northern ireland assembly

Tuesday 29 January 2008

Ministerial Statement:
Seaport Investments Ltd: Planning Application

Executive Committee Business:
Education and Skills Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Budget

Private Notice Question:
Water Supply at Killyclogher

The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).

Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Ministerial Statement

Seaport Investments Ltd:
Planning Application

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment, Mrs Arlene Foster, that she wishes to make a statement on the decision that she has taken on a major planning application by Seaport Investments Ltd for a visitor and study centre on land that is adjacent to the Giant’s Causeway world heritage site.

The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I am making this statement on the outcome of my consideration of the planning application by Seaport Investments Ltd to construct a new visitor and study centre at the Giant’s Causeway world heritage site.

To say that there has been considerable interest in, and comment on, the application in recent months is an understatement. Much of that interest has been wholly irrelevant to my consideration of the planning merits of the application. For that reason, it is important to set out the materially relevant facts of that period, which led me to the conclusion that I am announcing today.

In a public statement on 10 September 2007, I said:

“I have recently received a report from the Planning Service on a planning application by Seaport Investments Ltd for a new Visitor and Study Centre at the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site. I have given this report my fullest consideration and have also taken the opportunity to visit the site.

Having done so, I have concluded that there is considerable merit in what is proposed and I am of a mind to approve it.”

I said that I was “of a mind” to approve the application, not “minded” to do so.

Although Seaport Investments Ltd submitted an outline rather than a full proposal, given the speculation and comment in the media — and elsewhere —during the summer about visitor facilities at the Giant’s Causeway, I felt that it was important to make my view public. The proposal attempted to minimise the visual intrusiveness of what was planned; it had an imaginative design; it provided extensive facilities; and it attempted to resolve access issues by devising new road arrangements.

However, I also stated clearly that I had concerns about some aspects of the proposal. I quote again from my statement of 10 September:

“I have asked my officials to engage with the developer and key local stakeholders on some aspects of the proposal so that I can make a formal decision on it at the earliest opportunity.”

The three key local stakeholders were the developer, the National Trust and Moyle District Council. I, therefore, made it equally clear that no decision had been made on the application and, indeed, that a decision would not be made until I had received a further report from my officials. Regrettably, that point was missed by a lot of commentators and, indeed, by Members of the House.

The aspects of the proposal to be further considered were its impact on the world heritage site; its ability to integrate into the landscape; its relationship to other developments in the area; and its relationship to the existing visitors’ centre.

My officials’ engagement with the key stakeholders has been completed, and I have received their report on the outcome and their reassessment of the application in light of that.

Discussions with the stakeholders revealed a significant amount of common ground. All three valued the world heritage site status; all three agreed on the value of the landscape and the need to minimise development; and all three considered that there should be only one visitor facility at the Giant’s Causeway, that it should be world class and that it should be provided as soon as possible.

However, there was no consensus on the way in which those agreed goals might be achieved. Indeed, the possible solutions suggested in relation to the proposal were mutually exclusive and there was no evidence from my officials’ discussions with the stakeholders that any of them would be acceptable or that agreement was a realistic possibility.

Against that background, I have reconsidered the Planning Service’s report and recommendation on the proposal, which I received in June last year, together with the further report on engagement with the applicant, the National Trust and Moyle District Council, and the Planning Service’s subsequent reassessment.

Although I still see considerable merit in the proposal, I consider that that does not outweigh the planning concerns that I continue to have about it and which clearly are not capable of being addressed to my satisfaction. I am convinced that the proposal, as it stands, would have an adverse impact on the world heritage site, as I believe that it could adversely affect the character of the area. There are serious doubts that the proposed development would adequately integrate into the landscape, and it would add to the spread of development at this sensitive location. I have, therefore, concluded on balance and on further reflection that the application should be refused.

In reaching that conclusion, I have also considered the need for a local public inquiry. However, I am satisfied that all representations on the proposal have been properly considered and that all other materially relevant planning considerations have been taken into account. I, therefore, feel that there are no other issues that would merit or require further examination or inquiry.

In light of that, I have decided that a notice of opinion to refuse the application should be issued to the applicant, and I have instructed my officials to proceed on that basis.

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Mr McGlone): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for bringing the matter before the House today. As Members will be aware, the Committee for the Environment has been seeking extensive detail on the planning application for a considerable time. That work has culminated in the Committee’s recent decision to apply for full openness and disclosure under section 44 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I am glad that that course of action may have acted as a catalyst for bringing the matter to the House today.

Will the Minister state what opinions and views were given both in her Department and to her Department that to proceed with the planning application could put the Giant’s Causeway’s status as a world heritage site in jeopardy? I note that she referred to a lot of commentators and Members of the House missing the point that no decision had been made. Did that apply equally to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who clearly was interpreting her as saying that she was minded to approve the planning application?

In relation to the application for outline planning permission at the site, will the Minister clarify whether her officials have engaged in any discussions with a developer or developers about a further proposal or amended proposal on the site at the Giant’s Causeway?

Finally, is the culmination of events today a case of saying, “Junior, this is another fine mess you’ve got me into”? Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Foster: I am disappointed that the Committee Chairperson should make such a statement when he knows full well that the decision has been made on planning grounds alone. On 10 September 2007, I said that my initial decision was that I was “of a mind to approve” the application. I stated clearly that it was not a formal decision but an opinion and that my Department would enter into a process to seek the views of the other stakeholders about the difficulties. The Chairperson knows that when I attended the Environment Committee meeting on 20 September 2007 to discuss the matter, I set out the four issues that I referred to in my statement today. It should come as no surprise to him that the world heritage site is one of those issues.

During the time that the process was continuing between Planning Service and the stakeholders, I took the opportunity to visit the Jurassic Coast in the south of England, another world heritage site of natural distinction, to see what was being done there to protect the world heritage status. I found that visit very helpful to me in coming to the decision that I announced today.

The Chairperson asked about the existence of an alternative proposal on the horizon and whether there have been any discussions about that. I have had no discussions about an alternative proposal. I considered the existing application on its own merits, as I am legally bound to do. I reached my decision based on a careful assessment of the views of the Planning Service, of the consultees and the representations received from right across Northern Ireland. It should come as no surprise to the Chairperson that my decision was based solely on the planning application that was in front of me. I have always been very careful and very straight about the issue.

With regard to the responsibilities of other Ministers, I am sure that the Committee Chairperson will have an opportunity to ask them about their position on visitor centre facilities. My concern is the planning issue. It has always been a planning issue, and that will continue to be the case.

Mr Speaker: Although I have allowed the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment some latitude in his questions to the Minister, I have to say to other Members that I expect them to ask specific question on the statement and not to go all around the world. I warn the House about that matter.

Mr Weir: Mr Speaker, I shall try to keep my question rooted in the north coast.

I commend the Minister on her statement. She has expressed a considered opinion and not a knee-jerk reaction, as has sometimes been the case in the House, and taken a decision based firmly and clearly on planning grounds. In light of today’s decision and a commitment to release papers once that decision had been taken, will the Minister say whether she regards the decision of the Environment Committee, taken a mere week and a half ago, against clear-cut legal advice, to seek a section 44 application, to be — and to put it at its most generous — premature?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his comments. I have always made it clear that everything would be released once the decision had been taken. That decision has been taken as of today. Therefore, all documents will be made available to the Environment Committee and to anybody else who wishes to view them. I expect a long queue outside Millennium House over the next few days.

With regard to the proposed action of the Environment Committee, I understand that its legal advice was that such action was premature. My legal advice said that it was premature. I was disappointed, to say the least, that the Committee decided to go down a political route to try to get those papers, when I knew fine well that that was not going to be the case.

It was premature, because a decision is necessary to get papers of that kind, and no decision had been made — until today. I reiterate: that decision has been made and those papers will be made available.

10.45 am

Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I echo other Members who have spoken in welcoming the Minister’s statement. It goes without saying that much of what has happened in the past four months has damaged public confidence in the Planning Service. Today’s decision will help to ensure protection of the Giant’s Causeway’s world heritage status. It is a good decision for the Causeway, and in the eyes of the local community, and sends a clear message that relationships between Assembly Members and developers cannot be used to override the Planning Service’s integrity, independence and transparency. I, therefore, welcome the Minister’s decision, and move on to my question.

The Minister said that she will make available all the documents requested by the Committee for the Environment. Will she make those available to the Assembly today? Can she confirm that the manage­ment board of the Planning Service, early in 2007, recommended that the application be refused?

Mrs Foster: I have already said that the papers will be made available; however, administrative issues must be sorted out. The Member knows well that the file was brought to the Committee for the Environment to allow members to inspect it. I am happy to offer that facility again; I am sure that my officials will bring the file again, should the Committee want it.

I do not accept that people have no confidence in the Planning Service. Today’s decision is an indication of the Planning Service working well with key local stakeholders, and the Member had comments to make when that process was ongoing. That process, however, has borne fruit, in the elements that I mentioned — for example, recognition of the value of the world heritage status is very important to those who live in that area, and I am sure that the Member will acknowledge that.

The Member commented on the advice given to me by Planning Service officials on receiving the report in June 2007. As he well knows, I made no decision until today; therefore, I did not go against advice from Planning Service officials. I considered the advice then, and again, having reflected on the process that I began, and I came to my decision today. When the Member sees the report from the Planning Service, he will know what was said to me, and he may well see the direction that the process was taking.

Mr McFarland: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is good that common sense has, eventually, prevailed. The issue began in 2002 and, since then, Ian Paisley Jnr has lobbied extensively — Prime Ministers, Presidents, or whatever — but we know, because both Ministers —

[Interruption.]

Some Members: Ask the question.

Mr McFarland: Mr Speaker, I need to sort of lead into it —

[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I have always allowed Members some latitude in getting to their questions. However, we do not want statements further to the Minister’s statement. We expect questions on that statement.

Mr McFarland: Mr Speaker, I agree. However, there must be a context to a question, otherwise no one can understand why it is asked.

A Member: The statement is the context.

Mr McFarland: Right, I shall ask my question. What was the unseen factor that allowed the Minister to make her decision in September 2007, against the advice of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) and the expectation of her Department, as indicated in a memo? What factor has no one else seen that allowed her to be minded to give that decision in September?

Mrs Foster: There is a couple of issues there, and I am sorry that the Member did not hear the statement. Perhaps he has difficulty with hearing: I am not sure.

I said that a decision was not taken in September — and I repeat, was not taken in September. Moreover, I said that I was “of a mind”; I did not say that I was “minded”. Frankly, one gets rather fed up of being wrongly quoted by other Assembly Members. Really, they must see —

A Member: Deliberately.

Mrs Foster: Deliberately: that is absolutely correct.

In September, I said that the proposal had considerable merit, and I still believe that. I want to outline that considerable merit, although I have said it in the statement. Clearly, again, Members were not listening to the statement, although they have it in front of them.

Although the proposal was at outline stage, it was clear to me that attempts had been made to minimise the visual intrusiveness of the proposed centre by grassing over roofs and exposed surfaces and by locating part of the car park underground. It had a very imaginative design, as I am sure those who have looked at it will agree. It provided extensive facilities for visitors to the Giant’s Causeway, with an auditorium, cafe and library, and attempted to resolve access issues with new road arrangements that were to be put in place as a result of the development.

There are no hidden factors in this statement today. I said what I said in September because I thought that the proposal had merit. I asked people to go away and look at it and to engage with local stakeholders to see whether the four other issues that I outlined to the Environment Committee could be dealt with. Unfortunately, they could not be dealt with, and, therefore, we are in the position where we have had this decision today.

Mr Ford: I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that I, too, welcome her statement today, even if it is somewhat belated.

However, is it not the case that her announcement of 10 September totally failed to take account of the concerns of UNESCO, the seven serious grounds for refusal that were laid out by the Environment and Heritage Service and the draft northern area plan — a material consideration at that time? What has changed between then and now that has meant that she has finally announced the right decision, having said that she was of a mind to take the wrong decision? In particular, does this not illustrate that there is a serious environmental protection issue in the way in which the Planning Service deals with key issues such as the Giant’s Causeway? This was not simply a planning application; it was a matter of environmental protection policy that needed to be fully discussed.

Mrs Foster: I think that this has been the most discussed planning application in the history of time, so that last point is completely out of order.

In relation to my decision’s being “belated”, I announced on 10 September that I was “of a mind”. A process then took place. That process was completed at the end of November. The Planning Service then reflected and sent me a report in, I think, the middle of January. I then came to the decision that I have announced today. I do not think that I could have done it any more quickly and, frankly, I would not have wanted to, because this is a very important application.

Mr Ford: I did not ask about speed.

Mrs Foster: He did ask about speed; I think that the Hansard report will show that he said “belated”.

Obviously UNESCO, EHS and the draft northern area plan are all issues that I have considered, both in June, when I received the initial report, and since receiving the final report from Planning Service today. I have taken them all on board, and they are reflected in my decision.

As for Mr Ford’s comments about the need for more independence, he is very creative in his arguments for an environmental protection agency (EPA), but even Members of this House will think that it is a bit tenuous to be arguing for an EPA on a decision —

Mr Ford: I did not mention it.

Mrs Foster: You did mention independence. Again, Mr Speaker, the Hansard report will show that. I listen to people who make comments, unlike some Members of this House who do not.

Mr Ford: Nobody is saying that.

Mrs Foster: I am saying that the EHS has made points to me. Those will be made available so that people can see what they are. The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, which is my statutory advisory body, made two reports to me on those issues. That independent statutory advisory committee has also advised me on this matter.

Mr Ross: Although some Members will attempt to make cheap political points, I am particularly disappointed that the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, speaking in that capacity, has tried to do so. It is important to note that since the Minister’s statement in September, there has been much discussion about the Giant’s Causeway site, which has been slightly rich —

Some Members: Question.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Minister?

Mr Ross: I have not actually asked the question yet.

Mr Speaker: Again, there would be less trouble if Members would just come to their questions.

Mr Ross: As I was saying, there has been lots of discussion about the site, despite the fact that there had not been for many years before. That is a positive development. We have heard many proposals, even if there is no substance there.

Some Members: Question.

Mr Ross: With that in mind, Mr Speaker, have the proposals that have been mooted in the past weeks and months had any bearing on the decision that the Minister has announced today?

Mrs Foster: I am sorry to say that I did not hear the question. [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ross: We have engaged in a great deal of discussion about the matter over the past weeks and months, which did not happen previously, and we have heard that other people have submitted proposals, even if there is little substance to them. Given that, have those proposals affected in any way the decision that the Minister has announced today?

Mrs Foster: Absolutely not. Since the beginning of the process, I have stated that the decision on this application must be made on its own merits. After 10 September, there were some rumblings about other proposals being submitted, but I have received no other formal applications. Had I received any such applications from other developers, they would not have had a bearing on this application. That is because each must be judged on its own merits.

Mr P Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I was “of a mind” to thank the Minister for her statement, but now I have decided that I will thank her.[Laughter.]

Unlike other Members, I will ask my question quickly. The planning aspect of the issue is important for tourism. Given that we need a resolution to this for the benefit of tourists who will come to the North, will the Minister work closely on the matter with her colleague the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment? We must ensure that we proceed carefully and work closely with the other stakeholders, including Moyle District Council and the National Trust.

Mrs Foster: I am only too happy to work on this matter with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who I see has just arrived in the Chamber. In the near future, a planning policy statement (PPS) on tourism will be published. I know that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is looking forward to the publication of that PPS so that we can discuss how the relevant tourism issues pertain to planning.

A great deal was made of the fact that before I made my “of a mind” decision on 10 September, I had actually had the temerity to speak to my Executive colleague about the planning application that we are discussing. That is called joined-up Government; I will continue to be involved in that process, and I will continue to talk to my colleagues about the issues that are relevant to them. On matters that are solely within the remit of my Department, such as planning matters, I will seek my own guidance and that of the Planning Service.

Mr I McCrea: Again, unlike other Members, I will not attempt to make any cheap political points.[Interruption.]

Having said that, I will ask my question directly. We know that concerns have been expressed about this application, so will the Minister tell the House whether she will take that into account when considering similar applications that relate to the location in question?

Mrs Foster: As I have said already, each application that is submitted for a development in any location, including the Giant’s Causeway area, is treated on its own merits. The Giant’s Causeway is a sensitive location in that it is our only world heritage site — although I hope that that will change and that we will have more. I know that certain areas in Northern Ireland are seeking world heritage site designation.

Therefore, any other application that I receive for proposed developments at the Giant’s Causeway must fit the criteria that I have talked about today. Those include, as Mr Ford said, the draft northern area plan, UNESCO’s check list for world heritage site designation, and, obviously, any concerns that EHS has about that environmentally sensitive area will be related to me.

Mr Armstrong: Despite Ian Paisley Jnr’s having lobbied everyone else in the universe on the application for a development at the Giant’s Causeway, will the Minister confirm that not a word passed between her and Mr Paisley Jnr on the matter before September? Does the Minister agree that, had she made a decision on the matter four months ago, she would have spared her party a great deal of embarrassment?

Mr Speaker: Order.

11.00 am

Mrs Foster: I thought that I had made it clear that this issue was not about party-political point-scoring, nor was it about anything other than the planning application that was submitted to me — the only application that was submitted to me in connection with the world heritage site.

As I said on 10 September 2007, I was concerned that since 2000, there have been no visitors’ centre facilities of a world-class standard at the Giant’s Causeway. I attempted to deal with the issues connected to the planning application that had been submitted to me. On reflection, and having received the Planning Service’s report, I have had to turn down that proposal. That means that, at present, no applications have been submitted in relation to the world heritage site at the Giant’s Causeway. I hope that that will change soon.

Mr O’Loan: Like others, I welcome this decision and the Minister’s statement. Three DUP Ministers have dug deep holes for themselves at the Giant’s Causeway; Mrs Foster has, very wisely, stopped digging; the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment can certainly get out of the hole that he created; however, I am less confident about the position of the third Minister.

Will Mrs Foster now agree that her “minded” decision of 10 September 2007 was fundamentally wrong for two reasons: first, it depended on getting the agreement of Moyle District Council and the National Trust, which had not even been tested, never mind obtained; secondly, she says herself in her reasons for refusal that the proposal:

“could adversely affect the character of the area”

and that

“There are serious doubts that the proposed development would adequately integrate into the landscape and it would add to the spread of development at this sensitive location.”

Will the Minister agree with me that all that infor­mation was available before 10 September 2007 and was provided to her by her departmental officials?

Bearing in mind that there is an offer from the National Trust, with the full co-operation of Moyle District Council, to adopt the public-sector proposal —

A Member: It is about time.

Mr O’Loan: It is a very welcome development. Will the Minister give her full support to that project, and will she facilitate, fully and rapidly, a planning application for it? Will she give full support in the Executive to the development of that proposal to ensure that a visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway is built and opened in the lifetime of this Assembly?

Mrs Foster: I hope that the Member is not suggesting that I consider an application other than on strict planning grounds. That is not what I am going to do. [Interruption.]

A Member: Favouritism.

Mrs Foster: If a formal application is submitted, I will consider it in the same way and on the same grounds as I would any other. There will be no favouritism for any application.

The Member said that I should not have embarked on the process that the Planning Service embarked on in September 2007 because it had not been tested. However, the point was to test the grounds for agreement. As I said in my statement, agreement was reached on matters relating to the world heritage status of the site and on other issues. The Member claims that the information was available to me at that time, and he is right. A great deal of information was available to me at that time, but I wanted to establish whether there was any leeway on the part of the landowners — the National Trust and Moyle District Council — and whether there was a willingness to develop what the Member so rightly wants to see at the Giant’s Causeway: a world-class visitors’ centre for everyone who visits it.

The Giant’s Causeway is our top tourist attraction, yet it does not have a world-class visitors’ centre. That should concern all of us. It was incumbent on me to find a way through the problem. No other applications have been received to date.

I hope that an application will very soon be lodged that is of a quality that can have the support of the Planning Service and everyone in the House so that we can move forward with this matter.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to score some political points this morning. I commend the work of my colleague Daithí McKay. He was referred to in a Committee meeting as a one-trick pony, but he has romped home on this matter; if I were a betting man, I would be in pocket.

I welcome the statement from the Minister. After months of speculation, a decision has finally been made that is based on planning policy, rather than on any outside influence. In the Programme for Government, the Minister —

Some Members: Where is the question?

Mr Boylan: I am coming to the question now. Mr Speaker, you showed some latitude to other Members.

It appears from the Programme for Government that there will be an overhaul of the Planning Service. Can the Minister assure the House that proper measures will be put in place to ensure that, in the interests of the public, applications will be processed and assessed in an open and transparent manner? Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Foster: There is a little thing called freedom of information. It will come as no surprise to hear that my Department receives more freedom of information requests than any other, the reason being that it has responsibility for the planning system and the Planning Service. People have the right to ask questions about planning applications — and rightly so — and the public and Members have readily availed themselves of that process. I do not see how much more transparent the Planning Service can be.

It is interesting that the Member should mention racehorses, because I placed a notional bet with myself this morning that questions from Daithí McKay — [Interruption.]

It was a notional bet — one is allowed to place notional bets. [Laughter.]

A Member: You were minded to place a bet.

Mrs Foster: Obviously some Members have not yet woken up and did not hear what I said this morning. One can take a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Storey: What about mules?

Mrs Foster: I have no clue whether one can take a mule to water —

A Member: What about an ass?

Mrs Foster: I will not go there. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members. Order.

Mrs Foster: The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee knows fine well that this application was made on planning grounds, and on planning grounds alone. He will have his chance in Committee, if he so wishes, to look at the file. The Member may wish me to appear before the Committee, and he knows only too well that any time the Committee asks me to appear before it, I am there.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Storey: Like other Members, I thank the Minister for her statement. I assure her that, unlike another Minister in the Executive, she will not be abandoned after she has made a decision and left to flounder on her own. She will not be left on her own at the Giant’s Causeway, for she will have the support of her colleagues, and we will not behave like the disgraceful party sitting opposite us has behaved.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Storey: I also thank the Minister —

Mr Speaker: Can the Member come to his question?

Mr Storey: I must also point out that this morning’s statement was made by a DUP Minister and that it was not made at the behest of a Sinn Feín Member, as was suggested earlier.

In light of the Minister’s remarks about stake­holders and others who have been involved in the process to date, can she tell us what discussions there have been with the National Trust and Moyle District Council on any other proposals for the Causeway area?

Mrs Foster: As I understand it, there have been some discussions with planning officials. I have not had any direct discussions with either the National Trust or Moyle District Council. My officials had some preliminary discussions about the alternative proposal before Christmas, and they still await further contact from the National Trust in taking this issue forward.

However, the Member will know that those discussions are completely separate from what has been discussed today, and he will appreciate why I say that. The private-sector application that I decided on today stood alone on its own merits. As I say, my decision today has nothing to do with any other applications that may be forthcoming — and I hope that other applications will be forthcoming.

Mr T Clarke: In her statement, the Minister said that she asked her officials to initiate a process of engagement between the major stakeholders, with a view to arriving at an agreed solution that would allow her to approve an application. Given that only one application was made, why did it not succeed?

Mrs Foster: The Member is aware that I believed that the application before me had considerable merit, and I have set out those reasons in my statement today. However, on 10 September 2007, I said that there were some difficulties, and I described them in more detail when I appeared before the Committee for the Environment on 20 September 2007.

Those difficulties related to world heritage site status, the requirement to minimise development in a sensitive landscape, and the provision of a new visitors’ centre. Given that a visitors’ centre already exists, the question of whether a new one was needed was at the forefront of my mind at the time. Any new application to build a visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway must address those issues as well as any others that it may encounter.

Mr K Robinson: I welcome the Minister’s state­ment, and I note the refusal contained therein. However, the Northern Ireland public must be wondering what is next for its only world heritage site. Does the Minister agree that the entire saga is another sorry reflection of the state of the Planning Service? To help Members to gain a greater understanding of what has happened, will the Minister share the nature of her discussions with the Minister for Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism, Margaret Hodge, on the Giant’s Causeway, which took place in Downing Street in mid-December?

Mrs Foster: Yes, I am happy to make the detail of those discussions available. As the Member correctly said, my discussions with Margaret Hodge were principally about UNESCO issues and the world heritage site status of the Giant’s Causeway.

The Member criticised the Planning Service, but it is only one part of the jigsaw that is the planning system. Much more goes on outside the Planning Service, but it is often the whipping boy for any delays for which it may not be responsible. Delays may be due to difficulties with funding or the applicant, ongoing consultations, environmental impact assessments, and so forth.

The Planning Service does its job as well as it can with its resources. The Member knows that I am considering a fundamental reform of the planning system. That is no reflection of what has gone before, but it is time for an overhaul, and I look to the House for its support when I bring forward reform proposals later in the year.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Durkan: I, too, welcome the Minister’s state­ment, which extricates her from the complete misadventure that was created when she made her “of a mind” decision. Even today, the Minister referred to her statement on 10 September 2007 as a decision, and as an “of a mind” decision. However, in the same statement she says that she had not made a decision — and she wonders why there is concern and confusion.

The Minister referred to the fact that —

[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Durkan: The Minister referred to the fact that no other planning application was made. Will she confirm that that was not because of any failure or decision of the National Trust or Moyle District Council, which was what the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment was told? Rather, it was because the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s position was that only an application for full planning permission could be made, and that there was also a precondition relating to car parking at the site.

Does the Minister accept that her decision had implications for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s signature tourism project — given that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment previously made a statement within 51 minutes of the Environment Minister’s? We are, therefore, due to hear a statement from him very soon. It damaged the working partnership that had existed between the Departments on that proposal. Given that the issue is a matter of controversy, as the Minister admits, and affects more than one Department, will she tell the House whether she discussed it with her Executive colleagues? I know that the party opposite are precious about adherence to the ministerial code.

Mrs Foster: I found it difficult to hear the last part of the Member’s contribution, but I think that he asked whether I have discussed the issue with Executive colleagues. I made them aware that I would be making a statement this morning.

This is a planning issue — a planning issue alone. I am not going to ask my colleagues to get involved in issues that do not affect their Departments. This is not a cross-cutting issue. [Interruption.]

11.15 am

Mrs Foster: I made what?

Mr Durkan: You made a political —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has the Floor.

Mrs Foster: May I also say — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Foster: One Member is asking me whether I will co-operate with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment to help to promote tourism and to propose planning policy statements on tourism, yet the Chairperson of that Committee is telling me that I should not be speaking to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. That is a rather strange way for joined-up Government to work. However, it is not strange for the SDLP, given what it has been doing over the past two days.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr P Robinson: They are not even a joined-up party.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Foster: Mr Durkan made comments regarding the application that never was and that never formally made it in to the Planning Service. There were discussions with Planning Service officials, but it never became a formal application.

It is now eight years since the fire at the Giant’s Causeway, and we are no further on. I hope that, as Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Mr Durkan will force the issue on. That is the issue that he should be considering, instead of interfering in the Department of the Environment.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Neeson: As the Minister is probably aware, in the summer of 2002, in my then role as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I chaired an extensive series of meetings between the National Trust and Seymour Sweeney. It is outrageous that, in January 2008, the issue still has not been resolved.

I am pleased that Minister Dodds is present in the Chamber. I consider him as much a part of this sorry mess as anyone else.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member come to his question?

Mr Neeson: Will the Minister assure me and the House that when a new application is submitted — and one will be submitted sooner rather than later — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor.

Mr Neeson: Will she sit down with Minister Dodds to ensure that this issue is resolved as soon as possible?

Mrs Foster: Any application will obviously have tourism implications. I am happy to speak to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment about that. Those are the issues that I spoke to him about before, and those are the issues that I will continue to speak to him about.

Mr Kennedy: It appears that the DUP has left Mr Sweeney on his tod. [Laughter.]

Thank you. I have been saving that one up. Can I ask — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor.

Mr Kennedy: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will the Minister outline the precise grounds for the refusal of the planning application that will be listed when it is referred back — presumably to Moyle District Council? Will she also confirm that the applicant will have the right of appeal?

Mrs Foster: The applicant will have the right of appeal. Any such appeal would be dealt with by the Planning Appeals Commission. I have approved a draft notice of opinion, which includes six grounds of refusal. I am happy to let the Member have a copy of that. It would not be constructive for me simply to read through the six grounds, which are related to UNESCO, integration and the other issues that I mentioned in my statement.

Mr Dallat: Given the underground features of the outline planning application, does the Minister agree that it will be yet another bunker in north Antrim? In future, will she ensure that there is the fullest consultation — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Dallat: Will she ensure that there is the fullest consultation before she is of an opinion to approve any future application?

Mrs Foster: I did not catch the last part of what was asked.

Mr Dallat: Perhaps if Dr McCrea would give me an opportunity to put my question, the Minister would be able to hear it.

Will the Minister agree that, given that there were underground features in the planning application for the Giant’s Causeway that she proposes to refuse, it would have turned out to be yet another bunker in north Antrim? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I have given Members some latitude. I have asked the Member to put his question to the Minister, and I will now ask him to repeat it.

Mr Dallat: Will the Minister accept that because of the international aspect of the Giant’s Causeway, she will undertake the fullest consultation before she is “of a mind” to approve any planning application there?

Mrs Foster: I do not know whether the Member was present when we talked about the bunker last Monday, but I said then that it did not have planning permission either, so I will not go there.

I am very much aware of the international aspect of the Giant’s Causeway, and I took the opportunity to go to the south coast to see how another of the United Kingdom’s natural world heritage sites is being dealt with. There is a panoply of ways being adopted, such as community, private, and publicly owned visitors’ centres. The Member knows that I met Margaret Hodge, and I took on board what was said in the management plan that was approved by UNESCO in 2005.

We are rightly very proud of our world heritage site status at the Giant’s Causeway, and, obviously, that consideration was one many that were at the forefront of my mind when I took that decision.

Executive Committee Business

Education and Skills Bill:
Legislative Consent Motion

The Minister for Employment and Learning (Sir Reg Empey): I beg to move:

“That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Education and Skills Bill dealing with the functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which are contained in clauses 137 and 139 of that Bill as introduced in the House of Commons”.

The provisions in the Education and Skills Bill that relate to Northern Ireland concern changes to the remit of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). Clause 137 of the Bill amends section 24 of the Education Act 1997 in order to provide the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority with a new function to develop and publish criteria for the recognition of bodies wishing to award or authenticate qualifications.

Clause 139 extends the powers of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in Northern Ireland to cover the regulation of vocational qualifications currently excluded from its scope. In Northern Ireland, most qualifications are regulated by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). Those are general and vocational qualifications and are provided for school pupils or persons in full-time attendance at an institution of further education. The only exception is national vocational qualifications (NVQs), which are regulated by the Qualification and Curriculum Authority. Clause 139 adds other vocational qualifications to the regulatory remit of the authority.

Under the review of public administration, and as part of the streamlining of education administration in Northern Ireland, CCEA should be abolished and its functions transferred to the new education and skills authority. The proposed date for the transfer of functions is April 2009, and although most of the functions will transfer to the education and skills authority, it would not be appropriate to transfer CCEA’s regulatory function for vocationally related qualifications (VRQs)to the education and skills authority. As that regulatory function will not be transferred, it is imperative that steps are taken to ensure that continued regulation of vocationally related qualifications is maintained when CCEA is subsumed by the education and skills authority.

As the issue falls within the area of transferred matters under the provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, consent for the proposed Northern Ireland inclusions in the Bill must be sought from the Committee for Employ­ment and Learning, the Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Committee for Employment and Learning and the Executive have considered the matter, and both have given their consent to proceed with the proposed amendments to the Education and Skills Bill.

The Assembly must now consider the principle of amending the Bill in order to extend the regulatory functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in Northern Ireland. The proposed change to the legislation would close the regulation gap that would be left once CCEA had been dissolved and would ensure the continued and necessary regulation of vocationally related qualifications in Northern Ireland. The change would also guarantee that those students who are studying for vocationally related qualifications when the council ceases to exist can be confident that regulation will continue.

I hope that Members will agree with me and support the motion, which has been designed to ensure that there will be no period during which students can doubt the currency of the qualifications that they attain. I request that the Assembly endorses the principle of extending to Northern Ireland the provisions in the Education and Skills Bill that deal with the functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Those provisions are contained in clauses 137 and 139 of the Bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons on 29 November 2007.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Employ­ment and Learning (Ms S Ramsey): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I support the motion. The Minister has already explained the need for and purpose behind the legislative consent motion, so I will not repeat what he said. However, I will make a couple of points on behalf of the Committee.

I thank the Minister for the extensive consultation that he undertook with the Committee. I am conscious that he did not wish to bring the matter to the Assembly without the Committee’s support. The Committee was fully briefed on the matter on 26 September 2007 and on 9 January, which was its first meeting after the Christmas recess. Those briefings were important for members because, first, for the first time, they were asked to deal with the concept of a legislative consent motion, and secondly, the matter in question is complex in its own right.

The Committee’s primary concern is that people who are studying for vocational qualifications that are regulated by the Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment are in no way disadvantaged by any reform of that regulatory body, should that occur as planned in April 2009. There is, therefore, a need to ensure that cover is in place to protect those important qualifications.

The Committee was satisfied that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is an appropriate body to provide regulation, if required. It was also satisfied that QCA’s current role in the regulation of qualifications places it in an ideal position to extend those regulations. That experience is strengthened by the fact that QCA maintains a local office, which it has been operating successfully for 10 years.

Although I support the motion, I have written to the Minister for Employment and Learning and the Minister of Education to ask that they keep the situation under review during what will be a period of difficult administrative reform. During the departmental briefings, officials stated that the Minister had been assessing the most appropriate regulation process for our local needs. I have written to the Ministers to urge them to continue to work together and to keep the process under review as the review of public administration rolls out.

The Committee considers that any regulation of critical vocational qualifications should be sensitive and aligned to local requirements and circumstances. In further ensuring that local needs are fully recognised, the Minister has also assured me that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families in England cannot enact any part of the legislation that relates to, or has an impact on, local issues without first seeking the approval of the local Minister. Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Lo: I support the motion. It makes sense to extend the remit of QCA to cover VRQs as well as NVQs.

Does the Minister envisage there being any scope for the QCA to examine ways of combining the NVQ and VRQ as one qualification? Students are often confused about the differences between them.

11.30 am

Sir Reg Empey: There is confusion, as Anna Lo said. A review of qualifications is under way. It is a terribly complicated system. Members will have heard the debate yesterday on other matters, which we will not go into today. However, I assure the Member that the Department is examining the matter closely. We do not want people to spend time and energy to get certificates that have no currency with employers. If people work for a qualification, they must be assured that employers around the country will recognise it as a thing of substance, that the qualification means something and that it has a quality-assured standard.

There is a temptation for further education colleges, employers or others to create their own qualifications, and that is a risk. That may not be wrong in itself, but I am concerned about people working, and spending their time and energy, to gain certificates that have no value. That is no use to them or to us, and it is a waste of the student’s time. Therefore, I assure the Member that the matter is important to the Department, and we will not embark on anything that will reduce standards. That is why we do not want to leave a vacuum when the CCEA is absorbed into the education and skills authority.

I assure the Chairman of the Employment and Learning Committee, as I have already assured the Minister of Education, that we are not doing anything today that will in any way inhibit the Assembly from passing further legislation in the future, should it decide to do so. The Assembly is free to create new regulations and arrangements. This legislation will merely prevent a vacuum from developing when the CCEA is absorbed into the education and skills authority. As I told the Committee for Education, the Assembly can take whatever action it wishes and will not be inhibited in any way by this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Education and Skills Bill dealing with the functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which are contained in clauses 137 and 139 of that Bill as introduced in the House of Commons.

Budget

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to six hours for this debate. The proposer will have up to 90 minutes in which to propose the motion and make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have 10 minutes.

Two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to wind up.

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

That this Assembly approves the programme of expenditure proposals for 2008-09 to 2010-11 as set out in the Budget laid before the Assembly on 22 January 2008.

Last Tuesday, I presented the Executive’s revised Budget proposals for the three years to March 2011, following a period of consultation on the draft proposals, which were originally published in October 2007. Today, I seek the Assembly’s approval for those plans, which were unanimously agreed by the Executive. When I launched the revised Budget last week, I provided comprehensive details of the consultation process and the Executive’s response to it. I do not wish to take up an undue amount of the limited time available today by going over all of those issues or going through the Departments’ allocations again.

However, I will emphasise a few key points regarding the Executive’s proposals for Members to consider as we commence the debate and before we vote on the motion. I will also announce how the Executive plan to create and maintain a strong focus on monitoring delivery of their commitments as they use the financial allocations proposed in the Budget.

I turn first to the consultation exercise conducted on the draft Budget proposals published last October. In my statement last Tuesday, I acknowledged the key role played by the statutory Committees of the Assembly in reviewing and reporting on the departmental and cross-cutting implications of the draft Budget proposals. I believe that the Committees must also have an ongoing key role in monitoring and reporting on the delivery of the objectives and targets for which Departments will be responsible and accountable over the next three years, and beyond, as they use the resources proposed for them in the Budget. I will say more on that later.

In addition to consideration of the draft Budget in the Assembly, there was also a public consultation exercise. Over 9,500 written submissions were made during the 10-week consultation period. That number vastly exceeds the level of engagement on any previous Budget consultation.

Let no one say that the Executive have not taken seriously the views of the Assembly or the wider community. We have listened to what has been said, and we have responded to it, with additional funding for the arts, children and youth services, mental health and social housing — all of which were key issues of concern during the consultation process. Those additional allocations build on the position set out in the draft Budget, which included: a freeze on domestic regional rates in cash terms, meaning a real-terms reduction for households; non-domestic rates frozen in real terms; clear prioritisation of economic growth, with associated benefits for all in the community; the largest-ever budget allocation for the Health Service; and the largest-ever programme of investment in public-service infrastructure. The proposals allow for increased support for businesses and funding for schools, as well as improved access to hospital services and additional resources for key public-health matters, such as suicide prevention. In addition, there is funding to enhance the rural economy. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will receive extra funding to deliver a comprehensive approach to victims, as well as resources to embed the rights of older people.

As I have indicated, the final Budget proposals were agreed unanimously by the Executive, providing a clear recognition by all parties that the approach adopted represents the best overall package of measures — within our affordability limits — for all the people of Northern Ireland. There will always be scope to develop further the Budget allocations, and we will revise our spending plans if that becomes necessary.

However, I have been more than saddened, though not unduly surprised, by the approach taken by some who appear to be disappointed that issues raised by Ministers have been resolved. Unfortunately, that has been reflected in the Chamber and outside, where criticisms have been put forward by some who appear to be more interested in opposition for its own sake, to boost their presence in the media, than offering realistic alternatives to improve the Programme for Government or the Executive’s spending plans.

Worse, there are those who place a greater priority on engaging in party-political positioning than on addressing the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. The finalisation of a Budget by the Executive is about making difficult choices. The choices made are in the best interests of Northern Ireland, but, of course, in a democracy, others will differ, and it is right that they should be allowed to say so.

For the Alliance Party and the SDLP, the choices are very different. The Alliance Party is not an Executive party, so it is proper that it should take every platform that our democracy provides to state its case and to challenge ours. I would not inhibit that right. However, the SDLP is in an entirely different position. It is an Executive party. It is in the Executive; it is responsible for making its case in the Executive and contributing to the formulation of the Programme for Government, the investment strategy, and the Budget.

If the SDLP wanted changes made to any of those documents, it should have put forward amendments in the Executive.

I regard it as a considerable achievement for the Executive that we managed to reach unanimous agreement around the table, with Ministers from all four Executive parties signing up to the Programme for Government, the investment strategy for Northern Ireland and the Budget. It is a sign of the political maturity of the Administration, and the parties involved in it, that we managed to balance Departments’ various needs in a way that satisfied everyone. Although no Department achieved all that it would have liked, everyone was prepared to sign up to the sum of the agreed parts.

Let me make it clear: Ministers did not merely agree to their portion of the family of key documents — they agreed to them all as a whole. The Programme for Government and the investment strategy for Northern Ireland are not the property of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister; the Budget is not just mine. All three documents are owned by the Executive. I hope that the Assembly will also identify itself with them.

In order to reach agreement on the Budget, many hours of discussion and negotiation took place with Ministers and officials. That was the opportunity for Ministers to influence the process, and they did so. By the time that the Budget came to the Executive, all Ministers were content to approve it. I must say, therefore, that I find it bizarre that at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute, one party, whose Minister signed up to all of those documents, now seeks to make amendments. That is cynical political opportunism at its worst; politics that is devoid of principle. The public will, however, see through it as a low political stunt. It is made worse by the fact that no amendment was ever made by the Minister for Social Development in the Executive, yet it has been bounced at all of us in the Assembly. That approach is not designed to get the right outcome; it is merely intended to grab a headline and position that party for the future. It is opposition for opposition’s sake. It is an absurd approach from a party that is in Government. It is bereft of any principle and exposes the SDLP as a party that is more interested in short-term political expediency than in good government.

People will want to know whether the SDLP Minister signed up to the Programme for Government, the investment strategy and the Budget in the clear knowledge that her party intended all along to vote against it. Such an approach would pose the most fundamental questions about the good faith of the Minister for Social Development. On the other hand, has the SDLP cut the legs from under its own Minister at the last moment? In that case, how can she remain in office when she lacks the confidence of her own party?

What kind of party has its Minister sign up to the Executive’s key policy instruments and spending plans without ever once proposing any kind of amendment in the Executive, to then vote against the Executive in the Assembly? The SDLP leader said that his party’s approach was no different from that taken by the DUP during the last Assembly. What nonsense! During the last Assembly, the DUP’s goal — [Interruption.]

I have the transcript if the Member wants to read it.

During the last Assembly, the DUP’s goal was to bring down the Executive and to create new political institutions. Is that currently the SDLP’s goal? Moreover, the DUP did not sit on that Executive or endorse its Programme for Government and Budget. The SDLP has had the opportunity to seek amendments to any of those documents at the Executive. It was cynically determined to stay silent in the Executive and to ambush us at the Assembly. The SDLP has embarked on a strategy that deserves nothing more or less than the contempt of the Assembly and the disdain and derision of the public.

It is important that people understand that there are no easy options and that alternative choices have clear implications. Spending cannot be increased in one area without a commensurate reduction somewhere else or an increase in local taxation.

11.45 am

I now turn to the position of the Alliance Party.

A Member: Is it worth it?

Mr P Robinson: Oh yes, it is.

The Member for North Down Dr Farry is quite open about the Alliance Party’s agenda, which I have costed. I applaud him for his honesty. Although his proposals are fiscal folly and fundamentally flawed, I pay tribute to him for telling the people of Northern Ireland that the Alliance Party wants to impose more taxes on them. I thank him for that insight, although his constituents, probably, will not. Sir Humphrey would have called it “courageous”.

Last week, on the BBC programme ‘Hearts and Minds’, Dr Farry agreed with Noel Thompson’s description of the freeze on regional rating as “capitalist populism.” Dr Farry also called for an increase in industrial rating. To meet the cost of the additional funding sought by the Alliance Party, it would be necessary to triple the amount of money that people are paying in domestic rates — that would be the outcome of the Alliance Party’s proposals. I fundamentally disagree with that approach. The Northern Ireland householder deserves a break, given that there have been regional rate increases of 60% over the past five years.

In a difficult international environment, it is important that we give local manufacturing base whatever support that we can — especially when one of the Executive’s priorities is to encourage economic growth. Rather than place a greater burden on householders, we should accept that Government must deliver more.

We should also be careful not to exaggerate the significance of the Deloitte report ‘Research into the financial cost of the Northern Ireland divide’. It is not a panacea. Although it may offer some long-term opportunities, it is not a short-term solution. It will certainly not have the impact suggested by the Alliance Party during the course of the Budget period. The Alliance Party talks about the matter as if there is a pot of money that we can dip into at any time. That, of course, is not so.

As a citizen of Northern Ireland, I sincerely want an end to the wasteful division in our society. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I welcome any opportunity to reallocate resources to a more productive use. However, the reality is not that simple. The £1·5 billion cost of a divided society quoted in the Deloitte report is an upper limit — and an unrealistic one at that, as there is an implied assumption that the higher level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland is entirely due to division. We all know that that is not the case.

Such an assumption is patent nonsense and ignores the impact of factors such as demographic structure, rurality and deprivation, which also explain why there is a greater need for expenditure in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I share the view that savings could be made from that source, and I have asked my officials to examine the findings of the report, with a view to identifying those elements that can be addressed in the short term.

Perhaps, rather than hissing from the sidelines, the Alliance Party will engage with me in that exercise.

Some Members: Hiss.

Mr P Robinson: Yes. I said “hissing.”

I invited Alliance Party Members to meet me and discuss the issue — I am still waiting for a response to that invitation. I encourage all Executive Ministers to make as many savings as possible from the cost of division, because they have made it clear to me that the efficiency savings expected over the next three years are equivalent to almost one tenth of current budgets and will represent a significant challenge for them. Thus, all scope for savings needs to be vigorously pursued.

Many Members have commented that the Executive’s agreement of the Budget, the Programme for Government and the investment strategy represents a significant achievement in itself. That is true. However, agreeing proposed departmental budget allocations will not, by itself, deliver the Executive’s objectives which they have set for themselves. They have set those objectives clearly in their Programme for Government and their investment strategy. The mere fact of agreeing the Budget, the Programme for Government and the investment strategy will not, in itself, make the difference. They are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions to create the type of society and economy that we all wish to see.

To make a real difference for all the people of Northern Ireland, we must ensure that we deliver on the commitments that we have made, using the resources that have been allocated in the Budget. That is the challenge that now faces Executive Ministers, their Departments, public bodies and public servants across the length and breadth of the country. I repeat that in three years’ time people will not ask Ministers about the allocations that they received; they will ask them what they delivered.

The Executive have set targets such as: the extension of free public transport to everyone who is aged 60 and over; improvements in mental-health and learning-disability services; the movement of 70,000 working-age benefit clients into employment by March 2011; a 25% reduction in the amount of red tape in the agrifood sector by 2013; the growth of the tourism industry by over 40% by 2011; the alleviation of fuel poverty in 9,000 households each year; the completion of an additional 10,000 social and affordable houses by 2013, representing a 60% increase on the annual figure for 2006-07; and a reduction to nine weeks of the maximum wait for treatment for outpatients and to 17 weeks for inpatients.

The latter target highlights the scale of the Executive’s ambition. We have set a target of 17 weeks as the minimum wait for inpatient treatment. That compares to the target of 78 weeks that the previous Executive set; even that deplorably low ambition was not achieved.

Those are just some examples of the testing targets that the Executive have set. Our focus must now be on delivering those targets, which must be acted on in partnership with local business, the trade unions, and the community and voluntary sectors. Government should not, and cannot, have sole responsibility for delivering improvements to the quality of life. As I pointed out in my Budget statement on January 22 2008, in a global environment, a local Administration can have only a limited impact on economic growth, even in Northern Ireland.

However, listeners to BBC Radio’s ‘Evening Extra’ programme last Tuesday might have thought that the impact of the Budget was being felt far beyond Northern Ireland. The presenter who read the news headlines announced, in one breath, that Peter Robinson delivered his first Budget to the Assembly and that the US Federal Reserve cut its key interest rate by 0·75%. I am concerned at what the global implications might be when I return to the Chamber to discuss the outcome of the February monitoring round.

The key objective in delivering against the Executive’s targets is to develop a culture of robust performance management and delivery that underpins the highest standards of financial management. With more money than ever allocated for the next three years, we must recognise that local people demand and expect public services to have a meaningful impact on, and bring tangible benefits to, their lives. Those benefits will be realised only if the emphasis is on getting the most from the money that is invested in those services. Financial management in the public sector is about the cost-effective delivery of Government priorities, with due regard being paid to risk and opportunity. It is also about safeguarding money that has been entrusted to us by the taxpayer. An effective financial and governance framework that facilitates the delivery of the plans that are set out in the Budget is an essential component in the process.

My Department has an important role to play in and responsibility for providing advice on — and ensuring the delivery of — improvements in the overall standard of financial management, building on the examples of good practice that are already in place. My officials are actively working with Departments in helping to improve financial management and accountability. New systems and processes, such as account Northern Ireland, are being implemented. Along with the Centre for Applied Learning, better training and development opportunities are being made available to staff. New international accounting standards and more timely production of accounts will assist all parts of the public sector to actively improve financial management standards.

Of course, spending the money is only one aspect of delivery. It is equally important that the resources be used efficiently and effectively. The public service agreements to be published shortly will set out in detail how Departments will work together to achieve the targets and outcomes identified in the Programme for Government. The delivery agreements will set out roles and responsibilities, lines of accountability, performance measurement methods and risk management strategies.

The Executive will also put in place monitoring arrangements at a strategic level to ensure that the key outcomes from the Programme for Government are delivered. The model here is a risk-based approach where the degree of scrutiny varies depending on the extent to which progress is being made. Ministers will play a more interventionist role where the delivery of outcomes and targets falls short of expectations. For example, if a Department is not delivering on its key objectives and commitments with the resources that it has been allocated by the Executive, the Executive will have to question whether those resources should remain with that Department or be reallocated elsewhere.

Statutory Committees will have a key role to play in monitoring the performance of their Departments in delivering on the targets and commitments in the Programme for Government and investment strategy. That is one of the conclusions and recommendations in the report on the draft Budget from the Committee for Finance and Personnel. The Committee has also noted that, as we move into a period of more constrained public expenditure growth, there is an even greater onus on Departments to manage public finances in a way that achieves the highest possible level of spend within authorised limits and maximises the impact from available resources. The Committee has recommended that all Statutory Committees should include budgetary and financial scrutiny as an integral part of their work programmes. I strongly support that recommendation.

The performance and efficiency delivery unit will have a vital role in supporting the Executive and Departments in achieving improved outcomes from investment in public services. If the Executive are to achieve the challenging objectives that we have set for ourselves, we must create a new focus on performance, efficiency and delivery across all areas of public-sector activity.

One of the main responsibilities of the Department of Finance and Personnel is to monitor how efficiently Departments spend their money. Therefore, the new unit in my Department will identify and work with specific areas of public-sector activity where there is scope for improved delivery or efficiency, and will seek to secure better levels of performance. It will also identify options for further efficiency savings in specific areas, over and above the targets already set out for the next three years. There will be a small number of core staff in the unit. That will provide plenty of scope to involve others in specific pieces of work that the unit will carry out — individuals from other Departments and public bodies, staff working in front-line public-service delivery, audit staff and staff from private-sector organisations can lend specific expertise and experience in particular areas.

I also wish to have access to advice on how best to achieve significant and sustainable improvements in the performance and delivery of large and complex organisations. Therefore, I will establish an advisory panel consisting of individuals who have a strong track record of managing and leading successful and strategic organisational change, involving the delivery of better-quality services and greater efficiency.

Many people will be involved in ensuring that the improved outcomes identified in the Programme for Government and the investment strategy are delivered for the people of Northern Ireland. The starting point is the financial allocation made to each Department in the Executive’s final Budget proposals. Those allocations will provide a solid basis on which all the Executive Ministers can now begin the task of ensuring delivery on our commitments to everyone in our community.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Dr Farry: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert:

“calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to lay a revised programme of expenditure proposals for 2008-09 to 2010-11 before the Assembly, as the Budget currently before the Assembly does not properly address the deep divisions in this society and the need to build a shared future; does not make meaningful changes to balance the regional economy; and fails to provide for sustainable and integrated public services.”

I oppose the Budget. However, the Alliance Party does not oppose the Budget for the sake of it. There will be times when the Alliance Party backs actions from the Executive. We support elements of the Budget.

The Alliance Party opposes the Budget because it is flawed, and there is an alternative way forward. Although we congratulate the Finance Minister on getting the Budget to the Assembly and recognise that it is a major piece of work, the Minister must respect the Alliance Party’s entitlement to put forward its alternative views — but, I think, we have that respect.

12.00 noon

Last week, the Minister said that everyone should put their shoulder to the wheel in this new Northern Ireland. However, some people have doubts about the direction in which we are going.

There are flaws in the substance of the Budget. First, there is a lack of reference to a shared future, and not enough effort has been made to address the savings that have been made from no longer tackling the costs of a violent society. The Minister has made some rhetorical references to that in his Budget statements, but it is not a central theme in the Budget. Efforts to identify efficiency savings from tackling division are referred to PEDU for longer-term consideration, but we want to make a start.

The Minister referred to the report from Deloitte, which is a well-established consultancy firm that is respected around the world. That report must be given serious consideration, and the Alliance Party is concerned that it has been shelved by the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

The Alliance Party went into the election stating that the costs of a divided society amounted to £1 billion — not £1·5 billion. We have tabled a motion for future discussion, so that Members can air their views on the contents of the Deloitte report. The report is strong in its tackling of the direct costs and opportunity costs of a divided society, but its addressing of the embedded costs of duplicate goods, facilities and services — particularly in education, which I will talk about later — is weak.

There is no new investment into shared services, such as better public services for the entire community. Change will take time, but we must make a start. The Executive’s emphasis on economic development is welcome, but there is little appreciation that meaningful and sustainable growth is not possible without the tackling of divisions in society and the promotion of a shared future alongside it. Divisions have an impact on labour mobility, and they deter inward investment.

There are clear international lessons that the most successful societies in the world tend to be those that are most open to new ideas and those that are most tolerant.

Secondly, the Budget is a recipe for a low-tax society rather than for genuine investment in economic growth. The Finance Minister has taken an already tight comprehensive spending review settlement from London and made it even tighter. Contrary to the impression that was given last week, there is not universal support for the taxation and spending framework. The approach taken to taxation has been questioned by such organisations as the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI), the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) — diverse organisations.

A low taxation approach, at the expense of investment in public services, is regressive. The benefits will disproportionately benefit the more affluent elements of society and hurt those who are less well off — particularly those who depend on public services and, perhaps, do not pay as high rates as others. The approach is populist and not based on evidence. Furthermore, the claimed benefits of £1,000 per household have been questioned by Oxford Economics.

Much of the Budget depends upon the 3% efficiency savings being achieved. The Alliance Party has no doubt that efficiency savings of 3% are possible, and such annual savings in the private sector are routine. However, we are concerned about the narrow ground over which those savings are being sought. There are big questions about how public services are being delivered, and they are not targeted in the Budget. The most obvious area in that regard is education, particularly through the policy on sustainable schools.

There are huge inefficiencies in the school estate, and, so far, a policy for area planning and collaboration between schools has not been produced never mind incorporated into the documents that the Assembly is discussing this week. The wisdom of attempting a considerable amount of capital-assets sales at a time when the property market has slowed down is not entirely obvious either.

Much of the control of the economy lies outside the control of the Assembly. That is reflected in the fact that many of the targets before the House are ambitious — something we welcome — but aspirational, without clear evidence of the means to deliver them.

We also have to reflect on the British Government’s regional policy — if that is what it can be called — in which the interests of London and the south-east of England are prioritised at the expense of the rest of the regions, thus leaving us in a dependency situation.

It is unfortunate that targets for measuring economic conversions have been changed.

Rather than comparing our performance with the UK average, we are now to be compared to the UK average minus the south-east of England. Although I understand the desire to remove distortions that arise as a result of real growth in the south-east, rather than simply considering the overall balance of the national economy, we are now reduced to a regional dependency culture and to fighting over the scraps from the table.

Having said that, there are other factors that are in our control, and the investment in the four identified economic drivers is welcome. However, an obvious point that has been made by the Confederation of British Industry and others is that, rather than adopting populist taxation measures, more resources could have been poured into those drivers.

In addition, rather than truly embracing globalisation, we are still focused on an old-fashioned approach to economic support. For example, money is to be poured into modernising agriculture — and I will probably lose the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on this point. However, agri­culture is a shrinking element of the overall economy. From such investment, other sectors could have benefited more and achieved a greater leap forward in productivity.

Much of our inward-investment strategy still depends on the grant-making approach of selective-financial assistance. A properly informed debate —

Mr S Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Dr Farry: I am sorry, but I have a lot to get through.

There must be a properly informed debate on the relative merits of investing in selective financial assistance compared with greater investments in the economic drivers.

The one fiscal tool that the Minister has at his disposal — industrial derating — is, effectively, anachronistic, and was first introduced in Northern Ireland in 1929 — the year of the great depression. By contrast, England banned industrial derating as far back as the 1960s. The Minister has ignored the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland’s evidence-based approach, which states that, rather than keeping industrial derating at 30%, it would be safe to increase it to 50% and, as a consequence, raise some lost revenue. Hence, rather than being governed by evidence, our overall approach has been governed more by populism.

It is not necessary to match funding allocations in the rest of the United Kingdom. Devolution is about setting different priorities. However, we should make informed choices, and the Alliance Party has already highlighted the imbalance between roads and public-transport expenditure. The arts sector, which was the most vocal sector during the consultation period, has received an additional £2 million per annum, and that is useful. However, clearly, that does not bring arts funding into line with at least the UK average. Given that Northern Ireland is comparatively advantaged by its artistic talents, that should be an area in which we should invest.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor.

Dr Farry: Finally, I will concentrate on health. The Minister has acted like the grand old Duke of York — marching us to the top of the hill and back down again — in his campaign for proper National Health Service funding in Northern Ireland. For the sake of a facade of unity in the Executive, he seems to have settled for much less than what is required to maintain a level of healthcare that is on a par with the rest of the United Kingdom. In order to keep pace with funding in the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland requires a health budget of at least £4·4 billion, and, to maintain the same level of service, the revised Budget leaves a health funding shortfall of £200 million. The DUP can talk all it wants about record Health Service funding, but the simple fact is that we are not keeping pace with the rest of the UK.

In the revised Budget, there is little genuine new money for health. The efficiency savings are simply reprocessed existing money, and the moneys that come from monetary rounds will have no effect on the underlying baselines. The £10 million per annum for mental health is the only genuinely new money, and that is barely sufficient to address the serious under­funding in that critical area of healthcare. We spend a measly 8% of the health budget on mental health, compared to the UK average of 12%.

All around the world, health costs are rising — people are living longer and the price of drugs and new technologies are rising. Sadly, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland continues to have a much higher per capita needs base. It would be good if the Executive were to suggest that we tackle and reduce that needs gap, but that is not the case.

Clearly, efficiency savings in the Health Service are necessary.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Farry: However, they must not come as a result of cost cutting and denying funds. Such savings are necessary in order that money can be reinvested into new services. Rather than addressing the population’s evolving needs, the new money — insofar as we have any — is barely enough to keep up with inescapable pressures.

Mr Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr O’Loan: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert:

“calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to lay before the Assembly a revised programme of expenditure proposals for 2008-09 to 2010-11, as the Budget proposals currently before the Assembly do not provide clear budgetary lines for key policy developments, including the anti-poverty strategy; fail to set out funding commit­ments in respect of proposed reforms in post-primary education; abandon cross-cutting funds, including a fund for children and young people; and are unclear in their implications for householders in terms of future charging for water.”

Mussolini made the trains in Italy run on time, and the responsibility of the Finance Minister — through the Budget — is to have the same effect on the literal and metaphorical trains in our society. As Members know, the literal trains in our society often do not run on time — sometimes not at all. There are many trains in our society that do not provide the service that they should. The SDLP’s approach to the Budget is influenced by its principles; the SDLP is a social democratic party and is committed to an inclusive society that tackles disadvantage — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr O’Loan: A society that provides equality, is socially just, and sustains the environment. The SDLP believes in a balance of economic and social investment — we are committed to economic development but regard economic and social development as inter­dependent. That is not adequately reflected in the programme or the Budget, which are too short term. Social spending now will produce economic benefit in the future.

The Budget cannot be considered without looking at the overall context: Northern Ireland is in long-term relative economic decline, which — one could argue — began at the time of partition. However, that is a debate for another day. Our infrastructure is obsolete, and we have a deeply divided society that was created, and exacerbated, by more than 30 years of conflict. Some Members have a lot to answer for in relation to that conflict. Therefore, the Budget has a major job to do.

There is, of course, some substance and value in the Budget, as we stated in the debate on the Programme for Government yesterday. However, we have concerns about the Budget. One concern is about our divided society; I am holding a Northern Ireland Community Relations Council journal, which has a picture of a beautiful park in Belfast with trees, grass, paths and everything else that one would expect. However, running through that park is a corrugated iron fence between eight and 10 feet high, which separates the Catholic side from the Protestant side. Sometimes a picture says more than a thousand words.

Some Members: That is a shame.

Mr O’Loan: It is a shame, but there is nothing in the Programme for Government or Budget that directly addresses that issue. There is a danger in creating, or attempting to create, a separate but equal society. That would be doomed to failure but might suit the two largest parties in the Assembly. The Alliance Party must not claim sole ownership of the issue, because it is built into the founding principles of the SDLP. The Alliance Party should not claim to be the sole party of opposition. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr O’Loan: We claim our ministerial position as a right, but also assert our right to oppose what we think needs opposition in any area of Executive policy. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, the Member has the Floor.

Mr O’Loan: It is clear that our tactics and strategy have caused discomfort for some Members. Our party is totally united on its tactics and strategy. [Laughter.]

Mr Ford: I am pleased to hear Mr O’Loan talk about the necessity of building a shared future, which the north Belfast park he mentioned clearly demonstrates. Why does the SDLP amendment not mention a shared future?

Mr O’Loan: We made our stance clear in the debate on, and our proposed amendment to, the Programme for Government — the two are closely linked.

Our Government is not joined up enough; a perennial problem in government is trying to get Departments working together. Important issues requiring two or more Departments to work together often fall by the wayside because neither Department takes the lead. One clear example of that can be seen in the children’s fund. There must be more strategic focus on that key issue, which is a vital one if we are to tackle child poverty. Children in poverty are handicapped in life’s race, and they inevitably fall behind. Creating a separate fund for children would give the issue more focus and would provide the option for bids to be made for more funds in-year. The SDLP believes that that is the better way forward.

12.15 pm

Members have been told that the reform of secondary schools will be the biggest change in sixty years, yet, remarkably, it is not referred to in the Programme for Government and it is therefore not budgeted for. The reform has been referred to as being cost neutral. However, the Minister of Finance and Personnel has indicated that he would be uncomfor­table about such an assertion. The SDLP sees that as a major weakness in the Budget.

There is also lack of clarity in the Budget. The public service agreements have no clear budget lines attached to them, therefore one cannot know how much will be spent on each one. There is also the uncertainty about water charging. The Executive have taken no decisions on how water will be paid for. The strand-two report has just been published, and all proposals will, in due course, be issued for consultation. SDLP Members will not be hung out to dry on water proposals that we have not seen and approved.

There are other areas in which the SDLP feels that the Budget’s success is being predicated on uncertain propositions. For example, are the efficiency savings going to be real? The Minister of Finance and Personnel knows the answer to that — or if he does not know, I am sure that he will soon receive a piece of paper from his officials telling him that close to one half of the efficiency savings posited for his own Department come from a mere accountancy adjustment whereby an already-received receipt is transferred from one column to another. There is an element of smoke and mirrors about the Budget.

We can be sure that accounting officers throughout the public service, taking their lead from the Department of Finance and Personnel, will be exerting themselves to find manoeuvres in which efficiency savings such as these can be found. However, in some places real changes will be made in order to meet efficiency demands, and those may damage front-line services, particularly in Departments and agencies, such as the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Social Security Agency, in which such services form their core business.

The area of asset sales is very problematic. Workplace 2010 is designed to deliver an upfront payment in the order of £170 million. That sum, given the present state of the property market becomes very questionable. The general issue, having identified assets for sale, is when to sell those assets and how much might be realised from selling them — that is a very problematic area.

The SDLP recognises the gain of £205 million for social housing that has been made between the draft Budget and the final Budget. I commend the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie for the effort that she had to make to obtain that money. It was money that should have been in the draft Budget in the first place. However, she has also made it clear that the revised figure will still not be enough for her to meet the Executive’s targets.

In his statement, the Minister of Finance and Personnel referred to £1,000 in savings per household. I say to people: do not book your holidays on the strength of that. I would not even book a weekend in Castlereagh. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor.

Mr O’Loan: People should not suppose that it will be an annual saving. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr O’Loan: The sum is not even being calculated over the three years covered by the Budget. If the figure is to be meaningful then it is to be calculated over a four-year period, which was what the Minister said in his statement on the draft Budget. The fact is that people will never see that money in their hands. If water charging is introduced, either through rates bills or household bills, people will not see any reductions or money being returned when those bills land on their mats.

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

Mr O’Loan: They will see instead an increase of the order of 25%.

I hope that the Minister, when he sums up, will confirm —

Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up.

Mr O’Loan: — that there is funding for the Giant’s Causeway visitors’ centre in his Budget proposals.

As a party, we have presented sound reasons for our amendment.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to take his seat.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I take this opportunity to commend the Minister and his officials for accomplishing the very challenging task of co-ordinating and compiling the Budget on behalf of the Assembly.

The Budget that we are debating today aims to support and deliver the strategic priorities set out in the Programme for Government, including: growing our economy; investing in infrastructure; modernising public services; environmental protection; and promoting tolerance, inclusion, health and well-being.

I thank the Minister also for his acknowledgement of the role that the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the other Assembly Committees played in the process. That culminated in the Committee publishing a co-ordinated report on the draft Budget on 8 January 2008 on behalf of all the Assembly departmental scrutiny Committees. The report set out 21 overarching conclusions and recommendations that aim to influence the Executive in its future work.

With regard to the Executive’s strategic priorities, the Committee recognises the pressing need to raise productivity and living standards in the North and therefore welcomes the increased focus on economic growth. The Committee considers that the new emphasis on the economy necessitates the early publication of a new and revised regional economic strategy that sets out how the Executive’s high-level goals will be realised. That should include a cross-cutting implementation plan for the four productivity drivers — skills, enterprise, innovation and infra­structure. I believe that a new regional economic strategy takes on even greater significance and urgency in the context of the very disappointing Varney report and the global economic challenges ahead.

The Committee is also mindful of the importance of the Executive’s other priorities regarding infrastructure, health, equality, public services and the environment. We all recognise that there are only finite resources available to meet many of the demands in terms of maintaining and improving public services. The focus is therefore on ensuring that the resources available to the Executive are deployed strategically and fairly, with the emphasis being on activities and programmes that support the delivery of key priorities.

In its report on the draft Budget, my Committee acknowledged the constraints within which the Executive have to operate. The outcome of the comprehensive spending review means that real-terms growth in public expenditure here over the next three years will average only 1·2% a year. The Committee also recognises that the Executive have had to address a range of legacy issues inherited from the direct rule period, including water and domestic rating reform, which were the cause of mounting public concern.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The Durkan tax.

Mr McLaughlin: My colleague reminds us of the legacy of the disastrous deal that Mark Durkan and David Trimble struck with the British Treasury.

As a consequence, the revised Budget places a strong emphasis on efficiency and value for money. The Committee responded to that positively in its report by examining a range of strategic and cross-cutting budgetary issues with a view to identifying ways of maximising the impact from limited resources. In particular, it recommended a range of specific measures aimed at supporting the efficiency drive, eradicating the culture of underspend and raising the performance of Departments in managing public money for the delivery of front-line services.

Mr O’Loan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when you called Mr McLaughlin to speak it was as the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. He has expressed political views, making reference to Mark Durkan, that are certainly not the determined views of the Committee. They are clearly party-political views. Mr Speaker, I ask for a ruling on that matter.

The Speaker: Order. Mr McLaughlin had already indicated that he would make remarks as Chairperson of the Committee and as a Member of this Assembly.

Mr Storey: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Order. We saw an example this morning of a Chairperson of a Committee who dwelt on political issues.

Order, Members. Order. I normally give the Chair­persons of Committees some latitude. Unfortunately, some exceed their position. However, Mr McLaughlin came to the Table and indicated clearly that he wished to speak as Chairperson of the Committee, but that he would make some personal remarks. That was absolutely clear.

Mr Storey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, if the honourable Member asks for a point of order — although that is consistent with SDLP inconsistency — will you also make a ruling on the issues to which you referred, regarding Patsy McGlone’s disgraceful comments when he spoke as Chairperson of his Committee? Those were political comments; therefore, the SDLP cannot pick and choose.

Mr Speaker: I will take no further points of order on the issues. We shall move on.

Mr McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Even as Chairperson, I believe I have the right to speak on matters of record, and this matter has, on many occasions, been addressed, not only by members of my Committee, but by Members of this Assembly.

Mr Durkan: Mr Speaker, the Member —

Mr Speaker: I said that I would take no further points of order on this particular issue. I ask the Member to continue.

Mr McLaughlin: The Committee considered a range of key financial management issues, including the planned reduction in overcommitment; the new requirement of the Executive to negotiate with the Treasury each year for access to end-of-year flexibility; and the level of annual underspend by Departments, which is unacceptably high in comparison with other regions.

The Committee concluded that those issues combined to place a heavy onus on Departments to manage public finances in a way that achieves the highest possible level of spend within authorised limits, and maximises the impact from available resources.

A further cross-cutting theme in the Budget is the reform agenda, in which the Department of Finance and Personnel will have a key role. The Civil Service reform programmes are expected to realise a range of benefits and value-for-money savings across the 11 Departments. Those benefits will be measured by a series of key performance indicators that will be integrated into departmental business planning. Again, the Committee will continue to review and monitor the work of the Department against targets set for each of the relevant programmes.

I have addressed only some of the issued covered in the Committee’s co-ordinated approach, particularly the importance of the financial management agenda, together with the drive to reform the public sector and to deliver value for money and efficiencies, all of which will enable the improvement to front-line services that our people deserve.

Those areas will require ongoing monitoring and scrutiny by the Committee for Finance and Personnel, together with the other statutory Committees and the wider Assembly, over the next three financial years of the Budget period.

The period 2008-2011 will present the Executive, and all of us in the Assembly, with both a challenge and an opportunity to prove that devolution can make a real difference to people’s lives, and that locally accountable, elected representatives and Ministers can take a much more sensitive approach to the nuances and the realities of social and economic life in the North.

I conclude with some remarks in respect of my party role as spokesperson on economic — [Laughter.]

My remarks concern the use of public finance initiatives (PFI). A considerable weight of evidence confirms Sinn Féin’s belief that PFI and PPP represent poor value for the public purse. Local examples include the car park project at the Royal Victoria Hospital and at Balmoral High School. Public Service provision under PFI will create problems for the Executive in future years. The net result of setting PFI contracts will be —

Mr Weir: Will the Member give way?

Mr McLaughlin: I am sorry.

The net result of setting PFI contracts will be that the Executive will progressively take on more and more long-term debt, and, in future, a greater proportion of the total Budget available to Ministers.

Sinn Féin will argue, as will its Ministers, that PFI contracts are not the preferred option of the Executive. Civil servants, and others responsible for designing projects, should be instructed to put equal, or greater, effort into alternative funding models, instead of PPP or PFI projects.

12.30 pm

On investment, Sinn Féin welcomes many of the commitments in the Programme for Government, the Budget and ISNI II. However, it will be important that those commitments be turned into reality and that they deliver for the most disadvantaged in society. Sinn Féin welcomes the £18 billion that is to be invested in the next 10 years. In particular, we welcome the explicit commitments to the promotion of social inclusion and equality in the procurement of infrastructure programmes.

Furthermore, the reviews of water reform, domestic and industrial rates and Civil Service reform — as well as the systemic efficiency programmes across all Departments — will, Sinn Féin expects, demonstrate again the benefits of having a locally accountable Assembly.

On regional disparities, Sinn Féin is concerned that the commitment in this Budget and in ISNI II to promote regional balance does not go far enough and may not effectively address the legacy of the past, which has led to institutionalised disadvantage west of the Bann and in deprived areas such as north and west Belfast. Sinn Féin will continue to address that issue as we go forward.

Sinn Féin will continue to press the Executive and the Assembly to ensure that a commitment to the eradication of structural regional inequalities over a timetabled period is accomplished. Furthermore, we want to see the maximum decentralisation of public-sector jobs to redress historical disparity and imbalance and to support balanced regional development.

Finally, there is obvious confusion within the SDLP. I presume that I have some time, as a result of the interruptions?

Mr Speaker: No, you have 10 minutes.

Mr McLaughlin: OK.

The Minister for Social Development should consider — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members. The Member has the Floor.

Mr McLaughlin: The Minister for Social Develop­ment should consider making a statement to this Assembly and to a bemused public. Did she seek and receive support from her party leader and colleagues? Is endorsing the Programme for Government, ISNI II and the Budget compatible with the party’s policies? Last week she and he were proclaiming that their hard-line negotiating skills were a rationale for voting for and supporting the final documents at the Executive’s meeting. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether she proposed any amendments — the Minister of Finance and Personnel has challenged that. Did she propose any amendments during those discussions? Did she change her mind and betray her commitment to her ministerial colleagues, or did her party wobble when hardy came to hardy and, effectively, abandon her?

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.32 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) —

2.00 pm

Mr Storey: I should say in the first instance that I will make my opening remarks in my capacity as an Assembly Member, and I will make my final comments in my capacity as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

It is right and proper that we place on record that we are debating a Budget at a time when one party in our four-party mandatory coalition does not seem to know what being part of that coalition means.

Declan O’Loan, who is one of my North Antrim constituency colleagues, said earlier that he would not allow a situation to develop in which the SDLP would be hung out to dry. It is obvious that he was not referring to one of his colleagues, Margaret Ritchie, the Minister for Social Development. The SDLP has done exactly what it said it would not allow: it has hung the Minister out to dry.

No press conference in this Building today and no attempt at unity by the SDLP will be able to mask the problems that now exist in that party. It has a Minister who it has abandoned and does not support. We will probably see its Members again this afternoon in the political theatre of voting against the Budget. That is an issue for their electorate and on which that electorate will undoubtedly pass comment.

Therefore, having made those points, which reflect my personal perspective on the political charade that is going on with the SDLP, I will move the debate on to discuss the issues that have been of interest to the Committee of which I am the Deputy Chairperson. At the outset, I thank the Minister for his remarks.

Mr P Robinson: We are currently seeing the spectacle of the Minister for Social Development being present in the Chamber alongside her party leader.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask the Minister to please address his remarks to the Chair. When Members turn towards others, as the Minister is doing, the volume disappears somewhat.

Mr P Robinson: That might be a blessing for some, Mr Deputy Speaker. It will certainly be a blessing for the SDLP. Since both the Minister for Social Development and her party leader are present, I wonder whether they would answer the question that was asked earlier: if there were something inherently wrong with the Programme for Government, the investment strategy or the Budget, why did their Minister table no amendment to those in Executive meetings? Alternatively, did they shaft their Minister at a later stage?

Mr Storey: I thank the Minister for his intervention. I remind him that earlier, the leader of the SDLP commented in the House that his Minister had expressed reservations. There is a vast difference between expressing reservations and coming up with ideas, proposals and amendments to a Budget and a draft strategy. Obviously, the SDLP does not really know where it is going on this issue.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Storey: No, I have already given up some of my time, and I want to get to the subst