Arlene Foster
Fermanagh and South Tyrone · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Yet, like too many projects, it has been tied up in legal wrangles. Too many infrastructure projects are being swallowed up in the courts. We need to improve the expertise in infrastructure delivery. We need better infrastructure for the next generation, but key projects being delayed by 10-plus years is unsustainable.”
“Any agreement involves compromises but NDNA had two central pillars that, I believe, remain important: ambition for devolution and a new cultural deal. The breadth and depth of issues that NDNA set us all to deliver on would have been enough to fill an entire term or perhaps more, let alone two years of government.”
“That confidence-and-supply agreement will leave a legacy but also highlights our challenges. Some £150 million has been rolled out via Project Stratum to bring broadband to rural areas and leave Northern Ireland as the best-connected region in Europe. When it is completed, the project will be transformational to our economy.”
“However, such short-term advantage comes at the cost of long-term harm to relationships. It is not a real partnership. Imbalance and instability are built in that will fester and deteriorate. If Brussels continues to think that the protocol is enough, it is in denial.”
“Colleagues inside and outside the House know very well that all periods of leadership must come to an end. That is why, when we are privileged and, indeed, honoured to hold such a position, we must not waste a moment in frivolous brinkmanship but forge ahead on behalf of those whom we represent.”
“The recommendations of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) are to be taken forward as well. I encourage all of you to do all of it, to take it forward in its totality and to speak of and implement it as one complete, independent package: a new cultural deal for Northern Ireland's new century.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,345 lines we hold for Arlene Foster, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 45 of 67.
“I have dealt with the in-year reductions that were mentioned by Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mr Murphy and, I think, Mr Attwood. <BR /> <BR />Conor Murphy referred to Greece. Whatever about the awful situation that they find themselves in now, the Government in Greece have a democratic mandate and, therefore, should be respected for what is going on in that part of the world. Similarly, the United Kingdom Government, who are our national Government, also have a democratic mandate through our national Parliament. That has to be respected. When we talk about respecting each other's mandates, it is important that we respect everybody's mandates, not just our own and not just people we want to support.”
“I hope that the Member is not saying that if there is a benefit to come to Northern Ireland I should say, "No, I am not taking that money, because we have a final balanced Budget and, therefore, I cannot take any more money from the Treasury." <BR /> <BR />Mrs Kelly also said that one of the reasons why we should not vote for the Budget today is that there is no Programme for Government. Of course, that is not right. There is a Programme for Government. The Executive, including her Minister, have agreed to roll forward the 2011-15 Programme for Government to embrace this year. That will happen; it will roll forward, with new targets being delivered against it. Of course, next year a new Programme for Government will be delivered that is based on what we receive under the spending review for 2016-19.”
“That goes to the heart of it. If you are saying that that is what you understood it to be, I think that you are mistaken. You have to put it in the context of what happens every other year. We are not taking it out of the normal budgetary process and saying, "That is sacrosanct; you cannot touch it". <BR /> <BR />We are in a devolved Administration and, therefore, have to be dealt with through Barnett consequentials when issues happen at Westminster. Indeed, on many occasions, we have benefited.”
“We benefit on some occasions, as I say, and we benefited to the tune of £11 million on the last occasion that there were changes. On this occasion, we have a Budget cut of £33 million in resource DEL and £5 million in capital. Of course, it is concerning that that should come to us and that we need to make representations. However, to suggest that that is unusual in the budgetary process is simply not correct. <BR /> <BR />On the question of us not having a —”
“I think that all of us want to try to deal with the issues before us, and while some might have different views and want to make commentary, I do not think that it is right to refer to Her Majesty's Government as "donkeys", which is what Mr Ó Muilleoir was trying to do. <BR /> <BR />This is something that the SDLP has latched on to about the budgetary process, but Mrs Kelly said that the Westminster Government have broken the Stormont House Agreement by having in-year cuts. She said that, because of that, they have broken their word and that that is dreadful and all the rest. Of course, we have in-year monitoring and in-year cuts. Indeed, we sometimes benefit from in-year budgetary issues. That happens every single year, and there is no difference in this year.”
“I think we recognise that there are parts of the north-east and the north-west that certainly need dealt with as well. <BR /> <BR />I was a bit surprised that Mr Ó Muilleoir liked his Wilkins Micawber comments. I am not sure what his wife would have to say about that. I think it is wrong to talk about the Somme, which, of course, was very serious. Indeed, when we look back at the sacrifice that happened 99 years ago tomorrow, we can see that it is wrong to talk about lions being led by donkeys and to make a reference to national Ministers in that respect. I am not sure whether it is even parliamentary language to call Ministers in Westminster "donkeys", but certainly it is not something that I want to be associated with.”
“No, not at all. I do not know whether the Member was in the House during my Question Time today, but I said that I felt that, although it is important to deal with the deficit, we need also to have cognisance of the different regional parts of the United Kingdom. Whilst the speed and way in which the deficit is being dealt with may be good for London and the south-east, it certainly has impacts on other regions of the United Kingdom. That is where we need to point out the differences, and that formed part of the discussion that I had with my Welsh counterpart — how we could make a strong argument for Wales, Northern Ireland and, undoubtedly, Scotland, as well, it has to be said, for regions of England.”
“If we are to quote from IMF discussion notes, it is important that we give a full picture of what the note has to say and not just quote selectively.”
“It does talk about austerity and the need to deal with issues in an appropriate way, but it also talks about the fact that debt is bad for growth. It talks about the different ways to deal with the deficit and national debt. What I want to say to him is that, whilst it is an important document, it is a discussion note and does not represent IMF views or policies. It is put out there to start a discussion about national policies. As I said during Question Time today, Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the IMF, said that she had underestimated the strength of growth in the United Kingdom economy. Critically, she also said:”
“To do that, we needed a Budget in place rather than, as he put it, keeping people in poverty and taking away the rungs from the ladders that allow them to get out of poverty. He and I worked on an economic inactivity strategy, which was, I think, a good strategy that had good potential to move forward. I note that Mr Ramsey has joined us, and he lobbied hard for that economic inactivity strategy. I deeply regret that, because of the situation that we find ourselves in, we will really struggle to find funding to deliver it. That is one of the difficulties in which we find ourselves, and it is very regrettable. <BR /> <BR />Mr Ó Muilleoir talked about the famous IMF discussion note, about which there has been much discussion. He gave the narrow interpretation that it dealt only with the issue of needless austerity being bad for the economy.”
“You cannot just say, "I am voting against this because I can, and it'll go through anyway". That is not a responsible thing to do. What is responsible is to stand up and say why you are voting against the Budget and what your alternatives are. I have not heard any of that from Mr Agnew in his contribution. <BR /> <BR />Dr Farry said that the principle of consent had been misinterpreted last week. He said that some parties were questioning the legitimacy of the United Kingdom Government and breaching the almost sacrosanct Belfast Agreement. He said that we needed to have properly funded public services and a properly funded public health scheme for early years and for all of the different parts of the Administration.”
“<BR /> <BR />Dr Farry indicated that the Alliance Party would be supporting the Budget not because it has a great love for this particular Budget — it has made that very clear throughout this Budget debate — but because it is the responsible thing to do as regards the delivery of public service. He made reference to the fact that there have been many calls for leadership over this past period of time, but he believes — I concur with him — that the actions of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Green are plunging Northern Ireland into a very difficult place. Mr Agnew can say that he believes that he is only one person speaking against the Executive, but he still has to take responsibility for what he is voting for. He is voting against the Budget, and, if there is no Budget, there are no public services — it is as simple as that.”
“I am well aware that Sinn Féin's position is that it wants to see full fiscal devolution whilst not dealing with the fact that we have a £9·6 billion deficit in relation to what we receive from Westminster. I know that it does not agree with those figures, but, even from its figures — it says that there is £3 billion of a deficit — how are we going to deal with that under full fiscal devolution? I say very strongly that we need to put our house in order before we start to look at any further fiscal devolution or seek any new powers. We should do what is best for Northern Ireland and deal with the welfare reform difficulties in front of us at the moment.”
“At a UK level, we produce 4% of GDP across the world, so you can see the scale of the issue that is before the new Administration at Westminster and why they believe that there is a need to deal with it. Of course, we differ in relation to how we deal with the large welfare bill, but that is why they believe that they need to deal with the issue. It is clear that the block allocation for us cannot take the additional cost in terms of where we are in relation to welfare reform. Therefore, we need to have welfare reform implemented so that we have the wherewithal and the sustainable Budget — I will come to Mr Attwood's point in a moment — to move forward and to have public services delivered in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Ms Boyle also made reference to wider fiscal powers.”
“I will come back to Mr Ó Muilleoir's point in relation to the IMF documentation, but certainly the way in which we have been able to deal with the deficit at a national level means that we have space and that we will see a surplus coming by the end of the decade. That is from the independent OBR. <BR /> <BR />Michaela Boyle talked about the 8 July announcement, as did others. I note that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions have reaffirmed the Government's commitment to dealing with the UK welfare system. They have made it very clear that the reason that they are doing that is that the UK accounts for 7% of all welfare spending throughout the world but has only 1% of its population. Therefore, they believe that welfare needs to be dealt with.”
“One of the issues that I discussed with my Welsh counterpart was how we were going to approach the spending review and whether there were things that we could do together in relation to it. <BR /> <BR />Paul Girvan welcomed the debate and said that, on behalf of the DUP, he would be supporting the Budget. He said very strongly that we should make no mistake about the fact that, if we did not implement welfare reform, our Budget situation would become untenable. I have made that point ad nauseam, some would say, over the past couple of weeks. He made the point as well that we benefit, of course, from being part of the United Kingdom and that, whilst we need to repair the UK deficit, it is manageable. In fact, the OBR projects a UK Budget surplus by the end of this decade.”
“We anticipate that the national Government will publish their spending review in the autumn for the period 2016-17 and beyond. Whilst there is no certainty on the outcome of that spending review, I expect that it will follow the overall UK forecasts as set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). That means that resource DEL will continue to be constrained, with capital DEL growing in line with inflation. Ultimately, however, local budgets will be influenced by local decisions, including decisions on welfare reform and everything else in the Stormont House Agreement. Of course, our Budget process for next year cannot proceed until we have our spending review outcome.”
“For my part, I am quite happy to endorse changes to the financial process. <BR /> <BR />Mr Bradley also talked about the challenges that lie ahead and the need to look at cross-cutting financial issues. I absolutely agree with that. As he will know, the OECD is delving into different issues that affect the Executive. The draft report will come in September, when we will be able to look at some of the cross-cutting issues in depth. There is a requirement for regular scrutiny. I entirely agree with him about the role of the Committee. The Committee has a hugely important role to play, not just to scrutinise for scrutinising's sake but to engage with and inform the public and to be their voice in the Assembly. I hope that the Committee will continue to do that and that we will be able to deal with that issue in the future.”
“Of course, if the savings are not delivered, each of the Departments that I have mentioned will have to live within its means and take into account the savings that it has factored in. <BR /> <BR />I, like my predecessor, am supportive of the review of the financial process. Mr Bradley will know that it is an issue that is with the Executive. Some Executive parties do not want to proceed with the financial review. Others among us do. I do not need to spell out which parties are opposed to taking the financial review forward. I have to say that it is very difficult to understand why anyone would not want to take the financial review forward and to be open and transparent about what is happening in particular Departments, but I will leave it for others to defend their position.”
“In 2015-16, the savings are £26·1 million in the Northern Ireland Civil Service overall; £21 million in DE; £14·3 million in DEL; £1·3 million in DCAL; £4·8 million in DSD; £4·4 million in DRD; £8·6 million in the Department of Health; £3·8 million in DOJ; £5·4 million in DARD; £0·4 million in OFMDFM; £0·4 million in DETI; £0·6 million in the Audit Office; and £0·4 million in the Assembly Commission. That adds up to £91·5 million of savings overall during 2015-16. <BR /> <BR />Those are the assumptions. As I said, they have not been endorsed by either the Executive or the head of the Civil Service. I provide them with that caveat. They are really to give Members a sense of the savings figures that are included in this Budget (No. 2) Bill.”
“In particular, he was quite exercised about the fact that he has not got a number against each of the Departments, only an overall figure. I have raised the issue since the Member asked me about it last week, and he has raised it with me again this week. I have received from each Department an estimate of its savings. The figures have not yet gone to the head of the Civil Service, who is in charge of the group looking at voluntary exit schemes. They have not been endorsed by either the oversight group or the Executive, so they should be treated with considerable caution. However, he asked the question, and, if I am known for anything, it is for giving straight answers to straight questions.”
“I thank Members for their contributions today. It is important that the impacts of the Budget (No. 2) Bill be debated fully, although the debate obviously went far beyond the scope of the Bill. I am grateful to everybody who participated. I also want to thank the Committee one final time for its role in securing accelerated passage for the Bill. That will enable the legislation, if it passes today, to receive Royal Assent before the end of July, which, of course, is imperative to allow funding to continue to flow to essential public services. <BR /> <BR />Let me get into some of the detail of what was raised today. Mr Bradley, speaking on behalf of the Committee, again raised issues around the voluntary exit scheme.”
“I presume that he is referring to what is being proposed in relation to working people in the Tory party manifesto. We as a party, and I personally, have grave concerns in relation to that. The whole point of welfare reform in general is to get people into work and for them to have all the benefits that flow from being in work. To attack those benefits that help people to get out to work will be a detrimental step in the United Kingdom. I hope that that will be looked at again, even at this late stage.”
“We are still at an early stage, and, as I indicated, there are others still coming in. There are some appeals that are coming in in, if you like, a sectoral way. Appeals from petrol stations and forecourts are coming in together. They are making an appeal based on the overall methodology used for petrol stations. We then have small and medium-sized businesses that simply do not accept that their rents have gone up in such a way. I have not seen many coming in because of a reduction yet, so appeals will simply be from those that have seen their rents go up.”
“I do not have a specific figure, but I do know that over 1,000 appeals have been submitted to date. I think that that number will continue to grow as other people decide to ask for a revaluation. If we consider the number of revaluations that have taken place, that is not unusual, not forgetting, of course, that this is the first revaluation of non-domestic properties for 12 years. We therefore cannot compare the number of last year's appeals with this year's, as someone in the Chamber has done, because we have not had a revaluation for 12 years. It is important that we look back at the previous revaluation to see how many appeals there were at that time.”
“I hope that we can work together on that regional disparities subcommittee to try to deal with much more than just a particular site. We need to look at the whole region.”
“I think that there are various ways of how we deal with regional disparities, and I am sure that he is supportive of the fact that the Executive have set up a subcommittee to deal with regional disparities in Northern Ireland, not least in my own area and not least in his area. There are issues that go way beyond a particular site, and the Member's colleague Mr Ramsey made the point just last week that there are issues around infrastructure deficits. There are infrastructure deficits across Northern Ireland, and we have to deal with them. There is a real need to have — I hope that I am getting the digit right — the A6 dealt with. There is a need to have the A5 dealt with, and, indeed, all the other road infrastructure projects across Northern Ireland.”
“I am sure that the Member will be pleased to see that movement has finally come on the Shackleton site. The Executive certainly believe, and I believe, that there is a huge opportunity there to be grasped. We very much hope that the interest that has been shown — I understand that interest has been shown — in the site will now materialise, given the announcement yesterday by OFMDFM. I know that he is pushing hard for jobs to come to that region, and I hope that he, and, indeed, all the MLAs for the region, will work with OFMDFM to make it as attractive a site as we possibly can.”
“I do hope that he will listen to the Member's points today. As I said, his non-ring-fenced resource budget has been reduced by only 0·6%. By contrast, my Department is having to live with a reduction of 10% to its non-ring-fenced resource budget. It is really a matter for the Minister for Regional Development, and I assume that the Member has already raised the issue with him, and will again, to try to get the matter dealt with.”
“I totally agree with the Member. The Regional Development Minister has commented in the media on how the Executive's Budget has required him to make drastic cuts to road maintenance activities. However, contrary to what he has implied, his Department's non-ring-fenced resource budget for 2015-16 has been reduced by only 0·6%. That is one of the best outcomes for any Department. So I urge the Minister to look again, particularly at the lack of grass cutting, because, although it is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, it creates an image that we want to avoid, particularly for tourists to Northern Ireland. We are presenting a very poor image to those who visit our country.”
“In relation to that last question, the funding for the voluntary exit scheme came from the Stormont House Agreement negotiations, with £200 million from the RRI facility being made available this year. If the Stormont House Agreement is not implemented, that money will not be available to us. <BR /> <BR />As at 1.00 pm today, of the 1,199 offers that went out — I said 1,200, but one of those was withdrawn before the offers went out — at the end of May, 842 staff had accepted their offers of early exit and 161 had rejected theirs. As I said, those who have not responded have until 5.00 pm to do so. After that, I will give a final update on the numbers.”
“Overall, 7,700-odd people applied for the voluntary exit scheme across the Civil Service. The Member will know that 1,200 of them received conditional offers, which were sent out towards the end of May. Those who want to accept the offer made to them by the Civil Service have until 5.00 pm to do so.”
“There absolutely will be. As she knows, the voluntary exit scheme is reliant on the Stormont House Agreement being implemented, so I am sure that any of her constituents who want to avail themselves of the scheme will very much want her to go ahead and implement the Stormont House Agreement.”
“The Member makes a salient point. The ring-fenced resource DEL that was returned for 2014-15 — this is a provisional figure — was £30·3 million. As I said, that is money that we could not spend on public services, so it goes back because it is ring-fenced and connected to depreciation and non-cash issues. So, there is a bit of a difference between that and the figures quoted by Mr Nesbitt in a television studio to someone who could not deal with them because he had never seen them before. It was a cheap stunt, but I hope that the papers and the broadcasters give as much coverage to this answer as they did to Mr Nesbitt.”
“Of course it is not correct. In the last four years, the Executive have not lost any resources — not a single resource — that could have been used to fund public services. It appears that Mr Nesbitt has assumed that the underspend in any year represents funding returned to the Treasury, and that is simply not the case. We can carry the majority of funding forward, either under special arrangements in place for the Department of Justice or under the Budget exchange scheme, which happens across the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. The only funding that is returned to the Treasury due to underspend is for ring-fenced resource DEL budget for depreciation and impairments that could not be used for anything other than non-cash costs. It could not be used for public services, so Mr Nesbitt is very wrong.”
“It is not my job to stand here and defend the way in which the Minister of Education deals with all the sectors over which he has a remit. I am very concerned that new schools are opening in different sectors and pupils are being displaced from existing sectors. That is the reality. We have a fixed number of children, so, if you open new schools with new facilities and everything else, those kids will move to those schools, leaving empty desks at the schools that they have left.”
“Unfortunately, I do not have the precise figures here on duplication, but I know that the party that the Member represents has spent some time looking at the figures for duplication, particularly for housing and education. I am aware of those figures. Unfortunately, I do not have the specific figures in front of me, but I am happy to have a discussion with the Member about that, because, at a time of a decrease in our block grant, we should address the issue.”
“The estimate of the cost for next year — 2016-17 — will rise to £196 million. For 2017-18, it will rise to £283 million, and it will rise to £366 million in 2018-19. That is based on the current welfare situation in Great Britain. If that changes — we understand that it will change in the very near future — the gap between us and the rest of the United Kingdom will grow even further.”
“We must make this economy more competitive, grow the private sector and engage in more research and development and more innovation so that we can move out of this growing productivity gap between ourselves and the rest of the United Kingdom; something about which, I must say, I am very concerned.”
“It is not my job to make representations to the Department for Work and Pensions. I will make representations, of course, to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor in relation to those issues. It is disappointing to note the low level of wages in Northern Ireland. That is, of course, to do with the fact that our productivity has fallen. The way to deal with that issue is to bring more high-value jobs into Northern Ireland, something that we have spent a lot of time engaging in, and to make sure that we have the skills available for our young people so that they can access jobs with higher wages. That is the way to deal with the low-wage economy.”
“Those are quite fundamental issues and, therefore, there is a great need to have welfare reform implemented as soon as possible.”
“Of course, the implementation of welfare reform is central to the Stormont House Agreement. That point has been made very many times by me and others, not least the Secretary of State, back in March, when she was in the United States. Failure to progress welfare reform casts doubt on the other flexibilities negotiated in the Stormont House Agreement that underpinned the Budget, and that is why it is so fundamental to the Budget proceeding. Key flexibilities included the capacity to use £200 million of reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing to fund workforce restructuring this year, the flexibility to repay the £100 million access to the UK reserve in 2014-15, and the £114 million in reductions for non-implementation of welfare reform from the capital Budget.”
“The delay in implementing welfare reform is already placing additional constraints on the resources available to the Executive. Continued non-implementation of welfare reform will jeopardise the financial package agreed at Stormont House, increasing those constraints. That cannot fail to have a significant detrimental impact on the ability of Departments to deliver public services. The costs of not implementing welfare reform are forecast to escalate significantly in the years ahead, potentially placing further pressure on key public services. Now is the time either for the parties around the Chamber to live up to the Stormont House Agreement or for Westminster to step in and deal with the welfare issue. Doing nothing is simply not an option.”
“Therefore, we will have a discussion around that, and I am sure that it will form part of the discussion when we are looking at the next spending round.”
“The Barnett formula has not disadvantaged us in Northern Ireland in the way it has Wales, for example. As I indicated, we are 23% better off. If you look at very recent figures, which I talked about in the House last week, we in Northern Ireland received a little over £2,000 more than the UK average per head of population. So, certainly, it has provided us with a good example. However, I anticipate that there will be further discussions in relation to the Barnett formula. Of course, when the Barnett formula came in, it was meant to be only a temporary measure to deal with allocation, and it has been in place since 1978. That just shows you that some things never change; things that come in as temporary measures stay, a bit like income tax.”
“Of course, the Welsh are not as fortunate as us in relation to the Barnett formula. They are at a disadvantage because, when the Barnett formula started, they had a lower baseline, and they have suffered as a result of that. The Welsh are very keen on the idea of a Barnett floor coming into play, so that they do not fall below a certain level. I am quite attracted to that from the terms of what we discussed last week around convergence issues. Of course, in bad times, the convergence does not happen, so we have not seen a convergence happen as yet. However, if the convergence does happen, I think that a Barnett floor would be a useful mechanism. It is something that we will continue to discuss, particularly with the Welsh, but I am sure that the Scots will have a view on that issue as well.”
“If the Member is referring to the issue that we talked about in relation to corporation tax and the fact that, at the moment, secondary benefits are not able to be retained in Northern Ireland, we certainly want to explore that with the Treasury and with the Chief Secretary, because we very firmly believe that secondary benefits should be retained here so that the no-detriment principle of Smith applies to us in Northern Ireland.”
“I have not had any discussion on that particular issue as yet, but I imagine that we will have discussions around the Smith principles. I am having a meeting with John Swinney in early August, and then we are having a trilateral with Jane Hutt from the Welsh Administration. We will look at where we can coalesce around the difficulties with the Barnett formula, because, obviously, they may have different emphasis on the changes that they want made.”
“I certainly think that the debate last week pointed to some of the weaknesses of the Barnett formula, but it also talked about its strengths. A view was expressed — one that I probably concur with — that it is better the devil you know. Of course, the Barnett formula gives us certainty and is relatively simple — I use the word "relatively" — and easy to administer, but that is not taking away from the fact that there are difficulties with it. I suppose that, as with any formula that deals with public finances and how that is divvied up against Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there will always be challenges for each of the Administrations. I have to say, though, that we benefit from the Barnett mechanism to the tune of 23% higher than the United Kingdom average. So, currently, we certainly are benefiting from the Barnett formula.”
“The Barnett formula is used by Her Majesty's Government to determine changes in the spending allocations of the devolved Administrations. It is applied uniformly across the United Kingdom, as set out in the statement of funding policy, with devolved Administrations receiving a population-based proportion of changes in planned spending on comparable services in England, Scotland and Wales or Great Britain as appropriate.”