Official Report: Monday 19 May 2025

Mr Speaker: I inform Members that I will not be in the Chamber tomorrow, as I will be representing the Assembly in London.

Ms Sheerin: I repeat a call that a High Court judge, in the highest court in the land, has already made and that has been reiterated at appeal stage. The same call has been made by the Chief Constable, by various political leaders, by uachtarán Chumann Lúthcleas Gael

, by people of influence from all across Ireland and, most importantly, by Bridie Brown, the widow of Sean Brown, who was cruelly murdered in 1997 as he locked the gates of his beloved Bellaghy Wolfe Tones club.

On Friday evening past, I joined thousands of people to walk behind the Brown family in an act of solidarity from St Mary's Church in Bellaghy to Páirc Seán de Brún. Thousands of Gaels walked behind Bridie and her sons and daughters in solidarity. They are Gaels just like Sean was. They are people who care about their community, the place that they call home, their club and their sport. They know that Sean was targeted because of what he represented. He was an ordinary Irishman who cared about Bellaghy and volunteered for so much of his life at his club.

The message on Friday evening was clear. Speakers from the legacy sector, the president of the GAA, Jarlath Burns, and others called on the British Secretary of State to do something different: to do the right thing. The murder of Sean Brown was traumatic for his family and for the community at the time in 1997, and that trauma has been exacerbated by successive British Governments, who have added to their pain by refusing them truth and justice. It is now time to stop the delay, do the right thing and announce a public inquiry.

Mr Dunne: Saturday marked a very proud and poignant day for Bangor on the Eisenhower pier that overlooks Bangor marina, as a very special naming ceremony and service of dedication took place for Bangor RNLI's new lifeboat, the Ruby Robinson.

That special event was very well attended and coincided with the 60th anniversary of Bangor RNLI, which was established back in 1965. Since then, the station has served with great honour and distinction. The Ruby Robinson becomes only the eighth vessel to continue that proud legacy of saving lives at sea.

The new lifeboat represents the very best in life-saving capability. It is fast, agile and ideally suited to our coastline. It has already proven its worth. In September 2024, it rescued and no doubt saved the life of a missing dinghy sailor. That incident showed the skill, courage and dedication of the crew and the capabilities of the new vessel. It was even called to action twice yesterday, in Ballyholme and Crawfordsburn, and made a real difference on both occasions.

None of that would have been possible without the extraordinary generosity and legacy of the late Dennis Walter Filby from England, who kindly donated money to fund the new vessel. Dennis was a quiet, unassuming man who, for many years, worked on the farm of Ruby Robinson. In an act of generosity, Dennis left the majority of his estate to fund the new lifeboat. That lifeboat is borne of kindness, friendship and selfless giving. It was fitting that members of Mr Filby's family attended the special ceremony in Bangor on Saturday as the vessel was entrusted to the Bangor crew, who continue to answer the call, day or night, in all conditions, 24/7 and 365 days a year, with selfless dedication.

I pay tribute to the volunteers of Bangor RNLI, past and present, who, for six decades, have served our communities and saved lives across our seas and shores, as well as the members of very dedicated team at the neighbouring Donaghadee RNLI station who continue to serve at sea with such dedication. Let us remember Dennis Filby and his kindness and generosity. He was a quiet man whose lasting legacy will now echo across Belfast lough and beyond, saving lives at sea. May the Ruby Robinson and her crew always return safely. May her name be ever linked to courage, compassion and the enduring spirit of public service.

Ms Egan: I rise to remark on two separate, extremely concerning incidents that occurred in North Down over what was a challenging weekend, and to thank the PSNI and the emergency services for their swift and diligent response.

On Saturday night in Millisle, a car collided with pedestrians outside a licensed premises on Main Street, resulting in a number of injuries. That was an irresponsible and cruel incident that was, seemingly, carried out with little regard for life. That incident could have been devastating, and I am relieved that it did not result in a fatality. However, I understand that those who were involved sustained serious injuries, and I wish them all the support that they need to make a full recovery.

Last night, an incident occurred in Bangor that involved the use of firearms on High Street. That has caused great distress to many people across our city. We must be clear: guns have no place on our streets. However, what unfolded last night was an extremely difficult and sensitive situation. I commend the PSNI, which had to balance the safety of the public, the individual involved and its own officers while de-escalating the situation at hand. Officers showed bravery, compassion and professionalism in incredibly intense circumstances. I hope that those who were involved get all the support that they need.

I wish to record my thanks and gratitude to the PSNI for its work in dealing with a number of challenging incidents across North Down over the weekend.

Mr Chambers: I wish to refer particularly to the firearms incident that took place in Bangor last night. I happened to be in the vicinity, in a local petrol station, at the time. I was aware that lots of police were running backwards and forwards, but I was not aware of the situation that was developing. There has been much speculation, particularly on social media but also in the press, as to who did what and when. At this time, speculation is unhelpful. The most important fact, and the bottom line, is that no one was injured. A gentleman is now in the care of the health service. I think that, in another jurisdiction, the outcome of that incident could have been completely different.

I join others in commending the professionalism and courage of all the police officers who were involved in last night's incident. Individual officers shepherded people away to safety, without any thought for their own safety. I am aware that the PSNI is conducting a full and proper investigation into the circumstances of the incident, and I encourage everyone to give the police the space to carry out that investigation.

Mr McGlone: Along with thousands of other Gaels, colleagues and I attended the Walk for Truth to Páirc Seán de Brún in Bellaghy on Friday evening. People from all over Ireland — clubs and counties — marched to call for justice for Bridie and her family and for an inquiry into the callous murder of Sean Brown, an innocent man who was well respected by all in the community. Five High Court judges have found that a public inquiry into Sean Brown's murder is the way forward. The PSNI Chief Constable has supported that. I am aware that, at Government level, discussions about legacy issues and future legislation are ongoing. We, the people who gathered in our thousands on Friday evening, know what the right thing to do is, and we support it. I think that even Hilary Benn knows what the right thing to do is. On Friday evening, those people sent a very clear message to Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, and to the British Government: do the right thing and hold a public inquiry into the callous murder of Sean Brown.

Mr McAleer: I commend the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society for another hugely successful Balmoral show, which was attended by over 100,000 people over four days. It was a fantastic networking event and a fantastic platform to showcase the talent and creativity of our rural communities. I had the opportunity to attend for three days. We had our party stand there; we had an AERA Committee meeting at the show; and the Assembly had a base there as well. It was a wonderful opportunity to engage with farmers. We also had a very good Q&A session with the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster. I commend and thank the staff for helping to facilitate that.

Whilst the mood at the show was vibrant and good — and, importantly, the sun shone — farmers are deeply concerned at proposals that are coming down the track that could have a serious impact on their livelihoods and the wider rural economy. The four days were a really good opportunity for farmers and people who are not farmers to come and speak to us about their concerns. Some of the key issues that were raised with us during the show were the inheritance tax changes that are coming down the track; the review of the nutrients action programme; the spiralling rate of bovine TB; the future of farm support; ammonia; planning; and even the recent trade agreement with the USA, which was mentioned a few times. We must continue to engage and work on those issues with farming organisations and their representatives to help address them where we can, given the huge impact of farm businesses on the vitality of rural communities, on the economy and on underpinning our food security.

Mr Brett: Last week, the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, finally admitted what Members on these Benches and the public at large have known for years: our immigration system, in the United Kingdom, is broken and the rules for entering our country must be tightened up. The proposed changes finally inject some common sense into the rules governing entry to the United Kingdom. They include that all visa applicants will require a certain level of English proficiency; that only those who can contribute to our economy can be considered for entry; and that it should be for Parliament, not courts and unelected judges, to decide who enters the United Kingdom. Those words are welcome but must be followed by concrete actions that are applied equally across the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland cannot be out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom in ensuring that our borders are more secure.

The issues have been felt throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in my constituency of North Belfast. The increased number of houses of multiple occupancy and unvetted males is rightly causing concern to families, children and our public. Just this week, the courts remanded into custody a 35-year-old male asylum seeker who, in the words of the judge, posed:

which

He is charged with indecent exposure to young females in lower north Belfast. Such incidents are becoming all too common.

Tomorrow, the House will debate a motion from this party on the issue. I see Members opposite shaking their heads. Be in no doubt: the public will be watching people's reactions to the debate tomorrow, because people are deeply concerned about the matter. They will not be browbeaten into silence by fake charges of racism or being far-right. People who are concerned about the safety of their family or children are not racist or far-right. It is not controversial to say that the Government should put the interests of those born here first. This party will continue to be a champion for a system that treats people fairly. This party will not be silenced on the issue. Tomorrow, the public will be watching.

Mrs Guy: I stand to speak about the recent announcement of how the £55 million allocated to early years and childcare will be spent this year. I welcome much of the funding announcement. Having spent a great deal of time with providers, parents and bodies from the sector, I know that they want us to work constructively on the issues for families. We have said since the introduction of the childcare subsidy scheme that it needed to be built on. In fact, the very first question that I asked in the Chamber was whether support for families would be expanded to school-age children, so it is positive that the Education Minister has listened to those calls and extended the scheme to include children of primary-school age.

The cost of childcare continues to be a major concern for so many families. While the announcement does not increase the 15% subsidy rate, which needs to happen, it will expand the number of families who can avail themselves of support and will further help those with multiple children. It is also really positive that programmes such as Sure Start will continue to receive some additional funds to help with increasing costs. I have seen at first hand the impact of Sure Start in my constituency of Lagan Valley. I also hope that the committed money for the Pathway fund gets to providers that applied swiftly. Providers have been placed in incredibly difficult circumstances, with some staff having been placed on protected notice. Of course, I welcome the further investment to support preschools that are transitioning to offer full-time hours. That is crucial to early learning and is especially important for children facing educational disadvantage.

The £55 million from the Executive is hugely welcome after decades of underinvestment. However, we still await the much-delayed early learning and childcare strategy, which is crucial to securing long-term transformational change for children and families. The strategy needs to be informed by the huge amount of research that has been done over the years, and it needs to reflect the true experience of families and parents. Parents have concerns about the recent Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) childcare survey. They are not questioning how the survey was carried out; they are concerned about how the information has been presented. On the average monthly costs of childcare per child, the survey results state:

Surely we cannot combine informal forms of childcare with paid childcare, as such data would not reflect the actual cost that parents face. All that families ask for is to be heard and for the actual costs that they face per day of childcare and how that adds up week on week, month on month, to be shown. I hope that clarity will be provided and that the true cost of paid childcare is acknowledged in policymaking.

Mrs Dillon: I will speak about the British Heart Foundation's commentary on 'Good Morning Ulster' this morning on the results that show increasing numbers of people being diagnosed with heart failure, and I am glad that the Minister is in the Chamber to hear this. The increasing number of diagnoses is very concerning. I know that you have a history of heart problems, Minister, so you will be well aware of the matter. We now have the highest number ever, and those are not records that we want to set. I was extremely concerned by the comments made by the young woman, Mary McFarland, who spoke on the radio show. She is in her early 40s with three young children. She was actively having a heart attack but was told by health professionals that she was not and that it was a panic attack.

It is a common experience for all women, but particularly for young women, to be told, when they are having heart failure or a heart attack, that it is an anxiety attack or a panic attack. They are diagnosed with everything but what is actually happening to them. We need some education on that. We need to educate ourselves so that we understand the symptoms, but our health professionals and others around us also need to understand that women have heart failure and heart attacks. More women die from heart and circulatory issues than from all female cancers combined. We need to take on and challenge the issue, and t needs to be taken on as part of a women's health strategy. I am sure that the Minister is well used to listening to me speak about that, but it is important. As I said, we do not want to set records such as this.

Thankfully, Mary was taken to the hospital by a friend. She was taken not by the ambulance or by the health professionals who came out to see her but by a friend, and her life was saved. She had three young children. It could easily have been lights out for Mary and a family member lost. I want people to know that and to educate themselves, and I want to ensure that our health professionals are educated.

I did not intend to make this remark, but I feel that I must, before I sit down. As a woman who has often been afraid, I have never ever been afraid of a transgender woman or a black man. It is white men from here whom I have been afraid of. Do you know why? It is because 30 women have been murdered in the North in the past five years, and all of them, without exception, were murdered by white men from here.

Mrs Erskine: I am concerned about media reports over the weekend that centred on what seems to be fraudulent activity in the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA). Yesterday, the media reported that some drivers had been able to gain a licence through payment, having not sat a driving test, and that, as a result, a police investigation has been launched. Let us think about the realities. Effectively, that means that, right now in Northern Ireland, there are, potentially, people who are driving with a licence without having sat their test. The implications for road safety are huge, yet the Infrastructure Minister, having known that to be the case, has been silent on the matter in the Chamber. The DVA has not come forward either. The Infrastructure Committee was unaware of the matter, despite having recently had a closed session on another issue; we found out about it through the media.

There are far too many questions to be answered by the Infrastructure Minister and the DVA. How long has it been going on? When did the Minister become aware? When did police step in? How many DVA staff or driving instructors or driving schools were involved? Does it centre on one area of Northern Ireland? The list goes on.

I am aware that, in recent weeks, the DVA has sent letters to people revoking their licences. The people to whom those letters were sent may not have been involved in any fraudulent activity but may have been caught up in this farce due to the fact that they sat their test within a certain timescale or with a certain examiner or examiners. That has huge implications for those who have acted in good faith and in accordance with the structure for obtaining a licence — an essential document. While a police investigation is under way, it is important that assurances are given immediately to the Assembly and to the public on how it is being handled. It is yet another sign of dysfunction in the DVA. It must be dealt with, particularly as DVA is undertaking another round of recruitment. Public confidence on the matter must be restored.

Dr Aiken: I would like to speak about two events from the past few weeks. The first is an attack on the place of worship of our small but much-valued Jewish community. The vandalism at Belfast synagogue is another stark example of the insidious antisemitism that permeates the narrative of far too many political parties and, indeed, many so-called peace activists. All MLAs and political representatives of all parties should join me in utterly condemning attacks on our small Jewish community. At some stage, we may also hear commentary from the parties opposite and beside me condemning the scourge of antisemitism, although, for some ideological reason, that appears to be beyond them.

The second event is the attempt by RTÉ, some so-called artists and the usual horde of myopic politicians on this island to ban Israel's entry to the Eurovision song contest. No matter that the Israeli broadcaster, Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation (IPBC) Kan, is heavily criticised by Netanyahu's Government and that the singer, Yuval Raphael, is a survivor of the Nova murder, torture and rape attack by Hamas and other Gaza thugs on 7 October, the antisemitism brigade tried to ban her participation. It is good to see that their racist and sectarian tropes were roundly ignored by the real people of Europe, as they gave Yuval's entry, 'New Day Will Rise', which is a song about peace and hope, the largest people's score, bringing the Israeli entry into second place.

It was also noteworthy, although, unsurprisingly, this was not mentioned by any of the media on these islands, that our nation gave Israel its highest score and that Ireland gave it its second highest score. The real people of Europe have spoken. It is about time that the antisemites did the same.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the UK-EU summit that is taking place in London today. It feels like a lifetime since the breakfast — I am still calling it "breakfast" — the Brexit referendum in 2016 and the UK's withdrawal from the European Union in January 2020. Both moments will be remembered as being among the most damaging acts of economic and social self-harm that any Government have undertaken. As the former vice-chair of the Remain campaign in Northern Ireland, I was proud to campaign alongside people from every background to make the case for EU membership. We won the argument in the North, but we were still dragged out against our will.

What followed the referendum was not an honest reckoning with the consequences of Brexit but a campaign of mistruths and denial from those who championed it. Instead of working to limit the damage, successive Tory Governments, backed by the DUP, pushed for the hardest possible version of Brexit, with no regard for the impact on this island or the Irish Sea.

Last year's general election delivered more than a change of Government: it brought a renewed opportunity to rebuild relations with the EU. For the first time since Brexit, the Chancellor has met EU finance Ministers, and, today, the Prime Minister is meeting EU leaders to chart a path forward. From the early details that we hear, that seems to be a positive move — we are moving in the right direction — but a lot more needs to be done.

I urge those leaders to focus on three priorities. First, we must restore the freedom of movement of our young people. Our economy and society are enriched by the talent, energy and diversity that mobility brings. Limiting it holds back growth and opportunity. Secondly, the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) must be scrapped. It is doing real, measurable harm to tourism in Northern Ireland. The island has a seamless tourism offer. We cannot allow an artificial barrier to damage livelihoods in that key sector. Thirdly, we need closer alignment on emissions trading. With joined-up schemes across these islands and the EU, we can avoid price instability, support our industries and keep household energy bills lower.

People here did not vote for Brexit, and we must never stay silent about the damage that it has done not just to our economy but to the fabric of our society. Today marks a chance to repair some of the damage, but the SDLP remains clear that the only true path to recovery is through a new Ireland that takes us back into the heart of the European Union.

Mr Gaston: Last week, I received a partial response to a freedom of information request asking for all information held by the Executive Office about a meeting between the First Minister and the Chair of the Executive Office Committee. Tellingly, the handwritten notes from that meeting were not disclosed as part of the bundle. The little information that I received was released only after the Information Commissioner issued a formal decision notice against the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

What was disclosed was, frankly, astonishing. Who in the House was aware that the Executive Office operates something called the "media monitoring unit"? That name would not sound out of place in a soviet Ministry. Shockingly, neither would its activities. We do not yet know how many staff it employs or what it costs the taxpayer, but, thanks to my FOI request, we know this: between 7 November and 6 December, the Executive Office had civil servants typing up five full transcripts of interviews featuring me or my staff on 'The Nolan Show', totalling a whopping 63 pages. The transcripts covered contributions from me, my assistant Sammy Morrison and even an expert on freedom of information, Martin Rosenbaum. Let me be clear: those were not policy briefings but media appearances by opposition voices, and they were transcribed at public expense not to assist government work or to keep accurate records but to track political criticism. That is not media monitoring; it is political surveillance.

The TUV is, of course, flattered that we so terrify the Executive Office that our every word must be catalogued and filed away, but how can such an issue arise? Some would call that abuse of public money. How can it be justified to use public resources in that way? If civil servants are being diverted to transcribe radio interviews with opposition politicians, the public is right to ask this question: is that the First Minister and deputy First Minister's real priority? If there is money to burn on typing up 'The Nolan Show', no wonder the public have lost confidence in this place.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you illuminate the House on how Mr Aiken's comments align with Standing Orders, particularly Standing Order 24A(6)(d) on Members' statements? Will you also remind him that to claim that people are antisemitic just because they support the rights of Palestinians is a disgraceful slur against the name of anybody who stands up for Palestinians and does a disservice to the many Jewish people in America and across the world who stand up for Palestine?

Mr Speaker: I listened intently to Dr Aiken's remarks. As I recall, he spoke about the attack on the synagogue and then raised a second issue that was also important. He then reflected that others had refrained from condemning such incidents and said that that was antisemitic. He did not name any Member, so I do not see that any Member should be offended, if they have not done anything in that respect. Mr Aiken did not name anybody. He referred to those who refrained from condemning incidents he regarded as antisemitic. In a political Chamber, that is pretty reasonable comment.

Ms Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that Standing Orders state that Ministers should bring matters of importance to the House before they reach the media and given that the anti-poverty strategy that the Minister for Communities is supposedly introducing was discussed in the media last week, will you look into why we still have not seen a statement from the Minister for Communities about the important and long-awaited anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Speaker: I cannot: we wait for Ministers to ask us for the opportunity to make a statement, and Minister Nesbitt has asked to make a statement this afternoon. Should the Minister for Communities ask to make a statement, we will facilitate that. I note that the Executive approved the strategy last week and said that we would hear more about it in the Assembly, which is the appropriate way to do it. I have not been notified at this point, but I would not be surprised to receive some form of notification that we will discuss that matter in the next 24 hours.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Health that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I thank you, Mr Speaker. When I took up post, the last thing that I was looking for was a fight. I have huge respect for the tens of thousands of wonderful colleagues who deliver excellent healthcare every day in Northern Ireland, including, of course, GPs. In fact, I could argue that a GP saved my life, because it was my doctor, fresh into post, who had the professional curiosity that alerted him to the possibility that I had a heart condition. He sent me for tests, which ended with my being fitted with two stents, a pacemaker and a defibrillator. Please believe me when I say that I have a personal interest in supporting primary care.

That personal interest is matched by a professional one. Members will be well aware of my ambition as Health Minister — the so-called shift left — to focus on prevention and early intervention, switching focus from our acute hospitals to concentrate on primary, community and social care. I am not saying that, as Minister of Health, I am the best friend that GPs could have hoped for, because I am sure that every Minister has cherished primary care, but I hope that they understand that it is a key focus of mine.

That said, I did not come into post to make promises that I could not keep or agree to demands that the budget cannot satisfy. Regrettably, I have been faced with such a demand by the British Medical Association Northern Ireland General Practitioners Committee (GPC) in relation to the GP contract for 2025-26. Believe me, I share its frustration that, year after year, there have been inadequate budgets for health and social care, but I must question the wisdom of tabling unachievable demands at a time when budgetary pressures are at an all-time high. I also have to respectfully wonder what it hopes to achieve by treating an ally of primary care as an adversary. All, of course, is fair in love, war and funding bids, but those tactics make absolutely no sense to me.

By way of background, I will start with an issue from last year's negotiations: the question of indemnity, which has been allowed to become toxic over a number of years. Last year, my Department offered £5 million repurposed from the existing funding baseline as a short-term fix pending agreement on the full and final settlement. When I took up post, GPs were accusing my Department of unilaterally changing the agreement in the letter of offer. My officials were insistent that that was not the case, and, from reviewing the agreement and the letters exchanged at the time, I tend to agree. However, I offered independent arbitration, promising to make good any financial shortfall, should the GPs be right. The GPs did not take up that offer. I still do not understand why not, but the suspicion has to be that they recognised that they were seeking to shift the terms of a deal to which they had previously agreed.

This year, the offer is to put that £5 million back into the pot to use for core services and to provide a new, fresh, additional £5 million for indemnity. That is a good outcome. I recognise that the BMA states that £5 million is not sufficient to cover the full costs of indemnity, but let me explain to Members that the value of the offer on indemnity is based on data on the actual subscription costs paid by GPs in Northern Ireland. The data was provided by the three medical defence organisations that provide the overwhelming majority of cover to GPs here, and it was subject to external expert analysis provided by the Government Actuary's Department. I am content that the offer that my Department has made on indemnity is fair and meets the needs of the service.

As to criticism from GP representatives that the offer is not open to locums, I make no apology for that. My Department contracts with GP practices for the provision of services to the population. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the support we offer be targeted to those practices.

Indeed, in March this year, the Public Accounts Committee questioned whether the Department of Health was incentivising GPs to work as locums, to the detriment of the service. I trust that colleagues from that Committee will therefore be supportive of the approach to fund practices directly for the costs of indemnity. The BMA's GP membership has now rejected that offer.

That was one of three key demands. The second concerned the hike in employers' National Insurance contributions. I take the view that it is deeply unfair to ask GPs to fund those increases, so, despite the deficit position that my Department faces, I had already decided that it would not be fair or reasonable to ask practices to meet the extra costs. That is why we put £3·5 million on the table to cover the full costs. When GPs said that that may not be enough, I promised that, if they could produce evidence for that — receipts that proved that it was not enough — I would make up the shortfall. That is another offer that the BMA has rejected.

The third GP demand was for more money. Let me be clear: I wish that I had far more money to invest in primary care. I wish that I had more money to invest in all the really important areas, but the financial realities of repeated Budget settlements that Members endorsed and approved prevent me from doing that. It is simply not the case, however, that extra investment is not being made or, as I read in a public statement last week, that money is even being cut from primary care. In the 2023-24 financial year, the total investment in general practice across Northern Ireland was £388 million. I have already confirmed that the total investment in GP services this year will be over £414 million and will include pay uplifts from last year and the recently announced investments in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and in the primary care elective service. I expect to make a further increase of £10 million to £20 million, or perhaps of £20 million to £30 million, once the pay review body recommendations are decided on for this year.

We have already offered a further unconditional £1 million, yet the BMA NI GPC told me that it wanted £80 million. On at least two occasions, I asked its chair to give me a one-pager outlining what new services it would offer in return. That never came. The extra £80 million is not being demanded for reform or expansion or, indeed, for measures to improve public access to GP services. It would simply be for more of the same. Given the sheer scale of the pressures facing public services across all Departments, that is not a realistic approach to take. That is therefore the position. Giving GPs another £80 million to do what they are already doing, with a vague promise that they will sit down to discuss the severe access issues, is not an option that I can contemplate when there is already a funding gap of half a billion pounds and more in the Department of Health's budget overall. I have been consistent in stating that I will not sign off on catastrophic cuts in order to reduce that funding gap. For the avoidance of doubt, "catastrophic cuts" are cuts that put lives at risk, such as closing an intensive care unit bed.

To summarise, there is £5 million of new money for indemnity, £3·5 million of new money for employers' National Insurance and £1 million of other new money. That is £9·5 million in total. That £9·5 million was hard to source. The Health budget now has a shortfall of in excess of half a billion pounds. I repeat: the shortfall is north of £500 million. I face the quadruple challenge of tackling waiting lists; mitigating the damage being done to other services from the diversion of £165 million from my existing budget to tackle those waiting lists; funding further reform of healthcare; and balancing the books.

I met the BMA NI GPC on Tuesday 29 April. It was clear that it did not like the offer and was determined to ballot its members. We asked it this direct question, "Will you advise your colleagues on which way to vote?". The GPC was equally direct, saying that it would simply state the facts. "Our members will decide" was its position. Two days later, its chair was publicly urging members:

Over the past 12 months, MLAs from across the House have written to me to highlight the challenges faced in accessing some practices. We still have many exceptional GP practices, but, from the messages that we receive directly from patients, I can see that some people are still having to phone hundreds of times in the hope of securing an appointment to see their GP. That is not sustainable.

My Department's contract proposals included a number of small but significant changes to help improve patients' experience of accessing services.

Some of those things are simple to implement and do not involve any additional cost to practices, such as making sure that practices make some of their appointment slots bookable so that patients do not always have to call back another time when the daily capacity has been reached; making sure that practices make the most of the digital functionality that they already have to make ordering repeat prescriptions easier; and making sure that, when patients walk in to make an appointment, they do not have to buzz their way into the practice and are dealt with appropriately by a member of staff there and then, rather than having to go outside and phone in.

I also wanted GPs to establish patient participation groups to give patients a voice in how they are served by their practices and for practices to undertake patient satisfaction surveys. Some of the proposals had already been included in the previous year's contract, with the only changes being to some of the wording. Yet, instead of agreeing to those, the BMA offered only to join a new working group to consider them. That was not acceptable to me nor would it be acceptable, I suspect, to most Members. Furthermore, I asked the BMA to commit to sharing with its members our latest proposals for addressing the now wholly untenable access issues. Regrettably, they gave no assurance that they would forward that paper.

The time for general open-ended discussions on improving access is over. I think that I am entitled to see concrete proposals from the BMA. The BMA's Northern Ireland General Practitioners Committee has asked to meet me following the ballot result, and I remain 100% committed to dialogue with the BMA and all the other professional groups and trade unions in the health service. My record speaks for itself on that.

I met the General Practitioners Committee's chair earlier today. My permanent secretary is due to meet the BMA tomorrow to jointly discuss how we expand and enhance GP services and how we can shift resources gradually but steadily from hospitals to community-based services. I had to tell the chair that the GP contract on offer for 2025-26 is at the very limit of what I can do. In financial terms, the cupboard is bare, and there is no point in pretending that I can serve up a sumptuous three-course meal. There is nothing to be gained from further contract negotiations, which would only offer false hope that a better offer might be forthcoming; it will not be. We are at the end point for this year.

I have, therefore, taken the decision to go ahead and implement the contract on offer. I do so mindful of the pressures that GPs are facing in relation to National Insurance bills and the longstanding concerns about indemnity cover. I want the funding that I have been able to earmark for those areas to be released and to provide immediate assistance. Further delay will help no one. As always, I will continue to engage closely with the BMA and GPs. My door is always open for genuine engagement and discussions.

I remind Members of the importance of distinguishing between GP contract negotiations and pay negotiations. Pay is a separate process, and I await publication of national pay review recommendations on pay increases this year for GPs, other doctors and the wider health service workforce. I have said that, all things being equal, my intention is to implement the pay increase recommendations as promptly as possible. That will put further pressures on my overall budget, particularly if the proposed increases are well above inflation. The likelihood is that my budget shortfall will grow even further. That is another reason why I cannot go any further on the GP contract this year or, indeed, on the so many other parts of Health and Social Care that are crying out for additional funding.

I will now listen carefully to what Members have to say. I can only hope that no one will turn it into a party political issue. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I am sure that that will be an interesting meeting tomorrow. That is the end of the statement. I am now looking for questions.

Mr McGrath: Minister, today's statement is not just about a failure of negotiation; it reads like the Executive are declaring war on our already overburdened GP sector. In any trade union negotiations, if you publicly detail the content of those negotiations and then impose a settlement that has already been rejected, it follows that there will be retaliation. We shall have to wait and see.

Mr Speaker: Mr McGrath, I just said that I am looking for questions.

Mr McGrath: I am just getting there, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Well, can we get to it?

Mr McGrath: Minister, if you are willing to go to war with our GPs and impose the settlement on them without their approval, has your Department assessed the impact of doing so? Will you take responsibility for the collateral damage that will undoubtedly follow?

Mr Nesbitt: In return, I ask the Member whether he will take responsibility for his language. We are implementing this: we are not imposing it on the GPs. You are using inflammatory language, which is a matter of regret.

I have gone as far as I can go with the financial offer. I have detailed it to you. I am not the first to make it public. The GPs were balloted by the General Practitioners Committee, so they know what the offer was. They know that it was £9·5 million. They know that £5 million of that was for indemnity, that at least £3·5 million was being made available for National Insurance and that another £1 million was being put into the pot. I twice said, "Tell me what you would do for service delivery with an additional £80 million", and I did not get a response, because the answer is that it would only be more of the same. I cannot fund that.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, you began by saying that you were not looking for a fight, but your statement is extremely combative. You are emphatic that you cannot do any more for GPs. However, equally emphatic is the fact that 99·7% of GPs have rejected your contract offer. The BMA talks of GP burnout, early retirements, potential contract hand-backs and recruitment and retention issues. It has mentioned the potential for collective action and reduced service in protest —

Mr Speaker: Is there a "why" or a "what" or anything, Mr McGuigan?

Mr McGuigan: Minister, can you reassure us in this Chamber but, more importantly, patients at home that your approach and the stand-off will not have a detrimental impact on patient access to GPs and, ultimately, patient outcomes?

Mr Nesbitt: I have no alternative to taking this course of action, because the money does not exist. Let Hansard record that the statistic that the Member quoted is the response of those who voted. It seemed to me that the Member was trying to imply that it was 99·7% of all GPs, but that was only the responses of the GPs who voted.

Mrs Dodds: I must say, Minister, that making this type of statement in the House is an interesting way to conduct a negotiation. Minister, do you understand how GPs will view this statement, given that your Department spends well over £0·5 billion per year on the administration of health in Northern Ireland? Do you accept that GPs are entitled to look on £9·5 million as a rather poor settlement?

Mr Nesbitt: I gently remind the Member that, although she says that this is a strange way to conduct a negotiation, the negotiations are over. I am not conducting a negotiation. The negotiations are over.

Mr Donnelly: Our GPs deliver 10 million appointments every year on 5·4% of an £8 billion Health budget. That is significantly below the 8% to 10% in other UK nations. Your stated ambition is to shift left into the primary and community sector. What justification is there for continuing to underfund GP practices in Northern Ireland? Will you commit to a plan to move closer to parity with the rest of the UK?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his questions. I would love, as I said in my remarks, to fund the shift left immediately. By the way, I do not necessarily accept the figure of 5·4%, because all these things are open to debate. How do I justify not increasing the money? I justify it because, to fund that, you would be talking about catastrophic cuts. You would be talking about potentially closing an intensive care unit bed. The Member is a nurse, and he knows how catastrophic those cuts would be. I have spoken to the chair today and said, "Let's talk", and she has agreed that we should talk. What is on my agenda is the longer-term view of how we achieve that shift left, but, at the moment, with a £0·5 billion hole in the budget, I cannot find £80 million for GPs.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, you outlined in your statement — you just said it again — that there could be catastrophic cuts that cost lives. The inability to access a GP and to have fully functioning, sustainable GP services is costing lives and will cost lives into the future. Evidence was given at the Committee last week about the late diagnosis of many palliative care patients. If you cannot access your GP, you will get a late diagnosis, if you get a diagnosis at all. What are you going to do? You said that it is no longer a negotiation, but how does that align with your stated commitment to ongoing dialogue with the BMA and GPs?

Mr Nesbitt: I think that the Member is aware that I am very conscious about access to GPs, and we wanted to make access to GPs a part of the negotiations, which would have led to a bilateral agreement between my Department and the General Practitioners Committee. We were not able to get there. In fact, we refined our asks around access; I think that we made them simple and cost-neutral to GPs. At the last meeting that I had, when they said that they were going to ballot their members, I asked the direct question, "Are you prepared to share our latest proposals on access with your members before they vote?". No such commitment was given. We are not in a good place; I accept that, and I accept that, if you cannot get timely access to the GP, the implications for the service user or patient can be extremely severe. I want to fix that, but I cannot fix it with money.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Minister for his statement. I agree that an open-ended period of negotiation, with little or no prospect of the funding situation changing, would only provide a distraction from the wide-ranging discussions that the Health Department will have with primary care. Does the Minister hope that, through the new access indicators, as well as GPs receiving financial clarity on indemnity and National Insurance, patients will see real benefits from the contract?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. Yes, of course I do. As I said in my remarks, one of our proposals on access issues was pre-bookable slots, so that the people who are making dozens and dozens of calls and are sometimes frustrated to be told that all the bookings for the day are gone might be able to pre-book. I think that that would be of great comfort to many of the people who spend a lot of time on redial.

Mr Robinson: The BMA has said that the £3·5 million made available by the Department for the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions may not be enough to cover the actual cost to GPs. However, the Minister said in his statement that £3·5 million will cover the full cost. Can the Minister provide evidence that it will indeed cover the full cost and, if so, has that evidence been provided to the BMA?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I made the point in my remarks that we based the £3·5 million on figures from the Government Actuary's Department and the three big indemnity insurance companies, so we have a solid evidence base. I am not sure of the extent to which we have disclosed the statistics to the BMA, but what we have done, which is much more important, is that I have given a ministerial guarantee to that committee that, if GP practices can prove that £3·5 million is not enough, which they should be able to prove through receipts, we will make up the shortfall. Therefore, they should not lose out and should not have to fund a single penny of the additional hike in employers' National Insurance contributions.

Miss McAllister: Minister, the statement is nothing short of a disgrace and, at times, a personalised attack on members of the General Practitioners Committee. Our GPs see 200,000 patients a week but constituents need more access. It is the first time, I believe, since devolution that a contract has been imposed on medical staff in Northern Ireland. Is the Minister satisfied with that, and does he think that patients will actually get more access to their GPs?

Mr Nesbitt: I find the Member's language inflammatory and far from helpful. Once again, I say that we are implementing, not imposing, the contract.

Ms Ferguson: It is vital that patients can access their GP when they need them, and ensuring that our GP surgeries are viable and sustainable is a key component of that. Is the Minister convinced that what he is proposing can deliver on that?

Mr Nesbitt: I am convinced that we have dealt with, on a long-term sustainable basis, the toxic issue of indemnity, which has become toxic over a number of years. Absolutely, we have done that. We have covered the hike in employers' National Insurance contributions, whether that is £3·5 million or maybe a little bit more. We have managed to put another £1 million into the core funding envelope. I know that that is well short of what the GPs want. Is it a perfect solution? Of course it is not. As I said in my remarks, I would love to give more money to every core element of health and social care delivery, but the budget is not there to achieve that.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his interesting statement. Access to GPs is an issue that is raised with me daily, particularly by rural patients, who have to travel further. He will know that, in the south-west area, we have a had a collapse of services, and I am concerned that the statement will push further collapse.

My question is on the increased technology that the Minister mentioned. He mentioned pre-bookable slots to ensure that patients are dealt with when they walk into practices. How will that be effectively monitored by his Department in an independent way? Has he seen any improvement to that over time, as money was provided by the previous Minister, Minister Swann, in the previous mandate? We do not know where exactly that money went to improve telephone services.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. The money that Mr Swann put in was to improve access to telephony and IT services, and there are IT solutions to achieve what she has asked about. On her concern that this may lead to the collapse of GP practices, I suggest to her that, if we had decided to withhold the £5 million for indemnity and the £3·5 million for National Insurance and not put in the extra £1 million, that would have put more pressure on GP practices that are struggling with their finances.

Mr Dickson: Minister, thank you for your statement. Given that GP practices that are run by trusts and those that have returned their contracts and have become GP practices that are organised by the trusts have their practice indemnity paid for them, does the Minister not see that there is a clear need to pay the indemnity costs for all other GPs whose practices are not within trust responsibilities?

Mr Nesbitt: If I have understood the Member correctly, he is asking for indemnity for all GP practices. That is exactly what we are providing.

Miss McAllister: All GPs.

Mr Nesbitt: No, GP practices.

Ms McLaughlin: Last year, there were 312 active GP practices. Giving £1 million of new money in funding for all of those practices represents £1,600 each for six months or £3,200 for 12 months. Can the Minister explain exactly what a practice could do with that type of money?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member needs to realise that there is not a limitless pot of money. One million pounds is not fantastic — I accept that — but no money is worse. We have done what we can, avoiding catastrophic cuts elsewhere in health and social care delivery.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, will the GP contract investment attract more GPs in order to stabilise the service? Our constituents want more access to GPs, and we need you to stabilise it. What are you going to do, if we see more GP hand-backs?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. Of course, if you want to make becoming a GP attractive, you will put more into GP practices, but the money does not exist. There is a shortfall of half a billion pounds in the current Health and Social Care budget. We are investing, and we are investing in the GP workforce. I say to the Member that, to help primary care to deliver and to grow, which is what her question was on, you have to train, develop and retain the GP workforce. Despite the number of GPs who are on principal salary retainers having increased by about 9% between 2018 and 2023, that has been offset by changing patterns of workforce. The annual intake to GP training sits at 121, and that is an increase of 86% since the 2015-16 financial year. In less than a decade, it is up to 121.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Minister, I concur with other Members who have spoken about the tone in which you have delivered the statement, and I certainly concur with them about the content of your statement. You have come to the Chamber many times and said that the Department of Health needs more money just to stand still. I do not know how that equates with your lack of sympathy, expressed through your statement today, for the ability of GP practices —

Mr Speaker: Please come to a question, Ms Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: How does what you have said many times in the Chamber about the Department of Health's budget equate to your lack of sympathy for the GPs who are trying to run a service?

Mr Nesbitt: I would just draw the Member's attention to the fact that I began by saying that I believe that I am a friend of the GPs because of my emphasis on the shift left. What I have done is state the facts. If the Member does not like the tone, that is a matter for the Member.

Mr McNulty: Minister, two GP practices in south Armagh are being or are on the cusp of being managed by the trust. With the managing GP having stepped back from Maphoner surgery in Mullaghbawn, locums and the trust are managing that practice. In Rathkeeland House surgery, in Crossmaglen, the managing GPs are scheduled to step back at the end of August. That is 10,000 patients being impacted. Minister, what are the implications of your statement for the possibility of implementing and starting new managing GPs in Maphoner surgery in Mullaghbawn and Rathkeeland surgery in Crossmaglen? How will that impact on my constituents in and around Mullaghbawn and Crossmaglen?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I cannot quantify how many GPs or surgeries are now beginning to contemplate contract hand-back, but I can tell the Member this: if we had not put the additional £9.5 million in, it is likely that even more would be finding themselves thinking in that direction.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, I know that you are aware that there is huge concern amongst our public about access to GP services. In fact, the Public Accounts Committee is conducting an inquiry on the matter, and it is public knowledge that over 12,000 people who are concerned responded to that inquiry. Do you believe that your statement will worsen an already serious crisis and expedite a situation where GPs who had not decided to hand back contracts will, unfortunately, hand them back because a difficult situation has been made worse by a Minister who, it would seem, is not willing to respond to the concerns of GPs and the public on the matter?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his comments. Am I unwilling to respond? If you are talking about giving GPs an extra £80 million for doing more of the same, I am unwilling to respond, because I cannot afford to respond in that way.

Mr Gaston: Minister, numerous concerns have been raised with me regarding access to two surgeries that have been taken over in the past 12 months. What steps can you take to ensure that future contracts will have better patient access requirements built in from the get-go?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I outlined in my opening remarks some of the measures that we were intending to propose to GPs. We will continue to press GPs to address the serious issues with access.

Mr Carroll: Despite your opening comments, Minister, not only have you picked a fight with the BMA but it seems as if you have brought your boxing gloves, head guard and the gumshield. The statement is laden with events and accusations that the BMA may challenge, but I will leave that up to it. You talk a lot about collaboration and working together since you took up post: how does the statement meet that threshold?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I assure him that there was no accusation — no accusation — in my opening remarks. I regret that we have come to this pass, but it is a pass — it is an impasse — because GPs want £80 million that I do not have; in fact, it is questionable whether that would be the best investment across Health and Social Care.

I regret that we are in this position. I emphasise the fact that I have spoken to the chair of that committee today, and we have agreed that we will meet again and discuss a way forward. That is not to say that the negotiations for 2025-26 are still open — they are not — but we need to take a longer-term view for the sake of all the people of this country.

Ms Sugden: Minister, there has been a decades-long failure of your Department to workforce plan in primary care. Demand far outstrips supply, and GPs are under considerable pressures. It is not one or two GP surgeries; it is every surgery across Northern Ireland, which means that it is a systemic issue. How are you increasing capacity in the community, including in dental, pharmacy and audiology services, because there are major problems there and they are coming down the line?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. She made the point that the situation is the outworking of decades of underinvestment, failure and missed opportunities. I have said that I am not going to criticise what has gone before, because it will not improve the outcomes for a single patient or service user. I want to be forward-looking. I have already told you about the 86% increase in GP training places over the past nine years. I made a major announcement last week about pre-registration training right across a range of specialities, and I direct the Member to that statement.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the almost £10 million funding for primary care. Of course, if the Budget had allowed, the reality could have been quite different. Can the Minister give an assurance that rural constituencies, such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone, will benefit from this assurance for the GP settlement? Also, on the improved MDT roll-out in rural constituencies, how can that be accepted by the GP federation?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. On rurality, there will be an equitable distribution of the funds. The £5 million for indemnity and the £3·5 million plus for National Insurance are not for urban or rural areas; they are for all GP practices. The Member will be aware that, recently, the transformation fund promised £61 million to increase the availability of MDTs, but that will only take the teams to 12 of the 17 GP federations. Unfortunately, it will be the end of the decade before we can realistically look at making MDTs available to every GP in all 17 GP federations.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours and 30 minutes for the debate. The Minister will have up to 60 minutes to allocate at his discretion between proposing and making a winding-up speech. A Member from the Opposition will be called first and will have 10 minutes to speak. A representative of the Finance Committee will be called second and will have 10 minutes to speak. All other Members who are called to speak will have seven minutes.

Mr O'Dowd: As you know, I am a man of few words. I do not intend to make a very long introductory statement but, if provoked, I am prepared to use my time at the end.

I previously made a statement to the House on the Budget but I welcome the opportunity to debate it more fully with Members. The agreement of the Budget shows the Executive's determination to work together and do things differently using our limited resources to deliver what matters most. The Budget reflects our Programme for Government (PFG), as we have specifically ring-fenced some £441 million for our shared priorities. While the funding received following the Chancellor's spring statement could not be included in the departmental budget outcomes, the Executive agreed on how the money would be allocated in June monitoring.

Including those indicative June monitoring allocations, the Budget provides Departments with £19·3 billion, which will be spent on running our public services and investing in our infrastructure. Some £16·8 billion of that has been provided for day-to-day services, including £1·2 billion that has been earmarked for specific purposes and £15·6 billion of general allocations that may be spent at the discretion of individual Ministers.

With Health receiving £8·5 billion, Education receiving £3·3 billion and Justice receiving £1·4 billion, those three Departments alone account for some 80% of the available funding for day-to-day spending, providing vital funding for health services, schools, policing and the wider justice system.

The Budget will mean £215 million going towards cutting health waiting lists and supporting investment in elective care. Some £165 million of that is earmarked within the Health budget settlement, with a further £50 million to be provided at June monitoring. In a recent statement to the Assembly, the Health Minister announced a package of initiatives to tackle hospital care backlogs, including a waiting list reimbursement scheme, demonstrating how that funding will make a difference. As the Health Minister said in that statement:

It invests in our children's futures while also helping hard-working families by doubling our investment in the early years and childcare strategy to £50 million, with a commitment to provide a further £5 million in June monitoring. We can already see the positive difference that that uplift in funding will make, with Minister Givan announcing last week that it will help to enable the extension of the childcare subsidy scheme to cover school-age children. It is estimated that the number of children who will benefit from the discount will now increase by 60%, from the current 15,000 to approximately 24,000. Education is further supported with £75 million for the Education Authority (EA) pay and grading review and £15 million additional for special educational needs.

The Budget provides £322·5 million to support our agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development, recognising the importance of that sector to our economy and local farming communities. Some £5 million has been earmarked for investment in Lough Neagh, recognising its importance and the desire to protect it. Some £15 million has been earmarked to build the skills base that our economy needs now and in the future.

Recognising the importance of safe communities, Justice has received earmarked funding of an additional £5 million for that purpose and £16 million for the Executive's programme on tackling paramilitary activity and organised crime. That is on top of the £37·8 million of security funding provided by the Treasury.

The Executive Office has been provided with an additional £2 million towards ending violence against women and girls. It also receives £150 million for historical institutional abuse (HIA) victims and truth recovery.

The Department for Communities receives £47·3 million to fund existing welfare mitigations and £16·9 million to support benefit delivery.

The Budget recognises the need for transformation, with £21·3 million for transformation projects in Health, Justice, Infrastructure and special educational needs, as well as £25·4 million for the Integr8 system, which will support all Departments.

Importantly, in terms of today's spending, excluding earmarked allocations and in-year transfer, the Budget provides every Department with an uplift on its 2024-25 final Budget allocation.

I turn to capital investment. Some £330·6 million has been provided for Executive flagship projects, with a further £102·8 million for Strule Shared Education Campus and £59·9 million for shared and integrated education. Some £100 million has been provided to deliver social housing. In line with that commitment, we are also investing £105·7 million in waste water infrastructure. Some £99 million has been provided for city and growth deals, inclusive futures and complementary fund projects. In line with our commitment to tackling climate change, £12·3 million has been provided for the just transition programme.

Departments have also received £1·6 billion of general capital allocations that will provide investment in our schools, hospitals and road network, supporting the construction industry and our economy. Financial transactions capital (FTC) funding is the catalyst for stimulating private-sector investment in infrastructure and other projects that benefit our region. For the first time, that funding has been oversubscribed, with £58·7 million being made available to support initiatives that include co-ownership and capital grants to businesses. That is a positive development. Members who vote against the Budget will therefore be voting against every single announcement that I have made in the past five minutes and will be doing so in the absence of any alternative proposals.

With increased demands on services and rising costs, significant challenges remain as we strive to deliver the public services that people rightly deserve. The 2025-26 Budget, however, prioritises the funding that we have available to make a real difference for the betterment of people's lives across society. The Budget provides record levels of funding for our public services and helps facilitate the delivery of our Programme for Government priorities, but challenges most certainly remain. Many in the Chamber have opinions on where Ministers should spend money, but fewer say which services Ministers should stop in order to make that happen or where they would like to see changes take place. Simply put, additional funding for one area means less funding for another. Articulating problems is very easy. Working together to address them is what we are elected to do. As Finance Minister, I have worked to build consensus among my Executive colleagues and focused on what we can do together.

I hope that the 2025-26 Budget will be our last single-year Budget, as, in the autumn, I intend to bring forward recommendations for a three-year resource Budget and a four-year capital Budget, reflecting the period that is covered by the comprehensive spending review. A multi-year Budget has the potential to be a game changer and to enable Departments to plan on a longer-term, strategic basis. Work has already started on multi-year Budgets, with the Department of Finance's Budget sustainability team supporting Departments with their five-year budget plans. The benefits will be realised only if the Westminster Government use the spending review as an opportunity to invest in public services. I have made that clear in my meetings with the British Government. I continue to make the case to the Treasury for the Executive to be fairly and properly funded, reflecting our relative need. Professor Holtham's recent work has been crucial in my making that case.

There is no doubt that the financial outlook remains incredibly challenging, particularly given the Government's continued policy of austerity. Behind those millions and billions of pounds are people and families who are hoping and striving for better. Now that all Ministers have their funding envelope, it is incumbent on each of us to manage our budgets efficiently and effectively. All decisions must be taken with the intent to make things better and to make every pound count. I will keep working in partnership with my Executive colleagues and will continue to press the case for better funding for our public services. I commend the Budget to the Assembly.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak in my capacity as leader of the Opposition and as Chair of the Committee for Finance. Yet again, I draw attention to the anomaly whereby I am obliged to divide my time between speaking in those two roles.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Matthew, you have raised the issue previously. You have been told that a Member can speak only once to a motion. That is covered in Standing Orders. If you are unhappy with that, I suggest that you go down that route. I understand the point that you are making, however.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will be pursuing the point, particularly because others in the Chamber make great play of the importance of opposition in other Chambers on this island. I intend to do my job in opposition on this part of the island and to have it properly respected. Anyway, I will move on.

I am giving the views on the Budget on behalf of the Finance Committee. We have carried out important scrutiny in that context. I thank the Minister for tabling the motion, which follows on from the Committee's Budget debate prior to the Easter recess. In the past number of months, the Committee has met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to discuss the Budget process alongside our Scottish and Welsh counterparts. Soon, we will engage informally with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

In the past, the Committee has been critical of the Executive for not explicitly linking Budgets to the PFG. Committee members, however, welcome the development of five-year business plans and, indeed, the indications of moving towards having multi-annual Budgets following the comprehensive spending review. I acknowledge that the Minister made that point today.

We are all aware of the extremely challenging Budget envelope that we have for 2025-26, and the Fiscal Council has noted the considerable general pressures that Departments face, not least through the impact of the autumn statement and the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions.

The Committee looks forward to receiving briefings from the Department this week on the fiscal framework and, we hope, on the report on our relative need from Professor Gerry Holtham. I may say more on that soon. At this point, we are, as I said, still largely dependent on regional rates and reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing when it comes to money that is independent from the Treasury. The Committee also acknowledges the funding provided by financial packages, including New Decade, New Approach and Fresh Start, for shared education and housing and the Executive restoration package. As Members are aware, those financial packages are confirmed separately by the Secretary of State, who sets out the funding and any relevant conditions.

I mentioned the impact of the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. The Treasury has confirmed that the Executive will receive £146 million from Westminster Main Estimates to offset that cost. However, the Committee is aware that that is approximately £60 million short of what is needed for core Departments and does not extend to the wider public sector, such as GPs' and dentists' practices, nor indeed councils and community and voluntary sector organisations that are involved in the provision of public services.

The Budget's uplift of 5% of the regional rate for domestic and 3% for non-domestic properties provides, in total, £732·3 million of funding in 2025-26. The Committee has engaged with officials regarding the levels of unpaid rates. The Committee also welcomes the uplift that was delivered in the restoration package to the Executive's borrowing power through the reinvestment and reform initiative. That additional £20 million in 2024-25 rises with inflation in subsequent years, so its addition gives the Executive the ability to access £225·7 million of borrowing for 2025-26. With Treasury allocations and funds available from June monitoring, the Executive Budget for 2025-26 stands at just shy of £17 billion in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and just under £2·5 billion in capital DEL. We are pleased that FTC bids have, for the first time, exceeded the available allocation, which is £58·7 million. That is a welcome development and something that many of us, from all parties, have called for.

Across resource and capital DEL, £440·6 million has been earmarked for PFG priorities, including £357 million in the Budget 2025-26 outcome and £83 million of indicative June monitoring allocations. Resource DEL allocations include a welcome £250 million to cut health waiting times. Capital DEL allocations include the allocation of £21·3 million of the £47 million that is available from the Executive restoration package. There is still some work to do on the public-sector transformation board (PSTB). The Committee has applied considerable scrutiny to the work of the PSTB and will engage further with the Minister and Secretary of State on that.

Turning to the Department of Finance's own budget, non-ring-fenced DEL for 2025-26 amounts to £240 million and there is capital DEL of £32·1 million. On a number of occasions, the Committee has considered the Executive restoration package cliff edge when the short-term Budget support that is being provided runs out but the 24% Barnett consequential top-up has not had time to build up to a similar level. The Committee particularly looks forward to being briefed by Department of Finance officials this week regarding the fiscal framework and the work of Professor Holtham. It is vital that the Executive's Budget is set at the appropriate level.

Through its membership of the Interparliamentary Finance Committee Forum, the Committee has engaged significantly with its counterparts in Wales and Scotland and will continue to do so. It will also engage with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I look forward to hearing Members' comments and those of the Chairs of other Statutory Committees. We welcome the fact that the debate was brought forward by the Minister.

In the remaining five minutes of my 10 minutes — the Minister having taken 10 minutes of his 60 — I will endeavour to give the view of the official Opposition. This Budget represents drift, inaction and distraction by the Executive. Interestingly, the Minister said contradictory things in his opening remarks. He talked about the tightness of the spending settlement, but, from that lectern a few minutes ago, he also said that Departments have had "record levels of funding". It is true to say that, in the previous financial year, which was the first year back after restoration, the Executive experienced record levels of funding. The question that we are asking today is this: what have they done with it? How clear and specific are the targets set out in this document for the second full-year Budget of our restored Executive? How ambitious and realistic are those plans?

The answer, I am afraid, is this: not at all. There has been consistent drift and inaction from the Minister.

I will pick a few specific areas. There is no plan for investment in water. The Finance Minister and his colleague the Economy Minister made great play of the cost-of-doing-business review in response to the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. Their response, in policy terms, to the research that they commissioned an academic to do was, "Forward it on to London". There is no clear plan from the Finance Minister or his colleagues for electricity investment and infrastructure. Compare that with what his counterpart Eoin Ó Broin and other Sinn Féin TDs were saying, possibly with some merit, in Dáil Éireann, just a few weeks ago, when they called out the absence of strategic investment in water, infrastructure and a range of other priorities south of the border. Who is in charge of those things north of the border? It is Sinn Féin — it is a Sinn Féin Finance Minister and other Sinn Féin Ministers. I accept that we are in a different situation on this side of the border, that we are not yet in a sovereign Irish Government representing the whole island and that the Minister will probably say to me, "Ah, but the choices I have are not the same as a Minister in Dublin has". That is true, but I would expect to see from a republican Finance Minister a little more ambition than simply to say, "London isn't giving us enough money. Therefore we can't take action".

In his statement, the Minister said that he wants to see alternatives. I am glad to say that the Opposition have, today, published a detailed alternative plan — a five-point approach — that is different from that published by the Executive. There are things that the Minister and his colleagues could do to increase investment in Northern Ireland, but they are not doing them. He is not doing it. He is not taking the power to increase infrastructure investment, for example, by a more innovative use of infrastructure financing. He is not taking increased fiscal powers; in fact, I had to press him in the Committee to find out whether there is any plan to increase fiscal devolution. You would not know from what is in the document, because there is no intention to increase our fiscal powers whatever. There is a consistent argument that we are not getting enough money from the British Government — that is, of course, true; I would not disagree with that — but the test of people in power is not what they do to blame others for the limitations on their power. By the way, there is a legitimate and robust argument that the UK Government are not funding this place to need. As an Opposition we have consistently agreed with the Executive on that, but we have also said, "Show us your alternative view. Maximise the powers that you have in terms of fiscal devolution, local revenue raising and a greater use of alternative sources of funding".

From 1919 to 1921, Michael Collins was a republican Minister of Finance who raised money internationally to help pay for the new Irish Republic. I would expect a republican Finance Minister to show a little more initiative than to simply wait for the UK Government to increase allocations; I expect a little more ambition from the Minister. The document does not have the ambition that we need for our public services, and it does not come near the kind of aspiration that we should have for our people. It has no plan for long-term investment in our infrastructure and no plan to take more powers to this place, rather than simply shifting blame to others. It is, I am afraid, a further example of the Executive's drift, inaction and distraction, so the Opposition cannot and will not support it.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): On behalf of the Committee, I confirm our support for the motion to approve the programme of expenditure proposals for 2025-26. The Committee has engaged with officials from the Department on its budgetary allocation for this financial year, most recently at our meeting on Thursday 8 May. Consequently, members have been provided with a picture of the financial landscape for a Department with a remit that touches the lives of so many citizens across the North and employs over 11,500 people — over one third of the NICS headcount. Members remain particularly concerned about the potential impacts on housing, social security, employment support, local government and community development.

The Department for Communities has been allocated a total of £938·1 million in resource DEL, £270 million in capital DEL and £48·1 million in financial transactions capital. The Committee notes that those allocations are set against a backdrop of significant and rising pressures. Crucially, the Department faces a non-ring-fenced resource DEL shortfall of £98·6 million or 12% against its stated requirements. We also note that, while additional funding for Civil Service pay awards and National Insurance contributions is included, that does not fully cover the pressures faced by the Department and its arm's-length bodies (ALBs).

The Committee welcomes the earmarked resource funding, which met departmental requirements in full, including £16·9 million for up to 400 additional benefit delivery staff. However, we also note the Department's advice that that funding is not yet recurrent and that recruiting to those posts will be challenging. The Committee will maintain a keen interest in the recurrent nature of that essential funding and in the high levels of agency staff usage.

During its recent session with officials, the Committee explored several areas of specific impact and concern arising from the budget settlement. The allocation, for instance, of £63 million for new social housing starts will support approximately 1,000 new homes. That is welcome, but it falls significantly short of the 2,000-home target. The Committee supports the Department's intention to bid for further in-year funding.

I now turn to the arts, culture and heritage sectors. Although some additional support for National Museums and Libraries has been indicated, the Department's briefing confirmed unmet bids for further investment across those areas. The Committee has been awaiting a detailed departmental briefing on that pressing issue. Regrettably, it has now been postponed on two separate occasions. We also await briefings on the anti-poverty strategy and languages strategy.

As Chair of the Committee, I recently had the privilege of attending the Equity trade union conference in Derry, at which, for all the recent successes that we have had, the funding threat to our burgeoning film and TV sector was made clear, echoing our feedback from stakeholders that was gathered earlier this year. Culture and the arts have been a significant contributor to so much of what we do. We have all been proud recently of many of the achievements. The Committee will continue to monitor the health of the sector closely.

The voluntary and community sector has also featured prominently in our discussions. An additional £2·8 million to help to address pressures, such as the real living wage and employers' National Insurance contributions, is a positive step. However, the Committee remains attentive to whether that meets the full scale of need and will continue to explore how a coherent and supportive approach can be promoted for all third-sector organisations.

A significant concern for the Committee is the continued absence of a dedicated, ring-fenced budget line for the anti-poverty strategy. We understand that work is ongoing, but the Committee will seek assurances about how statutory obligations to tackle poverty will be resourced and delivered effectively by the Department and in conjunction with stakeholders, such as councils. Furthermore, the Committee will closely monitor the implications of welfare changes emanating from Westminster, particularly those outlined in the recent Green Paper, and will seek clarity on the adequacy of consultation around those changes and of funding for employment support programmes and the status of Barnett consequentials in that critical area.

The Committee for Communities is committed to its role in scrutinising the Department's expenditure and the delivery of its extensive range of services and supports. We will continue to engage constructively with the Department as it navigates those financial challenges and works to deliver for all our communities.

I will now make a few brief remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson for communities and housing. As I have outlined, the budget position for 2025-26 is a challenging one from a Communities perspective. It is fair to describe it as a standstill budget, as it largely reflects the budget position from last year and does not provide much room for new spending. A key concern at this stage is about the shortfall in funding for social housing. Only £63 million was allocated to that, which, as I have said, will allow for only half of the 2,000 target for new social homes to be built.

I urge the Communities Minister to continue to raise with the Department for Work and Pensions the proposed cuts to disability benefits, which will cause untold harm to some of the most vulnerable in our society. What those cuts will mean for people here remains unclear. It is vital that we continue to be able to protect people. The austerity agenda of the Labour Government has been roundly rejected. They should abandon those cruel cuts immediately.

While I acknowledge the reports of the anti-poverty strategy being brought to the Executive last week, I urge the Minister for Communities to engage meaningfully with the sector to address its concerns, including the absence of any ring-fenced budget to support its implementation. After many years of waiting for an anti-poverty strategy, we need to ensure that we have a robust and ambitious plan that will effectively tackle the root causes of poverty and deprivation. It is unclear why the strategy, having been brought to the Executive last week, has not been brought to the Chamber as a statement today. I urge the Minister to make that statement as a matter of urgency so that we can continue to press on that important strategy on behalf of all the people who have been waiting for it for so long.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I will make some remarks on behalf of the Committee and then, with your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, in my personal capacity.

On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for securing the debate on the 2025-26 Budget and for laying the associated Budget documents last week. The Economy Committee received oral evidence on these matters from the then Minister in December 2024. We heard from officials on 5 February 2025 and noted further written departmental submissions on 26 February 2025. We heard from the current Economy Minister on 9 April and have lately received the Department's Estimates memorandum for 2025-26. The Estimates memorandum helpfully provides comparisons for key budget lines, contrasting the closing position for 2024-25 with the proposed opening budgets for this year.

Despite the Executive's agreeing the Budget and a Budget document having been laid, the Department for the Economy is yet to provide the Committee with impact assessments for the allocations for 2025-26. As indicated in my remarks on behalf of the Committee last month, without those, Committee members have found it impossible to determine what the Budget might mean for skills places, apprenticeship numbers, further education (FE) places or, indeed, higher education (HE) places, all of which could impact significantly on our economy.

Some information has been provided on Northern Ireland Civil Service pay pressures and the FE pay deal. As I indicated in April, if FE lecturers accept the pay offer of around 5·5%, which, I understand, they may have done today, there may be a further pressure of around £5 million on the Department's budget. It is not clear at this time how that will be addressed. Previously, the Department advised that it is expected that pressures associated with higher education provision would largely be met by the 2025-26 Budget. However, in subsequent papers, the Department appeared to advise of a baseline cut to higher education, including student support. Some of those have been offset by further allocations that were made in recent weeks, however, at this time, the Committee is still not clear on what the overall impact of that cut will be on higher education places.

The Programme for Government includes a significant commitment to promoting economic development. The skills barometer shows what the skills need will be in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, however, the Committee cannot be absolutely sure at this time that all the promises set out in the PFG will be met by the budget allocation.

I will make a number of remarks as economy spokesperson for my party. The Budget arrived in my pigeonhole only this morning, so I was not able to quite get across its 117 pages. I will, however, remark on the section on the economy.

First, I congratulate the Minister on securing a pay settlement with FE lecturers. In fairness to the Minister, I think that she recognised the important role that they play in our economy and for young people across Northern Ireland. She was determined to get an outcome on that and had the Committee's and my support. I thank her for that. Secondly, the Committee previously raised with the Minister the issue of securing and allocating FTC. She honoured her word by making bids for that, and the Finance Minister has made allocations. I thank the Economy Minister for that.

I want to make some other comments. I have huge concerns about the proposed cuts to higher education in Northern Ireland, particularly to our institutions of Ulster University in Belfast and Coleraine and Queen's University Belfast (QUB). The issue has made its way into the media in recent weeks via a letter sent by the three higher education institutions and two teaching colleges in Northern Ireland that outlined their serious concerns about the current budget. I also received a copy of a letter sent to the Minister by Queen's University, dated 12 May. It sets out clearly the university's concerns about the allocations and the "grave implications" that they have for higher education and capital projects in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Minister's commitment — this is on page 53 of the Budget document — to increase domestic and international air connectivity. However, no details have been set out on how the Executive propose to do that. There is no line on the long-awaited route development fund or, indeed, airport support beyond what has previously been provided.

The Committee will look with interest to ensure that we receive details of how the Minister proposes to allocate her budget, and we will support her in trying to make Northern Ireland continue to grow its economic status.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I thank the Minister of Finance for tabling the motion, giving Committees and, indeed, Members an opportunity to make further comment on the programme of expenditure proposals for 2025-26 prior to the passage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

The Committee for the Executive Office considered written and oral briefings from the Executive Office on its budget in March 2025, and it has received several further written updates. It is due to meet the Department's permanent secretary in the coming weeks to discuss the departmental plan for the next financial year.

Members noted that the Executive's Budget for 2025-26 is challenging. During the briefings, the Committee noted that the Budget allocations to TEO agreed by the Executive are considerably lower than TEO's bids, which means that many of the pressures that the Department feels cannot be met. That remains problematic and will be compounded if there are not the same opportunities as in previous years to access additional, in-year funding through monitoring rounds and consequentials. In the past, TEO has been reliant on in-year allocations to fund and continue key programmes. Members are concerned that the progress that has been made in previous years could be lost if programmes have to be scaled back, delayed or even cancelled because of reduced funding.

Members noted that, when taken with the baseline, resource DEL allocations will enable the current commitments on ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) to be taken forward in line with spending plans and that the funding for good relations will ensure that delivery continues to be maintained at current levels. It is somewhat disappointing that, given the importance of those programmes to communities across Northern Ireland, little room is left for emerging needs or to expand provision.

Members also noted that the funding that is available to non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) only partially meets pay and inflationary pressures over and above the baselines that were brought forward. We remain concerned that continued pressures of that type could impact on NDPBs' ability to discharge their functions fully and effectively.

An allocation of earmarked resource DEL that is below the departmental requirements of £168 million has been provided. That funding is mainly for victims' payments and forecast costs of truth recovery redress payments and of establishing and implementing a statutory public inquiry. The Committee will closely monitor those requirements during the year, and it looks forward to the introduction of the Bill in the coming weeks. Members also noted that capital allocations, including an allocation to meet the financial transactions capital net requirement, will allow inescapable pressures to be met.

The Committee is seeking further information on a number of areas, such as the north-west development fund, and is exploring the good use of public money for accommodation and establishment costs. We will monitor the impact of reduced opportunities for in-year allocations on the delivery of key areas of the Department's work. We welcome the much-trailed anticipated move to multi-year Budgets and the certainty that that will bring to TEO and its delivery partners, the development of TEO's five-year business plan and greater alignment between the Budget and the Programme for Government.

I will make some remarks in my capacity as an individual MLA. There is funding for a number of really important areas of work, albeit in a less-than-optimal allocation. The fact that there is now money is important, and we now need to see action from the Executive. I refer to the long-awaited review of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) programme and the promise that, in the next round of funding, its next iteration will see it aligned with emerging issues in good relations in its broadest sense and in tackling racial tensions.

Linked to that is the, again long-awaited, draft refugee integration strategy. We know that the Executive have signed that off, and we are waiting to see the implementation plan and funding programme. Last summer, the PSNI received £2·8 million in the October monitoring round, for example, to cover the costs of the summer riots. I and my party believe that that money would be better allocated to the Executive Office for its good relations and race relations projects. We would find that a more harmonised society could be produced as a result of that, rather than fissures being widened and wounds being allowed to fester.

In my remarks as Committee Chair, I did not mention that we are looking at the three bodies: the Irish Language Commissioner, the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. We understand that each body will receive approximately £1 million a year for running costs. As a party, we support the establishment of those three bodies, but we recognise that that is a lot of money allocated to them while we see a constriction on the money for front-line grassroots projects. We will keep an eye on that to ensure that the money is spent effectively.

I will move on to victims and survivors, including those impacted on by the Troubles, those who lived through the hell of childhood abuse and those who were so badly treated and forced to live for varying degrees of their lives separated from their children, many of whom never got to meet their adult child or their birth mother. I am talking about the mother-and-baby institutions. We are keen to see the Bill on the inquiry and the redress scheme come forward. I am also pleased to see the Executive Office's commitment to continue funding the specialist support services for them in the Budget. We cannot assume that the passage of time is lessening the psychological impact and the need for those tailored support services, given the circumstances that people lived through.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the final Budget 2025-26.

As I stated at the draft Budget stage, the Committee was, of course, pleased that the Executive agreed to earmark resource DEL of over £300 million for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. However, at the Balmoral show last week, the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) highlighted to the Committee the need for long-term ring-fencing of the agri budget, inflation-proofed, to ensure continuity and planning. We were delighted to have a formal briefing from the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster (YFCU) at the Balmoral show last week, which was followed by an informal Q&A with the YFCU and the AERA Committee, when we were joined by members of our Economy Committee.

I will highlight some of the financial matters raised by the young farmers. We heard of young people's desire to get into and stay in farming, to be nature-friendly farmers and to help improve our environment. They struggle to secure finances, due to high land prices and risks perceived by financial institutions. Financial barriers also limit their ability to invest in modern equipment, technology and sustainable practices. Members heard of the need for additional financial incentives, grants or expert advice to help young farmers navigate the planning process. The proposed changes to agricultural property relief and inheritance tax policies are also causing worry. These changes will lead to the fragmentation of family farms.

On that note, the House should note that, last Friday, the UK Government's Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee called on the Government to delay announcing their final agricultural property relief reforms until October 2026 — they come into effect in April 2027 — which will allow for better formulation of tax policy and protect vulnerable farmers.

On 6 February, DAERA officials provided the Committee with an oral update on the draft Budget 2025-26 proposals. At that time, only £15·7 million resource DEL was allocated, compared with bids of around £50·9 million. On capital DEL, the Committee heard that DAERA had submitted bids to DOF totalling £179·2 million against the proposed allocation of £119·5 million. On 3 April, the Executive agreed the final Budget 2025-26, which confirmed the opening allocations for DAERA as £599·5 million resource DEL; £31·8 million ring-fenced resource DEL, including depreciation; and £119·5 million capital DEL.

At our meeting last week at the Balmoral show, we considered a written briefing from officials. Unfortunately, the only change from the draft Budget 2025-26 allocations was an extra £3·4 million in resource DEL for the pay award from 1 August 2025. The £19 million general allocation will cover some, but not all, of DAERA's statutory obligations that relate to bovine tuberculosis compensation and the contractual pressures on pay and running costs. There is no change from the draft Budget 2025-26 capital DEL allocation of £119·5 million, which is £7·1 million less than DAERA's £126·6 million of inescapable and high-priority bids. We were advised by the Minister that he has agreed to make an opening overcommitment of around £15 million.

There has been a reallocation in the just transition fund for agriculture. The £12·3 million of Executive earmarked capital will now fund three main projects: £5·5 million for bovine genetic improvements; £5·4 million for the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry (SULS) project; and a total of £1·4 million for farming for carbon projects. The Committee is pleased to hear that the Executive have also agreed indicative Executive-earmarked resource DEL allocations to DAERA at the June monitoring round of £1·4 million for employers' National Insurance contributions and £5 million for Lough Neagh, which aligns with the PFG's priority on:

The Committee also recognises that the final Budget position remains an extremely difficult outcome for DAERA. On 5 June, the Committee will discuss with officials the further work required as part of the June monitoring round to determine the extent of the pressures. The Committee remains concerned about the disparity between the resource DEL bids and the allocations for specific statutory functions and projects, as the allocations range from as little as one sixth to around half of what was bid for.

The trajectory of bovine TB remains upwards. Compensation for 2024-25 was projected to be almost £42 million when we reported on the draft Budget, but it now looks to be closer to £50 million for the year 2025-26, and it could be more.

The Committee focused on a number of areas of capital allocation: for example, Farming with Nature has a capital allocation of £4·5 million, and the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) framework has been allocated £4 million. We have continued our programme of external meetings and hearing from stakeholders about the impact of the funding shortfalls.

At our meeting on 8 May, we held an evidence session with officials on the consultation on the proposals for the nutrients action programme (NAP). We heard at the Balmoral show that farmers are committed to playing their part in improving water quality, but the UFU warned that the proposals fail to reflect the complexity of on-farm decision-making and risk undermining environmental progress and farm viability. Both the UFU and the YFCU highlighted the lack of engagement with industry on the new aspects of the NAP. Some members expressed concerns that incentives and support for farmers to play their part in improving the environment were lacking, leading to "no carrot, just stick" approaches.

It remains to be seen whether the Minister will receive significant allocations in future monitoring rounds. The Committee will continue to support the Minister in seeking additional funds as needed. It is expected that the Chancellor's announcement on 11 June of a comprehensive spending review will cover three years of resource spending and four years of capital spending. That should provide for longer funding periods for organisations, but the lack of multi-year budgets was cited by many rural groups as a significant issue.

I turn to some brief remarks on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have less than a minute, Robbie.

Mr Butler: I will wrap it up pretty quickly, if I can.

I highlight the unprecedented pressures that face our agri-food and rural sectors. Whilst the wider Budget implications extend further than our Finance Department, there is no doubt that the most imminent crisis for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is the future viability of farming families in Northern Ireland and, crucially, food security. We have to be clear that Labour's proposed inheritance tax reforms are draconian and that the risk of fragmentation to family farms is very real. Added to that, we have a lack of action to address the spiralling bovine tuberculosis crisis, the blunt approach to the NAP proposals, with no identified support or incentives for farmers, and the cumulative threat of damaging trade deals, be they with the US or the EU or the Mercosur deal. Our farming sector is being squeezed from all sides.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question Time will begin at 2 pm, so I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Philip McGuigan.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Neither my Department nor any of its arm's-length bodies (ALBs) have provided any funding to Kneecap since 2017.

Mr Gaston: I welcome confirmation from the Minister that no money from his Department has been provided to Kneecap, and I trust that that will continue. As the Minister responsible for local government, what is he doing to stop that pro-IRA rap group from turning Belfast City Council-owned Boucher Road playing fields into its personal propaganda stage?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that, although I oversee local government legislation, it is up to individual councils to make such decisions. I hope, however, that councils will take into consideration the good relations issues that have been raised in light of some of the comments made not only by Kneecap but by all those who seek to engage in what is essentially the glorification of terrorism.

Mr Buckley: Does the Minister agree that the UK Government and the Irish Government need to distance themselves fully from the funding of state sponsorship of racism, antisemitism and sectarianism in view of Kneecap? Some Members in the House have suggested that it is mad to complain about such comments from Kneecap: does the Minister further agree that that is quite irresponsible, to say the least?

Mr Lyons: I completely agree with the Member; in fact, it is not only right but our responsibility to call out such behaviour. There will always be things that people do in the arts sphere with which we disagree, but Kneecap's comments went far beyond anything that comes anywhere close to being artistic licence. It was the glorification of terrorism. It was also supporting and calling for violence towards MPs. Not only should there be criticism of that but it is incumbent on us to call it out. I call on the UK Government and the Irish Government to consider their actions in that regard.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister outline how funding decisions for cultural and artistic output balance freedom of expression with public accountability?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that the Arts Council is the primary body responsible for funding the arts in Northern Ireland. It has policies that help it work out where those boundaries and barriers are. For example, it has a good relations policy and an equality policy.

As Minister for the arts, I want to make sure that we do everything that we can to showcase the wide range of artistic talents that we have in Northern Ireland. Let me be clear, however, that that should never come at the expense of standing up for what is right and standing against what were clearly, in those circumstances, the wrong comments.

Mr Carroll: Minister, can you detail whether your Department has given funding through community arts funding to any organisation that has been publicly singing:

Mr Lyons: As the Member will be aware, it is up to the Arts Council to determine funding and everything around that on the basis of its policies. It has its equality and good relations policies, and it is only right that they be fully implemented. Where standards have fallen below what is expected, action should be taken. What I will not do, however, which some are trying to do, is judge the entire bands community by the actions of a few, if they have fallen below expected standards.

Mr O'Toole: No one should trivialise individuals trivialising violence, whether they are artists or not. For the sake of consistency, when the Minister met the Loyalist Communities Council did he explicitly say to it that the trivialisation of violence, including that by loyalist paramilitaries, was wrong?

Mr Lyons: I have been consistent on the matter and have not trivialised it. As part of my discussions, I made it clear that I am looking to the future and that there is no role for violence or the threat of violence in our society. The Member should not need to ask that question, because I have been entirely consistent on the matter. No matter where it comes from, violence and the threat of violence is wrong. That is not only the case now; it always has been. No one should ever seek to justify it.

Mr Lyons: A total of 37 applications were submitted under the Northern Ireland Football Fund’s performance programme from 38 different clubs. One application was made jointly by two clubs, and one application was received from a local council in partnership with a performance club. Applications are being considered, and decisions will be taken in the near future. I hope to announce the first projects to be taken forward under the rolling programme of investment from late summer 2025.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of Dungannon Swifts' recent win in the Irish Cup final, and I hope that he will join me in congratulating them. Dungannon Swifts is testament to the importance of home-grown talent, particularly with respect to Dungannon United Youth, bringing grassroots sport to areas and giving people an opportunity. Will the Minister ensure that funding through his Department inspires the next generation and that grassroots funding will be prioritised?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I am more than happy to congratulate Dungannon Swifts on their incredible victory. The Member has written to me to ask that I host a reception for the club in Parliament Buildings, which I am more than happy to do. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of grassroots sport across Northern Ireland. With regard to football. I look forward to attention being turned to the grassroots element, and I hope to make an announcement on that in due course and help grassroots sport across Northern Ireland.

Mr McNulty: I wrote to the Minister about the fund in March. At that time, he could not tell me the number of applications to the fund or the total value of funding applied for through applications to it. Does he have those figures now? What action will he take to reduce any unmet demand? Does he have any figures that quantify the downstream value of active participation in sport from a grassroots level across the board?

Mr Lyons: The impact of sport in Northern Ireland is almost unquantifiable because the benefits are huge. Across the Departments in Northern Ireland, you will see the impacts, whether they are in Health, Education or, potentially, the justice system, of getting people, especially young people, involved in sport. The grassroots level has a huge impact, which is why I am such a strong supporter of it. I do not have in front of me and nor have I seen the full list of applications, but I reiterate what I said to Mrs Erskine: we have had a total of 37 applications from the performance clubs.

Mr Lyons: My assessment is that, through the £28·9 million that my Department allocated in 2024-25, successful outcomes were delivered, but, if we are to address economic inactivity and see more disabled people thriving in work, we must significantly invest, increase the capacity of the existing provision and implement new provision.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I understand that the paper is with you and your Department on whether the Department will continue funding the employment support scheme? When will the Minister make his decision? If the decision is to cease the funding, how will he ensure that those who require the support will not be adversely impacted?

Mr Lyons: We have a number of employment support schemes, some of which have been dependent on direct finance from the UK Government. I hope to be in a position very soon to come to the House and announce the budget decisions that I have made, but I believe in those programmes, first of all, because I believe in the dignity of work and believe that some people need help to get back into work. That should be provided, because it is good for them and good for society but also because of the economic benefit and return that we get from people being in work. I am absolutely committed to that. It is a significant part of my anti-poverty strategy, which I brought forward last week, and I look forward to that being supported fully.

Mr Kingston: Does the Minister agree that we should help more people with disabilities to get into work? What action will he take to ensure that that happens?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I have met many disabled people who have told me about their desire to get into work but also about the barriers that exist. We have 325,000 people in Northern Ireland who are economically inactive, 122,000 of whom have a disability or a long-term health condition. We need to make sure that supports are in place to help those people. We will bring forward actions in the anti-poverty strategy and the disability and work strategy to make sure that that happens so that we see a real, positive change in people's lives.

Mr Blair: Minister, what actions in the disability and work strategy fall under your Department's direct ownership? How will they be prioritised for implementation?

Mr Lyons: That strategy will come forward shortly. It is important to note first of all that it will be an Executive strategy, because it is not something that my Department deals with alone. A number of barriers hold people back from getting into work, and some of those employment supports can be delivered through my Department. I will continue to do that, and, hopefully, we will be able to ramp it up in a coordinated way through the disability and work strategy.

Mr Lyons: I met representatives from Belfast City Council and Comhaltas on 26 March, when I advised that I am happy to support the fleadh and look forward to working with partner organisations to ensure that it is a successful event.

Mr Delargy: Thanks to the Minister for his short answer. It is great to see the fleadh coming north again. It was in Derry in 2013 and was a fantastically successful event. What is the Department doing to support grassroots organisations such as Comhaltas?

Mr Lyons: Promoting the event will clearly be the responsibility of Belfast City Council, but I have offered any assistance that the Department can give. We are happy to do that and to support organisations across Northern Ireland that want to promote the culture and music of the area. It is so important that the event is coming to Belfast so that we can showcase not just what the city has to offer but, hopefully, various music and cultural traditions from across Northern Ireland.

Mr McGlone: Minister, at the last Communities Question Time, you confirmed to me that you would be happy enough to attend Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in Belfast if you received an invite. Have you received that invite yet?

Mr Lyons: I have not received an invite yet, but I made clear at the meeting with the organisations — Comhaltas and Belfast City Council — that I would be more than happy to support the event next year. However, with it being more than 12 months away, maybe they have not got the invites out just yet.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, can you outline how the fleadh will contribute to the development and delivery of the Department's strategic aims when it comes to arts, culture and shared community spaces?

Mr Lyons: First of all, I hope that it will put the spotlight on Belfast and Northern Ireland and inspire more people to get involved so that they can understand the rich artistic, cultural and musical traditions in Northern Ireland. We will certainly look at actions that we can take to ensure that there is a legacy from the event.

Mr Lyons: I am pleased to confirm that I have asked my officials to develop a programme to provide funding for small-scale renovation and improvement projects for community halls and facilities that deliver benefits to the wider community. I will make a formal announcement on a new programme next month.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, do you agree that it is time for that to be a more permanent, recurring fund year-on-year?

Mr Lyons: The Member is already looking forward to it being regular, and, of course, I am more than happy for that to be the case, because I go out to community organisations across Northern Ireland and the state of facilities is often raised with me. In fact, Joanne Bunting had me out at Bloomfield Community Association just last week, and we discussed that very issue. This will allow us to gather information and data on the vast number of community facilities across Northern Ireland. I will look towards securing a recurring funding pot to support those facilities, many of which act as a fundamental asset in local communities.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: Based on gathered evidence, it is apparent that the existing strategic strategy framework remains appropriate. I have, therefore, decided to retain the existing active ageing strategy, whilst instructing my officials to bring forward a new action plan based on the existing strategy framework.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his answer. There has been extensive commentary about the other social inclusion strategies. Will the Minister ensure that the active ageing strategy is given its proper place and the same prominence?

Mr Lyons: In 'New Decade, New Approach', 14 social inclusion strategies were mentioned, and I am certainly keen that progress is also made on the delivery of active ageing provision. Too often, the older population can be taken for granted, and we saw that with the Labour Government's decision to cut the winter fuel payment. I will continue with the strategy and the subsequent action plans, and I look forward to taking that work forward, at pace, subject, of course, as always, to Executive agreement.

Mr Gildernew: Given the growing number of older people who are facing poverty, will the Minister advise on when he will make a statement to the House on the anti-poverty strategy, which he brought to the Executive last week?

Mr Lyons: I intend to meet, as we previously discussed, the expert panel and other key stakeholders. I intend to do that before the strategy goes out for consultation, but, of course, I will bring it to the House so that Members have the opportunity to question me, and I look forward to that.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I am glad to hear that the active ageing strategy's action plan will be updated, but, as Mr Harvey mentioned, there are other social strategies. Minister, will you provide an update on when you will deliver each of those strategies, as I know that you have a time frame for that? I am particularly interested in the LGBTQIA and the gender strategies. After all, we do not want just the good-looking ones at the front.

Mr Lyons: I want to progress those and to make sure that we make a real difference for people right across Northern Ireland. All those will be considered, and we will look at the actions that can be taken that will actually make a difference. However, of course, all those will be subject to Executive agreement, and, therefore, I am not in control of the time frames.

Mr McGrath: Whilst the Minister is practically a youngster, most of us are getting older and progressing in years, and we know that there will be an increasing number of older people in our communities. Does the Minister agree that some form of formal, official older people's service — akin to what we have with the Youth Service for young people — should be developed so that there are organised activities in every area across Northern Ireland for older people to engage with? Having information about what help is available for them, tackling loneliness and social exclusion and all the other benefits would be of great use to people as they grow older.

Mr Lyons: I am very grateful to the Member for his kind comments. I am always open to looking at ideas that can help to make sure that we deliver for the people whom we are sent here to represent. My only caution around that would be that I do not want to set up another body for administration if we can do those things in other ways. I believe that there are good supports there. The Make the Call service is one example of something that does predominantly help older people in our society. Whether it is through the actions that will be in the anti-poverty strategy, the housing supply strategy or money that I have given for winter fuel payments or for Supporting People, I am committed to delivering for older people in Northern Ireland. I am happy to work with anybody else who will help with that.

Mr Lyons: Environmental health officers have powers to deal with damp and associated mould issues through enforcing the statutory minimum fitness standard for all housing tenures. My Department issued guidance on damp and mould to social housing providers in January 2024. The Housing Executive has developed and is delivering an extensive action plan that will address the wide-ranging issues that contribute to damp and mould in its properties.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. Awaab’s law, which is part of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 in England and Wales, requires social landlords to fix dangerous damp and mould within set timescales and to address all emergency hazards within 24 hours. It will come into effect in October 2025, with His Majesty's Government also consulting on extending it to the private rented sector. Will the Minister be following that course of action?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that important issue. I am looking for the most appropriate way forward on this. One option is the possibility of including some of the provisions in Awaab's law in a change in the decent homes standard. That may be the most appropriate response to that. Of course, we will keep that under review.

Mr Lyons: Construction work on the Inner Walled City public realm project began on 6 January, and works are scheduled to last approximately 18 months. Those works have been progressing well, and my officials continue to meet regularly to ensure that this progress continues with full engagement with all local stakeholders.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his response and I welcome the £1·2 million that his Department has provided to restore the Austins building in the city centre. Minister, will you outline any further plans that you have to restore buildings in Londonderry city centre?

Mr Lyons: I am delighted that we were able to provide that capital grant funding, and we will continue to look for ways in which we can help put buildings to new use. We have many unused buildings throughout our towns and cities and we want to make sure that we are looking at all available options. I hope that that £1·2 million for Austins will be the start and that we will see organisations such as the Inner City Trust work with the Department to make sure that that is delivered.

Mr Durkan: I welcome progress on the Inner Walled City scheme that the original question referred to. Will the Minister consider a regeneration scheme for Foyle Street, adjacent to the city walls, where beleaguered businesses have suffered from the prolonged closure of the street due to works by Northern Ireland Water? The good news is that the street will be reopened to traffic at the end of this week. However, the street still could do with a facelift, and any intervention from the Minister would be welcome.

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to ask officials to look into that to see where that is on any potential schedule or list and to take evidence, if need be, to determine the need in that area. I am certainly happy for that to happen.

Mr Lyons: Victims of domestic abuse are provided with support to access and to maintain social housing. When applying for a social home, victims of domestic violence are awarded primary social needs points in the housing selection scheme. Following my decision to remove intimidation points from the housing selection scheme, all victims of violence, abuse and trauma are now able to access the same categories of points within the scheme for violence or the threat of violence.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he give us any information on the work that his Department or its agencies might be doing with other bodies to ensure that progress is made in ensuring that victims of domestic abuse can be better supported to access social housing and on how the Department is helping to better shape such policies and partnerships?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. We work with a number of organisations to ensure that that is the case. In particular, you will see the outworking of that in the Housing Executive's domestic abuse action plan. I believe that that has resulted in some good work with other organisations, including the PSNI. However, if the Member has any further suggestions on how we should engage or who we should engage with, I am more than happy to hear from him.

Ms Bunting: The Minister mentioned the removal of intimidation points and the impact that that might have on those who find themselves in a domestic abuse situation. Can he outline exactly what the impact might be and how victims of violence and abuse in general, as well as domestic abuse, can be assisted by his proposal to remove intimidation points?

Mr Lyons: First and foremost, this is the levelling of the playing field, and we have seen that already start to work out. Over the weekend, I received a very kind email from a constituent who, as a victim of domestic abuse and domestic violence, had been waiting for a long time and had always seemed to be passed over. She has now received the home that she had been waiting for for a long time. I hope that she is the first of many people who will be helped by this change in policy that will level the playing field. I do not believe that it will solve all the problems by itself, but it is an important start that we can make. I will continue to support, through the Supporting People programme or other actions that my Department or the Housing Executive can take, those who find themselves in that situation.

Mr Lyons: The anti-poverty strategy was presented to the Executive at the end of March and its publication for consultation was agreed at the Executive meeting last week. I look forward to hearing from people during the consultation period so that we can have an effective anti-poverty strategy in place.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The strategy was heavily trailed in the media last week ahead of the Executive meeting, yet, as we stand here today, neither Members nor the sector have seen a copy of that document. Why the delay, and does that speak to a disrespect for those of us in the Chamber?

Mr Lyons: I always said that I would consult those in the group that was involved with the co-design before I publicised the document. That is meant as no disrespect to the House, but those who were involved in the document's co-design deserve to be consulted as well. I assure the House that I am looking forward to the strategy's publication and to the debate so that we can look at the strategy and see what improvements can be made. Ultimately, we have something that is realistic, deliverable and can change people's lives.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Brogan is not in her place so we will move swiftly on to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: As soon as I consult with the groups, I will bring the strategy to the Assembly. Unfortunately, I did not hear the debate that took place today, so I am not sure how useful it was. However, I hope that we will have an opportunity to have a proper conversation on the issues. What we have going out for publication shortly is an anti-poverty strategy that is deliverable and realistic and that, importantly, deals with the root causes of poverty.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, I could be forgiven for asking this question: why did you hold a press conference and, at the same time, say that the strategy was going to consultation? Surely that is pre-empting the consultation to some degree. Most people who contributed to the process will be deeply annoyed by that. Has your Department ring-fenced any budget for the implementation of the strategy, or is it simply going to be like the child poverty strategy and sit on a shelf and do nothing?

Mr Lyons: It is not going to sit on a shelf and do nothing. That is why I wanted to make sure that we publicise something that will be deliverable and make a change. It is going to be very difficult for us to ring-fence a budget for all the measures that are in the anti-poverty strategy because they are all-encompassing. Poverty is not something that we deal with through just one or two simple measures or objectives. There are many different things that we need to do, and that is why it is a cross-departmental strategy involving Health, Education, Justice and Communities. Many of our Departments will have a significant role to play. In fact, so much of what we do — nearly everything that we do — is connected in some way to poverty, so it is not possible for us to simply say, "We're going to ring-fence this funding". For many months, I heard of the importance of consulting with the groups before publication. I needed to get Executive approval for publication first. Now that we have that, I want to make sure that we are consulting. We will certainly have the debate in this place after.

Mr Lyons: The Department is taking many actions to deal with those issues. I do not have the specifics of the investment in North Antrim, but I am happy to provide that information to the Member. It is key that we invest in our towns and cities, seek regeneration and reuse derelict buildings in particular for social and commercial purposes. I hope that when I make those announcements in the coming weeks, you will see the seriousness of my commitment to that.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will you confirm, Minister, whether any additional funding or targeted schemes be made available for small businesses that are looking to revitalise vacant properties in towns such as Ballymena and Ballymoney?

Mr Lyons: We are looking at that, and there has been some success with other schemes, such as the Vacant to Vibrant scheme in Belfast and elsewhere. The return on the investment has been incredible, and that should indicate where I will place resources in the coming years.

Mr Lyons: As I said in my previous answer, I intend to engage with the sector in the coming days before publication.

Mr Sheehan: The Minister will be aware that there is a high degree of scepticism in the anti-poverty sector about whether the strategy is ambitious enough. Will the Minister commit to listening to the sector as part of the public consultation process? Will he invite or has he invited any of the co-design groups to any briefings as part of the process?

Mr Lyons: Of course I will. There is not much point in having a consultation, if you are not prepared to listen to what people say. I am committed to making sure that we hear the different views, and, if groups, individuals or political parties have ideas about what they would like to be included in the strategy, they have the opportunity to say so. Obviously, the Executive parties have already had the opportunity. Others will have the opportunity to do that as well. However, what is important, as other Members have highlighted, is the fact that we need to publish something that is deliverable. There is no point in having a lot of aims and objectives in the strategy, if we are not able to fund and deliver them.

Mr Lyons: I hope it will be in the coming weeks, but I do not have a firm timetable. I hope it will be very soon, because they are important issues and a significant part of the economic inactivity challenges that I highlighted previously. I look forward to making sure that we get the Executive's approval and move forward with those strategies as quickly as possible.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for that. Given the changes in disability benefits that have been imposed by the British Government, we urgently need to see the delivery of both disability strategies. What measures is his Department considering to support disabled people into employment?

Mr Lyons: Those strategies and all the strategies that we talk about will not be fixed in stone. They need to adapt to the times we are living in, and the changes announced by the UK Government highlight how important it is that we are able to respond and help in whatever ways we can. Again, there will be responsibilities for all Departments, but the Department for Communities wants to make sure that it is in a position to help through, for example, employability programmes. I have heard time and time again from disabled people who say that the system works against them and they are not getting help to break down the barriers to work. I want to make sure that we help those people in particular.

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. As I said in my earlier answer, I welcome any opportunity to highlight our rich cultural and musical heritage. I am not familiar with exactly what is going on in the Member's area, but I am familiar with next year's event because I have been briefed by the organisers. Certainly, I welcome any opportunity to highlight those who encompass all the musical traditions in Northern Ireland.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Will the Minister give an update on the heritage, culture and creativity programme?

Mr Lyons: Work is being taken forward. There are still a few changes to be made to it and a little more work to be done, because we want to make sure that it is effective and fit for purpose. It is another strategy that we will bring forward in the coming weeks, and, importantly, it will make a real difference. The arts sector in particular has struggled for funding and support, and I want to make sure that we change that.

Mr Lyons: Last week, the Executive agreed the next stage in the process, which is to take all the work from the expert advisory panels, examine it in Departments and look at what its impact will be on the Irish language and Ulster-Scots language heritage and culture working groups. We will look at that and consider the next steps.

Mr McHugh: How many people are working on the Irish language strategy in your Department? Is that number sufficient?

Mr Lyons: I do not know the exact number of people who are working on that strategy. I believe that it is sufficient, given that we are going out to other Departments for them to analyse and assess the costs and deliverability of some of the recommendations that have been made. The work has been handed over to those Departments, and we look forward to hearing their responses.

Mr Lyons: In response to the Member's first comment, I am pleased that she commends me for the delivery of the strategy [Laughter.]

She is more than welcome to do so.

The important point is that this is not a DFC strategy but a cross-departmental one. The issues that we need to deal with are found in education, health, disability, debt, substance abuse and childcare. It is about fuel poverty, place, housing, advice services and training and employment services. We need everybody to work together on this, and we need to make sure — I cannot emphasise this enough — that the strategy is affordable and deliverable. Nothing turns people off more than strategies that are unachievable and that, they know, will never be achieved. That is what creates so much dissatisfaction and disappointment in politics. Let us make sure that we can put something together and deliver it so that we can make a difference.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mrs Dodds to ask a short supplementary question.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Minister detail the child poverty statistics and explain how the strategy will help us to drive down those figures?

Mr Lyons: In the last year for which figures are available, 25% of children in Northern Ireland were in poverty. In the whole of the UK, that figure was 31%. It is not acceptable that one in four children in Northern Ireland lives in poverty, and I am determined to change that by making sure that, as an Executive, we focus on all the issues that I have outlined. In tackling poverty and child poverty we need to take a whole-system approach. We have identified the issues. We have got the work and got the literature, including all the reviews that have been done of this. We know what the issues are. Hopefully, in the coming week, I will bring forward the three-pillar approach of making sure that we reduce the risk of people falling into poverty, minimise the impacts of it and help people to escape it.

Mr Lyons: I am sorry to hear that, if it is the case. You are aware that it is not a direct responsibility of the Department for Communities. However, after the Adjournment debate in this place, I wrote to the university on that. My officials and I will be willing to help in any way we can to ensure that the arts can continue to develop. I am more than happy to discuss the issue with the Member.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that response. Does that include potentially looking at having a new facility on the Causeway coast? Obviously, that would have to come with capital funding.

Mr Lyons: I need to be very careful in my response to the Member. She will be aware of the budgetary situation in which we find ourselves. We are, of course, happy to explore all options. If we are unable to provide funding ourselves, we may be able to signpost her in the right direction.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, that completes the 15 minutes of topical questions to the Minister for Communities. I ask Members to take their ease before questions to the Minister of Finance start at 2.45 pm.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, we move on to questions to the Minister of Finance. We will start with listed questions. Questions 2 and 15 have been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

, I will answer questions 1 and 12 together.

The spending review is an opportunity to invest in public services and support a shared ambition for economic growth. With my devolved Government counterparts, I discussed the upcoming spending review with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (CST) at the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee on 27 February. I then wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 10 April on a range of Executive-specific issues to be considered in advance of the spending review that is due to be announced on 11 June. A joint letter from the devolved Finance Ministers to the CST was issued on the same day and covered a number of common issues. Together with my counterparts in Wales and Scotland, I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 April to discuss the issue that was raised in our joint letter. Following that, a joint letter to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was issued on 9 May, which pressed for a further Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee meeting and bilateral meetings in advance of the spending review.

Mr Brooks: Today of all days, the Minister will be well aware of the needs and asks from around the Chamber and from Departments. In recent weeks, I have engaged with local police, who, it is clear, are stretched, and we are all aware of the pressure on our housing stock. Today, however, particularly in advance of the ministerial visit next week to Dundonald High School that I asked for, what is the Minister doing to impress upon Whitehall the crisis in our school estate, with maintenance backlogs amounting to £450 million?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that my predecessor commissioned Professor Gerry Holtham to carry out work to identify the true need of spend in this region. That work has been completed, and I can confirm to the House that I have issued that report to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and copied in the Secretary of State. That report looks at our devolved institutions and our spend in great detail. It looks at education and other areas to see the difference in the spend that is required here compared with elsewhere. I assure the Member that I have continued to press the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State on the need for this place to be fairly and properly funded to allow us to deliver education, policing or whatever it might be and ensure that the services that we deliver are in modern, fit for purpose buildings, such new schools.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Minister, will you give us an overview of the other Executive-specific issues that you raised with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, please?

Mr O'Dowd: There is an ever-growing list of issues that we are raising with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope that the spending review will resolve some of them. I expect that it will not resolve others, so those discussions will have to continue. However, as I have noted, those issues include our funding at need and the potential cliff edge; agriculture support funds; access to Treasury reserves; Housing Executive borrowing; local growth and renewal funds, the UK Internal Market Act, specifically in relation to financial assistance powers; the redevelopment of Casement Park; the cost of doing business; tax-free childcare; inheritance tax; fraud and error benefit; employers' National Insurance contributions; the mother-and-baby homes redress scheme; and transformation. As I said, some of those matters may be addressed in the comprehensive spending review. How satisfactorily they are addressed remains to be seen, but I suspect that I will have to continue to engage with the Treasury on other models.

Dr Aiken: Minister, my question is about when you are dealing with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Is there any indication that we will relook at how debt is classified and whether there will be changes in how we look at the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) and our ability to tap into that, particularly for things such as infrastructure spending?

Mr O'Dowd: There has been no direct comment from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, though I am aware that Rachel Reeves has commented on that over a period of time. It will be interesting to see whether the comprehensive spending review will be used to see how we classify debt. Will it help alleviate some of the pressures on Departments when repaying — obviously, any borrowing has to be repaid — and will it open up opportunities for investment in infrastructure in the future? I await to see what the comprehensive spending review says on the matter.

Mr O'Dowd: I am keen to see the baby loss certificate scheme progress urgently to give bereaved families formal recognition of their loss. I want all parents and families who have suffered the devastating loss of a baby to feel that their grief is recognised. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which will provide a power to make regulations to form a scheme, is at Committee Stage. While I acknowledge the importance of due process for scrutiny, I hope that that stage will progress as quickly as possible.

My officials and colleagues from the Department of Health are working closely together to progress arrangements to consult with stakeholders on the detail of the scheme. I have already met Sands about that, and I have engagements with other key stakeholders in my calendar. I intend to launch a public consultation before the summer to ensure that everyone here can provide their views to help us shape the scheme so that it meets the needs and expectations of those who have experienced the loss of a baby. Once that process is complete, my officials will draft the required secondary legislation and operationalise the scheme. If those matters progress smoothly, I anticipate that the scheme will be operational by the end of the year.

Miss Dolan: I thank the Minister. Once the scheme is in operation, will there be a charge for a baby loss certificate?

Mr O'Dowd: It is not my intention to charge for the baby loss certificate, or place unnecessary barriers in the way of anyone who seeks a certificate.

Mr Carroll: As part of their work on the Bill, have the Minister's officials looked at addressing the anomaly that is affecting some of my constituents who are unmarried same-sex couples who live in the North but went through IVF treatment in the South. My understanding is that, as things stand, the non-birth mother will not be named on the birth certificate. That seems to be an equality and rights gap. Has the Department looked at that?

Mr O'Dowd: It is not an issue that immediately jumps to mind as one that has been raised with me by officials. It is a matter that I will take under further consideration, and I have no doubt that the Member will raise it in the Committee's considerations. As I said in response to the previous question, we do not want to place barriers in the way of people. We want to make sure that it is a compassionate scheme that captures everyone, and which allows those who wish to obtain a certificate to do so.

Mr O'Dowd: It is for the Department of Infrastructure to determine NI Water's funding within the budget envelope that the Executive agreed for the Department. My intention is that 2025-26 will be the last single-year Executive Budget. The multi-year spending review, which will be announced by the Chancellor in June, will set resource budgets for three years and capital budgets for four years, with a commitment to hold a spending review every two years. That will provide a basis to build our longer-term trajectory for departmental spending. I will make recommendations to the Executive on a multi-year Budget to align with the spending review period. That will involve looking at the entirety of the public spending profile and considering that in the context of the priorities in the Programme for Government.

Multi-year Budgets will not solve the issues that the Executive face, but they will allow a more strategic and long-term roadmap to be set out. That will help Departments and stakeholders to plan accordingly. The Executive's Programme for Government, along with the investment strategy (ISNI), which I hope will be finalised soon, are indicative of the Executive's aim to plan on a longer-term and more strategic basis.

Mr O'Toole: The capital departmental expenditure limit (CDEL) settlement for the Budget that we are debating today increases capital investment in water infrastructure by just between 1% and 2%, I think. Last week, in Dáil Éireann, the Minister's colleague Eoin Ó Broin moved a motion that Dáil Éireann:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question.

Mr O'Toole: —

When will the Minister set out a plan along those lines for north of the border?

Mr O'Dowd: I am delighted that the Member is taking more of an interest in Southern politics. I suspect that his party is moving beyond its partitionist approach; it is good to see it. If I had a €12 billion surplus — I think that is how much it is — in my Budget, I would expect the Member to stand in the Chamber and call on me to do exactly what my colleague did in Leinster House last week. I do not have a €12 billion surplus in my Budget. As I said in my response, the Executive have now published their Programme for Government. The Assembly is voting on the Budget today. We hope to have the ISNI published soon. In the autumn, I will bring to the Executive a three-year Budget and a four-year capital Budget, which will be an opportunity for us to plan our infrastructure across a whole range of areas.

Mr Boylan: How much funding did DFI get in 2025-26?

Mr O'Dowd: DFI's resource budget outcome of £638·2 million for 2025-26 is an increase of £78·7 million — a 14% increase — from its opening 2024-25 resource budget. That allocation should enable the Department to meet its highest priority measures and essential services. The Department's 2025-26 capital outcome is £917 million, representing some 37·5% of the total capital allocated to Departments. That reflects the important role that infrastructure has in our society. The capital budget outcome will enable some key schemes to progress, including the A5, the A1 and essential investment in water and waste water treatment works.

Mr Donnelly: Has the Minister had a discussion with the Infrastructure Minister about a new funding model for Northern Ireland Water?

Mr O'Dowd: I have had no discussions with the Infrastructure Minister about a new funding model for NI Water, but I am conscious that she has responded to a number of debates and questions about that matter in the Assembly.

Mr O'Dowd: I have written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury directly and jointly with my counterparts in Scotland and Wales about EU replacement funding beyond 2025. The issue has been a central point of discussion in my meetings with the Treasury. I have also written to other British Government Ministers about the matter and discussed it with them and have sent the agreed Executive position paper on successor funding to the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner. The Shared Prosperity Fund, which is the successor to the European social fund and European regional development fund, will be delivered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in 2025-26. That is intended to be a transition year to provide time for a successor programme to be developed. It is unlikely that we will have clarity on funding post 2026 before the spending review in June. Clearly, the longer that we are left without clarity, the more difficult that it will be to deliver an effective spending programme. That is an unacceptable position. My officials are working closely and collaboratively with other Departments and the community and voluntary sector to gather evidence in order to inform the development of any potential successor funding. That will help us to move as quickly and effectively as possible, once we have the required clarity from Whitehall.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Will you give us an assessment of the impact of the transitional arrangement on the community and voluntary sector? Have you had any engagement with the community and voluntary sector to ascertain how it can overcome the barriers that it will face during the transitional period?

Mr O'Dowd: I met representatives of the community and voluntary sector a number of weeks ago on that very matter and discussed the challenges that the sector faces. The situation is far from ideal. We require clarity. It seems as though that is a standard answer to every question, but I do not expect any clarity from any Department in Whitehall ahead of the spending review. The Treasury has almost gone into lockdown in terms of its deliberations and what it is doing. Departments in Whitehall are waiting on decisions from the Treasury. None of those decisions will be announced ahead of 11 June. I hope that clarity will be brought to that matter and a whole lot of others on 11 June, and that we will then be able to give certainty to the local community and voluntary sector on the way forward. I hope that the funding envelope will be satisfactory and will enable the community and voluntary sector to carry out the important work that it does here.

Mr Kearney: Minister, the loss of European funding is probably one of the most extreme demonstrations of the legacy of the Brexit arrangements that were imposed on us.

What are the requirements on the British Government to meaningfully engage with the issue with a view to ensuring that the funding pressures that have been created are alleviated?

Mr O'Dowd: It is imperative that the British Government properly engage on the matter. The Executive have given them a paper on what, we believe, the way forward should be. That is an agreed position around the Executive table. As I said, I have raised the matter with Treasury, directly with the Minister for Housing and Planning and with the Deputy Prime Minister, reflecting the importance that I place on the matter. I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of engagement that I have had back on the matter and hope that the Government will live up to the commitment in their manifesto to devolve the powers back to devolved institutions such as ours. I also hope that they properly fund the schemes, moving forward. We saw the previous Government put in place a scheme that was significantly underfunded compared with what the European Union had provided.

Mr McNulty: What work has been done to identify charities from which the Executive commission services that may suffer an impact from the loss of EU funding? How might that jeopardise commissioned services? What steps are being taken to mitigate that impact?

Mr O'Dowd: It is up to each Department to do an audit of the services that it brings in from the community and voluntary sector and of how they might be impacted on by the loss of the funding. However, I emphasise that I am not suggesting that we will lose the funding; we do not have clarity at the moment, ahead of the spending review. The quicker that clarity and the funding come forward, the sooner Departments and the community and voluntary sector will be able to sit down together to work out a programme for the remaining period.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department is assessing its entire accommodation requirement as part of the Civil Service estate. The implementation of the Civil Service hybrid working policy in 2021 has significantly changed how the Civil Service uses its estate and has provided opportunities to progress a leaner, greener, modern estate suited to the needs of the Civil Service in delivering today’s public services. It is important that we have a modern, fit-for-purpose and right-sized office estate that is a welcoming environment for people to work collaboratively.

The first stage in the strategy aims to reduce our in-scope footprint by 40% by 2028 through consolidating the office estate and divesting ourselves of surplus properties. County Hall, Coleraine, was not included in the first-stage plans. I have, however, been advised that the building is underoccupied, and a review of the Civil Service’s accommodation needs in the area will be undertaken over the next 18 months. My officials are consulting the Departments that occupy that building to collect information and get a better understanding of their accommodation needs. Following that, we will engage further with Departments to consider how best to address their current and future requirements. Consultation with trade union representatives will, of course, be carried out as that work progresses.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer, which was pretty clear and concise. The County Hall is a large building that is capable of accommodating 600 to 700 people. Currently, there are fewer than 200 people in it. It stands on the edge of Coleraine town centre. It is a landmark building that could be utilised better. I look forward to the Minister coming back to the House to give us an answer on how it will be utilised in the future.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not wish to pre-empt the review that I mentioned in my answer, which will take place over the next 18 months. Once that review is complete, I will ensure that the Member receives confirmation of the plans.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, will you outline what your Department has done to improve regional balance?

Mr O'Dowd: One of the, perhaps, unintended consequences of the new policy on allowing staff to work from home or from different locations has been ensuring that more regional balance has been facilitated, as staff work closer to home or from home, meaning that spending and investment take place closer to home than they did previously. Six Connect2 hubs were opened in August 2022, allowing staff to work remotely at six regional locations — Ballykelly, Ballymena, Bangor, Craigavon, Downpatrick and Omagh — as an occasional alternative to working from home or in their designated office. We continue to work through the location of our buildings to make sure that they are best placed for their best use. As I said to Mr Bradley, we are reviewing the current estate to make sure that it is cleaner and greener and meets the needs of the workforce in the delivery of public services for the modern era. As part of that, I want to ensure that regional balance is taken into account.

Mr O'Dowd: The independent report by the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre published by my Department on 6 May provides an important evidence base to highlight the detrimental impact that decisions that are taken in Westminster are having on our business, community and voluntary sectors, as well as our public finances. The report sets out that there are many factors that make up the cost of doing business, including the costs of labour, energy, property and transport. However, one of the main areas of concern highlighted by employers across sectors has been the impact of the changes in employers' National Insurance contributions that came into effect in April. I have shared a copy of the report with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and, when we met on 24 April, impressed on him the need for support or mitigations to be put in place to ease the strains of the impacts of the National Insurance contribution changes. I also highlighted the disparity in VAT and the negative implications for businesses, especially hospitality businesses, that operate near the border. I want to see a reduction in VAT to enable our hospitality sector to compete on a level playing field in the all-island economy. I have urged the Chief Secretary to take urgent action to address those issues in the June spending review.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Given that, so far, the sole action off the back of the that report on the cost of doing business appears to have been to forward it to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is there anything in the document that the Treasury did not already know?

Mr O'Dowd: The report is important academic research to show to the Treasury, because it shows the differences between here and the other regions that the Treasury has responsibility for and highlights once again the fact that, when they make decisions in Whitehall about this place, they need either to take into account the implications for this place or to allow us to make those decisions. That is first and foremost. To the suggestion that, as the only action, "All they have done is post it off to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury", I say that the decisions were made in Whitehall, so the implications are required to be highlighted there.

I have shared the report with my Executive colleagues so that, in any engagement or other direct dealings that they have with businesses in their policy areas, they can understand the challenges that those businesses face. It is worth noting that, through our rate relief schemes, we already offer business a quarter of a million pounds in rate relief annually. The Executive are playing their part in this regard.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I call the next Member to ask a supplementary question, I remind Members that they must not walk or stand between a Member asking a question and the Minister who is answering it. That includes mid-question private conversations on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr Brett: Minister, when you were at the Committee a few weeks ago, I raised how the report highlights the impact of the Windsor framework and the continual displacement of Northern Ireland within the UK internal market and the economic impact of that. Will the Minister ensure that the Executive make a collective appeal to the UK Government to fully restore Northern Ireland's place in the internal UK market?

Mr O'Dowd: Those who thought that Brexit was a good idea eight years ago — nine years ago now — should have had long enough to reflect that it was not such a good idea. I have not seen the detail of the agreement between the British Government and the EU this morning, but perhaps in it is further easement of the barriers that were put in place by the decision of eight years ago. I do not want to see barriers and borders for business; I want to see a free flow of business across this island, across these islands and beyond. That is a good way of doing business. Let us see the implications of this morning's deal between the British Government and the EU and what our next move should be.

Mr O'Dowd: The deadline for departmental June monitoring returns is Thursday 5 June 2025, with Executive consideration expected by mid-to-late June. The Barnett consequentials confirmed in the Chancellor's spring statement, combined with confirmed Barnett consequentials in respect of employers' National Insurance contributions, have resulted in £158·5 million resource DEL and £2·4 million capital DEL being available in June monitoring. The Executive agreed how that funding would be allocated as part of the Budget, and the allocations have been presented in the final Budget 2025-26 as indicative June monitoring allocations. That includes allocations to support Programme for Government priorities including childcare, waiting lists, special educational needs, making communities safer and Lough Neagh. It also includes general allocations to help Departments address the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he provide any more detail on how far the June monitoring allocations will go to alleviate the pressures that he referenced from employers' National Insurance contributions in the public sector?

Mr O'Dowd: The Executive decided to use the allocations of around £146 million that came from Barnett consequentials in relation to National Insurance contributions more strategically than simply salami-slicing them and handing them out to Departments. For instance, the £50 million that went to Health to add up to the £215 million to tackle waiting lists and for elective care centres is attributable to that funding. Funding for Lough Neagh and for skills etc is attributable to it. Departments then received an allocation beyond that. How Departments use that allocation is a matter for them. They are best placed to report on how they used it and how it helped to alleviate National Insurance contributions pressures. I am not suggesting that the funding available will support Departments in full, but the decisions are theirs.

Mrs Mason: Minister, in your previous answer, you talked about much-needed funds for childcare. How much funding will be allocated to childcare in June monitoring?

Mr O'Dowd: Between June monitoring and the Budget this year, we will increase our childcare and early years strategy funding to £50 million, doubling it from last year. That is a significant strategic move and investment by the Executive. We have also committed to ensuring that £5 million will go on top of that as part of the June monitoring round, which means that the Executive have allocated a total of £55 million towards the early years strategy and childcare this year.

Mr O'Dowd: The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer and is committed to building a diverse and inclusive Civil Service that reflects the society that we serve. Learning and development for the Civil Service is provided through various sources, including external groups identified as subject matter experts and corporate memberships aligned to section 75 groups. It is appropriate to adopt an approach that ensures that learning and development resources for the Civil Service include subject matter expertise and/or lived experience insight. Each public body has its own arrangements for training provision to address the learning needs of its organisation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Miss McIlveen for a quick supplementary.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. The Civil Service and some other public bodies have been members of the Stonewall diversity champions programme since July 2018 run by the lobby group Stonewall, providing access to training and resources. While the annual spend of £2,575 is small, the impact can be huge. Given that Stonewall's stated position that a man who has transitioned is a woman —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Be quick.

Miss McIlveen: — has been rejected by the Supreme Court as wrong in law, will the Minister recognise the conflict that arises in that situation and ensure that the Civil Service and other public bodies withdraw from that programme?

Mr O'Dowd: As quickly as possible, Minister, please.

Mr O'Dowd: As I said in my answer, it is vital that, when we provide training to our Civil Service colleagues, people with lived experience also provide that training. Stonewall and all other organisations will be treated the same way when it comes to bidding for funding etc. I will not discriminate against any group. We run an inclusive Civil Service, and it will remain that way.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Questions 4 and 7 have been withdrawn.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you labelled me "partitionist" earlier. In the spirit of robust debate in the Chamber, you are fully entitled to do so, but I am not the one who pursues one policy on one side of the border and another policy north of the border. You mentioned the Irish Government's €13 billion surplus. That is correct. Would it not be great if we were one state and able to spend that money? Until that date, what are you, specifically as Finance Minister, doing to take more power so that the UK Government and Treasury cannot have this baleful power over how we spend money. You are very good at explaining the limitations to the Treasury —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): A question, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: I will get there, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, you are not so good at saying to the House which fiscal powers you will take —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, will you close your question and resume your seat?

Mr O'Dowd: I thought that I had welcomed the fact that you were moving beyond partitionism. If I did not say that, that is what I meant to say.

You and I have this repetitive conversation every time we meet in the Chamber. I place this on the record so that it is clear: my focus is on getting the Department of Finance and the Executive through the spending review. It is the most significant fiscal event for, perhaps, five or 10 years. It is only right and proper that I use my energies and time in this period to steer us through the spending review. When I get us through it, I intend to look at fiscal devolution and at what powers should be devolved at each stage of that journey, because I believe that it will be a journey. It will not be like the Big Bang theory. It will be a journey. Let us get through the spending review, and then you and I, I am sure, will have many debates in the Chamber on, among other issues, the next phase of fiscal transition and the maturing of this institution in relation to its tax powers.

Mr O'Toole: 'The Big Bang Theory' is also a sitcom. A lot of comedy happens in the Chamber, but I want to see some serious business too. You keep saying, "Mañana, mañana" or "After the spending review". The most recent Budget, which we are debating today, offers a capital settlement of £335 million for waste water. That is barely a 2% increase. Will we see a long-term plan to increase investment in waste water this year?

Mr O'Dowd: That question is best posed to the Infrastructure Minister. All Ministers will bring forward five-year sustainability plans, as the Member will be aware, and we have the three-year spending plan and four-year capital budgets. Your question is best posed to the Minister for Infrastructure. All Ministers will have to look at their forward spending programme, because I want to see the three-year Budget as a transformational Budget, rather than being a case of simply dividing the Budget by three and moving forward. I want to see transformation being at the core of the three-year Budget. Those are my principles when I look at it. Questions about individual Ministers' responsibilities are best posed to them.

Mr O'Dowd: The increase in procurement control limits is about simplifying the process. Ministers, colleagues and MLAs will be aware that the issue of the process increasing costs in the public sector has been raised many times. There is too much red tape and bureaucracy in how we procure materials and other goods for our arm's-length bodies and services etc. The recent changes that were introduced are about simplifying that: lowering the level of paperwork required and ensuring that people who work in the sector fully understand how they can save money by using the procurement exercises in the fashion that we laid out.

Ms Ferguson: Minister, as you mentioned, we often hear about how long it can take schools and colleges etc to get simple repairs done. Will the changes make things much easier?

Mr O'Dowd: If staff are given the opportunity to be trained so that they fully understand the paperwork in front of them, I believe that they will. Sometimes, the difficulty is finding the time and space in which to provide that training.

The changes mean that procuring goods and services of between £5,000 and £10,000 requires evidence of a price check of two prices. The threshold at which the tender must be advertised on the e-tender system has increased from £30,000 to £50,000, which eases things.

There are therefore opportunities. I want to make further changes to the procurement process. We always have to be mindful that we are spending public funds, and we have to have the right practices and processes in place to protect those public funds. At times, there is a danger that we gild such things, and that makes it very difficult to deliver public services.

Mr O'Dowd: NISRA is working alongside the Department for the Economy to explore the development of improved productivity statistics. NISRA is in the process of setting up a new team to develop a suite of productivity metrics to facilitate greater understanding of business productivity and to provide policymakers with more timely data than is currently available from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his answer. As we know, having timely data is particularly relevant. The Minister knows as well as I do that productivity is a key pillar of Minister Archibald's economic strategy. How therefore does the work of his Department interface with the work of the Department for the Economy? How can we encourage collaborative working on the issue?

Mr O'Dowd: NISRA is ideally placed to assist the Department for the Economy, and other Departments, in collecting and understanding data in a timely fashion. That will ensure that our policies and procedures are targeted in a timely fashion to respond to such data. Although we have, in a way, relied on ONS and others for that data, it is only right and proper that NISRA and the Department for the Economy work together, which has been happening, so that we have a more timely response. That will allow the Department for the Economy to get the facts and figures, and it will allow the rest of the Executive to understand how we should respond.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd: I was not aware of that. The Member will appreciate that an organisation's being referred to a body is not the same as an organisation's being found guilty of wrongdoing by a body. If there is to be a report, I look forward to reading it.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he remain content for his Department and the Northern Ireland Civil Service to continue to support Stonewall through public funding and in wider policy terms, despite the mass exodus from its programme, including by even the aforementioned Equality Commission and Human Rights Commission?

Mr O'Dowd: I am content at this stage that Stonewall remain part of a broader range of organisations that provide training and support to the Civil Service. I have answered that question numerous times, both verbally in the Chamber and in writing, and my position remains the same.

Mr O'Dowd: I had the opportunity to visit the show last week. It was a great spectacle and great entertainment, and the weather added to it.

The 2025-26 Budget supports agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development with ring-fenced funding of £332·5 million, which recognises the importance of the sector to our economy and local farming communities. In line with our commitment on climate change, there is also a capital allocation of £12·3 million for the just transition programme. The Budget sets out a direction of travel that shows that the Executive are prepared to use their limited resources to do what matters most.

Mr Baker: Go raibh maith agat

Minister. You mentioned that you visited the Balmoral show last week. Do you agree that that is a great opportunity for the Government to interact with the public?

Mr O'Dowd: It certainly is. One of the advantages of this place is that there is an opportunity for the public to have direct interaction with MLAs, Ministers and others at places like the show. I spent a bit of time at the Land and Property Services (LPS) stall, which provided information to guests on how to get help with their rates, particularly through lone pensioner schemes and other schemes. There was fantastic feedback from the staff on that stall on the interaction that they had with the public and how they were able to support members of the public who thought that they were not entitled to support. That chance to talk to somebody from LPS proved to those people that they or their family members were entitled to support. It was a great opportunity for the Executive and others to engage with the general public.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have all the details in front of me, but we plan to move forward with that policy and legislation. I will keep the Member informed.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister for his answer. I think that it was his predecessor who anticipated that it would require new legislation. Do we anticipate that legislation being in place before the end of the mandate?

Mr O'Dowd: I certainly hope that that will be the case.

Mr O'Dowd: As stated earlier, we are providing £55 million to childcare this year. That is more than double the support that was provided last year and allowed the Education Minister to make his announcement last week. The number of children who will benefit from the discount is estimated to increase by 60%, from 15,000 to approximately 24,000. That support will mean a tangible change in people's lives as a result of the Executive's Budget.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for that answer. How has NISRA, which sits within his Department's remit, been helping to support the Department of Education with the gathering of data for the development of the early learning and childcare strategy?

Mr O'Dowd: It is another good example of how NISRA is assisting Departments beyond my own in detailing how and why we deliver public policy and assessing what impact, positive and negative, it may have on citizens. NISRA is engaging with the Department of Education to conduct a childcare survey of households, which is the first of its kind here. The survey will play a critical role in providing the evidence base on childcare usage and costs. The childcare survey findings will provide a valuable picture of childcare usage across the whole population that had not been available.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Michelle Guy for a very quick topical question.

Mr O'Dowd: The Budget sustainability team in the Department of Finance is engaging and working with other Departments on the development of each Department's sustainability plan.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You can ask a very quick supplementary question.

Mrs Guy: Does the Minister envision those plans complementing the multi-year Budget that the Executive hope to set from next year onwards?

Mr O'Dowd: They have to complement each other for them to work and be useful. As I said earlier, I want the multi-year Budget to be transformational and used in a strategic way rather than be a one-year Budget that is multiplied by three.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That completes the full list of topical questions. Thank you, Minister. Members, please take your ease before we move on to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I very much welcome the agreements announced today as part of the UK-EU summit. Like everyone else, I will need to take some time to consider the full text of what has been agreed, but, on the basis of what I know to date, I believe that it is a significant and incredibly positive outcome. I am glad to play a role in getting it over the line. I thank all the officials involved in the discussions, which went on until late last night.

Whilst responsibility for sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls does not rest with me, I am clear that there are real benefits from the alignment of GB regulations with those in the EU: achieving that would mean the removal of almost all certification and controls on movements of SPS goods from GB to the EU. I am also pleased that there is a wide scope to the agreement covering all the SPS areas, including marketing standards, organics, pesticides and food compositional standards. I welcome the commitment of the UK and the EU to work together towards establishing a link between carbon markets by way of an agreement that links the UK emissions trading scheme with the EU emissions trading system. Hopefully, that work will result in the avoidance of potential future problems for Northern Ireland that might arise from having separate, unlinked emissions trading schemes for the UK and the EU.

I emphasise that today's announcements are a commitment to work to put various agreements in place within certain parameters. There will be no changes overnight. In the meantime, I am committed to the full, faithful and timely implementation of the current Windsor framework arrangements until further agreements are in place. I hope that that can take place as quickly as possible, but there are no definitive timescales at present.

Mr Tennyson: I commend the Minister for his advocacy on the veterinary and SPS agreement. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the best way to mitigate the tensions created by Brexit is through a closer relationship between the UK and the EU, which, surely, must include negotiations on a customs union.

Mr Muir: I have always been consistent that Brexit was a really bad idea — a bad idea for Northern Ireland and a bad idea for the UK economy. I regret the fact that, going into the negotiations, the UK Government set redlines whereby they would not consider joining a customs union or the four pillars of the single market. We are all clear about the impact of Brexit on the UK economy. In recent analysis, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) set out that Brexit will result in a 15% trade reduction and a 4% reduction in national income in the long term. That is the reality of Brexit. However, today's announcement is positive, because it helps to deal with some of the practical issues that we have been experiencing with movements in the past number of years.

The customs challenges will remain, but what has been announced today will deal with practical issues that consumers, businesses, our farmers and the agri-food industry have been dealing with. What does that mean? It means, for example, helping with the movement of food, including sausages, ready meals, animals and seed potatoes. Those are practical issues that we have been experiencing. We will hopefully get the negotiations over the line and move forward. I wish that the Government would have a bit more ambition and look towards joining a customs union, because we should have an ambition to grow our economy.

Mr McAleer: Like the Minister, we believe that Brexit was a disaster and was inconsistent with the wishes of the people who live here. However, we welcome anything that reduces trade impediments east-west or west-east. Minister, are you confident that the latest agreement — I appreciate that it is not long since it was agreed — will make the movement of agri-goods easier and perhaps, ultimately, reduce costs for the consumer in the long run?

Mr Muir: When I came into office in February last year, I told the House that I would focus on solutions rather than problems. Some people in the House seem to go looking for problems and look to enlarge them. I am focused on solutions. I am also focused on engaging with the UK Government and the EU, and that is what I have been doing since I came into office. It is really important that we do that. I am also about showing trust and building trust with the UK and the EU, so I will very much uphold the commitment to full, timely and faithful implementation of the Windsor framework. I am confident that, if we do that, we will be able to complete the negotiations and deal with the practical issues. There are a lot of technical details that we need to work through, and that is why I am going to Brussels in the next number of weeks and why I will continue to engage with the UK Government on issues such as used agricultural machinery and the movement of animals for show and sale. Those are practical issues that people have been raising with me when I am out and about, and I want to resolve them.

I do not underestimate the challenges of Brexit. It was mis-sold to people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. When I went to the Oxford Farming Conference in January, I got a round of applause when I said that Brexit was a really bad idea. Do you know why? It was because farmers across the United Kingdom know the impact that it has had. The deal is a positive move for Northern Ireland, and I thank the UK Government for getting it over the line. When they came into office last year, they inherited an absolute mess. However, they have engaged with me consistently and listened to the needs of Northern Ireland, and I am confident that they will continue to do that.

Miss McIlveen: Too often, in negotiations between the UK and the EU, our fishing industry has been the sacrificial lamb. Today's agreement is no different. Does the Minister agree that, in the same way as the annexation of Northern Ireland should not have been the price that the previous Government paid for exiting the EU, the interests of the Northern Ireland fishing industry should not be expendable? He said here today that he looks for solutions, so will he give a commitment to the House to bring forward additional financial and practical support to assist our local fleet and processors as they grapple with reduced access in the years ahead?

Mr Muir: The rollover of the current agreement for a further 12 years until 2038 will bring a degree of certainty to that area, but I know that there are challenges around it. I am also conscious that the outcome is not a surprise. However, included in the statement is a £360-million fund for fishing and coastal communities. That announcement was made, and, as soon as I heard about that, I spoke to the Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and said," I want a slice of that cake". I want to deliver that support to Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel ports; that is what we need to do.

On the greater outcome and the point about sacrificial lambs, it is not lost on me that the Member's previous leader said that he could live with 40,000 jobs being lost in Northern Ireland. I am about creating jobs, not losing them.

Dr Aiken: Minister, in the joint communiqué, they said that moving goods between GB and Northern Ireland would be easier, reducing the need for paperwork and checks due to the removal of SPS controls and other requirements. Given that customs declarations, as he has pointed out, will still be required, particularly for the faithful implementation, how does the Minister envisage that it will reduce costs and bureaucracy? Bear in mind, of course, that I was a Remainer and probably still would be.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Aiken — Dr Aiken, to give you your full title. It is an important issue that you raise, and that is why I set out at the beginning today my concerns around customs. It is regrettable that the UK Government did not grasp the opportunity to join a customs union, because that would have addressed a lot of the issues that will remain, regardless of the agreement. However, as ever, I go looking for solutions. Lord Murphy has been tasked to review the Windsor framework, and, in the context of the announcement, I will engage with him. It is really important that the focus of his work turns to the simplification of the customs arrangements, such as the tariff reimbursement mechanism. We need to simplify and streamline that. There are challenges, and we need to work out ways to overcome them. The best way to do that would be to have a customs union. I think, very clearly, that, in my lifetime, we will join a customs union, and the sooner, the better.

Mr McGrath: My question builds on the issue of the fisheries. Another 12 years of fishing with EU fishing fleets in these waters will give them another 12 years of advantage in getting staff, because they can get staff from across Europe and beyond, which is something that we are inhibited from doing. Minister, did that form any part of the discussions or any of the solutions that you referenced for our local fishing fleet and processors?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Colin. You have raised an important issue, and, to be fair, you have been consistent on that. Labour force challenges, particularly in our fishing industry but also, for example, in butchery, agri-food and the mushroom sector, are acute. I am disappointed. The UK Government reached out to the devolved Administrations and asked for our views on the White Paper that they published last Monday. They asked for views from all the devolved Administrations — Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I provided that input to the Executive Office, because it is important that we address the labour challenges. Unfortunately, the Executive Office never sent a letter.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, will the agreement improve the availability of veterinary medicines?

Mr Muir: Unfortunately, veterinary medicines are outside the scope of the agreement, and that is regrettable. Since the new Government have come in, I have been making the point to them that they need to engage with the experts on the ground. They have been engaging with officials in my Department, looking at the problem and at how we can address it. The problem is now significantly different from what it was perceived to be last summer. I know that significant challenges remain around that, but I have a commitment from the UK Government today that they will engage intensively with me and with my officials on the proposed arrangements to deal with veterinary medicines. It is really important that we do that because we need to give certainty to farmers, to the agri-food sector and to the veterinary service in Northern Ireland. We will continue to do that, and that is why I want to get over to Brussels soon. Let us get an agreement on veterinary medicines over the line.

Mr Irwin: Although today's agreement will remove barriers to the movement of seeds, plants, food products and live animals between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the grave threat that continues to loom large is with the supply of veterinary medicines. Does the Minister accept that, while some progress has been made, there is much more to do to address the harm of the Windsor framework in its widest sense, not least in the area of customs and goods regulation? Furthermore, does he regret championing the erection of those barriers in the first place?

Mr Muir: I have already answered the question about veterinary medicines. I will continue engagement to get a resolution to that. I have outlined my position on customs. It was not me who championed Brexit.

Mr Dickson: Minister, do you agree that today is an important step forward in a reset of the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the EU and that we need to and must go further in those relationships?

Mr Muir: Today is a historic moment in the relationship between the UK and the EU. It has been a long time coming. Part of me looks back at previous years and asks what it was all about. I think that I know what it was all about, Stewart: it was about putting ideology above people's jobs and livelihoods.

We need to take a step back and understand what we are here to do. We are here to serve. We are here to make sure that people are able to support their families. We want to see job creation, and we want to see a boost in trade. There are many aspects to the agreement that are important, particularly on the security pact. It is really important that we stand together across Europe against Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. The deal contains significant elements around that, and I welcome that.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, with the removal of export health certificates and other routine checks coming into Northern Ireland, businesses will no doubt see a reduction in costs, but when will we see the current checks stopping?

Mr Muir: The process has now to continue to where we get the legal text and conclude the negotiations on the frameworks set out in it. I have been told by the UK Government that they are talking about months rather than years. It is really important that I set it out that the full, timely and faithful implementation of the Windsor framework remains. If you are going to do a deal, you have to support it and you have to deliver on it. That is why that will continue until we get these negotiations completed. It is useful that, on an SPS agreement, they have set the parameters for any exceptions around that. That is really important, because it gives me assurance around issues that I have been on the record about, for example precision breeding and lab meat. This is a moving feast, and it will take a while to get it completed, but this is massive progress. Massive progress.

Mr McGlone: On the sausages bit, Minister, I do not know whether you have received any news from the MP for East Antrim yet

or any white smoke or anything. We will maybe get a positive from him.

Seriously, going back to alignment on SPS checks, Minister, how do you see that, in light of our unique position under the Windsor framework, helping to benefit further our agri-food sector, given the setbacks that it has had as a result of Brexit?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. Whilst this will help to deal with the issue of the movement of sausages from GB to NI, I have to admit that I am always a fan of a Cookstown sizzler. That is where my loyalty lies, and that has nothing to do with the fact they are from your constituency.

We will continue to have access to the single market beyond just agri-food. That is unique access that Scotland, Wales and England and many people whom I speak to are jealous of.

I regret that, in the announcement, there is no confirmation of alignment across wider standards, because that is a concern that has been expressed. There is lots to be positive about in this, but there is a lot more that I would like to have seen. I will continue to argue that case because being able to have that alignment on standards will help us.

I speak to the manufacturing industry, for example, which is clear that having access to the single market is a real benefit for Northern Ireland, and it is important that we acknowledge that. I also speak to many people in agri-food, such as those in our dairy industry, who are very keen to ensure that we retain the Windsor framework and the safeguards that it provides for their industry.

Mrs Dodds: The Minister says that he is solution-driven, but the reality for the Minister, and, indeed, for all the rigorous implementers, who seem to be out in force today, is that they cannot provide any solutions. The solutions that they think are the right ones are actually made in Brussels, and we are the rule takers. Is there any benefit in having an Assembly, Minister, that cannot legislate for agri-food in Northern Ireland or control the environmental laws that we have in Northern Ireland? That is the reality that you advocate.

Mr Muir: What I advocate is that we engage in Brussels. It is very clear in the agreement that there is an opportunity to engage — [Interruption.]

I will answer the question. There is an opportunity to engage on law formation. What seems to be forgotten, however, is the fact that the Member's party, the DUP, entirely denied the Assembly the ability to influence health. What is the situation in health? The longest waiting lists in the whole of the United Kingdom. People downed tools and walked away and denied us the opportunity to have the democratic scrutiny of health, education, justice and the environment. It is important that the Assembly sits and does its job.

Mr Blair: Like other members of the AERA Committee, I know something of the effort that the Minister has made with the UK Government, and, indeed, with the EU, on these matters. What help might be provided from the announcement to assist us with making progress on climate and on the environment more generally?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. I welcome paragraph 21 of the joint statement from the UK and the EU, which states:

It also states:

and look forward:

It is really important that the UK and the EU are resetting relationships not just on SPS areas but on climate, the environment and, importantly, climate security. We should welcome that.

Mr Buckley: It is interesting to hear that the Minister got a round of applause from farmers in Oxford, because he is certainly not getting one in Northern Ireland, where farmers continue to feel the full force of his environmental extremism. Given the Minister's desire to break down barriers after the years that were spent putting them up, will he join me in calling for the dismantling of needless and harmful UK-EU border checks at Northern Ireland ports? Furthermore, will he confirm that today's agreement will enable livestock traders and pedigree breeders in Northern Ireland to bring their livestock to GB, sell it and take home, free from impediment, those that are not sold?

Mr Muir: The agreement deals with some of the issues that you raised, Mr Buckley. It deals with the movements of animals for show or sale within the context of the threat of bluetongue to Northern Ireland, and we have to be conscious of that. It will deal with lots of other issues, such as used agricultural machinery. Those are practical issues, and I only wish that we had got to this position a long time ago. It is important delivery for our agri-food industry and the farming community. Those are issues that people have been bringing to me. With the greatest respect, rather than engaging pantomime politics with you and the rest of your party, I have been engaging in solutions.

Mr McMurray: Given that the progress that has been made between the EU and the UK has been done, in part, through engagement and rebuilding relationships, what further engagement does the Minister plan to undertake with the EU?

Mr Muir: I intend to head to Brussels in the next number of weeks to have that engagement. It is important that we have that sustained engagement, which I will also have with the UK Government.

I am also conscious of the fact that inheritance tax is one of the biggest concerns for our agri-food industry and farming community, and I raised it this morning as part of my engagement with the UK Government, because it is an important issue. I made a request for a meeting with Treasury officials on it. I have a particular concern, which comes from a mental-health perspective, about older farmers who did not see that change on the horizon or the anxiety that it is causing them. I have asked to meet the Treasury so that we can focus on mitigations because the UK Government need to listen to concerns and respond to them.

Mr Butler: Given that Brexit and the Windsor framework were certainly mis-sold, has there been overstatement and hyperbole about this agreement between the UK Government and the EU? Industry experts are now saying that it is tantamount to an agreement to agree, and a lot of the stuff that has been promised has not actually been detailed yet.

Mr Muir: The Windsor framework was very clear, and it is important for us to understand that we base progress on that. The full, timely and faithful implementation of the Windsor framework is important. I have been clear that the agreement does not deal with a number of issues of concern. Your colleague Dr Aiken touched on customs, and I agreed with him. Veterinary medicines are not part of this, so there are a number of areas that are not there that we all wish had been there. However, significant parameters have been set for the negotiation of the SPS agreement, and that gives me confidence that it will resolve those significant issues around movements from GB to the EU or GB to NI. It is clear that that is the progress around that. There is a lot of detail, and I could bore you all with it, but, together with my officials, I am going to put a lot of work into getting that sorted.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, like me, you have been intrigued to hear the DUP rail against a deal that appears to start addressing many of the issues that it has railed against, which were caused by the Brexit that it championed in the first place. Minister, we can still benefit, hopefully while mitigating some of the east-west challenges, from the unique export potential that our food producers have to the EU market. I hope that the competitive advantage still exists, but what are you doing to enable our food producers to benefit from that huge export potential relative to GB?

Mr Muir: You are right that there is potential and opportunity for Northern Ireland. That is why I will be engaging in trade missions to Germany and Canada in the time ahead, because they are significant markets for us. Businesses need certainty, and it is important to give them that. That is why I keep talking about the full, faithful and timely implementation of the Windsor framework. It is really important to do that so that businesses know that they are engaging in a process in which the rules are not going to change. That is key for us. The agri-food industry has been through a lot of difficulties in the past number of years. Matthew, you have to remember that one of the people who came here to solve Brexit was Liz Truss, and the DUP championed her economics. I understand why some people in business may be hesitant to move forward, but this deal is positive and will hopefully give people the confidence to invest for the future. Why do we talk about investing for the future? We do so because it is about people's jobs and livelihoods and supporting their families.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Minister give more detail on the £360 million for the fishing industry and coastal communities?

Mr Muir: Today, it was announced that there will be a fund of £360 million for fishing and coastal communities. I will engage heavily with DEFRA on what we will get as a result of that. It is really important to support our fishing industry and coastal communities. I understand the challenges that the deal has for the fishing communities, and that is why I want to engage to see what we can do to support those towns. I have been to Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel, and I know the issues. We need the funding to support those areas.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for his lively update to the House this afternoon. Given the Minister's self-purported involvement in the process, can he update the House on whether he secured the removal of pet passports, which create the ridiculous situation where domestic pets moving from GB into Northern Ireland require documentation, or does he still subscribe to his party leader's view that the protocol must be implemented rigorously?

Mr Muir: We still need to work through the detail of the arrangements for pet travel, and we will continue to do that. I cannot solve everything in the mess that your party created but I will do the best I can.

Mr Donnelly: There is no denying that today's announcement certainly shows progress out of some of the mess of Brexit. What will the SPS agreement mean for people and businesses in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: The SPS veterinary agreement probably means nothing to many people in Northern Ireland. Essentially, it means that Northern Ireland is part of the EU single market for food, animals and plants, and the EU is keen to ensure that Northern Ireland has top-level biosecurity. I thank the staff who are implementing the current situation to safeguard Northern Ireland and our agri-food industry. It will mean that there are common standards across GB, the EU and NI in those areas. There have been difficulties in recent years with the movement of plants, such as seed potatoes and rose bushes, and the movement of animals for show or sale. There have also been some difficulties with food, whether sausages or takeaway meals and so on. Those will largely be resolved, but customs issues will remain. That is why, as a party, we have been consistent from day 1 that we should join the customs union.

Mr Kingston: Does the Minister recognise that the UK internal market is and always has been the largest marketplace for Northern Ireland businesses? Therefore, we must judge any change by how it improves access to that market and undoes the damage done by the Northern Ireland protocol. I ask the Minister specifically whether he regrets that he and his party called for the rigorous implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, which, thanks to the stand taken by the DUP, was subsequently changed

Mr Muir: It was not changed as a result of the stand taken by the DUP. The DUP crashed public services and left this place without democratic scrutiny. The UK then found a willingness to engage respectfully with the EU. That is how you negotiate international agreements.

I understand the importance of the UK single market, but I also understand the importance of the EU single market. We have the best of both worlds in relation to, for example, agri-food, which we can export to the EU and GB. That is really important. I know that there are challenges. I really do not underestimate the challenges that we face in the situation that we have arrived at as a result of Brexit. However, I speak to many people in our agri-food industry in Northern Ireland, and they see being able to export to the EU and GB as an advantage. Hopefully, that political certainty will allow those businesses to grow.

I judge things not by ideology but by whether they make people's living standards better and secure jobs and businesses. Often, the needs of businesses in Northern Ireland have been ignored, particularly by your party, and it is about time that you listened to them.

Mr Gaston: Despite all the spin from the rigorous implementation Minister, Northern Ireland remains fully under the EU's customs code, with regulation (EU) 2017/625 treating GB as a third country and Northern Ireland as EU territory, with the damaging Brussels border still in place. Does the Minister seriously believe that a deal that hands the EU access to our fishing waters for 10 more years will be welcomed by an industry that has already been plundered for decades?

Mr Muir: There are lots of issues in the Member's question. Ultimately, I look at where the benefits lie. Northern Ireland's economy is actually doing a bit better than that of the rest of the UK. That is the reality. Look at the damage that Brexit has caused in all of this. [Inaudible.]

Mr Muir: Yes, and what happened back in 2016 was that people said that this big red bus was going to arrive. There would be all this money, and public services were going to be great. Guess what? The bus never arrived.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to outline to the Chamber the Health Committee's consideration of the 2025-26 Budget. I should say at the outset that the Committee recognises the budgetary constraints and pressures that the Health Department is under in this financial year; indeed, more widely, all Departments are under pressure. I could almost give the same speech that my colleague, the previous Chair of the Committee, gave at this stage last year, but I will not.

The Committee is still hearing of significant issues facing the health and social care sector, and especially in services delivered in the community. We are hearing about pressures on GPs, dentists, community pharmacists and hospices, as well as on the community and voluntary sector, which, at this stage, is, unfortunately, having to look at cuts to services due to a lack of available funding. Indeed, the Committee tabled a debate on core grant funding just a number of weeks ago. The Department of Health has been allocated £8·4 billion for health and social care services in the fiscal year 2025-26.

That represents an increase of £642·5 million or 8·3% compared with the previous year.

Despite the increased funding, we must acknowledge the significant challenges that persist in our health system. The North continues to grapple with the longest waiting lists on these islands, with hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for a first outpatient appointment and many more waiting more than two years. To combat that, the Budget includes an Executive ring-fenced allocation of £165 million, which is specifically aimed at reducing waiting lists. An additional £50 million has been earmarked to support that initiative further. Those targeted investments are critical steps towards improving patients' access to timely care. For a number of years, we have heard the Minister of Health and his predecessor explain that that is the level of investment needed to make a difference in the Department of Health. As a Committee, we are keen to see that investment make a significant impact on waiting lists.

Over the past 12 months, the Committee has raised considerable concerns about capital projects within the Department's remit. We have seen significant delays and overspend with the new maternity hospital. Over a year after the handover, we are still no clearer as to when the new hospital will open. We have seen and heard about the significant issues with the mental health inpatient unit. While the Committee will continue to monitor progress on those projects, it is keen to know that the Department and trusts have learnt lessons from them and that the lessons learned will be implemented in the building of the new children's hospital. The Committee thanks the Minister for agreeing to provide us with regular, quarterly updates on the progress of the build.

The Committee welcomes the additional transformation funding that will allow a further roll-out of multidisciplinary teams in the community. That serves only to underline further the need for transformation across the health and social care sector. The Minister has rightly outlined his plans to shift left and to see more services provided in community settings. We now need to see the actions of the Department and the system follow the Minister's words and lead. A prime example of the need to shift services into the community relates to the Committee's inquiry into palliative care. We are hearing evidence from clinicians and families that, owing to a lack of funding for community services, palliative care patients are having to attend and be treated in emergency departments when they could and should be supported at home or in community services. That not only puts considerable strain on an already pressurised system but delivers worse outcomes for patients and their families. We have even heard of palliative care patients dying in emergency departments. We must provide patients with better outcomes and deliver treatment and support in the appropriate setting.

Our Health and Social Care workforce is the backbone of the system. I thank the staff who work in the system for the support, help and treatment that they provide across all our communities. We need to ensure that we have a framework and system in place that supports our workforce to deliver better outcomes for patients.

The Committee has been advised that there is a significant shortfall in the health budget for this year. It had previously been advised that the shortfall was £400 million, although we have seen from recent news reports that the Minister is now saying that the shortfall is over £500 million. It is therefore disappointing that the Committee has not had sight of the detailed spending plans for the incoming year. The Committee has been advised that the Department is still working through allocations, so we are not clear on what the priorities will be in the incoming year. On 29 May, the Minister will brief the Committee on his priorities. We look forward to hearing further information about the health budget. The Committee remains committed to working with the Minister and the Department of Health to ensure that additional funding is provided to the Department throughout the year. It is important that the Department have detailed plans for how it may spend any additional allocation that it receives during the year.

As Chair of the Health Committee, I am happy to support the Minister in any discussions with the British Government on additional funding for our health service. They must understand that there is little scope for transfer of funding from other Departments. We must make the case to the British Government to support our health service workers before it is too late.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I rise as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice and declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession.

The outcome for the Department of Justice in the 2025-26 Budget provides the Department with a resource DEL allocation of £1,415·3 million and a capital allocation of £100 million. The resource DEL includes earmarked funding for a range of matters, such as additional security funding for the PSNI, funding for the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime and transformation funding. The Budget document notes that indicative allocations of £10·3 million have been agreed by the Executive for June monitoring to help tackle the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions, additional funding for the safer communities programme and funding for judicial salaries. When that is taken into account, this may be the Department's largest-ever budget settlement. However, as outlined in the Budget document and as was stated directly to the Committee, that must be set in the context of the fall in the Department's share of the block grant since the devolution of policing and justice.

The increase in the allocation to Justice is undoubtedly welcome, but there are still significant pressures to be faced in the coming year, including those arising from the increased employers' National Insurance contributions, which will not all be covered by the June monitoring allocation; the revised pay award assumptions; and the funding required to implement the uplift in legal aid remuneration, as recommended in the Burgess report. In addition, exceptional pressures of £227 million remain in relation to holiday pay, the McCloud injury-to-feelings remedy and the PSNI data breach. As I have outlined to the House before, the services of the Department of Justice are mainly demand-led. That demand shows no signs of abating — quite the opposite — an example of which is the increasing prisoner population. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Department's reducing reoffending and prison population transformation bid was unsuccessful. That remains a priority area, and the Department has advised that it will continue to bid for funding for work in that area and intends to resubmit the bid at a future opportunity.

The Committee has repeatedly heard of the need for further investment to address years of underfunding so that delays across the justice system and increasing demand can be met. That underfunding has been suggested by the Department to be equivalent to £220 million below where it would have been had funding kept pace with inflation. That has had a real impact on the delivery of vital justice services. For example, in a report published on 2 April 2025, His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services said that neighbourhood policing is suffering the effect of the budgetary cuts:

In response to the publication of the report, the Chief Constable described the Budget as "beyond disappointing".

The Committee has noted the clear indications from the Department that difficult decisions will be required in order to manage the pressures that it faces. It has warned that that will present challenges in delivering against Programme for Government priorities; in particular, the safer communities priority and, worryingly and frustratingly, the ability to increase police numbers. The Committee intends to closely monitor that as the year progresses.

Turning briefly to the capital allocation, the Department received £100 million against a final bid of £135·3 million, which, it has stated, will be used to address inescapable capital bids. That will still, however, present challenges in modernising the justice system. The Committee undertook a visit to the Courts and Tribunals Service and heard that it is planning an ambitious estate modernisation programme that is expected to cost over £75 million, alongside an IT transformation programme to improve access to justice for staff, the judiciary and stakeholders. From the visit, it was clear that it is not modernisation for the sake of it but to address, literally in places, a crumbling estate and transform the way that the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service does business.

I will now make some brief remarks as the DUP's Justice spokesperson. It is well known that the Justice budget is predominantly demand-led and thus the Minister has little room in which to manoeuvre: approximately 5%. However, the Department has indicated that it will have to make tough decisions not only on the prioritisation of services but the potential cutting of services, which would have a significantly detrimental impact. Nevertheless, the Minister has outlined her ambitious legislative agenda for the mandate, some of which is rightly driven by court judgments and is urgent, lest Northern Ireland should be outwith the law or prove a weak link in the rest of the UK's justice system. The DUP urges her to ensure that other proposals in her programme are properly and fully costed; that her Department is mindful of its position of potentially having to cut existing services before it provisionally adds new ones; and that whatever comes forward to the House is financially stable and sustainable for the future.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): On 7 May, the Committee was comprehensively briefed by DE officials on the resource budget for this year. Regrettably, the Committee did not receive a detailed capital briefing, but it has been clear that, in the future, it expects to be briefed on resource and capital at the same time, rather than have them separated, which has been the Department's recent approach.

The Department has received just over £3·2 billion in non-ring-fenced resource, £388 million in capital, plus an extra £55 million to fund the ongoing investment in early learning and childcare. While that represents a 3% increase on last year's closing resource position, the Committee was advised that substantial pressures will be the feature of the year ahead. The Committee was advised that the Department of Education faces inescapable resource pressures of £310 million and a capital shortfall of £83·7 million. It appears that the £300 million savings will largely have to be found from the Education Authority (EA) budget, and current allocations mean that a number of pressures will place a significant constraint on EA services, including school maintenance works, home-to-school transport and school catering — all spend that directly impacts on children and young people. The budget impact on school buildings was highlighted as a particular concern. Officials signalled that they hoped that the budget would increase as the year progressed, but concerns were highlighted that that provided little room for any meaningful strategic planning of maintenance of the school estate.

Members also raised the issue of school budgets with officials. It was concerning to be informed that, as of 31 March 2025, as we began the new financial year, 581 schools were in a deficit of £180 million, while 391 schools were in a surplus totalling only £75 million. Those deficits are ultimately carried by the Department, and it is money that is not being invested in our children's education. The Committee recognises the pressure that that places on our school leaders, who are working incredibly hard to manage budgets in constrained circumstances.

Committee members considered a range of areas where the Department's budget faces additional pressure, but special educational needs (SEN) services and the transformation of those services received particular attention. The Department stated that significant demand-led SEN pressures will be unable to be met on the basis of current allocations. Assurances have been made that statutory requirements will be met, but it is difficult to see how we can get on with the job of SEN transformation meaningfully, when we are unable to fund the services required just to deliver business as usual.

The Committee will continue to scrutinise all aspects of the Minister's spending plans and delivery in the year ahead. While it is recognised that there are undoubted pressures, the Committee will expect to see evidence of the Department delivering efficiencies, where possible, while still delivering for children and young people in the direct delivery of educational services.

I will now make some remarks as Alliance education spokesperson. Whilst highlighting the significant pressures that face the Education budget, it is vital to consider other areas of significant spend by the Minister that can only be described as questionable in the context of the financial constraints that we face, particularly in relation to capital spend. We await clear details on how the Minister's curriculum capital investment programme will be further rolled out on the basis of the budgetary allocation, particularly in the area of PE, which has been highlighted as the likely recipient. I am not in any way disputing the importance of investment in PE, but the message that I hear from the education sector is that school leaders want to be better consulted on how the Minister reaches his capital priorities. Schools would like the opportunity to share with the Minister what they need to run their schools, rather than investment in pet projects or pilot programmes for some schools but not all.

Last week, the Minister, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister marked the beginning of the construction of the Strule Shared Education Campus Omagh. It is my understanding that the overall cost of that project will be £375 million. Serious questions remain as to whether that project delivers value for money. Those questions remain unanswered. That total cost represents close to the value of the Department's entire annual capital budget for this year. The fact that that is being spent on just six schools in such constrained financial times must surely invite some scrutiny on whether more cost-effective projects should and could have been developed.

As we are all aware, the pressures are immense across the Executive, but it is not all doom and gloom in the educational world. The Minister's announcement on Thursday of the additional £55 million investment in early learning and childcare is very welcome. I look forward to seeing those plans in more detail and seeing how that investment will be delivered. Alliance is very clear: investment in education is critical. The scenario in which funding continually lags behind spend per pupil in every other neighbouring jurisdiction is not acceptable. The Minister must not just bemoan the lack of resource but spend the budget that he has strategically and take seriously the work that is required to transform education services in order to avoid perpetuating a school estate that is characterised by duplication and division. Regrettably, however, I see no appetite from the current Minister to take on that challenge.

Alliance will continue to highlight the need to reform these institutions. It has already been highlighted in the debate that the cycle of instability and collapse in government undoubtedly impacts on our budgetary process in an entirely negative way and has made strategic investment extremely challenging to deliver. It is vital that the veto be removed from politics in this place to ensure that we are not placed in that position again.

Members will undoubtedly support the motion without too much enthusiasm today as it points to a year of difficult financial decisions that lie ahead. In that context, the ongoing work to make the case for the best and fairest financial settlement from Westminster remains critical. It is also vital that Ministers are prepared to be brave and ambitious in delivering transformation in their Departments.

Miss Dolan: I thank the Minister for outlining the details of the Budget. I begin by recognising the ongoing efforts of the Finance Minister to prioritise the delivery of public services in challenging financial circumstances due to increasing costs and the British Government's continued policy of austerity. Funding to reduce health waiting lists, to support childcare, to end violence against women and girls and to protect the environment are just some examples of how the Budget reflects the priorities of the Programme for Government.

Health's receipt of almost half of the entire Budget reaffirms the commitment of the Finance Minister and the wider Executive to support our health service. The specific allocation of £215 million to cut health waiting lists is a welcome intervention and will help to alleviate the pressures that are currently being faced. I have had positive interactions with many constituents about the reinstatement of the cross-border health scheme, which was announced by the Health Minister earlier this month, as a result of that investment.

It is vital that we continue to do all that we can to support hard-working families. Therefore, the doubling of the funding available for the early years and childcare strategy to £50 million, which has enabled the childcare subsidy scheme to be extended, is another welcome measure that will help parents to remain part of the workforce or return to work.

The investment in city and growth deals, including the Mid South West growth deal in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, will be a key driver in helping to address regional economic imbalance and will see the delivery of a vital piece of infrastructure in the A4 Enniskillen bypass.

The continuation of funding for welfare mitigations is an example of locally elected representatives stepping forward to protect the sick and disabled at a time when the British Labour Government are continuing the legacy of their Tory predecessors and attacking some of the most vulnerable in our society.

I am conscious that the Minister intends to move towards multi-year Budgets following this year. That has the potential to enable Departments to make plans on a longer-term strategic basis. However, we also need to see those in Westminster change direction and invest in public services in order to increase the capacity and ability of services here. I reiterate my support for the ongoing work of the Finance Minister with the British Treasury to ensure that we are fairly funded, reflecting our level of need. We also need to see more fiscal powers devolved, which will provide more flexibility for us to shape policies that are suited to our local needs until constitutional change enables those elected here to have full control over our own political and economic affairs.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): As was indicated during the recent debate led by the Committee for Finance, the Infrastructure Committee received oral evidence from the Department for Infrastructure, Translink and Northern Ireland Water to consider their assessment of their funding requirements for 2025-26. It is a well-rehearsed argument that, right across our public services, the assessed requirements compared with the funding available leaves us all facing the reality that we will struggle to fully realise many of the things that we want to achieve. The Committee is well aware of the Department's capital requirements. However, the lack of a multi-year capital budget leaves uncertainty for those with aspirations to improve the lives of people right across Northern Ireland. As I stated previously, not only does that complicate delivery, it is, undoubtedly, a more expensive way of funding capital projects that can take a number of years to complete.

Throughout its scrutiny, the Committee noted the Department's assessment that its draft opening resource allocation is 8% less than what it considers to be required. With increased rates of contributions, the Department and its arm's-length bodies need to act decisively if they are to manage that additional pressure.

As we have seen over recent weeks, Northern Ireland Water forecasted that it would be in an overspend position in 2024-25, resulting in the Minister's decision to engage forensic accountants to examine its spending. The Committee looks forward to examining the outputs of the review and will receive evidence on that on 11 June.

The Committee acknowledges that reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) capital borrowing of some £105·7 million has been secured for NI Water. Despite efforts to examine whether that borrowing will be additional to what it normally receives, however, the Committee notes that no final decisions have been made. When looking at the Department's equality impact assessment (EQIA), it was suggested that Northern Ireland Water's capital allocation is likely, effectively, to be reduced from £323·7 million to £244·3 million and then supplemented by RRI borrowing. The net result seems to be that Northern Ireland Water will be just £26·3 million better off in terms of capital despite the Executive's borrowing some £105·7 million.

Whilst I do not underestimate the amount of money that Northern Ireland Water receives from the Department, it is important to remember that the allocations that are anticipated to arise from the Budget will fall way below what the Utility Regulator assessed as being needed under the current price control period, which is price control 21 (PC21). It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the basis for RRI borrowing. For example, have the Executive approved the borrowing just as a means of accessing additional capital to provide flexibility for DFI to effectively reduce the conventional capital allocation to Northern Ireland Water? Could the Minister also provide an answer on whether the RRI borrowing is being used as a mechanism to provide the Executive with additional capital to help to fund other priorities in DFI and elsewhere?

The Committee continues to be concerned about road safety and the limited service for our road network. On road safety more widely, particular focus is needed to tackle driver behaviour to make sure not only that we adopt a responsible approach to our driving but that our vehicles are roadworthy and legal. Following its meeting on 30 April, the Committee wrote to the PSNI to seek further detail on its recent Operation Lifesaver. The Committee was concerned to learn, from the response, that, on 16 April, some 724 motoring offences were detected — that was in one day. Those stark figures are extremely worrying. The Committee will continue to play its part in supporting meaningful initiatives that seek to minimise the human cost that so many families have had to endure.

Uncertainty of funding presents an ongoing and significant challenge to Translink in planning for future years. It is insufficient to meet its requirements under its public-service contract. Not only does that impact on the range and frequency of services that are available to our citizens, but, as the Committee is acutely aware, it will also potentially impact on those in rural areas and on section 75 groups. The Committee recognises the legitimate concerns about the impacts of reduced funding for services on those who live with disabilities who are reliant on public transport. Once Translink's final allocation is known, the Committee will, therefore, be particularly keen to consider the associated equality impact assessment in relation to those associated groups. Our commitments under the Climate Change Act will also require significant and sustained funding to encourage a modal shift away from our reliance on cars. However, until that occurs, we cannot simply expect people to move towards public transport without viable and convenient solutions to support that move. That is particularly the case in rural areas. Not only does our infrastructure lie at the heart of our aspirations to grow our economy; it underpins so many of the Executive's Programme for Government priorities. We must therefore ensure that, as a Committee, we focus on how the Department utilises its resources to deliver the best outcomes for our citizens.

I will briefly touch on some points as DUP infrastructure spokesperson. I have to say that, since Minister Kimmins took up her position, some of her decision-making on her budget has, in a cash-strapped Department, been questionable, to say the least. I turn in particular to the fact that she allocated £145,000 to Irish-language signage in Grand Central station. It seems that that is a party political move, at a station that has not yet been open for a year, yet we do not see the pedestrianisation of Hill Street moving forward, with more money to be spent on stakeholder engagement for that project and still no indication from the Minister on how the major roads prioritisation programme will fit into the budget. The Minister seems to have blinkers on when it comes to funding infrastructure that meets everyone's needs.

Mr Donnelly: I will reflect on the 2025-26 Budget through the lens of health, which is a subject that affects every person and family across Northern Ireland. I begin with a welcome but also with some realism. The Budget arrives against a backdrop of sustained austerity from Westminster in a period of rising inflation and growing demand on a health system that is under immense pressure. I welcome the intent, but let us be honest: money alone will not solve the problem. How we use it will define whether the Budget represents a turning point or a missed opportunity. Yes, the £8·5 billion that was allocated to Health is significant — it is over 50% of all day-to-day spending — but, if we do not change how we work and not just how much we spend, we will keep cycling through the same crises. The Budget, though imperfect, gives us a platform. The challenge now is to use that platform not reactively but strategically.

It is right that £215 million has been earmarked for elective care and to reduce waiting lists. That is essential. Patients have waited far too long, many of them in pain, and for some, sadly, it will be too late. This is not about queue lengths but about dignity and people being seen when they need help, not when it is too late. We have been through waiting list initiatives before, but what has changed structurally to stop them growing again? What is there to stop the Assembly collapsing tomorrow and there being another five years of inaction in this place? If the money simply buys short-term outsourcing and does not reduce the need for repeated cycles of intervention, we will be right back here next year.

I turn to primary care, the bedrock of our health system and, as we have heard today, a part of the system that has been neglected for far too long. I welcome the £3·5 million that has been allocated to support GPs, dentists, pharmacists and family health services with increased employer costs, but let us not pretend that that addresses the deeper truth, which is that our entire primary care model is outdated for the demands that are being placed on it. GPs are dealing with complex and unmanageable pressure, and many have now been forced to consider returning their contract. They need adequate funding in order to prevent those contract hand-backs. They need multidisciplinary teams to be built up around them, with mental health professionals, social workers and physiotherapists, but many practices still do not have access to those supports.

Our pharmacists have stepped up again and again by delivering vaccines, offering triage and keeping pressure off GPs and hospitals, but they are barely breaking even under the current model. Many are using their savings to keep their services running. That is not resilience; that is fragility wearing a brave face.

Dentists are absorbing high-risk caseloads of children and vulnerable adults, yet they still operate under a contract that was designed for a different time. As we all know, few dentists in Northern Ireland now take on NHS patients.

Then, there is the voluntary and community sector. So often the glue between statutory services and people's lived experiences, organisations in that sector work at the sharp end of health, tackling important issues such as sexual health, HIV awareness, addiction, domestic abuse, cancer support and mental well-being. Year after year, however, they are left in limbo, waiting to know whether funding will come through. Now we are seeing something even more worrying. Organisations such as Positive Life and others that were previously supported through the reduced core grant scheme are being left without the necessary funding to continue, and some are facing closure. Let us be absolutely clear: if those organisations disappear, the cost will be felt not just in our communities but across the whole system in GP practices, A&E departments and mental health crisis teams and in care for long-term conditions that could have been prevented, treated or managed earlier.

It is not just a moral failure; it is a strategic one. That is not a system that values prevention but one that chronically undervalues what works because it is not hospital-based.

Let us talk about transformation. The £21·3 million allocated from the transformation fund is welcome, and the further £25·7 million held centrally represents an opportunity. Let us not allow that money to sit idle. It must be activated quickly and aimed at shifting the foundations, not just tweaking at the top. I welcome the commitment of £69 million this year towards the new mother and children's hospital as part of the broader £671 million project, but that must not repeat the infrastructure mistakes of the past, whereby capital builds that went way over schedule and way over budget were still unfit for purpose before they were even open. We need real and working infrastructure that delivers for people, not just headline ribbon-cutting.

This Budget does not solve everything, but it sets a tone. The question for the Assembly and for every Department and every Minister is whether we have the political courage to follow through. We cannot afford to paper over the cracks again. We cannot afford complacency or cynicism. What we can afford, and what the public expects from us now, is leadership. Let this Budget be the start of doing things differently. No more of the same, but better.

Mrs Dodds: Like Mr Donnelly, I welcome the Budget, realising that it is not everything that we may have asked for or wanted but that it is a significant platform from which to move forward for our health service. I also welcome the additional £50 million for waiting lists and the ring-fencing of the £215 million. Those are important steps forward. However, it is the allocation of the Budget that will be so important and that will make the difference. It is about prioritisation — the making of decisions on how best to allocate funding on the basis of the needs of our health service and general population. That may require doing things differently or deciding that an alternative approach is necessary. One thing is certain, and it was reinforced by Professor Bengoa when he was here last October: reform of the health service is essential. As Professor Bengoa said, without reform, and by doing everything the same way all the time, the Department of Health will soon demand and eat up our national Government's entire funding for Northern Ireland. It is really important, therefore, that we look not only at prioritisation but at reform of health services.

We in the Chamber should remember that we spend more per head of population on health than anywhere in the United Kingdom, but we have the worst outcomes and longest waiting lists. Our cancer waiting times are an absolute disgrace. Two thirds of women who discover a lump in their breast are not seen by a consultant within the departmental target waiting time. That is a shame on all of us and on the system that has allowed that to happen over a long time, so reform is not an option; it is an imperative. Without it, we will continue to let people down. We will continue to let women down. Last week, I got statistics from the Department that indicated that, in the Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust, 25,000 children are on a waiting list to see a paediatrician. Those are not acceptable statistics, so we must use the money that we have in the best way possible to get the best outcomes.

Departmental officials recently informed our Health Committee that, of the £8·5 billion, £7·8 billion is simply being rolled over. I do not want to think that this is just more of the same from the Health Minister, because that is not good enough. All the nine programmes of care received a similar percentage increase. There was no indication of prioritisation to allow a focus on primary care, acute care or waiting lists. We cannot continue to do the same thing all the time, because we will just get the same or more difficult outcomes. Last year, administrative costs in the health service totalled £305 million, and management costs totalled £264 million. Well over half a billion pounds was spent on bureaucracy. It would be hard to find anyone in Northern Ireland who thinks that they got value for money for that spend. Department of Health staff now total more than 1,200. That exceeds the number of staff who were in the Department and on the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) before the board was dissolved. The current £109 million in departmental administrative and management costs exceeds the respective joint total for the HSCB and the Department prior to that board's dissolution. Much of the rationale for removing the Health and Social Care Board was to reduce bureaucracy and avoid duplication. We went through the pain of abolishing it but have ended up with greater costs and even more staff. That is not an example of reform. We need to find genuine efficiencies, not simply moving people out of one office and into another, and provide more funding for front-line services. That is what people expect of us, and that is what we should be given.

I should probably not open this can of worms, but trusts have some really good initiatives. I was reading at the weekend about some in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, but there is no uniform delivery of healthcare across Northern Ireland. What a person in the Southern Trust can expect to get is not the same as what someone in the Northern Trust can expect. I do not think that those inequalities are good enough for a modern-day health service.

Other contributors to the Budget debate mentioned health estate funding. Minister, I cannot go past the appalling management of capital projects in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. It is 15 months since the handover of the maternity hospital to the Belfast Trust. Last week, the Health Committee received a letter saying that the trust could not give us any indication of when the building would be safe to use and safe to be occupied by mothers and babies. That is just not good enough. I have said this before, and I will say it again: the mishandling of projects needs an independent view from someone who comes in and says what is going wrong and how we can save the health service money. The acute mental health inpatient building in the Belfast City Hospital grounds opened in 2019. It will take potentially millions of public funding to set it right. It is just not right.

I turn to waiting lists. Minister, I welcome the ring-fencing of £250 million and the additional £50 million, but the Health Minister said that that would mean his having to find £165 million from his budget. I might be looking at that in a simple way, but I think that the Health Minister's job is to find money in his budget to tackle waiting lists. In his initial brief on the Budget —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — he said that he would ring-fence £76 million. There are many challenges, Minister, and many things to do in the year ahead.

Ms McLaughlin: As we debate the Budget, I recognise the fact that having a Budget and a Programme for Government in place is in itself progress. In most democracies, it is standard. In Northern Ireland, it cannot ever be taken for granted. While the Budget is a step forward in process, it is not a step forward in ambition. We face serious challenges. President Trump's economic isolationism and the ongoing war in Ukraine have proved to be deeply destabilising for the global economy. However, almost all Governments face those headwinds. The real test is how we respond to them.

The Department for the Economy's strategic aims are sound. They include creating more good jobs, boosting productivity, advancing regional balance and delivering a just transition to net zero. Those goals, however, will remain little more than warm words if they are not backed up by meaningful investment. Nowhere is that clearer than in higher and further education, which, although central to delivering the skills that our economy needs, have been left underfunded, under-prioritised and overstretched. We already know that DFE has overcommitted funding this year by £0·8 million for further education and by £6·6 million for Skills for Life and Work and apprenticeships. Those overspends must be addressed in this or the next financial year. In practice, that could mean cuts to courses, fewer student places or the deferral of essential capital spending. At the same time, the Department's 2025-26 budget has increased by just 4·2%. In real terms, that means cuts to skills provision and FE provision at a time when demand for them is growing.

We have already heard warnings about reduced course offerings, staffing constraints and possible delays to assured skills academies and apprenticeships. That is not speculation but the likely impact of the Budget. Further education is vital to our economy, but, instead of being empowered, our colleges are being forced to do more with less.

The Department has made very little progress on its funding review of the higher education sector, with some now calling for an increased burden to be placed on students. In the face of those calls, the Minister, instead of defending students, has refused to rule out an increase in fees. The doublespeak on both sides of the border is not just inconsistent but hypocritical. Let me be clear: our universities need proper funding, but the burden should not be placed on students, who should not be punished for getting an education. It does not work in England, and it will not work here.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. She raises a very important point. Does she agree that it is entirely short-sighted of the Department for the Economy and its Minister to burden university graduates with extra debt when they are expected to try to get on to the property ladder, start a family and perhaps settle into married life? Does the Member agree that that would worsen their situation and that the Executive have done nothing for younger people?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms McLaughlin: I totally agree. The cost of living is having a real impact on the younger generation. They are worse off than their parents and everyone else who went before them. We could now be saddling them with more debt. The Minister should stick to her party's word and rule out any increase in fees.

Without proper governance here, we simply cannot meet the challenges that we face. We cannot raise productivity, which remains at 13% below the UK average, without taking a serious approach to skills. We cannot build a green economy without workers who are trained in clean energy and advanced technologies. We cannot tackle regional inequality if places such as the north-west continue to be overlooked for infrastructure, university expansion and skills development.

More broadly, the Budget lacks strategic coherence. The Executive claim to be doing what matters most, but how can that be true when Budget decisions are not clearly aligned with Programme for Government priorities? As Pivotal has noted, areas such as housing, childcare and water reflect Programme for Government commitments, but most allocations continue as before without strategic re-prioritisation. Even after the final Programme for Government was published, it remained unclear as to whether health waiting list reductions would be backed by new investment.

NICVA is right to say that Departments cannot continue working in silos. Government must act as a whole, not as a collection of isolated parts. We need pooled budgets, shared planning and stronger leadership from the Department of Finance in order to deliver outcomes that cross departmental boundaries. We need to move beyond using austerity as an excuse. Yes, there are structural and financial constraints, but there are also choices to be made. There are choices to be made about where we invest, how we prioritise investment and whether we plan for the long term through having a shared agenda.

Childcare requires cooperation between the Department for the Economy and the Department for Education. A green economy needs DFI, DAERA, DFC and DFE all to work together. Tackling economic inactivity must involve a shared plan from the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and the Department for the Economy. None of that can be delivered out of single-year departmental budgets that are disconnected from strategic planning. Multi-year funding is therefore a must if we are to deliver meaningful change.

I stood for election to deliver better for the people whom I represent, and it is not happening for working families or young people. Communities have waited too long for action. The Budget does not deliver that. It falls short of the ambition that we need and the urgency that the moment demands.

The SDLP cannot support the Budget. We will vote against the motion, not for the sake of opposition but because this region deserves better.

Mr Frew: I rise to speak in yet another Budget debate. I do not know if I am being punished, but I end up speaking on all finance-related matters, including the Budget. I must have been a bad boy in another life or in another guise.

My heart goes out to the Minister, as this is a set-piece Budget debate in which Chairs of Committees will record the stresses and strains of the Departments that they scrutinise. It is more about placing on record issues about the Budget than it is about talking about the Budget. I have been here for many years, and I get that, but, sooner or later, this Executive and every Executive will have to be tested on their effectiveness. What is the difference between direct rule, where Ministers from England, Scotland and Wales direct the Departments — in effect, the Departments are in charge — and the devolved Executive and Assembly? It is that Ministers are here to make the difference. Local politicians are meant to make the difference. The Opposition are meant to enhance that in the Executive — sorry, in the Assembly. We should always respect the difference between the Executive and the Assembly. It strikes me that the SLDP will vote against the Budget not because it is in opposition but because it does not think that it is the right Budget. I remind the House that the SDLP usually voted against the Budget when it was in the Executive. Why? Because it had the luxury of being able to do so because of its numbers.

This is a set-piece Budget debate that we all have to go through and thole, but does it make a difference? I suppose the question that I pose and the challenge that I put down to the Executive and the Assembly is this: do local Ministers make a difference to the Budget? In the DUP, we have some great Ministers, and there are Ministers from other parties whom we scrutinise. However, there is another issue, and the SDLP touched on it, to be fair: the silo approach between Departments. There is absolutely no point in having a Programme for Government and having a Budget aligned to it, closely or not so closely, with that approach.

Then, of course, you have the Executive's legislative programme. You want it to be the power behind the transformation: the legislation and Bills that meet and greet the Programme for Government. The Budget is there to finance the Programme for Government. We still have a lot of work to do to get to the point where all three of those are aligned. The short mandate will not help with that, nor will the one-year Budgets that we have year after year, but hopefully we will get to a point where those three stars align. When they do, we will be able to be more effective and efficient for the people whom we serve.

There are many issues, and we can talk about the Budget book and the fact that it alludes to the Programme for Government at table 4.1 and table 4.3. When I look at table 4.3, I see:

That is a novel aspiration. That is exactly what we require, but we will not provide more social, affordable and sustainable housing just by throwing money at it when we cannot get the infrastructure right under the ground with the water and sewerage systems. Some developers in my constituency cannot build houses because they cannot get sufficient infrastructure under the ground. They are having to go through novel engineering experiments to satisfy Water Service and the planners. If they satisfy Water Service, they will not satisfy the planners, and they are going round the ring. They cannot build the properties that we need in order to equip our people with sufficient, efficient and effective housing. That is just one aspect.

What about protecting Lough Neagh and the environment? Look at the mess that Lough Neagh is in. What are we really doing to solve that issue? Whom are we blaming? It seems to me that we can blame the farmers and get away with it, yet government is polluting Lough Neagh and nothing is done or said. Nobody is taken to court, and, when they do get taken to court, who pays for that? The ratepayers — our people — pay for it.

There are massive challenges. We have a health service on which we spend more per head than any other part of the United Kingdom does, yet it is failing. It is failing our people because of the growing waiting lists for cancer and other conditions, but, worse than that, there are brand spanking new hospitals that cannot even be opened. Talk about rubbing salt into the wounds of our most vulnerable.

There are many challenges out there and many things that we need to fix, and I want to test the Executive to make sure that they do that. I want to scrutinise properly, efficiently and effectively to ensure that the devolved Executive and Assembly deliver for their people and take control of our governance and the Civil Service.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the independent Member of the DUP for giving way. I find his remarks absolutely fascinating: I would nearly welcome him to this side of the House, because it looks like he is reading from our hymn sheet. Given what he has said to the House, does the Member agree that the history and legacy of this Executive has been disastrous for many years? Indeed, his party has been a part of that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Frew: I thank the Deputy Speaker for the extra minute, and I thank the Member for the intervention. Again, because of the silo mentality and everything else that goes with it, we have not been able to get things right. Of course, the Member's party played a part over the past number of years in government with the atrocious legislation that it brought in, to the point where that party was even going to sack nurses for doing their job.

There are many issues that we have to get to grips with. I will do all that I can to apply pressure on every Department and every Minister in this place to ensure that the Civil Service is as effective as possible and that Ministers deliver on what was promised by the devolved Executive and Assembly. My job as an MLA is to fight tooth and nail for my North Antrim constituents, and that is exactly what I intend to do.

Ms Egan: I rise to make some remarks on the final Budget for 2025-26 as the Alliance Party member on the Committee for Justice.

The process of setting a Budget for any Government is not necessarily straightforward, with competing pressures between and within each Department, particularly in the knowledge that prioritising one project, programme or plan may be to the detriment of another. Without leadership and strategy, funding will not have the opportunity to make the most impact and get the most value per pound from the public purse. That is why having a Programme for Government and a road map for delivery has been vital in aligning where public moneys should be spent.

With that road map in place, it is incredibly welcome that the Department of Justice has received the third-largest non-ring-fenced resource departmental expenditure limit, coming in behind Health and Education. Whilst more is always needed and there are outstanding concerns, including exceptional pressures in the realm of £227 million to be dealt with, that signifies a constructive and workable foundation for the year ahead. It must also be noted that a proportion of those sums will be redistributed to other Departments for collaborative projects that Justice is the assigned lead on, including the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime.

Justice is a historically underfunded Department, and this Budget recognises the role that Justice plays as a Department that cross-cuts through many of our PFG commitments, particularly in its role to create safer communities. The justice system as a whole interacts with some of the most vulnerable people across our society not just when something goes wrong but by actively seeking to protect and intervene before troubling circumstances even arise. The driving mission of the Department of Justice in the new financial year, as before, is to work in partnership to create a fair, just and safe community across Northern Ireland where every one of us respects not just the law but one another.

The financial remit of the Department covers a plethora of work, including but not limited to preventing and educating on domestic and sexual abuse, funding for the PSNI, tackling paramilitarism and organised crime, reducing court delays and ensuring high standards in our Prison Service. At a time when budgets are being stretched and hard decisions are being made, the Minister and her Department have not shied away from the challenge. We cannot afford to do things the way we always have. Transformation is vital for the longevity and sustainability of every Department. I welcome the recently announced allocation from the public-sector transformation board of £20·45 million to help to speed up and transform the criminal justice system, and £2·19 million has been allocated to an electronic monitoring project.

The Justice Committee has received regular updates on the financial position of the Department and has been kept informed of developments throughout the process. On 29 January, a written briefing on the draft Budget was sent to the Committee, and, on 6 February, an oral briefing took place with officials. Additionally, the Minister appeared in front of the Committee in March and spoke of the Department's financial position, including the welcome steps that she has taken to raise the need to increase policing numbers with a degree of pace to the Secretary of State, the Finance Minister and other Executive colleagues. The Minister highlighted the role that her Department has played, in collaboration with the Chief Constable of the PSNI and the Policing Board, in submitting a business case to the Department of Finance to move workforce levels up to 7,000 officers and over 2,500 staff over the next three years. The Minister outlined that it works out at about £40 million a year for five years to do the recovery work needed. I commend the Minister and her Department's commitment to that.

The Department of Justice's portion of the Budget, including the indicative allocations via the June monitoring round process towards safer communities and public-sector transformation, has set a foundation to work off for the year ahead. However, with the known pending exceptional pressures and other factors, including an increase in National Insurance contributions and a rise in legal aid fees, challenges still lie ahead. I look forward to working on the Committee this year as we support the Minister in resolving those concerns.

Mr Kingston: I rise as a DUP member of the Committee for Communities, along with my colleague Maurice Bradley and further to the Budget briefing that we received at the Committee on 8 May. We note with concern that the allocation to the Department for Communities for the new financial year has left a shortfall compared with the bid from the Minister. Whilst that is not a unique outcome, it has resulted in shortfalls in various work streams. Despite that, we welcome the fact that the Minister has made some important additional allocations, mentioning first the increase of £2·8 million to voluntary and community sector groups to cope with increases in employers' National Insurance contributions, the real living wage and other inflationary pressures. That need for groups receiving neighbourhood renewal funding was raised with the Minister during his recent visit to meet groups in Ballysillan and other parts of North Belfast. They also highlighted the need for confirmation of funding for the remainder of this financial year, which, we trust, will follow on quickly from the passing of the Budget Bill today.

Likewise, there is an increase of £3·8 million for various arm's-length bodies, and also to be welcomed is the additional £3·7 million for the Supporting People programme and other measures to tackle homelessness. For the administration of social security benefits, we welcome the funding of an extra 400 staff for this year, although that is not yet recurrent. The Minister has expressed his commitment to reducing error and fraud in the benefit system, with the potential to retain a substantial percentage of the resulting savings to fund public services in Northern Ireland through invest to save. We urge the Minister and officials to continue to make the case for that to His Majesty's Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Turning to the departmental capital budget for 2025-26, the allocation of £270 million capital DEL and £48·1 million financial transactions capital regrettably left a substantial shortfall of £161·3 million in the Department's bid, which is greatly disappointing. There is a desire to increase that allocation during the year, although we understand that in-year monitoring rounds are expected to result in lesser amounts than in previous years. Whilst the budget for new social housing during this year currently provides for 1,000 new units, we acknowledge that the Minister has brought forward some innovative ideas to address housing need. They include financial transactions capital to support intermediate rent; the purchase of 600 properties for emergency accommodation to take pressure off non-standard emergency accommodation; and, in the review of the points system, the removal of intimidation points, which were deemed by many to be unfair.

Finally, we had a briefing at the same Committee meeting on staffing levels, particularly for the administration of social security both in Northern Ireland and in GB through the Department for Work and Pensions. Currently, 22% of positions are vacant. There is a need to increase the rate of recruitment and to consider whether all posts are needed or whether appraisal of them could result in efficiency savings. Those are matters that the Committee will continue to monitor and will come back to.

Ms Mulholland: I rise as an Alliance spokesperson for communities. While the total of £940·9 million resource DEL, £270 million capital DEL and £48·1 million in financial transactions capital provides substantial funding, critical challenges remain. The Department's earmarked resource funding of £184·1 million meets key needs, including, as mentioned before, the benefit delivery staffing and the universal credit services, which are essential for vulnerable individuals. However, the £98·6 million shortfall in non-ring-fenced resource DEL poses a serious risk to service delivery, and we have to examine whether that funding gap will hinder the Department's ability to meet demand.

Capital funding remains another area of concern. The £270 million allocated falls £161·3 million short of the Department's request, potentially limiting investment in infrastructure projects that are vital for community development. While the full allocation of £48·1 million in financial transactions capital is welcome, we have to assess whether that will sufficiently support long-term improvements and investment. Despite the urgency and significance of proposed changes to the disability welfare payments, no budget line has been allocated to address their impact, and the Minister has indicated that he will rely on in-year monitoring. That omission is really concerning, as those reforms will undoubtedly be the most pressing issue facing vulnerable citizens in our society in the coming year, with potentially devastating consequences. The full scope and breadth of the cuts remain unclear, and the Department's failure consistently to collect vital data, such as how many individuals receive four points in a single element of the personal independence payment (PIP) assessment, leaves us, as policymakers and legislators, in the dark about how those changes will unfold. Without that robust financial planning and clear data, the repercussions could be even more far-reaching, risking the well-being of thousands who rely on disability support.

Equally troubling is the lack of forward investment in the Executive's anti-poverty strategy, which the Minister's Department is responsible for leading on. Tackling poverty should be at the heart of the Government's agenda, but the strategy has been left without any necessary funding to drive meaningful change. Again, it has to rely on in-year monitoring. My concern is that, without dedicated financial backing, efforts to reduce poverty and provide essential services to those in need will remain stagnant, further entrenching inequality. The absence of those committed resources in the Budget threatens to undermine any improvement of living standards and support for communities most affected by economic hardship. Whilst maintaining the discretionary support grants at £25·5 million provides stability for those facing financial difficulties, the broader financial landscape remains constrained. With a £17 million funding gap, the Department is left navigating those severe limitations, restricting opportunities for new investment and reinforcing the urgency that we need for robust financial planning.

Whilst the Minister says that employment is the best way out of poverty and I acknowledge that employment can be a crucial factor in economic stability, it is misguided to claim that it is the best route out of poverty. It is not just a matter of job availability; it is about deeply entrenched systemic inequalities, institutional barriers and a lack of social protections for the most vulnerable that we see not being addressed in the Budget. A truly effective approach to tackling poverty requires us to prioritise equitable access to healthcare, which was mentioned, and housing, education and welfare support to ensure that individuals are not left behind. When we remove those structural barriers and offer meaningful social protections, such as the removal of the two-child limit, people can move out of poverty with dignity rather than being forced into precarious employment. Economic justice demands a much broader and more inclusive approach.

Housing is a fundamental pillar of our society. A reliable and appropriate living situation directly impacts on physical and mental well-being. The housing crisis persists and remains one of the most pressing issues facing our communities. While £100 million has been earmarked in the Budget for social housing, that is a significantly inadequate amount, leaving a £161·3 million funding gap that will hinder progress in meeting the growing demand. The allocation for new-build social homes that will allow for around 1,000 new starts falls well below the target of 2,000, reinforcing concerns that too many families and individuals will continue to face housing insecurity through the Budget. Furthermore, homelessness prevention measures, although receiving an additional £3·7 million, still lack the necessary investment to truly tackle the root causes of housing instability. Without comprehensive, forward-thinking funding, the housing crisis will simply deepen. Having a housing supply strategy is useful, but, when it is not backed by adequate resources and funding lines in the Budget, it will not allow us to meet the challenges that we face.

Although investment in arm's-length bodies such as the Arts Council, Libraries NI and National Museums NI is a positive step in maintaining public engagement with the arts, culture and heritage, significant barriers remain. Funding constraints continue to limit the ability of arts organisations to plan for long-term sustainability, deliver ambitious and innovative projects and sustain operations in the face of rising costs. Inflation, pay pressures and a lack of dedicated investment for sector-wide growth create instability, making it difficult for artists, cultural practitioners and heritage organisations to thrive. Accessibility and inclusion in the arts require meaningful long-term support, yet financial limitations often prevent expansion into underserved communities. Without strategic, long-term and sustained funding — not a one-year Budget — Northern Ireland risks losing vital cultural assets that enrich our society and contribute to economic growth.

If we are to truly build a fairer and more inclusive Northern Ireland, we have to prioritise investment in the services and strategies that protect our most vulnerable. While the Budget provides critical funding for the Department for Communities, it is insufficient in key areas. It leaves too many gaps that threaten progress. We have to demand long-term strategic solutions that address poverty, housing insecurity, employment barriers and the sustainability of our cultural and heritage organisations.

Mr McGrath: Budgets are, in essence, moral documents, because they detail not just how much we spend but what we value and what we really want to spend our money on. Regrettably, if this Budget is the Executive's statement of values, I am afraid that the message from the Executive is loud and clear: healthcare does not matter enough.

In the Budget, health receives £8·5 billion, but do not be misled by that headline. The Department asked for a 10·6% increase just to stand still but was handed barely 4%. That is a real-terms cut to hospitals, GPs and mental health services. If we take stock for a moment, we find that the Executive have £16·9 billion for day-to-day spending and that, of that, only £215 million has been earmarked for reducing waiting lists and investing in elective care. Our health service is collapsing under the weight that it carries, and the Executive are simply watching it happen. Here is what the cuts to health funding mean in real life: over 450,000 people are on hospital waiting lists; the mental health system is stretched to breaking point; and £400 million was spent on agency staff last year because we are not working to retain our staff. Where is the urgency? Where is the investment? Where is the transformation? Why is Health not the number-one priority for the Executive?

The Budget is not just about money; it is about outcomes. Underfunded care means longer waiting times. It means more burnout for people. In real life, the Budget means worse survival rates. Let us be honest: the Executive promised transformation. Parties promised that Health would come first, but, when the chance came, they blinked. They have allocated just 2% of the biggest block grant in history to the outcomes in the Programme for Government's priorities. That is not transformation; that is simply tinkering at the edges. Where is the vision? Where is the reform? Where is the courage?

We have been clear. Our documents have said that we would commit to spends in the Departments with Programme for Government priorities. We would like to see more money set aside for those priorities, be it health, housing, childcare or economic inclusion. We would cut waste and end the cycle of agency dependency and overspending on failed projects by grasping the fiscal powers to gain control over income tax levies and borrowing powers to shape our own future. We would create a regional investment bank for long-term health, infrastructure and workforce planning. It is about future-proofing our finances with a future generations Act that ensures that long-term well-being is at the centre of every pound that we spend. Instead, this Budget refuses to take control of our future and simply blames everyone else when things fall apart.

People are exhausted not just by the waiting but by the wait for leadership. If the Executive will not prioritise the health of the public, the SDLP will stand in the Chamber and in communities and call it what it is: a betrayal of trust and a Budget that fails the sick.

Mr Martin: I speak on behalf of my party but also as a member of the Education Committee. I will address some short remarks to the Budget as it pertains to the issues under the remit of Education.

There are a range of projects and programmes that Members in this place, not least me — I reflect on the recent comments made by my colleague behind me — would love to see delivered in our schools and for our young people through the auspices of the Department. The Minister doubtless shares such enthusiasm, but, as Members will be aware, he is limited by the parameters set by the Finance Minister through the Budget allocation. It will be no surprise to any Member in the Chamber that he has made it clear that he does not believe that the Education allocation is nearly enough; in fact, in March, the Minister said that he was facing pressures of around £400 million. However, I also recognise that the Finance Minister is in a precarious position, but there can be few greater priorities than the education of our children, both ethically and in terms of the investment that it delivers for our society.

Specifically, I note the resource DEL allocations contained in the PFG priorities. First, to deliver:

I note that £50 million has been made available and will remain centrally held for allocation. I also acknowledge the Finance Minister's reference earlier today to an additional £5 million from June monitoring that would be added to that. Under the priority area:

some £15 million has been allocated. Both of those are PFG priorities, and, whilst we are speaking about the 2025-26 Budget today, it would be short-sighted not to make the point — if there is a point in this speech, I imagine that this is it — that those will need to be replicated and increased in 2026-27.

The independent review of education outlined the fact that our education sector literally requires additional hundreds of millions of pounds to address long-standing shortfalls, and there is a range of other consistent demands on the Education budget. I am sure that I could speak for hours — apparently, I am limited to seven minutes — but I will not do that. However, it is also worth addressing the pressures on special educational needs. I will quote directly from the new SEN reform agenda, which says the following:

There is also significant pressure on the capital budgets in the Department. That includes major capital projects, which is new schools, school enhancement programmes (SEPs) and minor works. I also want to acknowledge the ring-fenced SEN capital that the Education Minister has introduced specifically to build new schools for special needs kids.

I will reflect the fact that members of the Education Committee, mainly from Executive parties, regularly asked the Minister to do more: raise funding for schools, reintroduce programmes or, perhaps, refurbish more buildings, all of which are very notable and worthwhile. It is worth making the point that the Education Minister can spend only the money that is allocated to him. He has no magic money-creating wand, certainly not one that I am aware of, so, if you want him to do more, more must be given to him and the Department to enable them to achieve that.

While the 2025-26 Budget demonstrates a commitment to Education through increased allocations and targeted investments, it is my understanding that significant funding gaps remain. Addressing those shortfalls is imperative to ensure that every child in Northern Ireland receives the quality education that they deserve.

Mr McReynolds: As infrastructure spokesperson for the Alliance Party, I rise to support the Budget and to highlight the reasons why infrastructure is so strategically important for many of our ambitions as an Assembly.

Since restoration last year, my role has given me the opportunity to speak with engineers, builders, planners and developers, and it has shown me just how significant a role the Department for Infrastructure plays in all our lives each and every day. A successful, thriving economy, cohesive communities and healthy and happy people are all underpinned by foundations that are fit for purpose, and, if we can get the basics right in planning, water and transport, we can achieve more for Northern Ireland and the people who elect us to this place.

I have said this before, but, in my opinion, the Infrastructure Department does not get the respect or consistent funding that it deserves, with short-term politics leading to costly delays in the short term and long term. Years of instability and collapse have also made things worse over the past number of years. That is why we must work collectively as an Assembly to introduce multi-year Budgets and establish an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission to protect and direct investment in major capital projects under the guidance of engineering experts.

The decisions made by the Infrastructure Minister are fundamental to the majority of aims listed in the Programme for Government. Water, transport and planning are key to building homes, protecting the environment and economic growth. Passing the Budget will give stability and clarity to our public services, but all Departments will be required to operate in a difficult financial landscape in the year ahead, as we have heard so many times today.

The Department for Infrastructure is no exception, and I recognise that, whilst DFI's resource and capital budgets have increased by 13·9% and 12% respectively compared with last year, there are still significant challenges for the adequate baseline funding of Northern Ireland Water, Translink and other departmental functions.

The financial challenge for Northern Ireland Water is well rehearsed in the Chamber and in the Infrastructure Committee. The appointment of forensic accountants to investigate resource overspend was a scenario mentioned back in February when Northern Ireland Water informed the Infrastructure Committee that there was not enough money to keep the business running in 2024-25. Whilst I agree with the Minister's remedial actions, the budget allocated to Northern Ireland Water was not adequate to begin with. We face a potentially worse picture next year, when resource and capital costs are due to rise significantly. Compared with an assessed capital need of £549 million, indicative allocations show that Northern Ireland Water will be underfunded in the next financial year well beyond the £3 million overspend that triggered that forensic accounting intervention. Ensuring that Northern Ireland Water has sufficient baseline funding to enable the continuation of water and waste water services is one of the Assembly's highest priorities. Without decisive action from the Minister for Infrastructure on a way forward that can plug the gap between what DFI can allocate and what Northern Ireland Water needs, the threat to our environment, to public health and to our economy will remain.

I will now turn to the funding of Translink. Public transport will play a key role in the realisation of net zero emissions by 2050, especially as surface transport is our second-largest emitting sector. Translink has similar concerns that running out of money may be a risk, especially given the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. I have heard first-hand that there is a strong chance that plans for a night-time bus service in Belfast will not come to fruition because of a funding shortfall. The Budget document itself states that the capital budget outcome will not facilitate the high level of investment that the Department initially identified, which will result in delays on progress being made with some key schemes.

A similar level of investment in active travel is necessary, yet we have seen the glacial delivery of the Belfast cycle network. Thankfully, delivery is picking up speed. I have been fortunate to call down to consultations on schemes in East Belfast. We need to pick up the pace, however. There are arterial routes in and out of the city centre that do not have a viable cycle alternative that is safe for cyclists to use. Additionally, the cycle lanes that we have are not protected, thus endangering the safety of those who choose to cycle. Safe and accessible active travel infrastructure is vital in order to ensure a clean, sustainable transport system that works for everyone.

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, possibly for the first time in the Chamber, "Is there a point to any of what I have just said? I think that there is". Today's Budget is a step forward, but it is not enough. Infrastructure also needs political stability from us all — it is not just about money — multi-annual budgets and informed decision-making. Only then will we see better connectivity, health and environmental protections in the future.

Dr Aiken: Much has been debated in the Chamber today and on previous occasions about the various Budget Bills. Although the debate on the 2025-26 Budget may appear to be rather technical and complex, the key fact to note is that it is part of the mechanism for formally agreeing £19·44 billion of the total UK Government expenditure of £35 billion in Northern Ireland. That is around £18,400 per head of population in this part of our nation.

As the Minister has already stated, the Northern Ireland Executive published their draft Budget in December 2024. They conducted a consultation, and, as part of the draft Budget process, Departments assessed their draft budget positions in line with their departmental equality scheme arrangements. It was noteworthy that in this, the first proper Budget cycle post the restoration of the Assembly, many of the commitments that were made by the parties at Hillsborough Castle to prioritise health were pointedly ignored in the first draft Budget that was then published. That and the bizarre, to say the least, accounting measure of reporting the Department of Health budget from its opening rather than closing position was one of the many reasons that our party was not able to support the Budget process at that stage.

I am delighted to say that the new Minister has reverted to normal, good financial management practices — well done, Minister — for this year's Budget, noting properly that the 2025-26 Health budget position has been baselined against the 2024-25 closing position.

While we await the implications of the forthcoming comprehensive spending review from Whitehall, it is clear that, since last autumn, much has changed on the macroeconomic level, with global uncertainty increasing. What is now becoming abundantly clear is that pressures on our Budget allocation are not going to decrease. Our party has called regularly for a prosperity agenda that is linked to a clear growth strategy at the heart of government: an agenda that must tackle the high rate of economic inactivity at 27%, which stubbornly persists and is growing, even as levels of unemployment are at historical lows. Building a pathway to prosperity with the brakes that have been imposed by the Chancellor's rise in employers' National Insurance contributions will require agility and creative thinking.

We know from this Budget that the Finance Minister is fully aware of departmental pressures. He and his Department have been fully informed by the work of the Fiscal Council, even though it is not yet on a statutory footing, and the Fiscal Commission, so they know that the deficit between what we have and what we need is significant. That figure in broad terms, adjusted for inflation, has remained steady at around £0·5 billion per annum over the past decade. We know, because of the great work of the Fiscal Commission and the Fiscal Council, that Northern Ireland was not being provided for appropriately on a needs basis. The fact that even the Treasury has recognised that since the talks at Hillsborough means that it has quite easily factored in a rise to 124%. That is an uplift that is only beginning to bring us into line with where we should be.

We understand that Professor Holtham's review is nearly ready to be published. Hopefully, he will recognise that our need is probably closer to 126% or 128%. Even if that is supported by Treasury, it will probably still fall short of what we need.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Yes, certainly.

Mr O'Toole: As I have just walked into the Chamber, it is very courteous of the Member to give way. He mentioned the review being published. The Minister could confirm this for us, but I do not think that there is a plan to publish it. It is my understanding that it has been provided to the UK Government. Does the Member agree that it would be helpful if it were published now for us to see?

Dr Aiken: I agree; it should be published.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Dr Aiken: It is important for us to be able to see it, and I am sure that the Minister will refer to that. Thank you very much indeed, Matthew, for the intervention and the extra minute. It is much appreciated.

I talked earlier about efficiencies and reform. As MLAs, we must critically examine how we spend our public moneys. There are several red flags that we should be highlighting, each of which is having a detrimental impact on this year's Budget. The first one is how Departments are reporting their monthly out-turns against Budget allocations and pressures. Looking at the flow of expenditure in the Department for the Economy, for instance, especially the monthly variances with transfers, should have raised considerable cause for concern. It is no surprise that its accounts were not only qualified but disclaimed. In the private sector or any properly run not-for-profit organisations, heads would have rolled. Regrettably, that was not the case in that Department.

The fact that our Departments cannot manage public procurement should be a shock and a wake-up call that leads to greater scrutiny and accountability. While Ministers are ultimately responsible, sometimes, as we have seen over the past year, the politicians are the last to know about massive overspends in capital projects. It is clear that the culture of miscommunication, to put it mildly, in our Senior Civil Service, which was identified in the RHI and COVID inquiries, remains. The Audit Office reports, with depressing regularity, on our shortcomings in public procurements for buildings, IT systems, roads, and much else. Minister, we will be hard-pressed to ask the Treasury for more resources when, quite frankly, the levels of ineptitude in our public finances remain readily apparent.

The next election will soon be upon us, and there seems to be a reluctance to address the issue of revenue raising. We note that the Economy Minister is tentatively kite-flying discussions on tuition fees, particularly as our higher education sector is falling further behind the leading universities in the rest of our country, with cutbacks in staff numbers and courses, while, at the same time, pushing hard for expansion in Londonderry. The mismatch between ambition and delivery is worryingly large. Coupled with Ulster University's appalling record in capital build project management, we must have real oversight over how the expansion of the Magee campus is being procured and managed. I wish the Finance Minister well in his endeavours with the Treasury. However, Minister, I am afraid that continuing to make the austerity argument whilst our public finance stewardship has been shown to be questionable presents more than just reputational challenges.

In-year pressures have been mounting, not just for Health but for Justice too. The funding for Justice does not meet the needs of the PSNI, our Prison Service or the justice system at all. We must commend the Chief Constable for putting his service first. One can only imagine the frustration that such an experienced policeman must have felt at being chastised by a permanent secretary who seems to be more interested in process than in delivering for the people of Northern Ireland.

Another area of immediate concern that is always being reported but about which there seems to be little urgency is Northern Ireland Water. While forensic accountants have been brought in to examine 1% of its budget, the lack of investment in our waste water infrastructure is holding back everything in Northern Ireland. It is a real drag on the future of our economy. Our agriculture sector is known for its large contribution to the economy and support of the countryside. The challenges for farming are multiplying. There is a need to replace the farm payments system with some form of ring-fenced funding that can be delivered with certainty. Again, that will be problematic.

Health, which was given prominence in the Programme for Government, now needs, as agreed by all parties, to receive the funding that is necessary to allow us to do the difficult task of transformation whilst maintaining and improving existing services. While we welcome the belated recognition that tackling our appalling waiting lists needs to be an Executive-wide priority, the decision to allocate £165 million of existing funding to that will almost certainly require an Executive-wide response to allow the Department to come to a break-even budget position.

We took the Health portfolio because nobody else wanted it and we believe in delivering for all the people in Northern Ireland.

In much the same way as the Executive have been constantly chasing their shortfall of half a billion pounds, Health has been constantly trying to catch up with the cuts imposed by the Health Minister, Michael McGimpsey, in 2007, as the need for the health service has grown.

I will conclude my remarks there. There is a lot to do, if we are to get the Budget across the line. We need to be extraordinarily careful if we are to be able to go to the Treasury again to ask for more money.

Mr Durkan: The Budget is a masterclass in managed decline. It tries to paper over the cracks of the damage done by decades of disinvestment from London and dysfunction and a dearth of ideas here. As my party colleagues have mentioned, if "Doing what matters most" is the Executive's guiding principle, it does not appear to include "Doing things differently". If we had a pound for every time that we have heard, "Next year, we'll move to multi-year Budgets", we would be in a much better financial position. We have an Executive of optics who govern by press release. The carefully choreographed photo ops and promises of leadership for all are starting to wear thin. People still cannot get a GP or dentist appointment; their daily journeys are peppered with potholes; local businesses struggle to stay afloat and keep people in work; and the dream of owning or even accessing a secure home is nigh on impossible. The reality on the ground bears no resemblance to the press conferences in the Great Hall, and people are right to ask, "If this is leadership, why aren't our lives getting any better?".

Let us begin where the cracks are most visible: our crumbling infrastructure. Some 70% of our road infrastructure is classified as "poor" or "very poor". For many constituencies, potholes are not just a nuisance but a menace. One kilometre of the Strand Road — a main arterial route in my constituency — has had 400 pothole repairs in the past five years, yet the area does not warrant resurfacing. The strategic road maintenance plan recommends an annual spend of £143 million to keep our roads in a steady and safe state. That target has not been met once in the past decade. Instead, we get patchwork repairs and escalating costs. The collapse of Stormont meant that fallback funding from monitoring rounds also vanished, and our roads, like other public services, were left to disintegrate. Meanwhile, compensation claims have soared to £25 million in the past five years. The cost of doing nothing is not zero; it is millions. This is not belt tightening; it is strangulation. We need investment in maintenance, not just vanity projects. The public are not crying out for flashy announcements or more consultations; they are crying out for their street lights to work, for their drains not to overflow and for roads not to ruin their cars.

Once again, the Budget fails to confront the crisis in our water and waste water infrastructure. Northern Ireland Water and others have been clear: without improved and sustained investment, housing development will stall, pollution will worsen and public health will be at risk.

Mr O'Toole: I thank my colleague, who is on the Infrastructure Committee, for giving way. Has he noted, as I have, that, despite all the talk, the allocation for waste water goes up by less than 2% from 2024-25 to 2025-26, which is below inflation and far below what needs to be invested?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for that intervention. It goes up, but, in real terms, it goes down and, as Mr McReynolds highlighted, goes far below what is required and what was identified as being required in the price control plan. The Executive continue to kick the can down the road.

Earlier this year, the Executive celebrated the long overdue housing supply strategy, but what hope is there of solving the housing crisis, if the infrastructure is not there and plans cannot be approved? Ms Mulholland outlined how the Budget will build nowhere near enough homes. The Executive, however, sit on hundreds of acres of vacant public land and own buildings that cost millions to maintain. Those are assets that could and should be repurposed to provide social and affordable housing. Emergency accommodation costs have ballooned from £700,000 to nearly £8 million. I raised the alarm on those figures years ago, but Ministers looked away and showed little appetite for confronting the consequences of inaction and its inevitable cost to the public purse and to people. We have constantly raised the need for an infrastructure commission to tackle capital overspend of £3 billion, but what has dominated headlines instead is a row about £150,000 being spent on Irish language signage at Grand Central station, which, by the way, is a project that ran over budget by tens of millions of pounds. The selective spats over such issues while we ignore the daily dysfunction bleeds public funds dry and sucks public confidence out of politics.

We cannot advise people to leave their car at home when public transport is not up to scratch. One in five rural bus services have been cancelled. Fares have gone up multiple times, yet investment remains nowhere near what is required. In 2023, the South's rail network reported a 28·5% increase in passenger journeys: we had an increase of 7·1%. That underscores the huge disparity in investment. We need a reliable, affordable and regionally balanced public transport network to reduce car dependency, protect our environment and boost the economy.

Is there money in the Budget for the remediation of Mobuoy dump? The cost of delay is mounting for the taxpayer and for the environment. It is the perfect metaphor for how the Executive operate: avoid action, avoid responsibility and avoid reality until things collapse in crisis. That collapse can clearly be seen in our health system, which is haemorrhaging staff, no longer just to better paid jobs down under but to Donegal. Waiting lists are obscene. People are turning to credit unions and other less reputable sources to borrow money for private care. We hope that the reimbursement scheme will help in part to address that situation, but we need preventative care, not just crisis management. We have heard much lately about the cost of obesity. The Barnett consequential from the sugar tax levy should be ring-fenced here to address related health issues such as obesity and type 2 diabetes. Instead, there is a complete lack of political will to implement such simple solutions. Departments need to work together.

The mental health crisis here continues to deepen, yet the Budget fails to address it. The removal of funding to vital services such as Northlands will leave more vulnerable people without the help that they urgently need and shift the burden to emergency services, Justice and the housing system. There needs to be more investment in policing and community safety. The Chief Constable has been quoted as saying that his budget is "beyond disappointing". Policing numbers are a cause for real concern. Response times are up, and confidence is down. The perception of policing is shifting, not on the basis of any political ideology but because of the public's struggle to access basic services. Communities do not feel safe because call-outs are not answered and many crimes are not properly investigated. We acknowledge that we need more money from Westminster, but we also need better ideas at Stormont.

I will finish with a word on political hypocrisy. In the South, Sinn Féin calls for more water infrastructure investment, housing reform and an overhaul of planning. That is all laudable, but all of that is opposed or neglected when they sit at the head of the table here.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up, Mr Durkan.

Mr Durkan: They are ruling by fooling.

Ms Sugden: The Budget is more of the same that I have seen in my 11 years as an MLA, only with tighter margins and bigger consequences. Of course, there is a job to be done in keeping services ticking over. People still need hospital appointments, classrooms still need teachers, and the police still need to be on our streets. I do not underestimate the challenge of delivering day-to-day services with a limited budget. However, if all that we are doing is keeping things ticking over, we will never fix what is broken. We are haemorrhaging money while trying to keep a lid on a system that cracked years ago. We are firefighting, not reforming; reacting, not planning; and surviving, not transforming. Firefighting, reacting and surviving are necessary to keep services going, but transforming is about turning off the tap to a sink that we are trying to empty.

All of that comes not just at a financial cost but at a human cost. It is a cost paid by the people whom we represent in longer waiting times, reduced access, poor outcomes and greater inequality. Those are consequences of a system that is out of step with the people whom it is meant to serve. We are told that there is no bottomless pit of money — we have heard that from a number of Ministers today — but that makes it all the more important that we start spending our money wisely. We need to think upstream. We need to shift our mindset from one of short-term crisis management to one of long-term investment in prevention and better outcomes. We — the Government that I was a part of — started doing that in 2016, but then that Government collapsed for three years. We should not underestimate the problems that we see in our public services from not having government for a sustained period. We are not, however, seeing any evidence of that shift. Although the funding that is set aside for transformation is welcome, it feels like an afterthought. It is fragmented and lacks coherence. We have heard little about where it is going, what it is achieving or how it fits into any wider plan. If there is a long-term vision for transforming public services, it certainly is not being communicated — maybe this Government just do not know how to do that.

The Budget shows once again the limits of our system of governance. We talk about power-sharing, but, in practice, it is shared-out government, with Departments pulling in different directions, Ministers protecting their silos and little incentive or pressure to genuinely collaborate. Transformation will not happen unless we govern differently. That means embedding an outcomes-based model that holds Departments to account not just for what they spend but for what they deliver. It means designing services around people, not structures. It means working across portfolios to tackle the complex interconnected issues that do not fit neatly into one Department, such as health inequalities, educational underachievement and economic inactivity, for which three things alone we need Departments. Crucially, it means recognising the role of the community and voluntary sector, which does a huge amount of the heavy lifting in Northern Ireland. In every part of our region, community organisations deliver front-line support, often with limited and insecure funding. They pick up the pieces where statutory services fall short. They know their communities and innovate out of necessity, yet their role is seen as optional and something to be funded, "If we can", when, in reality, they are essential partners in delivering public services and achieving social outcomes. It is not acceptable, sustainable or fair to expect the community sector to plug the gaps indefinitely. If we are serious about prevention, early intervention and building resilient communities, the community sector must be resourced properly and built into the strategic planning of government, rather than being treated as an afterthought.

The public deserve more than a Budget that just scrapes by. They deserve better than underpowered strategies and disconnected spending plans. They are entitled to effective, timely and dignified public services. We cannot allow mediocrity to become the standard. Without reform, however, that is exactly where we are heading. Yes, we need to keep the wheels turning for everyday public services, but we also need to be honest about where we are going. Right now, it feels like we are going round in circles, spending just enough to get through the year but never addressing why we are at breaking point year after year. This is not about criticising individual Departments and their Ministers; it is about the need for genuine structural reform, collective accountability across all Departments and Ministers and a clear, shared purpose that puts people, not process, at the centre of our public services.

I know that I say all that in vain. I know that the Budget will pass and that, this time next year, I will be making the same speech. If we do not genuinely change how we do things, we will face the same issues and be making the same points while wondering why nothing has changed.

Ms Hunter: The Budget is not just a set of numbers; it is a test of whether the Executive can turn words into action or whether they will continue the cycle of failure, short-termism, blaming and shifting that has held the North back for far too long. Let us be clear: the public deserve a Budget that works and matches resources to the priorities of our people with clear targets and outcomes that improve everyday life. Instead, what have we got? Despite receiving the largest block grant in the history of devolution, just 2% of the Budget has been allocated to the Executive's Programme for Government priorities, resulting in 98% of public spending being disconnected from the very goals that, Ministers claimed, they would deliver on: reducing waiting lists, building homes, investing in childcare and, of course, growing our economy.

The Budget does not reflect ambition; it reflects complacency. It reflects a Government more concerned with managing political optics than with delivering for the people whom they seek to serve. We were told that things would change when the Executive returned in February and that there would be transformation, fiscal sustainability and, of course, reform. Instead, we have a rerun of the same, tired approach of siloed spending, political self-interest and an unwillingness to grasp the tools of real change.

While the Executive blame Westminster — yes, the funding model is deeply flawed — they cannot continue to pull the wool over the public's eyes by ignoring their failure to act.

Three years ago, the independent Fiscal Commission provided the Executive with a roadmap to devolve more tax powers, expand borrowing flexibility, establish a reserve fund and strengthen fiscal autonomy. Sadly, not one of those recommendations has been implemented. Instead of building the future, the Executive borrow the excuses of the past. In the Programme for Government, the Executive identified childcare as a top priority, but, while Ministers tell us that we need to spend £400 million a year for proper early years support, they have allocated just £50 million to it. That is not investment; that is neglect, and parents will tell you the same thing.

Meanwhile, public services are crumbling around us: agency staff costs in health have doubled to £400 million; overspends on major capital projects now total £3 billion; and the cost of division or political dysfunction and failure to build shared services drains another £800 million every year. Furthermore, the Budget does nothing to address the glaring failures in our education system, which faces a financial crisis. We hear of the ongoing concerns of teachers, principals and our communities who feel that their children are being failed. We urgently need more funding to ensure that schools can support their students effectively. We are witnessing an education system under significant stress that is not equipped to deal with the growing demands that are being placed on it.

I would like to refer in particular to mental health services, especially those for our students, as they remain woefully inadequate. Mental health support in schools is not a luxury but a necessity, yet the response has been to underfund that area while disregarding the root causes of mental health distress, such as poverty and, of course, a wider lack of support. Our children are growing up in an environment in which their mental health is overlooked, and, as a result, their future is put at risk.

I also feel strongly about child poverty and inequality, which also continue to be ignored. A recent report by Barnardo's shows that a quarter of parents struggle to provide enough food for their children. Despite those alarming statistics, no meaningful action is being taken to tackle the structural causes of poverty, and, as a direct result, children are left without the basic necessities and schools are expected to pick up the slack with inadequate resources. Most troubling is the recent decision to fine teachers up to £2,500 for engaging in lawful union action, which is a direct attack on their rights. Rather than focusing on resolving the underlying issues that have driven our teachers to take industrial action — chronic underfunding, overwork and inadequate support — there have, sadly, been moves to criminalise their efforts to improve their working conditions and our wider education system. That move only deepens the crisis and further demoralises an already burned-out and overburdened teaching profession.

The SDLP has published a credible, costed and ambitious alternative — with fancy logos. Our plan for change starts with the basics. We would like to commit at least 10% of departmental spending to the Programme for Government priorities, backed by time-bound targets for change by 2030. We would publish departmental business cases, create a public spending dashboard and empower the Fiscal Council to monitor delivery. That is transparency and accountability. We would grasp fiscal devolution, starting with the taxes that the Fiscal Commission identified. We would reform superparity measures not by cutting what is essential but by ensuring that every pound delivers maximum social impact. We would establish a Northern Ireland regional investment bank, backed by unspent capital and designed to unlock investment in housing, green energy and, of course, enterprise. We would work with the Irish Government to develop shared budgets, because health, infrastructure and economic development do not stop at the border. Above all, we would future-proof our finances by introducing a future generations Bill, ensuring that every spending decision reflects our shared priorities, promotes sustainability and delivers for the next generation and not just for the next election. That is not a theory or aspiration without action; it is a plan, grounded in reality, driven by values and very much ready to go.

The North can no longer afford a Government who pick fights over flags. We need leadership that is focused on affordable childcare, decent jobs, clean energy and homes that people can actually live in. People here are tired of promises. They want results; they want public money to be spent wisely; and they want a Government who plan beyond tomorrow. This Budget fails that test, but the SDLP is ready and has a better answer. The people of the North deserve a Budget that works not just for headlines but for homes, hospitals and hope.

Mr Carroll: It would be fair to describe this Budget as another year of crisis management: another year of what were once winter pressures in our emergency departments but are now pressures felt 365 days a year; another year of a housing waiting list that is growing whilst private rents soar and landlords evict tenants into homelessness; and another year of toxic algae spreading across Lough Neagh and our waterways like a disease. This is another cruel, punishing Budget for working-class people, and I will vote against it. I urge all Executive parties that complain about Westminster austerity to do the same and refuse to do Keir Starmer's economic bidding.

It looks like health and social care trusts are expected to generate hundreds of millions of pounds in savings — otherwise known as cuts — this year. The Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Care (NICON) described the cuts as:

but the Executive plough on. In practice, that will look like pay deals for workers that are lower than those implemented in Britain, reduced funding for the community and voluntary sector, a restriction of domiciliary care packages and fewer care home beds.

The Budget announcement made in April by the Finance Minister did bring some welcome news, with increased funding for tackling health waiting lists. However, plans to increase our reliance on private hospitals to clear waiting list backlogs are nothing more than stealth privatisation, and the reimbursement scheme will pay back patients who can afford to pay up front for private treatment south of the border. That is effectively a subsidy for private hospitals in the South. Apart from the madness of strengthening the private sector at the expense of the NHS, most of the £215 million ring-fenced to tackle waiting lists is not even extra money. Some £165 million has already been ring-fenced in the Department's general allocation, which the Department says will intensify the need for Health and Social Care to make further savings to live within its means. Presumably, the Minister's plans to tackle waiting lists will be funded by cuts to vital services such as domiciliary care packages. That simply means that more people will be stuck in our hospitals, unable to go home with an appropriate care package in place, which means more people waiting in corridors in A&E for a hospital bed to become available, more patients sitting in ambulances waiting to get into A&E and more people in a state of medical emergency waiting for an ambulance that will take hours or days to arrive. Is that one of the "catastrophic cuts" on which the Minister will refuse to sign off? Any investment in tackling waiting lists that relies on making cuts or efficiency savings elsewhere in the system is a recipe for complete disaster.

An extra £100 million for housing in the Budget means around 1,000 new social homes this year. That falls far short of the Department's target of 2,000 per year. The Department's equality impact assessment states that the constrained capital budget for housing will have a disproportionate impact on almost all section 75 equality groups. That should come as no surprise; the housing crisis does not discriminate. Migrants are victims of it as well — something that the Members who tabled tomorrow's motion would do well to remember. More and more working-class families are waiting for social housing, because they cannot afford private rents of £1,000 or more a month in Belfast. In the meantime, they are sofa-surfing or living out of suitcases in temporary accommodation, far from work, school, friends and family. The Executive could take measures that would require minimal investment, including rent controls and a no-fault eviction ban, but maybe the cost of upsetting landlords is just too great to bear. No doubt the Department will be allocated more money for social housing in dribs and drabs through monitoring rounds, but that is no way to fund a social housing development programme that is supposed to prioritise the building of social housing on the basis of need.

I will turn to social security. At least 35,000 people in the North will be impacted on by the Labour Government's cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) and universal credit. There is no money in the Budget to mitigate those inhumane costs, never mind the two-child limit, which affects nearly one in five children in my constituency. Our health and social care services, our social security system and the wider economy will all suffer as a result of the tens of thousands of people being forced into poverty, destitution and unemployment, but that is another problem for another day under this Budget. As long as the Executive are content for Westminster to hold the purse strings as our public services crumble, there is no time to take a step back and think about whether the rich should finally start paying their fair share.

The Department of Education has a legal duty to encourage and facilitate the development of Irish-medium education. Tá mé iontach buartha faoin scéala faoi Bhunscoil an tSléibhe Dhuibh. Cheadaigh an Roinn iarratas ar rang breise naíscoile, ach dúradh leis an scoil ó shin gur rith maoiniú chiste Pathway as. Cead agat spás breise bheith agat do dhaoine óga, ach ní mhaoineoidh muidne é. Tá sin go huile is go hiomlán scannalach. Iarraim ar an Aire Airgeadais agus ar a chuid feidhmeannach aird a dhíriú ar an cheist sin go luath, in éineacht le feidhmeannaigh na Roinne Oideachais. £4.4 milliún an buiséad a bhí ag ciste Pathway anuraidh. Gealltar £4.2 milliún i mbuiséad Stormont don chomórtas gailf, the Open, i bPort Rois i mbliana. Beidh neart daoine ag cur na ceiste: an léiriú é sin ar thosaíochtaí polaitíochta an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin? Ar ndóigh, sin gan trácht a dhéanamh ar an drochbhail atá ar neart Gaelscoileanna ar fud an Tuaiscirt. Beidh neart daoine ag cur na ceiste: cad é an mhaith Aire Airgeadais nó Céad-Aire ó Shinn Féin ann má tá drochbhail ar scoileanna, in aineoinn iarrachtaí na n-oibrithe atá iontu? Tá Gaelscoil an Lonnáin, atá i mo thoghcheantar féin, suite i láthair atá as dáta agus nach bhfuil fóirsteánach. Iarraim ar an Aire Airgeadais an maoiniú a chur ar fáil le go dtig leo suíomh nua agus scoil nua bheith acu.

In recent months, there has been political consensus that, rather than punishing the poor, we should find more progressive ways of raising revenue for our public services. Despite that, the war on the poor continues unabated. Ordinary people are being hammered by a 5% increase to the regional rate this year, with absolutely no improvement in the delivery of services to justify it. Young people face possible tuition fee hikes of more than £1,000 a year. The Sinn Féin Economy Minister refused to rule that out the other day; I hope that the Sinn Féin Finance Minister will not refuse to rule it out today. Students already pay extortionate rents —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up, Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: OK. Thank you.

Mr McCrossan: At a time when our communities face immense social and economic hardship, the Budget represents a deeply worrying failure, but that is not surprising. The Executive have an appalling record over the years. They have failed our people time and time again. Let us look at the Executive's appalling record and legacy. On their watch, we have the worst health outcomes and longest waiting lists in western Europe and a crumbling school estate and roads. Our mental health service is failing vulnerable people day and daily, and, even though we have identified how to fix it, nothing has changed. Nothing is moving or improving. Housing lists are spiralling out of control, with vulnerable people being left to live in hotels and accommodation that is not fit for purpose. Again, we are well aware of the challenges and problems faced by our society, but where are the Executive? They are doing nothing. Their eyes are closed, and their hands are over their ears.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for highlighting those points, particularly about housing. Does the Member accept that the Labour Party's proposals to introduce changes to welfare and PIP, albeit not the Executive's doing, will have an incredibly negative effect on many people's ability to afford their housing costs? Indeed, some of those in private rentals —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Interventions should be brief.

Mr McGlone: — use that benefit as a top-up for their rent.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McCrossan: Absolutely. When it comes to benefits, yes, the British Government, be they Labour or Tory, have failed vulnerable people. Again, we see that playing through with the changes to PIP and, ultimately, the impact of that. We have to remember that it was a previous Executive, in which there was the same parties, who wrapped the welfare reform legislation up in a big red bow and passed the powers back to Westminster to create legislation that affects people's lives here. That power was handed back. People complain about that now, but they gave the British Government the authority to make those changes to the lives of people in our society and communities, and that is having a direct impact.

Our elderly people have also been very badly treated by the Executive. Health outcomes have deteriorated vastly over the past number of years. People have been left to go into care homes because they cannot get the support in their own home, which is a far cry from what previous Health Ministers offered in their role in the Executive.

Moreover, young people in Northern Ireland are being failed day and daily. This week, we have heard about the challenges facing further education and universities. We are sympathetic to the universities, but the first reaction from the Executive, particularly from Sinn Féin Ministers, has been, "Let's increase tuition fees". The impact of that has been understated, to be honest, because, put quite simply, when students graduate from university, they are at a point in their life at which they are looking to settle down, start a family and try to get on to the property ladder, yet they are being hindered from doing so as a result of having huge amounts of student debt. That has a direct impact on their ability to pay a mortgage.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I will not. I have a lot to get through. In the South, Sinn Féin is calling for tuition fees to be scrapped. In the North, however, the same party is saying, "Let's increase them". By implication, that means that, if Sinn Féin were in government in the South, students in Lifford would get free tuition, but, while it is in government in the North, students would be expected to pay thousands and thousands of pounds, and, in fact, Sinn Féin would continue to increase fees.

Where is the border when it comes to Sinn Féin? It is clear through its policies. It needs to be honest with the electorate, because the postcode lottery that it has allowed to be rolled out over the past number of years is unacceptable, and it is fooling no one whatsoever. Our students will not be fooled, and we will stand firmly in their corner, as we have done for the past number of years.

Poverty in this place has also spiralled out of control. One in four children in Northern Ireland is living in relative poverty. That is a shocking statistic, and — guess what? — it is worsening day by day on this Executive's watch. Parties promised the sun, the moon and the stars to people at the time of the election, but since they got into power and on to the Executive, they have delivered very little to improve people's lives.

My God, when you look at the Executive's record, it is embarrassing. What can they point to that has been a success? Even with the various projects that are being rolled out, be it Strule, the A5 or the transport hub, all have overspent. That comes down to complete and absolute incompetence at the heart of government to get projects done in a timely fashion and in a cost-effective way that is in the interests of our taxpayers.

The truth is that the Executive have no vision, no ambition and no plan. Their plan is very simple: stand still, look busy for photographs and pretend that everything is going well. On the ground, however, the situation is very different. In our emergency departments, it is very different. In homes across Strabane, Omagh and other parts of Northern Ireland, it is very different. People are struggling daily, and — guess what? — it is the responsibility of the Executive to improve people's lives and to bring about the changes that will lift up our people and offer them some hope for the future.

This week, when we hear about tuition fees and about the concerns that young people are leaving these islands, and this part of this island, to go elsewhere, it has to be said that that is not just down to the challenges with further education but down to everything. The Executive have failed at absolutely everything that they have touched. They are a disaster.

People on the ground are starting to realise that the DUP/Sinn Féin love-in in government has not been in their best interests. After the squabbles have ended over who is First Minister and who is deputy First Minister and the dust finally settles, at the end of the mandate, the DUP, Sinn Féin and the other Executive parties will need to point to what they have achieved in government that has improved people's lives, because the picture out there is very depressing and is worsening by the day.

Sinn Féin is in government and on the Executive. It holds the posts of First Minister, Economy Minister, Finance Minister and Infrastructure Minister. When Nichola Mallon was the Infrastructure Minister previously, we were starved for funding, but there is no such excuse now, because all that the Infrastructure Minister has to do is speak to the Finance Minister from her party to get the funding to resolve the waste water infrastructure crisis that is hindering the progression of all things in Northern Ireland, including housing development.

It is time to get real. The truth is that those on the Executive should have very red faces, because the Budget is a sham, and it will leave people worse off than they were yesterday.

Mr McGlone: We have heard today about some of the problems that we face, and many of them are very apparent. In our offices, we deal with many issues to do with health, education, housing: the list goes on.

I will start with housing. I referred earlier the major issues that we will face as a result of the drastic changes to welfare that are coming down the line. I do not know how the Executive are preparing for that, but one thing is for sure: we are not providing enough social housing. As we know, there are 47,000 people on waiting lists for social housing. The consequence of not providing enough social housing is that people are looking in the private rented sector. Rental costs in the private rented sector have, partially as a result of Liz Truss's wonderful ideas about finance, gone up, and there is not enough money being provided in housing benefit to cover the rent and rates that people have to pay. People who are already in difficult circumstances are dipping into their benefits to try to top up their rents. Therefore, people are being driven deeper and deeper into poverty. I do not know whether the anti-poverty strategy will come anywhere close to addressing that, but we will be facing a storm unless there is a major shift by the UK Government on benefit reform.

We are already in difficult circumstances, and that is before we even go to the infrastructure issue, which is due to a lack of adequate investment, although there are other issues at NI Water that have to be resolved. Due to inadequate investment in infrastructure, we are seeing a lack of houses, and the market then decides the price. Lack of available housing in any given area pushes up the price of housing and makes it less available to many young people and many families. We talk about affordable housing and all that, but, as a result of those issues, affordable housing has become a concept rather than a reality. I am not sure how the Executive will attempt to address that. We have not heard anything from them about that. Nothing at all.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes, sure.

Mr O'Dowd: I have been sitting for the past two or three hours listening to the Opposition tell us what the Executive are not doing. Here is an opportunity for you: what would the Opposition do on that point? I am intrigued.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McGlone: Minister, I do not have a bank of hundreds of civil servants and special advisers around me to come up with what the Government should be doing. This is about what the Government should be doing. Lead the way, Government. You have got an Executive. Lead the way. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order.

Mr McGlone: I do not know whether you have read our document. You probably have not. There are that many other documents that you should be reading, but anyway. We are seeing very little product. We will probably see a host of announcements about this review, that review and the other review. That will probably happen in the six months in the run-up to the election. I can safely predict that. Again, it is more smoke and mirrors until we get to the other side of the election and see how it is going.

I will return to some of the Budget issues that we are facing. I will go to DAERA and the removal of ring-fenced agriculture funding. That transition has caused some problems in the farming community. Inheritance tax is another issue, but we do not need to go there, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are well apprised of that. That is an issue for the Executive, not one caused by the Executive. I accept that. There have been cuts to support for our rural communities. We face significant environmental governance and pollution challenges, including, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the issues around Lough Neagh. The bovine TB eradication efforts are being underfunded, and it is predicted that, this year, the disease will cost upwards of £60 million by way of compensation and charges for veterinary and other services. Reliable sources state that the cost is likely to be £70 million next year. I really do not know at what point we will arrive at clear actions or get some direction to address that. I say this advisedly: we cannot have any more reviews on the issue. There has been some direction by way of an action plan. However, it is costing the taxpayer multiple millions. We cannot drift any further on TB.

Many other issues cropped up at the Balmoral show last week. The nutrients action programme is a stick without a carrot. We see how, down south, the Government have, in a forward-thinking way, directed action on nutrients. I accept that nutrients must be addressed, but you cannot inflict further responsibilities on the farming community, many of whom have very little annual income. You cannot inflict further impositions on that community when you are not supporting and encouraging it to do what it needs to do. That requires investment and the nurturing of our agricultural communities, everyone in which, bar those who step way out of line, is a custodian of the environment and the land.

We are facing other issues, including the Mobuoy dump. I really do not know what to say about that one, as it seems to have been about the place forever. I really do not know what cost the illegality of others there will bring upon the public purse, but it is coming down the line. DAERA ideas such as nature-friendly farming are good, but it is incredibly important to get sufficient support in the community to nurture those ideas and to make sure that our farmers are fully supported. Farmers want to do the right thing by the environment, like we do, but they require support.

Sin an méid atá le rá agam, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I look forward to the Minister, in his response, explaining what the Executive are doing.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I caution Members that the waving about of a coloured document, and its being used as a prop, will not be permitted.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Props are for the theatre, not a parliamentary debate.

Mr McNulty: We are being asked today to support a Budget that is supposed to shape the future of the North but, instead, reads as a list of missed opportunities and broken promises. In 2022, people in communities across the North were promised that things would change. Sinn Féin and the DUP told them that their health service would be rebuilt, that their children's schools would be properly funded and that the housing crisis would be confronted head-on. Three years on, this Budget tells a very different story.

Let us start with an issue that touches every family in this place: healthcare. At the previous election, Sinn Féin and the DUP promised an extra £1 billion for health. Today, what do we have? The Executive have found an additional £331 million from the last fiscal year, but trusts will have to find £400 million in savings. Talk about giving with one hand and taking away with the other, although it is not surprising from this Sinn Féin/DUP-led Executive. That is a threat to front-line services. There are theatre closures, cancelled operations and vacant posts going unfilled while patients languish in hospital corridors and on waiting lists. The Confederation for Health and Social Care said that the Budget is:

It estimates that the cuts will be equivalent to the loss of 10,000 staff. Waiting lists have not been reduced; they have grown. The people who were promised action are waiting months, sometimes years, for care. Behind every statistic is a mother waiting on cancer treatment, a child waiting for speech therapy or a carer waiting for support that never comes. That is not transformation; they are broken promises.

Going back to the previous election, Sinn Féin promised 100,000 homes over 15 years.

The DUP pledged to support construction jobs and invest in housing infrastructure, but here is the reality: just £100 million is earmarked for social housing. That might sound like a big number, but it is not even a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed to deal with a housing list of over 45,000 people. Every week, I speak to young couples who have given up on owning a home, parents who are raising children in temporary accommodation, pensioners in damp, unsuitable housing and families who are buckling under the weight of extortionate rents, dreaming of a home of their own but with no light at the end of the tunnel. How can the Executive claim to be building a better future when they are not even fit to build enough homes?

Sinn Féin and the DUP said that they would improve access to special educational needs provision and would ensure fair funding and build more schools, yet, today, schools are being told to cut classroom assistants, scrap breakfast clubs and delay repairs to buildings that are falling apart. Children with additional needs are being failed year after year, time and again, due to a lack of assessments and resourcing and a complete lack of urgency from the Executive. The Executive talk about giving our people the best start in life, but their Budget and their inertia all but ensure that some will not even get off the starting blocks.

Both parties spoke in 2022 about boosting our infrastructure: roads, digital connectivity, water. Travelling around some of our rural roads, especially in south Armagh, is akin to travelling along the surface of the moon, given the scale of the craters and the potholes. This year, we were told that £105 million will go to NI Water. That might sound impressive, but the fact is that NI Water needs five times that amount just to stand still. As a result, development has been stalled, because the infrastructure cannot cope. Those are not abstract technical issues; they are barriers to new homes, businesses and investment. The Executive cannot be taken seriously when they claim to support growth while underfunding the very infrastructure that growth depends on.

The Budget reflects not just what is in the Executive's bank account but what they view as a priority, what informs their values and what, they believe, our people deserve. Irrespective of how the Executive parties spin it, there is no escaping the reality that the people whom we represent deserve better than this Budget. They deserve better than broken promises and mediocre leadership. They deserve better than warm words, posters and platitudes while schools, roads and hospitals crumble around them. Through the Budget, the Executive are sending a message to patients, parents, pupils and pensioners of, "Wait your turn. Accept less. Be grateful for crumbs". That is not a message that the SDLP will stand behind. Those are not our values, and we cannot support this Executive Budget. This Budget fails the ambition test. This Budget fails the integrity test. This Budget fails the delivery test. This Budget fails the hope test. What else would you expect from a Sinn Fein/DUP-led Executive?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that brings us to the end of the list of Members to speak. I ask the Minister of Finance to conclude the debate and wind on the motion. Minister, you have up to 51 minutes.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

We have had an extensive debate, with, I think, 27 Members speaking on the Budget. As is perhaps understandable, it has gone back and forth on what the Executive's priorities should be, what the Executive have prioritised, what Members would like to see prioritised and which is the most important Department in the Executive. The passing of a Budget in the Assembly is somewhat less complicated than it might be elsewhere in the sense that we do not have to go through a range of taxation policies and other fiscal issues because our powers are somewhat stifled here, but we do set a Budget. To set a Budget, in some ways, is not that complicated for colleagues, whether you be in government or in the Opposition or whatever stance you may take in this place, because, basically, you have £19·3 billion to spend. The tax that you can vary is the rates, and you decide what you want to set your domestic rate at and what you want to set your non-domestic rate at. You then move forward with your block grant, which, at this stage comes to around £19·3 billion. You divide that by the number of Departments, your priorities and include the direction of travel that you want to go. My job as Finance Minister is to bring proposals to the Executive, engage with Executive colleagues on what, they believe, should be the priorities and determine whether I am in the ballpark of the direction of travel. After discussion and engagement, you present a final Budget to your Executive colleagues, and they either do or do not endorse it.

In endorsing the Budget, they are stepping outside their silos. I heard comments about silo mentality, silo working and no engagement or cooperation. Each Minister who sits around the Executive table has to make a decision after asking themselves, "Am I prepared to back a Budget that isn't everything that I wanted, doesn't cover all the priorities in my Department, and am I, for the greater good, prepared to back that Budget?". On this occasion, Ministers did exactly that. They prioritised certain areas in public expenditure that matched our Programme for Government commitments and public expectations. As Danny Donnelly said, they set a tone. The Budget sets a tone. It sets a tone that says, "We are going to tackle the waiting lists head-on. We are not going to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome". Yes, it presents challenges to the Health Minister, but it also presents challenges to the rest of the Executive in how we approach that.

There are those who say that the Executive have not prioritised Health, but we are spending £8·5 billion on Health. Should I spend £8·6 billion, £8·7 billion, £8·8 billion, £8·9 billion, £9 billion? Feel free to stop me at any time.

Mr Carroll: Keep going.

Mr O'Dowd: OK, £10 billion, £11 billion, £12 billion, but every time that Health spend goes up, do you know what is going down? Spend on Education, Communities, Economy and Agriculture are all going down. When people ask for £10 billion on Health, the Executive and I are spending billions less elsewhere. If that is your justification, do it.

The Member wants me to give way.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way, because I want to respond to the point that he is making. Mr Carroll can speak for himself and what he is calling for. We published a paper today, but I have talked about this stuff in the Assembly today. What you describe is a Budget from which you just divvy out the money that you get from London: I am saying to you that we need more than that. A true republican Finance Minister would be looking for new powers to raise money and would not simply rely on that model of funding. Can we hear that kind of ambition from you the next time we have a Budget ?

Mr O'Dowd: I heard Mr Deputy Speaker refer to your document as a prop. It would not prop up very much, I can assure you. [Laughter.]

I will tell you why the document was produced. It is not an alternative Budget. You have had six months to produce an alternative Budget. You knew that my first challenge to the Opposition today would be this: show me your alternative. You quickly produced a five-point plan that you gave to the media over the weekend. [Interruption.]

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, use it to keep yourselves cool because that is about as much use as it has.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, order. Sorry, Minister. I am sure that Members heard me when I asked that that prop not be used during the debate. [Interruption.]

Mr McGrath: It is not a prop.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members. [Interruption.]

Order, Members. Mr McGrath, I am speaking, and you will hear, and what you will hear is this: I cautioned on the use of a prop only when I had relevant previous examples and guidance in front of me. Let me be clear: the next person to raise that prop will be asked to leave.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The guidance is here, and Members are free to come to the Table and look at it.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you. The document was published at some stage over the weekend. It was not shared with me formally. I have managed to get a copy of it. OK, you have produced a Budget process going forward, but you have not produced an alternative Budget. You have had six months to produce an alternative Budget. Would you spend £8·5 billion or health, or would you spend £9 billion, £9·5 billion, £10 billion or £8 billion? How much would you spend on health in this financial year? I will give way a last time.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. To be fair, he is willing to engage in debate, and that is to his credit.

The Minister wants us to produce an exact alternative to his document. I have lots of issues with his document, but I am not going to wave any document about. I just want to ask this robust question: will he give me and my colleagues access to the thousands of officials whom he has working for him to test our costings, as they do south of the border? Let us not be partitionist about it.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have thousands of officials working on the Budget. The Member meets the Budget team regularly, and he knows that it is in single figures. The Member has every document I have access to in terms of facts and figures around the Budget. Every Department and every Committee has access to the Budget figures that I have. You have all the information. The equation is simple: divide £19·3 billion by your priorities. How much would you spend on health this year? Would you spend £8·5 billion, £9 billion, £10 billion or £11 billion? That is what I want to know, because that is the decision that Members and the Executive have to take. The Executive, in a corporate act, have decided to prioritise health and ring-fence funding for issues such as the health waiting lists. Not only that: the Executive have provided an additional £15 million for special educational needs. How much is the alternative Budget providing for special educational needs?

We will spend an additional £15 million to build the skills that are needed now and in the future. The Budget provides an additional £5 million to make our communities safer; £2 million towards ending violence against women and girls; £5 million towards the protection of Lough Neagh; and £21·3 million for Health, Justice, Infrastructure and special educational needs. The Budget has set out its priorities clearly. Therefore, those who vote against the Budget today, while they may make speeches — some of which were informative, and some of which were complete and utter nonsense, to be frankly honest — have brought nothing whatever to either the debate about the Budget or the well-being or future direction of this society. It is easy to stand up and be negative, produce negativity, demean our public-sector workers about the services that are being delivered daily and claim again and again that we are governing over a disaster. We are not governing over a disaster; we are governing over a huge challenge at this time, and, if the Executive continue to work in a cooperative, collaborative way, we can take on many of those challenges. That is my mission in politics and moving forward.

I will not allow myself to be dragged down into the cesspit of negativity that sometimes circulates around this place. I will not set the Budget on the basis of the latest headline. I will not set the Budget on the basis of the quite questionable reports that are published at times, and I will not set the Budget on the basis of who shouts loudest inside or outside the Chamber. That is not the way it will operate. We will work to a plan. We have the Programme for Government and our Budget, the ISNI strategy will be published, and we will push forward despite all our challenges. Will there be fiscal devolution at some time in the future? Yes. Will there still be challenges for the Budget? Of course there will, and we will still be waiting for people in the Chamber to tell me how much they would spend on health.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members. Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Speaker's Office, for a number of reasons, to reflect on the treatment of the official Opposition in today's debate? I appreciate that you gave guidance on the use of what you called a "prop", which is your right, but the leader of the Opposition was limited to five minutes to speak as leader of the Opposition, when the Minister had an hour. On a day on which it appears that multiple Ministers have not even been bothered to turn up to vote on the Budget, the official Opposition have not only been shouted down — perhaps that is fine and what comes from being in opposition — but had their speaking time, specifically mine, curtailed. We were effectively narrowed in our ability to hold the Executive to account. I ask the Speaker's Office to consider those points.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, I am happy to refer that to the Speaker's Office, with a full account of the information that was before me at the time and the advice that was received from Assembly officials. I will also ask for advice on whether you are challenging the ruling of the Chair.

Mr O'Toole: To clarify, I am not challenging the ruling of the Chair in relation to the —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, please resume your seat. I did not put words in your mouth and say that you were. I reassured you that I would convey your request to the Speaker's Office and that I would add that it should clarify whether you challenged the ruling of the Chair.

Mr O'Toole: I did not.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, take your ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business is a motion to approve a draft statutory rule.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on this debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to propose a motion on what is almost the last item of Assembly business for today. Hopefully, the tone of this debate will be a bit more conciliatory than that of the previous debate.

The Farming with Nature Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 give my Department the legal powers to introduce the Farming with Nature package. The Farming with Nature package is one of the key priorities within the Department's new sustainable agriculture programme. My ambition for the Farming with Nature package is to scale up nature-friendly farming, with all farmers being rewarded for delivering environmental public goods alongside important food production. In addition, the package aims to contribute to the delivery of many of DAERA's strategic environmental outcomes by supporting farmers and land managers to make substantial contributions to environmental improvements and sustainability.

The Farming with Nature package is being developed through a co-design and engagement process, including the agricultural policy stakeholder group (APSG) and the Farming with Nature group, which comprise key agriculture and environment stakeholders. It is proposed that the Farming with Nature package will be introduced using a phased approach. The first phase will be the Farming with Nature transition scheme, which is planned to launch in June 2025. The Farming with Nature transition scheme aims to support biodiversity on farms by funding a range of environmental actions, including hedgerow planting, creating and repairing buffer strips, farmland tree planting, and more. It will underpin the overall Farming with Nature package and allow farmers to implement actions that will deliver additional habitats, protect watercourses, provide green infrastructure for nature corridors and increase carbon sequestration. The second phase is the Farming with Nature landscapes projects. It will allow a group of farmers to collaborate and develop innovative approaches to restore nature at a landscape scale in Northern Ireland. Further phases are planned, initially focusing on priority habitats.

The Farming with Nature Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 are being introduced to make technical amendments to assimilated direct legislation regulation 1305/2013. The regulations amend article 28(5) to allow the Farming with Nature transition scheme to operate on a yearly basis, rather than seeking five- or seven-year commitments. In practice, that means that farmers can apply annually to carry out environmental improvements. The amendment of article 28(10) will allow the Department to set out the conditions of the scheme while maintaining the vires that allow the current environmental farming scheme agreements to operate. The regulations also amend article 35(8) to enable the Farming with Nature landscape projects to operate for a minimum of one year, and article 35(10) will be amended to allow for farmer groups to be established and conditions set as part of the intended design of the landscape projects scheme.

That concludes my overview of the Farming with Nature Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. I am happy to answer any questions that are raised during the debate in my closing remarks.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Patsy McGlone.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Patsy. I call Robbie Butler.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. Maybe it is a case of age before beauty, Patsy.

Mr McGlone: Aye, well, I know that you have to go first. [Laughter.]

Mr Butler: The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs first considered the SL1 for these draft regulations at its meeting on 10 April 2025. The Committee heard from the officials that DAERA intended to make a statutory rule to introduce the Farming with Nature Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 to provide the legal powers to implement the Farming with Nature package as part of the continued roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme. The Committee heard that the SR would be laid before the Assembly under the draft affirmative procedure, and that the Farming with Nature package will replace the current environmental farming scheme. The Committee was advised that the new, simpler scheme would be launched in three phases, starting in 2025, and that, as an annual scheme, it will have a cap, unlike the former environmental farming scheme (EFS), which was over a five-year period. Phase 1 is the Farming with Nature transition scheme, phase 2 is the Farming with Nature landscape projects and phase 3 is the Farming with Nature priority habitats.

The Committee had a number of queries for officials. It asked about the key differences between the previous and new schemes. It also asked about the five aspects of phase 1 and was advised that a farmer can select the ones most suitable to the farm business as opposed to all five. Furthermore, the Committee asked about the range of stakeholders involved in the co-design, had queries about the voluntary nature of the scheme and asked whether the minimum of three qualifying hectares still applied. The Committee then agreed to write to the Department for clarification on when it was first considered that the Farming with Nature scheme was required to replace the EFS and when work commenced on that scheme, whether the Minister has powers to move funds between the relevant schemes under the Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, and whether it is the intention that the voluntary element of the scheme will be removed during the course of the mandate.

The Committee was due to consider the draft SR at its meeting on 10 April, but the session was postponed after a drafting issue was identified by the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR). However, the Committee considered the response that it received from DAERA to its queries on that date. The Department's response stated that, since the outset of the development of a farm policy in 2018 to replace the EU-funded CAP, it has been the intention that environmental farming schemes would form part of a farm support package, and that it was formally named as the Farming with Nature package in 2021. Article 13 of the Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 provides the powers to move funds between the relevant schemes. There have been no discussions to date on removing the voluntary element of the scheme. Perhaps the Minister will speak to that.

At its meeting on 8 May, the Committee considered the final draft SR and heard from officials that, as highlighted by the ESR, the amendments were on technical issues and typos and tightened up the SR, making it more readable and understandable. There were no further queries for the officials, and members agreed to support the SR as drafted pending the ESR's report. That report was issued on Friday, and the draft SR was not drawn to the Assembly's special attention. The Committee agreed to recommend that the Farming with Nature Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be affirmed and made by the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are definitely on now, Patsy.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The SDLP welcomes the statutory rule for the Farming with Nature regulations. The regulations mark a significant step forward in addressing the twin crises of biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. The Farming with Nature regulations are necessary, science-based and long overdue.

As we debate the regulations, I want to bring into the Chamber the voices of those who will most directly be affected by their implementation: our farmers. Over the past year, I have been in regular contact with farming communities across my constituency of Mid Ulster. Many of them care deeply about the environment. They understand, perhaps better than most, the importance of healthy soils, clean water and functioning ecosystems — after all, they work with nature every single day. However, they are also worried, and understandably so. Farmers tell me that, while they are committed to and broadly support the aims of the regulations, they need clear guarantees that the Department will back the legislation with the funding, practical support and fair incentives that are required to make the transition sustainable. The regulations insist on a significant shift in practice. They will require a change in nutrient management, habitat protection, soil care and livestock systems. That is no small ask, especially in the current climate of economic uncertainty, with rising input costs and the pressures that already weigh heavily on farm families. Those of us who were at the Balmoral show last week will have heard about that.

Let us be absolutely clear: having regulation without support is to risk alienating the very people whom we need to bring with us. The Assembly must recognise that our farmers are not the enemies of nature but essential partners in restoring it. If we expect them to meet higher environmental standards, we have a duty, as legislators and policymakers, to ensure that they are not left to shoulder the burden alone. That means committing to a well-resourced programme of support; necessitating targeted grants to help our farmers to invest in infrastructure and low-impact technologies; access to agrienvironment schemes that support sustainable land management; on-the-ground advice and technical assistance rather than just compliance checks; and a coherent, long-term vision for agri-food policy that values nature and food production equally.

This is not about compliance; it is about creating a new model of farming that is resilient, productive and environmentally sound. We must move beyond the false dichotomy between farming and nature. The truth is that there is no future for farming without nature. Without pollinators, healthy soils, stable weather and clean water, our food systems simply would not function. Likewise, there is no future for nature in Northern Ireland without the active engagement of our farmers. If properly delivered, the regulations can become the foundation of a positive partnership that supports farming families to remain on the land while restoring the ecological health of that land for generations. That will not happen by decree alone; it will happen when we listen, designing policy that is not just for the environment but designed with those who live and work on the land. It will happen when we take seriously the lived experience of farmers and respond not just with rules but with respect, resources and realism. Real risk lies in failing to act. If we delay, we will only deepen the environmental crisis that we already face and make future reforms more costly, urgent and painful for farmers and society alike. We should not underestimate the opportunity that lies before us. The North has a chance to lead and to show how a small, rural region can support both a productive agri-food sector and a thriving natural environment. However, that leadership has to be rooted in fairness and partnership.

I support the Farming with Nature regulations because they are essential, but I urge the Department and the Assembly to ensure that they are delivered in ways that uplift, not undermine, our rural communities.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber on the matter of the SR on the Farming with Nature scheme. As Robbie said, we have considered this in Committee and had written and oral briefings on it. Sinn Féin supports its objective of increasing the extent of habitats on farmland through schemes such as increasing the number of habitats, protecting watercourses, creating nature corridors and increasing sequestration. We recognise that it is important to have a successor to the environmental farming scheme, and I recall that, at the outset, when this came up for discussion, the Department said that it would look at what was good and not so good about previous environmental schemes and pick the best bits to create this one. We welcome the fact that it was co-designed in partnership with the APSG and the Farming with Nature co-design group that was established in June 2024.

We highlighted a number of issues in Committee, however, and I would appreciate it, if the Minister would address them in his response today. The Minister has indicated that there will be a cap on this, but we do not know what it is. There are farmers who welcome the fact that the scheme is coming in but recognise that it will be funded from a cut to their single farm payment, so that is obviously a concern. Farmers are also anxious that payments may go exclusively to landowners — people who do not produce food or farm the land — so perhaps the Minister could address that in his response.

We also posed questions. How does the scheme interface with other schemes? For example, tree planting is part of Farming with Nature, but how does that interface with the woodland grant schemes and the other schemes that the Forest Service has brought out? How does it interface with the farm sustainability payment, given that the application window is not aligned with the farm sustainability payment deadline? The correspondence says that all actions must be completed by the end of March 2026. I presume that it will be autumn before applications can be made, so actions will have to be completed within five or six months, which will be challenging. Whilst that may be the planting season for hedges, it is not a good time of year to be fencing. This is the time of year that you want to be fencing along rivers, for example, rather than in the dead of winter, when it is wet.

Reference has been made to phases. Am I right in saying that you can choose one of the phases and that there is not a fixed succession, so that you can go into phase 1, 2 or 3?

Finally, our briefing note mentioned third-party landscape project coordinators in phase 2, so I would be grateful for a wee bit of information about who those project coordinators might be. Are they groups? Are they organisations? How will they be appointed by the Department, and how will they work with clusters of farmers?

I welcome the SR. We support it, and I thank the Minister for coming here today.

Miss McIlveen: The Democratic Unionist Party fully supports the design of a Farming with Nature policy that provides fair and attractive outcome-based payments. With about 78% of land in Northern Ireland being managed by farmers, it is crucial that agrienvironment schemes are capable of meeting demand and that they are practical, particularly given that it is often not financially viable for farm businesses to take actions with the sole aim of improving the environment. Farming with Nature policies have to coexist with productive agriculture. There is an underlying fear that, although the Minister's intention at present is to respect the voluntary nature of the scheme, that could change. When that is coupled with the destructive proposals on nutrients, many in agriculture have legitimate concerns about what the future holds.

Whilst the regulations are framed as being technical — I do not want to repeat many of the concerns that Mr McAleer highlighted — we need to see clarity from the Department on the operation of any cap on the value of claims, along with assurances that the overall level of financial support available will not be reduced. It is welcome, however, that the intention is to avoid a prescriptive approach to the actions and supporting actions available and that future claims will be allowed irrespective of whether the cap on the annual claim has been reached in the previous year. It would be irresponsible, however, to consider today's regulations in isolation from the Minister's harmful proposals for a nutrients action programme. The proposals show a deep lack of practical understanding of the realities that farmers face. The Minister will have heard that loud and clear at Balmoral. Instead of working with producers to find balanced and science-led solutions, he has produced a plan that threatens to undermine an industry that is already under immense pressure from rising costs and other climate adaptation requirements.

The agri-food sector is the backbone of our rural economy. The proposed restrictions could devastate farm incomes, jeopardise Northern Ireland's food security and lead to unintended consequences such as farm consolidation or even the abandonment of productive land. The Minister needs to scrap the proposals, return to the table, engage with stakeholders across the industry and deliver a new approach that protects both our environment and the livelihoods of those who live and work in our rural communities.

Farmers have led the way in sustainable practices for years. I have no doubt that the outworking of the future Farming with Nature policy will again demonstrate that. As a party, we fully support responsible environmental stewardship, but it must be achieved through genuine partnership, not punitive measures. We support the measures before us.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak — just in time — is John Blair.

Mr Blair: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I support the draft Farming with Nature Regulations announced last week by the AERA Minister at the Balmoral show, a timely occasion for such an announcement. Indeed, the Balmoral show highlighted the pivotal role that agriculture plays in the daily lives of individuals and communities throughout Northern Ireland. Our rich agricultural heritage was showcased, and the emphasis was on farming as a significant contributor to our local economy. It was encouraging to the Minister's presence at the show over a number of days, if not every day. His commitment to finding a balance between agricultural sustainability and environmental responsibilities is truly commendable, especially in today's challenging landscape. Addressing the issues presents a significant ongoing challenge for various reasons, including budget constraints, as discussed literally moments ago in today's Budget debate.

The Farming with Nature Regulations represent a further initiative from the Minister that will move us closer to achieving a more sustainable agriculture sector in Northern Ireland. If the regulations are passed, the transition scheme will commence next month, empowering farmers across the region to adopt nature-friendly practices that not only preserve but enrich our environment. The intention behind the package is clear: to support our farmers in cultivating a future in which agricultural practices contribute positively to the protection of our habitats and ecosystems. The actions outlined in the initial phase, such as planting new hedgerows and trees and planting farmland with multi-species winter cover crops, are essential for enhancing biodiversity, improving soil health and sequestering carbon. Those steps lay the groundwork for making genuine strides in mitigating climate change whilst supporting our agriculture sector.

Importantly, the Minister has emphasised that this is just the starting point for his Department's ambitions, with plans to significantly expand the initiatives in the coming years. As I have said many times in the Chamber, farming and environmental sustainability must go hand in hand. The regulations mark a broader commitment to sustainable practices that will grow in scope and impact. They are a necessary follow-on from and appear to build on the environmental farming scheme, and I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will clarify further the future of that scheme.

I urge all Members to support the regulations so that farmers can be recognised and rewarded for their vital role as custodians of the land. The Alliance Party will continue to ensure that nature-friendly farming becomes an attractive and financially viable option for our farmers. Farming with Nature is an appropriate title for a timely programme, because there can be no farming without nature.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak will be the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Mr Andrew Muir, who will conclude and wind up the debate. Minister, this is not the last item of business; we have another motion after this. The Floor is yours.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I thank everyone for the constructive comments. From my officials' feedback, I know that engagement on the Farming with Nature scheme at the Balmoral show was extremely positive, and people are looking forward to taking part in it. I thank the officials, who did a great job over the four days of the Balmoral show. The DAERA stand was really impressive, as was officials' engagement more broadly. I will try to swerve back so that I do not stray too far from talking about Farming with Nature, but the Balmoral show was a really good example of the farming with nature that is occurring and of what is best about our agri-food industry. I am proud of us for putting our best foot forward over those four days.

It is important that I deal with some of the comments that were raised. In particular, the Committee Chair asked whether the scheme will be voluntary. The plan is for it to be voluntary. The Chair asked that important question, and, hopefully, people are happy with my clarification.

Patsy McGlone asked about funding, knowledge transfer and support. There is funding in the Budget this year for Farming with Nature: £4·8 million of capital. It is really important that we grasp the opportunity for the next Budget, which, hopefully, will be a three-year resource Budget and four-year capital Budget that will give certainty to everyone about Farming with Nature and more broadly as well. I was the only Minister in the UK to get agreement for funding to be ring-fenced for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development in this financial year and future financial years, and I was glad to get that agreement. Once we get that envelope, we can hopefully give people a bit more reassurance, particularly over Farming with Nature, because it is important that we plan around the scheme for the long term.

Declan raised another issue, which was about taking learning from other schemes. We have sought to do that. I thank everyone who engaged on that from the agriculture and environment community, because it is really important that their voices were heard and that they provided input to shape something that is fit for purpose. Members could be told different stories about the EFS in the South, which has now become the agri-climate rural environment scheme (ACRES), and about the environmental land management (ELM) schemes in England. Lots of learning is to be taken from those schemes. We have lost pace in rolling out agrienvironment schemes in Northern Ireland, so we are seeking to make a start on the roll-out of Farming with Nature from next month.

Declan asked about the cap, which is an important point. The cap will be £9,500 a year, and you can apply every year. The scheme will be run for two years initially, and we will then review it before considering any further roll-out.

A point was raised about farm sustainability standards. This year, Farming with Nature is not linked to those standards, because they are still to be finalised, but there is a desire to consider how that relationship will emerge. The discussion about farm sustainability standards is separate, however.

Declan also outlined the challenge of getting the scheme out before the end of the financial year. I do not underestimate that challenge. We seek to progress the scheme as quickly as possible. I appreciate the Committee's engagement, but the pace of progress will be important. I look to everyone here to promote the scheme so that people can take it up. It will hopefully be popular, but it is a voluntary scheme, so we also hope that we can encourage people to become involved. It is important that we get people to buy into the scheme and that we support them to do so.

I will move on to other points. Michelle McIlveen raised some issues of which I am aware that were raised in Committee. Her points were consistent with what was said in Committee. I recognise her concerns about the complex nature of the nutrients action programme. That is why I have extended the consultation by four weeks to give people the opportunity to consider it and respond.

I will return to Farming with Nature. John asked about the relationship between farming and nature: that is why it is called "Farming with Nature". Understanding that there is an interrelationship between the two is key. Farmers are the custodians of our countryside and the people who are helping us deliver the change that is required to allow nature recovery and to address biodiversity loss.

John asked about the EFS, and I want to be open. When I came into office, a policy decision was made to move towards Farming with Nature, which is what I am presenting to Members today. We are looking to scale up, and the Farming with Nature transition scheme is not the ceiling of my ambition. We have to move at pace with Farming with Nature, however. We need to make it the focus of our resources. The EFS will therefore not be open for future applications.

I know that that is difficult, but our sole focus is on getting Farming with Nature out on the ground and scaled up so that farmers can access it. It is important that I give that clarity.

I have made a strong commitment to Farming with Nature and to agrienvironment support schemes. That is why I secured ring-fenced funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development and why I will continue to engage with the Committee on the journey ahead with Farming with Nature. I am very grateful for the fantastic work by farmers across our country on enabling nature recovery and respect for biodiversity. We want to give them the tools to do that. The Farming with Nature transition scheme is the start of that journey.

I thank the members of the Committee who engaged in the Committee process. There will be further secondary legislation that will be subject to negative procedure. Thanks for the opportunity to engage on this matter and for the support. We are all together on giving people the tools through Farming with Nature.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance, Matthew O'Toole, to open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Committee very much welcomes the Bill. That is a unanimous view of the Committee. Often, when we are debating, including today, there is dissent, but the publication of the Bill has been unanimously welcomed. It is the culmination of significant engagement between the Committee and the Department. I also highlight that, in bringing the motion for extension to the House, the Committee sees the 1 October date as a limit rather than a target. That is a very important point, internally for the Committee's deliberations but also for Members who will participate in today's debate. That date represents a compromise that was arrived at in deliberations by members, who tried to balance the need to provide credible scrutiny of a piece of primary legislation — to retain public confidence in the scrutiny functions of the Committee and the House at large — with getting that vital legislation, hopefully, into law. It remains the case that the Committee aims to complete its report on the Bill without any undue delay prior to that date.

I do not propose to set out the provisions of the Bill, but I will quote the description of the Bill's aim in the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum. It states:

The Bill was introduced into the Assembly on Tuesday 25 March 2025. It subsequently completed Second Stage on Monday 7 April, with Committee Stage starting on Tuesday 8 April immediately prior to the Easter recess, because, as Members are aware, Standing Order 33(2) states:

Without an extension to the Committee Stage for the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, the last day of Committee Stage would be Wednesday 4 June, when the Committee would be required to lay its report on the Bill. The Committee discussed whether that would be achievable, understanding that, in order to meet that deadline, the Committee would have to forego any call for evidence as well as make time for any evidence to be taken on the Bill. That could have resulted in the Committee receiving some criticism for not sufficiently scrutinising the Bill, recognising the sensitive issues that it deals with.

It is important to state that there were Committee members who advocated that there should be no extension to the Committee Stage. Others suggested that the extension should go beyond the original extension date that the Committee considered, which was 7 November. To make the House aware, the original plan was that the Committee Stage would finish on 7 November. Others wanted it to finish on its original date in June, so, after a fairly constructive and well-mannered discussion, we settled on what is effectively a compromise date of 1 October.

The calculation of a Bill's scrutiny timetable generally includes a call for evidence of six to 12 weeks, with written submissions and survey responses being received and considered; a number of in-person evidence sessions being held during Committee meetings, with sufficient time for those being built into the Committee's work programme; and other Committee business being progressed in a timely and thorough manner in tandem with consideration of the Bill. In agreeing a compromise date of 1 October, the Committee will, in order to provide flexibility, shorten its call for evidence to four weeks and eliminate other periods that are normally included. That call has already been published on Citizen Space with a closing date of 9 June. In order to speed things up, the Committee has agreed a list of key stakeholders, who have been contacted directly for their views on the Bill. I use the platform of this debate to encourage any Members who know anybody who might be interested, either private citizens or organisations, in the provisions of the Bill to make their views known to the Committee.

The shortened timescale also reflects the hope that the Bill, as it is well supported and non-controversial, will not throw up unanticipated issues that require additional time to be considered. The Committee is balancing its scrutiny of the Bill against the expectation — perhaps hope rather than expectation; it is certainly hope on my part — of receiving two further Bills before the summer recess. Members also anticipate that additional Committee meetings may be necessary.

In requesting that the Assembly support the extension, the Committee asks that Members give us the flexibility that we need to discharge our statutory scrutiny role with respect to this Bill. At its meeting on 7 May, the Committee agreed to the motion to extend Committee Stage along with a revised Committee timetable, and I thank members for the way that they approached that discussion. There were legitimately held differing views, and I welcome the fact that we had that constructive discussion.

In drawing up a timetable for the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, we were also cognisant of the advice that was provided by the Bill Clerk and the Committee Clerk, as well as the fact that, although it is not controversial, the Bill deals with very emotive issues that touch on the extraordinarily sensitive subject of baby loss. The timetable reflects the job of scrutiny at hand and the well-established best practice steps for applying it. Members also reflected on the desire that they share with the Minister to deliver the benefits that the Bill provides in as timely a fashion as possible. To be fair, the Minister has been consistent on that point. Although we were pressing his Department to bring forward the Bill quickly, he has clearly said that he wants to implement a scheme as soon as his Department can.

At the conclusion of the Second Stage of the Bill, the Committee was charged by the Assembly with a duty to scrutinise the Bill on its behalf. The Committee will do this by drawing out and considering all its provisions and their implications, some of which may not be initially apparent. The timetable for completion is by 1 October, which is fairly tight for undertaking the processes that are expected in a Committee Stage. As I said and to repeat: 1 October is not a target; it is a limit. Little time has been allocated for additional activity beyond that which is expected, and the call for evidence period is relatively short. It is also important to say that the Bill is unusual in that its provisions have not yet been consulted upon. Most Bills are developed and discussed with stakeholders over a period of months, if not years. Having said that, there is widespread support for the provisions of the Bill, and, indeed, the bulk of the Bill is extending the provisions of the Coronavirus Act that relate to the registration of deaths.

The nature of the Bill is such that it has not been through that conventional consultation process, so, potentially, there are issues that could arise that we need to be alive to, which have not already been thrashed out through a consultation process. Most Bills are inspected by stakeholders, who have already thought through their views on the Bill, and, certainly on the stillbirths matter, they may not have had the opportunity to think in detail about the legislative provision. We hope that they will have the opportunity to do that through our consultation process. Obviously, that is part of the point of having a consultation process. Key stakeholders will be approached to give evidence on the Bill, which will have to be developed in real-time. The timetable only allows for a few weeks between contacting the stakeholders to give evidence and them appearing in front of the Committee. That represents a degree of risk, as the Committee must have the scope to consider the responses to its call for evidence. Additionally, if the evidence highlights the need to seek further witnesses, the Committee will have limited time to contact those additional witnesses to ask them to prepare their evidence.

One of the most important issues that the Committee has considered concerning the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that are dealt with — death, and particularly stillbirth and miscarriage. While the Bill provides an enabling power to introduce a scheme for baby loss certificates, without including detailed information on the operation of the scheme, the Committee's call for evidence is likely to bring forward responses that will produce highly emotive, personal testimony. Therefore, the Committee wants to make time to consider that evidence respectfully and appropriately. It will also be ready to act on any additional issues that those stakeholders raise, should members feel it appropriate. The extension date has the Committee completing its work before Baby Loss Awareness Week in October. That week will be an important part of raising the profile of the Bill and what it intends to do. The Committee is keen to work with the Minister during Baby Loss Awareness Week to raise public awareness of the issue of baby loss and the Bill's provisions.

It is a relatively short extension; it is shorter than Committee Stage extensions normally are. The Committee considers 1 October, to repeat, to be a limit, rather than a target. The Committee also recognises that, should the Assembly agree to the extension today, it will mean another extension to the provisions that we have been using for deaths and stillbirths registration under the Coronavirus Act 2020. I am sure that Mr Frew, if he is speaking on this, might have one or two comments to make, but the initial purpose of the Bill was to put the emergency registration provisions of the Coronavirus Act into permanent law. Subsequently, through our conversations with the Minister and representations from others, the provision around baby loss certificates has been added as an enabling power to allow the Minister to create a scheme. Every member of the Committee thinks that it is a good idea, but the key point is that it needs to do some level of scrutiny to be robust in its role as a Committee. The Committee commends the motion to the House and seeks Members' approval. Thank you.

Miss Dolan: As the Chair has outlined, this is a compromise date. I do not feel that the proposed extension to the Committee Stage for the Bill is necessary, and my colleague Deirdre Hargey and I outlined that view at the Finance Committee. Repeatedly, in recent months, there has been a strong desire from Members across the Chamber to see the legislation brought forward, as it will see measures introduced during the pandemic in temporary legislation put on a permanent basis. The changes have become the normal registration process and have been viewed as positive by stakeholders, the public and funeral directors. Agreeing to additional Committee time means delaying the implementation of those positive changes, which we do not think is necessary. However, as I said at the Committee, I believe that the extension will pass today. We are putting our view on the record.

Mr Frew: I support the motion and the extension date of 1 October 2025. It is important that we have a consultation period and a period of scrutiny, not least because the Bill has not had a normal lead-in consultation period. That is simply because it is establishing what is already a norm in the registration of deaths and stillbirths, as it has been ongoing since the Coronavirus Act 2020.

That brings me on to the point that the Chair raised about the Coronavirus Act. That was a period when not only the Executive but the zombie Assembly caused massive harm to our people. However, this is probably the one provision out of that dastardly Act that actually helped people. It removed the rigmarole of registering a death or stillbirth. Therefore, it is only right and proper that it be supported. It is, in fact, legislation catching up with technology, and it should have been brought in well in advance of any pandemic. I certainly support that provision.

My party has pushed and campaigned for a baby loss certificate for many years now, and we were delighted to see it in the Bill. However, it is a sensitive issue and one that, we feel, we need time to consult on. Notwithstanding that, it should be put on record that, in England, Wales and Scotland, there is no statutory Act to implement baby loss certificates. Therefore, there is no real need for it to be on the statute book here. This is the route that the Department of Finance is going down — it will have its reasons for that — but there is absolutely no reason why the Department of Finance cannot continue with its processes and even have a consultation on a baby loss certificate in the interim, parallel to our scrutiny of the Bill. There would be absolutely no delay to the implementation of baby loss certificates, and the measure should be able to come in in a timely fashion.

The Bill will give an enabling power to the Department, but, as I said, in England, Wales and Scotland, that power is not statutory. I hope that the Department will proceed at pace with this whilst we get down to the work of scrutinising the Bill. I have outstanding questions on the Bill, so it is good that we will be given time to scrutinise it and make sure that we fill in any blanks in understanding that we have.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I now invite the Committee Chair, Matthew O'Toole, to respond to the debate.

Mr O'Toole: I will not detain the Assembly too long. People have probably heard enough of me today speaking about various things, but, on this important subject, I hope that Members will have seen that the Committee very much wants to process, scrutinise and, I anticipate, do our work as a Committee and refer the Bill back to the full Assembly for it, hopefully, to be passed into law and then for the Department promptly to design a baby loss scheme. The key thing is that we do a credible piece of consultation and scrutiny that we can stand over, with 1 October as a limit for that rather than a target. We will then come back and do our jobs promptly.

It has been said and is worth clarifying again that the vast bulk of what is in the Bill is transferring to primary legislation what was already in the emergency provisions of the Coronavirus Act. That is sensible and should not detain us for too long. As Jemma Dolan mentioned, people in, for example, the funeral director sector are very supportive of the Bill and are concerned about any suggestion that it will be delayed. They very much want the provisions passed into law permanently.

In relation to baby loss, there are clear sensitivities that we want to tease out and understand. I think that there will be widespread support for that. Making sure that we have the scheme designed carefully is going to be very important. I look forward to doing that work speedily but effectively, and then, hopefully, referring the Bill back, via the Committee, to the Assembly.

I commend the motion and thank Members.