Simon Hamilton
Strangford · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I have emphasised to the Member and the House before, that, whilst I accept that those are not good enough — that is why we have been developing the plan — there are alternative technologies in place that can present opportunities for those who just cannot get acceptable speeds.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. There are some initiatives that I believe will help and act as a driver to improve broadband access. One such intervention is the broadband universal service obligation (USO), which is being taken forward by Her Majesty's Government.”
“I thank the Member for his question. However, he is conflating two issues. I wrote to his party leader, and indeed to all Assembly party leaders, before making the announcement that I did last week about wanting to publish the details of the businesses in receipt of the non-domestic RHI scheme. It was my intention to do that tomorrow.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Chancellor, in his autumn statement, made some more funding available for telecommunications, and my Department is studying that and seeking to avail itself of that to the fullest possible extent.”
“In addition, my Department is managing a contract for the delivery of the superfast rollout programme, which, by 31 December, will provide access to superfast broadband with speeds of at least 24 megabits per second to a further 38,000 premises, both business and residential, across Northern Ireland, including in the Newry and Armagh cons…”
“I signalled the intention to do this a few weeks ago. The Member and the House will know that inspections of all installations would have taken place over the 20-year lifetime of the RHI scheme.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,625 lines we hold for Simon Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 46 of 73.
“The information is reported quarterly to CPD and discussed at each meeting of the Construction Industry Forum for Northern Ireland.”
“It is important that the benefits of prompt payment are shared throughout the supply chain, and this is reflected in the guidelines that my Department has set. As the problem has been felt most acutely in the construction industry, centres of procurement expertise are required to monitor the implementation of fair payment requirements in government construction contracts.”
“There are other measures that we have to introduce to ensure that nobody is dissuaded from applying for posts in the Civil Service in future because of their religious background, gender or anything else.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the issue of community background, an equality screening assessment of the scheme was done beforehand, and it was actually screened out. It was screened out because, with a few exceptions for some very senior grades at permanent secretary level, the scheme was open to everybody in the Civil Service to apply for, given its nature as a voluntary exit scheme. We have to be clear and methodical in how we choose people exiting on the basis of clear, set criteria that have, quite frankly, nothing to do with somebody's religion. I appreciate that there are issues at both ends of the scale — in the Senior Civil Service and at the lower end — in different ways with underrepresentation of certain genders and religious backgrounds, but using a voluntary exit scheme is not the way to deal with that particular problem.”
“There were two supplementary questions there. There is a recruitment freeze in place; in fact, it was one of the first strategic personnel interventions that we enacted, long before the launch of the voluntary exit scheme. It is important that we introduce a range of measures to ensure the achievement of the Stormont Castle Agreement target of a reduction of 20,000 in our public sector. It has been misreported — I think, deliberately — by some people that 20,000 jobs will go, but it is hoped that 20,000 posts will go over a period of four years. Some of those posts will go because of a recruitment freeze; in fact, freezing recruitment in the Civil Service has already reduced the number of posts by around 1,000, because those vacancies are not going to be filled in future.”
“It is incredibly important that that continues, but one threat to that would be if Northern Ireland were to diverge further away from the rest of the United Kingdom in welfare. I know that it has been mentioned in discussions between DSD and DWP in the past that failure to implement welfare reform in Northern Ireland and, therefore, having a different system here is one of the factors that would be considered by DWP in keeping some 1,600 jobs in both locations here in Northern Ireland. That is about keeping those jobs that we already have, never mind attracting more from England or other parts of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland. That is something that we are very good at and very capable of.”
“I do not think that anybody finds any aspect of the voluntary exit scheme a laughing matter. I take it as a very serious and necessary thing to be doing. It is an onerous matter, and we must deal with it accordingly and in an appropriate manner. <BR /> <BR />The Member will know that, unfortunately, the DVLA issue did not work out that well for his constituency, but there are other areas of employment where people who are based in Northern Ireland are providing public services to people who live in other parts of the United Kingdom. One particular area is the Social Security Agency, which has people based in Belfast and in Londonderry and the north-west — drawing, I am sure, people from the Member's constituency — who are doing work for that agency in assessing and delivering benefits for people in the south-east of England.”
“Within the scope of the scheme, Departments can use some limited flexibility to ensure that the timing of the release of staff does not have an impact on business continuity and service delivery. However, it will require us to have well-thought-out and well-planned redeployment of staff in some places so that, wherever services are being delivered in Northern Ireland and whatever services they are, they still produce the outcomes that our citizens require.”
“It is incredibly important that, whilst there is some dispute in some corners of the House about how we are financing the exit scheme, I do not think that there is any dispute from any quarter that it is something that we should be doing. In fact, some of us might argue that we should have done it a little bit earlier. We are where we are, and I hope that we can proceed from our current position if progress is made elsewhere. <BR /> <BR />In reducing the size of our public sector at a time when our private sector is growing, it is critical that there is continuity of service in our public service delivery. The best intervention that we can make as a Civil Service to ensure that there is continuity of service and minimised disruption to service delivery is the timely and planned use of redeployment.”
“If that is not available, it will be, like many things, a matter for an incoming Westminster Government to consider what they will do in the circumstances. <BR /> <BR />As I have pointed out in the House and elsewhere before, not having that £200 million, not having the £100 million of pay bill savings that would accrue this year and not having the sizeable pay bill savings that would accrue in subsequent years would put extreme pressure on our Budget.”
“They have had access to an online calculator that shows their entitlement. So, having put their application forward, most people know, more or less, what they are entitled to and have made an informed decision to put their names forward. <BR /> <BR />The Member is right to highlight the concerns that I have highlighted to Lord Morrow. Access to that £200 million was absolutely critical in the Stormont House Agreement, as we do not have the ability to access finance from departmental budgets. Ordinarily, that is how schemes of that nature would be funded. We are unable to do that because of the innumerable pressures on our departmental budgets, so making a call on those budgets to fund it is not an option. That is why we agreed with the Government to access the £200 million through our borrowing powers.”
“The Member has asked a very good question. Of course, there will many among the 7,285 who, on the basis of the figure that they get and their personal circumstances, will decide that they do not want to proceed. We expect an attrition rate and expect that around one third of those people will say that they do not want to proceed to the next stage. Therefore, not all of those 7,285 people will be affected or disappointed. Without the other issues that are swirling around, there were always going to be those who would not be able to exit because of affordability issues or the pressures that leaving would put on the broader public service. <BR /> <BR />The Member is right to highlight that everybody who has gone to at least this stage will have given careful consideration to it. They will have looked at it in and of their own circumstances.”
“It will mean that the savings that would be yielded though our pay bill, which are around £25 million for the Civil Service alone in the current financial year and probably another £25 million for the broader public sector, could be in jeopardy. It is, therefore, imperative that we move forward with welfare reform and, indeed, all aspects of the Stormont House Agreement in and of themselves, but particularly because of the timeliness of the scheme, not least because, in the case of the Minister of Education, teachers who are leaving need to get their notice very soon. If they get that notice, they can exit the public service well in advance of the start of the new school year.”
“The Member and the House will recall that, as part of the Stormont House Agreement, there was a public-sector transformation fund giving us access to some £700 million in borrowing — £200 million in each of the first three years and £100 million in the final year — to help fund the voluntary exit scheme for not just the Civil Service, which is what we are talking about here, but the entire public sector. If we do not have access to that money, which is a possibility if we do not proceed with welfare reform and other aspects of the Stormont House Agreement, it will mean more than not having access to the £200 million that is badly needed to fund the exit scheme.”
“I agree with the noble lord about the 7,285 applications. Of course, 7,285 people will not be exiting the Civil Service. We will not require anywhere near that number. I can recall, however, being quizzed repeatedly — some might say badgered — by a presenter in a television studio the day before the scheme launched about what would happen if we did not get to the 2,400 that we estimated were necessary. We have far surpassed that figure, as my answer revealed. <BR /> <BR />The Member is right to highlight his concerns: they are shared by me, right across the Executive and, indeed, by the Senior Civil Service.”
“We anticipate that those selected to leave under the scheme will do so in tranches between 30 September 2015 and 31 March 2016, subject to the requisite resources being made available. An important part of the process will be maintaining business continuity, so a range of measures is being put in place, including redeployment arrangements to move staff into essential posts left vacant by staff who leave via the scheme. <BR /> <BR />I can confirm that, as at 27 March 2015 — the closing date — 7,285 applications to be considered for selection had been received. I emphasise that we will not know the number of staff exiting via the scheme until selection has taken place and those selected confirm whether they wish to accept the offer.”
“With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 7 together, as both relate to the Northern Ireland Civil Service voluntary exit scheme. <BR /> <BR />I will deal first with Lord Morrow’s request for an update. The scheme closed for applications at 5.00 pm on Friday 27 March 2015. My officials are now working closely with Departments to manage the selection process, in line with the published criteria. All staff who applied will receive notification of the outcome. Staff who receive a notification with a specific exit date, and who have received a quote from Civil Service pensions staff, should use the information to decide whether they wish to accept the offer. All staff selected to leave will be given three months' notice.”
“Sinn Féin, for all its ranting and raving and opposition, will not be there. I can assure the House that MPs from my party will be there, will exert their influence and will be seeking to get the best deal that they can get for the people of Northern Ireland.”
“Members opposite laugh, and, again, I do not think that I have the time to really get into this, but a once-in-a-generation opportunity presents itself to politicians from Northern Ireland who are returned to represent the people of Northern Ireland. There is an opportunity like never before, and perhaps like never again, to exert influence on an incoming UK Government.”
“I do not think that, in one minute, I will have time to deal with that and still conclude my remarks. Suffice it to say, the Member and others are right to identify the very serious impact that not being able to move forward with that whole financial package will have on our Budget and on our ability to advance a Budget this year. Several weeks ago, I spelled out that there would be a black hole in the Budget of roughly half a billion pounds. That clearly presents problems for balancing our books and getting a viable Budget. <BR /> <BR />The motion also rightly calls for Northern Ireland politicians to fight austerity, but what it fails to point out, as I have said before, is that Sinn Féin is absent from the arena in which it is important to be to oppose austerity — the House of Commons.”
“I have very limited time. If you are very brief, I will give way quickly.”
“The Secretary of State and others are on record as saying that, if we do not proceed with welfare reform, the whole package is at risk. That includes the financial package that underpins our Budget. That clearly will have a significant impact on our Budget and on our ability to agree a Budget in advance, and that is something that Executive colleagues and I will have to contend with in the coming weeks. <BR /> <BR />The impact of the cuts to pay for welfare reform fines and of cuts that could be required in order for us to live within our means this year because of the failure to move forward with the Stormont House Agreement and the Stormont Castle agreement will be every bit as devastating as the austerity that is emanating from London, under any UK Government, if not more devastating. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly and finally —”
“There have been in-year cuts to services to pay for that £100 million. There have been job cuts in the public sector and outside. As a result of the handing-back of that £100 million to London, there have been contracts with the private sector and the third sector that have ceased, resulting in job losses in those sectors. <BR /> <BR />There are looming problems — I have to make this point — with the Budget for this current year, 2015-16. The Stormont House Agreement contained a significant financial package with a voluntary exit scheme, whereby I would be able to access £200 million in loans, and payroll savings of £50 million that would emanate from the scheme. I could go on and on and on. Even Mr Maskey referred to the £500 million that shared education would get as part of the financial package.”
“The austerity emanating from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats has been exacerbated by the austerity emanating from Sinn Féin. I of course refer, as did many Members in their contributions, to the £100 million that has been lost already in welfare reform fines. We talk about these things so often in this place, at Question Time and in debates, that I think that sometimes we forget that, at a time when there have been various pressures on public spending, as the motion is right to point out, we have lost £100 million because of Sinn Féin inaction on welfare reform. That is £100 million that could have gone to health, education, the environment or wherever. It has gone not to health, education or the environment but back to the Treasury in fines paid because of non-movement on welfare reform. There have been consequences.”
“Since 2007, health and education have been up 33% and 23% respectively in expenditure, again showing that, even over difficult years, those key public services have been the priority of the Executive, as the motion calls for. <BR /> <BR />As bad as austerity policies emanating from London have been, they have been compounded by the self-inflicted wounds of Sinn Féin.”
“We have done much, and much has been done by many across Northern Ireland, to ensure that our economy has been turned around and that past trends have been overturned. Our economy is growing, albeit at 1·2%, year on year between quarter 2 of 2013 and quarter 2 of 2014. It is a private sector-driven recovery, with the private sector up in three of the last four quarters. In particular, the services and production sectors are driving that annual growth. Unemployment has fallen for 26 months in a row and is down 18,600 over the period, and, of course, in 2013-14, Invest Northern Ireland posted record results, with 11,000 jobs being promoted. <BR /> <BR />We have also continued to invest in key public services. Health is up by over 3% next year, with some £200 million additional going into the Department of Health.”
“<BR /> <BR />Secondly, as some Members picked up, it also fails to acknowledge the home-grown austerity — if I can use that phrase: the Sinn Féin austerity resulting from Sinn Féin inaction, particularly on welfare reform, and how that has harmed Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly, as Members pointed out, whilst the motion calls for business, trade unions, the third sector, Uncle Tom Cobley and all to join with politicians to oppose austerity, it fails to mention the fact that, where it matters — at this moment in time, the new House of Commons will be where it matters — Sinn Féin is, of course, absent. <BR /> <BR />If I may, I will take each of those points in turn in the limited time available.”
“<BR /> <BR />I share the sentiments of many about the motion and agree with some of its sentiments — not helped, I have to say, by some contributions from the Sinn Féin Benches — but what is significant about the motion is what it does not say. Some Members picked up on precisely the points that it does not mention. There are at least three areas in which it omits significant things that should be addressed in a debate like this. <BR /> <BR />The first — at least Mr Maskey addressed this in moving the motion — is that it omits to acknowledge the good work that has been done, even in a period of cuts to our Budget, by the Executive and by society across Northern Ireland to ensure that economic growth is underpinned and that key public services like health and education continue to be invested in.”
“I think that it is perfectly reasonable for us to accept the reality that we have to live within our means and that adjustments have to be made to do that at a national government level, just as we in Northern Ireland have to make adjustments to live within our means, but to oppose a particular type of policy that is being followed by the Government in Westminster, whether that Government be of a Conservative or Labour hue. On reflection, many of us, including my party, warned that going too hard and too fast, particularly with capital, would have significant negative consequences, and so it proved to pass.”
“It has not been eliminated in this Parliament, and I believe that one reason why it has not been eliminated is the conscious decision to go after capital, because the economy reversed again. It is sometimes forgotten that, at the time of the last election, the economy was growing, but it reversed because of that very significant impact on capital spend. Capital projects that did not move forward or were stopped resulted in a lot of people becoming unemployed, and unemployment registers going up, and it had a devastating impact on the economy for a time. That is why austerity and austerity policies have continued and will continue well into the next Parliament. <BR /> <BR />I will take up a point made by Mr Allister.”
“I will pick up on points made by some Members, including Mrs Cochrane, on the pace of reductions. The reality is accepted by most of us that there is a requirement to live within our means. That is accepted by most sensible people, although it appears that not everybody is sensible. In 2010, the UK Government, in my view and in the view of many, went too hard and too fast, particularly in cutting the capital budget. As I have said before, it was indicated that our capital budget reduced by some 40% over the four years. At that time, given the UK Government's interpretation of the evidence that they saw, that was their way of reducing the deficit and eliminating it in this Parliament.”
“The only plus point, looking at the Budget moving forward and the projections that are there, is that the capital position is likely to improve significantly over that period as well. That, obviously, will provide a boost to the economy. Mr Cree will be glad to hear that it is likely that FTC will play a large part in that, and that might pose some particular difficulties for us in Northern Ireland.”
“We also recently heard the Chancellor in his Budget statement in March herald the end of austerity by 2019-2020, when he is predicting a significant increase in public spending. <BR /> <BR />The result of all those pledges, if they are taken forward and implemented — it is likely that there will be bartering between various parties as a Government is formed and things may not come out of the wash exactly as parties put them in — is that instead of there being 13% reductions to our resource budget moving forward over those three years, the reduction is likely to be significantly less. While it will be less, however, reductions in public expenditure are still looming on the horizon.”
“I listen to them because, as Mr McCallister pointed out in respect of the Barnett consequentials, they have very serious implications for our Budget but also because what they particularly pick out as their favourite areas of expenditure have significant Barnett consequential impacts — or not — for Northern Ireland. We are hearing both parties outbidding and outgunning each other in respect of protecting health and education in real terms or cash terms, and we have had the recent commitment by the Conservative Party to put a further £8 billion a year into the NHS in England by 2019-2020, which would have significant positive Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland because of the high degree of comparability that there is through the Barnett formula for Northern Ireland in respect of health and education spending.”
“It will be different; the timings may be slightly different from what we were thinking they were going to be. However, I warned in the House before on earlier OBR projections that we could be facing, at a UK-wide level, as much as 13% reductions to resource expenditure over the next three years. If that was fully applied to Northern Ireland that would equate to a further £1 billion being taken out of our resource budget. <BR /> <BR />I am listening attentively, as is, I am sure, everybody in the House and further afield, to what is being said by the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, as the two parties likely to lead any new Government, about the various spending commitments that they are making.”
“That has improved slightly in recent years, but that had a devastating impact. I will come back to that in a moment when I pick up on a point that one Member raised earlier. <BR /> <BR />In this current financial year — I have to remember that we are now in a new financial year and I cannot talk about next year any longer — we are facing a 1·6% real-terms reduction in our resource budget. We should be listening to what Conservative Party and Labour Party spokespeople are saying, and I will address that as well. Looking forward, however, you do not have to listen to them, nor do you have to listen to me or anybody in this Chamber; you can read what the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is saying. It is clear that whoever wins the upcoming general election, if indeed anybody wins it, the future is more of the same.”
“We do not often get into focused discussions around austerity policies or whatever it might be, so I welcome the opportunity that today's debate has presented. I do so even if this motion is very suspiciously like a Sinn Féin motion that was before the House approximately two months ago. <BR /> <BR />The House is very well versed, I hope — listening to the contributions it appears that it is — in the past, present and future pressures on our block grant, and it does no harm to rehearse them again. As the motion says, roughly £1·5 billion in spending power has been lost to the block grant since 2010 because our Budget has not risen in keeping with inflation over that period. It is often forgotten that while, latterly, things have changed in this respect, our capital budget was hit by a 40% reduction in the 2011-15 Budget period.”
“We debate the Budget frequently in the House, but that can sometimes turn into a very broad discussion that is about anything other than the Budget.”
“Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I think that this is the first time I have spoken in the House under your chairmanship. I know that it has been several weeks since you were elected to the position of Principal Deputy Speaker, but I want to belatedly welcome you formally to your post. It is a pleasure to sit under your chairmanship. <BR /> <BR />I have enjoyed the debate much more than I thought I would. It has been entertaining from my vantage point to sit back and listen to the various squabbles. It is always nice and heartening for unionists to listen to nationalists squabble among each other, and I do not intend to fight with any unionist colleagues too aggressively today. <BR /> <BR />We do not get enough opportunities to debate budgetary matters, and I welcome opportunities to do so.”
“I appreciate that, in a revaluation, there are always those who feel that they are losing out. I encourage those who feel that they are unfairly losing out to appeal. However, comments like that suggest to me that, by and large, we have got it right. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I trust that Members will be able to support and back this order and help to keep the rates burden for our citizens and businesses at a minimum. Thank you.”
“Mr Roberts, the chief executive, went on to say:”
“The significant investment that many of those types of business have put in will also be reflected in their revaluation. <BR /> <BR />I take some solace from the idea that we have got it right overall, even though there will be some losers. On the day that the valuations list was first published, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association went on the public record to say:”
“There is, of course, a methodology that is employed in a revaluation. If valuations are wrong, for whatever reason, there is an appeal mechanism, and I encourage any business that thinks that its valuation is wrong to appeal and to go through that process. If it is wrong, that will be reflected in an adjustment to its valuation. <BR /> <BR />The particular issue of petrol stations was raised. I am not saying that this is the case in every instance, as there will be quirks and nuances in every business, but describing them as "petrol stations" perhaps ignores the evolution of the petrol station over the last 13 years. Many of them are now quite substantial small or medium-sized supermarkets. That will, obviously, be reflected in an increase in their valuation.”
“Many of those businesses that are experiencing large increases in their revaluation do not necessarily experience large increases in their rates, because that depends upon what we and, indeed, councils are doing. Mr McCallister is right to identify that we are only one half of that equation. Certainly in the past, many councils have not kept the same degree of rigour and discipline as the Assembly in keeping rates low. <BR /> <BR />As I say, there will be some winners and some losers. That 13-year gap will perhaps have amplified the increases that would have happened over say, two or three revaluations, and people in businesses will have seen much more clearly the increases that would have been taking place in their valuation over that period. <BR /> <BR />Mr Ó Muilleoir talked about getting it wrong.”
“We are not trying to raise more rates in total through a revaluation; we are trying to get a fairer distribution of the rate burden. Members identified that there will be some winners and some losers and that there are many who will more or less be in the same position. <BR /> <BR />I think that some of the shock that some businesses will have felt is probably down to the fact that it has been 13 years since we did our last revaluation. I think that that is far too long. There were very valid reasons why the revaluation was delayed. I do not think that we should allow ourselves to get into that position again, and I want to see regular, five-yearly revaluations, irrespective of the prevailing circumstances.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have had the extension of the rates relief policy for rural ATMs, which the Assembly passed last week. In the lifetime of that policy, we have seen the number of ATMs in rural wards increase from 37 to 76. We have been innovative, and the rest of the UK has followed our lead on the empty shops rate concession, which has so far seen 375 new businesses open across Northern Ireland and avail themselves of what is, in effect, a 50% rates holiday in the difficult first year of business. <BR /> <BR />I am sensitive to the comments that were made about rates revaluation. Several Members made the very valid point, which I have made consistently, that the first principle in rates revaluation is rates neutrality.”
“Again, that is an area in which there is much to celebrate in how the Executive have supported business. Industrial derating remains in place, offering around £60 million worth of support each year to many of our businesses, and not just manufacturing businesses, although a lot of them are. That has kept over £300 million in those businesses since the decision was taken in the early days of devolution back in 2007-08 to keep that policy in place. We introduced a small business rate relief scheme, which is offering around £20 million worth of support for businesses each and every year. To date, 33,449 businesses have benefited from the small business rate relief scheme and the reduction of 20% in their rates bill that comes with that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Sometimes it does not feel like it, but I think that we have much to celebrate, particularly when it comes to our rates system. I say that in the full knowledge that no one likes to pay their rates bill. However, as an Assembly, we should be proud that, in spite of all the various challenges that we have faced fiscally over the past number of years, and continue to face, we have managed to keep household bills in Northern Ireland at the lowest level in the whole of the United Kingdom. This represents the fifth year in a row in which we will be freezing, in real terms, rates increases for domestic and non-domestic ratepayers. <BR /> <BR />Sometimes, the concentration is on domestic ratepayers. Rightly, most of the debate today has been around the impact of rates on our businesses.”
“I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. Mr McCallister raised a range of issues that are troubling my mind and that will continue to trouble my mind for a number of days. The financial consequences of where we are now in not proceeding with welfare reform will have an impact on our Budget. I continue to hope to clarify over the remainder of today and further days the extent of the financial impact that it will have, but it will have a bearing on our Budget. I am absolutely clear that it does not matter what it is to pay for, because our citizens are paying enough through taxation and the rating system. I do not wish, for any purpose, to put a further burden on the citizens and businesses of Northern Ireland.”
“That is an effect of the recent revaluation of non-domestic properties, which takes into consideration the growth in the overall value of the new valuation list. When the Executive agreed to undertake the revaluation in 2012, it was on the basis that the exercise would be revenue-neutral. Indeed, there is a downward adjustment in the regional rate every time there is a general revaluation to correspond with the higher values. The calculation of the new non-domestic rate has reduced in light of the 7·94% growth in value from the current regional rate figure and then increased by 1·4% for the inflationary rise. This represents a clear and technical outworking of the difficult decisions made by the Executive as part of the Budget. I look forward to hearing Members' comments. I commend the order to the Assembly.”