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 55 of 73.
“However, in the circumstances that we find ourselves in, I think it is a good deal for Northern Ireland. It supports key services such as health and education, underpins economic growth and readies Northern Ireland for the required reform and restructuring. It is a Budget of tough choices and difficult decisions. It is far from ideal. Today's debate, however, has shown that those who oppose it have no serious suggestions and no credible alternatives. I commend the Budget to the House.”
“I have only a few minutes left. I have glossed over the fact that several letters of offer have been issued to the projects that are being funded, so actually, legally, what the Ulster Unionists propose to do would not be possible. However, it is a matter for them and their Assembly Members to justify to their constituents and the community organisations in their area why they seek to defund them and to explain why they are doing it. We will not support that amendment, as you might appreciate and understand, and I am sure that the House will also not support the shameful amendment put forward in the name of Mr Nesbitt and others from the Ulster Unionist Party. <BR /> <BR />I have never pretended that this was a perfect Budget. I would love to have more money, and I would love it if there were no more cuts.”
“In fact, even if they were right in their analysis, projects such as those in Mr Nesbitt's constituency would have no money left to move forward, because he wants to take the remaining millions and put them to better use. He does not want to put them to good use in his constituency; he wants to put them to better use by giving them to his party colleague.”
“They want to take money from PIPS, the suicide prevention charity, and from very worthwhile, meaningful community development projects across Northern Ireland, and give 70% of it to their own Minister. That is a shame and a disgrace, and they will be indicted for what they have done.”
“Another is five community-operated sports facilities, including one in Kilcooley in Bangor, which is in Mr Cree's constituency, and the Glen estate in Newtownards, which is in Mr Nesbitt's constituency, a project that I understand the Member has offered his support to in the past but for which he now wants to withdraw funding. We move finally to north Belfast. They would defund capital projects supporting the likes of Crusaders Football Club and a community-based arts group on the York Road, at the same time as wanting to give money to DCAL for the arts. <BR /> <BR />That the Ulster Unionist Party would seek to defund the whole list is a shame.”
“Is that withdrawal of funding supported by Mrs Dobson and Mr Kennedy? You are taking funding away from capital improvements to Dromore Orange hall, Banbridge Orange hall, Corcrain Orange hall and Clogher Orange hall? Are those things that the Ulster Unionist Party supports withdrawing funding from? <BR /> <BR />Mr Nesbitt said earlier, on the record, that he wanted to put the remaining millions to better use. Mr Nesbitt will be familiar with some of the projects awaiting approval. However, even if approval came, they would not get any money because you are taking all the money away from them. One is the scoping exercise to develop community houses in north Down and Ards.”
“You are taking funding away from, as Mr Spratt mentioned in his contribution, the extension of a day nursery and healthy living centre at Taughmonagh and the development of a training and education centre in Sandy Row — close to £2 million would be withdrawn from those two projects. You are taking away £733,000 of funding for the Kilcluney community hall and the YMCA in Lurgan.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is £1 million of funding for the development of a purpose-built community doctors' surgery at Bryson Street in Mr Douglas's East Belfast constituency. Does Michael Copeland support that? It is funding for five Orange halls in the Cookstown and Magherafelt area. Does Mrs Overend support withdrawing funding from those? It is the Halls Together Now project, which would refurbish St Macartin's church hall in Enniskillen. Does Tom Elliott support withdrawing funding from that? That is what your amendment would do. You shake your head, but you are taking away £26 million — the only allocation to SIF in the Budget for next year — from those projects. <BR /> <BR />There are other projects.”
“Bear with me a second. <BR /> <BR />That means that every single project working through the pipeline — those approved and still having money spent on them or those approved and not yet started — is being defunded by the Ulster Unionist Party. Let us take a look at those. So far, 33 projects have been proposed. Every single one of them, to one degree or another, would be stopped by the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment. The question for every member of the Ulster Unionist Party, particularly every constituency MLA is this: do they support bringing an end to all those projects? Many of the projects have been mentioned by my colleagues who are deeply concerned about what is being put forward. That concern will be reflected in the communities that the Ulster Unionist Party is targeting.”
“No. <BR /> <BR />In the 2015-16 year, £26 million is all that SIF has.”
“In their response to the draft Budget, a response that we looked at carefully, they said that they believed that existing commitments should be honoured, a point reiterated by Mr Swann in his contribution. However, the point that they miss is that the £26 million that they want to take from SIF and spend elsewhere — 70% going to their own Minister — is the only allocation to SIF. It is the only allocation to SIF in the 2015-16 financial year. It is clearly mentioned in the Budget. If you go to the OFMDFM section, you will see that £26 million is what has been allocated to SIF in 2015-16.”
“Those are fair and legitimate criticisms, but you cannot criticise it on those grounds now. The mistake that the Ulster Unionist Party is making here is that it is some sort of nebulous concept, that it does not exist, that it is money that is sitting in the centre unallocated, that there is nothing moving forward, and that there is nothing for it to be allocated towards. Quite the opposite. I am not sure that the Ulster Unionist Party understands what is going on at all. If it did, it would not have tabled this amendment. We are well used to division in the ranks of the Ulster Unionist Party. Again, its Members are arguing against themselves.”
“When 70% of what the Ulster Unionist Party wants to reallocate is going to its own Minister's Department, that begs another question as to why more of it is not going to some of those other Departments, such DCAL, which, as you say, is facing a proportionately much higher cut. <BR /> <BR />This is the most important point: any allocation has to come from somewhere. The Ulster Unionist Party's target for where this £26 million is to come from is the social investment fund. I am the first to accept that the social investment fund has been much maligned and much criticised. I am being careful about what I say given that I am standing beside the junior Minister from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. However, I think that he, too, would agree that it was certainly slow to get off the ground.”
“I hope that it is not being taken that I am saying that people should not make those points. I have acknowledged that the amendment is a competent amendment. It balances in that it would take money from one place and move it to another. It is perfectly acceptable for the Ulster Unionist Party to do that. I am making an argument against the proposal for where it should go and more importantly — and I will come onto this — where it should come from. If you take the DCAL issue, I believe that the argument is best made to the Culture Minister. Perhaps it is a reflection of the argument that she put to me as to why that issue has not been addressed to everybody's satisfaction.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst we would not disagree with many of the allocations that are proposed, it is noteworthy that the single biggest beneficiary of the £26 million reallocation proposed by the Ulster Unionist Party is the Department for Regional Development, which — surprise, surprise — is a Department run by an Ulster Unionist Minister; how did that happen? The Ulster Unionist Party is proposing that £18 million of the £26 million, 70% of the total, goes to its own Minister's Department. If that is not self-serving and party political, I do not know what is. That is looking after its own Minister first and to hell again with everybody else.”
“That is certainly an issue that I want to take up with the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister. <BR /> <BR />DCAL is facing an 8·3% resource DEL reduction. It has offered a degree of protection in that context, with the arts having only a 7·1% reduction. A percentage point reduction for the arts is the same as a percentage point reduction for the Audit Office. Whenever health is not completely protected and education is not protected, why should the arts be protected? It also, I have to say, misunderstands, as does the proposal put forward, that DCAL is not the only Department that funds the arts. We are aware of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister's restoration of the events fund, which she announced last week. Much of that £1 million will go to the arts community to run various events.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some of the Ulster Unionist Party's suggested allocations are allocations that no one in the House, least of all me, would oppose. I am sure that nobody would oppose more money for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I am sure that, in a perfect world, nobody would argue against £1·5 million for DCAL for the arts and other things, although I want to make a couple of points around the campaign for more money for the arts. It is worth noting that that campaign seems to be more about saving the Arts Council than the arts. It is quite disgraceful that the chief executive of the Arts Council accepted and agreed on radio recently that it utilised its own communications budget, which was granted to it by the Assembly and the Executive, to campaign against the Executive.”
“I presume they would change their position from opposition to support if that one quarter of 1% were changed. If it were based on such a relatively small amount of money, it begs the question as to why Danny Kennedy, when he was at the Executive a fortnight ago, did not come forward with such a proposal. At least Mr Nesbitt and others have come forward with a proposal today. Moving less than 0·25% of the total Budget around is hardly major reconstruction. The corollary of saying that you want to move around less than a quarter of 1% is to say that you are happy with 99·75% of the Budget. I am happy to take 99·75%; I think that that is an A* in most examinations. They seem to be pretty content with it if all that they are arguing over is less than a quarter of 1%.”
“Campaigned with them. The manifesto they shared was a manifesto of austerity. We can all recall how the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, sat and singled out Northern Ireland and the north east of England as the areas that he wanted to hit hardest. There are many Members who sit on those Benches, and indeed on other Benches, who ran on that manifesto and wanted to cut the tripe out of public spending in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />At least we can now see what their opposition to the Budget was about and, unlike other parties, this is to their credit. It all hinged on less than one quarter of 1% of the total Budget of Northern Ireland. So, from a Budget of around £12 billion, because of less than one quarter of 1%, the Ulster Unionist Party is opposing it.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn to the substantial areas of the Ulster Unionist amendment, namely what they would do and what they would change in the Budget. I am not going to get into why our resource budget is down by 1·6% in real terms. Everybody in the House and beyond knows the culpability of the Ulster Unionist Party, who were in league with the Tory Party at the last election —”
“I thank the Member for his contribution. I am sure he speaks on behalf of the majority of people in East Londonderry. He would understand that, equally, there are sensitivities and concerns for those who are working in Dundonald House, which need to be dealt with appropriately over the next number of years. <BR /> <BR />As I have said in the House before, irrespective of the economic benefits this yields for East Londonderry, there are comparable capital costs in moving to Ballykelly versus refurbishing Dundonald House. I accept that there is a resource cost of roughly £41 million in the move: that is a cost over 25 years and is only marginally higher than what it would cost to remain in Dundonald House.”
“<BR /> <BR />I appreciate that there are sensitive personnel issues — much like the voluntary exit scheme — surrounding the move of DARD's headquarters to Ballykelly, and those need to be handled appropriately over the next number of years. However, I point out, as I have done so before in the House, the capital cost of the move, irrespective of any benefits to the local area. Mr George Robinson is here, and I am sure that he will testify to the support there is in the East Londonderry constituency for the move. There is not a lot of support in the East Londonderry constituency for the Ulster Unionist Party, and perhaps that is explained by their position on the issue.”
“The Ulster Unionist Party has reiterated — it does so in its amendment — its opposition now to the move of DARD's headquarters to Ballykelly. The party seemingly opposes that relocation but does not address it in the Budget. As Mr Irwin, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, pointed out, there was an additional allocation between the draft Budget and the final Budget of £1 million in resource DEL to assist the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development with that move. Yet, whilst saying that all references to the move must be removed from the Budget, the party does not propose to do anything with the money that is in the Budget for that Budget line. So, that money will not be spent or used; it will be left in DARD's budget, even though they want to do away with the move.”
“They are opened, looked at and analysed immediately they come in. <BR /> <BR />There were thousands of consultation responses. There were 20,000 to the overall consultation. It is interesting to note, because it is relevant to where the Ulster Unionist Party wants to spend the money that comes from the social investment fund, that a very low number of responses raised any concerns about the Department for Regional Development's budget. Out of 32,500 responses to departmental budget spending plans, on top of the 20,000 to the overall Budget consultation, only 57 were on the Department for Regional Development. It is also worth noting that many responses are part of standardised postcard campaigns, which we will be familiar with, and many are signatures on petitions and therefore do not require as much analysis as other responses.”
“Before I get on to the more significant point about the social investment fund, which I have a lot to say about, I will make a couple of other points. One concerns the consultation. I do not know how that party thinks consultations operate. I do not think that they understand how consultations are dealt with by those receiving consultation responses. The consultation opened on, I think, 3 November, when I made my draft Budget statement in the House. The first response was received that afternoon. Several came the day after and the day after that, right through the two months that the consultation was open. What we do not do is keep those responses sealed in an envelope or box, put them in a corner or lock them in a room and, almost like a Christmas present, say that we cannot open them until 29 December when the consultation ends.”
“However, we are borrowing to save a significant amount and in a way that is affordable. The Member can look at the Stormont House Agreement if he wishes. It costs us roughly £3 million to £4 million a year to service £100 million. It is affordable and provides us with much-needed finance for the voluntary exit scheme and infrastructure, just as it has in the past allowed us to have essential moneys for investment in infrastructure and to rescue the PMS. <BR /> <BR />Mr McNarry also had the opportunity to propose an amendment to this awful Budget that he spoke about, but he did not bother to attempt to put one forward. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to what I have already described as the very courageous amendment by the Ulster Unionist Party.”
“Mr Frew is right: it is easy for him. Mr Allister can just sit and object. He can be in favour of one thing one day and against it the next from his lonely position on the Back Benches. <BR /> <BR />The flexibility to borrow £700 million to pay for a voluntary exit scheme puts a slightly different complexion on borrowing moving forward. That borrowing of £700 million will, it is estimated, yield savings of around half a billion pounds by the end of the scheme. That is not a one-off half a billion pounds but half a billion pounds of recurring savings — every year. That puts an entirely different complexion on it. If we were borrowing it for just infrastructure and having to repay it, we might be in a position in which we wanted to limit what we were borrowing.”
“<BR /> <BR />We were also able to capitalise the costs of two significant things: the settlement of the Northern Ireland Civil Service equal pay claim and the rescue package for the Presbyterian Mutual Society. I am presuming a lot about Mr Allister, which is a dangerous game to play, but I presume that he was in favour of the rescue package for the Presbyterian Mutual Society. That was financed through borrowing that he now lambastes. That was how we financed that essential rescue package for savers in the PMS, and he now attacks the means by which we were able to help those savers out.”
“No. I will turn to a point made by Mr Allister and, indeed, by Mr McNarry about borrowing. I run the risk of repeating myself from yesterday, but there are several points that I wish to make about our position on borrowing. The capacity that we have to borrow up to £200 million a year up to a limit of £3 billion is the envy of others. A number of weeks ago, I met the Welsh Finance Minister, who is permitted to borrow only up to £400 million. She wants to borrow significantly more than that to invest in infrastructure in Wales. The borrowing that we have has ensured investment in infrastructure projects that would otherwise not have been funded or not have happened. Roads, schools and whatever else would not have happened had it not been for our ability to borrow that money.”
“In many different ways, that would, of course, be bad for the people of Northern Ireland.”
“I am glad that the Member has clarified his position somewhat. He will have more opportunity when the Bill comes back to the House. He will see at that stage that many of the aspects of the package that we have agreed are not in perpetuity but have a lifespan. He will see that in clearer detail when my colleague Minister Storey comes back to the House in a week or so. I am glad that he has clarified that he wants to see the worst aspects of welfare reform ameliorated and mitigated by a package of measures. Of course, that runs contrary to his broader political position, which is that he wants to see this place disappear. He wants to see a restoration of direct rule. That would have meant welfare reform, unadulterated, being forced on Northern Ireland by direct rule Ministers. That is what would have happened if the Member had his way.”
“If that is not the Member's position and he thinks that we should not mitigate the worst of welfare reform — irrespective of where we are coming from on the issue, that has at least united all the parties, certainly those in the Executive and those that were involved in the talks — I am happy to let him clarify that.”
“I hope that he is not arguing that everything is fine and dandy with how welfare reform would roll out in Northern Ireland if it was unadulterated or unchanged. Whilst I have long accepted that we needed to implement welfare reform in Northern Ireland, we always agreed, as a party, that it needed to be changed to reflect Northern Ireland's particular needs. That is why the previous Minister for Social Development and the current Minister worked aggressively with their counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions to get flexibilities in place that would suit Northern Ireland.”
“Given what was agreed between the parties in the run-up to the Stormont House Agreement, the full cost of that package of measures for next year, 2015-16, was lower than £70 million. It was around £50 million; in fact, I think it was £54 million. As the penalties are still in and the legislation will not pass until the midway point of the year, we hope, I am hopeful that we can get that back, and we have built in to the Budget an overcommitment on that basis. Around £25 million or £26 million has been set aside in the Budget to pay for that package of measures for half a year. <BR /> <BR />There will be a cost in future years, but it is significant that Mr Allister seems to be opposed to us using our resources and the power of devolution to mitigate the worst of welfare reform.”
“If we had continued to protect that budget, we would have found that that money had to come from the very budget that she also wants to see boosted, which is that of Department of the Environment. You cannot have it all ways. <BR /> <BR />I will turn now to Mr Allister's comments on welfare reform. He asked about the lack of detail in the various aspects that will come forward. I have enough on my plate; I have enough to worry about. I will leave the detail to the Social Development Minister at Consideration Stage, which, I believe, is scheduled for a couple of weeks' time. Mr Allister will recall that the 2015-16 draft Budget allocated some £70 million back in November for a fund to mitigate the worst of welfare reform.”
“She referred to the Budget as my Budget and said that I should review my Budget and what I have proposed for the Northern Ireland Audit Office. It is also, I remind her, Sinn Féin's Budget. The broader point, though, that I would make to her and Ms Lo, who raised concerns about the allocation to the Northern Ireland Audit Office, is why it above all others should be exempt from the difficulties, the reductions and the adjustments that Departments face. Having spoken in favour of the Audit Office getting more money, Ms Lo then makes comments about the cuts that have been placed on the Department of the Environment, the Committee of which she is Chair. You cannot have it both ways: if you want to protect and boost the Audit Office's budget, you will find that that money has to come from somewhere.”
“Let us not forget, Mr Speaker, that the union with Britain brings us almost £10 billion a year in the form of a top-up, a subvention above and beyond what we are able as a region of the United Kingdom to raise ourselves. That is £10 billion that we would not be able to provide ourselves and which the Irish Republic in its perilous state certainly could not provide to the people of Northern Ireland either. So whilst one has to take, because of the nature of the state that we are in, the rough with the smooth in the Union, it is the £10 billion a year subvention that helps Northern Ireland out greatly. <BR /> <BR />The Member also made comments in her capacity as Chair of PAC, comments that were also made by Anna Lo.”
“I was glad to hear Máirtín Ó Muilleoir focus on the economic aspects of the Budget. This is a Budget that is very focused on underpinning economic growth, and I am glad that he welcomed the progress that has been made on corporation tax. We have also made progress on welfare reform, while mitigating its worst elements. That will hopefully allow — this is something that has often been missed in the debate — for the many aspects of welfare reform that are good and positive and will help people to get back into work, giving them the dignity that was talked about. <BR /> <BR />Michaela Boyle also had a quotation. I started by quoting famous people, and now I am quoting Members. She said:”
“However, at least they came forward with an amendment; at least they put forward an alternative suggestion, something that the SDLP failed to do. <BR /> <BR />I congratulate Máirtín Ó Muilleoir on his maiden speech. It was not the first time that I have heard from him, but it was the first time I have heard from him in the House. When he said he was going to start with a quotation from Lenin, I worried that it was the great Marxist, because we are well used to Sinn Féin Members taking Marxist positions in the House, although, as Minister Kennedy once said, they sound much more like Groucho Marx than Karl Marx. <BR /> <BR />I am cautious about saying this: I too have a favourite Pope Francis quotation — not words you would expect to hear echoing from this side of the Chamber:”
“Dominic Bradley told the House that more change was required to the Budget, but no amendment was proposed by the SDLP. That is something that I will come back to with other parties. There is an opportunity to amend the Budget, which needs change in his view, and yet no amendment came forward. I am well aware of what the SDLP is against — they keep telling us — but I have no idea what they are for. They are against the Budget, but not an idea came forward from their Minister, Mark Durkan, in the Executive. Not a single amendment was made by him, and not a single amendment was put forward by the SDLP today. I have already addressed Mr McCallister's amendment, and I will come to the Ulster Unionist Party amendment, which has many fatal flaws.”
“I agree. It is the job of all Ministers in the Executive, supported by the reform and restructuring plan, to ensure that we operate as efficiently and as effectively as possible. It is only at that stage that we could even contemplate increasing local taxes.”
“That is something that I am proud of, and it is something that others in the House are proud of. I do not believe that, in the times we are in, when people still face the pressures that they do, it is right to ask them to pay more, whether through water charges, increased rates or taking away things that many people rely on. The best part about it is that the Member herself does not even agree with her party's policy. On 12 January, at a take-note debate on the draft Budget in this House, she said:”
“I was at the Executive; others were at the Executive. We all heard Alliance Party Ministers calling for concessionary fares to be stopped. That is not scaremongering; that is what was raised, along with the introduction of water charges, and, to be fair to Alliance Party Members, they on the record as supporting those charges for a long time. They on the record for a long time as supporting significant increases in the regional rate. They also seek us to look at and scrap other subsidies, as they are sometimes referred to, or super-parity measures, which include concessionary fares. <BR /> <BR />As I said last week, I am very proud of the fact that, even in our difficulties over the past number of years, we have maintained the lowest household taxes in the whole of the United Kingdom.”
“I thank the Member for his points, particularly the final one. Some people are doing a lot of scaremongering, undoubtedly for party political reasons. This is a voluntary exit scheme. It will be open, not for a short period but for four years. There is no scheme of any kind for the headcount that we are considering. It is a voluntary exit scheme and a voluntary exit scheme alone that is being taken forward by the Executive. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to other Members' comments. I will start with Judith Cochrane's comments, which were declared by the aforementioned Mr McCallister to be the best contribution of the day. I am sure that he excluded himself from that. I have to say to the Member in respect of her brave crusade in raising the Alliance Party's support for what are, of course, tax increases whilst being couched as revenue raising.”
“The absolute and essential nature of this — living within our means on a sustainable basis — means that we have to progress with reforming and restructuring the public sector as the Executive have started to do. There is no finite list to be completed. Other reforms can be added over time as circumstances dictate. I hope that I can assure the Member that the sentiment and spirit of his amendment are already being embraced, not just by me but by the Executive as a whole.”
“It is important to do that. <BR /> <BR />I am very content with the current position of public-sector reform. We will all have different definitions of what should be reformed and what our primary, secondary and tertiary focus should be, but, having started out 18 months ago talking about the need to reform the public sector, I think that it is quite gratifying to hear Members from different parts of the House now openly talking about and discussing the subject of public-sector reform. It has moved from being seen as a bit of a sideshow or a project that was nice and desirable but not important to one that is front and centre. <BR /> <BR />I understand the cynicism. The Member is far too young to be as cynical as he is, but I can understand his cynicism about taking forward a big project like this.”
“A range of Executive agreements on various facets of reforming and restructuring the public sector go well beyond a voluntary exit scheme. Last week, we also agreed that a review group will be established to oversee the public-sector transformation fund, which will be used to fund the voluntary exit scheme. Beyond that, the review group will assess reform and share experiences from one Department right across Departments. That work will be ongoing. I think that the group is due to meet at the tail end of this week, so that work has already started. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate and understand that Mr McCallister, like many Members, will be unsighted of much of that and certainly of the detail. I am content to explore with Executive colleagues and with their agreement ways in which progress against that report might regularly be made public.”
“Whilst he has been critical of that OECD review, I think that we should welcome the fact that a prestigious organisation like the OECD wishes to carry out and conduct its first ever public governance review in a sub-national and regional Government and that it has chosen Northern Ireland to do that. The timetable for completing that was, in part, dictated by the fact that the Executive took some time to agree to proceed with a review by the OECD. We took that decision back in June, and the timetable has been very much dictated by a formula that the OECD has in place and that it has used in other member states. So, it is not a timetable of my making. <BR /> <BR />Of course, we have also agreed to move forward — again, the Executive have signed off on early stages of this — with the reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine.”
“Whilst the Stormont House Agreement was published on 23 December, I think that the more significant work was done and agreed on 19 December, when the five Executive parties went to the Government with their proposals for reforming and restructuring the public sector. <BR /> <BR />I understand that there is a lot of focus on a voluntary exit scheme because it is so big, so radical and so ambitious, but there are other facets to it as well, including the extension of shared services across the public sector. It includes the OECD review, which the Member cited.”
“The Executive agreed last week that the business case would be brought back to the Executive before it gets final agreement and moves forward. So, I hope that that illustrates the degree of caution that the Executive are exercising around that. Whilst we are committed, as parties in the Executive, to taking forward the voluntary exit scheme, we are handling it with a degree of sensitivity. There are lots of issues around where people will come from, what grades they are at and what areas of the public sector they come from. It needs to be handled with a huge degree of sensitivity and, indeed, caution, to use that word. <BR /> <BR />We have developed the scheme as one. I think that the Member asked whether five parties approached the Government around our plans for reform and restructuring the public sector, and the answer is yes.”