northern ireland assembly Tuesday 22 January 2008 Ministerial Statements: Private Members’ Business: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Speaker: I advise Members that I have received correspondence from the nominating officer of Sinn Féin, Mr Pat Doherty, dismissing Mr Gerry McHugh as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and nominating Mr Willie Clarke to that post. I have also received correspondence from Mr Willie Clarke, in which he states that he is prepared to take up that post. I am satisfied that the correspondence meets the requirements of Standing Orders and I, therefore, confirm that Mr Willie Clarke is now Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. North/South Ministerial Council — Transport Sectoral Format Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) transport sectoral meeting. The Minister for Regional Development (Mr Murphy): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following report on the fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in the transport sectoral format, which was held in the Knightsbrook Hotel, Trim, on 12 December 2007. The Executive were represented by the Minister of the Environment, Arlene Foster MLA, and me. The Irish Government were represented by the Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey TD. Arlene Foster has approved this report and I will make it on her behalf. The Council noted and welcomed the progress made since the previous meeting in September 2007, and the opportunity to meet to further discuss opportunities for cross-border co-operation in strategic transport planning and road safety. At the NSMC transport sectoral meeting on 14 September 2007, it was agreed that a three-tier management structure for the A5 dualling project would be in place by October 2007. I am pleased to advise Members that the cross-border steering group — the first tier — met on 22 October 2007 and agreed that representatives from my Department’s Roads Service, with officials from the National Roads Authority, will form the second tier — the A5 technical group. This group will deal with cross-border interfaces and will oversee the management of the project. The third tier of management — the project team in Roads Service — has also been appointed. Furthermore, I advise that consultants were appointed on 31 October 2007, and work on stage 1 of the preliminary route corridor assessment is under way. It is anticipated that that will be completed by late 2008, and stage 2, the preferred route assessment, by mid-2009. I confirm that consultants were appointed to the A8 Belfast to Larne dualling project, with work under way in an anticipated timescale similar to that for the A5 project. The Council noted and welcomed the continuing progress on the Irish Government’s proposals to replace two cross-border bridges at Annaghroe and Knocknaginny on the Tyrone/Monaghan border. Monaghan County Council is appointing consultants to develop the design and co-ordinate the consultation process. It is important to ensure extensive public consultation, and I confirm that my Department’s Roads Service will play its part in improving the approach roads in the North, and will work in close co-operation with officials from Monaghan County Council to ensure that works are co-ordinated. The Council noted the continuing progress on the Irish Government’s proposal to construct a bridge at Narrow Water to link County Louth and County Down. I welcome the continuing progress on that proposal, and that the Department of Transport has granted €390,000 to Louth County Council to undertake a feasibility study. The outcome of the consultants’ work must be evaluated carefully before decisions are taken on the project. It has, therefore, been agreed that officials from the North and the South will share information from the study, as well as from the Roads Service’s study on the Newry southern relief road. The Council received a joint presentation from NIR (Northern Ireland Railways) and Iarnród Éireann, setting out an initial consideration of options for improving the frequency, and journey time, of the Belfast to Dublin Enterprise service. In addition to investments already planned for rail infrastructure, the preliminary evaluation set out proposals for the replacement of current rolling stock with an expanded fleet. Ministers asked the two companies to expand on the work undertaken to date, and to prepare a business case for consideration at the next Council meeting in transport sectoral format. The business case will incorporate a clear statement of the costs and benefits of the various options for improving and upgrading the Belfast to Dublin service. The Council welcomed the ongoing co-operation between the Departments, North and South, and the two rail companies, especially on rail safety and interoperability. I have asked my officials to continue to work closely with counterparts in Dublin to ensure compliance with relevant EU directives on those issues. Moreover, the Council welcomed the major investments made in recent years by both companies in the improvement of railway infrastructure and safety. The Council noted that a report on cross-border community-based rural transport has been considered by both Departments. Although Ministers recognised the potential benefits of those types of service to communities in cross-border areas, they realised that regulatory resource and organisational constraints must be addressed. The Council has agreed that a pilot cross-border exercise should now be considered, and has asked officials to work together to consider such a pilot and to report progress at a future NSMC transport sectoral meeting. The Council noted that a mid-term review of the Northern Ireland road safety strategy for 2002-2012 was under way, and that an announcement by the Minister of the Environment on the way forward was expected early in 2008. Moreover, it received a presentation from the Road Safety Authority on the new road safety strategy for Ireland for 2007-2012, which aims to reduce the number of road deaths to no greater than 60 fatalities per million of the population by the end of 2012. The Council also welcomed the co-operation between the authorities on a range of issues, including advertising and publicity, the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications and penalty points, and road safety in border areas. The Council agreed that the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in the transport sectoral format should take place in May 2008. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Ross: I thank the Minister for his statement. Coming from east Antrim, the A8 road is an important issue for me. Will the Minister confirm when it is anticipated that the dualling of the A8 will be complete? Mr Murphy: The A5 and A8 roads projects, which are jointly funded by the Executive and the Irish Government, are substantial. It is intended that those projects will be delivered more quickly than any project has ever been delivered on these islands. The appointment of the consultants to identify the route options has begun. Those options will be zeroed down by mid-2009 to a preferred route option for each scheme. The issues that might then arise will set the tone. For example, if there is limited opposition or if the land-acquisition issues are relatively simple, the process can be finalised quite quickly. However, if there is significant local opposition to the preferred route — and it is much too soon to say at this stage what that route will be — a public inquiry could be started, thereby stretching out the process. Although I cannot give a definitive date for the completion of the work, I assure the Member that the intention is to deliver both schemes as quickly as possible. Obviously, we intend to consult throughout the process, thus minimising both any opposition to, and any of the normal difficulties that arise with, the statutory processes that are involved in road building. We will attempt to ensure that the projects are delivered much more quickly than is normal for road-building projects such as these. Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tá ceist agam don Aire. I thank the Minister for his statement, and I have a question for him. Has the Minister engaged in consultation on speed management and signage, given the fact that a high percentage of our road fatalities occur not only on rural roads but in border areas? Go raibh maith agat. Mr Murphy: I thank the Member for his question. The primary responsibility for road safety rests with the Minister of the Environment. I know that she is conducting a review on road safety here in the North and intends to make an announcement about that in the coming weeks. There is an excellent degree of co-operation on road-safety matters between the roads authorities in the North and the South. I am not sure whether the Minister of the Environment’s review has addressed standardising speed-limit signs; currently, such signs are displayed here in miles per hour, and across the border, they are displayed in kilometres per hour. However, I do not doubt that, given that such co-operation exists with the South, when the Minister of the Environment examines those issues and reviews the road safety strategy here, she will discuss them with her counterparts. However, whether it will be possible to progress them will become more apparent in the fullness of time. Mr McCallister: I know that the Minister does not think that Narrow Water bridge and the southern relief road are competing projects. However, I dispute that, given the somewhat limited resources that are involved. Will the Minister guarantee that if the Narrow Water bridge project goes ahead, no Northern Ireland money will be spent on either the feasibility study or construction? Mr Murphy: The short answer is no. The feasibility study is being conducted by Louth County Council, and the Irish Government have grant-aided it €390,000 for that purpose. Therefore, we are not required to contribute to that study. The Minister for Transport in the South and I have undertaken to examine the results both of the feasibility study on the Narrow Water bridge project and the study that is being conducted on the southern relief road. We have also undertaken to appoint officials who will co-operate with each other to conduct both studies. It is, therefore, much too early to give any guarantees about what might arise once those studies have been completed. We are not required to contribute to the feasibility study, but given that we have not yet received the results of those studies, I cannot guarantee anything. Mr Dallat: I welcome the Minister’s statement, which covers a range of issues, including road, rail and road safety. I welcome in particular the focus on the Belfast to Dublin rail line, which is long overdue for an upgrade. I hope that the initial consideration and the preliminary evaluation that are mentioned in the statement will proceed quickly. When can we expect the Belfast to Derry rail line to be the subject of discussion in the North/South bodies, given that development on the Republic side of the border is moving very fast? Indeed, this week, it was announced that train services to Sligo are doubling in frequency. It is clear that the missing link is the area between Derry and Letterkenny. Mr Murphy: I have no difficulty with discussing the Derry to Belfast rail line at the North/South sectoral meetings. The Southern Government have not raised with us the issue of rail provision in Donegal, and they have never discussed it with us under the North/South arrangements. I am happy to ask my officials to table rail services in the north-west generally as a topic for discussion. Like the Member, I am aware that there are substantial plans in the South for rail provision and improvement that go as far as Sligo. However, as he says, there is a missing link between Sligo and the north-west. I am happy to ask my officials to have that matter included on the agenda for a future transport sectoral meeting. 10.45 am Mr Lunn: I note the Minister’s comments about improved frequency and journey times on the Dublin to Belfast rail link. However, one of the big concerns recently has been reliability. Were there any discussions about the reliability of the service? Also, has any consideration been given to extra stopping points on the service? I am thinking particularly of Northern Ireland’s second city, Lisburn. Mr Murphy: Extra stopping points and a decreased journey time between Dublin and Belfast would work against each other. It would be very hard to decrease the time of the journey, or increase the speed, if we were to add extra stopping points along the route. The focus is on bringing the journey time down to 100 minutes from the current 125 minutes, which is just over two hours, and on increasing the frequency. In relation to reliability, there does seem to have been an increasing number of stories about breakdowns on the service. That is worrying. I heard someone from Translink this morning pointing out, quite rightly, that all the days on which the service runs on time do not make the news. When it does not — when there is a breakdown or other problem — that makes the news. Nonetheless, when we are trying to attract more people onto public transport and to improve rail services — not just between Dublin and Belfast, but any rail services that we have responsibility for — there is an onus on us and on Translink to ensure that those services are as reliable as possible. That is something that I will continue to raise with Translink so that disturbances and breakdowns are kept to a minimum. Mr I McCrea: Can the Minister provide an update on the expected introduction of free public transport for the over-60s? Are there any implications for co-operation with the Irish Republic? Mr Murphy: We have made a bid for moneys to be included in the Budget. Without pre-empting the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s Budget statement, I am quite optimistic that that bid has been successful. There has recently been some public comment on the timescale: it is as I outlined it to the Regional Development Committee and as the Committee accepted. There are 87,000 people in the age bracket between 60 and 64 who may be eligible to avail themselves of free public transport, and it takes some time to go through all the necessary assessments and the consultation process to get the scheme ready. We have always said that it will happen in the latter half of this year. That has always been the timescale; there has been no delay. That is what was originally stated, and we intend to hold to it. Obviously, all-island transport for over-65s is a different arrangement, and it has a different schedule. The South does not have free public transport for anyone under 65. It is something that we intend to talk to the Southern Minister about. It crosses a number of Departments in the South; it is not just a matter for the Department of Transport. As it stands, we expect to have the scheme available for people in this jurisdiction between the ages of 60 and 64 by the end of the year. That does not apply to transport throughout the island, and that is something that we need to discuss with our counterparts in Dublin. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Can the Minister give a timescale for the commencement of the Narrow Water bridge project? Has there been any discussion about the development of new railway infrastructure on an all-Ireland basis? Mr Murphy: I am afraid that I cannot give a timescale for the Narrow Water bridge project. The feasibility study is in the hands of Louth County Council. A similar study, on the relief of traffic around Newry, is being conducted by Roads Service on the Northern side, so we have asked the people conducting both studies to co-operate. Therefore, only when we learn the outcome of both studies can we assess how the Narrow Water bridge project will proceed. Only then will we be able to outline a time frame for the project, indicate its cost or deal with any implications that the studies throw up. To date, our discussions on railway matters have only concerned the Belfast to Dublin rail line. They have not been about the creation of any other railway lines. Given our limited resources, our main aim is to improve the current rail network. We want to improve the frequency of trains and duration of journeys, and we want to raise those to a standard that will attract more people to public transport, and to trains in particular. That has been our focus, but that is not to say that, should a desire be expressed to talk about it, I would not be happy to discuss the provision of new railway lines at North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meetings. However, provision of new railway lines has not been discussed at those meetings to date. Mr Craig: Given that a large proportion of our tracks is speed-limited for safety reasons, will the Minister outline what action has been taken in Northern Ireland to meet EU directives on railway safety? Mr Murphy: Officials in my Department have liaised closely with colleagues in the Department of Transport and the Irish Railway Safety Commission on matters of mutual concern. Those discussions have focused on ensuring compatible implementation of legislation, which includes our meeting EU requirements on railway safety. NIR and Iarnród Éireann share the operation of the Enterprise service between Belfast and Dublin. Staff from both companies work closely to ensure its smooth operation of service. Officials from both Departments sponsor regular four-way meetings that involve both Governments and both train operators. Those meetings cover current legislative and operational matters. The most recent meeting took place in December 2007, and we are very much focused on ensuring that our railway safety measures are compatible with the necessary EU directives and legislation. Mr Elliott: Is the Minister aware of the significant opposition that there is to proposals to restore the two bridges on the south Tyrone and Monaghan border? I am pleased to learn that there is to be a consultation period, but when will that consultation take place? Mr Murphy: There may be opposition, but there is also a substantial degree of support on either side of the border for those bridges to be reopened. Monaghan County Council is in the process of appointing consultants to co-ordinate the consultation process, and I anticipate that those consultants will liaise with my officials in Roads Service to develop proposals that will maximise that process’s benefits. As the Member said, there may be some who are not so supportive of the project, so there is an onus on us to ensure that there is consultation. As I have said, responsibility for the consultation lies primarily with Monaghan County Council, but it is liaising with Roads Service. No time frame for the consultation period has been outlined as yet, but I am sure that the Member will be kept informed. Mrs D Kelly: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Is there any indication of when the planning stages of the major A5 project might end and work to improve the road’s infrastructure might begin? I also wish to make a point about the reliability of the Dublin to Belfast rail link. On 4 January, it took a constituent of mine five hours to travel from Dublin to Portadown. The train broke down outside Dundalk for one and a half hours. Although there may be fewer problems with reliability than there are with delivery, nonetheless, for those passengers, that situation was totally unacceptable. More worryingly, however, one of the train’s passengers who spoke to a guard was told that the train had a water leak when it left Belfast, so it was no wonder that it broke down on its return journey. What mechanisms are in place for dealing with such problems, and what discussions have been held? Finally, what investment, especially in rolling stock, is planned for this year and envisaged for next year? Mr Murphy: I shall give a similar answer to the one that I gave to Mr Ross’s question about the A8 to Larne. The intention is for work to be completed as quickly as possible. The A5 scheme is one of the biggest road-building schemes ever to be undertaken in one fell swoop, certainly on this island and possibly on both islands. The consultants have been appointed and the management structures have been put in place to manage the project. The intention is to assess some of the options and determine the preferred route option by the end of the year. However, that will depend on any local issues that may be raised. This will be a 70- or 80-kilometre stretch of dual carriageway, which will pass by several towns, therefore there may be issues involving land acquisition or local opposition, which, if they result in public inquiries, will lengthen the process. At this stage, it is very difficult to say exactly when the work will commence. Members can be assured that it is our intention to complete the work as quickly as possible. I understand that the road has been broadly welcomed by people in the west. However, whether that welcome will translate into local opposition, as the road passes people’s farms and towns, will be another matter. As regards the breakdowns, I accept that inconvenience for passengers is very frustrating. Such things are not helpful at a time when we are investing in public transport — certainly in the rail network — and are trying to encourage more people to leave their cars at home and use public services. As I said, Translink’s spokesperson said this morning that public attention is quite often drawn to breakdowns and not necessarily to the daily successes of providing a punctual and uninterrupted service, and that the bad-news stories are more likely to be heard. Nonetheless, the onus is on Translink and Iarnród Éireann to ensure that the service is as reliable as possible. Both companies presented a paper at the last sectoral meeting on their plans for improving rolling stock, service frequency and journey times on the Belfast to Dublin route. They were asked to prepare a business case, so I cannot say what rolling stock will be improved until that is produced. However, all that work will be undermined if the service is not reliable. It is worrying each time we hear about breakdowns, and I will be talking to Translink about ensuring that the service is as reliable as possible. Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he assure the House that the proposed increase in frequency of services on the Belfast to Dublin rail link will service Newry? Are there any plans to introduce a commuter service that will bring passengers from Newry to Dublin before 9.30 am? Currently, such a service does not exist. Mr Murphy: The intention is that the frequency of journeys between Belfast and Dublin will be increased and that journey times will be reduced. Translink and Iarnród Éireann made a presentation at the meeting, indicating their ideas on how that could be achieved. Obviously, that will create demands that are not provided for in budgets; therefore, both organisations were asked to provide a business case that they would bring back to me and to Noel Dempsey, the Minister for Transport in the South. That work will address a range of issues. As regards Newry, I am sure that the Member will be pleased to know that work will be commencing shortly on the new railway station there. Like me, he has used it often, and he will know that it will be much welcomed in the area and that it will be a welcome acquisition to the Belfast to Dublin railway line in particular. We look forward to hearing a much more detailed presentation from both railway companies at the next transport sectoral meeting. Mr Moutray: Will the Minister state whether the expanded fleet and replacement of rolling stock on the Belfast to Dublin rail line will be part of an extended service to passengers on that route? Mr Murphy: Both companies made a presentation at the sectoral meeting, and they argued very much that to enhance the service, increase service frequency and cut journey times, they would need to make improvements to the line, some of which, around the Lurgan area, have been scheduled and budgeted for. However, improvements such as enhancing rolling stock or buying new rolling stock have not been budgeted for, and we asked both companies to prepare a business case. When that case is produced, my Department and the Department of Transport in the South will have to consider it and decide whether we can make a case to our respective Executives to see whether we can secure support. The railway companies have come up with that idea. They will have to make a supporting business case so that the plans stack up. The issue may come back to the Assembly, and in the future, I may seek the support of Members and the Minister of Finance and Personnel. 11.00 am Mr Beggs: I welcome the appointment of consultants to progress the dualling of the A8 from Larne to Belfast. When does the Minister expect planning approval to be given to the project? What funding will be available? The Minister states that discussions have taken place about the replacement of rolling stock on the Belfast to Dublin railway line. Was the Larne to Belfast line, which forms part of the trans-European network, discussed? Was the replacement of those trains, which pre-date the Enterprise by several decades, discussed? Will the Minister ensure that the experiences of European travellers and local commuters on the Larne line will be improved before there is any further expenditure on the Enterprise? Mr Murphy: The timescale for the A8 will match that of the A5. Consultants were appointed to consider several route options, a process that they intend to complete this year. By the middle of the 2009-10 financial year, they will have preferred route options. That will be followed by the required statutory processes and, possibly, public inquiries. Beyond that, it is difficult to predict how quickly the project can be progressed. I can assure people who are asking questions about the speed of the project that it will be completed much quicker than similar projects in the past. The Member, other Members from East Antrim and councillors on Larne Borough Council have previously raised the issue of rolling stock on the Larne line. At the transport sectoral meeting, the railway companies’ presentation focused on the Belfast to Dublin line, and the Larne line was not discussed. In this day and age, people expect better rolling stock on the Larne line, and I assure all Members from East Antrim that I am committed to replacing that stock as soon as possible so that passengers experience more comfortable journeys. Mr O’Loan: The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of the Environment have a close interest in road safety. The recent deaths of three young people near Strabane make us focus on the issue. The statement mentions targets in the South to bring road deaths down to 60 per million of population a year, and the North is running slightly above that figure. Does the Minister agree that the North should set more demanding targets for 2012? I am disappointed that there are not more details about actions on road safety. Can I ask both Ministers, when they attend the next transport sectoral meeting, to ensure that they arrive prepared and leave that meeting able to implement significant actions to deal with the three issues that could reduce the number of road deaths and accidents: safer roads, safer vehicles and improved driver behaviour. Mr Murphy: Road safety targets are primarily matters for the Minister of the Environment, but I am a member of a road safety group that includes that Minister and the PSNI. Efforts to reduce the number of road deaths exercise not only members of that group but all people. The events of the past couple of days bring that issue home to us. Last year, there was a reduction in the number of fatalities on the roads here. However, that is cold comfort to those who lost people on the roads. Every effort must be made to continue to reduce those numbers. The Minister of the Environment is due to make an announcement on a review of the road safety strategy. The level of co-operation between the road safety authorities, North and South, is excellent. The issues of penalty points and driving disqualifications need to be progressed, but given that two jurisdictions are involved, technical difficulties can hold things up. However, the will to co-operate is there. I have attended two very productive NSMC sectoral meetings on road safety, and I have no doubt that they will help in the development of strategies to reduce the number of road fatalities across the island. Mr Storey: Will the Minister outline the regulatory, resource and organisational constraints that are likely to preclude cross-border community-based rural transport initiatives? Mr Murphy: Those who provide rural community transport on both sides of the border have been making the case for some time that they face certain anomalies. The Member represents North Antrim, but he will know that, in border constituencies, the nearest centre of population and the nearest services are often in one jurisdiction or the other — not where a person happens to live. There have been ongoing difficulties in respect of people’s ability to avail of rural transport services in the border areas; often, they cannot avail of the closest services. The North/South Ministerial Council agreed to carry out a study on that matter. The results of that study have been received by both Departments, North and South. We have asked those who conducted that study to set up a pilot scheme — the location for which has not yet been identified — so that we can begin to operate cross-border rural transport provision. We hope that that pilot scheme will demonstrate how we can make progress and deal with all of the anomalies and technical irregularities that create obstacles in the way of proper transport provision in the most marginalised areas in both jurisdictions. We hope to make further progress. The study has been useful, and has identified a number of issues for both Departments to try to address. Some regulatory matters will overlap into the remit of the Department of the Environment. The pilot study will bring progress to a phase at which we can see action. We can then work very quickly to overcome some of the obstacles. The purpose of rural transportation is to provide services for those who live off the beaten track, who cannot avail of public transport, and who do not live near the rail networks or regular bus routes. The provision of rural transport reduces social exclusion and marginalisation in those areas. We have made progress to some degree, and the pilot project should lead to further progress. We hope that we will then be able to provide a seamless rural transport service across the border area. Mr Hamilton: There is free public transport across Ireland for over 65s. Was that issue discussed at the Minister’s meeting, and what is his assessment of the success of that scheme? Mr Murphy: The all-Ireland free transport scheme for over 65s pre-dated my coming into office, and it was not discussed at the meeting. That scheme is not the responsibility of the Department of Transport in the South; it is the responsibility of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is generally felt that that scheme has been quite successful across the island. The extension in the North of free travel to those aged between 60 and 64 will not necessarily extend to the rest of the island. We will wish to include that issue on future agendas of transport sectoral meetings. However, there must be input from the Department of Social and Family Affairs in the South. Perhaps the experience of the 65-plus scheme will be useful when making an argument to extend free travel right across the island for those aged between 60 and 64. Mr Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his comments about the A5 road upgrade, which is very important to the west of the Province, and I thank the Minister for the work on stage 1 of that project. Stage 2 is to be completed by mid-2009. Can the Minister confirm that his Department is fully committed to seeing that scheme through to fruition? Are the required finances available to ensure that that happens? Mr Murphy: Yes. That scheme has commenced, and we are committed to it. There was a very significant contribution from the Dublin Government towards that project, and towards the A8 Belfast-Larne scheme. The money that we anticipate will be required has been budgeted for as part of the roads strategy, and our commitment is to complete that scheme as quickly as possible. Mr Newton: Like others, I welcome the Minister’s statement. I note that he indicates that there will be a joint road safety publicity campaign with the Republic. Will he indicate what the budget for that campaign might be, and how it will be broken down? Mr Murphy: Again, without passing the buck, I would say that that is primarily a matter for the Department of the Environment. Advertising across the island makes sense because the TV networks are available across the island. I cannot answer the Member’s question regarding the budget for the publicity campaign. However, I am sure that either my Department or the Department of the Environment will be able to provide him with that answer in writing. A number of factors contribute to road safety. Some of them, such as road structure, are my responsibility, while others relate to education, information, detection and punishment. The road safety group in the North, which is chaired by the Minister of the Environment, involves me and the PSNI, and I believe that co-operating and learning from good practice across the island will add to our ability to reduce the carnage on the roads. That is surely in all of our interests. Mr Shannon: Some concern has already been expressed in the Chamber about the rolling stock, which the Minister mentioned in his statement when he was talking about the Dublin to Belfast rail link. Will he provide an indication of the cost of expanding and upgrading the current rolling stock? The Minister also said that the next transport sectoral meeting will take place in May — will he tell us whether the costs will be available in time for that meeting; and, more importantly, will the budget that will be necessary for the upgrading also be in place? Mr Murphy: The Member’s question relates to the case that was proposed by the railway companies at the transport sectoral meeting and involved improving the Belfast to Dublin service. Part of that case included acquiring new rolling stock. No costs were presented at the time, so both companies were asked to prepare a business case, which I hope will be ready for the May transport sectoral meeting, when the case can be assessed. My Department, through its own budget, is investing in upgrading rolling stock across the rail network in the North, and that will continue apace. However, the Member’s reference to improved rolling stock relates to the aforementioned case. It has been proven that when investments have been made in public transport, in railways, in tracks, and in rolling stock, the service has improved and passenger numbers have increased. We want to attract more passengers to public transport, particularly to rail transport, in order to benefit the environment and reduce our carbon footprint, so we will continue to make the case for investment. The Department for Regional Development has a substantial investment to make in relation to rolling stock, some of which will go towards improving the Larne to Belfast service. If the business case that is being prepared by the two companies makes it on to the agenda for the next transport sectoral meeting, I will be happy to share details with Members when the statement is made in the aftermath of the meeting. Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement regarding the Budget. The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): It is almost 40 years since a Finance Minister elected by the people of Northern Ireland presented a Budget in a stable political environment. Today, I am able to do that with a sense of optimism for the future. Although it is only eight months since power returned to Stormont, I believe that today’s announcement is yet another sign that devolution is working. In October, I said that the draft Budget came with a proud stamp that read “Made in Northern Ireland”. In the next three years, it will be the Executive’s task to ensure that they deliver for Northern Ireland. 11.15 am Today, I am pleased to be able to present the Executive’s unanimously agreed Budget proposals. In October, I announced a draft Budget that delivered the highest ever level of public spending to Northern Ireland, froze domestic regional rates for the next three years and capped industrial rates. It was a draft Budget that was good for householders and good for business. It represented delivery of the priorities that the people of Northern Ireland voted for in March 2007. It demonstrated a break with the past and a clear intention to build a brighter future for Northern Ireland. Over the last three months we have listened to the people of Northern Ireland, and I am pleased to announce that the key cornerstones of the draft Budget that I presented in October remain in place. I am therefore happy to confirm that domestic regional rates will be frozen in cash terms over the next three years, that non-domestic regional rates will be frozen in real terms over the next three years and that industrial rates will be capped at 30%. When that is contrasted with the rate increases in recent years under direct rule, no householder in Northern Ireland will fail to recognise the benefit of the return of devolution. Let those who say that devolution makes no difference explain that logic to the average household, which will be £1,000 better off than it would have been if direct rule had continued. While the key tenets of the draft Budget remain intact, the consultation process has been invaluable in helping us refine our plans. Today, I will set out our response to the consultation process, and I will be in a position to make some additional allocations. Those will reflect the fact that the Executive have listened to the views expressed in the consultation process and demonstrate that it has been a meaningful process. That consultation process has been important in shaping not only the final Budget allocations, but for Departments in determining their priorities. During the past 10 weeks we have had a vigorous, often robust, debate among politicians and the general public about our public spending priorities. That is important in a democracy. It has been a useful, if sometimes difficult, process, but I believe that the final Budget is the better for it. With the return of devolution and the capacity to help shape the direction of policy, the Budget consultation has generated considerable public and media attention. That is only proper as in the life of the Assembly there are few more important issues than how we decide to spend public money. Therefore it is important that we hear the views of a wide range of individuals and organisations on those key issues. It is also essential that, having listened to those differing views and perspectives, Ministers in the Executive reach final agreement on the best outcome for our community. That is what we have now done, and I am pleased to present our conclusions to the Assembly for consideration and approval. Today, I have published our final Budget proposals and the document has been made available to Members. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have also published final versions of the Executive’s Programme for Government and the investment strategy for Northern Ireland. Next week, they will seek the Assembly’s endorsement of those key strategic documents, and I will also seek the Assembly’s approval of the associated spending plans in the Budget. When I presented our draft Budget proposals to the Assembly last October, I set out the wider prospects for public expenditure over the next three years. We have experienced a decade of significant growth in levels of public expenditure in Northern Ireland, reflecting the growth that has also happened in the rest of the UK. Levels of public expenditure will continue to grow in real terms over the next few years; however, that rate of growth will be at a much lower level. That presents us with both an opportunity and a challenge. We have the opportunity to maintain levels of investment in key public services, while introducing a new focus on ensuring that we deliver value for money for those in the community who rely on those services. The challenge is to ensure that we focus our expenditure and efforts over the coming years on the key priorities that will make real and sustainable improvements in our prosperity and quality of life. The final Programme for Government published today confirms that growing the economy will be the Executive’s top priority for the next three years. In addition, we recognise the importance of delivering a major programme of investment in public infrastructure; promoting tolerance, inclusion, health and well-being; protecting and enhancing our environment and natural resources; and delivering high-quality and efficient public services. The Budget must ensure that the resources available to the Executive are allocated to activities and programmes that support the delivery of these priorities. The final Budget proposals that have now been agreed by the Executive maintain this focus on our key priorities. I am also pleased to be able to announce some additional allocations to assist with these priorities. These allocations also reflect the key themes that arose during the consultation exercise and demonstrate that the Executive have indeed listened. I pay tribute to the significant and important work done during the consultation period by all of the Assembly’s Statutory Committees. The Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, and members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and their staff, played a particularly important role. They commissioned the views of all the other Committees and compiled them into a co-ordinated report on the Executive’s draft Budget, which was published on 8 January. During the consultation period, the Committee also hosted an information seminar for all MLAs and relevant Assembly officials on the annual Budget process. It tabled the motion for the take-note debate, held in plenary session on 27 November, invited me to provide it with a high-level briefing on the draft Budget, and took evidence from my officials on a wide range of strategic and cross-cutting budgetary issues. I should add that, in addition to supporting the work of all the Committees on the draft Budget, the Committee for Finance and Personnel also found time to examine the draft Budget for my own Department. This was a very significant programme of work, carried out over a very short time that included the Christmas break. We can all be grateful to the Committee for its efforts. I must also pay particular thanks to all of the officials in my Department who have worked tirelessly on the Budget for many months. The co-ordinated report on the draft Budget is a very useful document. Its value should endure beyond the conclusion of this first Budget process in the Assembly. It provides many valuable insights into a wide range of departmental and cross-cutting issues. I urge my ministerial colleagues, Assembly Members and, indeed, departmental officials to consider the material in the report carefully as we move forward, particularly in implementing programmes and policies that will be supported by the resources allocated in this Budget. Alongside the important work carried out on the draft Budget within the Assembly, officials attended a number of public consultation seminars at four locations across Northern Ireland. Officials also attended a public consultation event organised by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, and met the Northern Ireland Local Government Association, the Consumer Council, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Equality Coalition. Presentations were also made to a meeting of the Economic Development Forum and to a conference on neighbourhood renewal. A number of Departments also arranged consultation events, focusing on their own spending programmes. Advertisements were placed in the main regional newspapers, requesting written responses and comments on the Executive’s proposals in the draft Programme for Government, Budget and investment strategy. There has been considerable interest in these proposals, and over 9,500 written responses have been received. These range from signatures on a petition to comprehensive commentaries. The Executive will publish a detailed analysis of the consultation responses. Of all the issues, funding for the arts was the main theme in terms of the quantity of responses, reflecting a well-organised effort by the arts sector to highlight its concerns, and I pay tribute to that sector for its efforts. Mental-health services, and those for people with a learning disability, were also raised as matters of concern. These concerns were raised by relatives of those with mental-health problems or learning disabilities, as well as by professionals working in the field. I must confess to being lobbied at home on these issues. Petitions were also received with respect to libraries and the implications for local sports funding of the 2012 Olympics in London. There were also concerns regarding the allocation of funding for services for children and young people, which has been raised with me directly by groups representing the interests of children. In addition, representations were made to Ministers, among others, regarding the level of funding for victims. The Executive’s priority of growing a dynamic innovative economy was broadly welcomed, but some concerns were expressed that insufficient resources had been earmarked for investment in skills and promoting innovation. Capital expenditure on social housing is an important issue. There were concerns that insufficient funding had been allocated in the draft Budget to enable us to achieve the target in the draft investment strategy to complete up to 10,000 social and affordable houses over the next five years. Many other issues were raised which are too numerous to mention specifically in this statement. However, all responses to the Budget process have been noted and considered. The Executive’s response to the issues raised by the Members and Committees of this Assembly, and during the wider consultation exercise, has to be set in the context of the resources available and allocated to departmental programmes. In announcing our draft Budget proposals last October, all the resources then available over the next three years were allocated to departmental programmes, apart from some £50 million of capital remaining to be allocated. As I will explain later, some additional resources have become available for allocation now. However, in scale, those resources are very much at the margins of the total allocations that were earmarked for Departments in the draft Budget. Therefore, the only way to have allocated substantial extra resources to any single Department now would have been to reduce the allocations that had been proposed for other Departments. In light of the significant pressures identified by all Departments, the Executive decided not to pursue that option. Therefore, the main focus for our response to the consultation exercise lies in the discretion that each Minister and Department have to deploy their available resources in pursuit of the Executive’s strategic priorities and objectives as set out in our final Programme for Government. As I have said already, I urge each Department to consider carefully the departmental and cross-cutting issues identified during consideration of the draft Budget by our statutory Committees, as well as the issues identified in the public consultation exercise. I will now explain how the Executive propose to allocate the limited additional resources that have become available, dealing first with current expenditure allocations. It has been possible to generate some additional resources, partly as a result of more optimistic regional rate revenue projections, and a lower than previously forecast subsidy requirement to Northern Ireland Water. In addition, I have decided that a portion of the costs of rolling out the central reform programme, which had previously been held centrally, should now be released to make additional allocations to Departments. Overall, some £20 million, £30 million and £30 million in additional funding became available in each of the next three years respectively for allocation to Departments compared to the draft Budget position. The Executive have decided that that additional funding should be allocated in response to some of the key issues identified by the Assembly Committees, MLAs and groups and individuals during the consultation exercise. Departments may also wish to reprioritise the allocations made at the draft Budget stage to supplement that additional funding. The needs of those with mental-health problems or learning disabilities are well recognised by society. Too often in the past, however, they have been ignored when it comes to the allocation of funding. In light of the findings of the Bamford Review, and the responses from the consultation process, the Executive have agreed to increase the allocation to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety by £10 million in each year of the Budget period. More generally, in light of the significant challenges faced by our health and social care services, the Executive have also agreed a package of measures to provide the Health Minister with greater flexibility in the management and deployment of resources already allocated to him during the year. We have agreed that the Health Service should have the first call on the first £20 million of resources that become available during annual in-year monitoring processes. The Health Service will also be able to retain any further efficiencies it can deliver, beyond the existing 3% target, for immediate reinvestment in front line services to patients. 11.30 am The provision of high-quality health and social care services for everyone in the community remains a key priority for the Executive. That is why the draft Budget proposals allocated over half of available resources to the Health Service alone. Over the next three years, the Health Service will have the largest share ever of total departmental spending in Northern Ireland. However, the Executive recognise the significant challenges that face the Health Minister as he seeks to respond to the needs and expectations of the community for its health and social care provision, and as he takes forward the reform of healthcare provision. The package reflects the Executive’s concern to ensure that the Minister has the resources and flexibility to do that, within our affordability limits. During the consultation exercise, funding for services for children and young people was also highlighted as an issue of concern. The Executive recognise the importance of that type of investment to supplement the significant levels of expenditure on mainstream education provision. Therefore, we have decided to allocate an additional £3 million next year, followed by a further £5 million in each of the following two years, to help address the issues and concerns that were raised. The Executive recognise the importance of the arts sector, not only because of the entertainment and relaxation benefits, but because of the significant contribution that it can make to the tourism sector, and to wider economic growth. Therefore, the Executive have agreed an additional allocation of £2 million to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in each of the next two years to address the concerns that were expressed during the public consultation process about arts funding, as well as sports and library funding. The needs of victims remain of great significance to us all, and concerns were raised about the adequacy of the funding that was earmarked for their specific requirements in the draft Budget. Therefore, the Executive have agreed to increase the level of funding for victims by £1 million next year, by £2 million the following year and by £3 million the year after that. I will now deal with the position on capital expenditure in the final Budget proposals. When I announced the draft Budget proposals in October 2007, I highlighted that the Executive wanted to maximise the receipts from the disposal of surplus assets so that they could be reinvested in public-sector infrastructure. Last autumn, the Executive set up the capital realisation task force, which was asked to make recommendations that would remove present barriers to more efficient and economically effective use of the Executive’s assets by realising significant additional value that can be focused on enhancing Northern Ireland’s infrastructure. The task force was asked to report its initial findings by December 2007 so that those could be incorporated into the final Budget position. The task force report made a number of key recommendations, including the identification of the potentially significant value that is to be released from assets over the next 10 years, which is in the region of £900 million. That figure is in addition to the £1·1 billion that has already been identified. The task force report identified a range of potential opportunities to reinvest the proceeds of up to £295 million of asset disposals over the next three years of the Budget period. Further work remains to be done to analyse the scope and feasibility of those potential disposals. That has informed the Executive’s decisions on capital allocations over that period and takes into consideration our ability to realise those proceeds in the current market conditions, and our capacity to reinvest those proceeds. The report also made recommendations to improve the financial management and control of public-sector assets. That does not mean selling assets and spending the proceeds to address short-term priorities. It is about effective stewardship by the Executive and the development of assets to their full potential, which will involve all key stakeholders. That is to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from all the assets at the Executive’s disposal in the support of public services. When I presented the Executive’s draft Budget, I said that the provision of additional social and affordable housing would be a priority for the use of any extra spending power that we could produce for capital investment. As I have noted, the fact that that was a prominent issue during the consultation exercise reflected concerns that insufficient funding had been earmarked to achieve the target of providing up to 10,000 new social and affordable houses over the next few years. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the Executive have agreed to provide to the Minister for Social Development additional capital allocations of £70 million, £75 million and £60 million over the next three years to support her in delivering 1,500, 1,750 and 2,000 new units across the Budget period. During the consultation process, concerns were also raised about ensuring that sufficient funding had been earmarked to make the necessary improvements and modifications to the Fire and Rescue Service’s stations and equipment. In response, we have allocated an additional £14 million over the next three years for that purpose. The Executive have allocated an additional £40 million over the Budget period to allow the Department for Regional Development to continue to progress several major road schemes. They include the A6 Randalstown to Castledawson dualling scheme, improvements to the A32 route from Omagh to Enniskillen, the A2 at Broadbridge and Greenisland, and the A32 Cherrymount Link Road scheme in Enniskillen. When I presented the draft Budget proposals to the Assembly in October 2007, I highlighted the fact that the Executive’s total Budget will rise to almost £11 billion by 2010-11 and, therefore, we will have more money to spend in real terms than ever before. However, we also face many new demands on those resources. The challenge for the Executive has been to strike the right balance in attempting to meet the many legitimate demands for those resources, and we have responded to that challenge in the interests of all the people in Northern Ireland. However, we must look forward to the next stage of development and seek to create a culture of — and a focus on — delivery, rather than on simple spend. In that context, the Executive are committed to the delivery of their Programme for Government and its associated objectives and targets. Those include meeting objectives for public services in important areas, such as investment in children and young people, rural communities, transport infrastructure and the housing needs of the community. The Executive are also committed to investing to increase the competitiveness of the economy and to improve the health and well-being of everyone in Northern Ireland. To ensure the delivery of those objectives, the Executive have taken several significant decisions on public expenditure. For the first time, the current expenditure on health and social services will exceed £4 billion a year, thereby providing the highest ever level of investment in those crucial services. Spending on education will increase by almost £400 million a year by 2010-11, compared with 2006-07. The Executive have prioritised action to support the growth of the economy, and we supported that by increasing the allocations to the Department for Employment and Learning by 35% in 2010-11, compared with 2006-07. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will receive a 21% increase in its allocations. Alongside those allocations, the Executive confirm the largest ever allocations for capital investment in new public-sector infrastructure. In gross terms, the allocations will exceed £2 billion a year by 2010-11, and will support the most ambitious programme of investment yet in hospitals, schools, housing, roads, public transport and other public services. At the beginning of my statement, I emphasised that the Budget has been prepared to support Executive Ministers in delivering the Programme for Government. The financial allocations that were agreed by the Executive reflect our best judgement of how much each Department needs to achieve our central objectives. The Executive will carefully monitor the delivery of the Programme for Government. If it becomes apparent that additional resources are needed to support the delivery of any particular objectives, we will review the allocations to all Departments accordingly. The targets set out in the Programme for Government are not only the responsibility of the relevant Minister but of the Executive as a whole. If Ministers need help to deliver on our joint commitments, we must work to ensure that they are given that help. If Northern Ireland is to succeed and prosper economically, the private sector — not the public sector — will be responsible for that success. Public spending alone will never allow us to create the type of society and economy that we all wish to see. The dependence on the public sector that assisted us during the past 40 years of conflict is now an obstacle to our future development. That is why it is important to use public spending in a way that will not simply deal with the challenges that we face today but will help us to build the economy that we want for the future. The reality in a global economic world is that any national Government — never mind a regional devolved Administration — have only a limited influence on the state of the economy. We would do well to live by the Latin maxim so often applied by doctors: primum non nocere — first, do no harm. We should create an environment in which business can prosper, and wealth can be generated for our entire society, but we must be careful that our interference does not threaten the prosperity that we all wish to see. There is no more important element of that prosperity than a stable political environment that will encourage investment from abroad, development of business locally and will help to keep many of our young people at home. The return of devolution in circumstances in which it is likely to last is the best guarantee for future prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland. A return to direct rule and to years of political instability would be a recipe for economic failure, never mind the longer-term impact that would have on our society. The Executive can help the economy by taking positive action — rather than by simply removing obstacles — in the area of innovation. When I presented the draft Budget to the Assembly in October 2007, I emphasised the importance of innovation in promoting economic success and social progress. I also stressed that it was imperative that we ensured a co-ordinated, cross-departmental approach in making expenditure allocations to promote innovation across a wide range of sectors. The enhancement of the level of innovation activity in our economy is a critical pillar in the drive to promote regional productivity. The application of innovation is a necessary precondition for improving competitiveness. However, we must ensure that we assist and promote only innovation that offers up commercial opportunities. That assistance must be carefully targeted. I am, therefore, pleased that I can now provide the Assembly with details on how a major programme of investment in innovation will be delivered over the Budget period. In addition to the £25 million made available by the Treasury after the restoration of devolution, a projected investment of €60 million will be made by the Government of the Republic of Ireland to support collaborative projects and linkages targeted at innovation projects. A further £27 million has been earmarked from the Executive’s resources to put in place a package of assistance that will promote commercially relevant innovation. The funding programme, which will total £90 million, has been allocated to a number of Departments to assist in improving research capacity, to foster greater international collaboration, to promote new and emerging technologies and to stimulate research activity over the period of the comprehensive spending review. The Department of the Environment will receive additional funding of £103,000 over the next three years to contribute to the delivery of the Queen’s University-led omnivore project, which seeks to develop a prototype engine that will optimise the combustion of a range of biofuels and fossil fuels. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will receive an additional £5 million for the creative industries seed fund. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will receive an additional £7 million for research into renewable energy and the promotion of research and development in agrifood and rural enterprises. The Department of Education will receive an additional £11 million for projects, including the development of schools that specialise in STEM — science, technology, engineering and mathematics — subjects and the development of the curriculum for STEM projects. 11.45 am The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will receive an additional £13 million to allow greater linkage among hospitals in Northern Ireland and remote access to international advice and expertise. There is also funding for research partnerships with the United States and the Republic of Ireland. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will receive an additional £14 million to fund projects, including the promotion of investment in innovation among local firms, the commercial exploitation of research projects in the renewable-energy sector, and research into renewable technologies. The Department for Employment and Learning will receive an additional £40 million over the next three years to fund projects, including additional PhD science studentships, cross-border university research, and support to help the further education sector to deliver the skills base that is required to attract mobile investment projects. This final Budget statement represents another important milestone for the new Executive. It reflects the agreed priorities of the Executive, and sets out spending plans for the remainder of the Assembly. That is no mean achievement in a four-party coalition. The Budget marks a clear change in direction — away from the direct rule trend of ever-greater burdens on the householder, and towards an ever-greater obligation on the public sector to deliver. Although it is an important step in the right direction, the Budget alone will not change the nature of Government in Northern Ireland. The success or failure of this Administration will not turn on the division of resources among Departments, but on what Departments do with the money that they have been allocated. In three years’ time, people will not ask how much a Department received, but what it has done to improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland. Over the next three years, the same focus that was applied over the past 12 weeks to argue for greater resources must be channelled to deliver the Executive’s priorities. Over the past few months, there has been discussion and debate about the allocations that the Executive would make. However, the time for consultation is over, and the time for delivery has arrived. With more money allocated than ever before, and a local Administration setting the priorities, people will justifiably expect public services to improve. Few will accept the lazy but often-used excuse of insufficient resources for inaction or failure. Fewer still will tolerate the argument that they should pay even more to balance the cost of waste and inefficiency in Government. We must replace the culture of apportioning blame that has developed over the long years of direct rule with a new one of taking responsibility. Northern Ireland must shake off the direct rule mindset; the attitude that the financial coffers are bottomless, thanks to the Exchequer, and that an overly large public sector is justifiable in a region that is smaller than Yorkshire. As resources are limited, and always will be, the Executive have not been able to fund every initiative that they wanted to. However, the Budget has put Northern Ireland on the right trajectory for a brighter future and has provided a platform for economic growth that can improve the lives of everyone who lives here. A greater focus on wealth creation is essential if Northern Ireland is to prosper and be able to provide meaningful career opportunities and twenty-first century living standards for its citizens. Prosperity depends on commerce, and what we can sell or trade with international customers. I am putting building blocks in place for a new and confident Northern Ireland that is attractive to overseas investors because of its integrated approach to business. That is why I want our second- and third-level education systems to more closely match the needs of the economy by increasing our proficiency in skills that are relevant to our economic needs. We are at the beginning of a new era of hope for Northern Ireland. Unemployment is at its lowest ever level, and we have the chance to establish this region as a forward-thinking, business-led and thriving marketplace. With proper planning and strategic thinking, we can build a prosperous future for the Province. Today’s additional allocations demonstrate that we have listened to the consultation process and responded accordingly. The building blocks are in place to allow us to create the type of society that we all wish to see. No individual has all the right answers, and if we are to maximise the potential in this new era, we should seek to harness the talents of the whole community. All sectors, from business to the voluntary and community sector and from academia to the media, have a role to play and a contribution to make. The people of Northern Ireland are not observers but stakeholders in this society and, although we all may have different jobs and responsibilities, we can transform our society by working together. After decades of division and conflict, the Executive are moving forward on an agreed basis; from 40 years of conflict, we are emerging to a brighter future. Decades of lost opportunity cannot be put right overnight, but the Budget — and the family of documents that accompany it — signals a powerful and positive beginning to that process. We should not merely hope for a shared and better future; we must work together to create it. I commend the Budget to the Assembly. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his detailed statement. Members will wish to offer comment and advice on issues that they feel should have been accorded a higher priority, and that is part of the process and debate that will follow. However, it is important to congratulate the Minister and his officials on successfully concluding the various and, at times, complex negotiations with Departments that have culminated in today’s announcement being unanimously adopted by the Executive. I welcome the Executive’s emphasis on economic growth, particularly their commitment to equality impact assessments. The innovation fund will also be welcomed across the House. The Committee’s report on the draft Budget called for a new regional economic strategy, supported by a cross-cutting implementation plan, to rebalance the economy and address the productivity and income differential. How will that be taken forward, particularly in light of the disappointing outcome of the Varney Review? Mr P Robinson: I thank the Committee Chairman for his kind remarks and for the support that he, along with the Deputy Chairman and the Committee, provided during the Budget process. Reference has been made to the regional economic strategy. The draft regional economic strategy is a direct rule document. Officials are revisiting the draft regional economic strategy to reflect the Executive’s priorities in our Programme for Government, investment strategy and Budget. Following the disappointing outcome of the Varney Review, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury and I have agreed Varney II. Work will proceed on that for the next three months, and there is a commitment that a report will be published before the economic conference in the spring. It is hoped that Varney II will assist us during that conference. There will be Northern Ireland input into Varney II. When the Programme for Government, investment strategy and Budget have gone through the Assembly process — and on completion of the Varney Review II — the Assembly will want to finalise and consult on the new draft regional economic strategy. Mr Storey: I concur with what has been said about the Minister in relation to the Budget. I thank the Minister for his comments about the Finance Committee members and staff and the important role that they played in bringing together the views of the other Committees and compiling the co-ordinated report on the Executive’s draft Budget, which was published on 8 January. I also pay tribute to the Finance Committee’s staff. The DFP Committee called on the capital realisation task force to consider offering an incentive to Departments by allowing them to keep a share of the proceeds of disposals of excess assets. Will the Minister comment on how he sees that measure being implemented in the future? Mr P Robinson: I thank the Deputy Chairman for his remarks, and for once again drawing attention to the work of our officials and staff. All too often, politicians are happy to come into the Chamber with the finished product. However, that finished product, whether in respect of Committees members or Ministers, is the result of a lot of very hard work by our officials, for whom this has been a very difficult and trying period, during which they have had to work into the early hours of the morning to provide us with the appropriate material. The capital realisation task force has done remarkable work in a very short period of time. We tasked it with providing a report by December so that we could take its findings into account in the final Budget document. It has provided us with not only an analysis of areas where there might be a greater disposal of assets, but it looked to the future and how we might structure something of the nature of the capital realisation task force on a long-term and ongoing basis, and what role it might play. The Executive have considered that matter and, in principle, support the report that they received from the capital realisation task force, although they want to refine it a little before anything is published. We have made real progress, and Ed Vernon’s report identifies almost £1 billion of additional assets, which is a very considerable addition to the capital funding that we will be able to provide for Departments, even though we have taken a fairly prudent and cautious approach until we work our way through each of the areas of asset disposal. Mr Beggs: I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Budget process involves making difficult decisions, and in the absence of the £1 billion funding package that was promised, those decisions are even more difficult. Moreover, the Varney Review has failed to deliver. The Budget assumed a 3% efficiency saving across all Departments. How confident is the Minister that all Departments will be able to deliver that? The water regulator and Northern Ireland Water have expressed concerns about the suggested 40% efficiency savings, and there is uncertainty in respect of funding for water. Will the Minister tell the House what the effect will be on water rates or the delivery of services if that saving is not achieved? Mr P Robinson: The Member is beginning to sound like a certain television reporter who manages to find a cloud somewhere on the horizon, no matter how good the story is. On the recommencement of devolution, we secured a package well in excess of £1 billion and we have now identified £2 billion of assets for disposal. Remember that during previous dispensations, assets went back to the Treasury, but Northern Ireland is now receiving those funds directly on top of asset disposals. Of the aforementioned £100 million, we are using £25 million for innovation purposes in this Budget, but £75 million was used to alleviate the pressure of water rates on householders. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) We also have hundreds of millions of pounds through EYF, along with a wide range of other benefits, not least of which is the change that we secured for the RRI in correcting the position that was adopted by the Ulster Unionist Party when it was introduced, which caused rates in Northern Ireland to rise by 60% in the past five years. The change that the DUP secured has allowed rates to stabilise, taking the pressure and pain away from the ratepayer. 12.00 noon Mr Beggs raised the matters of efficiencies and targets in respect of water.Ultimately, whatever the area of activity, each is a matter for individual Departments. I do not tell Ministers how to achieve the 3% efficiencies in their Departments — they will all publish their efficiency programmes, which will be transparent in order that the Assembly and the public can consider them. Every Department can achieve at least that level of efficiency, and more can be achieved. For example, the Appleby Report identified another 10% of efficiency savings that could be made in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. There is a balance to be struck. Some Departments may find 3% hard going, whereas it may be easier for other Departments. The performance and efficiency delivery unit was set up to examine whether there is scope for Departments to make further efficiencies — we do not want to simply allocate a blanket figure and apply pressures where they cannot be borne. Mr O’Loan: Given that there have been modest increases in revenue funding and quite significant increases in capital spend, it is clear that there has been some response to the concerns that were raised about the draft Budget. My colleagues will probe the Minister about several matters, including social housing. However, I will ask a broad question about it. Since the publication of the draft Budget, there have been significant changes to the financial landscape. Indeed, the Minister has referred to those. No doubt there will be further changes to that landscape over the next three years and pressures will arise. Will the Minister give a personal commitment to deliver the Executive’s target of 2,000 houses in each of the next five years? That amounts to a total of 10,000 social houses. Funding for the Youth Service is an issue that has been raised repeatedly with me in the North Eastern Education and Library Board area, but I saw no specific reference in the Minister’s statement to that issue. In response to the many concerns that have been raised throughout Northern Ireland on the matter, will he confirm — and explain why — that he has given no extra funding to the Youth Service? Mr P Robinson: I emphasise the point that I do not allocate funds: the Executive allocate funds. I make recommendations, which the Executive either accept or reject. I am happy to say that they accepted them. It perhaps took me a bit longer than the Member to say that there have been modest changes in current expenditure but significant changes in capital expenditure. He is correct. No one should consider the draft Budget, the draft Programme for Government or the investment strategy to be like the law of the Medes and Persians and to be unchangeable. Any Executive must be able politically to react to changes in circumstances. The targets that have been set in our draft Programme for Government are the objectives of the Executive as a whole, not of the Minister who happens to have to deliver those targets. The burden, therefore, is on the whole Executive to reach the targets that they set down in their draft Programme for Government. I am committed to doing that. The Member mentioned social housing, and I shall describe the process behind the decision that was made in that respect. The Strategic Investment Board produced the plans for capital spend over 10 years, and the Department of Finance and Personnel then examined the first three years of that spend and identified how it would fit with the Budget. When I looked at the three years, I was struck by the fact that a low amount was allocated for social and affordable housing. In fact, I commented publicly on that in the Chamber. I indicated that if we could secure funding from the capital realisation task force, my priority would be to put those funds into social and affordable housing. I have made good on that commitment, allocating over £205 million to social and affordable housing. That already puts us in advance of the targets that have been set in the draft Programme for Government and the investment strategy. The Member is correct: none of us can say whether land prices will rocket or whether the cost of construction will change remarkably. They could both go in either direction, although the trend is usually upwards. The Executive may have to revisit those issues if targets are not being met. That will be dealt with through in-year monitoring, which will be a matter for the Executive. If targets cannot be achieved as a result of insufficient funds, I will recommend that we allocate funding from the in-year monitoring round to ensure that they are met. I have given that personal commitment to the Minister for Social Development and to other Ministers who have expressed concerns about their targets, and I understand that Ministers wish to ensure that they do not fall short of the targets. The commitment is there and will, of course, form part of the settlement letter that each Department receives from the Department of Finance and Personnel. Dr Farry: I congratulate the Minister on his Budget and on getting it through the Executive. While I hate to break up the cosy consensus, I have to say that the Budget is flawed. It does not invest in a shared future or seek to find efficiency savings from a divided society. It prioritises a low-tax society ahead of investing in the economic drivers, and it does not address the matter of our underfunded public services. Will the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the extra £14 million that will be spent on health by 2011, we will remain £200 million short of what would be required to keep up to speed with health funding in the rest of the UK? That point is not about ignoring the need for efficiency savings; it is about investing in the health services that other parts of the UK are getting and that we are being denied. Those figures are from the Economic Research Institute for Northern Ireland. Will the Minister also confirm that the new money for mental-health provision is insufficient to implement the recommendations of the Bamford Review and to address the underfunding in mental-health provision compared to other regions of the UK? Will he also confirm that the new money for arts — an area in which we should be investing — still fails to bring Northern Ireland near to the UK average? Finally, does the Minister agree that the new money for housing does not address the issue of the implementation of the Semple Review? Mr P Robinson: I feel that I should give the Alliance Party a lesson about the role of opposition. I, and my colleagues sitting around me, have exercised such a role for many decades. However, it should not be a matter of becoming involved in opposition just for the sake of it. At this stage in Northern Ireland’s development, it is every individual’s responsibility — whether in the Executive or not — to put his or her shoulder to the wheel in order to help Northern Ireland advance and prosper. In yesterday’s Executive meeting, a colleague — not a party colleague — indicated that, if we are to ensure that we are all part of a team that is attempting to promote Northern Ireland in order to better the lives and living standards of the people, it is important to achieve a greater buy-in from other Members of the Assembly. The “I do not care what he says; I am setting out to oppose it” attitude taken by the Alliance Party does it no credit whatsoever. Perhaps, in North Down, there are money trees that we can pick to provide new money. Members may point out that more money is required here, here and here — indeed, 9,500 responses informed me where more money could be spent — but no one has told me where less money could be spent. We have a finite resource, and we must therefore spread that resource as best we can in order to ensure that we get the best return from it for the community, and that is what we have done. I would have loved to give an extra £200 million to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety or millions more to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure — and he would have loved to receive it. There is no Minister in the Executive who could not have used more money. In reality — and this is as important to the Executive as it is to the Member in his household budget — resources are finite, and we must spend according to the amount of money that we have. The Executive believe that, in order to achieve an economy that will grow and allow everybody to enjoy the prosperity that will flow from it, those Budget allocations are the best fist that could be made of the available resources. We have spent a lot of money in the expectation of improving the Province’s social infrastructure. The Member said that nothing has been done to invest in a shared society. I believe that all of that investment will help to create a shared society and that the existence of the Assembly and the Executive will create a shared society and a way forward. The Member’s pessimism is not shared by the public. The Alliance Party should guard against allowing itself to be left even further behind, because it is out of kilter with the public’s mood. The public want to move forward — the Alliance Party wants to drag us back. Mr Hamilton: I join others in welcoming the Minister’s Budget statement. I am sure that he welcomes Dr Farry’s characterisation of the Budget as one that prioritises low-tax. Today, the Minister spoke, as he often has, of his support for more social and affordable housing. As someone who represents a constituency in which the social-housing problem has been exacerbated through having some of the highest house prices in Northern Ireland as well as some of the longest waiting lists, I welcome the additional funds that have been made available for social and affordable housing in today’s Budget. The Executive have set quite a challenging target of constructing 10,000 new social and affordable homes. Does the Minister believe that the final Budget allocation for social and affordable housing will allow that target to be reached? Mr P Robinson: All I can say is that that would appear to be the case based on the costings that we have. However, as I said in reply to Mr O’Loan’s question, if we have to review the situation because of some change in circumstances, we will do so. We aim to meet all of our targets in the Programme for Government. The target for social and affordable housing is important, and it is not simply a case of saying that the responsibility has been handed over to the Minister for Social Development and that it is up to her to produce results. It is the Executive’s responsibility to ensure that, at all times, the resources are there for her to do that. The funds available in the Budget will not only meet the targets in the Programme for Government, they will exceed them. However, only time will tell, and the Executive must make a collective effort to ensure that that will be the case. Mrs McGill: Go raibh maith agat. I too thank the Minister for his statement. Does he believe that the Budget is good for people west of the Bann, particularly those in areas of high deprivation, such as my constituency of West Tyrone? To put my question in context; historically, areas west of the Bann, including Tyrone, Omagh and the Glenelly Valley, have suffered. We hope that, with devolution and the new dispensation, those areas will benefit. Does the Minister believe that there will be inward investment in places such as Strabane and Omagh? Finally, some houses in my constituency do not have mains water, which is shocking in the twenty-first century. I have spoken to my colleague Conor Murphy about that matter, but I do want to mention it on this important day. Go raibh maith agat. Mr P Robinson: No one would expect me to say anything other than I do believe that this is a good Budget — and that is in spite of a misspelling in one of the earlier iterations of the draft Budget, which ended up as the daft Budget. This Budget changes the nature of expenditure in Northern Ireland from direct rule to devolution. It will be good for the whole of Northern Ireland. However, as it represents the strategic high-level allocation of moneys, I hope that Ministers from the various Departments were listening to the Member because the way in which budgets are allocated within Departments will make the difference in the distribution of funding across Northern Ireland. The Programme for Government ties the Executive as a whole, as it would wish to be tied, to ensuring that prosperity is shared equally across Northern Ireland. I hope that it is the aim of every Member to ensure that no one is left behind as the quality of life in Northern Ireland improves. Mr Weir: I too congratulate the Minister on his statement. It was very important that it highlighted the need for Departments to respond to: “an ever greater obligation on the public sector to deliver.” 12.15 pm As the statement indicates, it is to be hoped that, in three years’ time, people will remember how individual Departments had delivered for people, not the Budget allocations. Given that the emphasis is very much on delivery, when will the Minister be in a position to make a further announcement about the performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU), which will increase in importance over the next few years? Mr P Robinson: During my briefing to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel yesterday, they took the opportunity to raise the issue of PEDU. I indicated that I had developed the concept since it had first been mentioned. Originally, I had considered PEDU in the context of efficiency, but the more I scrutinised its potential role, the more I believe in the importance of performance and delivery. My Department has already undertaken a considerable amount of work on PEDU’s remit. We have worked on the panel that will oversee PEDU’s work and tried to identify the small core of staff that will comprise the unit. I hope to say more about PEDU during next week’s Budget debate. Mr Kennedy: Like other Members, I welcome the Minister’s statement and compliment him on its presentation to the House. He seems to be a Minister of Finance and Personnel who is on the move to greater things. He may move even more speedily than he, or anyone else, realises. I also welcome the increased allocations to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department for Employment and Learning. I congratulate my party colleagues Sir Reg Empey and Michael McGimpsey on their determined efforts to enhance the resources allocated to their respective Departments. In the amended Budget statement, additional resources have been allocated to children and young people. Will the Minister assure Members that those moneys will be specifically targeted, cohesively and meaningfully, to address the needs and priorities of less-advantaged young people? Will he indicate and outline the Budget changes that will help to deliver the Executive’s challenging targets to reduce child poverty? Will he be more specific and clarify the purpose and intended use of the welcome additional funding for victims? Mr P Robinson: I welcome the Member’s gracious comments. However, it would be wrong if I were to take away any of the lines that might be available to individual Ministers for their own departmental announcements. Although I could say more on victims and children’s and young people’s issues, I think that the appropriate Ministers should make their own announcements. The Member referred to the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS). I want to caution Members of all parties, including my own party and the Member’s party. Members are inclined to support Ministers from their own party, much like a football team. Let me be clear: the Executive have collective responsibility for all Departments. It is as important to a Democratic Unionist as it is to an Ulster Unionist that individual Departments — Health, Social Services and Public Safety; Education; Regional Development; Culture, Arts and Leisure; Agriculture and Rural Development; and so forth — are well funded and that their Ministers have the resources to do their jobs properly. Let us not attach party labels to Departments. I would like to have given additional resources to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.However, I have done the best that I can in accordance with affordability limits. DEL, DETI (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment), DHSSPS and other Departments have benefited from innovation funding, an announcement that had not been made in the draft Budget. Although that is effectively new information to the Assembly, it does not represent a change in resources. Money from the Republic and the Treasury was identified that could be used collectively for innovation purposes, as were funds of our own. The overall balance in the Budget is right. However, if, throughout the course of the Budget period, variations must be made as a result of in-year monitoring, additional funds that are identified will go towards innovation. Mr Deputy Speaker: Members will be aware that the Business Committee usually meets at 12.30 pm on a Tuesday. After consultation with party Whips and the Speaker, it has been agreed that the current item of business will continue until 12.50 pm, after which the Business Committee will meet immediately. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement and for the work that has been carried out on the Budget by officials in his Department and others, and, indeed, by the Committees, which, as I said at the time of the draft Budget, had to proof and improve the original document. The Assembly has heard some of the benefits of that proofing and improvement today. I fully empathise with the Minister’s point that Members must be party-blind when they approach ministerial and departmental matters. Therefore, rather than my focusing on the Department for Social Development, I ask that the Minister deal with a couple of other matters. As Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I welcome the visibility that is now demonstrated when it comes to innovation funding. The Committee highlighted that the lack of such visibility in the draft Budget was a problem. The Minister has said that innovation funding will be targeted, and he has discussed the considerations that will be employed to do so. I want to know who will undertake that targeting, because the jury is out as to whether existing agencies with their current capacity will be best placed to carry out the significant targeting of innovation funding. I notice that many of the Department of Education’s reform programmes are specified in the Budget. Post-primary reform and proposals to the Minister of Education are not specifically mentioned. However, clearly those reforms will happen in the Budget period, as they are meant to. Are they provided for in the Budget? Have the Executive agreed that those reforms will happen or not? Mr P Robinson: The SDLP leader and I have been in politics for many years. I am sure that, from time to time, we have shared the same frustration when responding to a consultation exercise, knowing full well that no matter what submission one makes to that consultation, there will be no change in its outcome. It is refreshing that the Executive have been prepared not simply to conduct the fullest of consultations, as I outlined in my Budget statement, but to respond as positively as they could within the ambit of their resources. The Member identified two particular issues. DETI has benefited from the innovation-funding package. My task is to allocate funds at strategic level. It is then the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s task to identify how to proceed. Broad themes have been identified in the innovation-funding package, and various Ministers who have been allocated that funding will respond on the basis of those themes. Ultimately, DETI targets, and who delivers on them, will be matters on which the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment must decide. I expect that he will be in close contact with the Committee when he works out how he wishes to proceed. It was as much the case when I was in local government as it is now that all that any Budget ever does is to provide the best judgement that an individual can make of what expenditure is likely to be during that Budget period. That is all that we can do with regard to education. What the end process will be is still not clear, although the Minister of Education has indicated that many of the reforms that she has in mind are cost-neutral. However, the view of many Members is that to change the ages of schools will have a considerable impact, particularly on the capital budget for schools. Those are issues that the Executive will have to take into account and, in doing so, must take into account the parameters of the Budget. Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Department for Social Development has received a considerable uplift in the Budget. Although there are several references to young people, which is commendable, there is little or none to older people, who often feel that they are socially excluded. Will the Minister give Members some idea of what resources for the elderly are provided in the Budget? Mr P Robinson: There are many elements to our society as a whole, and they are sourced through various Departments. I do not think that any study has ever identified the amount of funding from each Department that should be allocated to the elderly — perhaps such a study should be considered. Clearly, people have worked hard during their working lives, and deserve to expect their latter years to be peaceful and prosperous. We want to make life as easy for them as for every other citizen. However, I cannot provide the Member with statistics because there is no data upon which I can draw. Mr McQuillan: I congratulate the Minister on delivering his statement to the House and on delivering efficiency as a key aspect of the Budget announcement. Will the Minister clarify how confident he is that all Departments will achieve the targets? Mr P Robinson: In consultation with all of the Ministers, we discussed the issue of 3% efficiencies and 5% savings on administrative costs. I detect that most Ministers feel that they can bring forward plans for the 3% efficiencies. Some Ministers indicated difficulty with regard to administrative costs and, in particular, the possible impact of a reduction in administrative costs on the delivery of front line services. The Department and I have indicated that we will continue to work with Ministers over the in-year period to remove any pressure with regard to administrative costs, and that we will consider cases where there is a genuine need for reclassification. Every Minister can, at least, produce 3% efficiency savings. In the overall Budget, that will free up approximately £790 million, providing us with a significant amount of money to be used in resources for Northern Ireland. There would have been limited use of the Budget process if we did not have the flexibility created by the efficiency programme. The next stage, in involving PEDU, will be essential to progressing beyond 3% efficiency savings. If Departments have a difficulty in producing the 3% efficiencies, then that is the kind of purpose for which PEDU was established. PEDU is not there to wrestle and fight with Departments; rather, it is there to assist them. It is there to help all Government Departments to realise a level of efficiency, performance and delivery. Mr F McCann: A LeasCheann Comhairle, I welcome the Minister’s statement. The additional allocations to the Department of Social Development — of £70 million, £75 million and £60 million, over the next three years — will be a major boost to the social housing sector. Earlier, a Member asked the Minister if he would prioritise the social housing sector should any further resources become available over the lifetime of the Budget. Will the Minister inform the House whether the current review of the Semple Review’s recommendations fits into the provision of social housing and the creation of an affordable housing sector from a resource and financial perspective? 12.30 pm Mr P Robinson: I advise the Member to keep out of the way of the Minister of Education and the Minister for Regional Development for at least the rest of the day, because I suspect that they might feel that they have a call on some additional resources as well. Targets have been set in the draft Programme for Government, and we aim to meet them. Thus, the first call on resources will be to ensure that the targets are met. The capital realisation task force has identified an additional £295 million in funding; we have used about £200 million of that money, so some additional capital funding may become available after we have done our work and ensured that we can deliver on those disposals. I certainly hope that during the CSR period, there will be some additional capital resources to allocate in-year. I am sure that, depending on where the Departments are with their targets, there will be no shortage of Ministers coming forward to outline how well they could spend available resources. Mrs I Robinson: The Minister will be aware of my personal desire to ensure that mental-health issues are given higher priority, and I welcome the funding that is being made available to the Health Department. If the Assembly supports the draft Budget in next week’s debate, are we guaranteed that the funding allocation for mental health will be directed solely to the mental-health sector? So often in the past, mental-health budgets have been dipped into to such an extent that the mental-health sector no longer receives any money. Can the Minister indicate how this allocation compares with the bid that was made by the Department for each of the next three years? Mr P Robinson: I had hoped that there might be a change of breakfast conversation in the Robinson household as a result of the Budget allocation, but the only change seems to be that the question is now whether there will be delivery. The amount that has been allocated is of significant assistance to the Minister of Health in providing him with the resources that he needs for the sector. However, the amount is not ring-fenced. The Executive’s view was that funds should be allocated to that sector because it was clear from the consultation process that people identified it as having the greatest need. I have consistently said that although I believe that many areas of health are perhaps over-funded, this area is underfunded, and there is empirical evidence to support that view. Although the Executive have allocated money for that purpose, it is for the Health Minister to state what his plans are, and I am pretty sure that he is aware of the importance of mental-health issues, not only to the Committee, but to the community in general. Therefore, I can give no guarantees. It is a matter for the Minister of Health, but I am pretty sure that he will want to be as responsive to the public consultation as the Executive, as a whole, have been. Mr Cree: I also thank the Minister for his statement, and I acknowledge the fact that the Budget has been well improved since last October. The Minister will be aware that OFMDFM’s central administration costs have doubled since 2001. In light of the pressing responsibilities facing OFMDFM, not least with regard to victims and child poverty, is the Minister confident that such expenditure is the best use of public moneys, or is this an example of an area in which the Department could save money? Mr P Robinson: There is not one Department in Northern Ireland that could not spend less on administration, so I do not particularly identify OFMDFM as a guilty party. Again, there is no desire on the part of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to waste scarce resources on unnecessary administration. I am happy for PEDU to look at the administration costs in OFMDFM, just as it will consider the costs in other Departments. However, OFMDFM has a considerable task to perform. OFMDFM is not simply a private office and backup for the First Minister and deputy First Minister; it has considerable functions. For example, the Department has responsibility for the range of issues that is dealt with under the equality agenda, and it has an economic unit and information services. It is not as though it is similar to either the Prime Minister’s office in Downing Street or the equivalent office in Dublin. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is a very different creature. The substantial increase to its costs has come about largely as a result of the fact that comparisons are being made to a time when the Assembly and Executive were not up and running. It is clear that the Department has additional costs whenever we have an operational Assembly and Executive. The fairer comparison is to a period that is similar to this, when a working Executive have existed. Unfortunately, the instability of previous arrangements has meant that there has not been a prolonged period during which an Executive existed to which we might compare this one. Mr P Ramsey: Will the Minister of Finance and Personnel give his opinion on the fact that a great concern still exists across Northern Ireland about water charging? Assumptions are being made and unknowns discussed as we progress from strand one to strand two of the review. More importantly, however, from my perspective as a member of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, is the fact that art and sport make significant contributions to society, health and well-being. Almost 50% of those who responded to the consultation on the matter advocated a more proportionate spend for those areas. Given those facts, why is Northern Ireland still so far behind the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England where per capita spend for sport and art is concerned? There will be a double whammy in the next couple of years for lottery money for good causes, with the result that there may be job losses in front-line services. Given those facts, what will the Minister give to those groups that are dependent on that money, and what comfort can he give to those people who are waiting for funding? Mr P Robinson: I want to be clear about the latter issue: public funding is not used to substitute the lottery when it does not come up with the goods. Lottery money was additional funding, and the fact that its organisers have decided — wrongly, in my view — to punish regions throughout the United Kingdom by making heavy funds available for the London area, does not mean that any of the regional Administrations will be able to pick up the slack. Lottery funding is an important area of activity. Given that I think that the Member is the longest serving member of Sport Northern Ireland, he and I have a great deal in common in wanting to see as high an allocation as possible for sport. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure has produced a sports strategy that the Executive will want to implement. The Budget makes significant allocations to the area, not just in the form of resources, but through the capital allocations that are part of the investment strategy for sport. Therefore, as far as the Executive are concerned, sport is an important area. In relation to water charges and costs, the Executive were in a difficult position in that the first report from the group that is advising the Minister for Regional Development was available, but we did not have the second report in order for us to take its findings into account. Perhaps I am an optimist, but I would have hoped that the second report could have identified areas in which savings could have been made and that it could have provided us with some easement. However, we will consider those issues when the Executive subcommittee receives the report in the next few weeks. Therefore, I do not think that we have the final picture on water. The other matters that are connected to water are more detailed and are therefore more in the province of the Minister for Regional Development. Mr Craig: As a member of the Committee for Social Development, I, too, give a warm welcome to the Minister’s statement. It goes a long way to alleviating the fears that we have all had about social housing. I note that the Minister has allocated £205 million to social-housing build over the next three years. I also note that his detailed report includes the use of private finance initiatives to help meet the target of building 10,000 homes. Does the Minister believe that there is a very important role for private finance in meeting those targets? Does he agree with me that the cash injection into the social-housing market will help to stabilise the construction industry, which is facing a slowdown? Mr P Robinson: Let us be clear: £205 million is being made available in addition to what was in the draft Budget. One thing that encouraged me to recommend that level of additional investment was the fact that the Minister for Social Development had gone the extra mile and commissioned Baroness Ford to review housing matters and ascertain where additional funds could be made available to improve the contribution that could be made from the Department. I have seen a preliminary report from Baroness Ford; the final report has not yet been submitted. On the basis of that preliminary report, I can assert that some valuable work has been done that will assist the Minister. To summarise, the funding level in the draft Budget and the additional allocation that has been announced in today’s statement form only part of the overall picture. On top of that, we want the Minister of the Environment to work with the Minister for Social Development to examine how the planning process can help — whether through article 40 of The Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, or through some new legislation — to ensure that large developments include some percentage of social and affordable housing. Clearly, private finance can assist in many cases. There is also the issue of affordable housing and the work of the co-ownership schemes. There are many areas of activity where additional funds can be factored in, not least some of the areas that have been identified in Baroness Ford’s review, which it would be wrong of me to mention. The Minister for Social Development will wish to spell out those matters to the House when she has the final report from Baroness Ford. Ms J McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What future opportunities will be created for the sectors that will be disappointed with the Minister’s Budget allocations? I am thinking primarily of the women’s sector and the community and voluntary sector. Will there be any future opportunities for those sectors? Mr P Robinson: I want to be very clear about the nature of today’s exercise. The Department of Finance and Personnel examines the various spending areas for each Department and makes allocations to those areas. Within those spending areas, there is complete flexibility for Ministers to make allocations. Any Minister can identify a particular need, whether in one of the interests that the Member mentioned or in any other area, and allocate to that area of activity. I do not want to micromanage any Department at that level. I have made allocations at the higher, strategic level to Departments’ spending areas. The principal work of getting down to allocations, grants and funds for various groups and organisations is a job for the other Ministers. Therefore, the Member’s job is not finished; she still has to urge the Ministers who are responsible for those Departments to ensure that the interests that she mentioned are made a priority within their individual spending areas. Mr Lunn: There is much in the Minister’s statement that should be welcomed. However, that does not mean that we, as the opposition, should not be able to highlight deficiencies and draw attention to what is missing. My colleague Dr Farry’s question effectively went unanswered — the Minister seems to have a problem with being called to account in that way. I can assure him that the Alliance Party will continue to fulfil its role as the opposition and mount an effective challenge to the Executive. 12.45 pm Specifically, I ask the Minister for his reaction to the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland’s comments that his approach to local taxation could threaten the parity principle. Mr P Robinson: I assure the Member that I have no problem whatsoever with being called to account. I am happy to make myself available to the House’s Committees and to the Assembly. Indeed, if party delegations wish to meet with me to discuss issues, I am happy to meet with them. Therefore, I have no difficulty with being |