Official Report: Wednesday 23 February 2022

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): The first item of business in the Order Paper is the consideration of Executive business not concluded on Tuesday 22 February. As all business was concluded when the Assembly adjourned yesterday, there is nothing further to consider under that item. We will move on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I have received notice from the Minister for the Economy that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members in the Chamber that, in light of the social distancing being observed by the parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear the statement if they wish to ask a question has been relaxed. Members who are participating remotely must make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called. Members who are present in the Chamber must also do that, and they may show their intent by rising in their place as well as by notifying the Business Office or the Speaker's Table directly. I remind Members to be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. I also remind Members that, in accordance with long-established procedure, points of order are not normally taken during a statement or the period for questions afterwards.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy): In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make a statement on the third British-Irish Council (BIC) ministerial meeting in energy sector format, which was held on Friday 4 February 2022. The Government of Jersey hosted the meeting, although proceedings were conducted virtually. Minister Hargey and I represented the Executive. Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport in the Scottish Government, and the Rt Hon Greg Hands, Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change in the UK Government, jointly chaired the meeting.

The energy work sector meeting brought together Ministers with responsibility for energy policy to discuss how the eight member Administrations can continue to work together to address shared challenges such as climate change, energy efficiency and energy security. We reviewed and discussed energy policy developments in each of the eight member Administrations.

All recognised the importance of embracing local and community energy approaches; innovation in energy storage; more effective and comprehensive use of smart grids, including smart meters and smart EV charging points; the expansion of marine energy generation; improved offshore grid and interconnection capability; and new and emerging energy technologies.

We all acknowledged that member Administrations face shared challenges, including the threat of climate change, the desire to make greater progress in energy efficiency and the need to ensure energy security. There was shared recognition between us that the path that each Administration is taking towards a net zero carbon future varied according to regional strengths, political priorities and the availability of natural resources, but we noted that, by sharing information and experiences, the British-Irish Council energy work sector continued to bring important benefits and opportunities for all its members. We also noted the contribution of the British-Irish Council at COP26 in Glasgow, where a ministerial panel event to outline the importance of collaboration showcased the work of the British-Irish Council in driving effective climate policy.

The minutes from the previous British-Irish Council energy ministerial meeting that was hosted by the Scottish Government on 15 June 2018 and from the British-Irish Council energy meeting that was held prior to the thirty-second British-Irish Council summit on 28 June 2019 were approved.

Finally, Ministers thanked the energy work sector officials in each of the Administrations for their active engagement in preparing the briefing, and we endorsed the forward work plan. I commend the statement to the House.

Dr Archibald (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I thank the Minister for his statement. Obviously, we are already seeing the impact of global forces, particularly on oil and gas prices, which are impacting on families and businesses, and the current situation in Ukraine could exacerbate that. Did the Minister get a sense that there is an understanding of and a willingness for the need for support to rapidly invest in renewables in order to ensure security of indigenous supply and affordability for people? Is he engaging on that with his British ministerial counterparts in particular?

Mr Lyons: Yes. Even before the current events in Ukraine, the meeting took place at a time when we recognised the squeeze on the finances of individuals and businesses. That is why we have put renewable energy front and centre of my energy strategy. Affordability is so important, so we understand that we need to secure our energy from sources that are not volatile. What we have put in our energy strategy demonstrates that we were right to go down that route, because oil and gas prices are becoming evermore volatile. The more of our energy that we can source here in Northern Ireland, the better.

Of course, that transition is going to require investment. It is worth noting that, if we were to continue down the road of having further oil and gas infrastructure, that would require additional investment as well. It will require more money. We should be putting it into renewables because of the long-term benefit that we will get from it. Funding was discussed at the meeting, and I have constant conversations with the UK Government about how they can assist us in moving towards net zero.

Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for his statement. As the Minister indicated, energy supply has moved higher and higher up the agenda in recent weeks and even this week. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister about his discussions on offshore generation. What steps are being taken to advance energy security and security of supply in offshore generation?

Mr Lyons: That absolutely was discussed at the meeting. It is an area that we need to explore further because, in many ways, we have used a lot of land in Northern Ireland for renewable technologies. We have a limited amount of land, so we now need to look towards offshore solutions to that issue. Not only was that raised during the meeting but, in recent weeks, I met representatives from the Crown Estate, which has responsibility for the offshore areas that we would want to develop. I was able to give an update on those discussions at the meeting.

I am pleased that we are now working with the Crown Estate and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) in the UK Government to take forward those opportunities. I am delighted that we have secured support from the Crown Estate for a new approach to developing that technology.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, thank you for the update. One of the less controversial bits of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol is the single electricity market on the island, but some operators are having an issue with something that was left out of the initial withdrawal agreement: guarantees of origin. That is proving a problem with moving some renewable energy from North to South, which, obviously, is really critical. Are his officials working on that with BEIS, and could it be discussed at, for example, the British-Irish Council?

Mr Lyons: That was not discussed at the British-Irish Council. I do not have an update for him on the recent conversations that have taken place, but I am more than happy to speak to my officials to see what work has been done. I am not sure that the BIC would necessarily be the most appropriate forum to discuss that and take it further. Whether that requires coordination between the UK Government and the Irish Government or between us and the UK Government, we will make sure that the appropriate work is done. If there have been discussions in the past number of days, I will be happy to update him on those.

Mr Nesbitt: The Minister mentioned electric vehicle charge points. What was he able to tell the meeting about council uptake of the £20 million pot from central government, which is backed by £350,000 from the Department for Infrastructure?

Mr Lyons: That was not raised directly at the BIC meeting, but I understand the importance of it and, in particular, the challenges that we face in Northern Ireland. I feel that, in recent years, we have gone backwards in terms of a lack of availability of EV charging points and, in some cases, EV charging points that actually work. That is why it is part of the energy strategy and why, in the energy action plan that was released this year, we have committed to publishing an EV infrastructure action plan. DFI will take that forward in coordination with my Department.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I note that the UK Minister who jointly chaired the meeting is responsible for clean growth; that is in the title of his role. Was there any discussion, therefore, Minister, about deterring the development of blue hydrogen or fossil fuel-derived hydrogen? There is serious concern, presumably across all the nations, that that is not a clean fuel.

Mr Lyons: I absolutely agree with the Member's points on the concern that exists about blue hydrogen. During the meeting, I was able to raise the opportunities that I think that Northern Ireland has with green hydrogen. That is certainly the way that I think that we need to go. There is great opportunity for us to progress that in Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Dowd: Minister, I note from your statement that the British-Irish Council was established by the same Act under which the North/South Ministerial Council was established. I also note that you were accompanied by Deirdre Hargey, a Sinn Féin Minister who is honouring her ministerial code and her ministerial pledge, and that the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party are doing the same. When will you honour your ministerial pledge and oath and return to North/South Ministerial Council meetings so that we can have a full development of cross-border, cross-island energy strategies that will help people who are facing crippling energy costs at this time?

Mr Lyons: The North/South Ministerial Council was not an item of discussion at the British-Irish Council meeting.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, in your statement, you referred to zero carbon being achieved according to "regional strengths". What would you say our strengths are, and what are the strengths of the other regions of the United Kingdom?

Mr Lyons: In Northern Ireland, first and foremost, our strength is the level of renewable technologies that are already in place.

I noted that there was some surprise among member Administrations at the level of renewables that we have. They were surprised that, at one point in the week before the meeting took place, almost 90% of our energy had come from renewable sources. Key for us is that we are, in many ways, ahead of other member Administrations. That is not always the case, so we need to make sure that we are taking advantage of it and building on it as one of our strengths.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, the meeting was about energy efficiency, so I suppose that I should commend your efforts to condense the detail into a two-and-a-half-page statement. This is an island, so you would imagine that marine energy generation would be a big part of our renewable plans here, but, as we know, it has been fraught with difficulties. What is the current status of marine energy generation in the North, and what role do you see it playing in the future?

Mr Lyons: There was limited discussion on that issue at the meeting. As part of our energy strategy, however, we have committed to looking at alternative renewable energy sources. Right now, we are very much focused on wind generation. I want to look at the other potential opportunities, and marine energy has a role to play in that. As part of our energy action plan, we will look at how we can develop other sectors and ensure that there is investment in those technologies.

There are particular advantages with marine energy generation. Challenges come with it, but it is a steady supply of energy. I want to ensure that we have the technology to harness that energy for all communities in Northern Ireland. I was recently on Rathlin Island, where I saw the opportunities that could exist for people there to generate their own electricity. Having travelled there, I see huge opportunities, and that place should not be left behind.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his statement. What potential hydrogen and biomethane opportunities exist in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: We had a good discussion at the meeting about hydrogen opportunities. That is another area in which, when compared with the rest of the member Administrations, we are ahead of the curve. We have huge opportunities with hydrogen, not only because so much of our energy already comes from renewables but because we need to find a way in which to store that energy, and hydrogen storage is one way in which we can do that most effectively.

If we look not only at the high level of wind generation but at the relative size of our country and at the facts that we have good interconnection between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland and the skills in place in advanced manufacturing and technologies, we see that the future for us is very bright indeed. I want us to be ahead of the curve on that.

Another benefit that we have over the rest of the UK is our gas network, which is much more modern than that in the rest of the UK. The gas network and infrastructure will be useful as we transition from natural gas to other gases such as hydrogen. That puts us in a position to take advantage of it by ensuring not only that we can meet our green growth goals but that, at the same time, we have a cheaper and more sustainable supply of energy.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his statement. I declare interests as a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA) and of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) and its energy network, which takes me directly to my question. The meeting was hosted by the Government of Jersey. Recently, there was a threat by the French to cut off Jersey's electricity supply. Given that important international relationship, was there any discussion about security of supply and future concerns about the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM) and interrelationships, with the EU in particular?

Mr Lyons: Security of supply was, of course, a major concern for all member Administrations. There are different threats to our energy security, and that is why, as I have said a number of times, it is so important that we secure and supply as much of our energy as possible locally. All member Administrations have expressed their commitment to doing that.

Ms Á Murphy: I thank the Minister for updating us. Minister, the move to vehicles powered by non-fossil fuels is crucial in the fight against climate change.

What cooperation has there been between your Department and the Infrastructure Minister on that issue? Can you update us on the progress of the electric vehicle infrastructure task force?

Mr Lyons: Although that issue was not raised at the British-Irish Council, the importance of the move towards electric vehicles was recognised. In my energy strategy, we have made the importance of that move very clear. As I have said many times, I did not produce an energy strategy for it to sit on the shelf. We have an energy action plan and, as part of that, have committed to publishing an EV infrastructure action plan this year. That will be informed by the EV infrastructure task force, which is led primarily by the Department for Infrastructure. We will be coordinating with them and playing our role where appropriate.

Ms Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I am an MLA for Strangford — there are three of us in the room — which is the constituency with the longest coastline, so you will understand why I am bringing you back to marine and offshore energy. Given the discussion at the British-Irish Council, what provision are you making in the coming three-year Budget to take forward tidal and wave energy projects, such as the hydrokinetic turbines that are being tested by Queen's University, GKinetic Energy and Grant's Electrical Services?

Mr Lyons: Again, that issue was not raised directly. Unfortunately, Strangford did not get a mention at the British-Irish Council meeting.

Mr McGuigan: Shame.

Mr Lyons: Yes. I will endeavour to rectify that at the next meeting. The specific issues that the Member talked about were not raised but, as I said to Mr McGuigan, we see potential for marine technology.

With regard to the specific question that she asked about the funding that is in place, one of the difficulties that we have with the proposed draft three-year Budget is that it does not give us much room for manoeuvre to do some of the extra things that we might want to do. However, it is important to note that it will not just be the Northern Ireland Executive or the UK Government that will invest in those technologies: there will have to be investment from the community, industry and business, if we are to meet our goals, which is clearly set out in the energy strategy.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Given that the future of energy is, as we are all aware, all-Ireland in nature, will you detail what discussions you have had on that with your counterparts in the South? What are your plans with regard to the energy strategy and working with our counterparts in the South on the development of renewable energy?

Mr Lyons: I certainly recognise the importance of working with other Administrations in the BIC. One of the strengths that I have outlined is the interconnection that we have, North/South and east-west. That places us in a really good position, particularly in regard to hydrogen. I recognise that we have a single electricity market, and I want to make sure that that works, first and foremost, for our consumers, namely people in Northern Ireland. If we want that security of supply, we need to work with our neighbours, North/South and east-west, and ensure that there is support between Administrations. There will be times when we are able to generate more electricity than our neighbours and vice versa. So, it is right that we have a flexible system that allows sharing of energy, especially when it comes to renewable energy, because that will, ultimately, lead to cheaper electricity for consumers.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): That concludes questions on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Depending on progress, I suggest taking a short comfort break at the end of this item of business, because the next item of business will, principally, involve the same people. We will see how it goes.

I call the Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill. Glaoim ar an Aire Pobal leis an Bhille a mholadh.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of three amendments, which deal with the removal of an end date and with reporting. The amendments in that group will be debated together. Once the debate on the group is completed, any further amendments will be moved formally without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

We come to the single group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 and 3. Dá bhrí sin, glaoim ar an Aire Pobal, Deirdre Hargey, leasú uimhir a haon a mholadh in éineacht leis na leasuithe eile sa ghrúpa sin. I call the Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Ms Hargey (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Ms Hargey: During Consideration Stage, three amendments were made to the Bill with cross-party support. The amendment made to clause 1 removed the end date of 31 March 2025 for the social sector size criteria — the bedroom tax — mitigation scheme. Two consequential amendments were made to clause 3, providing for a review of welfare mitigations to be completed by 31 March 2025. Further to the amendments made by the Assembly, and after consultation with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), I have agreed that some technical amendments should be tabled to the Bill. Those amendments include a new clause 1, which will avoid the need to make several separate small changes. The amendments do not alter the policy agreed by the Assembly at Consideration Stage, but rather are designed to tidy up the drafting of the Bill.

Amendment No 1 will ensure that the relevant date of 2 January 2017 is properly defined for the purposes of mitigation payments for people claiming housing benefit or universal credit. It will also avoid duplication where the mitigation period is currently referred to. The proposed new clause 1 will therefore amend article 137A of the Welfare Reform (NI) Order 2015 by removing the end date for mitigation payments in respect of the bedroom tax. This means that my Department will have the authority to make statutory mitigation payments to people affected by the bedroom tax at any time from 2 January 2017. That is the policy that was agreed by the House at Consideration Stage.

I think that it is well known that I do not want to see an end date in the legislation. I firmly believe that we need to protect people from the bedroom tax, and I commend the House for agreeing that we should not introduce a new cliff edge for people who depend on these payments.

The Bill will also provide assurance to the Housing Executive and housing associations. I believe that we have a collective responsibility to deliver this meaningful change before the end of the mandate. We know that the social housing stock is not available across the North to allow tenants to avoid being penalised by the bedroom tax. That is one of the reasons why there has been consistent cross-party support in the Chamber for not applying the bedroom tax in the North.

The amendment to clause 3 is purely technical in nature. It will remove any unnecessary duplication of provisions in the Welfare Reform Order and will provide for the Department for Communities to monitor and report on the ongoing operation of the welfare mitigation schemes under articles 137 and 137A. The report will therefore cover all existing welfare mitigation schemes, and it is to be laid in the Assembly before 31 March 2025. That is the position that was previously agreed by the House.

The final amendment is to the long title. The new title will reflect the fact that the end date for the bedroom tax mitigation will be removed, rather than changed.

I recommend my amendments to the House.

Ms Ferguson: As I stated at Consideration Stage, removing the end date will help to bring certainty to those receiving this payment. We have all agreed here in the House that the Tory policy of the bedroom tax is unfair and unjust. There will be no more cliff-edge scenarios for our people in our communities. It is critical that we provide people with support and certainty, particularly in these uncertain times. I welcome the fact that there remains consensus on the mitigation and in relation to the amendments proposed by the Minister. I am content with the rationale that has been provided for the amendments, some of which are technical. I am happy to support them. I look forward to the Bill's moving to its Final Stage.

Ms Hargey: I have nothing further to add. I commend the House for removing the end date at Consideration Stage. I again commend the amendments to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Welfare Supplementary Payments(Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. We moved through that fairly expeditiously, so there is no need for a suspension for a short comfort break. Bear with us as we get the documentation for the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I call the Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, to move the Bill's Consideration Stage. Glaoim ar an Aire Pobal, Deirdre Hargey, leis an Bhille a mholadh.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 24, which deal with rent payments and notice to quit. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 25 to 45, which deal with energy efficiency.

Again, I remind Members who wish to speak that, during the debates on the two groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill. The Question on each will be put without further debate. The Question on stand part will be taken at the appropriate point in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed. Again, depending on progress, after a while, I will judge whether a comfort break is required.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 2 through to amendment No 24. Within that group, amendment Nos 3 and 8 are consequential to amendment No 1, amendment No 7 is consequential to amendment No 3, amendment No 16 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 15, amendment No 17 is consequential to amendment No 15, amendment No 18 is consequential to amendment No 17, amendment No 20 is consequential to amendment No 19, and amendment No 23 is consequential to amendment No 22.

Arís eile, glaoim ar an Aire Pobal, Deirdre Hargey, leasú uimhir a haon a mholadh in éineacht leis na leasuithe eile sa ghrúpa. I call the Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Ms Hargey (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Ms Hargey: First, I put on record my thanks to the Committee for Communities, the Chair and Deputy Chair, for the assistance that they have given in progressing this much-awaited Bill to Consideration Stage. The Second Stage debate showed that there is support for the Bill from all sides of the Assembly. The Committee Stage reflected that there is general agreement that the Bill is necessary and welcome. The Committee scrutiny has been robust, diligent and constructive. I believe that the amendments that we have agreed will result in a better Bill.

The first 12 amendments apply to clause 3, which introduces a requirement for a receipt to be produced for a rent payment. Whilst the Committee, in its report, was supportive of the clause, it felt that landlords should provide a receipt for any payment in cash, such as deposits or for repairs, for which the tenant is liable. I agree and was happy to add that to the Bill. That is what the first 12 amendments do. Some of them are technical. I will focus on the substantive ones.

The amendments put a duty on the landlord to provide receipts for all cash payments that relate to the granting of a tenancy and obligations during the tenancy. Amendment No 1 sets out that receipts should now detail what the payment is for, any apportionment where two or more payments in cash are made, and any amount that remains outstanding after the cash payment has been made. If no amount remains outstanding, that should also be included. Amendment Nos 3 and 7 ensure that the duty to give a receipt for cash payments applies to former and prospective landlords and tenants.

Amendment Nos 8 to 12 refer to controlled tenancies and clarify that the defence provided by amendment No 8 relates only to receipts for rent. All other receipts for cash payments made in controlled tenancies should be correct as far as is reasonably possible. Again, that will apply to former landlords. Therefore, I propose amendment Nos 1 to 12, which will place a duty on landlords to supply a receipt for all payments made in cash. I thank the Committee for suggesting the improvement to the Bill.

Amendment No 13, tabled by Gerry Carroll, seeks to amend clause 7 to introduce a rent reduction of 10% for all private tenancies longer than six months. The issue of affordability in the private rented sector is a priority for me, and I have already asked officials to begin work to look at fair and affordable rents in the private and social sectors, including looking at the important issue of caps. Unfortunately, that work could not be taken forward in the Bill due to the time constraints, but, as I have previously stated, it is a key element of the second stage of the private rented sector Bill. I have concerns that the clause would apply only retrospectively to all tenancies, which would impact signed and binding contracts and could raise concerns that would veer into contract law.

The amendment would apply only to tenancies in existence at Royal Assent. It would not apply to any new tenancies after that date, thereby creating an inequality. It would easily be avoided by a landlord ending and restarting a tenancy. It would also apply in areas where rents have fallen recently as well as where they have increased. The Member has suggested no penalty for landlords who choose to ignore it.

We will have to be realistic and stay within the confines of the law. I do not think that the amendment does that. It would also risk putting the whole Bill outside of competence and, potentially, the Bill falling. Given that we are coming to the end of the mandate, that could prove fatal for the Bill, and we would lose all the other protections that are in it. I urge caution with regard to the amendment.

Amendment No 14 relates to longer notice of rent increases. This amendment was suggested by the Committee. The Bill states that tenants ought to get two months' notice of a rent increase. The Committee agreed that it is important that tenants have time to prepare for a rent increase based on evidence presented by representatives of tenants. Three months' notice of a rent increase would be better to allow tenants to plan for the extra expenditure required. I accept the Committee's position, and I am happy to propose amendment No 14, which will increase the notice period for a landlord to give a tenant from two months to three months.

Amendment Nos 15, 17 and 18, tabled by Ciara Ferguson, seek amendments to clause 11. For landlords, that would increase the length of notice to quit that they must give a tenant depending on the length of tenancies. There would be six different notice periods lengthening to 224 days or 32 weeks once a tenancy is eight years old.

I believe in longer notice to quit periods from landlords. I have been clear in my intention to increase the notice to quit period to six months, but, for a notice period as long as that, there must be exemptions. It is unreasonable, for example, for neighbours or fellow tenants to endure antisocial behaviour for seven or eight months.

There was general agreement for that in my recent consultation on notices to quit. Over two thirds of respondents supported the introduction of exemptions aligned to a longer notice to quit period. So, I agree with the sentiment of the amendment. We need to stay within the confines of the law and ensure that we do not lose the other important and badly needed protections in the Bill.

If the amendment is carried, I will ask my officials to explore urgently what could be done at Further Consideration Stage to reduce that risk. That would at least include much more detail on the exemptions that would be needed as well as the other balancing provisions, such as longer notices for tenants. It would inevitably mean a long delay in introducing the notice periods. In that scenario, I again ask Members to support me at Further Consideration Stage.

Members will have seen later amendments that bring in new notice periods from the day on which the emergency coronavirus notice periods expire. It is impossible to prepare the detailed work on exemptions by then. If the Assembly were to vote for the amendment, I could not commence the new notices to quit in May. To do so would risk the entire Bill. In May, notice periods would revert to what they were before, and, for a lot of people, that would be four weeks. I have been clear, however, that I do not want to return to the previous notice to quit periods. Four weeks is an insufficient time for a notice period, and I have welcomed the support from across the Assembly on that. If the amendment is passed, I will ask my officials to urgently examine a transitional arrangement, if that is possible, that will introduce an eight-week notice to quit period until the periods outlined in amendment No 15 commence.

Amendment Nos 17 and 18 seek to amend the regulation-making powers further to amendment No 15. If amendment No 15 is passed, I will support amendment Nos 17 and 18. However, I would need to suggest considerable amendments at Further Consideration Stage to properly define the regulation-making powers needed to introduce the exemptions.

Amendment No 16, tabled by Gerry Carroll, also seeks to amend the notice to quit periods in the Bill. The 12-week notice period has been in place for almost two years because of my coronavirus legislation. The recent consultation exercise showed support for longer notice to quit periods. Amendment No 16 provides no protection for tenants who have been in a private tenancy for less than three months. The recent consultation showed support for longer notice periods for longer tenancies. This amendment would give the same protections to a tenant who has been in their home for 12 weeks as someone who has lived in their home for 12 years. As previously mentioned, further work on exemptions to any extended notice to quit period is required, and I want to do that properly. Therefore, again, I am cautious about Amendment No 16.

Amendment No 19, tabled by Ciara Ferguson, further requires tenants to give longer notice to quit periods — up to 16 weeks — than those in the Bill, which does not lengthen the notice periods that tenants have to give to landlords. Indeed, it will shorten the notice period for many tenants. We should not trap a tenant in a tenancy that they no longer need or can afford for any longer than is necessary. Tenants often leave tenancies to move to more suitable accommodation: for example, if their health deteriorates or in the event of a relationship breakdown. Amendment No 19 places a greater burden on tenants that could cause them to lose new tenancies or incur increased expense.

During the recent notice to quit consultation, several respondents cautioned against the unintended consequences of longer notice to quit periods. For instance, in a bid to secure a new property, a tenant may find themselves paying two rent bills until the notice period expires. That situation would be particularly problematic for tenants relying on benefits to pay their rent. An unduly long notice period might mean that tenancies overlap, with the tenant having to pay two rents. It would be perverse for someone to lose an offer, for example, of a social home because of the length of their notice to quit period. It would not be much better if they had to go deeper into debt to secure their home. If that is introduced, there may also need to be exemptions from longer notice periods for tenants. Again, if it is the will of the Chamber, my officials will start to work that up for Further Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 20 is a technical amendment that relates to amendment No 19, if amendment No 19 is passed. I support this amendment. It is important that the additional protections for tenants in relation to the longer notice to quit periods introduced in the Bill commence as soon as possible, ideally after the expiry of the coronavirus emergency Act if possible.

Amendment No 21 is one of two amendments that will commence the new notice periods, either right after the coronavirus Act expires on 4 May or as soon as possible after that, depending on Royal Assent. However, as I said, if amendment No 15 is made, the changes to the notice to quit periods will vary, and my Department will require much more time to commence it in the sector and to produce guidelines for landlords and tenants.

The same applies to amendment No 16, as I have explained, as more time would be required to properly develop exemptions. Therefore, if amendment Nos 15 and 16 are carried, I will not move amendment No 21.

Amendment Nos 22 and 23 relate to new clause 11A. During the scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee heard concerns from some landlords who insist on receiving cash payments, mainly for deposits and rent. The Committee asked me to consider an amendment to prevent that practice. The issue turned out to be complex, and, as it had not been raised in earlier consultations, no work or scoping had been carried out on it. However, I wish to address the concerns raised, so I have tabled amendment No 22 in order to allow consultation with a wide range of stakeholders on the issue and, on the basis of that consultation, to take a power to make regulations on payment options for tenants. I therefore propose amendment Nos 22 and 23 to address the concerns that were raised by tenant representatives during Committee Stage.

Finally in the group, I propose amendment No 24. The amendment commences the notice to quit period directly after the coronavirus notice to quit period ends on 4 May or as soon as possible if Royal Assent has not been given by then. The amendment works with amendment No 21, which I have just mentioned. As before, amendment No 24 depends on the outcomes of amendment Nos 15 and 19. If either of those amendments are carried, I will not move amendment Nos 21 and 24. Those are the group 1 amendments.

Ms P Bradley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Bill. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, before turning to the amendments, I will say a few words about the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. During its deliberations, the Committee bore it in mind that the private rented sector accounts for over 17% of all housing stock in Northern Ireland and that the Bill follows a series of reforms that have already been made to the regulation of the sector. We focused on the purpose of the Bill, which is to amend the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 as the first stage in a long-term programme of reform to make the private rented sector a safer and more secure housing option for a wide range of households. We also remained mindful that the sector is home to a considerable number of vulnerable households.

The Committee also aimed to consider any potential unintended consequences of the Bill by finding a balance between protecting tenants and over-regulating, which may drive landlords from the sector, thus compounding housing problems. In response to its call for evidence, the Committee received 20 replies to its online survey and a further 13 written submissions. Responses were received from private landlords and tenants, councils, student unions and tenancy deposit scheme administrators, to name but a few. The Committee held 12 oral evidence sessions and considered the Bill at 17 meetings, and its formal clause-by-clause consideration took place on 11 January 2022. We considered the range of issues raised in both written and oral evidence with departmental officials through oral briefings and follow-up written responses. Through its research and evidence, the Committee also considered the Bill in comparison with similar legislation in our neighbouring jurisdictions.

After considering its evidence, deliberating on the issues that were raised, taking advice from the Assembly Bill Office and querying many issues with departmental officials, the Committee agreed to clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and schedule 1.

Before turning to the specific amendments, I will take the opportunity to highlight two difficulties that the Committee faced during its deliberations. First, although the Committee finally agreed clause 9 and schedule 2, with regard to schedule 2, the Committee was put in a difficult position when, midway through deliberations, the Department produced a new enhanced schedule 2 to future-proof the legislation. I will come back to that when we debate the group 2 amendments. Secondly, during Committee Stage, the Department commenced a public consultation on the notice to quit period in clause 11. The Committee was put in an extremely difficult position. Its deliberations were severely hampered, as the consultation ended only recently and, therefore, after the Committee had reported on the Bill. Again, that is an unusual situation, and it meant that the Committee could only consider the clause as drafted. The Committee sought its own legal advice on clause 11 but decided to reserve its position to allow the consultation to run its course, although, during the formal clause-by-clause process, we strongly reiterated our frustration at the turn of events.

The Bill already offers a range of protections for tenants and landlords. We hope that, after today, a number of those protections will be further improved. Amendment Nos 1 to 12 relate to clause 3. The Committee supports the Minister's amendments, as they were requested by the Committee, and we thank the Minister for tabling them. During our deliberations, the Committee discussed many matters in connection with clause 3, including the form and status of receipts and the timely provision of receipts. However, it became clear that the key matter was that the Committee wished to see a detailed receipt provided to tenants for all appropriate payments made in whole or in part in cash in connection with the granting, renewal or continuance of a private tenancy or any payment in satisfaction or part satisfaction of an obligation arising under a private tenancy and not just rent payments. Amendment Nos 1 to 12 cover those matters to the Committee's satisfaction.

Amendment Nos 13 and 14 relate to clause 7. The Committee has no position on amendment No 13 but supports the Minister's amendment No 14, as it was requested by us. The Committee queried the proposals set out in the Bill that landlords were to give two months' notice of rent increases. Members asked why that could not be three months' notice in order to be of more benefit to those in receipt of housing benefit. Officials confirmed that three months would, indeed, offer a more practical time frame, and we thank the Minister for tabling the amendment. The Committee was concerned that the amount of any rent increase was of as much concern as the frequency of the increases. We discussed that at length and were assured that that work was being taken forward in phase 2 on fair rent.

Amendment Nos 15 to 21 relate to clause 11. I have already stated the difficult position that the Committee found itself in on the clause due to the consultation on notice-to-quit periods, which completed after the Committee was obliged to report on the Bill. The Committee, after seeking its own legal advice, agreed not to seek amendments to the clause and has no official position on the amendments. I will leave it to individual Members to comment on the amendments.

What I can say is that, on numerous occasions throughout our deliberations, members raised concerns regarding notice-to-quit periods for tenancies of less than 12 months. We were assured that the consultation addressed that for tenancies that were under 12 months and those over 12 months and up to 10 years and consulted on options for eight, 12 or 26 weeks. The Committee recommended that consideration be given to more nuanced tiers of the notice-to-quit period. The Committee was advised that the Bill provided sufficient regulation-making powers to make any required future changes to notice-to-quit periods as a result of the consultation and once further required work on exemptions had been carried out. At its meeting tomorrow, the Committee is to receive a further briefing from officials on the outcome of the consultation and the way forward.

Amendment No 22 proposes new clause 11A. The Committee felt strongly that landlords should not be able to insist on solely cash payments and should offer tenants a choice of payment methods. The Committee had lengthy discussions on the matter and felt strongly that it needed to be addressed. At first, the Committee drafted its own amendment with the Bill Office to provide a choice of payment methods. Officials were concerned about the unintended consequences of our proposals and provided the Committee with proposed new clause 11A, "Payment options for tenants: power to make provision and duty to consult", to allow for regulations to be made on the issue after a public consultation to uncover the scale of the problem and what a preferred way forward would be. The Committee accepted the proposal and supports amendment No 22. In our report, we recommend that, in advance of the consultation, the guidance on the legislation and the proposed template for landlords should lay it out clearly that it is expected that landlords will offer a choice of payment options, with a list of suitable options.

Amendment Nos 23 and 24 relate to clause 13. The Committee supports amendment No 23, which is required as a result of amendment No 22. I highlight the fact that the Committee has been informed of the need for the administrative amendment No 24 to ensure that there is as little disruption as possible and no gap between the current 12-week notice to quit period and the new notice to quit period in clause 11.

I will now say a few words in my capacity as a DUP MLA. I turn first to Mr Carroll's amendment, which is amendment No 13. I absolutely understand the sentiments in his amendment, but I have some concerns about it. Time and time again in the Committee, we heard about unintended consequences. One was that some of the changes that we might want to introduce could force landlords to sell their properties because of onerous requirements placed on them. I am not saying that that would happen, but a 10% reduction in rents might well lead to that. When Mr Carroll speaks, he can perhaps let us know how he expects the shortfall in landlord payments to be paid for. Does he expect the Assembly to pay them? Has he costed that? We know that many of our landlords in Northern Ireland are single-property owners with buy-to-let or buy-to-rent mortgages. We also know that many of those landlords just about cover their bills at the end of every month through their rental charges. Perhaps Mr Carroll can go into a little bit more detail on how landlord payments as a result of that 10% reduction will be met.

I move on to amendment Nos 15 and 19, standing in the name of Ciara Ferguson. Again, I absolutely get the tiered approach suggested in the amendments, and the Committee discussed the need for that time and time again. I find the amendments a little bit confusing, however. It is perhaps just the way in which they are worded and set out. I am also a little worried about them, because the Committee has not had the chance to have proper sight of the consultation on notices to quit. That will be before the Committee tomorrow, when we will get the chance to scrutinise the document and ask officials questions. I am going to wait to hear what Ciara has to say about the tiered approach, but I am very cautious about it, as I do not have all the information. I will need to scrutinise that information in order to make an informed decision. I am not saying that I would not be willing to look at something similar at Further Consideration Stage, however. I will end there, as I know that my party colleagues will have plenty more to say.

Ms Ferguson: As we are aware, this legislative change is crucial for those who are living in the private rented sector. Not only will it protect tenants by strengthening the legal requirements on the information that they receive about their tenancies but it will ensure that they receive receipts for payments that are made in cash, that they cannot be charged more than one month's rent for their deposit and that they cannot have their rent increased more than once per annum. Such practices should not be happening currently, and people should not find themselves priced out of accessing a safe, secure place to call home under this form of housing tenure. We must ensure that it is affordable and accessible to ordinary people — families and workers — and that it is safe and secure and enables people to live in dignity.

In the Bill, the ambitions to strengthen electrical safety standards and to ensure a legal requirement to provide working fire, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms are vital, along with the proposed regulations for strengthening energy efficiency standards. Those will help lower fuel costs, something that is critical at this time. We know that anyone who rents a home here spends 40% more on heating and electricity a week than they do on keeping a roof over their head. We are all in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, which includes rising prices for heating, electricity, oil, car fuel and groceries.

It is vital that we, as MLAs, ensure that the legislation is passed and that people are protected urgently, given the impact of that on people.

As the Minister stated, we are aware that the Bill is not all-encompassing. More still needs to be done to address housing inadequacies here, including the outlawing of illegal letting fees and a strengthening of fitness standards. There should also be consideration of the grounds for eviction, tenants' rights and rent regulation.

I welcome the Minister's amendments, which have been tabled to strengthen and enhance the Private Tenancies Bill and the protections for those in the private rented sector. Those amendments have, first of all, added clarity on rent receipts and other aspects following Committee scrutiny in that area. The Minister has also included a new clause, which will enable the Department for Communities to make provision, through regulations, for tenants to be consulted and given options on the method of payment of rent. For example, those regulations may impose duties on prospective landlords to provide specified information before the terms of a tenancy are agreed. All those amendments will strengthen the Private Tenancies Bill.

Sinn Féin is supportive of the political intent behind amendment No 13, and the Minister has been very clear on her support for further work on rent regulation. Nonetheless, we recognise the concern that was raised by the Minister after she received advice on it. Amendment No 13, as it stands, is problematic insofar as it relates only to current rental contracts and thus will be retrospective. Nonetheless, we are fully supportive of the political ambition to prohibit rent increases to give hard-pressed renters a break from extortionate rents.

I ask for support for my amendments that extend the notice to quit period that is given to tenants by landlords. Sinn Féin has been vocal about the fact that the notice to quit period needs to be longer to strengthen the existing safety net by providing increased protections from eviction. At Consideration Stage, the Committee reserved its judgement on clause 11 as the outcome of the consultation on that issue was outstanding. In the subsequent publication of the consultation findings, 72% of respondents agreed that notice to quit periods should vary depending on the length of the tenancy. Several respondents suggested the adoption of a staged approach — at Committee, we spoke about a tiered approach — whereby the length of the notice to quit period reflects the length of a tenancy. That is what is ultimately being proposed in amendment No 15.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member address what the Minister said about situations where you have a problem tenant? A problem tenant could have been in a property for more than eight years. Given the rights that amendment No 15 gives tenants, what would you say to people who live next door to difficult tenants? Is it acceptable for such tenants to stay for 224 days, as they would be able to under your amendment?

Ms Ferguson: I understand those concerns, and we had discussions about them in the Committee. That is an instance where the Department could look at including an exemption. Those concerns have definitely been discussed, and I recognise them.

Amendment No 15 continues to reflect the support for a notice period of four weeks — 28 days — for tenancies of fewer than six months. It proposes a staged approach thereafter, with differing notice periods. That would see the period extended to just over 12 weeks — 90 days — for tenancies of between six months and one year in length; to over four months — 120 days — for tenancies between one and three years; to over six months — 180 days — for tenancies between three and seven years; to over 190 days for tenancies over seven years; and eight months — 224 days — for those over eight years. That would provide tenants with strengthened protections from eviction.

Ultimately, that will ensure that tenants are better protected from eviction. That reflects the points raised by Renters' Voice and other groups on the importance of lengthier notice periods. Without those periods, people will have to scramble to find a house — any house — regardless of whether it suits their needs or whether the contract is reasonable or unreasonable. We should not have people being forced into those situations, particularly our most vulnerable and families with young children.

People deserve better, and they deserve more security to stay in their homes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Glaoim ar Mark Durkan teacht ar an scáileán. I call Mark Durkan via StarLeaf.

Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Lean ar aghaidh, Mark. Incoming from Derry. Lean ar aghaidh, Mark. An gcluin tú muid? Do you hear us?

Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I apologise for that wee technical issue.

The Chair has outlined the extensive work that the Committee has done in considering this vital legislation. Other Members and the Minister have outlined the urgency with which we need the Bill passed in order to provide security to those who live in the private rented sector. We all agree that there are too many people in that sector and that we have a complete over-reliance on the sector. That is why it is so important that we get proper and robust regulation of it.

My party supports all the Minister's amendments in group 1, most of which are the fruition of extensive engagement and labour among the Committee, stakeholders and the Department. I have a few concerns about some of the other amendments, and I may seek additional clarity around them.

Looking at Mr Carroll's amendment No 13, we certainly agree that action must be taken, not just on the frequency of unfair rent increases, which the Bill will address, but on the amount of the increase. That is a point that I have raised at previous stages of this legislative process and repeatedly in the Committee. We were repeatedly told by the Minister and the Department that work is under way to explore rent controls, that that will come in a new piece of legislation in the next mandate, and that, to try to rush something through now could, potentially, or would, most likely, have unintended and undesired consequences. As I have done previously, I suggest that we look towards the Scottish model and consider implementing a provision to challenge and restrict unfair rent increases at the next stage of reform. We cannot afford to wait too long for that, and it underlines the importance of getting this place up and running again and keeping it up and running.

Mr Carroll's amendment is a wee bit unclear. I know that the Chair has expressed some concerns as to who would cover the 10% rent reduction. Is it envisaged that there would be some form of government subsidy, or is it intended that private landlords would be left to absorb that reduction? That reduction for a year and then a freeze, at today's rate, for a following three years does not recognise or reflect external economic factors such as interest rates.

The Chair pointed out our dependence on single-property landlords, who make up the bulk of our private rental estate. Those landlords — certainly, the ones I know — are not making a wile pile of profit, but they definitely cannot afford to keep on properties at a loss. Inevitably, in our view, you would end up with people selling properties. Before the Bill gets Royal Assent, you might see rental prices skyrocketing to enable landlords to absorb that 10% decrease. Either way, the impact — although unintended and not desired by Mr Carroll — will undermine stability, security and availability. At the moment, therefore, I do not think that we can support that, although we welcome the intention and look forward to working with Mr Carroll and others on establishing a proper, adequate and fair model of putting caps on rents to stop the exploitation of many who are living in private accommodation. Do not get me wrong: there are some landlords out there who, I am sure, are charging exorbitant rents and making significant profits, but this is a fairly blunt instrument that would end up causing a lot of damage.

On clause 11 and the amendments concerning notice to quit periods, I am baffled and a bit frustrated by the Department's decision to consult on the notice to quit when we are in the middle of scrutinising the legislation. It is putting the cart before the horse, and doing so has meant that the Committee has not been given a full picture or, in my opinion, adequate time in which to scrutinise the clause, and now these amendments, in detail. There is a lot of detail in the amendments. I am supportive of the sentiments of the amendments, which would mean that a staggered approach to notice to quit periods would be required by tenants and landlords, depending on the length of tenancy. That is essentially mirroring provision in the South, but I must point out that the North operates under distinctly different legislation. Reforms being brought forward by the Irish Government mean that renters will have the right to tenancies of unlimited duration, which will strengthen long-term security of tenure. It also has prescribed grounds for evictions. We would like to see both those provisions afforded here. In their absence, amendment Nos 15, 18 and 19 are, although well-intentioned, maybe a bit impractical. However, I am happy to hear more from the Minister on that. She said that their passage today would result in quite a bit of work being required by the Department on compatibility. I would like to hear a wee bit more on that before we make up our mind, but some within the sector have also expressed concern about the potential implications or consequences of those amendments.

Given that clause 11 as drafted is based on the functions within the Private Tenancies Order, implementing a 12-week notice to quit for landlords for tenancies over one year would be the most reasonable step to take. As alluded to earlier, we have seen over the past two years that the 12-week provision has worked well in its aim to reduce — well, in many cases, sadly, delay — homelessness in the private rented sector, but it is clear that a notice to quit period of four weeks is not an adequate time frame in which to expect any tenant, regardless of the length of their tenancy, to secure alternative accommodation. That provision must be extended and applied equally to all private tenancies, including fixed-term tenancies. We agree that notice to quit periods must be proportionate. However, the risks associated with securing a new tenancy are much greater for a tenant than they are for a landlord. Therefore a longer period should be afforded for tenancies of less than 12 months. Preferably, it should be a period of at least eight weeks. In our view, the four-week notice to quit that tenants must provide to their landlord is adequate.

In the same vein, we recognise the intent behind Mr Carroll's amendment, and while we would like to see a 12-week provision for tenancies over 12 months, we have concerns around the implications of amendment No 16 as drafted. Following consultation with Housing Rights, it is clear that it shares those concerns and believes that the amendment, as it stands, risks leaving no provision for existing tenancies of fewer than 12 weeks. It also creates some anomalies with the current Private Tenancies Order and could, potentially, present legal challenges. We are concerned, again, about unintended consequences.

Specifically, if the amendment excludes shorter tenancies from the 12-week provision, the position would revert to either common law or the default position in the Private Tenancies Bill for tenancies that are less than six months, which provides for a notice period of six weeks. As stated, we believe that, in such cases, an eight-week period would be more appropriate, but I would be happy to hear a bit more from Mr Carroll about his intention behind the amendment.

I would also be happy to hear from the Minister about her willingness, given that she expressed such willingness regarding Ms Ferguson's amendment, to work with the proposer of amendment No 13 to refine what is being proposed, if that is possible, at Further Consideration Stage to ensure that it does what I have no doubt that the proposer wants it to do without those unintended consequences.

Mr Butler: I welcome the opportunity on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party to address the amendments in group 1, which relate to rent payments and notice to quit. We support amendment Nos 1 to 12 in the name of the Minister —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Will the Member move his mic a wee bit closer for the purposes of Hansard?

Mr Butler: When you are only 5’ 8", you are generally pretty close to it anyway, to be fair. It is the likes of Gerry Carroll and Mark Durkan who usually need to get a wee bit closer. Wee shorties like me normally do not have that problem.

We support amendment Nos 1 to 12 in the name of the Minister, which create and deal with the requirement to provide a receipt for all cash payments that pertain to the tenancy. That was raised by several parties, including us, at the Second Stage debate, along with many stakeholders that work in the sector.

Furthermore, we will support amendment No 14, also in the name of the Minister, which increases the notification period to be given for a rent increase from two months to three and which, as highlighted, was proposed by the Minister at the Committee's request. It is a pragmatic amendment that will require three months' notice to be given to a tenant prior to a rent increase. However, further work needs to be undertaken in phase 2 of the reforms, with consideration being given to having a private rented housing panel, similar to that in Scotland, which would assess and adjudicate on the proportionality of rent increases.

We will not support amendment No 13. While we understand and appreciate the intent, we are concerned that it could have unintended consequences. Perhaps the Minister can look at financial support for those in the private rented sector separately.

Furthermore, we will not support amendment Nos 15, 16 and 19, which propose a change to the notice to quit (NTQ) period. We would have liked to be in a position to support an enhancement to the NTQ periods. However, we feel that, without wider consideration of what, if any, exemption may be required, we are unable to support those amendments. That position is supported by housing experts with whom we have engaged. The Department's response to the recent consultation that was carried out mid-Committee Stage, which also was not helpful, stated that:

Therefore, as a party, we call on the Minister to ensure that the necessary consultation is promptly carried out and taken forward early in the next mandate, perhaps.

We support amendment No 22, which adds a new clause, and amendment No 23. The new clause gives the power to introduce payment options for tenants following the consultation, if required.

Last but by no means least in group 1, we support amendment No 24, which ensures that the new notice to quit periods do not supersede the temporary coronavirus notice to quit periods until they cease.

Ms Armstrong: I thank the Minister. On behalf of Alliance, I support all the amendments in group 1 that are in the name of the Minister. The Speaker has written to us all and asked us to speak directly to the amendments, so I will move straight to those that I have issues with.

The first is amendment No 13. As others said, amendment No 13, which is in the name of Mr Gerry Carroll, is absolutely something that we would all like to see. Unfortunately, the wording of the amendment and its implications could cause difficulties for tenants as opposed to giving them a 10% reduction of their rent and then a fixed rent for three years. As those of us who sit on the Communities Committee know, that issue will be dealt with in the next piece of legislation, when we look at rent caps, but, at the moment, I do not want to have any tenants out there in breach of contract. Unfortunately, on that basis, while I absolutely agree with the sentiment, I cannot support the amendment at this time.

Amendment No 15 has been tabled by Ciara Ferguson. I get it. I have read the consultation document, and I think that the consultation was very worthwhile. I have to say that the timing was appalling because it kept it outside of the Committee's hands. I looked at Ms Ferguson's amendments and spoke with a renter about them, who said the same thing that I said when I read them. I said, "How confusing is this? What does 196 days mean in terms of months? What does 224 days mean in terms of months?". It is quite confusing, and it will need considerable changes to people's landlord contracts.

While I can absolutely support the intention of the amendment and while the consultation showed that 72% of respondents agreed that the notice to quit should vary depending on the length of tenancy, it is just too confusing. I got access to the consultation document on 15 February, and I read that somebody had put forward in the government response to the notice to quit period that it should be four weeks for nought to one year; six weeks for one to three years; eight weeks for three to five years; and 12 weeks for five to 10 years. Something like that is easy to understand, but, when you start to talk about 180 days if the tenancy has been in existence for more than three years but not more than seven years and the next thing is 196 days for between seven and eight years, it is too confusing. It is the same with a tenant's notice to quit, where it talks about a number of days without clarifying why those dates and number of days have been chosen.

I listened to the debate earlier, and I heard what the Chair of the Committee said. The Committee will have an opportunity to look at this, and I agree with Mr Durkan, who said that amendment Nos 15 and 19 need to be finessed to make them as clear as possible for tenants and landlords in Northern Ireland.

In amendment No 16, Mr Carroll wants the notice to quit period to be 12 weeks for anyone who has had a tenancy for 12 weeks. I get that. We have had this throughout coronavirus, but, as has been brought up before, it means that, as the Chair said, a person who has been living somewhere for three months will have the same notice to quit period as someone who has been living somewhere for 12 years. While I can absolutely confirm my frustration about the fact that we need to extend the notice to quit period that landlords give to tenants and the fact that we need to protect tenants who need to move from a home so that they do not have to pay double rents anywhere, I do not think that this is the way to do it.

The problem is about finessing the amendments, and I do not know whether it is an option not to move amendment Nos 15 and 19 in order that time can be given and they can be brought back at Further Consideration Stage and tightened up in line with the Minister's intentions. I had expected the Minister to go on ahead with the consultation and then to come back with the Department's amendments to clause 11. We do not have those here, and I would like the Minister to confirm later whether the Department intends to table amendments at Further Consideration Stage.

We also need to deal with exemptions. We all have cases of tenants across Northern Ireland who are in difficulties because of a problem tenant. When that happens, the landlord certainly needs to be able to evict in extreme circumstances. Those exemptions are very important.

At this stage, that is as much as I need to say. I have difficulties with amendment Nos 15 and 19. I see where they are coming from, but they need to be finessed. Unfortunately, I cannot at this stage support amendment Nos 13 and 16, which were tabled by Mr Carroll. I support the rest of the amendments in group 1.

Miss Reilly: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Consideration Stage debate on the Private Tenancies Bill. The Bill will make the private rented sector safer and more secure for tenants. Delivering the legislation is of huge importance to those living in the private rented sector here. It is much needed and long overdue.

In our Committee's deliberations, we heard significant evidence, and I thank all those who came to the Committee and those from the Department who worked closely with us to progress the Bill to this stage.

Minister Hargey has made clear, as did her predecessor, Carál Ní Chuilín, in her November 2020 housing statement, which has gone on to be defined as the biggest shake-up of our housing system in over 50 years, that it is about making sure that housing is not only affordable and accessible but safe and secure, allowing people to have a safe roof over their head and to live in dignity.

I welcome the Minister's amendments, which have been tabled to strengthen the Bill and add clarity on rent receipts and electrical safety standards. Alongside other aspects, those areas were of particular concern to Committee members during their deliberations. I thank the Minister for that clarity and for addressing those concerns.

The Minister has added a new clause that allows the Department for Communities to make provision by regulation for tenants to be informed and given options about the method of payment of rent. Such regulations may impose a duty on prospective landlords to give specified information before the terms of the tenancy are agreed.

I also support Ms Ferguson's amendments on the notice to quit period. We in Sinn Féin, as Ciara stated, have been vocal about the need for the notice to quit to be longer to strengthen the existing safety net by giving increased protection from eviction. As was mentioned, the Committee reserved its judgement on clause 11, as the consultation was still open. Its subsequent publication showed that 72% of respondents agreed that the notice to quit period should vary depending on the length of the tenancy. Several respondents suggested the adoption of a staged approach whereby the notice to quit reflects the length of the tenancy. That, ultimately, is what is proposed in the amendment, as Ciara outlined.

The staged approach in the amendment will ensure that tenants are better protected from eviction. Groups such as Renters' Voice and others raised the issue of the importance of lengthier notice periods. If such periods are not in place, people have to scramble to find a roof over their head, whether it suits them or their family's needs and regardless of whether the contract is reasonable. People deserve more security to stay in their homes.

I support the amendments tabled by the Minister and by Ms Ferguson.

Mr Frew: I will speak on the Bill and the amendments. I thoroughly enjoyed the scrutiny of the Bill and the company of members of the Committee and of the officials who came along regularly and answered all our questions in a relatively timely fashion. I thank everyone for their participation. It was very useful.

The first question to ask about the Bill is this: is it required? With the growth in the private tenancy sector, it is required in order to help to raise standards, to inject fairness and to achieve balance. When I look at the amendments, I want to see balance and fairness. That includes both sides of the sector: the tenants who need a home and the landlord who has property and allows that property to be let. I declare an interest as someone who owns a rented property.

I will go through the amendments. Early on, I was struck by clause 3, "Tenant to be provided with a rent receipt for payment in cash". My first question was this: why is anyone having to pay in cash? It strikes me that, with the professional relationship between tenant and landlord, the last thing that you would want to do is to hand over cash. Is there ever an occasion on which it would be appropriate to accept cash but not give a receipt?

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way. First, I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I failed to put it on record that I have rental properties, but it is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.

I take the Member's point about cash — as a landlord, I do not take cash — but there are occasions on which tenants have no access to bank accounts, and cash is their only means of payment. We need to be careful not to inhibit people who have difficulty with banking.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for that intervention. I will come on to it later in relation to the new clause in amendment No 22, because it assists with that issue.

We got the point in the Committee, after we went through it in conversation with officials, other stakeholders and interest groups. There are times when cash is handed over, and there will be times when that happens at inappropriate and inconvenient moments. There will, then, be times when the landlord or the landlord's agent will not be able to produce or pluck out a receipt there and then, yet the tenant may well insist on handing over cash. I get that, because that is a human interaction. It took me a wee while to get my head around the issue. If I were a tenant, I really would not want to hand over cash and have no proof of that exchange or transaction. It strikes me with fear to think that that may well be taking place. Whilst we know that the vast majority of landlords and tenants do things honourably, there is room and potential for things to go wrong and for mistakes to be made in cash transactions, so we need to do everything that we can in the Bill to protect that transaction.

It should of course be the case that a receipt is issued for any cash transaction and that it is given at an appropriate time. That should be the case not only for rent but for all cash transactions, whatever they may be, such as joint ventures on improvements or other aspects of the tenancy. If any cash is handed over, it must be exchanged for a detailed receipt that itemises the amounts that are on it and specifies what each amount is for. That is critical. I welcome the Minister's amendment Nos 1 to 12. They were sought by the Committee, and I thank the Minister for listening to us on the matter.

I understand why clause 7 is needed. It makes up one of the biggest bulks of the Bill. Rent increases are always problematic for anyone in any walk of life. We should raise standards, inject fairness and try to achieve balance with the Bill, but we should not distort the market. That could have deadly consequences for tenants and landlords.

I move on to Gerry Carroll's amendment, which is amendment No 13. I understand its sentiment, the gentleman's politics and why he would propose an amendment like this. My goodness, it will be useful when he drives around the good people of West Belfast and is able to say that he tried to achieve a 10% decrease in people's rent but the big bad Sinn Féin Minister stopped him. I get where the Member is coming from. However, to propose something as primitive and blunt as a 10% decrease across the board in the private tenancy sector but in no other sector is unfair. That is the first thing. Where is the equality in that? Secondly, that 10% will be worth a lot more in some areas than in others. In those other areas it will create affordability issues. Some areas are working-class, and some are more affluent. That 10% may be a lot more achievable in some areas than in others.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Clarke: As the Chair of the Committee has said, 17% of rental properties are in the private rental sector and houses in the public sector are in short supply. Does the Member accept that what could happen is that, universally, landlords will put rents up to allow for that 10% reduction?

Mr Frew: Yes. Distortion of the market is highly probable, which would make things worse for tenants in the long run.

Let me flip that over to the other side and talk about landlords. There is a wide spectrum of landlords in this country. There are landlords who look to the future and put all of their savings into property. It is their right to do that. With all that money going into property — all their savings going into property — they provide a good outlet for the state by producing homes. A good lot of those landlords, however, are mortgaged to the hilt. The rent and probably a wee bit more covers their mortgage and the maintenance. For the large number of landlords in that position, a 10% decrease would probably be the difference between achieving their lifetime goal of having money from their assets to retire on and selling that property because they just cannot make it work. That will probably be one of the most devastating impacts and consequences, should the amendment pass. Those homes would be sold. Who would buy them? Who would live in them? It is true that, for any landlord, it is property but, for the tenant, it is their home. It strikes me that the one way to leave a property insecure is for the Government and MLAs to do something like making the amendment, which would decrease rent and distort the market so much and in such a blunt way that it could cause havoc throughout a growing sector that provides homes for our people, usually for the people who need those homes most.

Almost half — 48% — of those living in the private rented sector receive state financial support via housing benefit or universal credit. It might sound perverse to some, especially the left-leaning political philosophers here, that decreasing rent would not be a good idea, but I see so much danger of that leaving those tenants most vulnerable. Therefore, while I understand the sentiment and the politics, there is no way that I can support an amendment like that. A market does what a market does, and that will be different in every area of Northern Ireland. It will probably be different half a mile down the road from any particular area, given our housing state, our geographical area and the spread of our affluent areas and working-class areas. There is a patchwork of people living in our towns and villages. I cannot support amendment No 13.

That moves me on to Ciara Ferguson's amendments. I have enjoyed my time working with Ciara on the Committee. She knows that I have toyed with the idea of a tiered notice to quit. I get the concept; I really do. I am still not there on how tiered it should be, but it strikes me that this proposal is just too complicated. It is too tiered. It is tiered to the point that I do not believe that it is workable or that it could be managed in a beneficial way. I accept the concept, however, so I am happy and content to work through it to see what can be done in a tiered fashion.

As the Bill sits, more than eight weeks' — two months' — notice has to be given for a tenancy of one to 10 years. The notice to quit by a tenant of one to ten years is four weeks, and, for more than 10 years, it is 12 weeks' — three months' — notice.

I get the difference between landlord notice and tenant notice. As I said, landlords own property — the house — but tenants live in a home, and it is their only home. I get that, but there are consequences. If we extend notices to quit and tenants in the private rented sector move on — the chances are that it will be to a Housing Executive property, a housing association property or another private landlord's property — they could be stuck in the middle if they have not yet forgone their previous home but have just moved or are just about to move into their new home. There could be double jeopardy that could wipe out any savings that they have. There is real danger in lengthening notices to quit. While we want to add protection, we need to ensure that we do not cause the consequence for tenants of being hit with two rents because of the duration of the notice period.

There is also the issue of antisocial behaviour, which my colleague Trevor Clarke raised. How many of us are plagued — our constituents are certainly plagued — by antisocial behaviour or problem tenants? They exist. They are real, and you have only to live beside one to know that they are real. It will destroy your life. It will destroy your home life. It will destroy your private life. You will have no privacy. The noise will be intolerable. You will not be able to rest in your sitting room. You will not be able to enjoy your kitchen. You will not be able to sleep in your bed. That is how bad it gets for some of our constituents who have problem tenants living beside them.

There should be exemptions for not only antisocial behaviour but failure to pay rent. That might be a novel concept, and not many will have spoken about it. There are people out there who do not pay their rent in a timely fashion. Should they have the same rights? Should they have the same notice to quit? I argue that they should not. We then get into the question of what diminished rights they should have and which rights should be diminished. Surely a notice to quit is one of the rights that should be considered. If landlords have tenants who are not paying their rent, they will have to give them a notice to quit, which could be 12 weeks or it could be seven and a half months. Will any landlord lie out seven and a half months without rent? There are real issues here.

There are six tiers listed in amendment No 15. That is too many. There are tiers for tenancies up to six months, one year, three years, seven years, eight years and eight years or more. That is too tiered. The durations are 28 days; 90 days, which, it is easy enough to work out, even for my primitive mind, is three months; 120 days, which is — I am getting good at this — four months; and 180 days, which is six months. We then hit 196 days. My mental maths are not great, but I think that that is about six and a half months. There is then 224 days, which is seven and a half months. How would you work out rent for that period, and, let us be honest, how would you be assured of getting that half month's rent?

While I understand the concept of tiered duration for notices to quit, I cannot for the life of me work out why we have those specific numbers of days. Why are we talking about days rather than weeks or months?

It seems to me that seven and a half months is far too long. Six and a half months is probably far too long. Why is it 196 days and 224 days? As a Member alluded to earlier, maybe that is the policy down South. Maybe that is the way it works down South: I do not know. It strikes me as really strange that, although the Minister is proposing the Bill and one of her colleagues has tabled these amendments, there seems to be an issue and the Minister is saying, "If this is passed, the Department will have to do a lot more work on this". To me, it smacks of Sinn Féin in the South showing some teeth and flexing some muscle up here. The Minister is resisting that, and it is probably right that she does so.

So I will not support amendment No 15. Whilst I understand the logic and the sentiment behind it, it is too complicated. I cannot work out the logic with regard to the time durations, both of the tenancies and the notice to quit periods. Of course, then, I cannot support the amendments that flow from that or amendment No 19, because it is the same concept. I get the concept that there should be a difference between the provisions for tenants and landlords with regard to the notice to quit period and that there should be more protection for the tenant because it is their home, as opposed to being just a property. However, again, it does not really make sense to me that, as per amendment No 19, the notice to quit period should be:

It strikes me that you are going into three quarters of a month there.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way. So that I cannot be accused of speaking for landlords, let me speak for tenants on that one. There are tenants in private tenancies, which are, invariably, more expensive than tenancies in the social housing sector. What that says to the tenant who, hopefully, has found a property in the social housing sector with cheaper rent is that they cannot have that house for 112 days; they will have to stay in the more expensive house for almost four months. That actually disadvantages the very people whom the Bill is intended to help.

Mr Frew: That is my point exactly, and I thank the Member for making it for me. That is why I cannot support that amendment. It does not apply balance or give protection. The Member will know that, when you are offered a house, you have a certain amount of time in which to accept it. So there is a real dilemma. Then, once you have accepted it, you will have a certain amount of time in which to move in. I know that there are protections and that you can usually work with social housing and other landlords, but there are no guarantees, especially if the choice is between two private tenancies and you are moving to the cheaper of the two. There could be a real issue for the tenant as to whether they accept the house and, if they do, when they move in. A landlord does not really want to have an empty house lying with no heating on and no one living in it, because that will have an impact on the house and the rooms in it. A house — a home — needs to be lived in. Therefore, there are real issues with the amendments.

You know me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not usually take pleasure in criticising any Department. However, the Bill was produced and it got to Committee Stage. At that stage, we were told that there was a consultation on the very issue of notices to quit. That strikes me as being the wrong way round. You could make excuses by saying that we are coming to the end of the mandate and want the best piece of legislation that we can produce. I get that. However, the point is that, even if you do an eight-week consultation in the middle of the scrutiny of the Bill and its legislative stages, and you find and collate that information from the consultation, we have not had time to consider the consultation findings in the Committee. Yet the Department is considering tabling amendments — maybe it has changed its mind and it is not — halfway through the Bill's legislative stages on findings that it has only just collated.

Cogs of government usually turn far too slowly for my liking, but I do not know of any other eight-week consultation that has been turned round so quickly in order to meet the target of a Further Consideration Stage of a Bill. I do not know whether that is wise government, especially when there is going to be a second phase and another look at private tenancies on a wider basis. So I urge caution. It seems strange that I am saying that because I usually want to see decisionism. I want to see Ministers and Departments make decisions, but when you have gone to the trouble of doing a consultation, why not take the time to study the findings? Why would you rush something that will probably end up being very complicated and will have a massive impact on the landlord sector and tenants in their homes and on the fact that the private rented sector is growing daily. I am not sure that that is wise, especially when we know that there is another phase coming. I am deeply concerned that the first consultation took place after the Bill had been produced, and now we are going to rush to implement the findings of that consultation and incorporate them in the Bill. It just seems to me to be rushed, maybe even perverse.

Amendment No 22 introduces a new clause. I welcome it and thank the Minister and the Department for tabling it. It goes back to the point that my colleague Trevor Clarke raised about the means to pay and the payment options. Whilst the Committee thought that, perhaps, we should ban cash payments altogether, we came to a position where the best that we could do was provide options for tenants and to ensure that they will always be offered options to pay. If they want to pay in cash, so be it. If they want to pay by bank order, so be it. If they want to pay by another means, so be it. To me, that strikes the best balance to achieve the best protection for tenants and landlords. That is important. So I welcome new clause 11A in amendment No 22 and all the other amendments that go with that, including amendment No 23 and amendment No 24, which is a commencement amendment.

Mr Carroll: I welcome the opportunity to speak to and amend the Bill, which contains measures that I and my party endorse for those in the private rented sector. It is plainly the case that Stormont has failed to protect those paying increasingly higher rents as the cost of living climbs and we continue to stagnate. Indeed, I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough in that regard, which is why I hope to amend it to secure a rent reduction and a subsequent rent freeze for tenants who are struggling to pay their landlord from month to month and are having to make unreasonable decisions about how much food they can buy or whether they can pay their bills after they have paid their rent.

There is a duty on the Executive to protect people in that situation, to recognise that there are unscrupulous landlords taking advantage of a lack of regulation and to intervene to spare people the consequences. Therefore, I call on all parties in the Executive, in particular those that claim to support greater housing rights, to support my amendments today. If passed, they would provide protection for many in need at a time when need is spiralling. It is wholly unacceptable that landlords should be able to drive up rents regardless of the current financial pressures, but that is very much the case.

Over the last few days, renters have been in touch with me about my amendments, and they have opened up about the cruel reality that they and their children face as a result. The justification is the market. Market force is something that we cannot see, touch or influence. It is allowed to wreak havoc on the lives of people here, unmanaged, unmitigated and unrelenting, and it has to stop.

One single parent in west Belfast got in touch to say that she is paying £740 a month in rent, which is unbelievable. That is scandalous enough before mounting energy costs are considered. She cannot pay that. What are the Executive prepared to do to help her? She said that, if my amendments pass, it will be a great relief to her and her family. The reduction will allow extra cash for the groceries that she has been forced to scrimp on. The freeze will lift the fear of what is coming down the road. She should not have to live in the constant state of fear that she could lose her home or not be able to afford to feed her children because of the whims of the market or landlord. Thousands like her are struggling in the same way. Again, what are the Executive prepared to do to protect those people? If we cannot implement greater protection for those living in private rented accommodation during a pandemic, a cost-of-living crisis and a fuel price hike, when will the Executive step up to the mark? How bad do things have to get before measures are taken to protect renters?

At a conservative estimate, rents have gone up by 9% in the last two years in the Belfast area, although it is likely to be much greater than that such is the extent of and the reality that the commodification of housing has caused. There is already a feeling that Stormont has not done enough to shield renters, and renters' unions and activist groups have had to be formed in response to that. It begs the question: what is the response of the elected Government who are meant to represent their interests? Who do the Government really represent if they do not support the amendments that I have tabled? Do they support the renter, or will they back the landlord and the market regardless of the financial panic facing people in our communities? Frankly, if my amendments do not pass, it will strongly indicate that the House is not willing to prioritise the needs of renters.

There are recent and ample precedents for this kind of action. Rent controls have been introduced in Paris and Berlin. Why not in Belfast, Derry, Strabane and right across the North? Those are the questions that housing rights groups and renters are already asking. How will the House respond? My answer is that the Bill does not go far enough. Indeed, even if my amendments pass today, there is a damn sight further to go to protect renters. Action must begin now to improve the record of the Executive, who have allowed landlords to get away with too much for too long.

I do not know whether it is crude satire or sad to hear two landlords on the Benches opposite say, "What about the poor landlords?" You could not make it up. The idea that there is a horde of single-property landlords is a myth that needs to be dispelled. The arguments made about unintended consequences are pretty astounding. In the debate, I heard more concern from some about the interests of landlords than those of renters. The concerns that people have for renters can be alleviated in some way if the House passes my amendments.

The argument that legislation is coming at some stage down the line, frankly, does not wash. How can we expect parties to vote for proper robust legislation if they cannot vote the correct way on my modest proposals today? What hope is there for the future? I am not sure who the Minister will be after the May election; I am not sure that there will be an Assembly at all. Today, the message that I hear from Members is that renters' rights and protections will be put on hold; "Trust us, something may come in the future".

Amendment No 16, which is tabled in my name, will provide greater protection for people who have been in private rented accommodation. Obviously, it takes a long time for people to find a property, and if some tenants who have been in a property for 10 years can get 12 weeks notice, my argument is that that should apply across the board. In response to Mr Durkan, I am happy to tidy up my amendment — provide a subsequent one — at the Further Consideration Stage to provide greater protection at 12 weeks if the Minister does not do that. Again, I ask Members to support my amendments today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. The sitting is, by leave, suspended. When we resume, the Minister will make her winding-up speech.

Ms Hargey: Thanks very much to the Chair and Deputy Chair and, indeed, the whole Communities Committee and all those in the House who have commented on this important part of the legislation.

I will cover a couple of areas that were discussed. It has been an important process. The scrutiny role and the amendments that have been tabled through working with the Committee, stakeholders and my staff team in the Department have made for better legislation. The issue with cash receipts is crucial, and I take on board the point that the Member raised about poverty being a factor that still prevails in the need for and use of cash. We can even see that in, for example, supermarkets and where some are situated and where cash is used in comparison with cash machines. That is an area that we will have to address, and I believe that strengthening the Bill with the amendments will allow us to do that.

Amendment No 13 is from Gerry Carroll, and I completely agree with the sentiments of what he is trying to do. I completely agree with fairer rents and rent controls. I have been a community and housing activist my whole life, and I have campaigned on that area on a regular basis. I have been doing housing campaigns since I was 16 years of age, and I continue to do that work as housing Minister and Minister for Communities. I completely get Mr Carroll's approach, and I wholeheartedly want to do what he proposes in order to provide further protections for those right across all our housing sectors here in the North. However, I have concerns that the Bill will not have the desired outcome of protecting people in the way that the amendment proposes. The Bill impacts only on current tenants, so, if that amendment were passed and were to get Royal Assent as part of the Bill, it would not have any impact on any new tenants who sign contracts. There is a real concern that that would bring up a huge inequality for those tenants in that sector. Also, landlords could easily end a contract and issue a new one, so there is a huge gap in the amendment that would allow landlords to get around that. Indeed, there is no penalty on landlords if they wish to take that course of action. Again, there is a huge concern about that proposal not meeting the thrust and intent, and that introduces an inequality —

Sorry, are you looking an intervention, yes?

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Minister. On your point, would you be willing to table an amendment to make sure that new tenants can avail themselves of the broad thrust of what my amendment would do?

Ms Hargey: The concern is about the competency of the amendment, given the legal advice that I have received. I completely agree with the policy intent of what you are trying to do; indeed, that is what I am trying to do. However, the Bill is progressing in a confined mandate. There are three weeks of the mandate left. The legal advice says strongly that, without the additional work that is needed on the inequalities and on what we can do to introduce a fairer rent model that has appropriate caps and reductions where necessary, progressing in the way that is proposed could cause the Bill to fall. That would mean that we lose all of the protections in the Bill.

I completely understand the thrust of what you are doing; I agree with it. On the basis of the legal advice, my concern is about the competency of the amendment, that the entire Bill would be called into question and that it may fall. I raised that concern when I introduced the Bill. We are not sitting and waiting for work to begin on phase 2. We are actively working on bringing in rent controls and looking at having a fairer rental system for tenants who face issues, including issues with letting agents, which is a huge area in which some malign and illegal practices need to be addressed.

On amendment No 15, there were comments about the notice-to-quit periods and the consultation. I have been clear throughout that I want to extend the notice to quit periods. I get a sense from all Members in the Chamber that they want something similar. I received legal advice that, where a proposal differed from what was consulted on in 2017 — I want to veer away from that — I would need to consult again. That is why there was a need to consult. However, obviously, the pandemic placed time constraints on us, and, with the shortened mandate, the Department had less time to bring forward proposals. That is why I set out in the legislation what, I felt, could be done in this mandate. I was not sitting about; I wanted to show the House that we were serious, and consultation was part of that approach.

If the House makes amendment No 15, officials could look at what can be done at Further Consideration Stage. Of course, as was clearly said, we need to look in more detail at the exemptions that would have to be applied if amendment No 15 was to be considered. As I said in my opening address, I would also need to look at transitional arrangements, such as introducing an eight-week notice to quit period until the other periods outlined in amendment No 15 are commenced. That detailed work would have to be done, but it would not be finalised in time for the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Transitional periods and protections would have to be put in place. With the ending of the Coronavirus Act, when we want the new Bill to take effect, nobody wants to revert to the four-week notice to quit period: it is far too short. I would have to look urgently at transitional arrangements and at any future amendments that would come into force and be commenced at a later stage.

I think that I have covered most of the queries and comments. I commend my amendments to the House.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Question will be put again in three minutes. I remind Members that they should continue to uphold social distancing and that those who have proxy voting arrangements in place should not come to the Chamber.

Before I put the Question again. I remind Members that, if possible, it would be preferable to avoid a Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Before the Assembly divides, I remind Members that, as per Standing Order 112, the Assembly has proxy voting arrangements in place. Members who have authorised another Member to vote on their behalf are not entitled to vote in person and should not enter the Lobbies. I remind all Members of the requirements for social distancing while the Division takes place. I ask Members to ensure that they retain a gap of at least 2 metres between themselves and other people when moving around the Chamber or the Rotunda, and especially in the Lobbies. Please be patient at all times, observe the signage and follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call amendment No 16 as it mutually exclusive to amendment No 15, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call amendment No 20 as it is consequential to amendment No 19, which was not moved.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 24 has already been debated. I call the Minister for Communities to move formally amendment No 24.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment proposed to clause 13, page 12, line 27, insert words as printed on the Marshalled List. The Question is that amendment No 24 be made. All those in favour say Aye.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Contrary, No.

Ms Hargey: I did not move the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Sorry, I did not pick you up. I should listen more carefully, but I encourage everyone to speak up so that I can hear them. I clarify that amendment No 24 was not moved.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 25, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 26 to 45. In this group, amendment Nos 27 and 28 are consequential to amendment No 26, amendment Nos 39 and 40 are consequential to amendment No 32, amendment No 41 is consequential to amendment Nos 33 and 34, and amendment No 42 is consequential to amendment No 35.

Members may also wish to note that there are a number of paving amendments: amendment Nos 27 and 28, 30 and 31, and 33 and 34.

I call the Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, to move amendment No 25 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Ms Hargey (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move amendment No 25:

Ms Hargey: Amendment Nos 25 to 45 relate to schedules 2 and 3. Schedule 2 relates to the energy efficiency regulations. It sets out the power to detail the energy efficiency requirements of dwellings, houses that are let under a private tenancy and what the minimum level of energy performance certificate (EPC) should be. The regulations will be draft affirmative. The Assembly will have its say. Some of the amendments are more technical or work to support one another. I will now set out the intent of the substantive amendments.

When reviewing the evidence that was given at Committee, it was considered that the powers that are provided in the original schedule 2 would be too limiting. We will need to ensure that we enforce a higher level of energy efficiency. A sixth of our greenhouse gas emissions come from our homes, and a sixth of those homes are private tenancies. Private tenancies are often the least energy-efficient, and those who live in them are the least able to afford high energy bills. The schedule will enable regulations that will drive more improvements in the energy efficiency of our homes. It will reduce fuel poverty and is one essential part in a range of measures that will enable us to meet our carbon reduction targets. Fundamentally, schedule 2 introduces a prohibition on letting a home that has inadequate energy efficiency. That will not change. The amendment enables a much more comprehensive process around the policy objectives.

I tabled amendment No 26, which will allow for consideration of the types of exemptions that are in the prohibition. That will be augmented so that exemptions other than those relating to the fabric of the building can be made. In particular, it now provides for an improvement exemption. The amendment will also detail other areas that the regulations may cover, including designating an authority to oversee the exemption process and public access to lists of exemptions; more detail on exemptions, including the length of time that they would last; appeals; inspections; applications; and other related issues.

Taken together, those amendments will allow us to improve energy efficiency in the private rented sector in a way that is deliverable and avoids shocks to supply, which would increase housing stress. I emphasise that the purpose of the amendments is to enable long-term improvements to energy efficiency and to avoid having to exempt entire types of houses indefinitely.

The legislation will have real, long-term significance. Before introducing the regulations, the Department will carry out research in consultation with landlords, tenants and other relevant parties, such as the Department for the Economy, the Department of Finance and district councils.

Amendment Nos 27 to 35 set out detail regarding offences under schedule 2. Together, they will ensure that there are no loopholes and that there is a level of fine that ensures that landlords take the legislation seriously and deliver the energy efficiency improvements that they are required to.

The final amendments are either technical or put into the Bill the commitment to consult tenants. Amendment Nos 37 and 38 ensure that the Department will consult tenants' representatives before making the regulations in schedule 2. Amendment Nos 39 to 43 are consequential to schedule 3 in order to align with the 2006 Order after the amendments to schedule 2 have been made. Amendment Nos 44 and 45 ensure that the Department will consult tenants and their representatives before any regulations are made under the powers that are in schedule 3. Those are the group 2 amendments.

Ms P Bradley: Amendment Nos 25 to 38 relate to schedule 2, which is on the energy efficiency of dwellings that are let under a private tenancy. The Committee supports the Minister's amendment Nos 25 to 38. As I mentioned in my speech on group 1, although the Committee finally agreed to clause 9 and schedule 2, it was put in a difficult position as, midway through its deliberations, the Department produced a new, enhanced schedule 2 to future-proof the legislation as it was concerned that the powers as introduced were too limiting.

The Committee noted that it was unheard of and far from ideal to be presented with a new schedule in the middle of its deliberations and one on which it had taken no evidence.

The first that the Committee heard of the revised schedule was at its meeting on 2 December 2021, when officials stated that, as drafted, schedule 2, which relates to clause 9, did not fully achieve the regulations that the Department wished to enact or deliver policy objectives as intended and that proposals for a revised schedule 2 were being finalised with the Office of the Legislative Counsel.

At subsequent meetings in December, the Committee considered each amendment and its purpose in discussion with officials. The Committee accepted the positive nature of the proposals and that the schedule will be a tool to drive the decarbonisation of a significant portion of the housing stock to deliver our climate change obligations.

The Committee heard that schedule 2 gives powers to the Department to address a number of energy efficiency measures, including the relevant works carried out on premises to decarbonise and improve their energy efficiency ratings and the distribution of energy performance certificates. The Committee raised concerns that EPCs could lead to a reduction in the appropriately certified housing stock or increase the rent of the existing stock. We also raised concerns that more invasive work on rented premises to bring them up to standard had the potential to temporarily render tenants homeless. Officials informed the Committee that work could be performed gradually to avoid that occurring and that the new schedule would give the Department a structure to adhere to when improving energy efficiency standards without impacting on housing stock levels.

The Committee heard that the amendments to the schedule had led to a rewriting of the explanatory and financial memorandum. Officials also confirmed that more detailed legislation regarding energy efficiency would be considered in the next stage of reforms.

The Committee supports the Minister's amendment Nos 39 to 45 to schedule 3, which relates to electrical safety standards. Schedule 3 provides the Department with the power to make regulations imposing duties on private landlords for the purposes of ensuring that electrical safety standards are met during the period in which the property is let under the tenancy. The Committee was keen to ensure that it understood the scope of the Bill in that regard and queried with officials the frequency of electrical testing, fixed wiring checks, electrical installation condition reports and portable appliance testing (PAT). Officials responded that schedule 3 places the burden of ensuring that the rented property is protected on the landlord and that the decision was taken to exclude obligatory PAT as that requirement is not legislated for in private dwellings. Officials confirmed for us that electrical appliances provided by the landlord are covered in the Bill and that electrical safety testing would apply to appliances provided by the landlord. Officials also confirmed that the frequency of electrical testing is not in the Bill but would be in the regulations and that further work is needed to establish the more appropriate frequency of electrical testing.

At its meeting on 11 January 2022, the Committee considered the final draft revised schedule 2 and the related amendments to schedule 3 and supported both.

The Committee would have wished to see a more ambitious Bill but understands the time constraints of the current mandate. Members acknowledged that it is an important first step towards further reform in the next mandate. On behalf of the Committee, I record our sincere thanks to the individuals and organisations who provided oral or written evidence. Thanks must also go to the departmental officials who worked patiently and effectively with the Committee, providing a flow of timely and accurate information to allow the Committee to meet its legislative deadline. Finally, thanks must go to the Bill Office staff, the Research and Information Service and the Committee team, all of whom have worked so diligently to get this to the Chamber today.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the broad principles of the Bill as a first step in essential reforms in the private rented sector, although I must stress, as others have, that it is just a first step in that process. At previous stages, I have raised concerns that the Bill does not go far enough to protect private renters, particularly on affordability, landlord licensing and, crucial to this part of the debate, fitness standards. The Minister and her officials stated that many of those protections fell outside the scope of the Bill. Some have now been brought into the Bill, as have the amendments made earlier. I look forward to working through those in Committee. We are also acutely aware of the need for speed with the work and do not wish to hinder the Bill's progress and the implementation of the vital and potentially life-saving improvements. In that vein, I will get on with it.

Many of the proposed changes in the group 2 amendments relate to energy efficiency. They were advocated and agreed in principle during Committee Stage, particularly those to schedule 2. That being the case, we are content to support the Minister's amendments and welcome the fact that our concerns have been actioned and efforts made to strengthen the regulations.

I will bring my remarks to a close. The Bill is a solid yet unspectacular bit of work, but it provides a springboard to tackle the significant and outstanding challenges in subsequent mandates. I thank all the agencies in the housing sector that have helped progress this vital legislation, which will secure tangible stability and long-overdue protections for the private rented sector.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for tabling amendments Nos 25 to 38 to schedule 2. We welcome the move towards clearer and more robust requirements for energy efficiency and electrical safety in privately rented properties while recognising our climate responsibilities. It is, however, imperative that those standards be set at an appropriate and achievable level. Government support may be required to ensure that that can be achieved.

Private tenants deserve a home that is safe and adequately maintained to ensure that energy efficiency can be achieved. It is widely recognised that good-quality and energy-efficient homes will help in our fight to alleviate fuel poverty. They will also help tackle poor mental health in Northern Ireland. We can all testify to seeing poor-quality homes across the private and social sectors, and it is imperative that we do all that we can to improve housing quality. We welcome the inclusion of the tenants' representative and tenants themselves on the list of consultees for both those areas. We will support all the amendments in the group.

Ms Armstrong: I will not take too long, as the Speaker said that he does not want us to talk about Second Stage issues. I support all the group 2 amendments. I thank all those involved. The Bill took a long time to come through, and we are grateful that the Minister and the Department took on all the recommendations. The fact that a Committee member was an electrician meant that we were able to keep on track. As a former National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH)-qualified health and safety officer, I believe that it is vital that we ensure that we protect citizens in private tenancies, especially after Grenfell. I thank the Department and the Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call the Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, to conclude and wind on the debate.

Ms Hargey: I will not talk for long. I thank everyone for their comments. I put the amendments to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 27 is a paving amendment to amendment No 28.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 30 is a paving amendment to amendment No 31.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 33 is a paving amendment to amendment No 34.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Private Tenancies Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments before Question Time.

Mr Speaker: Questions to the Minister of Education have been rescheduled from 15 February.

Miss McIlveen (The Minister of Education): The current public health guidance is that, if a child tests positive through a positive lateral flow device (LFD) test, they should ensure that their test result is uploaded to the online portal and follow the current self-isolation protocols. The individual should then isolate for 10 days. They may be able to end their self-isolation period from day 6 if they have two consecutive negative lateral flow test results taken 24 hours apart, with the first of those taken no earlier than day 5, and they do not have a high temperature.

Schools are encouraged, in response to being notified of a positive case, to issue the Public Health Agency's (PHA) "warn and inform" letter to parents of pupils in the same class. If a school is aware that 20% or more of a class have tested positive within 10 days of the first case, it should recommend extended testing to the class. To do that, it should issue a PHA template letter to parents to ask asymptomatic members of a class to take one-off lateral flow test before returning to school. If the children are already at school, they do not need to leave school immediately. That applies to primary and post-primary settings.

The Department of Health’s guidance is the appropriate approach to ensure that positive cases self-isolate as soon as possible. The approach taken by schools in response to positive cases will allow parents of other pupils to swiftly identify asymptomatic cases. That balances the identification of positive cases with avoiding the widespread disruption where whole classes were asked to self-isolate, in many cases unnecessarily. Should there be any changes to the Department of Health’s approach, we will continue to ensure that schools are supported.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, in recent days and weeks, I have been contacted by parents, teachers and members of boards of governors from across my constituency who have been left scrambling in the wake of positive cases in their schools. There is a particular level of anxiety when pupils or family members are clinically vulnerable. Will you advise what communication you are having with key bodies to ensure that the communication is better? The feedback that I am getting all the time is that it is difficult to receive a response from the PHA. That is increasing the anxiety and tension.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for her question. I recognise that it has been a very difficult period for school leaders, particularly when they are dealing with significant numbers of cases in their schools among teaching staff and classroom assistants.

There is regular contact between my Department, the PHA and the Education Authority (EA). Officials in the Department meet officials in the PHA every week, and there are fortnightly meetings with practitioner groups, regular meetings with unions and so on to discuss the same issues. The Public Health Agency and the Education Authority issued a joint letter to all schools on 24 January that provided an update on the operational support that is available to schools from the PHA and the EA when positive cases are identified. Obviously, that reflected the changes that were taking place, particularly in response to the omicron variant and the high number of cases. We hope that the operational changes to the support that is offered by the PHA and the EA have not had a significant impact on the workload of school staff. Where there are multiple cases in a class, schools are now able to recommend that pupils in that class take an LFD test at home without having to agree extended testing directly with the PHA, which was taking a lot longer and adding another layer of bureaucracy to that.

As a consequence of the high volume of calls to the EA's COVID helpline in January, the EA introduced a triaging system to enable it to identify what were considered to be high-priority or urgent calls in education settings. Each query raised by an education setting was assessed and prioritised by EA on a case-by-case basis and responded to as quickly as possible. That engagement was done through a relevant cross-organisational link officer or an email, depending on the circumstances of the issue. Each school was probably being dealt with in a slightly different way depending on the cases, and that may have created anxiety.

Mr Harvey: Minister, I understand that the Department issued guidance to schools in December about remote learning. How is that being monitored? What advice was issued about examination classes? Can the Minister share with the House any information about the extent to which remote learning has been used?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. We published guidance in December on the use of remote learning, and that was in anticipation of the increase in the omicron variant and the impact that it may have, particularly on those who were going through examination classes. It was to prioritise face-to-face learning for years 11 to 14, particularly for those in years 12 to 14 who were completing their qualifications in this academic year.

My officials monitor the use of remote learning across all the school settings on a weekly basis via a short survey. The survey findings are then published each week on the Department's website. Survey response rates have been good. An average of almost 740 survey responses were received each week during January. Those weekly survey findings indicate that, while COVID-19 continues to cause disruption across the system, the majority of school settings have not needed to utilise remote learning since the beginning of January. The survey findings indicate that, on average, almost 60% of those who completed the survey during January did not need to utilise remote learning. Less than 1% of all schools that completed the survey needed to utilise remote learning for the whole school during January, and the majority of those that did were in the nursery or preschool setting. Just over 14% of post-primary schools that completed the survey during January needed to use remote learning for a class or more in year 12, and under 12% of post-primary schools that completed the survey needed to use remote learning for a class or more in year 14. During January, provision of remote learning for individual pupils was the type of remote learning most frequently reported, and that was reported by an average of 77% of all respondents that utilised remote learning. Officials will continue to closely monitor that during February.

Mr Lyttle: What modelling has the Education Minister done to assess the impact that the lifting of COVID restrictions will have on school pupil and staff attendance and, therefore, availability for learning and assessment?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that we have been surveying schools since the beginning of January about the impact of the omicron variant, in particular, on school attendance and so on. That will impact particularly on those whom we have a concern for as they move into their examination years. As the Member will recall, in August, we issued a guidance note to schools that very much allowed for flexibility in the use of various mitigations, and that will continue, because, as we are all aware, each school leader is more than alert to their own school community and the needs of that community. Data will be used to inform how we move forward with revised guidance. Any conversations that we have will include working closely with the Department of Health, practitioners and unions.

Miss McIlveen: Work on the development of the Executive's childcare strategy had to be paused at the beginning of the pandemic in order to focus all our efforts on providing emergency financial support to the childcare sector. That financial support was critical to ensuring the survival of many childcare providers and to underpin economic recovery. Since April 2020, almost £40 million has been allocated to support the childcare sector.

Despite work on emergency support schemes continuing, my Department began to re-engage with stakeholders at the end of last year on what a longer-term Executive childcare strategy should address. A strategic insight programme took place between October and December 2021, which involved sessions with parents, providers and MLAs and a two-day intensive insight lab with key stakeholders. That has produced a lot of material, which we are assessing. Further focused engagement with stakeholders on key themes is also likely to be required. In addition to that, subject to available resources, we plan to commission an independent review of childcare services in Northern Ireland. That will provide evidence on a range of issues, including the cost of childcare for families, supply and demand issues and the challenges in delivering childcare. All that will be essential in informing the direction of the strategy.

We had hoped that, by this stage, the emergency schemes to support the sector through the pandemic would no longer be required and that staff resources could be focused solely on the development of the childcare strategy, but, unfortunately, that has not happened. With the emergence of the omicron variant, there has been a requirement to turn our attention again to emergency COVID-19 support funding, and that will inevitably have an impact on the pace of progress on the strategy. However, I remain committed to doing everything possible to build the case and bring forward costed options. The work that I have outlined will provide the evidence on which informed decisions can be made. Ultimately, it will be for a future Executive to agree what commitments the strategy should contain and to provide the funding to deliver them.

Ms Armstrong: I thank the Minister. I am sure that she is as disappointed as I am that she has not been able to progress the strategy any further, primarily, of course, because of the pandemic. Given that the strategy is not yet ready, does that mean that the childcare strategy budget cannot be allocated or accounted for in the three-year Budget period?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for her question. We will go through a series of processes in order to get to a draft strategy. As I outlined in my initial answer, the team was redirected to other work in the last couple of years, and, unfortunately, we are not in a position to present a draft strategy. I had hoped that we would have that completed by autumn this year, but, given the consequences of omicron and so on, that timeline will have shifted. We will certainly not be in a position to consult on the strategy at that point, and, therefore, any discussion in relation to any budget that will be required is a moot point at this stage.

Mr O'Dowd: Is it not better to be honest with the sector and with those families who are waiting on a childcare strategy and say that it is going nowhere? The DUP's decision to walk out of the joint First Ministers' office, the fact that there is no functioning Executive and your call that you will not go back into the Executive after the election means that things like this are going nowhere. Is it not better for you to stand at the dispatch box and tell the sector that?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question, which is probably much more of a political point. The reality of the situation is that we are much further behind with a strategy than I would have liked. My predecessor would have liked this to have been progressed much further so that we could have had a draft strategy agreed well in advance of the end of the mandate as it was. I am not telling any lies when I say that we are not in a position to have a strategy published. The timeline looked towards the autumn of 2022, and we are not in that place. I do not think that I can be any clearer than that.

Mr O'Toole: I guess I should congratulate the Minister for her candour about the lack of progress on the childcare strategy. Further to Kellie Armstrong's point, however, it is critical that the strategy be costed when it is finally delivered. Now that there is a pause in the Budget — an unwelcome one from my perspective, given the walkout — there is time to ensure that the childcare strategy is delivered and ready to go and that it is properly costed.

Will the Minister action her officials to make sure that that childcare strategy is costed and will be included in the three-year Budget that, we hope, will be agreed after the election?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. The childcare strategy is critical for us moving forward. If nothing else, COVID shone a light on the need for high-quality and affordable childcare for everyone. This is incredibly important work. Obviously, it has been delayed as a consequence of COVID, but, when we get to the point of having a strategy, it will need to be costed. The House, in whatever format and whoever is in it, will need to take that seriously. I appreciate the comments that the Member has made. Certainly, that is my intent.

Ms Sugden: Politics aside and moving forward, does the Minister believe that we should review how we allocate preschool places to the statutory and non-statutory sectors as part of the childcare strategy?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for her question. There is quite a conversation to be had about childcare, the offering and how it is allocated, particularly around the community and voluntary sector. That sector faces incredible challenges — different challenges — particularly in relation to its staff, the allocation of its staff and the payment of its staff. In the round, all childcare, not just one aspect of it, needs to be looked at.

Mr Buckley: The Minister understands fully the impact of the affordability of childcare, particularly on working families. I know families who are making the decision not to work because of increased childcare costs, particularly alongside the increase in the cost of living. Will the Minister clarify whether the childcare strategy will specifically address childcare affordability, particularly for working families?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. I am aware that affordability is frequently cited as a key issue for families when accessing childcare. It was a key theme that came out of the strategic insight lab. My Department is keen to ensure that families access all the financial support that they are entitled to with the cost of childcare. Work is ongoing with HMRC on the promotion of tax-free childcare for working parents. That UK-wide scheme provides 20% of childcare costs for parents. Up to 85% of childcare costs may be paid to parents who are currently in receipt of universal credit.

The research report on a review of childcare services in Northern Ireland will provide further insight into the cost of childcare for parents across Northern Ireland. My officials will continue to engage with stakeholders and providers to monitor the cost of childcare and the cost of providing childcare, which we also need to bear in mind. Executive agreement will be required if significant policy decisions and actions are required within the childcare strategy, and, obviously, they will have to be part of an agreed overall Budget. Affordability needs to be key in all of this.

Mr Speaker: The Members who are down for the next two questions are not in their place. I call Peter Weir.

Miss McIlveen: On 16 December 2021, I provided an update report to the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly outlining the significant progress to date. The report, 'A Fair Start', is an ambitious, long-term action plan with 47 actions spread across six years and beyond. The focus of the report is very much on early years.

A programme board has been established and consists of representation from a number of Departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs). Senior responsible officers have been established for each of the eight key areas identified in the report. A stakeholder reference group that includes teaching union representation, schools, community groups and uniformed organisations has also been established to support the programme board in its development of the programmes and projects.

Actions under way in "Redirecting the Focus to Early Years" include a review of Sure Start staffing, the expansion of the early years SEN inclusion service and support for children with visual impairment. In respect of "Championing Emotional Health and Well-Being", my Department is bringing forward the expansion of nurture groups two years earlier than planned, and health and social care trusts are delivering a range of interventions to support children looked after, children with English as an additional language and children with SEN. Under "Ensuring the Relevance and Appropriateness of the Curriculum and Assessment", officials are providing £1 million of digital devices to children who need them. In respect of "Maximising Boys' Potential", a new Horizon programme will, over a two-year period, produce well-skilled, qualified and experienced youth work volunteers. Those are just some examples of the 31 actions under way this year.

Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for her response. It is good to see substantial progress under that vital programme.

The Minister recently announced substantial funding investment under 'A Fair Start' for Monkstown Boxing Club. Will the Minister give a bit more information on the rationale for funding that project and say whether projects such as Monkstown Boxing Club act as exemplars for future projects under 'A Fair Start'?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. I was delighted to announce my support of the work of Monkstown Boxing Club on 4 February. Since 2012, Monkstown Boxing Club has been providing education support programmes that use the power of sport and youth work to help disengaged young people to develop academic and emotional skills.

The "In Your Corner" programme is delivered alongside Abbey Community College to 10 year-11 pupils for a full academic year. It is designed to offer a flexible learning pathway by qualified teachers for pupils who struggle with the demands of full-time education in mainstream schools and employs a youth work-based approach. The "In Your Corner" programme is closely aligned to the actions on promoting a whole-community approach to education that were outlined by the expert panel in its report on educational underachievement. I am sure that there will be learning that we will be able to gain from Monkstown Boxing Club that will help to inform the actions flowing from the report.

I was delighted that Mary Montgomery and Jackie Redpath, two members of the 'A Fair Start' panel, were in attendance at the announcement. I was thrilled to announce the investment at Monkstown. It is important that work such as that is allowed to continue, and it should be used as an exemplar for other communities groups. What struck me most when I was there was when Paul Johnston said that the money will save lives. That demonstrates how important an investment like that is and the difference that it will make in communities such as Monkstown.

Mr O'Dowd: Minister, I commend the work of Dr Purdy and his panel on the 'A Fair Start' report. You and he have managed to bring most if not all political parties together behind an education initiative, which is a huge achievement, so fair play to you. I know from experience how difficult that is. How will you measure the progress of the action plan, given that there has been some criticism recently from the Audit Office about how we measure such features, and how will it fit with the wider review of education?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his questions. Obviously, they are fair questions, given the criticisms in the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on how money has been spent and monitored. Lessons will have been learned as a consequence of that, as you will know from your experience of being in this position. Obviously, changes were made from 2015 to how those programmes were evaluated in order to ensure really good outcomes. There is very much a focused approach to that. A considerable amount of research has gone into the plan and will go into each of the aspects of delivery.

We will look at best practice. Quite a number of the programmes will be pilot projects. Early years provision is very much a focus and has been well researched. The nurture programme will be extended, and, again, we are all aware of the benefits of that programme. In fact, had we the budget, the nurture programme should be a natural thing that happens in every school, in post-primary as well as primary schools. I am conscious of that, and the team and the Department are certainly conscious of it as well. As we are all aware, it is not just an education programme; it is very much a programme that requires input from Health, Communities and TEO, given that it has the oversight of that. It is very much a cross-departmental, Executive commitment. I hope that we are all as committed to it as we have said we are.

Mr Humphrey: I fully endorse the 'A Fair Start' report, which was launched by my colleague Peter Weir and delivered under this Minister. The Minister may be aware that the 'Closing the Gap' report was launched recently at Belfast Boys' Model School, and Dr Purdy and his team attended the launch. I made it clear at that launch — I say it to the House again and made the point to the Finance Minister yesterday as well — that 'Closing the Gap' and 'A Fair Start' can be implemented in their fullest way and bring the maximum benefit only if they get resource and funding from across government. Would the Minister agree?

Miss McIlveen: I agree with the Member, and I thank him for his comments. I did not quite conclude my response to Mr O'Dowd when he asked about the role of this in the independent review. It feeds into the work of the PAC in that it needs to be baselined and to be very much part of what we do. It is important that the independent review takes on board the recommendations of 'A Fair Start' because that should really be working as a template for how we move forward. I understand that the review team met the panel, so, hopefully, that work will be evidenced in the overall review.

Mr McNulty: Minister, this is a bit of a left-field question. You mentioned Monkstown Boxing Club and the wonderful contribution that it makes to its community. The social inclusion and social responsibility that it participates in is incredibly strong and powerful, as are the impacts of sport and the life skills that can be gained from sport. How concerned are you about the IOC's decision to remove boxing from the Olympic Games and the impact that that will have on children and young people? Every child and young person who is a boxer aspires to win a gold medal at the Olympics. What are your concerns about that?

Miss McIlveen: I really appreciate the Member's question. When I mentioned boxing and sport, I thought that the Member would be interested in it, given that he has championed the mental health as well as the physical health benefits of participation in sport. I have to be honest that, while I was aware of the IOC's decision, the impacts that it may have were not really in my thoughts. Certainly, there are a significant number of boxing clubs in Northern Ireland that have made a great contribution not only to physical health but to being able to bring in young people who may have been disengaged and give them a focus. Obviously, that is to be welcomed. Monkstown Boxing Club is a great exemplar, and that is why I was keen to ensure that the work that it has done continues, particularly its work with Abbey Community College.

Miss McIlveen: Education is facing unavoidable cost pressures and rising service demands associated with delivering statutory and policy obligations. The sector will require significantly more funding during this Budget period if we are to avoid a significant and detrimental impact on our children and young people. As I have said on many occasions, education is key to the future economic stability of our society, and we cannot afford to continue to neglect it through years of financial underfunding.

The 2022-25 draft Budget had proposed allocating an additional £162 million towards pressures that are deemed to be inescapable or pre-committed, which are currently estimated to be about £376 million. However, without further additional funding, it would have been extremely challenging for my Department to implement a range of things, including the education actions in the Northern Ireland COVID recovery plan, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act and any recommendations that will emanate from the independent review of education.

I acknowledge that the absence of an agreed Budget for the next financial year will be a concern to our education stakeholders. I therefore recognise the need to provide as much clarity as possible to schools, the Education Authority, other non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and relevant third-party organisations. I have agreed to my officials taking forward some budget planning to enable me to provide indicative allocations for schools and other organisations, pending the agreement of a final Budget in due course.

Mr Muir: I thank the Minister for her response. The lack of an Executive, as a result of the DUP walking away, means that we cannot agree a Budget for the next financial year. That is causing great uncertainty and apprehension among the school community, including children and young people. Will the Minister reconsider her party's decision to walk away? How will being without a Budget for next year help the education of our young people?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. As I said in my initial response, I acknowledge that there is concern. I have spoken to my officials, and we are looking to give some certainty where we can regarding the budget.

Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. It has obviously been incredibly difficult for schools over the past two years, and we have all recognised that. Efforts continue to be focused on giving support to schools, not only on a regular basis through the EA but in a responsive way on the basis of individual needs. The Member will be aware from my answer to question 1, on contact tracing and so on, that my Department meets the PHA weekly and that we have fortnightly meetings with practitioners in order to get a sense of the reality of what is going on.

As the Member will also know, during January, we had daily surveys. That was important for us in order to capture not only the daily issues associated with staff absences and what our response needed to be but the ongoing issues that were being flagged up so that we could be as responsive as possible. That is not to say that everyone was perfect in all of that, but it was my view that we needed to keep a close eye on schools. We needed to be in contact with them, and they needed to understand that we would be as responsive as possible.

One of the main issues was not being able to get substitute teachers. We have made good progress on that. Since our call on 21 December 2021 to retired teachers and those on a career break, I understand that in the region of 377 members of staff have joined the Northern Ireland substitute teacher register (NISTR). Although that is not significant in the grand scheme of things, it is not insignificant either.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, thank you for that answer. I am aware from letters sent by my children's school that schools have had a very rocky few months. I am also aware — I declare an interest in this — that there are significant issues with school trips as well, because of omicron. Minister, will you assure us that you will continue to engage with front-line staff and their unions in the time ahead?

Miss McIlveen: That should go without saying. It is a priority for us in order to ensure that schools can run as straightforwardly as possible, given the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We have to be cognisant of the fact that our young people have missed out on so much over the past couple of years. As society has opened up, we need to reflect that at school and make it much more normal for them so that they can participate in trips and so on, while doing so in a safe manner. I give that commitment. My officials and I, where I can, often meet school leaders and pupils. My door is always open.

Mr Speaker: Mr Catney is not in his place to ask his question.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for her question. Although I do not have the specifics for the school, I will come back to her. Some 72 schools were involved in SEP2, and it is my understanding that the first projects will start to move on-site in the summer. I will need to come back to the Member with the detail on the particular school.

Ms Flynn: I appreciate that. I thank the Minister for her response. Will she commit to making it a priority? St John the Baptist is my old primary school. It is a great school, with great teaching staff and pupils, but the work that is required on the school building and estate is badly needed. I would therefore appreciate any prioritisation or time that the Minister can give to it.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for her comments. I know that she has written to me and that my predecessor visited the school. I will feed that back to officials.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, I have been a champion of the controlled sector for many years. All controlled schools are non-denominational and accept applications from children from all faiths and none. Unfortunately, they are often referred to as "Protestant schools", but that is absolutely not the case. With almost no exception, controlled schools have a high level of mixing. However, it is clear that all controlled schools reflect the demography of their local communities and serve all communities.

We have controlled non-selective schools, controlled grammar schools, controlled integrated schools and controlled Irish-medium schools, and we have controlled schools in which over 75% of the pupils are Catholic. So, controlled schools have high levels of children with various abilities, including special educational needs, and a mix of children, including those who are entitled to free school meals. In short, controlled schools welcome all children, regardless of faith, background or location, and they embrace children of all abilities.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she believe that the private Member's Bill on integrated education moves us towards a single education system, or does it further reinforce sectoralisation in our education system?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. As he is aware, the Executive have agreed to undertake an independent review of education, with a focus on securing greater efficiency in the cost of delivery, on raising standards, on providing access to the curriculum for all pupils and on the prospect of moving towards a single education system, if one can be established.

If the private Member's Bill on integrated education is passed, it will absolutely serve to reinforce sectoral divides that the area planning process has spent many years trying to break down. Placing duties to one sector that are onerous and significant on the Department of Education will absolutely reinforce difference. The Department will have to prepare and maintain an integrated strategy and lay a report on integrated education in the Assembly. It will be required to provide resources to protect the ethos of integrated schools and quantify the resources required for integrated education, including those required to facilitate the establishment of new integrated schools, the expansion of existing integrated schools and the transformation of other schools to integrated status. There is more, but my point is that the Department does not do any of that for any other sector. That will, over time, reinforce sectoralisation.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. Up until this point, my discussions with officials were very much on the issues that we were going to face in the Budget that was being proposed and the consequences of my Department's underfunding as a result of that. I have had discussions with my officials on some scenarios for what allocations may look like. However, that is as far as that has gone with regard to Budget planning.

I have asked my officials to look at the allocations that we are likely to get and how they may be distributed in order to ensure that schools receive their budgets in adequate time.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, surely you can be clear that, in the absence of an agreed three-year Budget, it will be difficult for large-scale capital builds to proceed in the way that would have been able to under a three-year Budget. Until we have that, there are many things that simply cannot happen, including, I might add — parochially, since I am on the Floor — rebuilds such as St Joseph's College on the Ravenhill Road, a school for which investment is long overdue.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, budgets were always going to be very challenging. As I said, conversations will continue with my officials with regard to the impact of whatever allocation the Department of Education receives.

Mr Speaker: No further Members are in their place. The Minister may well be pleased to hear that. [Laughter.]

Members should take their ease for a moment or two, before we move on swiftly to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr O'Dowd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is worth putting on record that several Members are at Committee meetings. I do not want the impression to be that Members are absent without leave.

Mr Speaker: We will hear from all of the relevant Members in due course. Thanks for that, Mr O'Dowd.

Mr Speaker: The next item in the Order Paper is the first of three legislative consent motions (LCMs) relating to the Health and Care Bill. I call the Minister of Health to move the motion. The Minister is participating via StarLeaf. I call the Minister.

I ask the Minister to move the motion.

Mr Speaker: The Minister is on screen but he is on mute.

Mr Speaker: We still cannot hear the Minister.

Let us try to resolve this technical issue. Members should take their ease for a moment or two to allow the Minister and the team here to try to resolve the technical difficulties.

Mr Swann: Can I check now, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: Very good. It is working. All systems are go. I ask the Minister to move the motion. Can the Minister hear?

Can the Minister now hear? We cannot hear the Minister.

Mr Swann: Mr Speaker, I can hear you.

Mr Speaker: I can hear you now. OK, will we try again?

Mr Swann: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Minister to move the motion.

Mr Swann: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The wonders of technology. The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Swann: The Health and Care Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 6 July 2021. As you may be aware, a number of legislative consent motions on the Bill have already been before the Assembly. On 13 January, the Northern Ireland Executive agreed in principle to the need for an LCM concerning the criminalisation of virginity testing and hymenoplasty. Part 5 of the Bill seeks to ban the practice and process of virginity testing and the gynaecological examination of female genitalia, with or without consent, for the purpose of determining whether a woman or girl has had vaginal intercourse. The Bill will also seek to ban hymenoplasty procedures, that being the practice and process of hymen reconstruction that is undertaken on a woman or girl for the purpose of creating the impression that she has not had vaginal intercourse.

Virginity testing and hymenoplasty are harmful and intrusive practices that are widely regarded as forms of violence and abuse against women and girls. They are categorised as honour-based abuse, as women and girls are often coerced or pressured into the procedures to protect or defend the honour of their family and/or community. A woman or girl who fails a virginity test is likely to be forced into undergoing a hymenoplasty procedure to create the impression that she has not had vaginal intercourse prior to her wedding night. Virginity testing is not recognised as a medical procedure, nor does it carry any scientific or clinical merit. The procedures are not offered in healthcare facilities here in either trusts or private facilities regulated by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA).

No data is available detailing the prevalence of virginity testing across the United Kingdom among particular religious groups. However, although virginity testing is not a requirement of any religious group, there is a commonly held misconception in some communities that virginity testing is a religious requirement. Although virginity testing is more prevalent among certain communities, the policy objective is to fulfil the Government's overarching aim to protect and reduce harm to all women. By banning virginity testing, the policy will protect all women, particularly in communities in which virginity testing is more prevalent, and will be beneficial in the long term to their well-being. That will advance equality of opportunity among women and girls from communities in which the practice is prevalent, thus enabling them to live freely, without fear of being subjected to abuse.

Health officials have consulted colleagues in the Department of Justice, who have advised that there is likely to be no impact on the justice system in Northern Ireland. My officials have also consulted colleagues in the Executive Office, who have confirmed that they have no issues with the criminalisation of virginity testing or hymenoplasty procedures. They continue to work with officials in all Departments, and with all stakeholders, to bring forward the violence against women and girls strategy.

The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales are also required to bring forward LCMs on these issues. My officials have also liaised with officials in the Republic of Ireland, who have confirmed that, at present, they have no legislation that deals directly with the issues of virginity testing or hymenoplasty and that, at this time, it is not on their legislative agenda.

I hope that Members will support the additional provisions of the Health and Care Bill, as, ultimately, the amendments seek to help women and girls in our community and to keep them safe from violence and abuse. I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): It is good to see the Minister looking well in the circumstances and, hopefully, well on the way to recovery. We look forward to welcoming him back to his place here. I am sure that you look forward to that, too, Minister, given the technological difficulties that we all face.

I welcome the opportunity to make some remarks as Chair of the Health Committee and then some brief comments as my party's health spokesperson. The first legislative consent motion that is before us today relates to virginity testing and hymenoplasty. The Minister wrote to the Committee just before Christmas to advise that the LCM on virginity testing and hymenoplasty was progressing, following an amendment to the British Government's Health and Care Bill. The LCM will ban the practice and process of virginity testing and hymenoplasty procedures, as the Minister has outlined.

The Committee was briefed by officials at its meeting on 27 January. We asked a number of questions, and departmental officials provided some clarity that the procedures were not happening in any facilities that are managed by trusts or regulated by the RQIA. They also outlined that the World Health Organization had identified the North as one of the places where virginity testing had taken place, and that it could be happening privately. The Committee agrees that it is important to criminalise those procedures and welcomes the amendments to the Health and Care Bill.

The Committee sought further information on the present situation in the Twenty-six Counties. The Department advised that, at a meeting of the National Women and Infants Health Programme, it was stated that they were not aware of hymenoplasty being offered or requested in the public care system, and it was not an area of concern that had been brought to their attention.

The Committee received correspondence from the General Medical Council (GMC) to advise that it supports the efforts to end virginity testing, hymenoplasty and associated abuses. It further advised that, if the law changes, it will amend its guidance on cosmetic surgery to include hymenoplasty as a banned procedure. That is very much to be welcomed.

I conclude my remarks as Chair by saying that the Committee welcomes the amendment to ban virginity testing and hymenoplasty and noted the LCM.

I will make some brief remarks as Sinn Féin's health spokesperson. There are no medical reasons that can be thought of for either of those abhorrent practices. I very much welcome the efforts to close down any potential of them happening. Both practices are harmful and deeply intrusive and, clearly, can be seen only as a form of abuse. Virginity testing is not currently offered or performed in any healthcare practice in the North that is regulated by the RQIA. However, it is important that we extend the ban and criminalise that. Just as female genital mutilation was made illegal, that will make it an offence to carry out the procedure, with or without consent, and also, importantly, to aid and abet in the offence. Hospitals and healthcare facilities must be safe spaces for everyone. I welcome the GMC's support for efforts to ban the practices. Sinn Féin will certainly support the LCM.

Mrs Cameron: I support the legislative consent motion. As we have heard, it came before the Committee. It really was hard to comprehend that the World Health Organization had determined that Northern Ireland was somewhere where those horrific practices could be found to take place. The Chair touched on that. It is absolutely clear that, in any humane society, no woman or girl should be subjected to that intrusive and humiliating violence. Therefore, to make the practices illegal, through the LCM, is the right thing to do.

At Committee, I raised the issue of how that could impact on the administration of justice when crimes of a sexual nature are being investigated. I ask the Minister to clarify in his remarks his understanding of the law in that regard and how that might impact on those areas. The law must ensure that women and girls are kept safe from such practices as virginity testing, which could be carried out by someone who is outside the health profession and without the expertise and training that comes with that. I welcome the LCM and commend it to the House.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislative consent motion and to give my support to it. It will bring the North into alignment with the rest of these islands.

The practice of virginity testing and hymenoplasty is disgraceful and amounts to a violation of a girl or woman's human rights. It has been opposed by multiple medical societies across these islands, and today we have the opportunity to address the legislative element here.

While we do not know the true scale or demographic of the women and girls who are subjected to these procedures, there has been real concern for those who are seeking the procedure because, if they are not seen to be virgins, they are at risk of stigma or, in some instances, violence from within their communities. That is what the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is telling us, and we must take the issue very seriously.

The stigma with which women and girls are labelled is medieval, dangerous and has no place in our society. The stigma and practice only impose additional pressure on women and girls and the value and respect that is allotted to those who save themselves for marriage. However, those myths do not disappear in a moment but, rather, are eradicated through the promotion of healthy life choices, healthy relationships and sexuality education, community engagement, quality information and advice and, where necessary, a counselling service.

While this LCM forms part of the UK Health and Care Bill, let the message be loud and clear from this place today that we are unequivocal that such violence against women and girls will not be tolerated.

Ms Bradshaw: I support the legislative consent motion. I am absolutely appalled, as was everyone on the Health Committee, that we are even considering and debating it, but, sadly, there is evidence from the World Health Organization that it occurs here, which reinforces why the ban is necessary.

Following the Committee's discussion on the issue, I am slightly concerned that enforcement is simply being left as a matter for the police. I note that the GMC is supportive of the ban and will amend its guidance, but it is important for all healthcare professionals to be aware of the legislative changes.

Two years ago, pre COVID, on International Women's Day, I attended some training in Windsor Women's Centre, and we talked about female genital mutilation and how childcare workers and front-line workers are being trained to spot the signs as they gain the trust of women from different ethnic minority groups coming to the centre. Does the Health Minister propose to extend the communication around the legislative change to people who work with women who come to this country who may be put under pressure to have that testing performed on them? I support the legislative consent motion.

Mr Chambers: I will be very brief. As others said, this practice has absolutely no place in our society. The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes and fully supports the legislation.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Health, Robin Swann, to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the debate.

Mr Swann: I thank the Members who contributed to the debate and the Chair for his opening comments and best wishes. I want to get back there with you because I would rather be there than here at this moment in time.

The Deputy Chair, Ms Pam Cameron, raised the issue of criminality, as did Paula Bradshaw. Any cases of virginity testing or hymenoplasty should be reported to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for investigation, and it is envisaged that, at this time, the impact on the justice system will be minimal.

The criminalisation of virginity testing and hymenoplasty would enable instances to be reported to and investigated by the police. On the further point that Ms Bradshaw raised, guidance on how it will all work in practice is being developed to sit alongside the legislation. Northern Ireland will be represented at official level on the working groups that are being chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care.

I have a point of clarity for Mr McGrath, who said that the LCM will bring us into alignment across all these islands. I refer him to what I said in my opening comments: when we engaged with officials in the Republic of Ireland, they indicated that it has no legislation that deals with virginity testing or hymenoplasty and that, at this time, it is not on the legislative agenda. I wanted to be clear about that.

I thank the Health Committee for taking the time to examine the legislative consent motion and for its helpful and positive engagement with my Department's officials. I appreciate that the Committee again had to work within a very challenging timescale. I thank the Committee for its patience, understanding and cooperation with my departmental officials. I thank my Executive colleagues for their support on this matter and for agreeing to the need for a legislative consent motion on the Bill. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Swann: As per the previous debate, the Health and Care Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 6 July. At that time, the Secretary of State sought legislative consent agreement from all the devolved Administrations to carry out the arm's-length bodies (ALBs) transfer of functions provision on behalf of the devolved Administrations (DAs). The stated policy intention that underpins the provision is to create greater flexibility in restructuring functions to promote responsiveness to ongoing or future needs.

Clause 93(2) of the provisions sought to enable the Secretary of State to transfer any functions of a special health authority to any of the relevant bodies listed in clause 91. The five bodies in the scope of the provisions are Health Education England; the Health and Social Care Information Centre, which is NHS Digital; the Health Research Authority (HRA); the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; and the Human Tissue Authority. Of those, the Health Research Authority, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority are of most relevance to the current performed functions in Northern Ireland.

NHS Blood and Transplant is a special health authority that manages blood donation services in England and organ and tissue donation and transplantation services for all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. That includes managing the donation, storage and transplantation of organs and tissues, managing the UK-wide NHS organ donor register and researching new treatments and processes. The work is underpinned by the Human Tissue Act 2004 and various codes of practice developed by the Human Tissue Authority.

While organ donation is a devolved matter, Northern Ireland is part of the Human Tissue Act 2004, which covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In mid-October 2021, the Executive and the Health Committee considered oral and written briefings on a proposed legislative consent process for the arm's-length bodies, and that was included in the transfer of functions provisions in the Health and Social Care Bill 2021.

At that time, the Executive felt that it was not in the best interests of Northern Ireland to progress this legislative consent motion. There were reservations that future potential transfers of functions might impact on Northern Ireland and about the absence of a consent clause. My officials continued to engage with their counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to determine whether a resolution could be found. On 19 January, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care proposed to table a devolved Administration consent clause on potential future transfers that touch on devolved Administration legislative competency. However, that required all the devolved Administrations to agree. In the absence of uniform agreement, and in line with the Sewel convention, the bodies and functions in the scope of the power will be carved out for all devolved Administrations, resulting in a rump body.

While the detail of that alternative has not been fully scoped out due to the pace of the work, most likely, it will result in Northern Ireland having to take forward the functions on its own. Such a development will be extremely challenging, especially in organ donation and on the impact on the value of the work of the HRA. Causes 91 to 97 of the Health and Care Bill include an explicit provision that the devolved Administrations will be consulted on any transfer of functions that are operative in their nations, and the commitment to consult will be underpinned by a memorandum of understanding.

The devolved Administrations consent clause requires the Secretary of State to obtain consent from the devolved Administrations before proceeding with any transfer of functions. Secondary legislation will be required to progress any proposed transfers, and Northern Ireland's consent will be required on any future legislation that relates to a potential transfer of functions that touch on Northern Ireland's legislative competency. Any proposed changes to NHS blood and transplant functions outside England will be subject to consent from devolved Health Departments.

An additional amendment has been made to the provisions since their introduction that removes a Northern Ireland Department from any liability in the future transfer of property rights to other liabilities, and that is set out in clause 95(10). In light of those amendments, Executive approval to move forward with the legislative consent process was sought and secured via an urgent procedure request on 24 January. Subject to further briefing from my officials, the Health Committee agreement was secured for the legislative consent process.

The Scottish and Welsh Governments have provided legislative consent approval for this UK-wide provision. Failure to obtain Northern Ireland's support would have consequences for all the devolved Administrations as the current function in the scope of this power to DAs will be carved out, with devolved Administrations potentially having to go it alone to deliver these services. The nature of the services, such as organ donation, is best served on a UK-wide rather than on a local devolved Administration basis.

As a consequence of the secured devolved Administration consent clause and removal of any future potential liabilities, my Department recommended Northern Ireland's approval for the LCM to support and retain key services that are delivered to Northern Ireland by those UK-wide functions, while noting that any future transfer of functions touching on devolved Administrations' legislative competence will require our consent. I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to outline the Committee's consideration of the LCM. The Committee was first briefed on the LCM in October 2021, and it raised some issues about its purpose and about when the Secretary of State would use the powers that are in the amendment. Those powers would allow the Secretary of State to transfer the functions of five relevant bodies that provide functions directly to or are relevant to the North. Those include bodies such as the Human Tissue Authority and the Health Research Authority. In October, the Committee was advised that the Executive had the same concerns and, therefore, there was no approval to lay the LCM. In January, the Committee was advised that agreement had now been reached to lay the LCM following the introduction of a devolved Administrations clause into the amendment. That introduces a stipulation that the consent of each devolved Administration must be gained for any change that impacts their area of competency. The Committee welcomes that safeguard.

The Committee requested further information on how consent is expressed and processed. Officials advised that a memorandum of understanding was being drawn up to outline the process. The Committee has requested sight of that when it is drafted, and, indeed, it would welcome any further information on that from the Minister.

I will flag up an issue on the process for laying LCMs and Committee consideration of LCMs. The current process outlines that, once an LCM is laid, a Committee has 15 working days to report on the LCM and the motion should then not normally be moved until at least five working days after the Committee report is published. However, there is provision for what is called "a subsequent LCM" to be moved, if appropriate. That removes both the requirement for the Committee to report and the time frames. For all three of the LCMs that are before us today, the Committee was not advised by the Department that they were subsequent LCMs until almost two weeks after they had been laid. That created some confusion about the role of the Committee and its ability to report on the LCMs. I acknowledge the Minister's comments on that.

The Committee took the decision that, while it was not required to report on the LCMs, it would publish all relevant information on the Committee's web page. I ask that, moving forward, the Department makes clear whether or not an LCM is a subsequent LCM when it is laid in the Business Office, and notifies the Committee of that at the earliest possible stage. The Committee agreed to note the LCM.

I will make some brief remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson. I welcome the additional element of approval for the Assembly. I would welcome hearing from the Minister how that will be actioned and processed. On a general point about all the LCMs, at times there are concerns that full consultation is not done here. Some of the particular and unique complications that we have here are sometimes not fully considered. It is important, as the Minister mentioned, that there is full consultation here. It is important that we see subsequent and more intensive consultation to pick up on local issues.

Mrs Cameron: I support the LCM on the transfer of functions of arm's length bodies, which originates from the Health and Care Bill. I understand that the arm's-length bodies transfer of functions provisions related to only five bodies that perform UK-wide functions. This is a permissive power to enable the future transfer of functions between bodies to promote streaming and efficiency. The bodies in Northern Ireland most likely to be impacted under the scope of this power are NHS Blood and Transplant, the Human Tissue Authority and the Health Research Authority. We welcome the fact that, in the LCM, no changes to services are proposed.

The Chair of the Committee outlined concerns. We, as a party, also welcome the fact that the consent of this devolved Government will now be required before this power can be used in the future. We approve of the Committee having sight of the memorandum of understanding, once drafted. We support the motion.

Mr McGrath: The SDLP is happy to support the LCM as it affects and impacts on most parts of these islands.

Ms Bradshaw: I also support the motion. I will not repeat what the Chair of the Committee said, but, going forward with this LCM, the issues of consultation, transparency and accountability will be so important.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Health to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion.

Mr Swann: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Members for their comments. The Chair's comments about timeliness and management of the memorandum of understanding have been noted and heard. He acknowledged that, in my opening comments, I noted that this LCM received urgent procedure only on 24 January; that should not be missed either.

On the further development of the memorandum of understanding, when that has been agreed between all DAs and the DHSC, I am content for its content to be shared fully with the members of the Committee.

I thank the Health Committee for taking the time to examine this legislative consent motion and for its helpful and positive engagement with my officials on the matter. The Committee had to work within a challenging timescale, and I thank it for its patience, understanding and cooperation. I also thank my Executive colleagues for enabling me to take forward this LCM.

Some Members, as a matter of principle, hold the view that any legislation that falls within the devolved competency of the Northern Ireland Assembly should, when possible, be made by the Assembly. I agree with that view. However, in the area of the transfer of functions of arm's-length bodies that extend across the United Kingdom, it is appropriate in the safeguarding of current service delivery in Northern Ireland for legislation to be taken forward at Westminster. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister and Members for their contributions.

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Swann: As I said previously, the Assembly granted legislative consent to motions on 15 November for provisions in the Health and Care Bill relating to medicine information systems, international health agreements and the regulation of healthcare and associated professions. The need for a further legislative consent motion has arisen as a result of the Department of Health and Social Care's decision in December 2021 to use the Health and Care Bill to provide regulation-making powers to create a system for the mandatory reporting of healthcare payment data.

I wrote to the Health Committee on 26 January to advise it of my intention to table this legislative consent motion, and I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the motion at its meeting on 10 February.

I will briefly explain the policy background. In February 2018, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care established a medicines and medical device safety review. That review was set up to look at how to improve the way in which the NHS in England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) responded to patient-reported concerns more effectively and in a way that ensured that those who raise concerns are properly heard. Although the primary focus of the review was on the NHS in England, the review team, which was led by Baroness Cumberlege, visited Northern Ireland in December 2018, and the panel heard evidence from patients here.

The review centred on matters relating to the use of pelvic mesh implants, sodium valproate and hormone pregnancy tests such as Primodos, and, as I said, it was chaired by Baroness Cumberlege. The panel's report, 'First Do No Harm', was published on 8 July 2020. In her report, Baroness Cumberlege set out nine recommendations that were relevant to all three of the interventions at which the review panel was asked to look. The recommendations are targeted at improving patient safety, at providing help to those who have been harmed and at improving practice and learning. Yesterday, I published a written ministerial statement on the progress that has been made to date on implementing the nine recommendations in Northern Ireland.

Recommendation 8 states:

Recommendation 8 is being implemented in two parts. The legislative consent motion relates to the second part of the recommendation, which is on the mandatory reporting of payments. The purpose of the recommendation is to address the perceived and real conflicts of interest in the provision of healthcare and treatment where healthcare professionals and others have financial links with pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The responsibility for transparency should lie not only with the profession but with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

In December 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care proposed that it would legislate to implement that part of recommendation 8 on a UK-wide basis. It thus made amendments to the Health and Care Bill. On 24 January, the Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences from the Department of Health and Social Care tabled new clauses at the House of Lords' Committee Stage of the Health and Care Bill. Those clauses were to enable regulations to require the reporting and publication of information about payments and other benefits provided to persons in the healthcare sector by manufacturers and suppliers of healthcare products and to enable provision to be made for the enforcement of requirements relating to information about payments to persons in the healthcare sector, including through the imposition of civil penalties.

It required the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the consent of the Health Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as appropriate, before he could make provisions within devolved legislative competence in regulations relating to information about payments etc to persons in the healthcare sector.

It also provided regulations related to the reporting and publication of information about payments and other benefits that are provided to persons in the healthcare sector to enable different provisions to be made for different parts of the United Kingdom. It allowed for regulations related to the reporting and publication of information about payments and other benefits provided to persons in the healthcare sector to be subject to affirmative procedure. Finally, it provided for an extension to the whole of the United Kingdom of the powers related to the reporting and publication of information about payments and other benefits that are provided to persons in the healthcare sector.

In the clauses, "health care product" is defined as:

The Department of Health and Social Care's intention is for that to include borderline substances, which it considers to be another area where professionals can prescribe products to patients and where transfers of value may influence those decisions. That will include products such as dermatological and nutritional products that are used to treat medical conditions and are prescribed to patients along with nutritional borderline substances such as enteral feeds, oral nutrition supplements, specialist infant formulas, gluten-free products and products for patients with metabolic conditions.

The proposed legislative provisions would provide the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care with the necessary power to make regulations that will require pharmaceutical companies, the manufacturers of borderline substances and the manufacturers, importers and distributors of medical devices to report payments and other transfers of value that they make to teaching hospitals, research institutions and healthcare professionals.

The intention is for the legislation to capture payments that relate to specific medicines, substances and devices and other payments that may not relate to a specific product. The intention is that that information will then either be published by relevant companies on their websites or be submitted to the DHSC for publication in a searchable and publicly available database for greater transparency and to help address any perceived conflicts of interest. It is proposed that an exception to the reporting requirement would be available for those that already report to an industry-run scheme that is recognised as an appropriate alternative by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

A number of voluntary reporting schemes for pharmaceutical companies and medical-device manufacturers are run by trade bodies. However, it is felt that those are not comprehensive, partly because they do not cover all types of transfers of value and partly because they are voluntary, but also because they rely on consent for the name of the recipient to be disclosed. It is considered that a statutory requirement to report information would help to resolve those problems.

As part of preparing the UK Government response to the Cumberlege review, the DHSC consulted extensively with patient representatives to inform the development of the relevant clause. Following the publication of the review, the UK Government have spoken with medicines and medical devices associations to gather internal feedback on that duty. The DHSC acknowledges that there is more to do to inform the development of regulations and ensure that the needs of patients, the healthcare sector and the industry are heard. Therefore, the UK Government will be conducting a full public consultation in advance of making regulations, and the devolved Administrations will be strongly involved in that work.

The provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The DHSC does not anticipate significant human rights or equality impacts but will complete a full equality impact assessment alongside secondary legislation. The primary legislation provisions have no detrimental impact on particular protected groups or on health inequalities, and there is no adverse impact on any groups listed under section 75.

These are enabling provisions. There are no known financial implications. There may be financial implications in the development and implementation of any secondary legislation. Those costs have not yet been assessed, but an assessment of impacts on businesses, including small and microbusinesses, and wider impacts, such as those on the environment, trade and competition, will be completed, where appropriate, alongside secondary legislation.
DHSC has engaged extensively with the medicines industry and is advised that the industry is generally supportive of the principle but would want the chance to inform regulations and the detail of how reporting obligations will be fulfilled.

DHSC has advised that a collective of small to medium-sized enterprise device manufacturers seem very supportive of plans because they see an opportunity to level the playing field with larger manufacturers through increased transparency. DHSC plans further engagement with the industry. There has been no regulatory impact assessment of the new proposals. DHSC has confirmed that it will be conducting an assessment before making regulations, once the detail of the policy is clear, and will work with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to complete that work. The proposed provisions will not place any burden on businesses as the requirement to report information will only come into force once regulations are made.

In conclusion, I am supportive of the provisions and that, in the interests of good government across the United Kingdom, insofar as the Bill's provisions deal with a devolved matter, they should be considered by the UK Parliament, particularly considering the policy basis for the proposals, which was a report that was commissioned mainly in respect of the NHS in England, albeit with input from Northern Ireland. There is an assurance in the new clauses that the consent of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland is required before the making of regulations on matters that are within the Assembly's competence. The new provisions will allow for different provisions for different parts of the UK, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which allows for close scrutiny of any provisions by Parliament. I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): The Committee was briefed by a departmental official on this final LCM on today's clár, on the mandatory reporting of healthcare payment data, on 10 February. This provision arises from recommendation 8 of the Cumberlege report and seeks to address the perceived and real conflicts of interest in the provision of healthcare and treatment where healthcare professionals and others have financial links with pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

The other intention is that responsibility for transparency should lie not only with the medical profession but with the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries themselves. The Committee was advised that a number of voluntary reporting schemes are operated by trade bodies for pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers. Those are, however, not comprehensive, and they do not cover all types of transfers of value. As the Minister has outlined, they are voluntary and rely on consent for persons' names to be disclosed. The Department said that it agrees with DHSC that the strengthening of requirements in statute will help to resolve those problems. Members raised no issues in relation to this LCM and it was noted by the Committee.

I will make a very brief comment as Sinn Féin's health spokesperson. The Health and Care Bill is a Westminster Bill to reform the NHS in England and Wales. However, even with health and social care being devolved, there are areas of overlap in the use of arm's-length bodies. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I would say that transparency in payments is a crucial issue, and we would welcome the banning of abusive practices. Sinn Féin will be supporting this LCM.

Mrs Cameron: We have no objection to this LCM on the mandatory reporting of healthcare payment data in the Health and Care Bill. We understand that this particular piece of legislation is related to recommendation 8 of the Cumberlege report, 'First Do No Harm'. Part of that report talked about the need for mandatory reporting of payments made by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries to teaching hospitals, research institutions and individual clinicians, and we support that measure.

It is very important that there is an appropriate level of transparency and accountability in the development or supply of medicines, supplements and medical products. It is particularly relevant in terms of the relationships between manufacturers and health professionals. Such safeguards are key to maintaining high clinical and ethical standards and ensuring patient safety. We support the motion.

Mr McGrath: The LCM that we are discussing today is important, and it marks an important step in addressing the issue of transparency of payments that are made to clinicians. As has been mentioned, this flows from the 2018 Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, which was undertaken by Baroness Cumberlege and resulted in the 2020 report, 'First Do No Harm', with its nine recommendations.

The recommendation that has been mentioned most — recommendation 8 — is about the transparency of payments to clinicians and the need to improve that. In so doing, the register of the GMC would be expanded to include a list of financial and non-financial interests for all doctors, and their particular clinical interests and recognised and credited specialisms.

It is crucial that the North relates to the mandatory reporting by pharmaceutical and medical device industries of payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions and clinicians. It is important legislation, as there are instances in which a conflict of interest could arise in relation to healthcare provision. That could happen where the healthcare professional and others have financial links to pharmaceutical and medical device companies. It is such medical devices and pharmaceutical products that formed the basis of the 'First Do No Harm' report, and transparency is key when we address that matter. The SDLP is happy to support the motion.

Ms Bradshaw: This appears to be a relatively minor motion, but it touches on the highly important and urgent issues raised in the Cumberlege review. I recall supporting many of those who met the review panel when it visited Northern Ireland just over three years ago. I have noted the Minister's statement. I hope that we hear more about the implementation of 'First Do No Harm' from him and his departmental officials going forward. The motion touches on only a small aspect of it, but it is an important step nonetheless.

The pandemic has brought into even sharper focus the need for accountability in the relationship between pharmaceutical companies in the broadest sense and public health services. Thus far, the balance has been too much on the medical profession, without any demand for transparency from manufacturers and providers of healthcare products. I welcome the inclusion under products of so-called borderline substances such as dermatological or nutritional products. Payments made to companies both for specific products or where there is no relation to the specific product will have to be made publicly available. Currently, there are some voluntary requirements around that, but I think that everyone would agree, following 'First Do No Harm', that that needs to be mandatory. Consent is also required on an ongoing basis, as is the case in the other legislative consent motions that have been debated today. I welcome that upgrading from consultation.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Health to conclude and wind up the debate.

Mr Swann: I thank Members who have contributed to the debate. I think that it was the Chair who, again, touched on the crux of this LCM: the recognition of transfers of value as well as monetary ones, and also moving from a voluntary to a mandatory scheme. I take the opportunity to offer my thanks to the Health Committee for taking the time to examine this LCM, especially given the tight time frames involved, and for its helpful and positive engagement with my officials.

Some Members hold the view that, as a matter of principle, that if something falls within the devolved competency of the Northern Ireland Assembly, where possible, legislation should be made by the Assembly. Whilst I fully agree with that view, it is important to understand that it would not have been possible to progress separate primary legislation for Northern Ireland within a similar timescale. It is for that reason that I believe that, on this occasion, it is appropriate and makes good sense for Westminster to legislate on matters that are devolved to ourselves. I note that the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have agreed legislative consent motions in respect of the provisions as they relate to Wales and Scotland.

It is crucial that the public retains confidence in the healthcare system, and an important part of that is increased transparency in relation to healthcare payments. I am reassured that the consent of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland is required before the making of regulations on matters within the Assembly's competence. The Department will aim to engage the Health Committee during the development and promulgation of any regulations to be made under these new enabling powers. The new provisions will allow for different provision for different parts of the UK, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which allows for close scrutiny of any provisions by Parliament. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister and Members for their contributions.

Mr Speaker: Before we move to the Second Stage of the Budget Bill, I ask Members to take their ease for a couple of minutes so that we might prepare for that. We intend to announce a suspension later, during the debate on the Budget Bill, depending on how we get on with time. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment or two.

Mr C Murphy (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate.

Mr C Murphy: The Second Stage debate today follows the approval by the Assembly yesterday of the Supply resolutions for the expenditure plans of Departments and other public bodies as detailed in the 2021-22 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2022-23 Vote on Account. As Members will be aware, accelerated passage is necessary to ensure Royal Assent prior to the end of March. If that is not received in time, Departments and other public bodies may not be able to access cash, which would threaten the effective delivery of public services, not only for the closing weeks of the current financial year but for the early months of the 2022-23 financial year. That would undoubtedly affect the delivery of essential public services and our continued response to the COVID pandemic. I am grateful to the Finance Committee for confirming that, in line with Standing Order 42, the Bill can proceed under accelerated passage.

Throughout the year, the Executive, the Finance Committee and the Assembly have had the opportunity to scrutinise the financial position reflected in the Bill. I brought the 2021-22 Budget Bill to the Assembly last April, and I made statements to the Assembly on changes to the financial position at each monitoring round. There has also been regular engagement with the Finance Committee throughout the 2021-22 financial year.

The Assembly's Standing Order 32 directs that Second Stage debates should be:

I shall endeavour to keep to that direction. The main purpose of the Bill is to authorise the cash and use of resources on services, based on the final spending plans for the 2021-22 year for Departments and other public bodies as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2021-22. The Bill also provides authorisation for the cash and use of resources in the early months of the 2022-23 financial year as a Vote on Account, pending the Assembly's consideration of the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill later in the year. Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members today, and the spring 2021-22 Supplementary Estimates and the 2022-23 Vote on Account were laid before the Assembly on 9 February.

The Bill will authorise the use of £21,827,567,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the use of resources totalling £24,645,707,000 by the Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2022, which is this financial year. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of each schedule. The amounts supersede those previously authorised by the Assembly through the Main Estimates.

The Bill also sets, for the current financial year, a limit for each Department on the use of accruing resources. Accruing resources are current and capital receipts totalling £3,176,162,000. The accruing resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of schedule 2. The total resources and accruing resources provided by the Bill therefore bring the total resources for use by Departments in 2021-22 to just under £28 billion.

In addition, the Bill will authorise the issue of a further £9,822,408,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £11,090,573,000 by the Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2023. Cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services that are listed in column 1 of schedules 3 and 4.

That is the Vote on Account, and, as I have explained, it does not constitute the setting of a Budget for the 2022-23 year. It is merely to allow Departments to continue to operate and provide services in the early months of that year, pending the consideration of the Executive's Budget for that year through the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

One point that I wish to draw Members' attention to is that, while the vast majority of expenditure by all Departments is done on the authority of the statutory powers that are provided through legislation passed by the Assembly, there are occasionally some functions that may, from time to time, be done on the sole authority of the Budget Act. When a Department is making use of the sole authority of the Budget Act, it will highlight that fact by placing a note with a black box symbol in the corner in the corresponding Estimate. As required by the Finance Committee, the Estimates document now includes a separate table, Table 3, which lists the Departments and areas that rely on the sole authority of the Budget Bill.

Because the Main Estimate for 2022-23 will not be available until later in the year, I want to make the Assembly aware that, whilst Royal Assent has now been received for the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Loss of Universal Credit or Housing Benefit) Bill, that does not include the social sector size criteria, commonly referred to as "bedroom tax mitigation". A Bill to extend that mitigation scheme has passed Consideration Stage, and it is hoped that it will complete Final Stage and receive Royal Assent by April this year. However, it is prudent to include that in the amount that is relying on the sole authority of the Budget Bill.

I am aware that the Department for Communities intends to make further regulations to extend existing mitigation schemes to universal credit claimants. Those must be approved by the Assembly, and, until that time, payments to those claimants will continue to be made under the sole authority of the Budget Act.

Clause 5 provides for the temporary borrowing by my Department in 2022-23 of £4,911,204,000. That is approximately half the sum that is authorised by clause 4 for issue out of the Consolidated Fund. I stress that clause 5 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund or convey any additional spending power. It enables my Department to run an effective and efficient cash management regime and ensure minimum drawdown of the block grant on a daily basis, which is very important when contemplating the daily borrowing by our Departments.

The numbers in the Budget Bill are significant, and I am sure that Members will agree that it is not an easy task to translate those figures into the delivery of public services on the ground. Members will no doubt be exercised by the situation that we find ourselves in with the absence of an Executive and the impediment that that creates for the delivery of a Budget not just for 2022-23 but for the next three years. The reality is that the Bill is needed now in order to ensure that our public services can continue to be delivered, including our health service, our schools and our road and water services.

On that note, I conclude, and I am happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget Bill that Members may wish to raise.

Dr Aiken (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I apologise to Members, to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Minister because I will have to nip out fairly shortly to get back to the Finance Committee that is in session. You will see members of the Committee playing tag team over the next hour or so. I see that my earnest friend from South Belfast has made it here to look at the detail as we go through.

I thank the Minister for his opening commentary on the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. My remarks will be made on behalf of the Committee for Finance. Officials have kindly provided the Committee with a number of written and oral briefings on the Bill. Additionally, the Department has helpfully kept members apprised of spending decisions throughout 2021-22. Over the period of the mandate, from a rocky start to begin with, we now have a pretty good working relationship and understanding with the Department. That has been particularly useful, and I know that the Committee is pleased with it.

During this year, new financial reporting legislation has passed and the Fiscal Council has been established. Although their outworkings are still works in progress, the benefits of both are quite evident already. As a consequence of all that, the Committee felt a little more informed than usual and agreed that it was generally content that, on the expenditure in this financial year, there has indeed been appropriate consultation with it, and thus accelerated passage would be granted. As Members are also aware, although the absence of the Executive may well adversely impact on some Budget allocations that were not made before the First Minister resigned, the Department has advised that the Budget Bill can progress as normal.

This legislation provides legal cover for expenditure in 2021-22. Insofar as it refers to the Vote on Account, it also provides legal cover for some spending in 2022-23: up to 45% of the 2021-22 Budget. It is, therefore, understood that the Department will be able to continue day-to-day spending in the absence of Executive formation in the aftermath of the election, but only until the end of July. The Committee was advised that, in those unwelcome circumstances, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 would allow the new Finance permanent secretary to avail of a progressively larger percentage of the Budget for allocation in 2022-23, although that will apparently cover only business-as-usual spending. The Committee has sought further clarity about that. Officials also appeared to advise that, in the unfortunate situation in which there is no Executive, it would be preferable for a Budget to be set at Westminster in the autumn to ensure continuity of departmental spending. I will not dwell on those matters any further, but will conclude on them by saying that we hope that all political differences can be resolved in due course and certainly before the 24- or 48-week period expires.

The Committee has tabled a motion for debate on the 2022-25 draft Budget, which I hope the Business Committee will schedule for Monday 7 March. I anticipate that, during that debate, statutory Committee Chairpersons will speak to the very helpful and well-thought-out short reports that they produced on the impact of the draft Budget on their Departments. I hope that they will address expenditure issues for both resource and capital for 2021-22, as well, of course, as dealing with the Vote on Account transitional issues.

This time last year, I referred to the pandemic and to the considerable impact that it was having on individuals, communities and our hard-pressed businesses. Regrettably, as we can see from what is happening in Antrim Area Hospital in my own constituency, COVID-19 is certainly still with us. It increasingly looks like significant restrictions are on their way out, however, and we hope that that will be for good.

The impact of COVID on departmental spending for 2021-22, although not just as significant as in the previous year, is still very much worthy of note. Indeed, only a few weeks ago, we all welcomed the omicron measures for the hospitality sector and the granting of a further rates holiday at the start of 2022-23. Less welcome, however, were the restrictions on non-domestic rates appeals that the Assembly felt obliged to enact. That legislation showed up a degree of legal uncertainty about non-domestic rates. That is a little worrying, as they form a key part of the public finances in this jurisdiction. It is a matter in which the Finance Committee has taken an interest and about which I expect its successor Committee will continue to seek clarity.

As with last year, the Executive continue to receive substantial additional support from our Government, which is very welcome. The COVID allocation from Treasury seems to be over £1·5 billion for 2021-22. That has enabled the provision of numerous targeted support schemes. There is much to be welcomed about the Executive's financial response to the crisis. That said, there have been underspends and other issues with some of the schemes, as I said yesterday. Reconciliation between the Main Estimates and spring Supplementary Estimates, unspent resources and headroom provision are all significant issues, but much less so than last year. By that measure, it appears that a level of normality is, perhaps, beginning to return to departmental spending.

I intend to leave commentary from other statutory Committees to the Chairpersons of those Committees, but I will make a few key points. The first is that the Finance Committee was quite surprised that only two victims have so far received payments from the Troubles permanent disablement scheme. The Committee accepts that the funding of that scheme is a key consideration, but hopes that that is not driving the delays.

As was indicated yesterday, Members were surprised that capital spending is not being used as much as was expected to pump-prime the post-COVID economic recovery. As the House is aware, construction employers have been most critical of the relevant Departments. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether he is considering further Department of Finance measures in respect of procurement and capital allocations to improve capital delivery in the future.

That may prove to be crucial, not only for our investment strategy but for attracting foreign direct investment.

Last year, I commended the Second Stage of the Budget Bill to the House in the hope that, next time, we would all do better. I am not sure that I can absolutely tell Members that the scrutiny of the Estimates and Budget Bill has improved substantially. The emergence, however, of the Fiscal Council, the provisions in the Financial Reporting (Departments and Public Bodies) Bill and the appearance of Estimates memoranda may prove to be quite positive signs of progress. On that basis, I can and will commend, on behalf of the Committee for Finance, the Second Stage of the Bill to the House.

Dr Archibald (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): The pandemic continued to have a huge impact on the Department for the Economy's budget for the 2021-22 financial year. The Department's spring Supplementary Estimates memorandum reflects that. It highlights the change between the opening budget position for 2021-22 and the spring Estimates that take account of in-year changes. Resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) rose by 51%; capital DEL, including financial transactions capital (FTC), fell by 155%; resource annually managed expenditure (AME) fell by 575%; capital AME fell by 12%; and non-budget resource fell by 4%. Overall, the Department's total net resource requirement rose by 16%, while its total net capital requirement fell by 21%.

Obviously, the 2021-22 financial year must be viewed against the backdrop of the continuing pandemic and the role that the Department for the Economy played in the provision of COVID relief to businesses and individuals. The Committee observed on a number of occasions, however, that the Department's budget planning was a key issue in the requirement for significant flows of funds in and out of the Department during, and between, monitoring rounds. Members acknowledge and sympathise with the extremely pressurised environment in which the Department's staff have worked over the 2021-22 financial year. On the positive side, transparency in the Department's budgeting has improved in this financial year. The Committee welcomes that, as well as officials' willingness to engage and respond to members' queries.

The Committee considered the final draft DFE budget for 2021-22 at its meeting on 10 February 2021. The finalised budget in April did not differ from the draft, with the resource DEL baseline remaining at the 2020-21 level of £805·4 million. At that point, the Department indicated that it would be reliant on in-year allocations to fund a range of commitments. Reassurances on that were made by the Finance Minister, but it is not an ideal situation for the Committee effectively to monitor the Department's budget.

The Department submitted £201·6 million of resource DEL bids as part of the October 2020 comprehensive spending review (CSR), but none was met. The Department's development of an economic recovery action plan (ERAP) resulted in the majority of the CSR bids being superseded by or absorbed into the ERAP. Resource DEL bids under the ERAP and associated COVID relief therefore rose to £283 million, including the high street scheme, or the Spend Local card.

The Executive approved an allocation of £276 million of resource DEL and £11 million of capital DEL. The resource DEL represented £145 million for the high street scheme and £131 million to be used at the Department's discretion. Again, discretionary spend is very difficult for members to monitor and scrutinise. We highlighted the difficulty for the Department to spend such a significant amount of money within the financial year, particularly across a variety of schemes and through in-year allocations. The £90 million of capital DEL in the 2021-22 budget was inclusive of £20 million for the ERAP. Officials highlighted assurances that in-year capital allocations of £42 million and £3 million would be made for Project Stratum and the graduate medical school at Magee. Financial transactions capital bids of £35 million were met in full to cover Ulster University's greater Belfast development, Invest NI schemes and Catalyst's work.

Prior to the June monitoring round process in 2021, the Department was allocated £40 million in year to make FE colleges safe spaces and for business relief schemes. Again, that size of in-year allocation is difficult for members to scrutinise in detail or track. Between the January and June monitoring rounds in 2021, the Department reallocated internal easements of almost £20 million in non-ring-fenced DEL. Again, that was hard for the Committee to track and scrutinise in real time.

In the June 2021 monitoring round, the Department sought to fund £8·2 million of resource DEL pressures from within its baseline. At that monitoring round, the Department had almost £17 million of conventional capital easements, with just over £2·5 million in pressures. That left just over £14 million of unallocated capital. Members, again, expressed concern at the level of easements and the Committee's ability to track and scrutinise in-year allocations.

Going into the October 2021 monitoring round, the Department had £3·9 million of resource DEL that was unallocated, and £3·2 million of resource DEL reduced requirements. That was allocated against £8·4 million of pressures that were identified as part of the monitoring round process. The remaining £1·3 million overcommitment was managed within the overall departmental position.

The Executive's approval for flexibility in managing the funding envelope for ERAP allowed the Department to hold a contingency of £21 million with respect to the Spend Local prepaid card scheme in case of necessary overspend. Officials considered that the number of eligible recipients may have been underestimated by 100,000 people and that further administrative costs would be incurred for any larger allocation of prepaid cards. Members questioned the need for such a large contingency, but officials suggested that flexibility around ERAP funding meant that it could be allocated elsewhere if it was not needed. Again, members expressed concern that there would be limited time to spend that money.

A bid of £7·1 million in conventional ring-fenced resource DEL was submitted to DOF regarding a new approach to the treatment of depreciation for FE colleges. That dated back to 2019-2020, when the accounting treatment for FE capital grants changed. The Committee would like to see that issue dealt with in the Department's baseline, rather than through monitoring rounds.

The Department entered the October monitoring round with £16 million of unallocated capital DEL. In response to members' concerns, officials indicated that there were a number of emerging capital DEL pressures to which that might be allocated. Again, the Committee highlighted the rapidly reducing window in which to spend the funds.

At its meeting on 24 November 2021, the Committee considered a paper from the Department that indicated that it had surrendered £41 million of reduced requirements for the DFC energy payment support scheme. While members support the scheme, they expressed considerable dismay that such a significant easement had occurred so late in the financial year, particularly when members had, on a number of occasions, advocated the allocation of funds to a range of sectors that had not benefited from COVID relief schemes or were continuing to struggle. That included the £21 million that was held as contingency for overspend on the high street scheme, which members had previously queried. The Department indicated that its ability to surrender such a significant sum was a result of the improved economic context.

It has been difficult to track and scrutinise the Department's budget. Key issues have included the reliance on in-year allocations; consistent inaccuracy in the over-costing of COVID relief schemes; the over-costing of some COVID interventions, which prevented the reallocation of sums within the necessary time frame; the regular surrendering of significant sums because of poor planning and budget management; and the late surrendering of sums, leading to the prevention of considered reallocation.

It has been difficult for the Committee to scrutinise and monitor the Department's 2021-22 budget in a timely fashion. Concerns around over-budgeting and late allocations and surrenders have not been given the consideration by the Department that they deserve.

I will make some brief remarks as Sinn Féin's economy spokesperson. First, with regard to business support, obviously, the Finance Minister has acted where he could on hospitality and hotels following the restrictions that were brought in as a result of omicron. Last week, the Finance Minister also spoke of his intention to freeze rates for households and businesses for one year. Although that is welcome, it is disappointing that, as a result of not being able to agree the three-year Budget due to the DUP's collapsing the Executive, certainty cannot be given to households and businesses for three years, as had been planned. He also outlined that he intends to give one month's rate relief to all businesses and three months' rate relief to businesses in a number of sectors hardest hit by the pandemic. That really important support, again, will be very much welcomed. However, again, I maintain that the Department for the Economy could do more and should look again at how to support businesses that have been impacted on by the latest round of restrictions. Indeed, just this morning, the Economy Committee received correspondence from the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee asking whether a repeat of the support scheme for supply chain businesses would be forthcoming, as well as correspondence from the beauty sector. The difficulties for those businesses are not going away.

The priority throughout the pandemic for the Executive and the Assembly was protecting lives and livelihoods. Protecting jobs and family income now is incredibly important, given the cost-of-living crisis and rising inflation that we are facing. Yesterday, I spoke about rising energy prices, and I welcome that the Minister responded. I was not in the Chamber when he responded, but I listened to what he had communicated, individually and collectively with the Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh Governments, to the British Government on the issue. However, we are likely to see energy prices rise considerably, still, off the back of what is happening currently in the Ukraine, and that will impact again on families and businesses.

Members on the other side of the Chamber can often be quick to defend the British Government, but I do not think that they can dispute that they have not yet got to grips with the scale of the crisis facing low- and middle-income workers and families regarding the cost of living. We should all be using our voices to emphasise that we need greater intervention and action because rising prices and geopolitical forces are hitting everything from fuel to food, putting up prices for businesses that are then being passed on to consumers, workers and families. It is a vicious cycle. It is already hitting hard the people whom we represent, and we need to stand up for them.

We have already seen positive initiatives taken here by our Ministers, such as the energy support payment scheme and the rent freeze for Housing Executive tenants. We must encourage continued action on the things that we can do, but there is a limit to what we can do with our powers. There is an onus on the British Government to act also, and we should all call on them to do that.

Ms P Bradley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Around a year ago, as we debated the draft Budget for 2021-22 in the House, I assured the Minister of Finance that the Committee for Communities would continue to work closely with the Department for Communities to support it to achieve all that it could, whatever its Budget allocation. However, it is not an overstatement to say that, early in 2021, the Committee was dismayed at the allocations in the draft Budget for 2021-22 for Communities. The Committee remained supportive of the Minister throughout the year as she continued to lobby for additional and emergency funding to support the most vulnerable.

The impact of COVID-19 meant the reconsidering of the plan to provide a multi-year Budget, and we, again, had a single-year Budget for 2021-22, which made planning for services and programmes so much more difficult and, therefore, the scrutiny role of the Committee equally difficult.

In the final Budget, the Department's 2021-22 allocations totalled around £876 million in resource DEL, which, thankfully, was an increase from the £824 million in the draft Budget; almost £225 million capital DEL, which was an increase of over £10 million on last year’s allocation; and £38·8 million in financial transactions capital.

The final Communities budget represented a £55 million increase from the baseline draft budget, mainly due to a number of COVID bids being met. It was still far from what was needed, but it went some way to easing the Committee’s concern at its original draft budget. The Department's final budget was still very challenging, and there was no funding for the Department to take forward many New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) commitments.

The 2021-22 Budget position has, of course, been revised through in-year monitoring rounds from revised departmental spending plans, and, now, those are reflected in detail in the 2021-22 spring Supplementary Estimates. The Committee received those Estimates only last week, so it has had limited time to digest them. At the same time, it received the new memorandum document, which has been prepared by each Department at the request of the Committee for Finance to improve scrutiny and explain the funding being sought and the reasons for changes in spending plans between the Main and spring Supplementary Estimates.

That is all welcome information, and I will refer to it in my speech. However, the Estimates would have been even more helpful had they been provided to the Committee earlier, well in advance of the Budget debates this week. Adding to that, the sheer volume of primary legislation that the Committee has dealt with in the past year has made it challenging to monitor departmental allocations and spending in detail as we would have liked to have done over 2021-22.

In the final Budget for 2021-22, the Department was allocated only £109·6 million of its submitted resource bid of £301·6 million, and that included £48·2 million for existing welfare mitigations. Over £132 million of resource bids were for COVID recovery, and only around half of that was met in the final Budget. Thankfully, additional funds of £50·3 million were quickly released by the Department of Finance to address a range of COVID pressures, including £10 million for councils and £13 million for arts, culture and heritage.

On capital allocations, the final Budget saw a £10 million increase when compared with the year before, plus £38·8 million of FTC to support the Co-ownership housing scheme. The Committee supported the delivery of priorities such as social housing building targets, as well as meeting statutory and contractual commitments and the use of the remaining funding for other prioritised projects across the Department's remit.

I move on to more recent events. In January, the Committee was briefed on the monitoring round. The Committee was not surprised to hear that 2021-22 continued to be a challenging year to manage spend against budgets. The Committee was reassured that the Department used the opportunity to reposition its budget to deal with existing and new pressures. There remain significant uncertainties from COVID and its lasting impacts, which means that requirements are liable to change.

The Committee has engaged on a number of recent occasions with departmental officials on the rapid increase in energy costs. The Committee was relieved when the Department received its bid for £55 million to allow an energy support payment scheme to be progressed in addition to the earlier £2 million emergency fuel payment scheme. The Committee queried whether the resubmission of a £7 million bid for councils that was not met in-year was sufficient, as many of the financial pressures have continued into 2022. We were somewhat reassured that officials confirmed that the bid will meet the need as it stands at the moment.

We express concern at the recent surrender of a total of over £21 million resource DEL due to reduced requirements. For example, £14 million was not required due to a lower uptake of the COVID recovery labour market interventions. In reality, that is for mixed reasons, good and bad. Lower than anticipated job losses from COVID, the furlough scheme and the high levels of job vacancies are good reasons. However, the Committee remains concerned that further steps are needed to encourage uptake of the interventions. There is a potential need for geographical or area-based targeting for constituencies or concentrations of people where youth unemployment is particularly high. I have said it in previous Budget speeches, but it is worth repeating that the Committee wishes to highlight the link between the success of the labour market interventions and the level of the AME spend. Interventions are needed to get people back into work and off benefits.

The Committee also expressed concern about the surrender of around £3 million for existing welfare mitigations, in addition to the £2 million in the October monitoring round relating to the delays in the closing of the benefit cap mitigation loophole and the social size criteria mitigation loophole. Thankfully, we are now in a better place, and those loopholes are closed. I highlight the fact that the Committee remains concerned about insufficient funding being made available to introduce any new welfare mitigations based on any recommendations from the independent panel.

The Committee remains concerned about the lack of resources over the year for many initiatives, including reform of the Housing Executive, the real-terms decrease in the budget for the Supporting People programme and any lack of real progress on a range of social strategies. Before the end of the mandate, we will hear more about some of those concerns at first hand as the Committee is devoting a meeting to hear from organisations that deliver assisted and supported living, and we recently held an evidence session with the Housing Executive to hear its key concerns about the draft Budget for 2022-25.

As I said earlier, last week, the Committee received the Department's 2021-22 spring Supplementary Estimates and the accompanying memorandum, which gives the Committee a clearer picture of the movement of finance in-year. I will highlight a few items in the SSEs. There has been a movement in the resource DEL of almost 18% from the Main Estimates. The Committee notes that that includes headroom of £124 million, as the Department has bid for that amount for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive: £77 million for the Housing Executive landlord thermal insulation programme and £47 million for the Housing Executive landlord tower block action plan. The Committee was pleased to hear the Finance Minister announce on 15 February that he intended to part fund those bids from funding being held at the centre. The Committee is under no illusions about the scale of the massive investment challenges facing the Housing Executive.

The increase also includes in-year allocations of £122 million, including in-year COVID allocations and budget movements from the Department to its arm's-length bodies (ALBs). There is a reduction of £51 million due to declared reduced requirements, a number of which I have already mentioned, and £17 million transferred to the Department of Finance from the housing benefit rates budget to cover the cost of the rates replacement scheme in Land and Property Services (LPS).

In capital DEL, there has been movement in the SSEs from the Main Estimates of around 30%. That includes £18·4 million in-year capital allocations; for example, over £8 million for disabled adaptations, which is very welcome. The movement also includes the capital reduced requirement of £18·8 million related to funding received for the subregional stadia programme, which, as we know, was not able to be spent in the current financial year, mainly due to delays in the planning process. The Committee has diligently sought updates on the progress and financing of key capital projects and, indeed, this week, is holding a briefing session with officials on the subregional stadia programme, which, the Minister states, she remains committed to delivering.

Regrettably, our ambitions for our population and, particularly, to support the most vulnerable in our community continue to be hampered by our finances. The Committee has sought to listen to the concerns brought to it and encourages the Department to take action.

Mr O'Toole: I rise to speak on the Budget Bill, having discussed yesterday the Vote on Account and the spring Supplementary Estimates. Obviously, the two are completely linked. Today, via the Budget Bill, we are passing legislation that gives legal authority to the figures that were set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates laid in the Assembly. It is worth saying that the Committee had a thorough briefing from the Minister's officials on the position in the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Budget Bill. We got clarity on a number of points that were useful, particularly the relationship between the Budget Bill and the Assembly Budget overall; that is, what the political instability and the lack of an Executive and an agreed Budget will mean for the passing of a Budget Bill. In passing the Budget Bill today, as, I assume, the Assembly will — certainly, my party will support it — we are regularising and approving the spending that happened up to the end of 2021-22 and permitting around 45% of the spending in the 2022-23 financial year. It is true that it is far from the ideal position.

Before I come to the detail of the Bill or the detail of the Budget periods that we are talking about, I want to reflect on something that has improved. Before being critical, I want to be positive about something. One of the things that I have talked about repeatedly — the Minister might say "repetitively" — in the Chamber since I came into the Assembly and the Minister took up his role at the beginning of 2020 is the need for a better strategy in how we do budgeting. Some of it will be to do with MLAs, particularly those on the Finance Committee, becoming more conversant with processes, but there has been a step forward in legislative and practical terms around the scrutiny of some of the financial milestones. We have the Financial Reporting (Departments and Public Bodies) Bill, which is a modest but worthwhile step forward in ensuring that Estimates documents are slightly better aligned with how other accounting documents are published. More importantly, we have seen the establishment of the Fiscal Council under Sir Robert Chote and others. Hopefully, it will be legislated for in the new mandate. Will the Minister update us on where that is? The work of the Fiscal Council is fundamental to improving budgetary and financial scrutiny in the Assembly. The Minister has his officials working on this, and they have been scoping out draft legislation. He is committed to putting the council on a statutory footing. There is a concern that, if we do not have a functioning Assembly after May, there will be no Ministers here to move such legislation or MLAs to vote for it, but it would be helpful to have an update on that work.

In addition to the Fiscal Council, there has been the modest step forward of publishing and making clear where there is spending under the sole authority of the Budget Act — the so-called "black box spending". Some items in the spring Supplementary Estimates fall under that — one from the Department for Communities on welfare mitigation, one from the Department for Infrastructure on blue-green delivery and a couple of others. It is helpful to understand where that is happening, not because it is inherently wrong or suspicious but because, in the interests of transparency, it is good to know.

Before I talk about the Budget period, I will go back to one of the documents that was published since we last had a debate on a Budget Bill: 'The Public Finances in Northern Ireland: A Comprehensive Guide', published by the Fiscal Council. It is, perhaps, a little too comprehensive for those of you who are not geeks about this type of thing. It is the first of many documents published by the Fiscal Council. It also published its judgement on the draft three-year Budget for 2022-25. This is, essentially, a look at how we do budgeting in Northern Ireland. The council makes the point that the budgeting process in Northern Ireland is, if you are willing to pay attention, extremely transparent. It is extremely transparent. Twice a year — sometimes more than twice a year — we have Budget Bills and Votes on Account in the Assembly. In between, we have in-year monitoring rounds that the Finance Minister is obliged to bring to the Assembly. We also have, when there is an Executive to agree one, a Budget document and, ideally, a multi-year Budget document. All those provide for moments of detailed scrutiny of how the Executive are spending money. We should also have a Programme for Government that is aligned to our budgeting.

Unfortunately, the problem is that, while we have a significant amount of transparency, transparency is only as useful as the ability of MLAs and, indeed, the public and the media to compare it with a set of plans that have been published. I have made the point repeatedly that, with the best will in the world, the Estimates document, which, I am sure, everyone has scrutinised in great detail, is thick and contains detailed tables that the Finance Committee will go over. They will reflect where there have been major in-year movements in the resource positions of individual Departments, but the reality is that most people — indeed, most MLAs, if we are brutally honest — will not scrutinise those documents in huge detail.

Most Budget Bills do not differ in any substantial way. The Budget Bill is unique legislation in that it does not really say anything in and of itself other than the amounts that are set out in the legislation. It does not say much that is interesting. It contains tables of turgid lists of the legal obligations on Departments and what they spend money on. That is transparent, theoretically, which is good, but, for that transparency to mean something, there has to be something to judge it against.

The first thing that we should be able to judge it against is a multi-year Budget. We do not have that. I do not want to attribute political blame, but one party decided to walk out of the Executive, so for now we cannot agree a multi-year Budget.

In addition to that, we should have a Programme for Government that is aligned to the spending in the multi-year Budget. With every piece of fiscally transparent information that we get after that, we should be able to read back to the draft, or, hopefully, finalised Budget document — whenever one is agreed — and the Programme for Government and say, "Ah, but you are not delivering against what you said there". Over the past two years, part of the problem that we have had is that we simply have not been able to judge the Executive properly against an agreed set of priorities. We have not had a Programme for Government. We have had a couple of Budget documents, but, of necessity, they have been fairly light and insubstantial by way of strategy.

That is all not just a moan for the sake of it. It is to underline that, going forward — hopefully after an election and the formation of an Executive and a new Assembly — we can do better at all of that. We can have a new multi-year Budget, an agreed Programme for Government, a Fiscal Council, hopefully on a statutory footing, and maybe even a Fiscal Commission that can give us some interesting ideas to work on for potential future powers and how we might do things better. As MLAs, that will allow us to be much better able to judge delivery by the Finance Minister, other Ministers and ourselves against an agreed set of priorities that we agreed and put to the public.

At the minute, a lot of what we are doing in this debate is flying blind. Yes, we can talk through how departmental positions have moved around in year and whether Departments have spent out their allocations properly — or, indeed, whether those allocations were the right ones to make — but we are not properly scrutinising any of it against an agreed plan. That is why it is particularly sad that, in the run-up to an election, we do not have any strategic document to judge it against. Let us hope that we can do better after the next election.

Having made those broad comments, I want to touch a little on some of the challenges that we have seen in this Budget period, which is what we are talking about today: the financial year 2021-22 and the first few months of 2022-23.

We have seen huge movements in the in-year positions of particular Departments. Some of those have been highlighted already. One of the big movements in the in-year position that is visible in the spring Supplementary Estimates — it was highlighted by my colleague on the Economy Committee Caoimhe Archibald — is in the Economy Department. That Department had ERAP funding, which was its funding package that was allocated and agreed at Executive level to fund business recovery from COVID. There have been significant underspends in that Department. Those underspends have not just been in particular areas where a sector, perhaps, has not needed as much funding as it had thought. There appears to be a structural problem in that Department with underspends.

We are not at the end of the financial year, and business sectors are still in need. Certain areas of hospitality and the hospitality supply chain have had a very difficult month or two because of the omicron wave, and they have not had support. We know that travel agents have been let down badly throughout the pandemic and that certain other sectors, such as freelance and creative groups continue to fail to be supported. It would be helpful to know where we are with the Economy Department making a bid to reallocate some of its underspend to help those groups.

Then, of course, we have the area of —

Mr Buckley: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I recognise fully the difficulties that the specific industries that he mentioned have faced, particularly during COVID. However, does he accept that it has sometimes been difficult, particularly with the rules on financial spending in Departments and the need for accountability in the system, to get some of that spend to those most in need, particularly the industries that he mentioned?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, I acknowledge that. It is always difficult to design new and novel schemes, and my comments are not, by any means, meant as a political attack. It is difficult to design new and novel schemes. Over the last two years, lots of civil servants in the Economy Department and the Minister's Department have had to design new schemes and then find novel and legally watertight ways of getting that money out to people. That is not easy, and I accept that. That said, there are real concerns about some of the underspends, particularly in the Economy Department. All I am asking is this: what will happen in the next few months to ensure that money, first of all, is not handed back to London and that, secondly, it gets to the people who need it?

There is another area to consider. The Minister mentioned something about this yesterday when he said that he had an indication — I think that the Economy Minister might have given an indication; I cannot remember precisely — at some stage about the match funding for the European social fund. There is a big crisis coming at voluntary groups. Sorry, it is not just voluntary groups, actually; the crisis is coming at professional skills providers who provide skills training to people who are often in some of the most economically disadvantaged parts of Northern Ireland. We know that large parts of those providers' funding came from the European social fund. That money has not been replaced, and that is a huge challenge. It would be helpful to have a sense of what the latest is on that and whether the Economy Department will move on it. Candidly, there appeared to be a little bit of denial over the last couple of weeks about the seriousness of the position that that Minister's Department was in. It may have been to do with the Brexit context, but I would not possibly make such a judgement or assumption.

Another area on which we need a bit more clarity where the multi-year position is concerned and in which we might end up with a new multi-year Budget is Health spending. We know that Health has been prioritised in the in-year reallocations in 2021-22. That was essential and necessary in order to deal with the pandemic, which is not over, but, hopefully, we are through the worst of it. We know that that prioritisation was necessary and essential.

We also know that there has been broad political agreement — the Minister has told us this, so we can hardly forget it — to prioritise Health in a future multi-year Budget. Agreed. Definitely. Absolutely. It could not but be otherwise in a region like this where about a quarter of the adult population is on a waiting list. When you say that out loud, it sounds astonishing. It almost takes your breath away that we are in such a position. It is completely astonishing. It is not just the worst in these islands. You do not just have to go to England or the Republic of Ireland to get a contrast. It is among the worst in the developed world among advanced economies. We should not be accepting it, so, yes, absolutely, the Health Department should be prioritised, but it is our job, as legislators and people allocating that money, hopefully, when we have a new multi-year Budget, to understand how the Department plans to spend in a way that gets the waiting lists down.

We all know, in all jurisdictions, that, with the best will in the world, because of an ageing society and the enormous pressures that come with running a public health service that is free at the point of delivery and employs a vast number of people, if there is not a specific plan with interim short-, medium- and long-term targets to get waiting lists down, those resources, which are precious, will be eaten into. We want to see a plan on that.

Lastly, in the shorter term, it would be helpful to have a little bit more detail from the Finance Minister on where he is on 2021-22 and the first few months of 2022-23. He has mentioned some of that in the last day or two, but if he has any more detail now, it would be helpful, when he makes a winding-up speech, to hear about new allocations for the cost-of-living crisis. It is a crisis. That is not just a sound bite from politicians now. We know that the people we represent are facing an appalling situation. Those who get gas bills are starting to get them for the winter quarter. People who use pay as you go for their gas bills or have ordered home heating oil are already experiencing the astonishing rises in the cost of heating their homes, and we know that that is putting people into extraordinarily difficult and anxious positions. They are choosing between heating and eating, so, if there is an ability to spend some more on helping people with that in the months to come, it would be helpful to have an update from the Minister on it.

There are, of course, a whole range of other things that we could talk about that are spending priorities. I have chosen just a couple on this occasion, but I hope that, when we come back here, hopefully, after the election and in a new mandate, we will be in a position to, as I say, properly make good on the promise of a Budget process that is based not just on transparency, given that the fiscal councils tell us that we have a relatively high degree of transparency.
We get a lot of information from Departments and from the Executive but our ability to filter, critically analyse and test that information, and the public's ability to judge us against how we are delivering, is limited because we keep not delivering strategies.

The Chair of the Communities Committee outlined a number of strategies earlier. I could talk about the childcare strategy, on which I questioned the Education Minister earlier and which we still do not have. We need a huge range of strategies but, in order to properly deliver them, we need to match budgets to them. We need a Programme for Government and that multi-year Budget. We need to properly show the public that we are spending the limited resources that we have to actually deal with their needs. While we have greater transparency, and I acknowledge that some of the measures that we have seen in the Fiscal Council and other things are a step forward, we are a long way from being able to command people's confidence in our ability to deliver for them and to make use of the resources that we have, limited as they are.

Mr Muir: I will speak to the Second Stage of the Budget Bill conscious that there was a debate on elements of it yesterday, so I will try to avoid repetition. I am also conscious that, with the Budget Bill, we are, essentially, giving approval for the use of resources up to the end of this financial year and authority for 45% spend from this year's budgets into next year, taking us up to 31 March 2023. I am very conscious of that context.

First, I want to talk about the work that the Fiscal Council has been doing, which is appreciated. I note and welcome that, as far as I understand it, funding for its work, alongside that of the Fiscal Commission, is being made available as a result of the sole authority of the Budget Bill. It is important that work is done to put the Fiscal Council on a legislative footing. As far as I understand it, the Fiscal Commission is more of a temporary task-and-finish exercise. I would be interested in hearing an update from the Minister on the work that is being undertaken to put the Fiscal Council on a statutory and legislative basis. The Fiscal Council has proven its worth in the work that it has done and the reports that it has published thus far.

One thing that needs to be done, hopefully in the next mandate, if this place is able to sit, is the simplification and improvement of the Budget-making process. If you come here as a new Member of the Assembly, it is difficult to understand all the different aspects of the process. Yesterday, we had the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account and, today, the Bill is presented. Most people consider this to be the Budget for next year and our version of the Chancellor of the Exchequer presenting the Budget, but it is not. Conor Murphy is most certainly not our Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is important that there is reform of the budgetary process and that we get clarity on it. Another element that will, hopefully, be covered in the next mandate is training in the process for Members and their staff.

Usually towards the end of February or the beginning of March, an Executive agreement on a wider policy decision on the Budget for the next financial year, if not the next three years, would be announced in the Chamber. We were told in this place yesterday and at other times that we cannot agree a Budget before the end of this mandate — that it cannot be done, that it would not be right to do it, and that it should be done in the next mandate — leaving us in a situation where Departments do not have the cover of a clear policy decision and direction from the Executive on the Budget for the next three years.

History, however, proves otherwise. The Budget for 2016-17 was agreed prior to the end of the mandate. It was brought to the Executive and agreed, and a statement was made to the House by the then DUP Finance and Personnel Minister, Mervyn Storey. The Budget for 2011-15, which was a multi-year Budget, was also agreed and brought to the Assembly. It was presented by the then Finance and Personnel Minister, Sammy Wilson MP MLA no less. As Finance Minister, when presenting that multi-year Budget for the next four years before the end of the mandate, Mr Wilson stated:

If we were able to do that then, why can we not do it now? The answer is that we cannot do it now because there is no Executive to meet to agree it. Although I, as the representative of the Alliance Party, and my party may have issues with the draft Budget that the Finance Minister presented, it would have been important to have an Executive to consider the outcomes from the consultation, debate the Budget and, hopefully, agree it. That is a fundamental duty of every Government. Although we are debating a Budget Bill to keep the show on the road, it should be being done in the context of an overall agreed Budget for the next three years. As I said, there is not entire agreement on what was presented, but that does not give an excuse to collapse the Executive and to take away the forum in which to debate our issues and agree a Budget for the next three years.

As Mr Wilson said, it is perhaps proof of the:

but I am not seeing much of that in the walking away from the Executive and in the inability to agree a Budget.

We need the three-year Budget. We should be able to agree the Budget Bill. It must be passed for the delivery of public services, but it should be agreed in the context of an overall three-year Budget agreed by the Executive, because that Budget would give certainty; allow Departments, businesses and organisations to plan; and allow government services, especially the health service, to recruit and rebuild, in the context of the pandemic, and to deliver the transformation that is needed. Some people doubt whether that is valuable and whether it is needed, but it is needed. The reality is that the waiting lists in Northern Ireland are the worst in the United Kingdom. Some would say that that was the situation before the Executive collapsed. It was, but collapsing the Executive, and the inability to agree a Budget to enable us to tackle the issue, seriously impedes the health of our people. It is reported that, in June of last year, 184,873 patients were waiting for more than one year for a first outpatient appointment. May I remind Members that the target is zero? In England, the situation is comparatively better. It is not good, but it is better. Northern Ireland has the worst waiting lists. In December of last year, only 47·7% of patients in accident and emergency in Northern Ireland were treated and discharged within four hours. In England, it is 83·4%. As a result of the issues that we are debating today, £300 million will sit idle in the next financial year. It would not solve the situation, but it would help go towards resolving some of the issues and helping the people who are in pain and looking for treatment.

As finance spokesperson for my party, it is important for me to put on record on behalf of the Alliance Party the reasons that we should pass the motion today, but that must be done in the context of a Budget for the next three years. The inability to agree that is an abdication of responsibility on behalf of a party, namely the DUP, that walked away from the Executive. That is inhibiting the ability to agree that Budget.

The draft Budget was the first multi-year Budget in Northern Ireland for more than a decade. There was an opportunity to deliver that change. Investment must be across government, not just in the Department of Health. That is where our differences lay on the draft Budget. I am not saying that those differences were serious, but they did need to be taken into account. They could have been debated in the Executive, and the Executive could have agreed a Budget that addressed our concerns. One was that investment must be across government, tackling the causes and the symptoms of ill health, while another was that the Budget should be linked back to the transformation of our health service, in the context that Northern Ireland has the highest per capita spend on health in the UK. That Budget for the next three years should have been tied through to the transformation agenda in the health service, thus making the Budget more strategic, more cross-departmental and more encouraging of partnership rather than silo working.

The Executive are not in place, however, so we cannot agree that. It is a saving grace that we can pass the Budget Bill at Second Stage and hopefully progress it to Final Stage to give certainty to Departments in the next few months, but that does not allow them to plan for the future, does not allow them to recruit and does not safeguard community groups that are having to issue protective redundancy notices because they have no assurance over funding. It is vital that we pass the Bill today, but it is also important that I put on record that there has been a clear abdication of responsibility by the DUP, which has left us in a situation where we do not have an agreed three-year Budget nor a forum in which to agree it in the weeks ahead.

Mr K Buchanan: I rise as the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee. Like the Chairman of the Committee, I thank all the officials who provided written and oral explanations and information on the Budget in general and the Budget Bill before us. We all appreciate that, because of the pandemic, the past few years have been very challenging for all Departments and for the population of Northern Ireland. Some Departments have delivered dozens of additional schemes, while others have not delivered so many. Most schemes were delivered with a high level of success. There were those who used words like, "Rip up the rule book to get the money out", but now they are being more cautious with their language. Public money is public money. During the height of the pandemic, there was a need to get the money out, and rightly so, but the timing and circumstances of that need to be taken into account now in the cold light of day. I am waiting to see all the fiscal experts who appear; Mr Hindsight will certainly be on everyone's shoulder.

Departmental budgets have been stretched to their limits during the COVID-19 pandemic, but billions came from Treasury to support our economy and population through that difficult time. The Bill will give effect to the spring Supplementary Estimates and authorise the use of resources for 2021-22 and the Vote on Account for 2022-23.

Yesterday, some in the Chamber referred to how two wrongs do not make a right. That is correct. Back in September, my party leader referred to the damage that the Northern Ireland protocol was doing to this part of the United Kingdom. He was mocked by DJs on the radio and by the usual suspects. Time and time again, he urged parties in the House to listen to, and address, not only our concerns but those of businesses. Do some Members in this House really listen to those in their constituencies? Do they really go out and listen to businesses? We are in our current position because of the people who did not listen to our concerns.

I mentioned in the Chamber last week that some have taken:

"a case of amnesia".

Back in early 2017, this entire place was pulled down with no Budget or healthcare changes. There is no chat about that now; that has been forgotten. Some in this House can try to rewrite history, but the fact is that this place was collapsed in one last throw of the dice. That was then, and this is now. I welcome the fact that, as the previous contributor said, this place is still in place and that we still have the opportunity to discuss the Vote on Account, but we need to ensure that future Budgets are timely and that Departments have sufficient money to carry out their functions.

The proposed Budget for 2022-25 increased health spend, but what link was there to reform? Everyone in the Chamber today will agree that the health service needs extra funding, but it also needs reform; it must be reformed. Yesterday, we heard that hundreds of millions — hundreds of millions — are spent on agency staff and locum doctors. How is that sustainable? If reform does not take place, it does not matter how much money you put into that hole: you will never solve the problem or change things.

Each week, my office deals with families who desperately need vital packages of care for their loved ones. That service is overstretched. Weekly, my staff speak to constituents who are desperately waiting for orthopaedic or other forms of elective surgery and people who have been waiting unacceptable amounts of time for urology and neurology appointments or appointments with nursing specialists or mental health services. Occupational health therapists and social workers are stretched to the limit. Those are only the tip of the iceberg and represent only a few of the calls that we get. Our health service needs meaningful investment; it does not need another sticking plaster. Importantly, it needs reform.

Public spending has been required to respond directly to the health crisis and its many consequences for our society, not least for our economy. Vast sums of finance have been administered to support businesses in Northern Ireland over the past two years. We thank the Minister for the Economy for all that he and his predecessor have done to kick-start our economic recovery in Northern Ireland. Land and Property Services (LPS) staff and its chief executive, Ian Snowden, played their roles in delivering for many sectors, and we appreciate that. Other Departments stepped up to support those in need, but some needed to be persuaded to help the businesses that are under their control.

The Budget Bill before us tidies up the 2021-22 year and gives us a degree of stability for the next financial year.

Mr Buckley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): The Committee closely scrutinised the spending of the Department for Infrastructure throughout the year. The Committee recognises that it is a difficult time for the Department as the Department has not always been able to secure the funding that it needs when it needs it. When the Minister provided oral evidence on 19 January, she informed the Committee that the lack of adequate resource funding has resulted in a constant struggle for the Department to deliver public services to a high standard.

Translink and Northern Ireland Water are two key policy areas under the remit of the Minister for Infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe financial impact on Translink, with the loss of revenue from reduced passenger numbers, which has been exacerbated by the arrival of the omicron variant. Northern Ireland Water has suffered from a significant increase in energy costs in recent months, which could potentially impact on the company's status, a concern that is still prevalent today, particularly with rising energy costs. The Committee heard from both organisations about the difficulty that they have faced throughout the past financial year.

The spring Supplementary Estimates for the Department for Infrastructure make for difficult reading. The Department's resource DEL in the spring Supplementary Estimates is £114 million more than that allocated in the Main Estimates at the start of the year. This represents 33% — one third — of the Department's total resource DEL. While almost half of these monitoring round allocations were COVID-related, there is still a sizable amount of other resource DEL allocated through monitoring rounds. It creates significant difficulties for the Department in planning ahead when there are such uncertainties surrounding its resource allocation. Particular difficulties arise in relation to capital spend when the Department needs the certainty of a reliable resource budget to plan and prepare capital projects. The Committee has asked the Department to provide more detail on the specific difficulties that arise from the uncertainty surrounding the allocation of resource DEL and on the extent to which a multi-year Budget may help to provide more certainty.

There are number of specific differences between the Main Estimates and the spring Supplementary Estimates on which the Committee is seeking additional detail from the Department. Resource AME and capital AME uptake has been significantly less than allocated in the Main Estimates. Whilst it is recognised that AME is, by its very nature, difficult to estimate, the figures of 14·5% below estimate for resource AME and, particularly, 68% below estimate for capital AME represent a significant deviation from the Main Estimates. The Committee is seeking answers from the Department in relation to these points. Capital non-budget spend in the SSEs is 41% higher than the Main Estimates. The Department states that this is mainly due to an increase in the net lend requirement for Northern Ireland Water. The Committee has sought more detail on that.

As I said, Translink and Northern Ireland Water are two key policy areas under the remit of the Minister for Infrastructure. The Finance Minister is well aware of the issues faced by Northern Ireland Water as a result of the impact on the organisation of the unprecedented increases in energy costs. The Committee was told that the outcome of the October monitoring round created serious risks and uncertainty for the organisation regarding the supply of drinking water and the treatment of waste water, with hospitals and schools cited as being equally at risk as the system is unable to differentiate between sectors. The Committee wants to tease out that matter through its scrutiny of budgets going forward.

The Committee wrote to the Minister of Finance on 3 December to inform him that the Committee had noted that, in his statement on October monitoring, he had informed the House that the increased costs faced by NI Water as a result of increased energy prices could be revisited in January monitoring but that the Committee was alarmed to learn from officials that the Department could not guarantee enough funding to see Northern Ireland Water through to the January monitoring round without having to introduce supply restrictions, interruptions and, possibly, deterioration in drinking water. Northern Ireland Water informed the Committee that, at that point, it was running week to week looking for funding. Thankfully, Northern Ireland Water received a pre-January monitoring round allocation of £1·8 million to tide it over until the actual January monitoring round outcome, something that was indeed welcomed by the Committee.

Given the short period between the outcome of October monitoring and the irregular pre-January monitoring allocation, however, that raises a number of questions. Did the Minister for Infrastructure not make it clear to the Executive during October monitoring that Northern Ireland Water needed the funding urgently? Was the Minister simply not believed? Was the need not quite as urgent as the Committee had been led to believe? The Committee explored that extensively. Why should any Minister or organisation have to suffer the indignity of coming to the Executive with a begging bowl between monitoring rounds to seek funding for a need that, apparently, was clear for all to see? Those questions were foremost in the mind of the Committee as it scrutinised that funding ask.

Mr Muir: Thank you for giving way, Mr Buckley. One of the questions that have to be asked is about the October monitoring round. A number of the bids that were made were not met, as you outlined, but the situation had drastically transformed by the January monitoring round, when there was a significant surplus of funds. The Finance Minister talked about that yesterday, but the question that he has to answer is this: why did the financial situation change drastically between the October and January monitoring rounds? If the funding had been available in October, some of the issues would not have materialised.

Mr Buckley: The Member makes a fair point, and he was on the record about it throughout the period in Committee. There was grave angst among Committee members at what was presented to us by departmental officials. If the emergency funding — that pre-January monitoring round funding, which was quite irregular — was available, would it not have been more appropriate to allocate it at the October monitoring round, when the need was presented? I am sure that the Minister will come back on that point.

It remains unclear to the Committee what urgency there actually was and what actual risk there was at the time to the supply of drinking water and the treatment of waste water. It is, however, clear to the Committee that something needs to be done as a priority to provide more financial certainty to Northern Ireland Water as a publicly funded organisation and a company limited by guarantee. The fact that there are issues with whether the company can trade when it does not have the required financial certainty is of deep concern to many Committee members.

I will turn to Translink. The Minister informed the Committee that:

The Minister told the Committee:

what she referred to as "continued under-resourcing". In correspondence with the Minister of Finance, the Committee expressed its concern that an October monitoring bid of £24 million for Translink received no allocation and informed him that it would expect allocations in the January monitoring round to take that concern into account. The response from the Minister of Finance was simply to advise that:

While I certainly agree with the thrust of that statement, it caused the Committee great difficulty in scrutinising the financial viability of organisations, when they were not guaranteed funding for the following month.

At a time when Governments throughout the world are being encouraged to invest in safe, sustainable, efficient, reliable and environmentally friendly travel, the only response that Translink could find to that advice was to cut the number of bus and rail services that it provides, thereby reducing the number of passengers using its services, further reducing its income and putting more people into private cars because suitable public transport options were no longer available to them. Translink informed the Committee that public transport in Northern Ireland receives substantially less public funding than in any other UK region. It is clear that, if we want to meet climate change targets and ease traffic congestion, we should invest in public transport in the long term rather than providing last-minute funding between monitoring rounds.

If the final agreed Budget for the next three years reflects what came to the Committee in the form of a draft Budget, it will do a disservice to the long-term need for the strategic development of our key infrastructure and the development of workable, long-term sustainable solutions to meet our public transport needs and to realise our aspirations for a cleaner environment.

I will say some words in my capacity as an Assembly Member for the DUP for Upper Bann. As my colleague Keith Buchanan said, there has been a grave degree of political amnesia in the debate today and over the last couple of weeks regarding budgets and where we are politically. Some have attempted to politicise the Budget today, in relation to a position taken by the DUP, a move that we said on record for some time we would make and which was called out by other parties as bluff and bluster. It serves as a timely reminder of unionist concerns. The attitude that unionists should sit in a corner and no longer be heard is simply far and beyond the reality.

If we are to deal with the pressures facing our health service and to get on with transforming our care, we have to realise the effect of the Northern Ireland protocol. I will not diverge too far from the point; it is related to finance and the Budget. To address the concerns that Members across the House have about the funding and transformation of our health service, we need to deal with the elephant in the room. Unless the protocol is dealt with, there simply will not be the political basis on which we can take decisions in this place that transform services and get on with tackling waiting lists. We have to realise that the protocol deals with medicines and that 98% of our medicines come from that GB pool.

In looking at the Budget — I will close on this point — we have to realise that it is time to deal with the protocol and to get on with the issues on which a Budget can deliver. The draft Budget from Sinn Féin would lead to massive cuts to public services. I do not hear Members across the Chamber wanting to talk about that. The Chief Constable, school principals and, indeed, housing bodies have all outlined the grave impact that the Budget would have. The draft Budget was only ever backed by Sinn Féin Ministers. It seems counter-intuitive to agree a multi-year Budget at the tail end of a mandate, when the parties that form the next Executive are yet to agree a Programme for Government or a basis for expenditure.

Sinn Féin wants to talk about the draft Budget as a panacea for Northern Ireland's problems. We have heard Members talk about that today. I welcome a multi-year Budget approach and am on record as saying that. However, when Ministers come forward to talk about particular budget pressures and how they will not be able to deliver certain projects — key flagship projects — for their Departments in the five weeks running up to the end of the mandate, that does not stand up to scrutiny. If they were genuinely flagship projects, why were they not delivered on over the past two years? We could all see the Communities Minister's U-turn on the subregional stadia. People can see through it. If it was a key flagship project, it should have been delivered. How many times have we heard Sinn Féin Ministers claim that the proposals for key flagship projects will be brought to the Executive within weeks? It is time now for them to back up their words with actions. The DUP is not to blame for the poor record in office of Ministers who cannot deliver on their individual cornerstone projects. For anybody to suggest that, because of our actions in removing the First Minister and deputy First Minister, certain Ministers are now, all of a sudden, hamstrung in delivering their flagship projects is simply downright deceitful. On that point, I conclude my remarks.

Mr Catney: This is the first time that I have been on the Floor, Mr Deputy Speaker, since the death of Christopher Stalford. I want to say to the party opposite and to Christopher's family that I was in the Public Gallery on Monday but did not speak. You had my greatest concerns about how difficult it must have been for you all. I was thinking of you and of his family and four children.

As we debated the Budget last year, we all talked about the unique situation that we were in with the pandemic and about the extra and unpredictable funds coming from the Treasury. We find ourselves in a similar situation this year, although, admittedly, there has been a different scale of in-year spending adjustments. The unprecedented and unpredictable nature of the pandemic clearly meant that large in-year adjustments were inevitable. With new Barnett consequentials being made available and new developments emerging during the pandemic, the Minister had to react, and, although I have been critical, I do not underestimate how difficult that has been for him.

I thank the officials for the huge amount of work done to bring forward the Estimates and the Vote on Account yesterday and the Budget Bill today. Throughout the pandemic, those officials have worked to react to new announcements and new programmes being delivered. Their work should be commended.

Every year since the return of Stormont, Member after Member has spoken during Budget debates about the need for strategic thinking about our finances, for clearly defined policy goals and for Budget lines that connect clearly to outcomes. Some headline progress has been made on the Programme for Government, but we are still no closer to that being the case. More concerning than that is the fact that published strategies lack detail or anything concrete. I note that, in an energy strategy published in December 2021, apart from some admirable high-level goals, the direction of travel that is advocated is that we need to produce more strategies. To be fair to the Minister of Finance, how could a more outcomes-led Budget be produced in that environment?

I will not labour the point about the need for a multi-year Budget, as other Members and I have raised that numerous times and the Minister answered questions on it yesterday. However, the Executive being unable to agree a Budget that lacks detail in the first place is not a good start. I know that the Minister shares my frustrations and that he can do only so much, but strategic leadership must come from somewhere.

As a member of the Finance Committee, I have found the debate on the Budget thoroughly depressing. Most of the focus has been on what happens next. If the Minister had the authority to include headroom to make further allocations, the extra £400 million for the Department of Health could be utilised. When it comes to how a further Budget can be brought later in the year without an agreed budgetary position set by the Executive, all debate seems to presume that the Executive are not coming back. If Westminster needs to step in to pass a Budget because of the lack of an Executive, that will show a complete failure of political leadership.

The long and short of it is that we need action now. Yesterday, in my office — not for the first time — I filled out a form to cancel a personal independence payment (PIP) appeal for someone who died while they were waiting for their case to be heard, during which time they had not been receiving the benefits to which they were entitled. I then spoke to the mother of a severely disabled child who desperately needs adaptations to her home to make it liveable for the child. Due to spiralling building costs, however, the disabled facilities grant will cover less than half the amount required to make that build. I then spoke to an elderly gentleman whose wife and full-time carer has been sent to hospital, probably for the last time. The trust has told him that no carers are available, and, although he can be funded to hire his own, he has no idea how he will do that, because his wife has supported him for so long. He cannot shower or manage his medication and is distraught about losing his wife. That is the reality of the impact on our communities of the lack of strategy and clear policymaking. We cannot let that continue.

Mr Chambers: While the Department of Health has a closing 2021-22 budget that is much higher than its opening base, the reality is that more than half the additional funding — £560 million — related to the pandemic. Of course, that additional funding was absolutely crucial in the immediate response to the pandemic. It is likely that the impact of COVID-19 will continue into 2022-23, despite what the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has tried to railroad through in recent days.

It is not only testing that costs money; significant additional costs relate to the medical response, the challenges of additional PPE and staff costs.

I welcomed many of the additional in-year funding allocations to the Department of Health throughout the year. For instance, additional funding at October monitoring allowed the delivery of the 3% pay award, and I am glad that the Health Minister was able to supplement that with a further £25 million increase in January. Whilst the House is well aware of the challenges of non-recurring funding, the Department of Health has been able to direct £90 million specifically to waiting list initiative activities. As of the end of December 2021, an additional 158,000 assessments, diagnostic tests and inpatient and day-case procedures had been delivered, both by HSC and through the independent sector.

Realistically, however, if we are ever to get on top waiting times in a sustainable way, a multi-year Budget is an absolute prerequisite. The worst way to run the health service is from month to month, never really knowing how much money will be available the following April. The cracks in the HSC system will not be fixed with one-year Budgets. The people who will suffer from that one-year Budget routine are all the citizens of Northern Ireland.

In the past, serious mistakes were made. Too few staff were trained, and a wholly unsustainable gap was allowed to develop between demand and capacity. It would be a tragedy if this place were to repeat those same mistakes. We are in danger of doing exactly that. That is why the 2022-25 draft Budget provided a real opportunity. It would have funded in full the cost of elective care, cancer and mental health rebuild strategies to help to transform the health service and reduce waiting lists. However, weeks away from the start of the financial year, it looks as though patients and staff have been cruelly robbed of the opportunity for real change.

Mr Weir: I rise to speak in this election hustings debate — sorry; I meant Budget debate. At least, I suppose, compared with some other Members, I am unencumbered by being Chair or Deputy Chair of one of the statutory Committees. To be fair, I am Chair of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, but the impact of the budgetary settlement on that Committee is relatively small, to the extent that even Mr Allister cannot get up and criticise any additional funding that is due to come to it.

There is always a slight danger when speaking late in a debate of this nature. As a colleague of mine once said, "We have reached the point where everything has been said, but not everybody has said it". I will therefore try to keep my remarks relatively brief. I cannot promise that everything that I say will be novel to the debate, or, indeed, be blue-sky thinking. I do not want to introduce blue-sky thinking into it, thereby endangering any chances that I have of re-election. I will, however, try to focus my remarks.

There are a number of points to be made. First, we need to note the context as we move towards next year's Budget. The Budget Bill does, at least, establish a draft Budget for next year. Despite some of the claims, we are not simply taking a leap into the unknown. The Bill rolls forward the current Budget, meaning that funding will be available.

What has been central over the past couple of years — understandably, given the situation — is the level of additional support that has come in to help to combat coronavirus. In response to a question that I raised, the Finance Minister supplied these figures: in 2020-21, the first full year of the pandemic, central government put COVID funding of £3·3 billion into the Northern Ireland block grant; and it put £1·5 billion into the current year's Budget, a total direct intervention to the Executive of £4·8 billion. While I freely acknowledge that that funding had to be spent on a wide range of areas, it is also the case that there was a level of restriction in it, as I am sure the Finance Minister will attest to.

On some occasions, consequentials that were put into the Budget came so late in the day that there was difficulty spending all that money. Nevertheless, when you take that £4·8 billion and see that, allied into that sum, which does not appear directly in our figures — I do not know what the exact figure would be — is the level of direct support that was provided through the furlough scheme to people remaining in employment, which means that the support that we have been able to get through the COVID crisis for Northern Ireland plc has run into many billions. That has been one of the major advantages of being part of the United Kingdom, which is one of the largest economies in the world.

However, thankfully, the impact of coronavirus appears to be reducing. Therefore, there is not the same need to provide that level of funding as we move into 2022-23, irrespective of what direct decisions are made about whether there is a three-year Budget for 2022-25 or a rollover. The amount of funding that will be made available through COVID funding will clearly be a fraction of what it was in the last financial year. Ultimately, we do not know what that will end up being, because a lot of it will tend to be consequences of decisions that are, by their nature, in-year. That will mean that there will be very tough decisions for individual Departments, particularly if, compared with other institutions, we are looking to go on a solo run.

Mention has been made about the level of support that there should be for a testing regime. I heard a representative from the BMA on the radio yesterday, I think that it was, indicating that the mass levels of testing that there have been up until now simply would not be appropriate. We need to question that. As we move ahead, if high levels of testing are still taking place, that will, effectively, eat directly into our budget. We will not get the funding to be able to cover that. That is not to say that we do not need to see some focus in that area, but, from a practical point of view, we have to realise that, as with a lot of things, there are opportunity costs. Those will eat into whatever budget is there to help address our waiting lists.

The argument has been made for a three-year Budget, but I will make three points about that. First, I am not being critical of the Finance Minister or any Department, but Mr Catney talked about the need for strategic thinking. I have been in the House since 1998, so we may be coming close to the silver anniversary of the first call for strategic thinking in the House. However, as we move ahead, we need to examine our broader budgetary process.

During the Supply resolution debate yesterday, the point was made by my colleague Mrs Cameron that, where the timescales that we apply to the Budget process each year are concerned, there is still an argument that we are reaching a point where the final Budget comes too late in the financial year so we need to operate on a more strategic basis. Irrespective of what agreements are reached on individual budgets, that is something that we need to look at much more strategically.

Secondly, I do not think that anyone would disagree with the idea that there could be an advantage from having a multi-year Budget. In many ways, that goes without saying, but I will include two caveats in that. The lesser one was a point that was raised by Mr Muir about whether we have been in a situation where, in the teeth of an election, we have gone in without a Budget. No, we have not, and, by passing the Budget Bill, there will be finance moving ahead.

If we are looking at a three-year Budget, there has to be particular strategic foresight, and it is clearly an advantage if we are in a situation in which that Budget is based on the priorities in the Programme for Government. It is not particularly good practice to, directly ahead of an election, potentially bind our successors and, effectively, take Programme for Government decisions before we have a Programme for Government. That is putting the cart before the horse.

The 2011-15 Budget was mentioned. At that time, there was a much greater continuum with the Programme for Government. There was a fresh Programme for Government. However, look at what has happened in the last few years. We have gone through a number of years without agreeing a formal Programme for Government. Indeed, over the last two years, a Programme for Government has been somewhat loosely interpreted, because, frankly, given the COVID situation, the extent to which there could be watertight delivery of any Programme for Government has been limited. On reflection, in this particular circumstance, the better route is to go into an election with an initial one-year Budget and then reach an agreement on a more strategic level, whether the time frame is three, four years or whatever.

The biggest point to make about a multi-year Budget is that, whether it is for one year, three years or five years — Mr Carroll may look for a 10-year, Soviet-style plan whereby we can take a "great leap forward", although I do not want to mix my Soviet and Chinese communism metaphors — the single most important thing is to get that Budget right. Indeed, if we have the wrong Budget, having the wrong Budget tied in for three years is worse than having the wrong Budget tied in for one year. The draft Budget that was put forward, which is effectively the only alternative that we can put on the table to what we are faced with today, would undoubtedly have made things considerably worse.

Take a couple of aspects of that. Whatever the broader levels of redistribution, if there was a top-slicing of £45 million from the Education budget for our hard-pressed schools and, indeed, our hard-pressed teachers, who are seeking pay rises, that would be disastrous. At least that salami-slicing will not take place through this Budget. Similarly, as a member of the Justice Committee, I am aware of some of the pressures in the Justice budget. However, the Committee got very clear-cut evidence from the Chief Constable that, if the proposed Budget was put in place, we would see not simply the PSNI being unable to meet the NDNA commitment of an increase in the number of police officers to 7,500, but massive reductions in the number of police officers. At least with the roll forward that is being put in place, we will not see those cuts to the Department of Justice's budget, which would be much greater than those faced by any other Department. At least what we face today is preferable to the Budget that was put forward by the Finance Minister.

Mr Muir: I thank Mr Weir for giving way. I understand the points that you are making. However, a one-year Budget was agreed in advance of the end of the mandate in 2016. Is your argument that the Executive should be able to meet and agree a one-year Budget for the next financial year? We do not have a one-year Budget for the next financial year. We have a Budget that will, essentially, give Departments 45% of last year's funding to deliver services on a wing and a prayer.

Mr Weir: With respect, I am drawing a distinction between a one-year Budget and a multi-year Budget. In the current circumstances, it is more appropriate to look at a single-year budget. Let us be honest. Yes, the roll forward advocates initially for the 45% funding, but let us be under no illusion. A certain amount of gamesmanship will be played on the Budget. The block grant will get spent in 2022-23. Let us not pretend that, suddenly, by way of some form of agreement, the amount of money going to Northern Ireland plc will be boosted. There is a certain disingenuous quality to the way that it has been presented.

Another thing has been missed as part of this. It presupposes that, if the Executive met tomorrow, they would be in a position to simply agree a Budget.

There has not been any form of agreement. There is a wide level of divergence; it is not simply a matter of disagreement over small amounts of money. If we are looking at what is there for the three years, there are fundamental differences, and that means that agreement is not there. We need to face up to that reality.

We also need, within our society, to ensure that there is full stability as we move forward. The Deputy Speaker will soon draw me to a conclusion if I go too far into this, but, undoubtedly, the issue of the protocol is creating an inherent instability, and we need, once and for all, to get that sore dealt with so that we can have longer-term political and financial stability.

I will turn to two other aspects of the Budget. At least we have what is in there, compared with what potentially was on offer from the Finance Minister. It is important that additional resources be put into the Department of Health, and everyone agrees on that, but the approach that has been taken, by way of an alternative to what we have today, utterly lacks any form of strategic direction. It is additional money for Health without any level of commitment to or plan for the reform of Health. We would all like to have seen additional financial support, particularly for Health, down the years. There has been growth on the level of expenditure, however. The missing element has been the fundamental level of reform. Frankly, without that reform, we are simply exacerbating an outstanding problem and doing so against the backdrop of the impact that it has on all other aspects of society.

Finally, the other Committee that I serve on is the Economy Committee. By taking the current Budget and transposing it to the early stages of 2022-23, we at least maintain a previous commitment to put the economy at the heart of the Programme for Government and, indeed, what it would deliver. By contrast, if we were to go down the route of the Finance Minister's Budget, the economy, for the first time ever, would not be the top priority of government. If we are saying that Health has to be the only Department protected, we are doing Health a disservice by ignoring Departments such as Economy and Justice. As we have seen from a range of evidence in the Justice Committee, for example, a range of cuts would have to be made that would have a knock-on effect.

The reality is that the shadow of the potential Budget by the Finance Minister is having a major impact on finance. We are at least able to roll forward on the economy side with, for example, protection and support for our students, for student numbers and apprenticeships. From the proposals that have been put forward, we know that, if the Finance Minister's Budget were adopted, it would mean swingeing cuts for higher and further education and for training. The percentage of the overall Budget for the Department for the Economy that will continue to be spent there simply could not be protected by making other cuts. For example, even at present, because of the level of uncertainty created by the Finance Minister's proposals, we have seen that Invest NI has had to draw back on what it can do into the future. That is no way in which to build a stable and prosperous Northern Ireland. A stable and prosperous Northern Ireland is a key component of dealing with our healthcare problem. It is a key component of dealing with the education problems out there.

Although it is not the ideal route for moving forward, the Budget Bill that we are faced with today certainly offers a better route than the alternative from the Finance Minister. If there is a saving grace from the current situation, it is perhaps the opportunity for people to draw back from the financial point of view. Then, when it comes to producing a longer-term Budget for Northern Ireland, we can do that with a much more strategic focus, because that is what is fundamentally lacking from the alternative proposal to today's Budget.

Ms Bradshaw: I will make a few brief remarks on the issues that arise from the Bill that specifically impact on health, although they can only be partially debated given the current context, which means that we are unable to do longer-term budgeting.

Let me start with a simple example. The Budget this year included, after October monitoring, bids of £69 million for trusts to meet COVID-19 pressures, nearly £11 million for vaccine management, and £3·5 million for the extension of vaccines, including boosters and the programme for 12 to 15-year-olds. That was allocated by the Executive after they had met and determined their priorities.

As has been mentioned many times this afternoon, the plan, of course, was for multi-year budgeting. The Department of Health's estimates suggest it is over £2 billion above its baseline pressures for 2024-25. In part, that speaks to an unreformed system, but it is also a legitimate requirement for COVID recovery in the longer term. Yet, with no Executive, those pressures, which will by then amount to close to over a third of the current baseline, will not be managed, as we will, in effect, only be able to carry over the current budget. In theory, the net effect is that in a few years' time the Department of Health will have only three of every four pounds that it requires.

We can look at the impact on a piece of legislation that is going through the Assembly. The Autism (Amendment) Bill includes provision for the appointment of an autism reviewer to provide scrutiny and support for people who are impacted by autism. There is no budget for that in the Bill. As it stands, there still will not be in the next financial year without taking money from elsewhere within Health.

In the more immediate short term, there is an even more obvious example. We may need money to cover COVID testing that is specific to Northern Ireland, even within the current financial year and certainly early in the next one. Thus far, that has been covered by Barnett consequentials, but, given the tendency of the UK Government to make decisions based on whims rather than clear evidence, we know that that is no longer likely. If we needed the funding from existing budgets, where would it come from and how would that be agreed?

Overall, the Bill still represents a strange way to go about things. For example, New Decade, New Approach came without a clearly attached budget. Programmes for Government are now developed on the basis of outcomes-based approaches, yet budgets are still allocated by Department. The core problem with Budget Bills like the one before us is that they mean we are still budgeting in black and white when we are trying to strategise in colour.

Recent surveys have shown that COVID recovery, taken as a whole, is still one of the public's top three priorities, alongside health and education. There is no Executive budget line to deal with that exclusively. Even the transformation of health is not solely a Department of Health matter by any means. A true transformation of health outcomes would include improved housing stock, more physical activity in the education system, better work opportunities, enhanced addiction services, more money for rehabilitating offenders and so on, all of which would involve allocations primarily or purely for other Departments.

I have a particular concern that much of the vital work that falls to Health and Justice is falling between the cracks, given that both Departments are under such pressure to
fulfil their core functions. That will have long-term negative impacts on well-being and will only put more pressure on those Departments as they try to recover from not being able to put in place sooner relevant interventions such as rehabilitation. That is just one example of how the Budget remains, in too many areas, to be the product of a reactive Administration rather than a proactive Government.

Mr Nesbitt: I have heard some familiar themes mentioned in the course of the debate: getting out of silos, being effective in our scrutiny of the Executive and the Departments, making sure there are adequate and appropriate budgets for the Programme for Government and its many facets, and criticism of the money we get out of London. On that latter point, I did not hear any acknowledgement of the £3 billion-plus — over three billion pounds sterling — that London gave us for mitigations for the COVID pandemic, when our focus was on saving lives and livelihoods. I would argue that there has probably never been a better time for Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom. Although I absolutely accept the legitimacy of republicans and nationalists to seek constitutional change, the lesson of the last two years is to be careful what you wish for.

Mr Weir: I thank the Member for giving way. He referenced the £3 billion, but it was over £3 billion of support in just the first year of the pandemic. If we take some of the consequences that will flow into this Budget, the overall figure will probably be in excess of £5 billion, and that does not take into account the contribution and support from Westminster for the furlough scheme.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his intervention. It backed up my proposition.

Having said that, the Minister and I agree that we would prefer to be less dependent on Treasury and would like to grow our economy to the point where we are generating a lot more of our own wealth. I call that a prosperity agenda. It is measured by two key things: the quality of our public services, particularly Health and Education, and the sense of well-being of our people. Therefore, it is not just about how much money somebody has in their back pocket on a Friday afternoon, important as that is, but their sense of good mental health and well-being and fairness and equity. How many of our citizens get out of bed without the sense of purpose that we enjoy; without the drive that brings us here every day and sends us to bed with a sense of accomplishment or, maybe, accomplishment mixed with a little frustration so that we want to get up and go again tomorrow? A prosperity agenda is very important. It is what we should be aiming for, and we should be using the Budget to create it.

As to getting out of our silos and scrutinising, I am minded of an example in the 2011 to 2016 mandate, when I was the Chair of the OFMDFM Committee, now Executive Office Committee. Some cross-cutting activity was going on then that was driven by OFMDFM. Members may recall Delivering Social Change (DSC). It had six signature projects, one of which was to deliver additional literacy and numeracy support to 18,600 primary-school children. That was a really good idea, and it was backed by finance and appropriate resources. The problem came when we tried to scrutinise it. OFMDFM officials came to the Committee, and we asked them, "How's it going?". Effectively, their answer was "No idea". Their role was simply to get the money into the Department of Education, and it led on delivering that DSC programme. We then asked whether we could get the relevant officials from the Department of Education in front of the Committee. They said, "No. Oh, God no. Absolutely not. They report to the Committee for Education".

If we are going to go for a cross-cutting, outcomes-based accountability Government where Departments and Ministers are going to work together collaboratively and share resources and budgets, we have to think about reorganising our Statutory Committees to make sure that we have an effective means of effecting some scrutiny.

If I may, another example from that period was the promise to offer a preschool place to every child for a minimum of four hours a day. I saw a report by the Department that led on that, which boasted of, I think, 93% — it was certainly over 90% — success in offering places to parents or guardians of children who were seeking preschool places for at least four hours in the day.

Now, that is an output. It is not an outcome, because I was contacted by a family who live outside Ards who had been offered a place and were part of the 93% of success. The place that that family was offered was in a facility in Suffolk in west Belfast, which is a 40-minute drive away, so, by the time the mother or father dropped the child off and got back to Ards, it was nearly time to go back and collect the child. The policy objective of putting the child in a preschool so that the parents could become economically active was a failure, and yet they were part of the 93% that we considered to be a success.

I said this yesterday, and I will repeat it today: we had an objective to align the Budget with the Programme for Government, and what we are doing is hurtling to the position where we achieve that by having neither. That is an indictment of this mandate.

I hear Members from the two big parties throwing insults across the Floor: "You collapsed it"; "You collapsed it"; "I collapsed it"; "You collapsed it". There is something else that we have forgotten about, and it is costing money out of the Budget. That is the care and maintenance of a 347-acre site known as Maze/Long Kesh (MLK). It has a development corporation whose motto is:

Some years ago, we all agreed that it could deliver big-style for our economy with 5,000 new jobs and £300 million of investment, and it was stopped by one party because of opposition to MLK being the site for the peace-building and conflict resolution centre. Since then, very little has happened to develop Maze/Long Kesh or to deliver those 5,000 jobs. It is not as if there is no alternative. I have often proposed taking back control of the old Crumlin Road courthouse and making it the peace-building and conflict resolution centre. The fact is that putting it in the Maze was to choose the most controversial, toxic, contested piece of land that you could in the whole of Northern Ireland in the view of victims, because some victims said that it had to be there and some said that it had to be anywhere but Maze/Long Kesh. However, now, in the Budget, it is just a line for care and maintenance.

Frankly, I do not think that we are doing that well. I will, of course, support the Budget, but I hope that, come the next mandate, we do a bit better.

Mr Blair: I rise mainly as a member of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, and, in that role, I am aware of discussion about the DAERA budgetary position — that is, the current position, the position in recent monitoring rounds and what is being projected for DAERA in future proposals. I am also aware that DAERA made a substantive application for £600 million additional funding to support its draft green growth strategy, which ostensibly sets out a pathway for local industry to move towards a cleaner system of working over the next 30 years — of course, it proposes much more than that. That is a departmental strategy aimed at delivering on many of the sustainability pledges outlined in the Programme for Government. I say "aimed", as the delivery of that flagship strategy is now itself uncertain.

The Department has been allocated, it appears, only £175 million against the green growth application for the 2022-25 period. I know that that is in the future, and, while officials informed the Committee that they were looking at that allocation positively, it will undoubtedly hamper the intended progress of the green growth strategy work streams. It is regrettable that some even limited means of addressing that shortfall could not have been found in the current position or through recent monitoring rounds. I am deeply concerned that without a clear path to acquire additional investment, planning, development and roll-out of key initiatives, those will be lost, including significant capital investment in peatland restoration. Peatlands hold a vast amount of carbon in their soils and can add more from the atmosphere if they are functioning well and are in a healthy state. I pointed out to the House only yesterday that, of the 242,000 hectares of peatlands in Northern Ireland, approximately 86% are in a poor condition and are haemorrhaging carbon into the atmosphere instead of storing it safely in the ground.

Peatland restoration is not the only casualty of the Budget. The progression of initiatives to address social isolation in rural areas has been a core element of DAERA programming in recent years. In that regard, no allocations have been made to the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) framework across the multi-year Budget, despite a need of £1·8 million a year. That is concerning, as the outcomes of that programme have had very positive benefits for people's health and well-being, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic and, of course, as we move through COVID recovery.

The progression of new commitments and priorities arising from COP26, the new environment strategy, the new biodiversity strategy and the peatlands strategy contain plans to tackle climate change, and those have also been impacted. Addressing key environmental pressures such as climate change and air and water pollution, addressing the impacts of ammonia emissions and building a more resilient natural environment are also made much more difficult without adequate and positive budgetary provision. I understand that DAERA made a collective bid for £21·5 million for those initiatives and, in return, received only £2·8 million. That shortfall in financing will, no doubt, have severe consequences for our natural environment and our efforts to tackle climate change. I hope that the Minister will reflect on those concerns when he responds. I say that, of course, fully mindful of the need for a working Executive to deliver any of that.

Ms Armstrong: Minister, I will not talk about the Budget for 2022-23 as we are here to discuss the Supply resolutions for the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates for 2021-22. The 2021-22 Main Estimates were approved by the Assembly in June 2021, and the Budget position to which the Main Estimates were written has since been revised through the in-year monitoring rounds. Most recently, the January monitoring round and its outcome was agreed by the Executive in order to establish the revised departmental spending plans, and those are now reflected in detail in the 2021-22 spring Supplementary Estimates that are before us.

I note that there has been an increase in the total net cash requirement of £1·4 billion and in the net resource requirement of £1·61 billion when comparing the Main Estimates provisions. Overall, in this year's spring Supplementary Estimates, the Department of Finance is proposing an increase in resource DEL of £858 million, or 18·1%, and a decrease in capital DEL of £23·9 million, or -3·4%, when compared with the Main Estimates for this financial year.

During the period of these spring Supplementary Estimates, a number of key items were resting on the sole authority of the Budget Act. As party spokesperson for communities, I will speak to the items that relate to the Department for Communities. I support the provisions sought under the authority of the Budget Act to continue for welfare reform mitigations of £37,700,000 until the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill is passed by the Assembly and achieves Royal Assent. Similarly, the annual uprating of pneumoconiosis — pronouncing that catches out every Chair of every Committee for Communities — which requires the affirmative resolution of the Assembly, will not happen by the end of March 2022. Therefore, it needs to be covered by the Budget Act until such times as the Assembly returns, hopefully after the next election.

During this financial year, the Supplementary Estimates reflected the changes to the Budget position for the Department for Communities for 2021-22, which were made in the monitoring rounds and in AME forecasts. As a result of all the changes, there was an increase in the net resource requirement of £109,502,000 and an increase in the net cash requirements of £81,274,000. That was much needed, as was highlighted earlier in the debate by the Chair of the Committee for Communities. The initial budget for this financial year started much lower than the amount that, I feel, the Department needed to meet its large range of duties.

While the Assembly continues to prioritise health and education, our housing stock continues to need to be maintained. The waiting list for homes grows longer, and we still have children and families living in poverty. I recognise that, during the year, there were significant allocations to alleviate pressures that were created by the pandemic. Our councils, the community and voluntary sector, statutory bodies and the Department continued to deliver an incredible service to society as the virus continued to impact all of us. Their work was and continues to be vital across our community.

I will take a moment to confirm that the Department for Communities remains at the front line of the pandemic mitigations. I have heard directly from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that it will take at least 18 months to recover from the impact on housing that was created by COVID. During the pandemic, significant partnership working enabled many people and families to be housed in temporary accommodation. With that coming to an end, we are facing an increase in the number of people in housing stress being without a permanent home. The situation will need to be financed in order to help some of our most vulnerable citizens. Forty-five per cent will not cut it.

This evening, the Budget Bill seeks agreement to provide interim resources and funding for the first few months of the 2022-23 financial year in the form of the Vote on Account. That is equivalent to a total resource requirement of £11·1 billion and a cash requirement of £9·8 billion. I note that the Department for Communities has been awarded £124 million of headroom, £77 million of which is for the thermal insulation for Housing Executive properties, and £47 million for the Housing Executive's tower block programme. That is welcome. Going forward, Communities cannot continue to have to depend on monitoring rounds to supply funds to meet needs. Communities can help our economy through investment, by supporting the build of new homes and by retrofitting the 66,000 Housing Executive homes that are over 40 years old. That construction programme alone would help our local community to create and maintain jobs and go some way to achieving our environmental targets, while making homes more energy-efficient for residents. To achieve that, Communities needs to be funded. While I accept that money will be tight — it is tight — it will remain financially difficult until such times as the substantial reforms that are needed in the health service are addressed.

In conclusion, I hope that there will be an Executive after the election, that the Programme for Government will include a housing outcome and that there is agreement for a cross-departmental sharing of funds. I agree with what my colleague from Strangford Mr Nesbitt said about a reform of this place, because, while we have Departments working vertically and our systems here working horizontally, we are not able to scrutinise appropriately. We need that cross-departmental sharing of funds in order to deliver an effective programme of delivery for the next three years.

Mr Carroll: Once again, I will oppose, or do my best to oppose, another Stormont Budget that is inadequate and does not nearly deliver the expansion of support and services that people so desperately need when faced with a spiralling cost-of-living crisis, sustained poverty and a deep health crisis that impacts on every family. Average prices are up by over 5%, the cost of petrol and diesel is up by over 20%, and, from last year, the average home's energy bills are up by at least £1,000. People are struggling as they have never done before, and no solutions are being offered to deal with that.

For years, politicians told us that there was no money to pay for services, and then, during the pandemic, they found millions — billions — for all sorts of handouts. Where is the urgency when it comes to addressing the cost-of-living crisis? Money must be found to tackle low wages and poverty and to give people a fair deal, and politicians must show the same urgency around poverty, low wages and mental health that they did during COVID. Those issues are severely lacking in the Budget.

Our health service has been hammered by years of austerity, privatisation and the impact of a pandemic; waiting lists are increasing to the point that huge swathes of people are languishing in pain, without any sign of treatment in sight; and health workers who carried us through COVID are now struggling to live on low wages. Immediate funding needs to be found to uplift pay and services. Years of welfare reform brought in by Sinn Féin and the DUP have devastated communities, and those who are forced to survive on benefits are turning to food banks and making the most difficult choice of whether to skip meals to feed their kids and whether to heat or eat. Tory welfare reforms need to be overturned, and welfare support needs to be drastically expanded in line with what anti-poverty experts are demanding. The Budget does not do any of that, and I will not sign up to it.

Year-on-year, I have criticised the Budget-setting process, its lack of accountability and transparency and the inability for Opposition parties to scrutinise legislation properly.

Today's Budget is another example of that. It was published last night, put together as a sticking plaster to keep things ticking over for the next period in light of the crisis that has engulfed politics as we peer into another election.

The DUP shares much of the blame for the mess that our society is in, but the parties that made up the entire Executive share responsibility. Indeed, although the Executive are not meeting, the Bill looks exactly like previous Executive Budgets: opaque, insufficient and deeply concerning. Since the DUP withdrew from the Executive, the debate has been around the failure to secure a three-year Budget versus this one. Now that the three-year Budget has been stalled, this is not an unimportant debate, and the DUP must be called out for its reckless, self-serving move to create another crisis over the protocol, beating the communal drum and trying to shore up its support in the polls in order to thwart an electoral crisis.

However, those who hold up the previous three-year Budget as something to champion as a solution to the deep crisis that we are in are way off. For example, when it comes to the crucial issue of public-sector pay, uplifting that could help to address the cost of living crisis overnight. Nothing contained in the previous three-year Budget consultation would have concretely addressed that. It contained no commitment on public-sector pay increases. The political establishment has also been woefully inadequate on health pay. An offer of 3% from the Minister is an insult, and talk of 6% from other parties does not go nearly far enough. We need immediate moves to meet trade union demands of 10% or above. Otherwise, we will be faced with strike action by health workers once again, and I will be proud to stand with them.

Now, faced with a crisis in Stormont, we see some really disgraceful proposals, not least the threat to fail to fund up to 900 units of temporary Housing Executive accommodation at a time when we are faced with a chronic homelessness crisis. Over the past number of weeks, I have been busy in my West Belfast constituency supporting an inspiring occupation by women workers at Regina Coeli House, a site of temporary accommodation that is being threatened with closure. It is outrageous that, in that context, another 900 units of existing temporary accommodation are threatened with being axed.

The five-party Executive spent two years failing to protect the vulnerable and to provide for people. In particular, the DUP has acted disgracefully throughout that period, beating the communal drum in order to stave off and distract from its internal crisis. I hope that that does not work for them.

For my part, I will continue to be a voice for socialist, working-class politics; to fight for a different way forward; to prioritise immediate moves to raise the minimum wage to tackle the cost of living crisis; to protect our vulnerable by replacing failed Tory welfare reforms with a humane alternative; to support the creation of a public jobs programme to help to deal with rising unemployment, the environmental crisis and the housing crisis; to increase funding and capacity for the NHS, including a massive recruitment campaign to deal with the ever-mounting waiting lists; to urge an increase in funding for mental health services; to call for the strengthening and extension of COVID support measures to protect vulnerable workers in our communities; to call for a significant, across-the-board pay rise for workers and the strengthening of workers' rights; to call for better financial support for low-paid and precariously employed people who need to self-isolate; to provide free education for all; and to see a proper pay rise for University and College Union (UCU) workers, education welfare officers and everyone else who is fighting for that.

I may in be a minority of one tonight, but I will vote against the Bill.

Mr C Murphy: I thank the Members, Chairs and Deputy Chairs who contributed to the Second Stage debate on the Budget Bill. It is very useful to hear the views of the respective Committees and Members on the important financial and economic issues that face us as an Administration. Many of the points were, obviously, specific to the Departments that the Committees scrutinise, and I am not in a position to answer them all. However, I will endeavour to deal with some questions that were raised in the debate.

Once again, I thank the Finance Committee for agreeing to the Bill's accelerated passage, which is necessary not only to get it through in time but to ensure that, given the situation that we now find ourselves in, we have the ability to fund Departments in the next number of months.

The Chair of the Finance Committee, Steve Aiken, raised a number of questions that I want to address. One related to the actions to be taken to improve capital delivery. We do not directly lead the Strategic Investment Board, but it has been developing the Executive's investment strategy, which will deliver long-term capital planning. Unfortunately, as with the Budget and the Programme for Government, the investment strategy has been blocked by the absence of an Executive.

Mr Aiken also raised questions about victims' payments. I am perturbed to hear that only two payments have been made to date. There are approximately 1,600 applications in the system, and the award of payments has not been delayed due to a lack of funding. The Executive have provided the funding to TEO in order to ensure that the scheme can progress. Of course, we still are in dispute resolution mode with Treasury about who ultimately pays and the share of each in paying for those funds, but, in response to his question, the situation is not because of a lack of funding for those payments.

Paula Bradley, the Chair of the Communities Committee, said that she feels that the Department for Communities is under-resourced. That is interesting, because I have often been accused in the Executive, as Mr Weir will remember, of giving Communities too much money and not giving other Departments enough money. It is interesting to hear the reverse from the same party. For the record, Communities is a very vital Department that delivers a huge range of vital services. Its budget, under the draft Budget proposals, would have increased by 1·9% in each of the first two years and 2·1% in the third year. That included funding for welfare mitigation measures, which we all know are vital in protecting households from the worst impacts of the British Government's welfare reforms. There was also a very significant capital allocation for Communities of over £820 million over the three years. We had also agreed that, as and when any capital came back to the centre during this period, social housing, along with green growth, would be one of the priority areas for reallocating that capital.

Matthew O'Toole raised a number of questions about the Fiscal Council, and I think that Andrew Muir also raised some questions on it. I will deal with both those contributions. The initial question was about the legislative status of the Fiscal Council and the funding that is attached to it. The terms of reference have been agreed, and they remain unchanged following extensive consultation. The Department is now focusing on developing legislation to put the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing, which will supersede the terms of reference.

While the agreed terms of reference will be the foundation of the legislation, other issues that need detailed consideration include the public appointments of the chair and members; staff resourcing; access to information; governance and powers; reporting mechanisms; and the relationship with Assembly Committees and Ministers. The Department of Finance received approval to fund the Fiscal Council in 2021-22 and 2022-23 under the sole authority of the Budget Act, but once the legislation is passed — that is expected to be in early 2023 — that will formally establish the Fiscal Council and avoid reliance in the future on the sole authority of the Budget Act.

Another point that Matthew O'Toole raised was the European social fund and the match funding for the groups that are very much in crisis at the moment over whether they can continue to provide vital training and education services. I offered a solution to that to both the Economy Minister and the Communities Minister. The Communities Minister took up that solution, and, yesterday, I heard the Economy Minister say in the Chamber that he was going to provide some certainty for those groups in the near future through his own resources in the Department. I hope that that is the case, and I look forward to that, because I met some of those groups yesterday morning, and they still are uncertain about their future position. If the Department for the Economy is now in a position to provide that degree of certainty and avoid redundancy notices, I very much look forward to that being given to them.

Mr O'Toole also raised the accessibility of Budget documents. He talked not about the information that is provided but about how accessible they are. Of course, he raised the alignment between a multi-year Budget and a Programme for Government. Those are all points on which I agree with him. The fact is that we have to legislate for a Budget in a time frame. If the Programme for Government document is there, as it should be, it would obviously be much better to align with it, and I think that having it in place would allow for more ease of access when looking for accountability in budgets.

Of course, while it is legally necessary to give people the very weighty tomes of Budget documents so that they can study, line by line, all the expenditure, I think that, for the public to get a clearer understanding of the process and to have that level of scrutiny, as time goes on we need to look at making them more accessible and making the read-across easier when understanding the Budget and how it aligns with the various other documents that an Executive will produce.

He asked questions about the cost-of-living crisis. We introduced the £55 million scheme with the Department for Communities. I have signalled that I intend to allocate further funding in the rest of the financial year. However, the absence of an Executive means that we cannot create new schemes. While the Department for Communities has that scheme up and running, and I will be interested to see how it is working at paying out, we cannot create additional schemes. A number of Departments have come forward to seek such funding, but we will have to fund some existing programmes within them.

Questions were asked about transformation of health. Inevitably, the debate moved from the Budget scenario that we are dealing with to the prospects for a three-year Budget. The transformation of health was key to that. It was not just about tackling the big issues in health; it was a case of transforming it. The draft Budget provided funding over a three-year period to meet in full the Health Minister's bid for elective care, cancer and mental health rebuild strategies and to help transform our health service and reduce waiting lists. Some £147 million of NDNA transformation funding was also to be provided over that period, giving the Department of Health a 10% real-terms budget increase.

I listened to Mr Weir and Mr Buckley. They were obviously sent out today as a tag team to defend the position that the DUP has now taken. Pam Cameron took on that role yesterday. They have presented almost as fact the position that the DUP has done us a favour by bringing down the Executive, because the Budget was flawed anyway. That was nothing to do with it; the protocol was the reason given for their bringing down the Executive.

I have to say that, in my observation, we rarely get a mention in the negotiations on the protocol. It is important, the DUP says, that unionism is listened to. We have listened to it and listened to it and listened to it, but it is also important that the people are listened to. The people are the only ones who are suffering as a consequence of your action. It does not impact at all on the EU negotiations, which will trundle on to the other side of an election. Our ability to allocate spending and to do the things that we need to do is impacted by the fact that you have withdrawn from the Executive and cut down our opportunity to take decisions.

A number of rationales for that were advanced. Mrs Cameron offered one yesterday, and Jonathan Buckley offered one today, saying that we should not be doing the Budget ahead of an election. The DUP knows, and Mr Weir, who is a former Minister, knows, that we have to do it within a time frame. That is a legislative requirement. They keep repeating it, almost like the Trump playbook that says, "If you say something often enough, people will start to believe it". We had to do it within the time frame.

The process of setting a draft Budget began last summer, when we asked for planning. We talked to Departments about likely Budget scenarios. People will be aware that we do not know what amount we will get until the comprehensive spending review is complete in the autumn, but we planned for a number of scenarios. We planned on the basis that health was the priority, because that is what the Executive told us. That is what the parties told us even before the Executive were reformed. Mr Weir has expressed a degree of surprise that the economy was not the number-one priority, but he sat on the Executive that decided that health was the number-one priority.

It seems that hanging around with the Tories has introduced a degree of cynicism to the DUP. It could stand outside, like Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson in Downing Street, and applaud the health service every Thursday night during the pandemic, but, when it came to putting money behind that and actually saying that what it had told us for the past two years was its priority is indeed its priority, that was not the case at all. Its priority was supporting business, or putting support wherever it happened to have interests in the economy.

We did a strategy session for the Budget. It has not been bounced on people in the last while; it has been in planning since last summer. We got everyone together, and we brought in a facilitator. The DUP's contribution to that session was absolutely minimal. Only two of its Ministers spoke: the First Minister and the AERA Minister, who spoke briefly at the end. From memory, the Minister for the Economy and the current Minister of Education did not speak during the strategy session that we held to try to carve out a three-year Budget. Therefore, we had to operate on the basis of what the Executive had told us and what all the parties had stated publicly.

Now it seems that health is not the DUP's priority and that all the bumf about supporting our front-line services, nurses, doctors and other health staff was all hypocrisy and rhetoric from it.

I have no doubt that we were in a negotiation phase on the Budget. That is why the £300 million that we could have ploughed into the finances next year would have been important. There were undoubtedly Ministers and Departments that had difficulties with the consequences that the Budget was throwing up.

None of them faced a cut, by the way. The claim that Departments would face a cut has been advanced by a number of Members here today. It was said of the Department for the Economy, but that Department has had a real-term increase year-on-year, so why Invest NI is not able to offer people money, I do not know. Why Members are telling universities that student places are being decimated, I do not know, because universities are getting more money. Members are making a conscious decision to attack students and support for students. Departments were getting a real-term increase year-on-year, but Members have decided to misrepresent all of that, just as the DUP is now misrepresenting its refusal to sit in the Executive and take budgetary decisions as doing us a favour because the Budget was flawed anyway. It is such absolute nonsense. The DUP would be as well being honest with people. As I have said, there has almost been a tag team of Members advancing the same flawed analysis and the same complete misrepresentation of the legal position of the Budget, taking a page from the Trump playbook, whereby if you tell a lie often enough, people might believe it.

A number of other points were raised, again by Mr Weir and by Mike Nesbitt, who has left, about additional COVID funding. Every time during the pandemic that we got additional money, I stood up here and absolutely welcomed it. We were not unique. Every Government in the Western World that had additional money spent it on trying to protect people from the pandemic; so it was not something that happened only in London. It happened in every other system. We all pay taxes, and, when we are in a crisis, we expect the Government to which we pay those taxes to support us in that crisis. If that issue is advanced in support of the Union, however, it is fair enough. People can make their electoral speeches, as Mr Weir did in the hustings that we are currently having, but the reality is that it is not a unique position for anybody in the Western World that a Government that have resources are able to provide them. The fact that our health service is in crisis, and has been for over 10 years, is because the Government have not been providing resources. They have cut public spending, and the DUP kept such a Government in power when it had an opportunity to remove them and put in a Government that promised to increase spending on public services.

Among the additional points that were made was one about peatland conversion. I agree with Mr Blair. I had the opportunity to visit Cuilcagh mountain over the summer. Interestingly, I was walking around Newry today, and I had a discussion about development. Newry is very fortunate, in that it has not just one but two waterways going through the centre of the town: the canal and the Clanrye river. The Department's solution to potential flooding is to build the walls higher, so we will end up not being able to see the rivers in the centre of Newry. The cost of that, as opposed to that of restoring the peatlands and wetlands to stop the flooding, seems quite crazy. Not only would it be a cheaper option to spend money up there on the mountains but it would be more environmentally sustainable than building higher walls around the rivers going through our town centre. There is clearly a need for joined-up thinking that is focused on climate change.

A number of other very valid points were raised about many matters of challenge that Departments have. Pat Catney, for example, raised one. He said that lack of a strategy is our problem, but, really, lack of finance is our problem. Of course we could strategise better, plan better and certainly do things better. That is always the case. No system of government is anywhere near perfect, and ours is no different. We could do all those things better. The central point, however, is the impact of austerity on public services.

We are now trying to invest in a way that will stop the health service continuing to exist at crisis level, but that impacts on all other Departments, because we do not have the resources to spread money across all public services. We therefore have to make choices. Those choices would have been made by an Executive in the coming weeks, because that is what we are required to do. We would have found some level of agreement, however we found it, because that is what we are required to. To say that we have been done a favour by the fact that we have no Executive is to stretch the truth beyond any recognition whatsoever.

Mr Carroll made a range of points about all that we are doing wrong and gave the reasons that he does not support the Budget Bill.

I respect his right to do that. Of course, it is last year's Budget that he is talking about, not future Budgets. However, the reality with a finite Budget is that, if you want all of the things to be done that, you say, have to be done, you also have to say what will not be done. That is a basic requirement. I realise that that requires resource and support that a single operator here would have difficulty in obtaining, but that is the basic premise if you disagree with what we propose to spend in order to support people. I talked about welfare mitigations, and we have brought in the standard living wage and taken measures to support vulnerable people with the limited resources that we have. We do not have the resources that we want: we would do much more if we did. If we are told that we need to spend money on wage increases in the public sector — something that I fully support and would love us to have the resources to do — we have to say where that will come from in our finite Budget. Perhaps the Member has some answers to that. If so, I look forward to hearing them.

We could continue the debate, but I am sure that people would not thank us for doing so. As usual, the debate has been informative and lively. Some of it was even related to the matter in hand, which is always a benefit [Laughter.]

It is imperative that the legislation that has been debated today continues its passage through the Assembly so that public services and our response to the COVID pandemic can be delivered without delay or interruption. I ask Members to support the Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2021-22 and in the early months of 2022-23 in the Vote on Account.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Before I put the Question, I advise Members that, as this is a Budget Bill, it is established practice that the motion requires cross-community support.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Carroll: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind Members that they should continue to uphold social distancing and that those who have proxy voting arrangements in place should not come into the Chamber.

Before I put the Question again, I remind Members present that, if possible, it would be preferable to avoid a Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That concludes the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. Amendments to the Bill may be submitted to the Bill Office by 9.30 am tomorrow, Thursday 24 February 2022.

Mr Butler: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed to allocate up to one hour for the debate, with 10 minutes to move the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. Five minutes will be available to all other Members who are called to speak.

Mr Butler: The Assembly Commission has a statutory duty under section 40 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to:

The Assembly Commission develops a draft budget for each year to deliver all the services required by the Assembly. That draft budget is then scrutinised by the Audit Committee, including input from the Department of Finance to help to inform the Committee's scrutiny.

Members will be aware that a three-year Budget for 2022-25 was proposed as part of this Budget cycle. The Assembly Commission has prepared its budget plans on that basis, and the Audit Committee has scrutinised those three-year plans. The Audit Committee then reports to the Assembly on the Commission's draft budget. The Committee's report on the Commission's budget for 2022-25 was laid in the Business Office on 30 November 2021 and informs today's debate.

The motion and the subsequent vote will allow the Assembly to determine the resources that the Commission needs to enable the Assembly to carry out its legislative functions. That agreed budget is then notified to the Department of Finance for inclusion in any Budget that is then presented by the Finance Minister.

The House will be aware that, on 15 February 2022, the Finance Minister made a statement about budgetary matters and the difficulties that recent political developments might cause for the preparation of the Executive's Budget plans. The Assembly Commission is not part of the Executive and must continue to plan for its activities for the three-year Budget period. That is not to ignore the wider situation but to recognise that the Assembly Commission has, indeed, a specific role to play.

Turning to the figures in the Commission's draft budget for 2022-25, I will cover the next financial year in more detail and draw out any significant changes that are likely to arise in future years. For 2022-23, the total budget is £50·76 million and £3·9 million for capital expenditure. The first category that is included in the Commission's budget is income. Next year, the Commission expects to receive income of £684,000. Of that, approximately £604,000 relates to the recovery of the cost of ministerial salaries from Executive Departments. The remainder is in respect of staff who are expected to be seconded to other public-sector entities.

The second category — salaries and expenses paid to Members — covers a range of areas including Members' salaries, constituency office and support staff costs, Members' travel costs and other associated costs to Members. The salary that will be paid to Members, Ministers, Committee Chairs and Members of the Assembly Commission was set by the Independent Financial Review Panel (IFRP). The forecast for 2022-23 is £6·73 million, with an increase of £500 per Member for the final two years. The Commission has not made any attempt to predict how Members' salaries might be impacted by the formation of any future IFRP or a Members' remuneration board. The amount that Members can recover to meet the costs of running a constituency office, including the cost of Members' support staff, is expected to total just under £11·5 million in 2022-23, rising to £11·75 million in 2024-25. The level of expenses recoverable for some constituency office running costs has not been changed since 2016, and the Commission proposes to publish a further determination in the new mandate to make a modest increase to them. The Commission also proposes to make additional constituency office staffing support available to Members who have a baby. Payments to Members in respect of travel costs are forecast to be £304,000 in 2022-23, reflecting a modest increase, as they have also not seen any increase since 2016. Members' other costs include winding-up expenses, resettlement expenses and any ill-health retirements that might occur. Next year will see a significant increase in those costs as a result of the Assembly election in May. Those costs are forecast to be £593,000 for 2022-23, falling to a more normal level of £88,000 and £90,000 for the following two years.

The third major category in the Commission's budget covers salary payments for secretariat staff and the administrative costs that are incurred to deliver the full range of services needed by the Assembly. Secretariat staff salary costs are forecast to be £21·74 million for next year, which is, in effect, a reduction on the forecast that was made for the current year, as there will be a reduction in staff as the legislative pressures at the end of the current Assembly mandate ease.

I want to spend a moment on the cost of staff to support the simultaneous interpretation of Assembly business in Irish and Ulster Scots, as the Audit Committee referred to it in the report. On 15 June 2021, the Assembly debated and approved a direction from the Assembly under section 40(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Assembly resolved that it:

Assembly Members were surveyed to assess the demand for the service. The Assembly Commission agreed at its meeting on 9 February 2022 that the response indicated that there was political demand for the level of simultaneous interpretation set out in its initial budget plans. In line with the resolution of the Assembly, the provision will be reviewed six months after it has been implemented.

The Commission's administration costs are forecast to be £6·45 million in 2022-23, with a slight decrease in the following two years. Administration costs cover a wide range of expenditure items, including Committee expenses, building rates, utility costs, repairs, maintenance costs and third-party support for the business-critical IT systems such as broadcasting, catering and research.

The next category is payments to parties under the financial assistance for political parties scheme 2016 (FAPP). Members will be aware of the work that was carried out by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC) to review the statement of entitlements for an official Opposition. The AERC reported on its findings on 9 November.

The Assembly agreed the report's recommendations, including that £100,000 of additional funding should be made available to a party of 10 members that enters opposition.

The Commission is also reviewing the current FAPP scheme as the amounts payable have not changed since 2016. As FAPP is mainly used to fund party support staff and the rates have not changed since 2016, a 10% increase has been budgeted for in 2022-23, with a 2% increase in the subsequent years. Based on both those factors, the budget for FAPP for 2022-23 now stands at £988,000.

The penultimate category relates to depreciation charges, which are forecast to be £3·14 million for 2022-23 and to rise to £3·9 million in 2024-25. That is mostly made up of the depreciation charge on the value of Parliament Buildings. All the highlighted categories of expenditure make up the total of £50·76 million for resource DEL expenditure for next year.

The Commission requires a significant capital investment programme over the next few years of £3·99 million in 2022-23, with a further £3·16 million in 2023-24 and just over £1 million for 2024-25. Some of the expenditure for 2022-23 relates to projects that were due to complete this year but will now complete next year. Much of that arose due to the difficulties in securing the services of external specialist support in Parliament Buildings as the residual impacts of COVID-19 remained.

For 2022-23, the capital plan includes the essential replacement of broadcasting infrastructure in rooms 21 and 29, the replacement of the video equipment in the Chamber, and the replacement of the building security system, Wi-Fi and corporate systems. The following year, further investment for the audio and video broadcasting systems in the Senate Chamber and audio infrastructure in the Chamber is planned. Finally, a desktop PC replacement programme and website redevelopment projects are planned for 2024-25.

On behalf of the Commission, I record my sincere thanks to the Assembly Commission staff for their very considerable efforts to facilitate the work of the Assembly in what has continued to be a challenging year.

Members, I commend the Commission's budget proposals for 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 to the House.

Ms Bunting: From the outset, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I place on record our thanks to the Assembly secretariat for their dedication in the face of unprecedented disruption brought about by the pandemic. The final year of any mandate is always extremely busy, and COVID-19 has generated added challenges for our institutions. Therefore, it is appropriate that we show our appreciation.

The largest category of the draft Assembly Commission budget relates to staff salaries and administration costs. That expenditure is part and parcel of ensuring that Assembly business runs smoothly and integral services are provided to Members, employees and the public. The expenditure includes everything from rates, electricity and gas to IT, broadcasting, cleaning and catering.

In the next three financial years, a number of capital projects will be taken forward in areas such as security and IT. The DUP wants to ensure that safeguards are in place to ward against slippage or, indeed, the return of unspent funds.

The Assembly Commission has a duty to ensure the effective stewardship of public funds. A number of outstanding issues that impact on the draft budget need to be rectified going forward, not least the situation where the Speaker is paid in full during periods of suspension.

Additional flexibility for Members who have to travel long distances owing to the frequency of late-night sittings of the House is welcome, as is the headroom provided to cover additional staffing costs should Members have a baby or adopt a child, if there is political agreement on such a measure in the new mandate. Those measures are important to ensure an effective work-life balance for Members and to support their health and well-being.

The Democratic Unionist Party shares the concern expressed by the Audit Committee about the projected cost of simultaneous interpretation of Assembly business in Irish and Ulster Scots, nor are we convinced about the need for six interpreters. We do not support that element of the draft budget. The inclusion of that budget line in the absence of wider agreement in the Commission on the logistics of such a service is, we feel, premature. It remains improbable that the spending envisaged would represent good value for money or enhance the standing of the institutions at a time of rising living costs and pressures on the public purse as a result of the COVID-19 recovery. More generally, the rush to include such financial provision in the Commission budget for the next three years is yet another illustration of the partial and one-sided implementation of the New Decade, New Approach agreement. The agreement contained a range of interlocking and interdependent commitments, yet, to date, it has been cherry-picked. Narrow pet projects have been prioritised, the pledge for extra police officers has been abandoned, and protections for Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market have fallen by the wayside. In that context, the inclusion of simultaneous interpretation costs in the budget is wholly disproportionate.

As a party, we believe that the resources profile and status provided for an official Opposition should not of themselves be an incentive or, indeed, a disincentive. The additional financial allowance built into the budget carries the risk of upsetting that balance. We believe that there will be an onus on parties to review this at the commencement of the new mandate.

In summary, while I acknowledge that much of the draft budget is not contentious and is key to the continuing effective operation of this place, I echo the concerns expressed by members of the Audit Committee. The pause in plans for a three-year Budget provides an opportunity to reflect on the weaknesses of what is being proposed and to promote a deal that is fair to everyone and, most of all, to the taxpayer.

Ms Armstrong: I rise in absolute appreciation of our Assembly secretariat and the work that happens behind the scenes to allow us to work here in the Chamber. It has been an extraordinary time for all the staff. I do not know about the rest of you, but the last six months have been extremely busy, and staff are working extraordinarily long hours. Last week, after 11.00 pm, I spoke to staff who were still busy at work.

It was hard to get the papers for today's debate on the Assembly Commission budget. While they were laid in the Business Office, they were not available to all Members. Perhaps the Commission could make sure that that is improved for the future.

As an ordinary Member, I will raise a few issues. We are already paying money for sign language translators, but the one place where they are not available is on any of the screens in the Chamber. Translators are in place and available to the outside world, but for those of us in the House who may have hearing impairments and would appreciate sign language, they are not available. That may be something to consider operationally when we talk about translators.

I was a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC) when it discussed an Opposition, and Ms Bunting is absolutely right. During considerations in AERC, the financing of an Opposition was not meant to incentivise any party to go into opposition; similarly, it was not there to disincentivise a party from being in opposition. The money that was set aside or considered by AERC was based on a level of staffing to provide an effective Opposition in this place. As we have seen in recent weeks, if the mandatory coalition cannot work, perhaps we need to go back to the system of opposition, where the Government are held to account.

I will not talk about Members' salary increases or expenses because that just riles the public. I absolutely welcome the fact that Members' staff will now be able to take maternity leave knowing that they are not under pressure to come back to work early and that Members can replace those staff while they are on maternity or paternity leave.

I was glad to hear mention of significant improvements for broadband and Wi-Fi in this place. I do not know about the rest of you, but it is horrendous. I cannot make a mobile phone call from my allocated office in Parliament Buildings, and Zoom calls can, at best, be intermittent.

What appears to be significantly missing from the budget is investment in our Bill Office. As we know, the Bill Office, during this mandate, is coping with an increased number of private Members' Bills, but it is a small team that is coming out of COVID. I do not see that investment in the budget. Perhaps whoever is making the winding-up speech could advise on how that might be funded.

There is concern that Members do not have access to Legal Services, particularly with regard to private Members' Bills. I thought that could have come forward. Perhaps, now that we are coming to the end of a mandate, with so many private Members' Bills at Further Consideration Stage and coming to an end, that issue is just coming to light.

There are changed working patterns for staff and Members in this place. I ask that consideration be given to the savings that we can make when staff or Members are not in the Building.

Translators for Irish and Ulster Scots were in New Decade, New Approach, as were many other things. Translators happen to be one of them. I can appreciate some saying that this is cherry-picking parts of that agreement. Quite a lot of what I would like to have come forward from New Decade, New Approach has not moved. However, there was a commitment to Irish and Ulster Scots translation being provided in this place. I cannot wait for the day when we have the translators in place. If, at long last, as someone who has partial hearing, I could have subtitles on one of those screens, I would be delighted, even if they were in English. If they were in Ulster Scots or Irish, I would try my best. Communication in the Building should reflect the needs of the people working here. I am one of those people. There are many others like me in the Building, and we do not get that option. Some say that they are concerned about the amount that will be spent on translating Irish and Ulster Scots. I am delighted that people speak Irish and Ulster Scots. I just wish that some of the rest of us who have other communication needs were also considered.

Mr Irwin (The Deputy Chairperson of the Audit Committee): The Committee, in undertaking its consideration of the Commission's draft budget plans for 2022-25, was mindful of the statutory functions of the Commission and, in particular, the legal requirement to meet all costs associated with Members. The Committee recognised that those costs cannot be withheld or altered by the Commission, and, as such, are not under its control.

The Commission's draft three-year budget reflects the costs that are likely to be incurred at the start of the new Assembly mandate. The draft budget is based on an assumption of a near-to-normal operating environment. In relation to the Commission's capital budget, the Committee noted that a number of projects were carried forward from 2021 to 2022 because progress was slower than expected. Those projects will now be completed in 2022-23, with the majority of capital expenditure being incurred during that time. Moving forward, the Committee wishes to see tight controls over timetables to minimise the potential of slippage.

During oral evidence sessions with Commission officials on 3 November 2021 and 24 November 2021, the Committee explored a wide range of issues. Given the limited time for this debate, I will concentrate on just a few.

The Committee noted that the draft budget did not include the cost of the Parliament Buildings roof project. Given the commercially sensitive and legal issues involved, the Committee agreed to invite officials to attend its meeting on 24 November to provide an oral update in closed session. However, the Committee was told that no information beyond what was in the written update could be provided, whether in open or closed session. The Committee found the refusal to provide that information unacceptable.

Committee members questioned officials on the cost of the provision of translation services, which would allow any person to conduct their business before the Assembly or a Committee of the Assembly in Irish or Ulster Scots, and the provision of a simultaneous translation system. The Committee was advised that the cost of six interpreters, three each for Irish and Ulster Scots, would be £344,000 per annum. Approximately £43,000 of capital cost was identified.

The Committee expressed serious concerns about the costs associated with the staffing element, which totals £1·032 million for the budget period. When questioned on how the figures were arrived at, the officials gave a vague response and did not in any way explain the basis for having six interpreters. Officials simply stated that the Commission would consider demand for the translation services and review the situation after six months.

In an effort to ease the Committee's concerns, the Commission advised in late December that, to determine the initial level of demand, all MLAs were asked to state whether their intention was to make substantive contributions in Irish or Ulster Scots during Assembly business. The fact that current MLAs' preferences are being used to assess demand in the new mandate does not make sense to the Committee. As such, the Committee remains unconvinced of the need for six interpreters and the £1·032 million that has been earmarked to fund them.

The Commission's budget-setting protocol requires that, when considering the Commission's draft budget, the Committee should have due regard to the advice that is provided by the Department of Finance. Having examined the Commission's draft budget, the Department indicated that it was content to incorporate it into the Executive's draft Budget 2022-25 document. Following scrutiny of the Commission's draft budget and having regard to the Department's advice, the Committee agreed that it was broadly content with the Commission's budget plans, with the exception of the costs that are associated with the staffing to support the implementation of simultaneous interpretation.

The Committee wrote to the Department to ask that its position on the Commission's budget be reflected in the Executive's draft Budget document, which was going out for consultation. The response from the Department was that it would be highly unusual to report the Committee's views on Executive Budget publications, and it noted that it was for the Committee to make its views known, not the Finance Minister. The Committee was deeply disappointed and concerned that its views were not reflected in the Budget consultation document.

The Committee performs a very important scrutiny role on the Commission's budget, and it expects its views to have value and meaning. However, it would appear to members that the Committee's views are acknowledged and taken on board only when no issues are found. In this case, its views were dismissed. In that regard, the Committee finds it particularly worrying that the Department of Finance has not learned the lessons from the past on safeguarding —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Irwin: — and the robust scrutiny of public finances.

Mr Carroll: I will focus on one aspect of the Commission's budget, which is the fact that there is an £500 increase in MLA salaries at a time when the Executive are supporting what are, effectively, pay cuts for workers who earn significantly less than all MLAs. That is not only unfair but totally hypocritical, and it should not be proposed. It is even worse. Just before —

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: No, thanks. You will have plenty of time to speak if you want.

It is even worse. Just before the debate started, I was messaged by somebody who works in a care home, and they told me that a lot of the care home workers they work with have still not received the £500 payment that they were promised. As in the previous debate, I may be in a minority of one, but I state my strong opposition to this, and if I can, for that sole reason, I will endeavour to vote against the Commission's budget.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. As my colleague Robbie Butler noted in his introductory remarks, given recent political developments, it is crucial that the Assembly debates the Commission's budget in a plenary sitting. That is because the resources that are made available to the Commission will be used to provide services to the Assembly and its Members. The provision of all the services that are required to carry out the Assembly's legislative scrutiny and representative functions will remain the Commission's overarching objective as we approach the end of the current Assembly mandate and emerge from the other side of the next Assembly election.

The Commission considers that the budgets for the next three years are reasonable estimates of the financial requirements for those three years in order to deliver the required services to Members. The budgets should enable the Commission to meet the necessary costs that arise each year for staff costs, the Building's running costs, the costs of delivering effective constituency services to our community and the ongoing costs of investing in infrastructure in order to ensure that it continues to meet the Assembly's needs. The budgets also include the costs for the next year, which will arise due to the outcome of the Assembly election.

I will turn to some of the contributions from Members. Joanne reiterated her party's opposition to simultaneous translation. Joanne and her party colleagues will be aware that the Commission is carrying out the mandate that was given to it by the Assembly in its vote last year. The Commission cannot override the decisions of the Assembly on those matters, and it is fulfilling that mandate.

The Commission carried out a survey of Members, though I note that the Audit Committee objected to that. How would we otherwise assess the level of need in any given term? It is a good estimate that, in this mandate, there are a number of Irish speakers. There is no indication yet that anyone will speak in Ulster Scots, but provision will be made for that. It is also worth remembering that there will be a review after six months, including of the costs and the number of interpreters needed. The principle of simultaneous interpretation is not open to review, but the number of interpreters needed and the investment required are.

A number of Members thanked the secretariat staff for their good work over the past year during very difficult times, and I add my voice to that. The investment being made in bringing Members and their staff up to proper working conditions, particularly when someone is off on maternity or paternity leave, has been noted. Those are modern rights that all workers should have.

Kellie thanked the staff and the secretariat. There is the issue of the papers and ensuring that, in future, Members have access to the necessary papers. The investment in the new broadcasting — the Wi-Fi, the screens, etc — will include simultaneous interpretation and sign language. The Commission members have been vocal about that.

Funding for the opposition is an NDNA commitment. An Assembly and Executive Review Committee report has been discussed by the Assembly. Again, the Assembly Commission has been mandated to carry out that work and is doing so.

There was talk about investment in the Bill Office. Quite a significant number of private Member's Bills have gone through this year. I cannot answer on whether there will be further investment in the Bill Office. I ask for that to be brought to officials from the Commission, but we all appreciate and support the work that is done by that office.

William Irwin, speaking on behalf of the Audit Committee, raised the issue of the Parliament Buildings roof. That is an ongoing issue and is discussed at every Commission meeting, but there are now legal matters at play there that we cannot go into any further. I understand that a barrister sits on the Audit Committee. I thought that he might have understood that, but perhaps he was playing politics; I could not possibly comment. Not you, Mr Irwin — the barrister. [Laughter.]

The Committee raised objections to the translation service, but, as I said to Joanne, we are carrying out the mandate of the Assembly and are doing so in a prudent manner. The cost will be reviewed after six months.

Mr Carroll said that he will vote against the motion because of the £500 increase in Assembly Members' wages. The Assembly Commission and, indeed, the Assembly have no say in that matter. Assembly Members' wages are set by an independent panel and rise with the cost of inflation, so, at a set period of inflation at point a, our salary rises by 1%. The Member can certainly vote against the motion, but the £500 increase will go ahead because the Assembly cannot interfere in Assembly Members' wages in any way. It cannot increase them, and it cannot reduce them. I know that, since the return of the Assembly, many Members have either donated their increase to charity or returned it to the block grant. If the Member feels that strongly about it, he could take either of those actions. He is perfectly entitled to vote against the proposal before us, but we have no say in setting our wages, and rightly so.

I will end my remarks by saying that the Commission has considered its requirements for the three years from 2022-23 to 2024-25 in recognition of the fact that a significant element of the budget is non-discretionary as it relates to payments to Members set by the independent financial review panel or through determinations published by the Assembly Commission. The Commission is very grateful to the Audit Committee for its work in scrutinising the budget totals for the next three years.

The Assembly Commission therefore seeks the Assembly's agreement to the budget amounts for resource and capital DEL set out in the motion. I commend those amounts to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Although I could hear Noes from Mr Carroll and the DUP Benches, the Ayes have it. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments before the next item of business.

Mr Speaker: I call Mrs Pam Cameron to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Autism (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list.

There is a single group of four amendments, which deal with the autism strategy and reviewer. We will debate the amendments in that group together. Once the debate on the group is completed, the other amendments will be moved formally without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the single group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 4. I call Justin McNulty to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Speaker: I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Colm Gildernew, to move amendment No 2 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Gildernew: I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill. The Committee has not had an opportunity to consider Mr McNulty's amendments, so there is no Committee position on amendment Nos 1 and 4.

I will outline the reasons for amendment Nos 2 and 3 in the Committee's name. At the Bill's Consideration Stage last week, the Committee proposed an amendment to ensure the independence of the autism reviewer. Following further consideration of the amendment by the Bill Clerk, a potential issue was identified with its drafting. It was advised that two further amendments would be required to tidy up the clause and ensure that it has the intention that the Committee and the Assembly wishes it to. The issue comes down to section 4 of the Autism Act 2011 and the definitions that it contains.

The definitions in that Act outline that "Department" means the Department of Health and that references to NI "departments" means all other Departments, not including the Department of Health. Therefore, the Bill, as drafted, states that the autism reviewer must not be employed by, or subject to, the direction or control of the NI Departments. Due to the definition in the 2011 Act, that would not include the Department of Health. Therefore, the purpose of amendment Nos 2 and 3 is to insert reference to the "Department" in two places in the clause to provide that the autism reviewer cannot be employed by any NI Department or be subject to the direction or control of any NI Department.

I thank the Bill Clerk for identifying the issue and commend the Committee's tabled amendments to the Bill.

Mr McNulty: I support the two Committee amendments. They make perfect sense. I have not moved amendment No 1 and I will not move amendment No 4 as I feel that I need to do further positive work with the sector. I thank the sector for its advice to date.

Ms Bradshaw: I have nothing to add other than to say that I support amendment Nos 2 and 3.

Mr Boylan: I will speak in favour of amendment Nos 2 and 3 and take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Committee as I did not get an opportunity to do so at Consideration Stage. I thank the Committee Chair and the Committee for their work in tabling good amendments to the Bill. Whilst today's amendments are technical, the amendments that it tabled at Consideration Stage have added another layer of accountability, responsibility and support. I thank the Committee for its work.

I thank Mr McNulty for not moving his amendments and appreciate the sentiment behind them. I am sure that it was not the intention of his amendments to exclude anybody.

There were amendments made to clause 2 at Consideration Stage on recreation and physical health. I would like those Members who are returned to the Assembly to recognise that and look at an overall strategy that is inclusive of all people. I support the amendments and the Bill passing its Further Consideration Stage.

Mr Speaker: No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak, so I call Pam Cameron.

Mrs Cameron: It gives me great pleasure to respond, as Bill sponsor, at Further Consideration Stage of the Autism (Amendment) Bill. Bearing in mind the Speaker's advice on what is appropriate for debate in each of the legislative stages, I will spare the House a list of thanks and save it for the Final Stage. I hope that I get some brownie points there, Mr Speaker.

It is, however, appropriate to thank the Member opposite, Justin McNulty, for not moving his amendments. I record my appreciation for his passion on the subject.

Many individuals, parties and organisations have played a part in getting the Bill to Further Consideration Stage. I am proud of the genuine, collaborative nature of the legislation, and I am grateful to Members for the collaborative effort so far. Throughout the process, we have learned that essential, basic services are not being provided to individuals and that the services that are provided are often at the end of a long waiting list, during which time families have little support. That is not the fault of our incredible clinicians and workforce; it is through a lack of funding, adequate resource allocation and planning.

The Bill aims to address waiting lists, the current inequality of service access, the current lack of service provision and the need for training. The autism reviewer will be an essential mechanism to hold Departments to their duty to provide for our autism community. Importantly, the Bill builds on all the foundations of the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and ensures that the approach to autism is truly cross-departmental, multidisciplinary, embedded in best practice and person-centred. It recognises that, although people on the autism spectrum may experience similar difficulties, every individual's experience is unique and requires a person-centred approach.

I am disappointed that, given that the Health Department is the lead Department on the Bill, the Minister of Health is absent from this debate and was absent from the previous debate, despite his commitments to improving autism services. The Department has shown a lack of engagement and drive to take the reins and to fix the situation. That is why the Bill and the autism reviewer are so crucial.

I turn to the remaining two amendments that were outlined by the Committee Chair. I welcome the tidying-up process that we would expect to see at this stage of the legislation process. The amendments ensure that the original Autism Act and the new legislation marry up in their legal language and will safeguard the intention of the Bill, particularly by ensuring that the reviewer role is entirely independent from the Department of Health. I, as Bill sponsor, and my party fully support the Committee amendments. I thank the Speaker and Assembly staff for facilitating the debate at this hour.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member. She can be assured that her brownie points are in the post.

I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Colm Gildernew, to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Gildernew: I will not make extensive remarks either. I am sure that an extra envelope will be going out my way.

I remain deeply impressed by the commitment and the work that have gone into the Bill in the Assembly across parties and Members and with the sector and those who are most impacted. It is a fantastic example of how the Assembly can make a real difference to people's lives. It is what people like and want to see the Assembly doing. I commend everyone's work, including Justin's decision not to move his amendments. That is also an important contribution, and it shows his commitment to working with others on the issues that he is concerned about.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that. I thank all Members.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Autism (Amendment) Bill. The Bill now stands referred to the Speaker.