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 60 of 73.
“Clause 151 contains a power for the Department of Finance and Personnel to make a waiver for any particular type of exit payee where this is considered appropriate. <BR /> <BR />It is proposed that the exit payments will include voluntary and compulsory redundancy, voluntary exit payments and discretionary payments made by employers to buy out actuarial reductions for early pensions. <BR /> <BR />The amount that individuals will be required to repay will decrease gradually over time, proportional to the time between an individual leaving and returning to work. Those who rejoin within a month will have to repay the whole of the payment. Those who rejoin after a month but less than a year will be required to repay less, proportionate to the time they have spent outside public-sector employment.”
“The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill was introduced to the House of Commons in June 2014. The Bill contains provisions on a wide range of policies aimed at improving access to finance for businesses and helping them to innovate and compete. Specifically, it contains measures that will facilitate a requirement for the repayment of some or all qualifying public-sector exit payments from individuals in prescribed circumstances. The policy intent is that this will apply to individuals earning more than £100,000 who exit a role in the public sector and then return to the same part of the public sector within 12 months. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 149 and 150 contain the provision by which HM Treasury may make regulations dealing with the repayment of specified types of exit payments.”
“I hope that what has been said, certainly in my opening remarks, and the support that has been offered today by the Committee via the Deputy Chair's contribution is enough to secure support across the House for the legislative consent motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />In respect of funded pension schemes, there is a risk. Whilst it is not an outright ban, a safety valve of sorts is being put in place in the event of, as the Deputy Chair said, a run — that is a very good term to use in the circumstances, if maybe not one that we are used to applying to pension schemes.”
“This is particularly about those in unfunded schemes, which the majority of schemes operating in Northern Ireland are. It is about protecting those members should significant numbers seek to avail themselves of this flexibility, and I think that it is right and sensible and prudent that we close that down so that pension scheme members left behind in the scheme are not put in a very difficult position. The changes that we put through in our own recent Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 mean that, if that was the case and the scheme did not have sufficient funds in it, we could have the perverse situation where members would have to pay more in contributions or take less in their benefits, which, I am sure the House would agree, is not something that we want to see happen.”
“I am pleased that we have had a brief but useful debate on the provisions in the Pension Schemes Bill dealing with the restrictions on transfers out of public-service defined benefit schemes and the reduction of cash equivalents in relation to funded public-service defined benefit schemes. I thank the Deputy Chair of the Committee for his contribution on behalf of the Committee. I thank not just him but the other members of the Committee for their support for the provisions covered by the LCM. <BR /> <BR />The Deputy Chair himself said that this is about protecting public-sector pension scheme members, whether they be in funded or unfunded schemes. I hope that I have clarified some of the points for him in my opening remarks.”
“I thank the Committee for its general support for the motion. I hope that I have addressed any outstanding concerns that the Committee has raised in its report on this issue, particularly in the area of the rationale for the safeguards that are applied for the funded local government scheme rather than an outright ban.”
“The measures will avoid contributing to an already very difficult and challenging financial year for public-service spending. As Members will all be too well aware, the Executive have had, and continue, to address significant financial pressures. <BR /> <BR />The reality is that we cannot afford not to regulate transfers out of public-service pension schemes in prescribed circumstances where there would be risks for scheme members and taxpayers. The scope of this legislation is very limited. It targets a specific risk. It would be simply negligent on our part if Members did not agree to the LCM for the purposes which I have outlined. <BR /> <BR />Having explained the rationale for bringing the motion to the Assembly, I commend the Committee for Finance and Personnel for the timely manner in which it considered and reported on the motion.”
“However, given that the flexibilities are scheduled to be introduced in April, securing Assembly agreement to legislate for the policy via an LCM is the most prudent and timely approach to secure the financial safeguarding of unfunded and funded public-service pension schemes in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The policy rationale for introducing a restriction on transfers out of unfunded public-service defined benefit pension schemes and a power to switch on reduced cash-equivalent transfer values for the funded public-service scheme in Northern Ireland is a legitimate one that the Assembly must today endorse.”
“The concern over scheme stability also arises for private sector defined benefit schemes, where it is already addressed by existing powers allowing for the reduction of transfer values to reflect scheme funding. Clause 70 extends an equivalent safeguard for a funded scheme in the public sector. <BR /> <BR />Minister Durkan is the Minister responsible for the local government unfunded pension scheme. In his response on 23 October 2014 to the Executive paper, which I circulated and which proposed the use of a legislative consent motion (LCM), he confirmed that he was content with the proposed approach. <BR /> <BR />Clause 71 makes consequential amendments to the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 and the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Those areas of pension policy are devolved to Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 70 provides for, in specified circumstances, powers to switch on reduced cash-equivalent transfer values if, as a direct result of increased transfer volumes, there is an increased risk of taxpayer intervention to support the scheme or a risk that the necessary intervention is significantly greater than it would otherwise have been. <BR /> <BR />The provisions for funded schemes operate as a safeguard rather than as an outright ban. The policy to allow the transfers to continue, subject to the safeguards in clause 70, reflects the inherent capacity of the funded scheme design to absorb an increase in transfer traffic under normal conditions. <BR /> <BR />The funded defined benefit scheme design is also operated in the private sector. Transfers from funded schemes will continue to be allowed in that sector also.”
“<BR /> <BR />Although the scheme has a fund of assets that can sustain the payment of transfer values from the scheme under normal conditions, the potential for a significant increase in transfer traffic associated with the introduction of the flexibilities represents a potential risk to the integrity of the scheme and its remaining members, should sufficient members elect to apply to transfer their accrued benefits out of the scheme and into a defined contribution arrangement after April. I firmly believe that there should be a backstop protection to manage that risk.”
“As I pointed out, the assets held by funded schemes mean that the costs to the public purse of transfers to one of the defined contribution arrangements are less direct than from unfunded schemes. However, in some circumstances, where a significant number of withdrawals from the scheme impact on the short-term cash flow, and therefore the stability of the fund, there could still be implications for members of funded schemes and the taxpayer. As I already advised, that risk affects the local government pension scheme in Northern Ireland.”
“As a consequence, a significant volume of transfers out of the schemes from April could ultimately mean employee contributions being increased and/or benefits reduced for those members who choose to retain their public-service pension rights in the schemes. <BR /> <BR />I will now deal with the provisions covered by the motion. Clause 69 of the Bill will have the effect of amending relevant primary legislation — namely, the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 — to prevent transfers from unfunded schemes. However, clause 69 also provides scope for regulations to be made by my Department to disapply the restriction in the case of any of the unfunded schemes, should that be a consideration in future. <BR /> <BR />The outright restriction of transfers will protect the unfunded schemes in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />Permitting such transfers from unfunded public-service schemes from April would risk destabilising those schemes and put pressure on public finances if significant numbers of members were to avail themselves of the new flexibility to transfer to one of the defined contribution arrangements in order to draw down as a lump sum the pension benefits attributable to their career in public service. <BR /> <BR />It could also be to the detriment of members who remain in the scheme by causing an extraordinary pressure on the scheme's employer cost cap mechanism, which is a requirement for public-service pensions established under the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.”
“As Members will be aware, funded public-service pension schemes have a fund of assets that can support the payment of transfer values out of the scheme. However, unfunded public-service pension schemes have no such fund of assets set aside, and the transfer values payable for members in those schemes represent an up-front, direct cost to the Exchequer. The main unfunded schemes in Northern Ireland include those for the Civil Service, police, the Fire and Rescue Service, teachers and health workers. The local government pension scheme is the main funded scheme in Northern Ireland.”
“However, after the introduction of the flexibilities in April, members exercising that choice would then be in a position to access their pension pots as a lump sum under the new rules. Whilst those new flexibilities are progressive and increase individual choice in how members of schemes control their own pension arrangements, they must also be proportionate and managed effectively, especially where there may be impacts for public-service pension schemes, their members and the taxpayer.”
“As part of his Budget statement 2014, the Chancellor announced that, from April 2015, there is to be greater flexibility in the way that members of defined contribution pension schemes can access their pension pot. In essence, members of such schemes will be less constrained to purchase an annuity than is currently the case and will have more freedom to choose, in light of their personal circumstances, whether to purchase an annuity, draw down their savings as a lump sum or keep their pension invested. <BR /> <BR />Under the current rules, it is already possible for a member of a public-service defined benefit scheme to transfer their pension rights to a defined contribution scheme.”
“I also look forward to hearing in more detail the views of the various Committees, including, of course, the Committee for Finance and Personnel. However, I caution, as I have done many times before, that all requests for more funding should be accompanied with details of where that additional funding is to be found. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Committee for Finance and Personnel for initiating the debate and the Members who have taken part.”
“The Member, and indeed the whole House, will see the outworkings of the Stormont House Agreement, particularly how it positively affects our Budget, in the next number of days and weeks. You will have ample opportunity to debate and discuss it in the month ahead. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, in closing, I thank Members for participating in what was a useful debate. I have tried to respond to as many of the useful and constructive issues that were raised by Members as possible. I accept and appreciate that I have not been able to reply to everybody. <BR /> <BR />The response of the Assembly to the draft Budget proposals will be an important input into the Executive's decision on the revised and final Budget. The take-note debate today has provided plenty of material for my ministerial colleagues and me to consider.”
“The House will have a significant opportunity during later Budget debates, probably in February, to scrutinise those changes much further.”
“No, my time is running out. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I will address some comments by Mr Allister. Again, taking note of the date and time, he is not wrong; there will be significant changes between draft and final Budget for a whole host of reasons, not least because of the Stormont House Agreement, which will produce beneficial changes. The Member, however, would not welcome those beneficial changes because of the political position that he adopts to any good news that emanates from the Executive. Mr Allister made the point that perhaps it would have been more useful if I had outlined those changes at the start of the debate. This debate is not my debate. It is a debate on the draft Budget; it is not a debate on the final Budget.”
“The fact that none has come forward — sorry, I cannot recall clearly whether the ombudsman's office has or not, but I know that the Assembly and the Audit Office have not come forward with any savings at all — is not in keeping with where we are and what those bodies should be reflecting on as we face very difficult times in the next financial year. In my view, that is not an acceptable position for either of those bodies to adopt, and I will also address that issue at the final Budget stage.”
“I accept that it is not a huge budget. No reduction was made for the Audit Office's budget or, indeed, the Northern Ireland Assembly budget or the ombudsman's budget in the draft Budget. I thought that that was important because of various conventions that existed in the past. No reduction was made despite significant pressure from other parties that we should have done that in the draft Budget. I resisted that, but what we did say was that we informed — we did so in writing to the Audit Office, the Assembly and the ombudsman — that, given the very severe constraints that Departments and services being delivered to our general public were facing over the next year and in future years, we would expect those smaller bodies to come forward with suggestions for savings.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mike Nesbitt, as Chair of the OFMDFM Committee, welcomed the £3 million allocation to the Victims and Survivors Service and the £5 million allocation to the historical institutional abuse inquiry. He raised other issues that are consistent with what has been included in the Ulster Unionist Party's submission on the draft Budget. I have not had time to examine every aspect of the submission. I will do that in due course, but I have to say that I did not have to go too far to find a factual error; it has set out the asset management unit as having a target of £50 million. The target is not £50 million; it is £158 million. So I will be careful as I read the rest of the party's submission. <BR /> <BR />Danny Kinahan spoke in his capacity as Chair of the Audit Committee, which scrutinises the work of the Audit Office.”
“Alastair Ross, as Chair of the Justice Committee, raised issues about the policing budget. My problem with the Department of Justice budget has been that other pressures, particularly those for legal aid, are placing undue pressure on the PSNI element of that budget. There is a lot of work for the Minister of Justice to do to reduce our legal aid bill. He has my support in doing that, and I hope that he will also be able to have Executive support to do that. I have met the Chief Constable about the budgetary pressures that he has faced, and we particularly discussed the opportunity for better transparency for my Department on what is being spent within his budget.”
“If there is one benefit — I use that word advisedly — of the difficult situation that we are in, it is that it is forcing Departments to think creatively about drawing down funding, how that funding might be spent and where it might be spent. So, out of necessity, some invention is coming from Departments. Mr Irwin's point is a very good one.”
“I appreciate that there are some pressures, for example, around Going for Growth, and I will certainly look at those and many others at final Budget. <BR /> <BR />Mr Irwin made a very good point about how the Department had come forward with a proposal for drawing down more money from an EU veterinary programme. He asked, as the Committee had asked, why that had not been the case in previous years. I think it is a very interesting general point. Departments are now starting to save money. They are doing things differently and are making efficiencies, many of which should have been obvious and should have been done before.”
“I would not guarantee that all of the pressures will evaporate, but, particularly because of the need to prepare for corporation tax and to continue to provide that pipeline of skills for employers in Northern Ireland, we will do our very best to ensure that as much of the reductions are ameliorated as possibly can be. <BR /> <BR />I know that time is running out and, as predicted, I am not going to get anywhere near all of them, but I will try to cover as many as I can in the last few minutes. Mr William Irwin spoke in his capacity as Chair of the Agriculture Committee. I am sure that he, and, indeed, the Minister of Agriculture, would agree that, in these circumstances of cuts overall, it is a reasonable settlement for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, with reductions of 5·2%.”
“I was going to say that there are no specific Barnett consequentials for higher or further education. I cannot remember. The bulk of them came as a result of significant allocations at a national level for health. Those Barnett consequentials coming from the autumn statement will have to be considered, and there will be other elements of money that become available between draft and final Budget. That will obviously have to be counterbalanced against, for example, the £114 million worth of welfare reform penalties. Out of that we will see exactly how much we have to play with at final Budget. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that I can put it any more strongly than to say that I have sympathy for the case that has been made and I am least satisfied with that settlement compared to any other.”
“I think there was an argument for many bids to come forward in a joint way between DETI and DEL because of that connection between job creation and the need for appropriate skills. That might be corrected by a diminution in the number of Government Departments. I can say that, because of my personal lack of satisfaction with the settlement that that Department has, it is something that I will seek to rectify at least in part through further allocations in the final Budget.”
“<BR /> <BR />I did have a very useful meeting with Minister Farry — probably one of the most useful that I had in my series of bilaterals — in which he said that his Department had already identified over £30 million worth of savings, which somewhat justifies having some reductions within that Department. I commend him for his positive approach to the issue. Rather than saying that all of his budget needs to be filled in, he has made an effort to make savings where they can be made. <BR /> <BR />I have said before, and I repeat, that the Department for Employment and Learning settlement in the draft Budget is the one that I am least satisfied with. I would not say that there are not savings that can be made, as I have already pointed out. I do not think that DEL bid particularly well before the draft Budget.”
“He pointed out how, I think within days of the draft Budget being published, the two vice chancellors from the University of Ulster and Queen's University were in the media talking about how the reductions would mean 1,100 fewer university places in Northern Ireland. Of course, that presumed that the entirety of the proposed Department for Employment and Learning reduction, which is 10·8%, would be applied to university places. It made a presumption, and it goes back to Mr Girvan's point about some cuts being put up as scares to try to adjust budget allocations between draft and final Budget.”
“Similar to the point that I made about Ms McLaughlin, whilst I agree with what he said today about TYC presenting an opportunity to transform the service and to make significant savings, which can be reinvested into services, again, my recollection, particularly when TYC was launched by Mr Poots when he was in post, is that there was little or no support from the SDLP for it. Indeed, I recall the previous spokesman on health from the SDLP, when he was in post, continuously assaulting the TYC document, yet now it is held forward by Mr McKinney as something that the Minister should proceed with. There does seem to be some contradiction in the SDLP's position. <BR /> <BR />Robin Swann spoke in his capacity as Chair of the Employment and Learning Committee.”
“He argued that not enough money was being put into health. I, of course, would argue that significant increases have been put into health over the last number of years. Indeed, this draft Budget represents £200 million more of an allocation for the health budget. Over the last number of years, there has been funding for TYC, contrary to what was said. Indeed, close to half a billion pounds in savings have been made over the last four years by this Health Minister and his predecessor. <BR /> <BR />Mr McKinney gets up and argues for more money for health, saying that what has already been allocated is not enough, but, of course, makes no indication at all as to where that money should come from.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst administrators are those who sometimes feel our wrath when we are giving off about performance in the NHS, we do need administration and management to ensure that resources are best used and best utilised. I agree with Ms McLaughlin that tough decisions are required in the health service, whether that is around individual decisions on services or on the broader concept of Transforming Your Care (TYC). However, when the Health Minister comes forward with tough decisions, be it on TYC or on some of the decisions taken by the trust, those who are in the front line are very often Ms McLaughlin and her party colleagues and, indeed, others who criticise the Minister for seeking to take tough decisions. <BR /> <BR />Speaking of which, Mr McKinney, who is not here, made a similar contribution around health.”
“This is the oversight mechanism that was agreed at draft Budget to ensure that funding would go to, again, the front line. Again, I am satisfied that there is already improved control compared with last year in the NHS budget in Northern Ireland. The particulars of that oversight mechanism will, again, be elucidated on in the final Budget. She talked about ensuring that most of the money went to the front line, and I think that we would all agree that we want money spent on the front line, and we throw that view around. I think sometimes that that is an easy soundbite to make; it is harder to define. Ms McLaughlin was critical of the Health Department for not having a clear definition of what the front line in health was, but I think that sometimes it is difficult.”
“In this case, it is the schools. I do have some sympathy for the Minister about the difficult situation that he has. I think that there are savings and efficiencies that could be made in the education budget, just as I think that there can be in any budget, but I appreciate that it is not just as easy, especially around headcount reductions in the education system. As Michelle pointed out in her contribution, the school timetable runs across two different financial years and it can be difficult sometimes to make those efficiencies, even if they are there to be made. <BR /> <BR />Maeve McLaughlin, in her capacity as Chair of the Health Committee raised several points. She asked about the oversight mechanism and what that would be.”
“That was a bid that was taken forward as a result of a proposal made by DOE and the Strategic Investment Board. Obviously, planning permission has not been received for that proposal. If the proposal for any reason does not go forward, we will have to use that money elsewhere in our Budget. <BR /> <BR />Michelle McIlveen, in her capacity as Education Committee Chair, concentrated, as you would expect, on education funding. I do not want to pre-empt a debate that will take place tomorrow on this very subject. I think that she is right to highlight issues around how the Minister has prioritised the allocation that he has got and whether as much as possible of that allocation is being focused and concentrated on what we would define as the front line. Maybe later I will come to the issue of what is and what is not front line.”
“He outlined to the presiding officers in local government the reductions that his Department was facing at that stage, days in advance of when it was finally agreed. He told them that he was facing a 15% reduction, which is the reduction that every Department, with the exclusion of most of Health, took before other allocations were made. The Department of the Environment actually has an 11·1% reduction, so if there is the 15% reduction that Ms Lo talked being faced by local government, it is because of the prioritisation that is being laid out by the Minister of the Environment within his own budget. <BR /> <BR />Ms Lo asked why EU match funding had not been allocated. As was outlined in the draft Budget, it will be outlined at final Budget stage. She talked about an Arc21 bid and an FTC bid.”
“I hope that we will not incur a full £114 million penalty next year, but that will be very much dependent on the House and the passage of the various pieces of legislation through it and the other parts of the House that will give scrutiny to them. There is obviously an urgency and impetus for us to do that because the quicker we get them through, the less of a penalty we will incur and the more money we as an Executive will have to spend. <BR /> <BR />Anna Lo, speaking on behalf of the Committee for the Environment, swallowed hook, line and sinker the propaganda of the Environment Minister by talking in the House about 15·1% reductions to local government. The Environment Minister wrote to the presiding officers of the new councils not after the draft Budget was agreed but in advance of it being agreed.”
“They have to very quickly turn that into what it means for their Department, which limits further the time that Committees have to scrutinise it. There are issues around that. There are other parts of our Budget process that the Member and I, and, I am sure, many in the House, agree are in desperate need of reform. <BR /> <BR />He mentioned issues around the Northern Ireland investment fund. I hope that I addressed some of the substance of that when responding to Mr McKay. A steering group has been established, with several Departments represented, to take that forward. We are about to appoint consultants to take forward the various pieces of work, such as assessments of each individual strand as to where that fund may be spending its money. He also mentioned welfare penalties and asked whether we will get some of the money back.”
“He asked again where the reform of the Budget process paper was. Unfortunately, it is still stuck with the Executive, but perhaps as a result of some of the reforms coming from the Stormont House Agreement, we might be able to at least get that paper forward, and those opposed to it can reject it if they want. I am sure that the Member agrees that it is worth continuing to make an effort to try to ensure that reform of the budgetary process gets through. It is a common criticism that comes particularly from Committee Chairs, who talk about the limited time they have to deal with it. I have sympathy for Departments and Chairs, as they have to very quickly deal with a draft Budget after it is agreed.”
“I am not sure whether that has fully been communicated to the SDLP or whether it has changed its tune in the last number of weeks. <BR /> <BR />He made a legitimate point — we will have to be very careful of this as we take forward our voluntary exit scheme — about who leaves, what experience those individuals have, and what areas they are leaving from. Hopefully, the Executive will endorse the paper that I have put to them, which will establish a structure and process for the VES, and, as we get the nuts and bolts of the scheme in place, we will bear in mind those very points. We do not want to see particular key areas being hollowed out as key individuals leave them. That would put us in a difficult position. <BR /> <BR />Mr Cree is nothing if not consistent; he was critical of our budgetary process.”
“Mr Byrne began by talking about the SDLP's opposition to the Budget. As I have said before, when you are in the luxurious position of being able to oppose it because your vote will not actually matter in the Executive in terms of the numbers, opposition is the easy option; it is the easy way out when you are faced with very difficult decisions and tough choices, as we were, in crafting a draft Budget. Following on from Mr Agnew's point about the voluntary exit scheme (VES), I noted that Mr Byrne condemned our public-sector restructuring plans, but the SDLP signed up to a very radical and ambitious five-party agreement before Christmas, on 19 December, to reduce our public sector in Northern Ireland by 10% over the next four years.”
“We will still have the ability to draw down borrowing of £350 million to continue to invest in infrastructure so that good infrastructure projects can be taken forward over that four-year period when we are using a significant proportion of our RRI borrowing for a voluntary exit scheme.”
“In essence, the Member is right. The Member should take a note of the time and date when I said that. To give a short history, the Executive have the ability to borrow up to £3 billion. The Executive have reached roughly £1·7 billion to £1·8 billion of that, not always for capital projects. Some of it was for the Presbyterian Mutual Society and, indeed, for a previous equal pay claim. Sometimes we have capitalised a current expenditure cost, and that is what we are doing. Thankfully, however, as a result of the Stormont House Agreement, we are investing that £700 million to save £0·5 billion of revenue expenditure on a recurring basis. It is very clear from listening to the discussion today that that is desperately needed, not just in the next year but, more to the point, in future years.”
“We would have borrowed it for a different purpose — capital investment — but it is still, nonetheless, money that this Executive would have borrowed. There is additional borrowing power of around £350 million so that we can still invest in infrastructure, but it is that amount which is the additional borrowing, as opposed to the £700 million, which the Executive would have borrowed anyway. <BR /> <BR />Mr Joe Byrne —”
“While that is quite significant and radical over a short period of time, it would still result in Northern Ireland having by far the biggest public sector of any of the regions of the UK. <BR /> <BR />Mr McCallister talked about borrowing to do that, as did Mr Nesbitt. I make the point that this borrowing will save us money on a recurrent basis. The investment of £700 million in a voluntary exit scheme will save the Executive around £0·5 billion, not just on a one-off basis, but on an annual and recurring basis. In that respect, it is an invest-to-save proposition. It is also — and this is to correct stuff that has been said, perhaps not today, but since the Stormont House Agreement — largely money that we would have borrowed anyway.”
“Down though the years there has been a consensus in this House that our public sector in Northern Ireland is much larger than we want it to be. It dominates our economy, accounting for roughly two thirds of our economic output. About 35% of our workforce is employed by the public sector. We have all wanted to see that reliance on and domination by the public sector diminished. That is why a package of various measures to restructure our economy has been agreed by the parties. It includes the voluntary exit scheme that has been mentioned by many Members, but also a recruitment and promotion freeze, which has already been instigated across many parts of the public sector. Our aim, as an Executive, is to reduce our public sector in Northern Ireland from roughly 215,000 individuals by about 10%.”