to squeeze in another one. The Member referred to capping the underspend at 1%. It is not possible to have a single level of underspend as a target for each Department, as some Departments could better that target. I would not want to allow those Departments to slacken. We must consider the maximum degree to which we can tighten up the process for every Department. Regarding future budgeting, the Executive have decided to agree first the Programme for Government. Once our priorities are decided, we will consider the available resources and commit our spending based on the priorities identified in the Programme for Government. That is the sensible way to proceed. I am sure that there will be priorities for which there will not be sufficient funds, but that will be a matter for the Executive to timetable. The approach that Dr Farry suggests is the right one. Mr McQuillan: How does our end-year flexibility position compare to that maintained by the NIO and those in other parts of the UK? Mr P Robinson: I emphasise that I do not want to set targets for Northern Ireland that are based on other budgets. However, as I said earlier, the Northern Ireland Office does not have the best record for end-year flexibility. I hope that the Executive do not follow its example. The Scottish Executive have considerable end-year flexibility stock, in the region of £1 billion. Presently, Northern Ireland has about £150 million end-year flexibility stock, which the Chancellor has agreed to allocate fully over the next two years. The underspend from this year will be added to that, and we will be in contact with the Chancellor and HM Treasury to ensure that that allocation is received. When compared to others, Northern Ireland has a satisfactory record. However, it is not satisfactory when compared to our aim, which is to reduce the level of underspend considerably. Mr Burnside: The Minister referred to the financial package for Northern Ireland. I am pleased that good progress is being made with the Chancellor on current and capital expenditure. When will the Minister announce and quantify in the Chamber the increase in current and capital expenditure? There is no mention of that in his statement. If, after 30 June, his ministerial colleague authorises the building of a new national stadium, will there be enough money in next year’s Budget to fund the project at any of the prospective sites? The Minister will realise that some of his colleagues, including the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, disagree on where the new stadium should be located. Mr P Robinson: I congratulate the Member on his dexterity in getting in a question about the national stadium. The Member has, however, misunderstood the reference in my statement to the Chancellor’s package. My statement refers to the end-year flexibility position on resource and capital. There is an agreement with the Chancellor regarding the availability of our end-year flexibility stock, both in resource and capital funding. That has been outlined and was included in the Chancellor’s statement and in statements released subsequent to the four main parties first meeting the Chancellor at Downing Street. This year, £75 million will be allocated; next year, £65 million will be allocated to the resource side, and £100 million will be given on the capital side. We are still working with HM Treasury to increase those figures. Ongoing talks are particularly important if a large underspend, such as that which I have outlined, occurs in the financial year. However, there is a number of other elements in the Chancellor’s package, and I hope that the position on those will be clearer in due course. 12.45 pm As far as the national stadium is concerned — and I address the issue with caution — the Department of Finance and Personnel can only consider a proposal when a business case has been produced. When business cases are produced for whatever number of alternatives there may be, the Department of Finance and Personnel will look closely at them and give a view on whether they are affordable in the first instance — some may be affordable while others may not — and whether they would give value for money. I am not therefore bound to any project or location until I see the business case. To date, I have not seen a business case for any of the suggestions that have been reported by the press. Lord Morrow: I too thank the Minister for his statement. Others have touched on the subject of my question, and the Minister may feel that he has answered it already, but I will ask the question in a more direct manner than others have done. In the light of the tighter rules on access to EYF, should the automatic entitlement to EYF in certain areas of expenditure be re-examined? Mr P Robinson: There is a second issue that we have not talked about contained in that question. There is the EYF situation with regard to Northern Ireland’s relationship with the Treasury, but there are also arrangements through which departmental commitments can flow from one year to the next. I have asked officials to look at all those matters urgently, and I will advise the Executive following the review that is being carried out. I do not want to say much more until the review is complete, but the Executive will have to consider it. If Departments have had EYF in previous years, we will want to review the necessity for that and the case for Departments having that degree of ring-fencing. That will be looked at, and I will be happy to report our findings. Mr Durkan: The Minister rightly expressed caution about overcommitment with respect to the Budget. I assure him that I share his concern. I remind him that when the Executive originally went down the road of overcommitment it was when we were providing indicative allocations to the Executive programme funds that entirely absorbed any underspending. Will the Minister tell us more about how the caution he wants to apply now will be applied in future? Furthermore, will he anticipate how pressures might be factored into future monitoring rounds, if that was not allowed this time? Many groups in the community and voluntary sector are hearing about underspending in Government Departments. They also find that Departments and public bodies are reducing their commitment to the groups because of efficiency savings that have to be delivered or because of the review of public administration consequentials, which means that the slippage money that was given to local groups no longer exists. Many groups are trying to deliver neighbourhood renewal under severe pressure — they do not know what, if any, money they will get. In that context, will the Department for Social Development at least get the funding that it is being forced to give to the UDA? After all, the UDA does not have to engage in the evaluations and appraisals to which all the other groups are subjected. Mr P Robinson: I am happy to take the lessons about overcommitment that the Member learned during his experience as Minister of Finance. I am aware that there is a slightly different position now as regards Executive programme funds, which to date have not been operating in the way that they did during the previous Executive. However, I recognise that there will always be pressures in the system. I know that if I was in a community group that was seeking money and I learned that the Department for Social Development was underspending, I would ask why the Department could not give the money to my group. However, those are issues that cannot be solved. Departments will always need to take decisions about where their resources should be allocated, and there will always be circumstances in which Departments will be unable to spend all the resources that they have been allocated. Indeed, we would be in a difficult position if there was no underspending, because the Budget that we inherited from direct rule Ministers requires us to achieve £150 million of underspending if we are to be on an even keel. Therefore, we need some underspending in the system. The particular issue about the allocations that direct rule Ministers made to the Department for Social Development would be better taken up with the Member’s colleague. As I understand it, sufficient funds are available to enable the Department for Social Development to deal with all those matters that are contained in its present business plan. Mr Newton: My question is on similar lines to that of the Committee Chairperson and, to some extent, to that of the Member for Foyle. How does the £153 million overcommitment that the Minister mentioned compare with that of previous years? Is it desirable to continue with that sort of situation in future? Mr P Robinson: This year’s overcommitment is of about £153 million, which I think is the highest level that we have had. We had an overcommitment of the order of £135 million last year, and the level has been going steadily up. It has been easy for Ministers to say that, no matter what level of overcommitment they set, there will always be underspending by the end of the year, so they keep hiking the level up. However, the difficulty with continually doing that is that, the next time we come to the June or September monitoring round, we will be unable to make allocations to deal with in-year pressures. Ministers need to take account of the fact that pressures will always arise within a year and that unforeseen issues will jump out at us. We need resources to deal with those. We cannot deal with them unless there is underspending and money can be freed. In answer to the question that the Member for East Belfast asked, we are going in the wrong direction by heading towards larger overcommitments. We need to start having a sensible level of overcommitment. The previous Executive had a reasonably sensible level of overcommitment, but that was stretched and stretched by direct rule Ministers since then. Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for providing us with the detail that he has given us today. Like other Members, I have visited many schools, including primary schools, the conditions of which can be described as being straight out of a Charles Dickens novel. Given that, has the Department of Education explained why its capital investment budget was underspent by almost £31 million? Mr P Robinson: I am sure that the Minister of Education will be happy to go into detail about underspending in her Department, but a great deal of that will relate to the education and library boards. On the conditions in schools, maintenance and so forth can be tackled by the resource budget, but dealing with the Dickensian situations that the Member described probably falls more adequately to the capital budget. We will deal with that when we get to underspending on the capital programme. Mr P Ramsey: Given the legislative and statutory requirements to improve safety at Northern Ireland’s big sports grounds — soccer, Gaelic football and rugby — will the Minister of Finance and Personnel support the £22 million bid that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has made to assist with the improvement of sports grounds, such as those of the two senior clubs in my constituency — Derry City Football Club and Institute Football Club — that are in need of such development? Mr P Robinson: At this stage, I am not involved with the settling of bids. The Executive, at the appropriate time, will want to consider that bid alongside those from the other Departments. As I told the Member for North Down, that will be a matter for the Executive to consider in their spending plans for the next three years, based on their Programme for Government for the next three years. However, I am sure that the Member will know that the Executive, and the rest of the House, will want to consider carefully issues of health and safety. Mrs Hanna: Will the Minister state whether he has any specific ideas that would support cross-departmental working in areas such as support for carers? That is one of several areas that has resource implications for many Departments — especially the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, but also the Department for Social Development, the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Education, amongst others. Mr P Robinson: Again, that matter does not relate either to the June monitoring round or to the out-turn for the previous year. Obviously, cross-cutting issues bring onto the radar the role of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If the Office is to be involved in cross-cutting issues, the Member can raise that matter with the Deputy First Minister at Question Time later today. Every Member could produce a long list of issues that are important to him or her. That being the case, those issues cannot be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. It is important to consider all those pressures and requirements as part of a comprehensive and strategic overview of where our money should be going. That will be done as part of the process of considering the comprehensive spending review, which will occur over the autumn. I hope that the Member will engage in that process and that full consultation will take place. Budget Bill Final Stage The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): I beg to move That the Budget Bill [NIA 3/07] do now pass. Again, I thank the Committee for Finance and Personnel for agreeing to the accelerated passage of this Bill. Although I appreciate that the Bill is effectively authorising spending plans that are linked to a direct rule Budget, the preceding debates have been constructive, and, again, I thank Members for their contributions. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Rather than risk your ire, I am not going to repeat what has already been said. The Minister set out the proposition. It was entirely pragmatic and sensible to take that approach, and my Committee was happy to support the Minister’s proposal. Mr Beggs: First, I want to reiterate my previous support for the Budget Bill. It would have been impractical to have tried to change the Budget in the midterm, and, for that reason, I will continue to support the Budget Bill in its Final Stage. However, I want to highlight some issues contained in the Budget Bill and the Northern Ireland Estimates 2007-08 booklet that Members will have to consider carefully at departmental level and on subsequent occasions. The Budget allocates some £80 million to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The net cash provision for the previous financial year was £60 million. That amounts to a 30% increase in one year, which is a significant increase. Interestingly, the last provisional figures that I was able to get my hands on showed £42·6 million for 2002-03. Therefore, since the last period of devolution, funding for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has almost doubled. It is important to remember that many of the functions of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister do not deliver services. It is important that the amount of funding that is granted to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is balanced, because, on many occasions, it does not deliver goods on the ground. 1.00 pm I noticed one particular resource request from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — “To assist Government in making and implementing well-informed decisions and improving public services” — for £41 million, which is a 30% increase on the previous financial year. The amount requested for the last full year of devolution, 2001-02, was £15 million. That is a 268% increase during the intervening period. I accept that some specific expenses account for some of that increase, including £9·5 million for the Strategic Investment Board and £6 million for an Executive programme fund initiative that was previously not in full swing. Nevertheless, there are other headings on page 269 of ‘Northern Ireland Estimates 2007-08’ that show that OFMDFM is absorbing significant amounts of money. Under the heading “Support for government and other services”, there is a 60% increase in the request for funding: from £11·8 million in 2001-02 to £18·9 million in 2007-08. There is a massive increase in Government bureaucracy, which does not deliver services on the ground. It is important that we all have markers when we return to our Committees to start the process of considering future Budgets. We must ensure that money goes to services and their delivery. As I went through the detailed Estimates, I attempted to ascertain whether any outcomes from the St Andrews Agreement were addressed in the current Budget, but I could not find any. Can the Minister advise us of any costs that might flow from the St Andrews Agreement? I refer in particular to the commitment that has been made for there to be two new North/South bodies; the new all-island consultative forum, which many had previously opposed but which has now been agreed; and the new North/South parliamentary forum. No Estimates for those bodies appear to have been provided, so it would be helpful to know how those additional bodies are to be financed. Dr Farry: We, like others, are content with this Budget, which has been inherited from direct rule Ministers. Due to the timing of devolution, the Assembly has had little opportunity to influence the Budget’s shape. However, in order to ensure the continuation of public services, it is our duty to ensure that funding is in place. That said, we cannot be complacent and underestimate Northern Ireland’s public-expenditure problems or ignore the efficiency savings that the overall Budget contains. I point out to Mr Beggs that under devolution in its previous incarnation from 1999, OFMDFM acted as a huge vacuum cleaner, sucking up functions that ordinarily would belong to other Departments. It is also worth pointing out that there are considerable inefficiencies in Northern Ireland because of the sheer number of Departments that we have. Moreover, the division of functions among Departments is not always logical, and that creates budgeting difficulties. The Minister mentioned the large degree of underspend. The proliferation of Departments creates difficulty in maintaining firm discipline right across the board. It is important that, in future, we do not simply use this Budget as our template and make only minor variations here and there to suit our changing priorities. We must take a root-and-branch look at what our public spending priorities are. We must ensure that we have a defined set of priorities that are linked to specific outputs, and we must allocate the necessary resources based on those priorities. The Assembly should, as far as possible, work from a clean sheet when allocating our public expenditure. As things stand, however, these Benches are happy that the Budget Bill pass. Ms J McCann: I agree with the Committee for Finance and Personnel and its Chairperson, but I wish to make a few comments on the Budget. The economy of the North of Ireland is characterised by unacceptable and unsustainable levels of poverty. Some 31% of 16- to 60-year-olds lack paid work. Some 22% of the workforce is on low wages. Nearly 25% of households are unable to afford adequate home heating. Almost 100,000 children and 50,000 pensioners live in income poverty, and there are 3,000 premature deaths per annum as a result of disadvantage and poverty. Those unacceptable and unsustainable levels of poverty expose the extent of discrimination and disadvantage in our society. In the past, we have had no control over our own resources, and that has left us with an economy with patterns that, year after year, have produced alarming evidence of intensifying inequality and disadvantage. We must correct the huge infrastructure deficit that has arisen from the successive failures to invest in essential services such as water, sewerage, transport, hospitals and education. It is not good enough, year after year, to allocate money that results only in the deepening of patterns of inequality and disadvantage. Only a firm commitment to address the issues of discrimination and disadvantage will allow us the opportunity to overcome that which is morally and economically unsustainable. The examination of how public procurement expenditure can integrate economic and social requirements, and the ring-fencing of projects that directly impact on discrimination and poverty, are examples of ways in which we can begin to reverse the conditions that have created the so-called basket economy. There is a huge budget for procurement, and we must agree measures such as local labour clauses that ensure that procurement meets equality conditions. We must ensure that the companies that receive those contracts meet base conditions, which include good wages and employment of apprentices, and, thus, contribute to local economic welfare and growth. It is only through our joint commitment to ending discrimination and poverty, and by securing human rights for all our people, that we can do that. Mr P Robinson: First, I shall address some of the points made by the Member for East Antrim Mr Beggs, who referred to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and complained — or asked — about the increases in its spending. OFMDFM is a creation of the Member’s party, and the DUP would have done things differently. Mr Beggs will not draw me into a position where I end up defending this Budget — this is not our Budget. Like everyone else, we are accepting the Budget because we are already into the financial year. We cannot change course, particularly as allocations had been made to Departments before devolution and, as a result, they had made all of the agencies and other bodies aware of the funds that would be made available to them. It is not our Budget — we accept it, but we shall not defend it. It is, as has been indicated, the inherited direct rule Budget. Mr Beggs asked specifically about additional costs that arise from the St Andrews Agreement. There would be considerable savings for the public purse as a result of the St Andrews Agreement if people gave their support to the police, the courts and the rule of law. A lawful society will cost a lot less than one wherein we have to pay compensation, replace buildings and the like. I also point out to Mr Beggs that the St Andrews Agreement was not signed up to by any of the parties — it was an agreement between two Governments. There are elements of that agreement that the DUP has publicly opposed, and continues to oppose politically. I suspect that the elements that Mr Beggs referred to are proposals from the two Governments, but I will take no lessons from the UUP on setting up bodies and structures that are costly. The labyrinth of structures that were created as a result of the Belfast Agreement are down to the UUP, and Mr Beggs did not get to his feet in the Chamber to complain about the cost of all of them, so we will look at his record before listening to his remarks. It is becoming unhealthy, but I often find myself agreeing with the Member for North Down Dr Farry. He mentioned the number of Government Departments — perhaps he will be joining the DUP. The Member must realise that the more Departments there are, the more difficult it is to get a co-ordinated and, as he describes it, disciplined approach. The Assembly must address the number of Government Departments. An institutional review Committee has been set up, and that is one of the issues that it is looking at, I hope energetically, so that we can address it quickly. I agree with him that the priorities that we set must be linked, and there has to be a direct correlation between our priorities and strategies, the Programme for Government and the expenditure that we set aside in the comprehensive spending review. The Sinn Féin Member Ms J McCann spoke about disadvantage and poverty. They were considered by the Programme for Government Committee or the Preparation for Government Committee — I am never sure which, as we morphed from one to the other during the summer months. Those issues represent a challenge to the Executive. If devolution is to mean anything, it has to make a difference in people’s lives. I am not just thinking of the high flyers in society but of those who are disadvantaged and find it difficult to make ends meet as well. However, we are better able as a society to deal with those people if we have an economy that is robust and has grown and if it is a high-value-added economy. If there is more money in the pockets of the people of Northern Ireland that helps to boost the economy too. Those are the main issues that were raised during the course of the short debate. I welcome the continued contribution of Members, and when we get down to the busy process of working out the Budget in the autumn, we will all want to see our thumbprints on it. We will work through the Assembly and its Committees, and I hope that we can have an energetic discussion during the course of the consultation, so that when we come back we will have a Budget that people can support. We want a Budget that people will recognise does have a Northern Ireland impact, the nuance of those who are elected by the people to speak on their behalf, and priorities that are linked to the needs that we find as spokespersons for the electorate and citizens of Northern Ireland. Mr Speaker: No other Members wish to speak to the Final Stage of the Budget Bill. Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support. Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support): That the Budget Bill [NIA 3/07] do now pass. Final Stage The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie): I beg to move That the Welfare Reform Bill [NIA 1/07] do now pass. I do not wish to go over the provisions of the Bill in any detail, but I should comment briefly on what has been achieved. The Bill introduces a new employment and support allowance to replace the current incapacity benefits. The allowance will help to give individuals more relevant support to enable them to stay in, or return to, work. There was a lengthy debate on how people suffering from a mental-health condition may be affected by some aspects of the new allowance. I reiterate that it is our aim to help and support people to get back to work. The new system will handle people sensitively and sympathetically, and I fully appreciate that this is about people and their concerns. I want to assure them that they will get all the help and encouragement that they need to fulfil their potential, and we will support those who suffer from mental-health conditions at every possible opportunity. 1.15 pm The Bill also provides the framework to reform and improve how housing benefit is designed and administrated, including the introduction of a local housing allowance in the private-rented sector. Concerns have been raised about some of the housing benefit reforms, particularly the power to pay the benefit directly to the tenant rather than to the landlord. I have made it clear that I wish to proceed cautiously on that matter, and I have agreed to work with the Committee for Social Development to consider all the issues before deciding on the way ahead. The important point is that I will consult the Committee before making any decisions on how to proceed. The Bill also creates greater power to tackle benefit fraud. It includes measures to clarify the law on disability living allowance (DLA) and attendance allowance. Other minor, but important, issues are included in order that various aspects of existing legislation can be clarified, with the aim of making those provisions simpler to administer and easier to understand. The Bill also provides an easing of the relevant employer conditions, making it easier for a person suffering as a result of having certain dust-related diseases, including mesothelioma, to claim a compensation payment. It is anticipated that the corresponding provisions of the Westminster Act will come into force in July 2007. Subject to Royal Assent, our aim is to commence our provisions as close as possible to that date. The debates on the Bill have been lively and challenging, and although I have not always agreed with some of the views that have been expressed, they have been worthwhile. I appreciate Members’ concerns about ensuring that the most vulnerable are treated properly as a result of the Bill. I too share those concerns. I am grateful for the support for the Bill from parties across the House. Some Members expressed reservations about the use of accelerated passage. In truth, I would like to be able to introduce legislation on social benefit, but parity and financial implications mean that other measures become necessary. Had we not been able to avail of accelerated passage, in all probability, the Bill would have taken several months to complete its passage. Indeed, the process would probably have been completed near the end of the year. Therefore, there would have been financial implications for the types of people about whom I have already spoken. In the earlier debates, I spoke at length about parity, and I trust that all parties recognise the major advantage that that brings. It is difficult to argue that the implementation of parity social security legislation should be delayed for several months. We can avail of accelerated passage, so why deny the people of Northern Ireland the same rights as people in Britain? I am not saying that that procedure is perfect. However, as the Bill proceeded, we were able to debate fully the issues that Members wanted to discuss. As far as I am aware, every Member who wanted to speak was able to do so, and I trust that I answered every question that was asked of me. As I said before, I do not seek to use the accelerated passage procedure lightly, and I firmly believe that each Bill must be considered on its merits. However, I ask those Members who expressed concern about the use of accelerated passage to consider carefully what I have said. I am grateful to the Committee for Social Development and to Assembly Members for the positive way in which they have worked with me to progress this important Bill. I thank Members for their contributions to what have been lively and worthwhile debates, from the acceptance of accelerated passage and through each of the Bill’s Stages to today’s Final Stage. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Mr Campbell): As I mentioned at an earlier debate, the intention to break the link between welfare and dependency is to be welcomed. Hopefully, that somewhat ambitious aspiration will become a reality. The Bill was granted accelerated passage, so the Committee for Social Development was not able to conduct a detailed examination of it. However, I want to assure the House that the Committee will play a major role in considering the practical implications of welfare reform. Several proposals for statutory rules will emanate from the Welfare Reform Bill, and the Committee for Social Development will consider the merits and policy implications of each one. I would like to thank the Minister for Social Development again for giving an unequivocal undertaking to consult fully with the Committee, at its request, before making any regulations that would change the current method of paying housing benefits to landlords. The Committee does not want to see the people whom the Bill is designed to help become more dependent on welfare. Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin’s objections to certain sections of the Welfare Reform Bill have been well aired. While there are parts of the Bill that we can support, Sinn Féin was put in a position where if it had opposed the Welfare Reform Bill on the grounds of accelerated passage, those most in need would have had benefits withheld, which would have been unacceptable. Subsequently, Sinn Féin was told that that would not have been the case for the majority of those receiving benefits, so the Minister for Social Development certainly succeeded in muddying the waters. The amendments were tabled by Sinn Féin for the right reason: to make the Bill work more effectively for the people affected by its remit. Members who voted against them may consider that they were relevant when they are representing constituents, particularly at tribunals. The amendments were not tabled to score political points but to help those whom Members represent. The agreement to allow a Bill to receive accelerated passage should not be perceived as rubber-stamping that Bill or as acquiescence to all its clauses. Due consideration should be given to all pieces of legislation, and Sinn Féin will table all amendments that are relevant and necessary. Surely that is one reason for debate here. To castigate Members for proposing amendments to Bills that have been given accelerated passage is to undermine the process of accelerated passage. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Hilditch: My party and I have supported the Welfare Reform Bill at each of the Stages. Last Monday, when several amendments were tabled at the Second Stage, Members had a lengthy and informed debate, with many contributors raising and supporting aspects of clauses of the Bill that affect many of our constituents on a daily basis. The issues that were dealt with included concerns for those who suffer from mental-health problems; those with lung problems; housing allowance issues; and the need for parity, which is essential. Those matters were dealt with to the satisfaction of the majority of the House and the Committee for Social Development. Having that debate, in spite of the process of accelerated passage, was beneficial. I thank the Minister for Social Development for giving Members the opportunity to raise matters through questions and correspondence and also for coming to the Committee for Social Development to assure Members on shared concerns. The Committee for Social Development looks forward to the next time that matters of welfare are brought forward, when Members will undertake a much more robust review. Ms Ritchie: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate, and I thank the Chairman of the Committee for Social Development. I look forward to working with the Committee on the practical implications of the workings of the Welfare Reform Bill. I want to see the good governance that can be achieved when a Minister works along with a Committee to achieve good objectives. The Committee for Social Development and I want to achieve the implementation of financial measures that will benefit the public. I emphasise that people who suffer from certain mental-health conditions will be treated in the most sensitive and sympathetic manner. I assure the House that all Social Security Agency staff will seek to do that. Mr Brady referred to parity and accelerated passage. I explained the reasons for parity during the debates on the Bill and during meetings with the Committee for Social Development. I expressed my earnest desire to introduce social security legislation, but we are constrained by financial implications. I do not want anyone being without benefit or disallowed benefit as a result of the Bill not being granted accelerated passage. I want to put on record that I have never muddied the waters about the Bill, either during Committee meetings or when the Bill was going through its various Stages in the House. I made it clear that I wanted people to be able to avail of easements to claim compensation payments for asbestos-related diseases and mesothelioma. However, I will explain the issue again. The Bill provides for an easement of the relevant employer conditions, making it easier for a person suffering from certain dust-related diseases to claim compensation payment. It is anticipated that the corresponding provisions of the Westminster Welfare Reform Act 2007 will come into force next month. Subject to Royal Assent, my aim is to commence our provisions as close as possible to that date — hence the need for accelerated passage. No Member wants people who have suffered from asbestosis, or their relatives, to suffer financial detriment. As the Minister, I do not want that to happen; the Chairperson and members of the Committee for Social Development do not want that to happen; and I am sure that Members do not want that to happen. I have apprised the House fully of all the measures. I was pleased with the level of consensus that debates on the Bill enjoyed across the Floor. I look forward to working with the Committee in the coming months as we seek to deliver the opportunities that the Bill can offer. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Welfare Reform Bill [NIA 1/07] do now pass. Carers Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has allowed up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Mrs Hanna: I beg to move That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure that all carers, formal and informal, can access services and support to maintain their own health and well-being, to recognise financially the vital role they play and ensure uptake of all benefit entitlements. It is timely that the Assembly is having this debate just one week after Carers Week — a week when the role of carers was rightly acknowledged throughout Northern Ireland. My personal experience of the week left me feeling that more must be done to raise awareness and provide practical help, and that is why I tabled the motion. I have represented carers in many areas. I have represented the SDLP on the Civic Forum group, where we appointed carers, and when that body is up and running again, it is hoped that carers will come and talk to us. Last week, I listened to a lady from Dunmurry being interviewed on Radio Ulster. She had cared for her husband, Danny, for 20 years until his recent death. She has just published a poetry collection, ‘Rose Petals Falling’. Those poems paint very moving pictures, and she summed up for me the unstinting care that is so often taken for granted. There have been many debates in the Assembly on health, and rightly so. Carers provide so much health and community care, free of charge, in Northern Ireland. Other Departments are also involved with carers, especially the Department for Social Development in regard to benefits, the Department for Employment and Learning, and the Department of Education. Just a few minutes ago, I asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what support he would give when there were resource implications across several Departments, as, indeed, is the case in so many areas. 1.30 pm Worryingly, however, the vast majority of carers say that caring requires great commitment and has a negative impact on their health and well-being. Many have had no proper training and receive no support in carrying out their role. Scores have experienced physical injury as a result of their role, and many suffer from exhaustion due to full-time caring. A third of carers, for example, look after a relative for more than 50 hours a week and rarely leave their homes. Carers’ organisations work together to provide better services and support, and they have documented the shortfalls in the system. I shall touch on some of those issues. I call on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and the other Ministers involved, to ensure that those who provide services make certain that formal and informal carers can access all the support that they need in order to maintain their health and well-being. I have cared for relations, but, fortunately for me, on a rota basis, with the rest of my family. Even then, with the best will and love in the world, it puts a strain on relationships. Carers deserve a good quality of life, and it is vital that they do not become socially excluded. Support for carers’ health can take various forms: practical support, such as help in the home; emotional support, such as befriending, counselling and stress management; or an occasional break. To make matters worse, most carers have no formal training. I believe that there is a need for a regional approach to carer training to support them in their role. They need the opportunity to pursue their own lives and a break from the demanding round-the-clock work that can often lead to a sense of frustration and which can, at times, push people to uncharacteristic measures and actions when looking after a loved one. That puts a strain on the best of relationships. I understand that there was a discussion on the radio this morning during which all the issues about caring for the carers, and the people who are being cared for, were aired. Parents and families who care for a relative with a learning disability always have the added worry of who will continue the role when they are gone, as well as the present dilemma that they face when the child finishes full-time education at 18 years of age. There is a gap in services and care, and cross-departmental work is absolutely essential to fill that void. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) In its manifesto, the SDLP stated the need for access to suitable respite provision. That is a key priority. Respite periods are essential for children and adults with chronic illness and disability, and, at the same time, provide a break for those who help to look after them. That type of support for carers is critical; it provides a breathing space in which to maintain other relationships and to do the things that most of us take for granted. Respite provision needs to be more flexible and more creatively thought through. There is a strong case for legislation that provides a statutory right to entitlement. Perhaps carers’ working needs should be considered under the EU working time directive. Health services, however, still have a strong duty in that area, particularly in the nursing and personal care input to the respite, particularly for older people and people with a severe mental or physical illness. It must always be remembered that the people being cared for have their own personalities and their own wants and needs and should be treated as individuals, like the rest of us, and with the same rights. Carers save the state £1·9 billion a year, and it is important that the Government put in place effective and practical financial support for the estimated 69,000 people in Northern Ireland who face new caring responsibilities each year and for the 250,000 people who currently are carers. There must be a simpler way to access benefit entitlements. The Government must improve their information services so that people know their rights and take up the benefits to which they are entitled. Across the UK, there is an estimated £746 million in unclaimed benefits. In Northern Ireland, approximately 3,700 carers who are over 60 years of age are not claiming the pension credit to which they are entitled. Research by Carers Northern Ireland has shown that the current benefit system does not allow carers an acceptable standard of living. It does not recognise or value carers for their contribution. Carers struggle daily to pay their mortgage, or rent, and their bills. They find it difficult to pay for basic necessities, which is totally unacceptable for people who give so much. From this year, legislation gives employees the right to request flexible working hours if they provide unpaid care for adults who are chronically ill, disabled or frail. According to figures produced by Carers Northern Ireland, 83,000 carers are trying to balance paid working with unpaid caring. More needs to be done to ensure that they do not lose out on job prospects. Many carers have to leave the workplace — or never have the opportunity to enter the workplace — because of full-time caring for a relative. Moneys were announced by the former Minister with responsibility for health, Mr Paul Goggins, and Big Lottery funding is now in place for young people who care for sick parents and siblings. However, there is a continuing need for funding to ensure a consistent approach to addressing the needs of young carers who are missing out on their childhood. I hope that the debate will initiate positive and concrete action that will make a real difference to the lives of the most deserving, but often overlooked, section of our society. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mrs I Robinson): I welcome the Member’s tabling this timely motion. Although the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has not yet had an opportunity to consider carers’ issues in any formal way, its members are fully aware of the vital, and often unrecognised, role played by carers in our society. I am pleased that a member of the Health Committee has tabled the motion, and I am sure other Committee members will want to take part in the debate. Last week, the Health Committee had an extremely useful informal meeting with a dedicated group of carers. The group, which is entirely made up of volunteer carers and based in the former Down Lisburn Trust area, has been in existence for approximately 17 years. The group specifically highlights and campaigns on issues relating to people with learning disabilities and their carers, and provides a much-needed advocacy service. The group is not restricted to that area and was keen to point out that it works with other groups, right across the Province. I am fully conscious that the group is just one of many dedicated and committed groups working with, and for, carers throughout Northern Ireland. The group did, however, highlight a number of serious issues that, I am sure, apply equally in other areas. I will mention two of those, specifically. First, people with a learning disability are living much longer. It is not unusual to find people well over pension age who have a severe learning disability and who are, in turn, cared for by an elderly parent or relative. In addition, an increasing number of elderly learning disabled people have, or are in the early stages of, dementia. The group highlighted the fact that existing facility providers are either unable or reluctant to provide the type of care required. The group is calling for the development of specialist care units throughout Northern Ireland — a call that I support. The second issue relates to people at the other end of the spectrum — children and young people with a severe learning disability. The group emphasised the fact that parents are often consumed by the constant day-to-day role that will always be required, simply to meet the physical and health needs of the child. The group underlines the need for a greater recognition of the fact that such families — not only the parents but brothers and sisters — often face additional emotional and mental pressures and may require further family support. I am sorry that I missed the first few minutes of Carmel Hanna’s speech; I do not know whether she used any of the available statistics. Approximately three million working carers in the UK deal with the stresses of what might seem like two jobs — one paid, the other unpaid — and meet the needs of both. Six in every 10 carers provide substantial amounts of care and have given up paid work in order to care for their loved ones. Carers who work should be encouraged and supported to remain at work for as long as possible, or for as long as they choose. Every year, more than two million people across the UK become carers. Whatever the pressures, it is important for new carers to consider how their new situation is likely to affect their lives. Is it likely to affect a carer’s job, or relationships with a partner, children or other family members? Will a carer’s own health be put at risk through the stress of taking on caring responsibilities such as lifting the patient? Many of the estimated 250,000 people in Northern Ireland who look after those who are sick, frail or disabled are unaware of the help that they are entitled to from the Government and from social services. The sad reality is that people do not necessarily identify themselves as carers, and estimates suggest that 40% to 60% of the available disability benefits go unclaimed. The subject of carers is too wide-ranging to cover in a five-minute statement or presentation, so I will leave it at that. I look forward to a healthy debate in the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety as it revisits the matter in the coming weeks. Mrs O’Neill: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and thank Carmel Hanna for tabling the motion. I share her sentiments in wanting to see action as a result of the debate. Carers contribute hugely to society. In 2002, the unpaid work of carers was worth £1·9 billion — the same amount that the Assembly spent on health and social care in that year. Carers must be supported so that their own health and well-being are not damaged by looking after some of the most vulnerable people in the community. We must invest in carers now. In October 2000, my party colleague, Bairbre de Brún, the then Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the previous Executive, commissioned a strategy for carers. She identified that the key aim of the strategy was: “to identify practical measures that make a real difference to the lives of carers”. Subsequent consultations with carers and representatives of carers’ organisations resulted in the adoption of five key principles that would underline Government support for carers, and I will take this opportunity to remind Members of those five principles. First, carers should be seen as real and equal partners in care provision and at every level of public sector planning and service delivery. They should also have equal status with other care providers. Secondly, carers need flexible and responsive support. All carers are individuals and have their own needs. They look after people with a wide range of needs and abilities in what can be complex and emotionally charged relationships. One solution will not fit all; carers must be able to make real choices based on relevant, timely and accessible information. Thirdly, carers have a right to a life outside their caring responsibilities and should be given the opportunity, if they so wish, to rest and relax and to have a social life outside the home. The fourth principle is that carers should be freely chosen and should be allowed to decide what level of caring support, if any, they can give at any particular time. Finally, Government should invest in carers as they would in statutory providers of care, and they should make resources available that would have a real impact on carers’ lives. Most of the resources devoted to caring are the carer’s own — their time, energy and emotional commitment — but, in order to continue, carers need help. Any support that a carer receives to enable him or her to continue caring should be seen as a legitimate right. Those five principles should underpin the decision of any Department that would have an impact on the lives of carers. We have a job to do to encourage people to recognise themselves as carers and enable them to gain access to the benefits mentioned earlier by Mrs Hanna. We must encourage carers to access the appropriate benefits, which are at nowhere near the level that they should be. We must provide signposting to ensure that carers protect their own health and well-being. I support the motion. Go raibh maith agat. 1.45 pm Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I thank Mrs Hanna for proposing the motion. If one group in our community needs the admiration and thanks of this House, it is carers. As has been mentioned, caring for sick and elderly relatives takes a toll on the carers. Carers are more than twice as likely to suffer from poor health than those who do not have caring responsibilities. Some 21% of carers are in poor health, compared to 11% of the overall population. It is perhaps symptomatic of the selflessness involved in caring for another person that more than £660 million of benefits, which could be claimed by carers, remains unclaimed across the United Kingdom. Research has shown that more than half of carers were unaware that they were entitled to an assessment. That assessment is the way to push open the door for greater support. The value of the support given by carers has been conservatively estimated at £57 billion. In the United Kingdom, some six million people fall into the category of carer. Those figures alone — quite apart from the humanity of the situation — show that not only must we invest in carers but we must ensure that they take up the public investment available to them. Almost three million carers, about half of all carers, are in the 45 to 65 age group, and the strain of caring puts their health in greater jeopardy. In Northern Ireland, around one in 10 carers suffers from ill health. That figure rises to one in five for those people who provide substantial levels of care for more than 50 hours a week. That ill health not only takes the form of physical strain and debility but frequently mental ill-health, ranging from depression to loss of self-esteem, anxiety and general stress. Caring not only interrupts an individual’s career, it can destroy it. The price paid by a carer is often too personally distressing to quantify. Much can be done to alleviate, if not remove, the problems faced by carers, and we must do all in our power to make sure that that happens. Isolation, loss of self-esteem, and financial distress must be addressed. Research shows that 77% of carers have become worse off as a result of becoming carers. Furthermore, 35% of carers struggle to pay bills. Even more worryingly, 22% of carers cut back on food bills in order to make ends meet. As I said, the value of the work that carers do has been estimated at £57 billion. That figure must be considered in our financial calculations in determining how much help and support they need. One area where the Assembly can make an impact is in that of avoidable cost. The timely provision of information on available support, before an issue becomes a major problem, must be closely examined. That information can dramatically improve the way in which carers manage caring. It can make their tasks easier and better managed. The state is involved in the crucial issue of facilitating carers to remain in their jobs for longer. That can alleviate the financial pressures on a family and prevent the loss of tax revenue to the state. That tax revenue, in turn, helps to fund some caring support services. However, that calls for flexibility in delivering services and support — perhaps greater flexibility than exists at present. The timing of support is important. Sufficient support at critical times, such as when a person is discharged from hospital, could make a major difference and could prevent a problem becoming a long-term crisis. Government must focus on preventing the social exclusion and isolation of carers — they do care. Government must ensure that information is targeted and effective. The health of the carer must form part of the assessment process as well as the health of the person who is cared for. I suggest that welfare days in GP surgeries would be an effective way to publicise — Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr McCarthy: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I fully support the motion, and I commend Carmel Hanna for bringing it to the Floor of the House. As someone with 37 years’ experience of caring in my family home, I feel rightly qualified to speak on this important subject. Like most other carers, our family takes the job of looking after our daughter as something that must be done. We get on with it with as little complaint as possible. We hope that our efforts contribute to the best quality of life for our daughter. I pay tribute to all those who work in social services, general medical practice, education facilities, respite provision and to all those who have provided a first-class service for people with learning difficulties. I also wish to pay tribute to my family and, in particular, my wife for her dedication to our daughter, Judy, over the past 37 years. Only people in similar circumstances know the commitment that must be made to someone with a learning difficulty or to someone in their later years. The Alliance Party’s manifesto for the last Assembly election in March 2007 highlighted the need for carers to be better resourced and called for the eligibility criteria for financial support to be lowered. My party also called for carers to receive, at least, the equivalent of the minimum wage. Furthermore, we stated that carers should have access to the appropriate support facilities and that they should be entitled to flexible working hours. I am delighted to say that new legislation, effective from the beginning of April this year, gives rights to employees who are also carers. That is a most welcome development. I salute all those involved in Carers Northern Ireland, Belfast Carers’ Centre and other organisations for their work and commitment to inform and offer support to carers throughout Northern Ireland. Our Government must do all in their power to ensure that people who care for someone in the family are aware of their entitlements. For too long, the Exchequer has saved millions of pounds while ordinary people have struggled to care for family members. For too long, Government have ignored the enormous contribution made by so many people. That must stop. Every carer in the country must be recognised and be given the support that they need. I understand that a carer’s weekly allowance is £48·65. Although that cash is welcome, it falls far short of a sufficient reward for the work done by carers. It is estimated that £4 million in benefits is unclaimed every year in Northern Ireland. That is a staggering figure; many dedicated people are not even aware of their entitlements. I appeal to local Departments to find new ways of telling carers what is available. That plea is not only to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety but to other Departments. For too long, carers have been taken for granted. That must stop. It is time for action; sympathy and honeyed words are no longer acceptable. It is time for the Assembly and our Ministers to put their money where their mouths are and ensure that carers of every sort are fully supported, thereby allowing those who are cared for to enjoy a much better quality of life. I support the motion. Mr Shannon: I support the motion and thank Mrs Hanna for proposing it. What is a carer? The definition of a carer is so wide-ranging that it is difficult to describe adequately. Broadly speaking, a carer is someone who looks after a person who suffers from ill health or disability. In Northern Ireland, over 185,000 people look after loved ones. That figure gives an idea of the extent of the debate. Today, there is a group of disabled visitors at Stormont. The reason that they were able to visit is that their carers have accompanied them. In Northern Ireland, over 46,000 carers work over 50 hours each week. That does not include the number of children who divide their time between caring for an elderly parent and getting the messages for an elderly friend next door. Those 46,000 people work over and above the hours of nine-to-five workers, yet have much less to show for doing so. The age range of carers is from 16 years to 83 years. Recently, however, the carers’ charity, Crossroads, said that more children per capita are carers in the Province than in any other part of the UK. The charity said that children as young as 12 years of age are taking on household responsibilities and chores for which, Members can be assured, they are not being paid. Recently, it was discovered that over £660 million of benefits are not being claimed by carers across the UK. When one considers that massive amount of money, the question that springs to mind is: why? The Assembly must ensure that people who are entitled to those benefits access them, because that income will make their lives that little bit easier. Lately, I researched the different benefits that are available for carers. As I did so, I was amazed by the intricate way in which they are presented. I am not surprised that many people do not claim the money to which they are entitled: to drag themselves through a quagmire of paperwork and confusing questions is difficult. As I examined those benefits, it occurred to me that six out of 10 people who have severe learning difficulties are cared for by their parents, a third of whom are over 70 years of age. Not only do those people continue to struggle, they continue to be under pressure financially, mentally and emotionally and are socially excluded because they have little idea of the help that is available to them. Another Member referred to the £57 billion that the NHS is saved every year by carers who take on responsibility for their loved ones. It is time that the NHS put that money back into the system for the people who need it. The fact is that 66% of carers are unable to work because of the immense pressure caused by providing full-time care for a loved one. Make no mistake: it is a full-time job, yet carers do not receive wages. It is for that reason that research that was carried out by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in 2005 found that 50% of people who are in the poverty and social-exclusion bracket are carers. It also found that 92% of carers do not receive the proper benefits. In my constituency, isolation increases further down the peninsula. That isolation must not be compounded because someone cannot afford to leave the house. In England, Scotland and Wales, forms can be filled out on the Internet to make access to benefits easier. Although, I accept that that does not suit everyone, it is time that a similar facility was introduced in the Province. The Assembly must ensure that, Province-wide, those who provide care are made fully aware of their entitlements. There are carers’ forums, including one in my area. Unfortunately, few people are aware of them. Those who attend have told me that the two hours that they spend talking to people who understand the pressure and who are available as a support network during hard times are invaluable; they could not manage otherwise. However, those forums are not given the focus and attention that they deserve. That has resulted in dropping numbers and has led to the closure of a carers’ group in neighbouring Bangor. I have no wish to see that invaluable source of relief for carers fail in Ards as well. Such groups allow for discussion and for interesting people to come along and talk about relevant matters, which helps to reduce the pressure that carers are under. I could say much more on the issue. However, time is against me. I shall finish by informing the House that 80% of carers are close to breaking point; 50% of them suffer from illness that has been caused by stress and workload. Those statistics must not get worse. The Minister must intervene with a strategy that is designed to achieve relief for those vital, yet often ignored, members of the community. I support the motion. 2.00 pm Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I join all Members who have already spoken in welcoming Carmel Hanna’s motion, and I commend her for bringing this very important issue before the Assembly. As has been outlined, the volume of work provided by carers is immeasurable and invaluable and has been taken for granted for too long. It is estimated that there are over 200,000 carers in the North: an invisible workforce. According to the 2001 census, as many as 8,500 children are providing substantial care for their families. Those under the age of 23 are considered young carers, and the average age of a young carer is 12 years of age. Young carers carry out substantial care in support of their families. They also provide in excess of 50 hours a week of care, helping with domestic responsibilities including the challenge of washing and dressing the person they are caring for. That is emotionally and physically challenging for those who are so young. The health and well-being of carers are often overlooked. As the debate has borne out, there is a strong sense that all carers need support and that that support is far too scarce. To relate the thoughts of a carer: “You come into your road and everyone’s house is lit up, but you’re coming back to a dark house. You put the key in the door and you don’t know what you are going to find when you go inside. There’s so much stress, so many nights without sleep, and then you have to go into work next day and do a full day’s work. It seems to last a lifetime.” If we were to take a straw poll in the Assembly today, most of us would know at least one full-time carer. However, there are many carers whom we are not aware of, whose daily struggle is hidden and who care for people whose needs are not obvious, such as the sufferers of mental illness. Many carers still struggle alone and cannot access help, perhaps because they do not know where, or how, to find help, or because they feel awkward or embarrassed about asking. The emotional stress and financial pressure that they are enduring must be recognised and addressed. We need to discuss the value of carers’ work, which is currently estimated at £1·9 billion each year. The carer’s allowance is a mere £45 a week, the lowest benefit, and many carers have to give up their jobs to stay at home full time to look after a loved one, and food, heating, clothes, holidays and leisure are cut back. The stress and worry over finance place additional burdens on carers and undoubtedly affect their own health. Helen Ferguson, director of Carers Northern Ireland, stated that: “Carers are often forced out of work because the social care system cannot give them the support they need. They give so much to society yet due to caring, they experience ill health and poverty. Carers feel short changed by the system.” Carers need financial, practical and emotional support, and to feel recognised and socially included. The Health Committee recently met the former Down Lisburn carers forum and heard first-hand of the difficulties that carers face. No one at that meeting could fail to be impressed by the level of care and commitment they displayed. They spoke of their need for support and the need for the Assembly to consider measures that would enhance quality of life for them and the people they cared for. They need, among other things, quality day care; a review of invalid care allowance; and advocacy and support for families. I commend Mrs Hanna’s worthy motion to the Assembly, and I am proud to support it. Mr Buchanan: The motion is worthy, and I am quite sure that it will command the support of all parties. I commend the SDLP Member for bringing it before the Assembly. It is clear that the caring role is important and that many people rely upon it: not only those who are being cared for, but the health boards and trusts who depend on family members taking on that role. If family members and friends did not do so, the boards and trusts would be in even greater need of resources and staff. Carers should therefore have access to support so that they can strike a balance between living their own lives and providing an individual care programme for their loved ones. Often, individuals have no choice but to step into the role of caring for a loved one. A system that encouraged collaboration between families and professional carers would be of great benefit. Ideally, training and support services would be provided at an early stage; knowledge and experience would be shared; and each case would be assessed individually. So often, one hears of Departments, businesses and services in desperate need of further finance. The Department of Health has many factors to consider in allocating funds, as do the Executive as a whole. Members of the Assembly are in a position to put forward the best possible case for carers and ensure that the motion is implemented. As a result, those who most need support will benefit. Members will understand the enormous demands put on families in times of illness and how much work and dedication are required to keep normal family life running. For many, the burden can be very great. Without practical and emotional assistance, and without the necessary resources, it can be a most distressing experience for families. Were it not for the many who commit so much of their time to looking after a family member or close friend, the Health Department would undoubtedly face much more pressure. The 2001 Northern Ireland household panel survey found that nine out of 10 carers are caring for a relative, yet only 9% of carers are in receipt of carer’s allowance. Individuals caring for a family member are deemed to be carers, so why are more resources and benefits not made available to them? What are the health and social services boards and health and social care trusts doing to reach family members who act as carers? Those questions must be answered. According to Carers Northern Ireland, a survey carried out to mark carers’ week and published on 11 June revealed that: “caring hits hard in the first year, with carers struggling to cope with changes in their personal situation and their finances as they start to give up work and have the extra costs of disability. After that, there is a steady decline in their financial situation over time. Parents of disabled children under the age of 18 and those caring for adult disabled children were worst hit, suffering greater debt and difficulty in paying bills and having to borrow from friends and family.” If a family member does the work that an employee of a health and social care trust should do, why not pay that person for doing that work? That would release more employees to help those patients who have no family support network. Benefits available to families must be easily accessed, as families have enough to do without undergoing an onslaught of interviews and paperwork. Carers should enjoy the same rights as all employees, and should be given a clear understanding of the benefits available. If they are entitled to benefits, those should be made available. If the process can be expedited and streamlined to reduce the burden on carers, it is our responsibility to raise awareness of the need for it. Health boards and trusts should collaborate with carers, regardless of the patient’s condition, and should endeavour to help the family to provide the best possible care to the individual in need. Points of contact should be established in the local health and social care trust, and practical advice should be offered on relevant sources of finance. That would benefit carers. If the trusts got that right, it would encourage carers to continue in their role. Many family carers consider it their duty to assist family members, but, if they are assured of help, it will make their decision easier. I support the motion, as it raises awareness of the benefit entitlements of carers. Mr Savage: I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I thank the proposer for bringing it to the attention of the House. Speaking in the Assembly some weeks ago, I raised the issue of carers and the key role that they play on a day-to-day basis. The work that they do is invaluable, yet it is often forgotten or taken for granted. Members must provide immediate, imaginative and practical solutions to the problems faced by carers, which cut to the heart of the matter and meet the needs of carers. That can be achieved only by collaboration and co-operation with all the relevant stakeholders from inside and outside the health and social services sector. That solution must in all ways, and at all times, reflect the needs of our carers. The financial burdens that carers face, and the detrimental effects that caring can have on their health, are simply not acceptable. I am pleased to support the motion, and I trust that the Minister will do all in his power to ensure that carers have access to services and support to maintain their own health and well-being. We must recognise the vital role that carers play in today’s society and ensure that they take up all the benefit entitlements that are due to them. We are all aware of the important work that carers do, but sometimes their role is taken for granted. If the people who are being cared for were not being cared for in their homes, they would have to be cared for in hospitals, and we know the effect that that would have on our society. It is difficult to overestimate the value of the work that carers carry out, and, no matter what happens, they must be properly looked after. Mrs M Bradley: I congratulate my colleague Carmel Hanna for proposing the motion. Carers care, but do we care about the carer? To those who face the daily task of caring in either a formal or informal capacity, it would appear not. Of the 185,000 carers in Northern Ireland, 8,349 are young carers under the age of 18. At an age when they are probably at their most vulnerable, young carers have to deal with the same problems that official care workers are employed and paid to deal with — although they are not very highly paid, they are, nonetheless, paid. Many young carers experience feelings of isolation and are sometimes subjected to abuse, suffer from depression, and almost always experience the general exhaustion and daily pressures that are part and parcel of being a carer. Carers, in general, save the Government an estimated £1·9 billion, and they get very little in return. In fact, they receive the princely sum of £48·65 for approximately a 35-hour week. In real terms, that equates to £1·39 per hour. In this day and age, when equality issues are bandied about by all and sundry, informal carers are not even being awarded the minimum wage rate. The official minimum wage for 16- to 17-year-olds is £3·30, so there is a discrepancy of £1·91 an hour. All things being equal, the carer’s allowance benefit pertaining to that particular age group should be about £115·50. For the most part, carers are not respected for the work that they do, and their dedication and commitment are largely ignored. That can often lead to the deterioration of carers’ health, and their suffering goes largely unreported by carers and undetected by social workers, if they have one. Their typically low income is a major worry for many carers who have no opportunity to boost their meagre income because of the long hours of care that they provide to their relatives, partners or friends. The facts and figures speak for themselves. Some 48% of carers are in debt, or have been in debt, while 48% are worried about paying essential utility bills, or are already experiencing problems in paying them. Around 70% of carers — regardless of age — find that they no longer have the social life that they once enjoyed. Some 27% have had to reduce the amount that they spend on essential groceries, while 64% have no savings of any description. Many of our young carers have little or no help with their daily tasks, be they homework, household duties or generally running a home. Some are even unable to attend school regularly. That is only a brief outline of some of the difficulties that carers face. I hope that those issues will be addressed in the strategy, ‘Caring for Carers: Recognising, Valuing and Supporting the Caring Role’, which was launched in January 2006. I apologise in advance to the Minister for my brashness, but can he tell me whether the £500,000 provided for the creation of a regional young carers’ service, which was announced in March of this year, will be annual recurrent funding and not simply funding put in place for 2007-08? Can the Minister also confirm that funding for existing young carers’ services will be kept in place? 2.15 pm Many agencies do their best to alleviate the stresses and strains suffered by those who are known to be carers, no matter what age they are. However, no one can possibly understand or appreciate what life is like for someone who is responsible for caring for another human being who is living with an illness — no matter what type it is. That is why the Assembly must act now to create the appropriate centre stage to allow us to deliver, through the correct statutory bodies, a less worrisome existence for carers and, in particular, provide lifeblood for young carers, some of whom are already on their knees in desperation. However, many more carers are afraid to ask for help in case they are viewed as being weak or unfit to carry out their caring duties. I was a carer for some years, and, at times, I felt helpless, incapable and just plain desperate, even though I could rely on my husband and daughter to share my workload. Many carers are not lucky enough to have a solid support network that they can call upon for help in times of dire need, particularly if they care for people who suffer from both physical and mental illnesses. I have nothing but admiration and respect for carers. However, respect and admiration will not put food on the table, provide an education or give respite when the carer feels that he or she has nothing more to give. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr Moutray: Like other Members, I commend Mrs Carmel Hanna for bringing the motion before the House. In Northern Ireland alone, the support given by carers is worth an estimated £1·9 billion a year, and it has been calculated that about 11% of households contain a carer. Thankfully, some progress has been made in this area. Carers now have a legal right to an assessment of their needs, the purpose of which is to identify what help they require with caring, as well as identifying help that would maintain their own health and balance caring with other aspects of life, such as work and family commitments. The Carers and Direct Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 requires health trusts to inform carers of their right to a carer’s assessment, and it gives trusts the powers to supply services directly to carers. The Act also permits trusts to make direct payments to carers, who are listed as: “a) a person with parental responsibility for a disabled child; (b) a disabled person with parental responsibility for a child; or (c) a disabled child aged 16 or 17”. A report on the long-term financial impact of caring, which was launched by Carers Northern Ireland two weeks ago, found that carers face severe financial penalties as soon as they start caring. The survey found that carers had to cut back on such important items as food, heating and clothes and had to give up their jobs and sacrifice their pensions, which left many worried about their financial futures. Caring hits hard, particularly in the first year, with carers struggling to cope with the changes in their personal situations and finances as they start to give up work and face extra costs associated with disability. Three out of every five people will be carers at some point in their lives. Another positive step is that, since early April, carers in Northern Ireland have a statutory right to request flexible working hours. Statistics from Carers UK indicate that there is an enormous turnover of carers, with almost 69,000 people in the Province facing a new caring responsibility each year. Carers miss out on a massive amount of potential income. In 2005, it was estimated that carers in Northern Ireland were missing out on £4 million of unclaimed benefits and not getting the support and information that they needed. Missing out on a year’s carer’s allowance alone, at £46·95 a week, amounts to losing £2,441 a year. Caring can also mean missing out on pension contributions. Every year, many older carers become entitled to pension credit, but they do not know that it is available. Last year, it was estimated that 3,700 carers over the age of 60 in Northern Ireland missed out on pension credits to which they were entitled. Too many people simply accept the role of carer as being part and parcel of family life. They do not take the crucial step of recognising themselves as carers and finding out what is available to them. Members must seek to ensure that carers receive what they deserve and what they are entitled to. I support the motion. Mr Ross: I congratulate the Member for tabling the motion. She can rely on the DUP’s support. As my colleague Mr Moutray mentioned, new legislation was introduced on 6 April 2007 that gives employees in Northern Ireland the statutory right to request flexible working hours if they provide unpaid care for frail, chronically ill or disabled adults. Helen Ferguson of Carers Northern Ireland described the legislation as: “another milestone in our campaign to secure a better deal for carers and a step forward for everyone in promoting a modern, flexible and multiskilled workforce.” That signifies another step for carers who, since being officially reco |