northern Ireland assembly Monday 11 February 2008 Executive Committee Business: Assembly Business: Executive Committee Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Private Notice Question: Executive Committee Business: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Royal Assent Pensions Bill Mr Speaker: I wish to inform the House that the Pensions Bill has received Royal Assent. The Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 became law on 11 February 2008. Suspension of Standing Orders The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): I beg to move That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 11 February 2008. Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that this motion requires cross-community support. Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support): That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 11 February 2008. Mr Speaker: As the motion has been agreed, today’s sitting may go beyond 7.00 pm, if required. Spring Supplementary Estimates 2007-08 and Vote on Account 2008-09 Mr Speaker: As these two motions relate to the Supply Resolutions, I propose to conduct only one debate, as follows. I shall call the Minister of Finance and Personnel to move the first motion. Debate will then take place on both motions. When all who wish to speak have done so, I shall put the Question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Minister to move the second motion, before putting the Question without further debate. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours and 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have up to 60 minutes to propose and up to 60 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have 10 minutes. If that is clear, we shall proceed. The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): I beg to move That this Assembly approves that a total sum, not exceeding £11,851,642,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation for the year ending 31 March 2008 and that total resources, not exceeding £14,429,839,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation for the year ending 31 March 2008 as summarised for each Department or other public body in Columns 2(c) and 3(c) of Table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2007-08 that was laid before the Assembly on 31 January 2008. The following motion stood in the Order Paper: That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £5,335,212,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund on account for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation for the year ending 31 March 2009 and that resources, not exceeding £6,493,908,000, be authorised, on account, for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation for the year ending 31 March 2009 as summarised for each Department or other public body in Columns 4 and 6 of Table 1 in the Vote on Account 2008-09 document that was laid before the Assembly on 31 January 2008. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson).] Mr P Robinson: The motion has been very ably read by the Clerk. Two weeks ago, on 29 January 2008, the Assembly debated and approved the forward spending plans for the financial years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Today, our main focus is on the final spending proposals for the current financial year, and I am providing Departments and other public bodies with the legislative authority to finalise spend in 2007-08. These motions, although vital, are necessarily technical in nature, and I trust that Members will appreciate the need to set out the position in some detail. Assembly Members will know that the Budget, which sets spending plans for future years, does not in itself convey cash or resources to Departments or, indeed, give Departments the legal authority to spend cash or use resources. That is done through the Assembly’s approval of the Supply resolutions, the Estimates and the associated Budget Bill. I, therefore, move two important Supply resolutions in order to seek the Assembly’s approval for the final spending plans for 2007-08 and to provide interim resources and funding for the first few months of 2008-09 in the form of a Vote on Account. To do so, I seek the levels of Supply that are detailed in the resolutions. I do that pursuant to section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make recommendations to the Assembly, leading to cash appropriations from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The first resolution seeks the approval of the Assembly on the issue of a total cash sum not exceeding £11,851,642,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the use of total resources not exceeding £14,429,839,000 for 2007-08, as detailed in the spring Supplementary Estimates volume, which was laid before the Assembly on 31 January 2008. The amounts of cash and resources for 2007-08 covered by the first resolution supersede the provision in the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2007, passed by the Assembly in June 2007. The second resolution seeks the Assembly’s approval on the issue of a cash sum of £5,335,212,000 and resources of £6,493,908,000 on account for the 2008-09 financial year, in advance of the consideration and approval of the 2008-09 Main Estimates and Budget Bill by the Assembly in June 2008. The resolutions, if approved by the Assembly, will be the precursor to the Budget Bill (Northern Ireland) 2008, which I plan to introduce to the Assembly later today. Subject to Assembly approval and Royal Assent enabling the Bill to become an Act, that will provide the formal legal authority for Departments to incur expenditure for this financial year and the start of 2008-09. In considering this issue, I want to highlight the significance of the Supply Resolutions for which approval is being sought today. Those resolutions, supported by the Estimates, are the cornerstone on which the Assembly not only sets limits on expenditure and use of resources but holds Departments to account for managing and controlling that spending and use of resources within the limits authorised for that particular year. Details of departmental spending plans are set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates, which are before the Assembly. Members should be familiar with the structure of the document as it reflects the structure of the Main Estimates, which the Assembly considered and approved in June 2007. Mr Speaker, you will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to go through the document in detail. However, at the end of the debate, I will endeavour to answer questions. Members will appreciate that I may not be able to respond to specific departmental queries in detail. I will ask the relevant Minister to issue a response in such cases. As this is the first time that this Assembly has dealt with the spring Supplementary Estimates, it may be helpful to take a few minutes to mention some important aspects of the Estimates that differ from the Budget and in-year monitoring rounds. The Supply resolution is the means by which the 2007-08 spring Supplementary Estimates are examined and approved by the Assembly. Members will recall that the Assembly inherited an opening position from direct rule Ministers, which Departments had already used for planning and for the allocation of budgets to health trusts, education and library boards and other public bodies. To maintain financial stability, as was explained to the Assembly in June 2007, the Executive agreed to adopt that opening position. Through the in-year monitoring rounds — in June, October and December — the Executive were able to bring before the Assembly some adjustments to the position to meet emerging demands. Public expenditure in Northern Ireland is subject to two controls; departmental expenditure limits and annually managed expenditure (AME). The in-year revisions focused on the departmental expenditure limits. Unlike departmental expenditure limits, AME is not subject to firm multi-year limits: it is generally demand-led and includes major areas of expenditure such as social security benefits and public-sector pension payments. Departmental expenditure limit totals are largely fixed in Treasury spending reviews for a three-year period, whereas AME is revised with the Treasury annually. Forecasts on the amount of AME needed are updated twice-yearly. As we receive an adjustment of estimated requirements for AME from the Treasury, and must return resources that are not required to the Treasury, those items are not included in the scope of the monitoring rounds. Therefore, although the Executive have not had the ability to directly influence the spring Supplementary Estimates that are before the Assembly today, those Estimates contain revised figures not only for the departmental expenditure limits, which are the main focus of the Assembly, but for AME. During the in-year monitoring rounds, agreed transfers of resources between Northern Ireland Departments, between Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office, or between Northern Ireland Departments and Whitehall Departments may take place. Due to their routine nature, those technical adjustments are not highlighted to the Assembly during monitoring statements. The final area worth noting is the difference between the boundaries of Budgets and Estimates. Budgets are at the wider public-sector level, including full resource consumption of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), while Estimates are at a departmental level. An Estimate is a summary of a Department’s spending proposals, including cash grants to NDPBs, while Budgets include the totality of public-sector expenditure, including NDPBs, health trusts, education and library boards, etc. I appreciate that all those issues may make it very difficult for Members to readily identify in the spring Supplementary Estimates the reduced requirements surrendered or the additional allocations made during monitoring rounds. However, I assure Members that although Estimates and Budgets have different boundaries, they are both based on the same data source of public expenditure and are reconcilable, and I refer Members to the resource and capital reconciliation tables that are contained in the supplementary tables for each Estimate. 12.15 pm At this juncture, I will outline briefly the logistical need for the Budget Bill, which is associated with the spring Supplementary Estimates, to be given accelerated passage. The December monitoring round is the final opportunity to seek approval for expenditure changes and to maximise the efficient use of resources before the end of the financial year. The Budget Bill must receive Royal Assent by March, and there must be time for the Assembly to approve the spring Supplementary Estimates by the same month. That would be impossible without accelerated passage. In that regard, I appreciate the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s assistance and acknowledge its confirmation that it has been consulted appropriately on the spending plans, which are reflected in the motions, as a basis for using accelerated passage for the related Budget Bill. I am aware of the Committee’s keen interest in the issues in question, and I value both its contribution to the budgetary process and the accountability role that it plays at each stage. I turn now to first, the in-year monitoring exercises that have occurred under devolution, and secondly, to the new, emerging pressures that we have been able to meet. During the past nine months, Departments surrendered a total of £176 million reduced requirements. As well as reducing the aggressive overcommitment that was inherited from direct rule, we were able to meet £105 million of bids from Departments for their emerging pressures. End-year flexibility (EYF) of £42 million was returned to Departments, and almost £90 million of technical adjustments were processed. With respect to capital investment, Departments declared reduced requirements of £197 million, and £145 million of bids were met, with Departments carrying forward £78 million of EYF. In addition, many Departments identified slippage in planned capital projects. However, that slippage was managed by my Department, and it will be carried forward for the Executive’s use in the future. That slippage is reflected in the reduction in the net-cash requirement for 2007-08 in the spring Supplementary Estimates. Some of the main allocations during 2007-08 were £4·1 million to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) for animal health; £1·5 million to the Department of the Environment (DOE) in response to the severe flooding in June; £53 million for the Department for Regional Development (DRD) for water and sewerage services, while £45·5 was allocated for various road schemes; the Department of Education (DE) received £2·8 to underpin home-to-school transport and £12 million for classroom assistants; the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) received £15 million to fund the ongoing Civil Service reform programme; the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) received £14 million to address the costs that are associated for the review of public administration, while £3 million was granted for the provision of pharmaceutical drugs; and over £70 million was allocated to the Department for Social Development (DSD) for a range of social housing initiatives, including the co-ownership scheme, the warm homes scheme, and the social housing development programme. By proactive management, some Departments have also restricted expenditure on lower-priority services in order to release resources to meet higher-priority pressures in their areas of responsibility. Notably, DHSSPS reallocated funding to the suicide prevention strategy and to the provision of a range of community services, including help to address the problems of assessing respite care, particularly for the carers of children. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am always seeking an improvement in the quality of Departments’ financial management and a reduction in their underspends. My officials are working actively with Departments to that end. As I said in the Assembly last month, the level of reduced requirements rose dramatically in the December monitoring round. I continue to stress to Departments the need to surrender any slippages or potential underspends early in the new year in order that the Executive can reallocate them at the earliest opportunity and put them to best use. I am ever mindful that we are dealing with taxpayers’ money and that we have a responsibility, as custodians of the public purse, to ensure that that money is managed efficiently and effectively. Some degree of underspending will be inevitable, but even when it is entirely unavoidable, it is important that we recognise that situation as early in the year as possible and surrender such amounts, so that the Executive have every opportunity to address early pressures. Although we do not lose the money, tighter controls on access to end-year flexibility mean that funds unspent at the end of this year will need to be the subject of negotiations with the Treasury to agree the future profiling of such underspends. In short, although we do not lose the money, we do lose control of it. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that matter, and my Executive colleagues and I should robustly review our in-year financial position early in the financial year and identify any potential underspends. Failure to do so, leading to ineffective management of the total Budget and high underspends at the end of the financial year, will incur adverse criticism and demonstrate a failure to deliver the maximum level of public services possible. When taxpayers and ratepayers are being expected to give Government their hard-earned money, it is reasonable for them to expect that their money is not being wasted. We have just completed a long Budget consultation period, with many bids for additional resources. Getting financial management right in the public sector can make a huge contribution to meeting emerging pressures; getting it wrong is simply squandering money. To assist in that area, my officials are working actively with Departments to improve financial management and accountability. There has been an overall review of the financial training provided across the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I am pleased to say that that is already producing tangible benefits, with a suite of new training courses being developed and a dialogue opening up with non-finance specialists to ensure that decisions are taken with due regard to the financial consequences. More detailed training is being developed for those who set and manage budgets, day to day. Finance training for departmental staff responsible for other parts of the public sector, beyond pure finance, is due to be rolled out over the coming months, along with newly invigorated courses on fraud prevention and governance. I am conscious too of the role that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has to play in supporting us all in improving standards of financial management and good governance. Recommendations arising from the PAC will be actively pursued, and in many respects my Department, in conjunction with audit colleagues, is central in driving forward that agenda. Departmental boards and audit committees will also provide an important and independent accountability tier that, ultimately, supports us all as Ministers. At this point, I want to make some comments about the role of Assembly Members in holding Departments and the Executive to account in authorising and regularising expenditure. This is a vital day for the Assembly. However, in reality, as Members will be aware, there is a limited opportunity to hold Departments to account through this process. If devolution is to maximise its benefits for the people of Northern Ireland, Assembly Members, and not just members of the Executive, must have a meaningful role in decision-making and in holding Departments to account. The value of devolution lies in the capacity of local Members, who are close to the problems that affect their constituents, being able to hold Government to account. Devolution is not just about a local Executive, it is about a local Assembly. I do not see the role of Assembly Members and Assembly Committees as that of opposition, but as that of challenge and assistance. Done properly, that means better policy and better outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland, which is in all our interests. As other Ministers will be aware, the Department of Finance and Personnel has considerable power and influence across all Departments. Without its approval, no expenditure can be incurred. Indeed, following the changes to the devolution arrangements provided for in the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, expenditure without DFP approval would be not only irregular but unlawful. In that regard, I take my responsibilities seriously; however, it is also the responsibility of Assembly Committees to hold their Departments to account. During the Budget period, most of the Committees, perhaps understandably, lobbied for greater resources for their Departments. It is vital that those Committees now ensure that the Departments deliver on their commitments. Again, I say that this does not mean opposition for its own sake; however, it does mean asking probing questions and ensuring that Departments deliver on what they promise. Departments should not fear questions and challenges from their Assembly Committees; rather, they should welcome the additional perspective and scrutiny. Our system of democracy is made stronger by a Committee system that can ensure that value for money is delivered for the public. If Departments do not deliver on the targets set for them in the Programme for Government, we should not have to wait for three years to find out. Apart from the monitoring that is conducted by the Executive, the Committees should have identified where greater attention is required. Such an approach gives Assembly Members a meaningful and important role, and is in the long-term interests of the Executive. I urge Assembly Committees to challenge Departments constructively to deliver and to hold Ministers to account for what has been promised — and I say that as much to the Committee for Finance and Personnel as to any other Committee. Looking ahead to 2008-09, the second resolution seeks the Assembly’s approval of a cash resource — a Vote on Account — to continue existing services in the early months of the next financial year, until the main estimates and corresponding Budget Bill are approved by the Assembly. That amount is approximately 45% of the 2007-08 provision for cash and resource. As we look forward to the next financial years and the implementation of our Programme for Government, underpinned by the recent Budget and investment strategy endorsed by the Assembly, we have the opportunity to ensure that, in future years, the local economy will be strengthened, our infrastructure will be upgraded, and public service delivery will be improved. The people of Northern Ireland expect delivery of the targets and outcomes published in the Programme for Government. The public service agreements, shortly to be published, will set out in detail how Departments will work together to achieve those targets and outcomes. The delivery agreements will set out roles and responsibilities, lines of accountability, performance-measurement methods and risk-management strategies. Alongside that, the performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU) will play its role in identifying scope for improved delivery of efficiencies and performance. In commending these resolutions to the Assembly, I urge delivery of better-quality public services in future years, with greater efficiency and effective management of public resources. Today is the end of one phase of the Budget, and the beginning of another. Getting the money is one thing, ensuring the proper spend is another. The most fundamental scrutiny role for the Assembly is to ensure that money is spent in accordance with its wishes. If Assembly Members were to believe that scrutinising the expenditure of over £10 billion a year was confined to a vote on one day a year, we would never be in a position to hold Departments or the Executive to account. Instead, today must be seen as the start of a process by which Committees ask difficult questions, challenge fundamental assumptions, hold Ministers to account, and ensure that every pound of public money is spent appropriately. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I ask not only for more support for the resolutions from Assembly Members, but for a commitment to hold Departments to account for the next three years. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and his explanation of the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account. At its meeting on 30 January 2008, the Committee for Finance and Personnel took evidence from officials of the Department on both the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2007-08 and the Vote on Account for 2008-09. I thank the officials for helping the Committee to navigate its way through what are, by necessity, detailed and complicated documents. Indeed, some Committee members used other words to describe the process outside today’s discussion. The Budget approved by the Assembly in January set out spending plans for 2008-11, and the spring Supplementary Estimates, the Vote on Account and the associated Budget Bill gave Departments authority to spend and set out control limits, through which the Assembly can hold Departments to account. 12.30 pm The Committee discussed and approved accelerated passage for the Budget Bill that is to be introduced later today, and I have written to the Speaker to confirm that. The spring Supplementary Estimates for 2007-08 seek the Assembly’s approval for additional resources — and/or cash — that is needed over and above that detailed in the Main Estimates for the year and which were approved by the Assembly in June 2007. During evidence gathered from Department of Finance and Personnel officials, the Committee was updated on a range of adjustments affecting spending profiles as the year progressed. As a result of the monitoring rounds there will be in-year changes, both in and between Departments; and Departments may also change their levels of spend to reflect refinements in the original Estimates. Changes may also occur because of technical reclassifications, rescheduling of contracts, or for a number of valid reasons. It will be obvious to Members that it would be impossible to project with absolute certainty the outcomes across the full range of Government spending programmes, and that is why processes such as in-year monitoring exist. However, we can demand the highest standards from bidding processes during Budget negotiations and best practice in financial management. The Minister dealt with that in his presentation this morning. The spring Supplementary Estimates also include other changes that are not subject to the normal monitoring round discussions, including changes in demand-led services, such as social security benefits, that are annually managed expenditure and outside departmental expenditure limits. The Minister addressed that too in his opening remarks. All those changes are picked up in the spring Supplementary Estimates, which bring everything into line in order that Departments can draw up their end-year accounts. The Committee for Finance and Personnel took an active scrutiny role throughout the 2007-08 budgetary changes that emanated from the quarterly monitoring rounds. The Department of Finance and Personnel briefed the Committee on its own position prior to each round and provided in-depth written responses to queries raised. I thank the Minister and the relevant officials for that, because there has been a good working arrangement and relationship. Following the Minister’s statement to the Assembly on the outcomes of each monitoring round, the departmental officials responsible for central finance subsequently briefed the Committee on the more strategic issues relating to public expenditure; and that has been a very useful learning process for all of us. There is evidence that Departments are identifying unused resources at an earlier stage in the financial year and are releasing them to the centre for reallocation. That is welcome, but more can be done, especially as Treasury appears to restricting future access to unspent resources. The Committee for Finance and Personnel will continue to prioritise the scrutiny of DFP’s bids and easements for each monitoring round and urges other statutory Committees to do the same for their respective Departments. The Committee echoes the Minister’s comments on that point very strongly and is currently working with DFP officials to develop a standardised format for monitoring-round information to facilitate the Committee’s scrutiny of departmental submissions. The Minister outlined three possible reasons for the return of funds by Departments in his statement on the outcome of the December monitoring round: greater-than-planned efficiencies; initial overstating of resource bids; and failure to deliver the planned level of public services. Therefore, Statutory Committees should be examining resources returned by the respective Departments, questioning why they have been released and determining whether they have been returned at the earliest possible opportunity. The Department of Finance and Personnel also has a strategic challenge function, especially in examining whether Departments are overstating resource bids when bidding for particular programmes. The Minister made it clear on a number of occasions that that is a function that he will deploy to achieve the goals set out in the agreed Programme for Government. On an earlier occasion the Minister indicated that his officials will be examining previous patterns of capital slippage more closely, and the Committee looks forward to the outcome of that. I will turn briefly, go raibh maith agat, to the motion on the Vote on Account for 2008-09, which provides the figures needed to enable public services to continue during the early part of a financial year until the Main Estimates and associated Budget Bill are debated before the summer. The Assembly has already approved Budget plans for 2008-2011, and the Vote on Account for 2008-09 is the first outworking of that. The Committee for Finance and Personnel produced an extensive report on the Executive’s budget for 2008, and awaits a formal response from the Department of Finance and Personnel to the recommendations contained in that report. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to reopen the Budget debate today. I support both motions on behalf of my Committee. Mr Storey: I wish to speak as a Member of the Assembly and not as a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, of which I am the Deputy Chairperson. The reasons for that will be made obvious in a few moments. I thank the Minister for giving us the detail behind these lengthy and wordy motions, and especially in light of the volumes that are set out in the Supplementary Estimates for 2007-08. I want to focus particularly on the issue of departmental expenditure limits, and the control and scrutiny powers that the Assembly and its Committees have in relation to their respective Departments. I raise that issue because of the disgraceful comments that were made by the Minister of Education when she appeared before the Committee for Education in the Senate Chamber last Thursday. On that occasion, she made it abundantly clear that she would not be subjected to scrutiny. The Members opposite may live in denial or dismiss that episode as something that is in the past — as Mr O’Dowd tried to do the other evening — and tell us that we must move on. We have heard all that before from Sinn Féin, who would like to revise the past. However, these are the facts: a Minister of the Executive, who is subject to a ministerial code and who has responsibilities to discharge, made it abundantly clear that she would not be subject to scrutiny. Bearing in mind that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has today illustrated that, post-St Andrews, there is a legal requirement upon Ministers and the Executive to discharge their duties in an appropriate fashion, I suggest that the Minister of Education is failing, and is seeking to make a solo run. She wants to do that because she is well aware that she cannot achieve consensus in the Executive. All sorts of financial issues emanate from that situation, and I want to keep my remarks in a financial context. The Minister of Education has a responsibility to discharge a departmental budget. How has she discharged that budget to date? I know that there is a plan to build a bridge at Carlingford, which may assist the Minister to get from her home in the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland quicker, but it will not help her to address the issues. The money that she was given to disburse to the education and library boards was intended to be spent at a local level. One would assume that those education and library boards would be able to make proposals that were in keeping with good financial management, and that they could make recommendations that were within the terms and remit of their responsibility. However, during the summer, in my constituency, the Minister of Education decided to ignore the decisions and the advice of the North Eastern Education and Library Board about the viability of two schools — for financial reasons. That decision has been reviewed, but the Minister has ignored reality. The financial consequences of her decision have cost more than £500,000. I will illustrate the stupidity of the decision that the Minister has made. A principal has been appointed as of 31 March as opposed to 1 April. Of course, we all know the reason why the principal could not have been appointed on 1 April — it is April Fool’s Day. The foolish decision to move the date from the next financial year back into this financial year has cost the North Eastern Education and Library Board over £8,000. The delegated responsibility of this particular Minister must be scrutinised, challenged and questioned. We are all guilty of coming to the Chamber and using words such as “accountability” and “scrutiny” and of saying that we must be all-encompassing in how we move forward and that everything must be squeaky clean. However, when this particular Minister is brought into the light, and when we challenge her financial controls when she makes a decision, it becomes abundantly clear that she has failed to operate in a way that gains consensus and support. Therefore, I ask the Minister of Finance and Personnel to take look at how the Department of Education operates. Of course, the classroom assistants’ pay dispute is another example that must be mentioned. Remember, the Minister of Education was able to tell us that, financially, the matter is not her responsibility and that it is the responsibility of somebody else. Thus, she shifts the blame and ensures that whatever costs are incurred are incurred by somebody else. Mr O’Dowd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the DUP missed an education debate last week because its Members slept in, but is this debate about the spring Supplementary Estimates or about education? Not for the first time, I am slightly confused by Mr Storey’s remarks. Mr Speaker: I assure the Member that I have listened closely to Mr Storey’s remarks, and he has been very careful to keep them related to finance. Sometimes Members — from all sides of the House — are inclined to stray from the motion, but, on this occasion, Mr Storey has been very careful not to do so. Mr Storey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, I must mention the fact that the Education Minister arrived late to the Assembly and to the Education Committee meeting. I want to mention the finance that the Education Minister requires for her visionary proposals — albeit that we are still in the dark as to what those proposals are. The Minister said that she would require no further finance as she would be able to fund her proposals from current allocations. This House and its Committees must scrutinise the proposals to ensure that that will be the case. I have no doubt that when we work out the costings for her proposals — whatever they may be — there will be severe financial implications. We must be made aware of any such implications at an early stage. The Dickson plan was mentioned; it took four years to plan and three years to implement. Thus the Minister’s proposals will surely have huge financial implications. I am sure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel would like to know how those implications will affect future Budget management and how he can oversee future Budget planning when the Education Minister does not know how much her proposals will cost. Therefore, I support the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s motion, but I ask him to examine the issues that I have raised, particularly departmental expenditure limits and financial controls. The Minister of Finance and Personnel’s track record with his Committee has been such that he has ensured that all relevant information has been made available to the Committee in an open and transparent way and without any particular ideology attached. Given that, I ask him to ensure that, in all financial matters — whether they involve the Department of Education or any other Department —Ministers are held to account and Committees are not sidelined. I support the motion. 12.45 pm Mr O’Loan: The spring Supplementary Estimates — voluminous and detailed as they are — are essentially the outworking of processes that have already been brought to the Assembly and agreed. Therefore, I will make no further comment on those. Regarding the Vote on Account, the SDLP made its stance on the Budget clear during the debate on Tuesday 22 January 2008. [Interruption.] Thank you, Mr Storey. We made it clear that what we were saying was based on our principles and values as a social democratic party. We are committed to an inclusive society; where there is disadvantage and exclusion, our instinct is to identify and tackle it. We also want a society that binds together well, that displays real harmony and in which problems are tackled together. Furthermore, we want balanced regional development. We expressed real concerns about the Budget, as did members of all parties. By this stage, everyone will recognise that. I welcome the Minister’s remarks today about the role of Assembly Members in providing a challenge to proposals that come before us. There will be a further opportunity tomorrow to say more during the debate on the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Mitchel McLaughlin, has rightly said that we have already had opportunities to comment in general on budgetary matters. The issue of secondary-education reform has not diminished in its importance since the debate on the Budget. Indeed, it has come considerably more to the fore. I am pleased that the Committee for Education has now expressed clearly its concerns — as the SDLP did at that time — about the lack of clarity in the proposals for secondary education. Such concerns are now widely shared among all political parties, including the Minister’s. We have all listened to the speech from the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Mr Mervyn Storey, which contained trenchant criticisms and concerns — very much the same concerns that the SDLP has expressed. If there is no clarity about the proposals, there can be no clarity about the budgetary implications, and certainly no provision for potentially massive changes. Those changes will occur within the three-year Budget period and they require budgetary provision, which is not there. The SDLP will be constructive in how it presents opposition to proposals with which it has concerns. We will not attempt to hold up the implementation of the necessary resources that are required to keep the wheels of Government in motion. Procurement has to continue and salaries have to be paid. For that reason, we support the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account. Dr Farry: Through the spring Supplementary Estimates, we are essentially implementing the Executive’s tinkering with the last direct rule Budget, and the first implementation of the Budget for the incoming year — the first of the devolved Budgets. The Alliance Party has already made clear our concerns about the flawed devolved Budget. However, we recognise that the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account are about good financial housekeeping and ensuring the continuity of services, both as regards the current financial year and the start of next year. Although we have major concerns, at this stage we are not minded to force votes and to have the repetitive unnecessary process of Divisions. However, we will no doubt come to that when the main Budget Bill is debated during June 2008. We have an opportunity today to reflect on a number of the structural flaws of the inherited situation that has been progressed by the Executive, and also, more importantly, the future path that has been chosen by the four-party mandatory coalition Executive. Some Members: Hear, hear. Dr Farry: I imagine that that may well be the last “hear, hear” I get from the DUP Benches during the next few minutes. I echo the comments made by the Minister about the importance of accurate financial projections. I recognise the efforts that have been made regarding addressing underspends by Departments. There were concerns that underspends were originally quite high compared to other devolved Parliaments in the United Kingdom. They have since reduced, but clearly there is a lot more room for improvement. To a layman, the sums that are involved can be staggering and, in simplistic terms, would make a major difference to several of the services that are falling behind because of a lack of resources. The Assembly is starting from a position that is unsustainable for Northern Ireland. My party and I are ambitious for Northern Ireland and want radical change. However, we fear that the decisions that have been taken so far sell us short. As a society, we have an unhealthy dependency on the public sector: depending on the measuring method that is used, we are between 65% and 70% dependent on the public sector. We rely on a large fiscal subvention from HM Treasury, which meets almost 50% of our public expenditure requirements. Even with such a huge public sector, we struggle to deliver the same standard of public services as that enjoyed elsewhere in these islands. The amount of money that we invest in transport means that, for example, transportation infrastructure is well behind that of all our competitors. That is compounded by our overemphasis on roads at the expense of investment in public transport. That situation will get worse over the next 10 years. We are not addressing properly environmental protection or projecting the creation of an environmental protection agency. There are major inefficiencies in our schools estate, and I appreciate that there has been a lot of discussion on education in the debate so far. However, looking at the underspend of various Departments — particularly in areas of capital — it is hard not to notice that education is falling behind and that many projects that were promised have been shelved. I understand that those projects must be kept within the parameters of a policy on sustainable schools. Where is that policy? Those projects are waiting for decisions to be made. Some schools are already looking ahead to the next round of capital investment in the schools estate, and they wonder what type of vacuum that they are dealing with. Therefore, some clarity is required. We are also behind all other parts of these islands in our per capita funding of the arts sector. Although more money has been made available for that in the new Budget, it comes nowhere near to closing the gap. Our health budget is about £200 million behind that of the rest of the UK. In preparation for today’s debate, I looked at the equivalent discussions that took place in 2000, and it is interesting that the points that I am making today on the gap between our health investments and those in the rest of the UK were being made then. Eight years on, we are still talking about that subject, and the issue has not been properly addressed. Mental health is a critical area; on average, 12% of the health budget in the rest of the UK is directed to mental health, but in Northern Ireland, it is stuck at about 8%. That presents a challenge for us to readdress our priorities to accommodate what is a growing sector and priority area for many. Due to the distortions that are caused by trying to manage a divided society, public expenditure in Northern Ireland is already heavily skewed. The unnecessary duplication of services means that the possibility of creating quality public services for the whole community is hampered. Sadly, the Executive are not prepared to address the challenge of creating a shared future despite the clear human, social, economic and financial imperatives to do so. Therefore, Northern Ireland is starting from a very difficult base, which last year’s UK comprehensive spending review (CSR) has worsened. However, we have made that situation worse still through our populist approach to taxation at the expense of investment in public services and the rebalancing of the economy. I do not want the tax burden to be any more arduous than is necessary, but serious questions must be asked about an approach to local taxation that is based on populism instead of on hard evidence. That approach comes at the expense of investment in, and modernisation of, our local services. The Alliance Party wants to end Northern Ireland’s dependence on financial subvention from London. The rapid turnaround in the Republic of Ireland from being one of the poorest countries in the European Union 20 years ago to being one of the richest today is an example of what can happen if we are ambitious. Unless we wrestle with the costs of segregation, which act as a straitjacket, we will remain trapped fiscally. For the foreseeable future, Northern Ireland will, sadly, continue to rely on financial assistance from London. Therefore, it is critical to use that money wisely. How will HM Treasury react to the populist approach to taxation that has been adopted? How can this or future Executives argue credibly for favourable funding when the resources are used to fund a populist approach to taxation instead of being invested in sustainable public services, as happens in the rest of the UK? Two weeks ago, I made the point that organisations as diverse as the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI), the CBI and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) had challenged the approach being taken to household taxation. In his answer, the Minister shifted the goalposts and argued that those organisations supported him on business taxation, which in itself is debatable, but the fundamental point was ducked. For different reasons, those organisations argue that additional resources are better invested either in rebalancing the economy or in addressing social problems, or in a balance of both. On business taxation, the key issue should be the rate of corporation tax. The Alliance Party has been enthusiastic about tax-varying powers. The party is also clear that, in the event that those powers are achieved — even though that is unlikely given the outcome of Varney I — under the terms of the Azores ruling, revenue lost would have to be made up from elsewhere within the Northern Ireland block grant, either from reductions in service delivery or from other taxes in the system. I am not sure that that point has been considered or how such a situation could be managed were a different rate of corporation tax to be achieved in the next three years. Ultimately, corporation tax is only a means to an end, and that end is making Northern Ireland sustainable — a sustainable economy and society with high growth and low dependency. There is a fundamental challenge to rebalance our economy and address the regional disparities that exist in the UK. The Alliance Party welcomes the emphasis that has been placed on the economy by the Executive, but has some scepticism about the delivery. Generally speaking, there are lofty aspirations, but no clear road map as to how to get there. Many measures being pursued by the Executive are more about maintaining the status quo and holding back the tide of globalisation than genuinely trying to integrate Northern Ireland into the global economy. I am disappointed that the Executive seem to be giving up the fight on corporation tax. The Assembly has not yet had a statement on the outcome of Varney I, never mind any comprehensive rebuttal of its flawed analysis — something that many businessmen and economists are already doing. The Executive has shifted the goalposts on convergence targets. No longer are they talking about trying to rebalance Northern Ireland against the UK average for productivity; rather, they are trying to rebalance it against the UK average, minus the south-east of England and London. Although I recognise the desire to remove the distortions that come from including the south-east of England, it now appears that we are fighting over the scraps from the table rather than challenging the overall regional balance of the UK economy as a whole — something that we must return to. In conclusion, the Assembly must do more than simply take a large chunk of public expenditure from Whitehall and determine how to reprioritise it; it must seek radical and ambitious change in this society. A major political challenge is looming. There are expectations of what devolution should be doing to rebalance and reform Northern Ireland, and the means to do so will be a matter for debate. Today, my party is happy to support the spring Supplementary Estimates as they stand — recognising that that they are inherited — and support starting off the next financial year in a wise and prudent manner. Mr Hamilton: I support the two motions. The Minister of Finance and Personnel said that the subject matter was the cornerstone of departmental expenditure limits: the use of resources and holding Departments to account. Given that point, this is a timely opportunity to discuss the important issue of financial management. One of my first contributions in the Chamber was during the debate on the Main Estimates last year, when I called for sound and strong financial stewardship of the public’s money. At that time, I had cause for concern. First, there was the attitude — which still pervades in some Members in the Chamber although, thankfully, they are not in power — that we could simply call for absolutely everything under the sun and need not worry where the money came from. However, the Alliance Party has now told us where it would get the money from, which is by taxing everybody and everything that moves — and if it does not move, taxing it twice. I will need to catch myself on: I agreed with one thing that Dr Farry said. Mrs I Robinson: Oh dear. Mr Hamilton: I know; someone will have to take my temperature as there is something wrong. I have had a cold recently, and clearly it has gone to my head. 1.00 pm The Alliance Party talked about the size of the public sector and how overinflated it is in a Northern Ireland context. I agree. However, that party supports, for example, the creation of an environmental protection agency, which would have carte blanche to take action. No consideration has been given to what such a body might cost, its size, or the impact that it would have on the public sector. The Alliance Party called again for massive additional investment to be made in a variety of public services, yet it made no mention of any efficiencies that would match that investment. We cannot simply churn that sort of money into the public sector and not expect it to grow. That, therefore, runs contrary to any of the Alliance Party’s comments about the size of the public sector. We are becoming tired of that sort of repetitive speech. However, I am not at all tired of hearing about the Alliance Party’s taxation plans. In fact, I encourage its members to talk more about how they would tax individuals, households and businesses more. I get the sense that, if they kept talking in that way, we would not have to hear too many more of their speeches, because their Benches would be empty after the next election. I therefore encourage that party to talk about its taxation plans at every opportunity. The other cause for concern that has been raised is the poor financial management record that, in conjunction with a culture of underspend and overcommitment, the Executive have inherited from direct rule Administrations. Several Members have spoken already about that culture of underspend. It is important, because during 2004-05 and 2006-07, there was an underspend of nearly £400 million of current expenditure and nearly £500 million of capital underspend. Underspend on that scale renders insignificant any arguments or squabbles between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the other Departments over Budget allocations. If Departments cannot spend the allocations that their Ministers have cried for, the allocation process is seriously called into question. The figures that I quoted compare very unfavourably with those from Westminster, Wales and Scotland. Sometimes there are valid reasons for underspend, particularly capital underspend, if, for example, a project encounters a delay in obtaining planning permission or there is an unforeseen technical problem. However, there is an onus on Departments to identify underspend quickly so that it can be reallocated and spent on projects that are needed here and now. The Committee for Finance and Personnel, of which I am a member, has called for ever-lower targets for underspend in order to reduce it to an acceptable level. Some underspend is inevitable, but we should aspire to achieve the goal of 1%, which would bring us into line with our devolved counterparts in the rest of the UK. Overcommitment is allied to underspend. In the past, it was called “planned overcommitment”, although it rose at such a rate that it seemed more out of control than planned. Departments seemed to have a hit-it-and-hope attitude to underspend. We were all shocked when, during the June monitoring round, the Minister of Finance and Personnel told the House that he had inherited £153 million of overcommitment from the direct rule Administration. That is a staggering figure. Although some underspend is inevitable and is required to accommodate overcommitment of that scale, under direct rule, the figures had risen year on year at such a rate that they were becoming dangerously excessive, and a culture of underspend and overcommitment was becoming endemic. As the Finance Minister said recently, improved financial management by Departments shows that it is justifiable to reduce that amount of overcommitment at a manageable and cautious pace. A tentative downward trajectory is required. I welcome very much the Budget’s targets to reduce gradually overcommitment from its present level to around £60 million in 2010-11. Sensible budget setting is essential; as much as anything, underspend results from poor planning. When Ministers make bids for Budget allocations, they must ensure that they can be realised in the years for which they have been requested. However, as I said, there is encouraging evidence of an improving financial picture. The December monitoring round released £107 million of current expenditure and £132 million of capital — far higher reduced requirements than in previous years — and the reduced requirements this year are, to date, 12% higher than in the whole of the previous year. I welcome the assurances of the Finance Minister that he and his Executive colleagues are working to improve the level and quality of financial management in Departments. I do not doubt that devolution is responsible for the change. Local Ministers have more consideration for the funds at their disposal, have more focus, identify reduced requirements earlier and free up funds for allocation elsewhere, because they care about what goes on, unlike the fly-in, fly-out direct rule Ministers whom we had to endure for many years. As the Finance Minister said, it is essential to embed higher standards of financial management within the public sector. That is particularly pertinent now because of the tight CSR period that applies right across the board and the end-year flexibility situation. The Minister said that there is no certainty with regard to the level of access to underspend from the current year onwards. In some respects, that generates a worrying degree of uncertainty and risk. In its draft Budget report, the Committee for Finance and Personnel stated that: “there is now an even greater onus on departments to manage public finances in a way which achieves the highest possible level of spend within authorised limits and maximises the impact from available resources.” That is a maxim by which all Ministers and all Departments should live. It is absolutely essential that we have good financial management. If we achieve that, it will be a marked improvement on direct rule. Perhaps, on first impressions, it does not have as big an impact on people’s lives as a new hospital, or an improved schools or roads network; but in the long term, it is more important than anything else in the delivery of real change. That is right and proper in any set of circumstances. After all, the money we manage is the people’s money. We inhabit a tighter financial framework than in recent times, and rigorous financial management is a must. I support both motions. Ms J McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I, too, support both motions. The Budget allocations have been a source of debate inside and outside the Chamber. Many issues and concerns around those allocations are still outstanding. However, no programmes or services will be delivered by any Department unless Members support the motions in order to process the allocations and resources to ensure the continuity and delivery of much-needed services. There are a number of major obstacles to the progressive development and delivery by the Executive of the new social, economic and political reality. Central to that is the fact that taxation and public expenditure policy are still set in London. As republicans, we believe that the only context that will truly deliver sustainable economic and social progress is that of an island economy. However, we are faced with the challenges of achieving the best possible outcomes within the economic, social and political realities of the here and now. Sinn Féin will continue to press for a full range of fiscal powers to be made available to the Executive and Assembly. Those powers are required to facilitate the delivery of high-quality public services, the development of the economy, the building of prosperity and the redressing of the inequalities and disadvantage that afflict substantial portions of society. In the short term, and towards the same ends, we seek to ensure the best use and allocation of resources. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel should put in place immediately a transparent mechanism for future equality scrutiny of all public spending plans, in strict and full compliance with section 75 and schedule 9 of the “North of Ireland” Act 1998. That may include the use of external expertise, given the findings of the report on public-sector capacity and the fact that section 75 has not been properly implemented to date. Sinn Féin still has some concerns about the overall resources available for the various stated priorities, including the anti-poverty strategy and the lack of clarity regarding how that money will be utilised across the various Departments in order to meet the stated aims. We hope to see further investment in the Health Service targeted at front-line services, including community and primary care services. Dr Farry: The Member has listed a number of criticisms of the Programme for Government and the Budget, with which many of my colleagues and I agree. Why, therefore, is Sinn Féin supporting both documents, and why did it sign up to them in the Executive? It seems rather bizarre that Sinn Féin Ministers have signed up to the documents, given that the Member, and other Back-Bench Members from her party, have criticised them and identified their flaws. Ms J McCann: As I said at the outset, Sinn Féin still has a number of concerns but, overall, we support the Programme for Government, Budget and investment strategy. I have listed some of our concerns, and we will continue to try to address those. Sinn Féin will continue to campaign for funding to meet the needs of social housing, the arts and community-based services, including youth services. We will lobby Departments to ensure that the priorities in the Programme for Government are reflected in the delivery of services. The upcoming investment conference provides an opportunity to deliver on the important issues of fairness, inclusion and equality by actively and effectively challenging the existing patterns of social and economic disadvantage and using increased prosperity to tackle ongoing poverty. The outcomes of challenging and tackling that poverty and disadvantage and supporting balanced regional development must be central to any future foreign direct investment. We should not compete with the South of Ireland for investment; rather, we should work closely in partnership to attract investment in an all-island context. No one inside or outside the Chamber should be concerned by that, as it can only complement and strengthen the economy as a whole. Much mention has been made of the scrutiny that Departments are subject to, and of their accountability. Departments are not only accountable to Ministers and MLAs; they are also accountable to local people, whose money they spend. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Weir: Given the number of occasions on which we have debated budgetary issues, I have a creeping sense of déjà vu. The same arguments come up time and time again. I hope not to disappoint by reiterating the same arguments from this side of the House. Whatever criticism may be made, that of lack of consultation on the budgetary process cannot hold any degree of substance. Anyone who flicks through that thin volume, ‘Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2007-08’, will see the high level of detail that is provided. One wonders whether my colleague Mr Sammy Wilson, who seems to be a new convert to the environmental cause, will be going apoplectic at the sheer number of pages that are in the document. Nevertheless, the level of detail that is provided allows the fullest possible debate. The spring Supplementary Estimates 2007-08 and the estimates for next year show record levels of investment, which will act as a key driver to our economy. Perhaps I should not make any more references to drivers, because I suspect that at least one party will be touchy on that subject. The Supplementary Estimates will be judged not principally on the figures that are provided, but, as was said during the Budget debate, on the level of delivery. People will look at how money can best be diverted from administration into front-line services. I echo one of the key points that has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues: the drift into underspend and overcommitment under direct rule. They are the two ends of the spectrum; a budgetary process that operates in a bizarre see-saw fashion is not acceptable. I welcome the commitment that the Minister has made to start tackling the issue. When the public see large amounts of underspend and overcommitment, it undermines the credibility of the budgetary process. Delivery, particularly of capital projects, must also be timely. Here I concur, at least for once, with my colleague from North Down Mr Farry that there has been a major problem with capital projects on the education front. 1.15 pm Promises made by direct rule Ministers for capital projects in North Down and other constituencies were simply not delivered; and that key issue must be tackled. However, given the constraints and the inherited position of underspend in the resources available, I welcome the fact that money has been spent wisely. Some £53 million has been allocated to NI Water and £45 million has been allocated to the Roads Service. Some £70 million has been committed to the Department for Social Development for the warm homes scheme, social housing, etc. I am also pleased that money has been allocated to help review and reform public expenditure by the Health Service and the Department of Finance and Personnel, because that can act as a driver for invest-to-save in the future. It is important to ensure that front-line delivery is as good as possible. However, I said that there was a strong feeling of déjà vu about the situation, because, yet again, there was criticism from the SDLP and the Alliance Party, although more restrained than on previous occasions. To be fair to both parties, they seemed to be backing the Supplementary Estimates. However, the SDLP seems to be constantly doing the hokey-cokey — not quite sure whether it is either in or out of the four-party coalition. The Alliance Party appears to agree to a particular budgetary position but takes a different position when it comes to discussions in the Chamber. However, at least the SDLP is willing to support today’s position, so we should be thankful for small mercies. Northern Ireland is spending more money on health than any other part of the United Kingdom. However, although investment has increased, it has not been directed properly to front-line services. Indeed, the increase in the amount of money being spent on administration has massively outstripped any that has gone into front-line services. We need a better Health Service; not simply one that has more money pumped into it. Again, the Alliance Party seems to be taking a schizophrenic attitude towards the Budget. Dr Farry told us that the objective should be to rebalance the economy — presumably by strengthening the private sector. Indeed, there was a concern that too much money is being put into the public sector. However, Dr Farry’s solution to rebalancing the economy is to increase the size of the public sector. The Alliance Party is seeking to increase taxation, and it is berating the Executive for fixing the regional and business rates. One wonders how the economy would be rebalanced by increasing taxation and spending more money. It is essentially the old Soviet command economy. The solution being offered by comrade Farry strikes of tractor farms in the Urals. Indeed, the Alliance Party is adopting the same policies adopted years ago by Mr Brezhnev. One wonders whether such a far-left agenda will cause choking on the Alliance wine-and-cheese circuit or indeed at the parties of its allies — the Green Party — on the nutmeg-and-Perrier circuit. It is the case that public services must be protected if the economy is to be rebalanced and if favourable economic circumstances are to be created to help to grow the private sector. This Budget has a record level of support for public services, but the circumstances must be created to help the private sector to grow. Dr Farry: How does the Member respond to criticism from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland of the Executive’s approach to the regional rate where they argued that the revenue lost would be better invested in supporting the four drivers that have been identified by the Department of Finance and Personnel and the rest of the Executive? Mr Weir: The regional rate has gone up by 60% over five years. If we are going to create the conditions whereby private enterprise can flourish, we need to have an economy that does not overly tax people. Mr Hamilton: Is the Member aware that the domestic regional rate will have to be trebled if the high levels of investment in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety alone that the Alliance Party is suggesting are to be achieved? Given that a 60% increase in the domestic regional rate was imposed during the last five years of direct rule, does the Member agree that the public purse cannot endure any more rates increases? Mr Weir: The level of taxation that the Alliance Party has proposed will mean that, because so little money will be left, people will be given pocket money each week instead of wages. The correct economic circumstances must be created. Historically, economic circumstances that have been created to benefit private investment have also served to grow the economy. The South is an example of that, given that it increased massively its level of private investment. There is much to commend in the Budget. When one gets away from the Alliance Party’s socialist-like doctrines, one will see that the Budget will deliver to the front line of public services. The Budget focuses on efficiency and investment and concentrates on delivery for front-line services. Unlike other Members whose support for the proposals appears to be reluctant, I enthusiastically support the motion. Mr Beggs: A technical process, which is associated with the final departmental estimates for 2007-08, is involved in achieving the spring Supplementary Estimates. I do not know how many members of the public will read the estimates, but it would benefit people to examine them in detail. In particular, I urge Committee members to look at the sections that deal with their relevant Departments, because lessons are to be learned for the long term and some areas deserve additional scrutiny. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has surrendered £81 million in cash out of a total resource budget of £296 million — that is almost one quarter of its budget. Significant increases are planned for subsequent years for that Department and for the Department for Employment and Learning. Any additional money that is given to a Department must be managed carefully; I see it as a warning sign when Departments do not spend the money that they have been allocated. Under the Department of Finance and Personnel’s reform agenda, approximately £150 million was allocated in resource funding, but that has increased by almost one sixth to £178 million. Why is the reform costing so much more than the allocated budget? The Committee for Finance and Personnel, of which I am a member, will have to look closely at that. There are significant variations in the allocations to the Civil Service pension schemes. The summary of estimates shows a present net provision of £273 million and a proposed change of an additional £160 million. That gives a new net provision of £433 million. However, in cash terms, there is presently a requirement for £245 million, but there is a proposed reduction of £200 million. That gives a new requirement of an additional £45 million. There are, therefore, significant movements, and it would be helpful if the Minister were to give further information on what is happening with that. In any budgetary process, it is better if Departments can plan accurately where money will be spent so that significant funds will not have to be altered in that fashion. The Department for Regional Development’s resources have also changed significantly in the Budget period. They have altered by almost one seventh, from £1·65 billion to £1·88 billion. Members are aware of significant changes relating to issues that are connected to water, but it is also worth mentioning roads. Following the December monitoring rounds, there is a traditional tarmacking spree in Northern Ireland. Large amounts of money are spent on tarmacking, filling in potholes or resurfacing roads. Are we getting the best value from the contractors when money is spent in that fashion? Perhaps those in the Committee are best placed to take action on that. The report also contains some proposals that will cost relatively little, but which, nevertheless, expose highly significant U-turns. On page 293 of ‘Spring Supplementary Estimates 2007-08’, it is revealed that the North/South Ministerial Council will receive an additional £212,000 to cover “increased costs for plenary meetings” and: “professional fees associated with the new accommodation project”. It is not a significantly large sum, but that is the first time that I have heard of new accommodation project expenditure. For many years, the Democratic Unionist Party vigorously opposed North/South expenditure, yet now its members plan to invest significant sums upgrading North/South Ministerial Council premises. I leave it to them to explain that. What is being proposed, and what scrutiny have those proposals undergone? The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is best placed to pursue those matters. A colleague who sits on that Committee told me that he is not aware of those proposals. The various Committees must investigate such issues in order to ensure that we get the best value for money and that that money is wisely spent. Concerning the Vote on Account, as I said earlier, several Departments have been awarded significant above-Budget increases — in particular, the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Over the next three years, there will be reduced end-year flexibility, so it will become increasingly important for each Department to carefully manage its expenditure in order to ensure that money is wisely spent within the designated time. We do not want money to be returned to the Treasury; we want it to be well spent in Northern Ireland. Devolution, under the guidance of local Ministers and scrutiny Committees, is the best mechanism for ensuring that. English or Scottish direct rule Ministers would not suffer any major political fallout by returning funds to the Treasury, whereas local politicians will obviously suffer if they fail to manage our money well. Devolution offers the prospect of better-managed funds. The Member from the Alliance Party appeared keen to increase business rates and introduce a local income tax. I oppose such ideas. We have a fragile business community, and we wish to encourage entrepreneurial activity and get more people back into work. There are already too many people who do not contribute to the economy, and any such proposals would create disincentives to achieving those goals. We must encourage more people to be entrepreneurial and to return to work in order to contribute to the economy. I am content to support both the Vote on Account 2008-09 and the spring Supplementary Estimates 2007-08. Mr Attwood: The Minister said that the role of Committees — and, presumably, Members — should be to challenge what is going on in Government Departments in order to achieve better outcomes. I agree with that, and the tone of my speech will reflect that; however, I do not agree with his assertion that the role of Committees should not be one of opposition. That would put a straightjacket on Committees. Given the debate about the 11-plus, even the DUP would not want to be in such a straightjacket when dealing with possible education reforms. I wonder whether the DUP members of the Education Committee were surprised when the Minister of Finance indicated that they should not adopt an opposition role concerning the 11-plus. 1.30 pm That said, I want to address two or three themes. The Minister said, quite rightly in my view, that we should not wait three years to find out what might potentially be errors in the overall Budget. I want to raise two issues around this Budget, in a very genuine way. The first concerns research, development and innovation. In the Irish Government’s ‘National Development Plan 2007-2013’, the Taoiseach stated that: “We will ensure that our enterprise sector stays at the leading edge globally, by continuing to attract key inward investment, by further stimulating the indigenous sector, by renewed emphasis on” — and this is the critical part — “worker training and skills and … by expansion of our science, technology and innovation capacity”. I have said in the House before that although people inside the Irish Government affirm the reduction in corporation tax as a catalyst for economic development, they also assert that skills, research, technology and innovation sustain inward and indigenous investment. I continue to be concerned that although there has been some adjustment to the Budget, with respect to R&D and innovation, it is not adequate. During the six years of the national development plan in the South, £25·8 billion will be invested in training, skills, schools and higher education. Yet the draft Budget that came before the House some months ago had no Budget line for dedicated innovation and research. Quite properly, the Minister responded to that situation by agreeing that an innovation fund would be created. However, as I understand it, that fund is worth £90 million in total, of which £38 million is to be contributed by the Irish Government. That means that our contribution to innovation at this phase of our history is going to be a little over £50 million. Contrast that figure with the six-year investment in the South. Are we going to be able to position ourselves in the global economy around the critical issue of R&D and innovation when our contribution to the innovation fund is £50 million? When the figures in the innovation fund are analysed, further questions arise. Part of the fund is actually filling in gaps left by changes in science research investment funds. Are we in a position to leapfrog in the way that we must in order to have the successful and sustainable economy that I, the Minister and everybody else wishes to see? The second issue that I want to mention is training. This may be premature, because the final figures are not in, but it is only fair that I flag it up to the Assembly and the Minister. Unless we have the necessary skills base to grow our economy and ensure that the 6,500 jobs promised in the Programme for Government come and can be serviced, we are going to be in trouble. Figures given to the Committee for Employment and Learning on 18 January — and they may have been adjusted in the past 12 days — suggest that the number of level 2 and level 3 apprentices in the North has fallen by nearly 20% compared with last year, from over 7,500 to a little under 5,500 — a drop of 2,000. If one bores down into those figures, one discovers that, as of 18 January, 5,492 people were in training, 116 of whom were at level 3 — skilled apprenticeships — and 2,435 were at level 2; the figures may have been adjusted more favourably since then. I do not wish to prejudge, but where level 3 skills are concerned, the situation may become critical, resulting in a black hole for our skills base. That black hole will not serve our economy well for indigenous and inward investment economic opportunities. However, the situation may be even more critical if comparisons are made with figures in the South. There are targets in the South, over the next six years, to have 48% of young people training at skills levels 6 to 10 — higher and further education — and 45% at skills levels 4 and 5. Only 7% come in under performance targets at skills levels 2 and 3. If the North is to compete in the global market and leapfrog over all those years of lost hope and lost opportunity, how will our skills base service indigenous and inward investment opportunities? I want to be positive and constructive. If the Minister is correct that we should not have to wait three years to discover the real situation, I am putting it on all Members’ radar screens that, in this phase, we may not be in as good a place as we would have hoped. In the Minister’s response to the Budget debate on 29 January, he said of the ending of the 11-plus: “I accept that the proposal in question is of great significance and is, potentially, hugely expensive … If new pressures arise, clearly there will be decisions for the Executive to take.” — [Official Report, Vol 27, No 2, p151, col 2]. Two weeks after the Minister made that statement, is he any the wiser about the potentially “hugely expensive” consequences of the decision on the 11-plus? Are we still facing a black hole? Mr McQuillan: History is being made today, and it is an honour to be able to take part in the debate and support the motions. Those motions enable Departments to get on with doing their job of running, for example, health, social security, roads and the education programmes that have been approved by the Assembly. If the Assembly does not agree to the motion, there is, in the most extreme circumstances, the possibility of Departments’ grinding to a halt because of a lack of funding. Today’s motions will ensure that funding continues uninterrupted, and I am sure that all Members can realise the need for the Assembly to support the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Although the mechanisms required may appear boring to some Members, it must be remembered that that is the means by which Departments receive the funding that they require for their programmes. Therefore, the debate is important, and I sincerely hope that all Members will support the motions. Lest any of us forget, governance is not only about the exciting debates but day-to-day basic housekeeping tasks, such as today’s motions. Some Members have moaned and groaned about the Budget provisions. I hope that today they will realise the importance of the motion and support it; although, undoubtedly, they will have another moan in the process. It is a privilege for us to be part of the process of developing schemes for new water and sewerage infrastructure; supporting rural transport; investing in new trains and buses; funding the Food Standards Agency; and continually upgrading the road network. We are talking about all that work today; not just about the motion from the Minister of Finance and Personnel. The Programme for Government depends on wise and prudent spending on its priorities through the Budget. First, the money must be given to the Departments to spend. Let us do that today with a unanimous voice, and let us continue to work for the people of Northern Ireland now and in the future. I seek assurance from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that the £12 million that has been set aside for the Minister of Education for the classroom assistants’ dispute will be spent on that issue. Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for today’s announcement. The first issue that I want to mention has been discussed by the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development at length over the past few months and relates to the proposed development of the former Forkhill army base. Although some proposals for the site have great merit — I and other members of the Committee support them — I am concerned that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is proposing to take the lead. The proposals contain plans for social housing, childcare facilities and enterprise units, none of which requires the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to take the lead. They are very worthy causes, and I suggest that the Department for Social Development and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment take the lead. I have asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how he proposes to deal with the matter, and I look forward to the proposal being led by another Department. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development can provide an input to the proposals but the finances talked about would be better spent in another area of the Department rather than be used by it in a leading role. That is especially the case given that this week we learnt that the Department is going to axe a very important course at Loughrey College. The communications course accounts for one third of students at the college, and I am concerned that the Department is planning to take something very successful out of circulation while it spends money on something else that is not in its remit. I am also concerned about the amount of money that is being transferred to the Department for Regional Development for road maintenance. Over the past few years, I have noticed that road maintenance gets quite a bit of surplus money at the end of each year. The constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone falls badly behind as regards the road maintenance budget. County Fermanagh has around 9% of the road network but receives only 6% of the road maintenance budget. I would like to see more diversion of end-year funding into road maintenance and especially into a constituency in which there is poor public transport and no rail system. If money is being directed into the railway system in other parts of the Province, my constituency should get its fair share of the road maintenance budget. Indeed, any additional money should be diverted to that budget. 1.45 pm Mr Gallagher: I, too, thank the Minister for bringing the Supplementary Estimates to the Assembly, thus providing an opportunity for further debate. The Minister mentioned Civil Service reform programmes, and I want to ask about the childcare voucher scheme in particular. As Members know, that scheme, which helps to offset the cost of childcare, is used by almost all major employers. Many employees opt into the scheme in lieu of some of their wages. Given that childcare costs can range between £800 and £900 a month, there is growing annoyance and dissatisfaction among many civil servants that they are not yet entitled to participate in the salary-sacrifice scheme. On a previous occasion, the Minister gave a commitment that the scheme would be introduced for civil servants in 2008. Can the Minister assure the House that the necessary funds are included in the Supplementary Estimates to introduce a new payroll scheme for the Civil Service? Will the salary-sacrifice scheme be introduced in conjunction with that? In confirming that, will he give a date as to when the scheme is likely to be introduced? As Members know, one reason that we in the SDLP opposed the Budget was because of our serious concerns about the implications that it would have for educational reforms. Those implications will affect both primary and post-primary schools. Towards the end of this year, for the last time, children will sit the 11-plus. We can see, therefore, that educational reform will move ahead quickly. I restate the SDLP’s concerns and remind Members about parents’ and children’s uncertainties. Those uncertainties will have an impact on schools; in particular, many post-primary schools will have to make adjustments to accommodate the broad curriculum that they will have to deliver. Many will require more facilities, and some will require additional or even new premises, the cost of which will have to be taken into consideration. Some may need a completely new building. Therefore, there are grave concerns about whether funding will be available to support all those educational reforms. As the SDLP spokesperson on the environment, I will mention again the report ‘Foundations for the Future’, which was published nearly 12 months ago. That recommended the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. I am sure that you recall, Mr Speaker, that after a debate on the matter, the majority of Members voted for the establishment of such a body. There is dissatisfaction at the performance of the Environment and Heritage Service that goes further than just to elected representatives. Indeed, the Waste Management Advisory Board has documented that criticism in a report, as has a Westminster Select Committee. In October, another scathing report on the matter was published as part of the criminal justice review. Having examined all those points and taken into consideration the public’s growing concern about ensuring that the environment is adequately protected in the future, it is clear that once the Assembly makes its decision on the matter, the money needs to be available to act quickly to establish the independent environmental protection agency. The SDLP welcomed, in the Minister’s Budget statement, the opportunities for economic investment that would, it was hoped, impact on all areas. However, we now have some concerns. Last week, Invest Northern Ireland announced its new strategy, which made it very clear that, in future, its efforts to attract foreign inward investment will focus on Belfast and Derry. That is a worrying statement, which sends out a message that Invest Northern Ireland, in spite of the comments about it and the criticism of it on the Floor of this House, is still not taking seriously the need to address those areas that, historically, have been economically disadvantaged. Side by side with that is investment in tourism, which, again, the Minister highlighted in his Budget statement. There is a concern that the five signature projects established by the Tourist Board will attract the greatest share of the tourism budget. Two counties in Northern Ireland do not have signature projects — Fermanagh and Tyrone. As a representative for the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I want to draw attention to the concern that the money available for the tourism sector will be swallowed up by the areas with signature projects and that the other areas will be further disadvantaged. Dr Deeny: I thank the Minister for his statement. I want to make some comments and voice some concerns about health matters, which is my area of interest. Of course, there can never be enough money for the Health Service. However, I am well aware, having seen inefficiencies in the Health Service down the years — administrative duplication and sometimes triplication, for example — that a balance must be struck between input and efficiency savings. Having said that, I am disappointed that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety settled for an uplift of only £17 million in the final Budget, which is less than half of 1% of his entire budget. My concern is whether there will be sufficient funds to address the points raised in the report by Professor Appleby and deliver the health services that the public need and deserve. Will there be adequate funding to deliver the mental-health services needed and implement the important recommendations of the Bamford Review? Mental health is an important issue for the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and, as a GP, I know that a properly funded service benefits everyone. As Members know, Northern Ireland has the highest rate of economic inactivity in the UK, and 40% of people who are economically inactive have mental-health problems. I feel that it is, therefore, important to say, both as a doctor and as a member of the Health Committee, that every area must have sufficient finance, and not just for treatment. Healthcare providers have wised up to the fact that modern healthcare is not just about waiting until the illness occurs; it is about preventing ill health. That is vital. Furthermore, there is — rightly — a shift towards the community. Communities can play their part in preventing ill health and mental ill health. To ensure that that happens, it is necessary to direct funding into the community. Community care in tackling mental-health issues is, again, vital. Having worked as a doctor for well over 20 years, I have no doubt that good emotional and mental health leads to good physical health. With that comes a more economically active and productive population, and that benefits all of us, as well as the Northern Ireland economy. I was delighted to hear the Minster say that every MLA must hold Departments to account in whatever way possible. That is important, and it is our duty as elected representatives. What has been said time and time again must be borne through, and we must see to it that money is spent wisely, and nowhere more so than in the area of health. On the subject of front-line services, I refer to my own area. Just two hours ago, I heard of another baby in County Tyrone — I do not yet know whether it is a boy or a girl — born on the floor, and delivered by the father. That makes roughly one a month, which is a shocking situation in a developed country. That is where front-line services are; there is a deficiency, and that must be addressed. For years, I have said that, although good managers and administrators are necessary in the Health Service, we do not need an over-abundance of them. Efficiency savings can be made there. With regard to healthcare and spending money wisely, people are sometimes short-sighted. For example, drugs called statins reduce cholesterol and prevent heart attacks and strokes. There is the view that they are too expensive and that they should not be prescribed. That is short-sighted. Take, as an example, a patient who is not treated and ends up having a stroke. If the patient survives but is left disabled or paralysed, there will be the cost of occupational therapy, physiotherapy, long stays in hospital wards, then, potentially, years of long-term community care. We must think sensibly and futuristically as regards healthcare. Money spent sensibly on prevention will mean a decrease in waiting lists and in the occupancy of hospital beds. There must be high investment in health, together with major efficiency savings. We may then have a Health Service to compare with those in the rest of the developed world. With that, I guarantee that we will have a happier, healthier population that is more economically active and productive. The Minister can take my word for it that the Health Committee will hold the Department to account, particularly on financial matters. Mr B Wilson: The Executive’s five-point strategy includes the objective of protecting and enhancing our environment and natural resources. The Budget statement proposed to improve the quality of Northern Ireland’s natural and built environment and heritage, and to reduce our carbon footprint. 2.00 pm Sustainability was the key theme. Building a sustainable future is a crucial requirement if the Executive’s economic, social and environmental policies are to be realised. To achieve those worthy objectives, additional resources are necessary. However, nothing in the supply figures suggests that those resources will be provided. There has been a long-standing underfunding of environmental issues in Northern Ireland, and it looks as though the Supplementary Estimates will allow that to continue. Northern Ireland workers make significantly less use of public transport than their UK counterparts. In 2004-06, 6% of the population in Northern Ireland used public transport, compared to 12% in the UK. However, the proportion of the DRD budget that will be invested in public transport is due to fall over the next 10 years. If we hope to increase the use of public transport, we must provide additional funding. The commitment to introduce a rapid transit system is welcome. However, consideration has been given to that project for at least a decade, and work on it will not start until 2011. That proposal was contained in the regional transportation strategy for Northern Ireland for 2002-12, and it formed part of the 2002 Programme for Government. Again, funding for it should have been provided. The supply figures should have mentioned that funding in order that the project, which will greatly reduce pollution in the city, might be expedited. The Green Party is disappointed at the imbalance that exists between capital expenditure on roads and on public transport. By 2010-11, when that imbalance has been somewhat dissipated, we will still be spending 160% more on roads than on the rest of the transportation infrastructure put together. The Executive’s aim is to reduce the carbon footprint by at least 25% by 2025, but there is no suggestion either of how that can be achieved or of the provision of additional funding. I welcome that objective, but I am concerned that no interim target has been set and that there is no evidence that there has been any change in policy to meet the 2025 target. Such long-term targets are ineffective and will achieve nothing unless they are accompanied both by changes in policy and by adequate funding. To achieve the target, we must get commuters out of cars and on to public transport. However, an examination of the DRD capital investment programme for the next 10 years shows a 4:1 ratio in favour of roads. That differential is increasing. If we are ever to decrease our carbon emissions, we must do more to encourage the use of public transport. I am also concerned that the budget for the Environment and Heritage Service is being reduced over the next three years, despite our having been assured that that body will be able to carry out the role of the proposed environmental protection agency. Figures show that Northern Ireland also has the lowest share of electricity that is produced from renewable energy sources — 1·9 % compared to the EU average of 13·7 %. However, there is no obvious additional funding to meet the objective of increasing the use of renewable energy sources. The Executive state that climate change and rising fossil-fuel prices have focused attention on finding renewable energy sources. Again, the supply figures give no evidence of that. The most disappointing aspect of the figures is that nothing was included for the renewal of the Reconnect grants. The decision to abolish them and the change in building regulations sound the death knell for many small businesses in Northern Ireland. Over the past two years, DETI has encouraged firms to develop skills in the installation of renewable energy systems. Its staff were encouraged to take courses, which were funded by the Department, at the Renewable Energy Installer Academy. More than 800 installers completed those courses. That meant that an industry that was based in new technology was evolving and students were developing skills that were increasingly in demand, North and South. However, that developing industry depended on a demand for microgeneration systems. The end of the Reconnect grants and the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s decision to amend building regulations have destroyed that demand. The installers rightly feel betrayed. They argued that they had been let down by the Government and that they wasted time and money in acquiring those skills, only to find no demand for them. Some of the installers even said that they would be forced out of business if the Reconnect grants, or similar support, were not made available immediately. The decision runs counter to the Executive’s claim that they intend to encourage growth in our indigenous private sector. Northern Ireland is losing small businesses that could develop into much larger ones. That is a betrayal of everyone that is involved in the renewable energy scheme, and I appeal to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to find a way to support the installers. We cannot afford to lose a large number of small businesses that are at the cutting edge of technology. The Executive claim to be concerned about climate change, but the policies that they intend to implement will have a detrimental effect on the environment. The Executive claim to be green, and to support sustainability, but there is nothing in the Budget to substantiate those claims. In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary. The abolition of Reconnect grants to small renewable energy systems and the reduction in the percentage of the Department for Regional Development’s budget for public transport, together with the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s recent decision to change building regulations so that the inclusion of renewables in new buildings is no longer mandatory have totally negated the Executive’s claim to support sustainability. Mr Speaker: Question Time begins at 2.30 pm, so I propose, by leave, to suspend the sitting until that time. We will take a private notice question at 4.00 pm, after which the Minister of Finance and Personnel will make his winding-up speech on the Supply resolutions. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 2.06 pm. On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) — 2.30 pm EDUCATION Repair of School Buildings: East Derry/Londonderry 1. Mr G Robinson asked the Minister of Education to outline the Department’s budgetary provision for the repair of school buildings in the East Derry/Londonderry constituency in (i) 2008; and (ii) 2009. (AQO 1802/08) The Minister of Education (Ms Ruane): Tá mé tiomanta d’fhoirgnimh scoile a fheabhsú. Tá i bhfad níos mó i gceist ná deis a chur ar na foirgnimh atá ann cheana féin. Beidh ról tábhachtach ag an infheistíocht chapitil, ar tháinig méadú uirithi le blianta deireannacha, ag feabhsú na timpeallachta foghlama. I am committed to improving the condition of school buildings. That involves much more than repairs to existing buildings. Capital investment, which has increased in recent years, will play a significant part in the creation of an improved learning environment. My aim is for a sustainable schools estate that is planned on an area basis to meet local needs. It will comprise modern schools that are managed — individually and through collaboration — on a sound financial footing and that provide high-quality education for all children. In recent years, capital investment has been starting to have an impact, and that will continue in the years to come. Over the next three years, allocations to my Department from the budget for schools capital are: £205 million in 2008-09; £244 million in 2009-2010; and £195 million in 2010-11. That funding will help to ensure that we continue to progress a significant programme of projects for renewal, upgrading and refurbishment. In addition to capital funding, my Department includes an additional maintenance budget in funding that is allocated to education and library boards each year. That funding is allocated specifically to help boards to address high-priority maintenance needs in schools. In the next three years, planned additional maintenance allocations for all boards are: £18 million in 2008-09; £19 million in 2009-2010; and £19 million in 2010-11. The amount of funding that has been allocated to maintenance by the Western Education and Library Board and the North Eastern Education and Library Board, which are responsible for education services in East Derry, is decided each year as a portion of the block grant. The boards will not be in a position to establish their planned maintenance funding for 2008-09 and 2009-2010 until after the block grants for those years have been allocated. I assure Members of my commitment to provide a modern schools estate that is fit for the twenty-first century. Capital investment together with a sustainable approach to the management of the schools estate will achieve that and will lead to a more efficient use of resources. Mr G Robinson: I have received complaints from parents and school staff in my East Londonderry constituency. Will the Minister agree that the money that she is wasting on daft ideas about changes to a perfectly good world-class education system would be more wisely invested in the essential maintenance of existing school buildings that are decaying by the day? Ms Ruane: I do not agree with the Member. It is important to have a world-class education system. People are aware of the academic excellence that is part of our education system. However, people are also aware of the tail of underachievement. Perhaps the Member is OK with the fact that 12,000 young people leave our schools each year without GCSE English and mathematics; it is certainly not OK for me. We must provide a world-class education system for all our children and young people. It worries me that some Members do not understand the importance of that. Capital funding is also important in making our school buildings fit for the twenty-first century. The Member will be glad to know that, in the past two years, £4·3 million capital funding has been spent in his East Derry constituency, of which £2·6 million was spent in 2005-06 and £1·7 million in 2006-07. Three major capital projects are being progressed in East Derry. They have a total estimated cost of £10·1 million. The sum of £1·1 million has been allocated to the amalgamation of Largy, Dungiven and Burnfoot primary schools, and work started on that project in August 2007. A new building for Ballykelly Primary School has been allocated £3·3 million, and the estimated start date for that project is November 2008. The amalgamation of Lime Grove and Glasvey special schools has been allocated the sum of £5·7 million, and the estimated start date for that project is May 2009. Since 2003, funding of £865 million has been announced for 132 major capital projects across the North of Ireland. Mr Dallat: I welcome the news from the Minister that money is being spent in East Derry, and I look forward to further announcements of that kind. I also agree that too many children leave school without basic skills. I ask the Minister for an assurance that capital projects that have been approved but held up have not been held up because of doubts about the future of post-primary education or sustainable schools. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat as an cheist sin. Thank you for that question. Five other planned maintenance works were postponed or cancelled for reasons other than budget pressures. The installation of double glazing at Kilrea Primary School was held up because of high contract price. That work will be re-tendered in 2008-09 to achieve better value for money, pending availability of finance. Work at Garvagh High School on external redecoration and replacement windows was cancelled due to concerns about long-term enrolment. Resurfacing work at Ballytober Primary School was cancelled due to the installation of new mobile classrooms, and repairs were carried out to bitmac surfaces only. Re-roofing of Culcrow Primary School was held up because of problems with asbestos removal, and work on a replacement roof is planned for 2008-09. Work on external redecoration and replacement windows for Coleraine College has been cancelled due to a proposed new-build scheme. The Western Education and Library Board postponed two planned maintenance works in East Derry because of in-year budget pressures: window replacement at Limavady Grammar School and external redecoration at Ballykelly Primary School. The board hopes to carry out both works in 2008-09. Tenders for the window replacement work at Limavady Grammar School are currently being accepted. The North Eastern Education and Library Board has postponed one maintenance works in East Derry because of in-year budget pressures — external redecoration at Cullycapple Primary School. The board hopes to carry out that work in 2008-09. Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tugaim mo bhuíochas don Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she further outline her existing plans and tell me whether she feels they are on course to be delivered in time? Ms Ruane: The Department of Education has a programme of investment that will update the schools estate to meet future education needs. That programme includes major building projects to improve the schools estate — including new schools, extensions and refurbishments. The programme also includes a range of minor works, including provision of specialist accommodation, health-and-safety works and improved access for people with disabilities. The Department of Education and the Strategic Investment Board are working collaboratively to introduce new procurement and delivery arrangements that will handle the increased level of investment effectively. Classroom Assistants’ Dispute 2. Mr Newton asked the Minister of Education to detail the progress she had made in resolving the classroom assistants’ dispute. (AQO 1796/08) Ms Ruane: Is conspóid chasta fhada í seo idir na boird oideachais agus leabharlainne mar fhostaitheoirí agus na ceardchumainn. Tá socruithe ann trína ndéantar caidreamh tionsclaíoch, agus ní bheadh sé oiriúnach domsa páirt dhíreach a bheith agam sna cainteanna. This has been a longstanding and complex dispute between the education and library boards, as employers, and the trade unions. There are established arrangements through which industrial relations are conducted, and it is simply not appropriate for me to become directly involved in that negotiation machinery. However, having accepted that the matter had gone on for far too long, I undertook to do everything in my power to encourage and assist both sides to reach a resolution that would prevent any further disruption to children, parents and schools, and which would enable classroom assistants to receive the money that they are due. Consequently, during the course of the dispute, I met and corresponded with representatives from management side, a wide range of officials from the four unions involved, classroom assistants, political representatives and school principals. A collective agreement on the management side offer was reached at a meeting of the joint negotiating council on 30 November 2007, through unanimous vote on the management side and a majority vote on the trade union side. I will outline the main elements of that agreement, the first of which is a buyout of historic terms and conditions. All classroom assistants will receive a one-off payment of £2,478 or £1,603, depending on their length of service. The outcomes of the job evaluation will be implemented based on three new grades: classroom assistant general, classroom assistant special needs, and classroom assistant additional special needs. Revised salaries and arrears will be paid on that basis. The boards have agreed to implement substantial pay-protection arrangements and have agreed that no current classroom assistant will lose out on their pension as a result of the implementation of job evaluations. I have instituted a ministerial review of the planning and management of the education workforce in schools. The boards and trade unions have agreed to work together to address other issues such as classroom assistants’ qualifications, pay structures, terms and conditions and career development. Although NIPSA voted against the proposed offer, the agreement is binding on the boards under the constitution of the joint negotiating committee. I have been advised that the rules and constitution of the joint negotiation committee have been agreed by all parties, including NIPSA. Letters were sent to all classroom assistants by the respective boards in December 2007 explaining the terms of the agreement and inviting their acceptance by 31 March 2008. I welcome that agreement, which represents significant progress for pupils, parents, schools and classroom assistants. Mr Newton: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she accept that job evaluations are underpinned by the principle that an individual employee, whose job is being evaluated, will not lose out financially after the outcome of the process? Furthermore, will she comment on the current claims that special-needs classroom assistants will have their hourly rate reduced by as much as 95p an hour? Ms Ruane: I have answered the question, and I will repeat my answers. The outcome of the job evaluations has been agreed by the joint negotiating committee, and will be implemented based on three new grades: the classroom assistant general, classroom assistant special needs and classroom assistant additional special needs. As I said, revised salaries and arrears will be paid on that basis. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has the Floor. Ms Ruane: I am answering the question. The boards have agreed to implement substantial pay-protection arrangements, and have agreed that no current classroom assistant will lose out on their pension as a result of |