Official Report: Monday 09 June 2025

Mr Speaker: Before we move to Members' statements, I want to draw to the House's attention my concern about the Assembly's not routinely being given an appropriate opportunity to give or withhold legislative consent. The Westminster Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved issues unless it has the consent of the relevant devolved legislature. Therefore, if a Minister wishes to seek the consent of the Assembly for Parliament to do so, they should, in line with our Standing Orders, lay a legislative consent memorandum and table a legislative consent motion.

In November 2024, I wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, copying in all Ministers, on the scrutiny of legislation. I used that opportunity to reinforce the importance of Ministers engaging with the Assembly in a timely manner when seeking legislative consent. I drew attention specifically to the relevant requirements of Standing Orders and reminded Ministers that late notification to the Assembly risks compromising the ability of the Assembly and its Committees to carry out effective scrutiny of Bills that require legislative consent.

In that November letter, I drew attention to six Bills having been introduced at Westminster for which the Government had accepted to engage legislative consent for Northern Ireland. One of the six Bills was the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I am extremely concerned to have been advised by the Committee for Finance that the requirements of our Standing Orders had not been met in respect of that Bill. The Bill was introduced in Parliament in October 2024, yet a legislative consent memorandum was laid only within the past two weeks. The timing meant that it was too late for the Committee for Finance to undertake its scrutiny or for the Assembly to have any meaningful opportunity to decide whether to give its consent. That is simply unacceptable.

I understand that there may be challenges for Departments arising from the UK Government's not engaging with them on relevant Bills in a manner that facilitates early engagement with the Assembly. It is for the Executive to raise those issues with the UK Government.

Regardless of those challenges, however, our Ministers, on some occasions, are still not engaging with the Assembly in a timely manner. If a Minister wants the Assembly to give its consent, that Minister should ensure that a legislative consent motion is tabled and moved in good time in order to allow the Assembly to carry out its role. Any legislative consent motion needs to be debated prior to the Bill's relevant final amending stage at Westminster, in case the Government need to table amendments. That is the relevant deadline for seeking consent, not at Royal Assent.

I know that the Committee for Finance will be pursuing the specific instance of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, but I will be writing to the Executive again to remind Ministers of their duty when seeking legislative consent. For today, I underline the point that the Assembly has a crucial role to play in carrying out scrutiny and that it is a core responsibility of Ministers to ensure that business is brought before the Assembly in a timely manner in order to allow Members to carry out their role.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome the fact that you have made that announcement. It is an extremely serious matter, into which the Committee for Finance has been looking. Frankly, it is a shambolic situation. Will your office confirm, today or subsequently, whether this is the first time that the Assembly has failed to be given the opportunity to give legislative consent when it has been sitting? In addition, is there some mechanism whereby the Assembly can write to UK Government to make clear to them that we have had no opportunity to give or withhold legislative consent for that Bill?

Mr Speaker: We will happily take a look at that, Mr O'Toole. Needless to say, it is a very significant matter when legislation that affects here travels through Westminster without having received any guidance from here as to its impact. It is therefore for each Minister to ensure that that does not happen again, and I trust that it will not.

Mr Sheehan: I commend the activists who sailed on the ship the Madleen to bring aid to Gaza. That aid consisted mostly of baby food and rice. Everyone here is aware of the blockade that Israel has imposed on the Gaza Strip for a number of months. Everybody is also aware that the Israeli Government are using starvation as a weapon of war. We have seen horrific footage of starving and malnourished children, who are suffering as a result.

The Madleen was commandeered in the early hours of this morning in an act of piracy by the Israeli Navy, which forcibly abducted the crew, among whom are Greta Thunberg, the well-known environmentalist, and Liam Cunningham, an actor from here in Ireland. I suppose that we can count our blessings that no one was hurt or injured — that we are aware of so far — because, when another ship sailed from Malta in May, it was hit by two Israeli drones. We are also cognisant of the fact that, in 2010, the Israelis attacked another ship, the Mavi Marmara, and killed 10 people on board.

I also commend the people who took part in the Great March for Gaza between Lurgan and Omeath yesterday. Thousands participated in the march, which was 25 miles long. That is the length of the Gaza Strip. They were harassed along the way by a small number of pro-Israeli protesters. I have to say that the media did a very bad job of portraying the arrests of four people, because the four arrested were pro-Israeli protesters, whereas the media gave the impression that they were people from the pro-Palestinian group.

Furthermore, I commend Queen's University for following the lead of Trinity College Dublin by ending all its ties with Israel. Despite what Arlene Foster has said, that is a progressive and welcome step. Let us hope that other universities and institutions take the lead from those two universities and cut all ties with a rogue state that is involved in the genocide of the Palestinian people and that is starving men, women and children by using starvation as —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Sheehan: — a weapon of war.

Mr Frew: For the majority of my time in the Assembly, since 2010, I have worked incredibly hard with Departments, outside bodies and charities to modernise legislation to protect women and girls. I sit on the all-party group (APG) on domestic and sexual violence — I have done so for a considerable time and was chair for a period — and I have changed and amended legislation, not least the domestic violence and stalking legislation that came before us in the previous term. I even brought in the child protection disclosure scheme that allows parents to apply for disclosure on anyone who is acting suspiciously around their children. We have made great advances, yet, every week, we are confronted with crimes that show that we have much more to do. I have continually warned Departments that more must be done to support and protect women and girls, yet we see government and enforcement agencies continue to fail our people. The police will not promote the child protection disclosure scheme, and they do not make our people aware of it. Councils, the Housing Executive and Departments have not got to grips with problem tenants and with HMOs, and the Westminster Government have failed us all with their abject failure to secure our borders and keep us safe. There is absolutely no sign of them reversing the situation and fixing the problems in immigration — indeed, illegal immigration.

Only a matter of weeks ago in the House, I warned that people who live in my North Antrim constituency, particularly in Ballymena, are living in fear. Since then, there have been two serious sexual assaults on two teenage girls in broad daylight by what could be multiple perpetrators. Police investigations and legal proceedings are ongoing, so I refuse to comment further on those live cases, lest they be damaged or compromised. Those assaults have sent shock waves through Ballymena and further afield. Given the level of concern that there has been and the contact that I have received from all quarters of society, I really worry for my home town and the residents who live there. We need to see justice being done for those heinous, despicable crimes of sexual assault when they happen. We need to see women and girls — our children and grandchildren — protected from people who seek to do them harm and to hurt them. It is time for effective government action, with all government arms and agencies working together. It is time for justice. It is time for our women and girls to be able to walk our local streets in safety, and it is time for Departments to act in order to prevent such heinous crimes. That is what our people call for, and that is what our people require. It is about time that the Government protected our people.

Mr Mathison: I am concerned about the current capacity of the Education Minister's School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill to deliver for parents. Statutory guidance, which will dictate what schools must comply with when the Bill passes, has still not been published by the Department or shared with the Committee. Departmental officials were not available to appear at last week's Committee meeting to answer any questions as the Bill progresses through its Committee Stage.

All of us in the Chamber are clear that the Bill needs to deliver lower costs for parents and carers and fairness and equality for children and young people. The Bill will place guidance for schools on a statutory footing. That will be fundamental to what schools are required to do on branded items, affordability and reasonable adjustments. To not have those guidelines available, even in draft form, means that scrutiny has been very limited. We, as a party, did not support reducing the scrutiny period, as the DUP, Sinn Féin and other parties did, as we believed that we needed sufficient time to work through the guidelines and to reflect on how the Bill would deliver. In the context that we are in, we need the Department to come forward with that guidance urgently.

Having taken evidence from young people, families, trade unions and other organisations, we remain concerned, as a party, that the Bill as introduced may not deliver. The major interventions that are required on limiting branded items or potentially capping costs remain enabling powers only. With none of the consultation work delivered by the Department leading up to the introduction of the Bill to help us understand how the measures could operate, the Committee has been left in a very difficult position as it tries to amend the Bill effectively.

The fact that officials were not made available to answer questions on the legislation at last week's Committee meeting is concerning. The Minister assured us that officials would be made available throughout our deliberations, but, at a key stage of the process, they were absent. In the continued absence of the guidance, the Minister really needs to be clear about the fundamental aspects of the Bill. Will the guidelines limit branded items? Will they specifically address the rising cost of PE kits? Will they address equality considerations, such as permitting girls to wear trousers?

Alliance will do all that it can to amend the Bill to ensure that it delivers as far as possible, but, ultimately, the responsibility for its content and how it has been introduced lies with the Minister. I am concerned because we seem to be in a scenario in which we are tinkering with change but stopping short of anything more substantive. The sooner that we get sight of the guidelines — we have been promised that they will really clarify the intended scope of change — the sooner that we will understand what difference the legislation will make for parents and what the Committee and we, as Members, can do to improve it.

Mr Butler: I bring to the attention of the House a service of remembrance that was held yesterday in St John's Church of Ireland in Moneymore called 'Life Beyond'. I think that it was the third such ecumenical service. It is run by Rural Support and Embrace FARM. The purpose of the service is to remember farmers who have died by accident whilst farming and those affected by mental health and, unfortunately, death by suicide on farms.

I was excited when I became Chair of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs six months ago, because agriculture is so fundamentally important to everyone across Northern Ireland. We rightly hold up our agrisector and our farmers as some of the best in the world. We produce some of the best food in the world. We eat it and export it, but we do not shout about it enough. However, I did not know about the physical and mental toll on farmers. Over the past six months, it has become evident to me that there is much more work that we need to do.

I have said in many speeches that I was in the fire service. You all know that. Everybody understands that being a firefighter is a very dangerous job — people rightly hold you up — but steps have been taken over decades to improve safety for firefighters. The same is true of the Prison Service and the Police Service. Anywhere where there is a calculable risk, the Government take action to protect the lives of the people who serve. I contend today that we undervalue our farmers and their families. Many families sat in that service yesterday having lost a loved one, whether through an accident on the farm or suicide. Every day of their life, farmers work to provide the food that we need to survive and that is so important to our economy in this country; it sustains rural towns and communities.

I pay tribute to the families across Northern Ireland, this island and these islands who have been affected by death on a farm. Those people serve us every day to give us the best that they can, often unrecognised. I also offer this challenge locally: we can and must do better to protect their lives. We must take action, and it must be more than words. We must embrace our farmers in a way that shows that we value them and that we are going to protect them.

Mr Durkan: I rise today not just as a public representative but as a father, a son and a human being who is horrified and terrified at what is unfolding in front of our eyes. I cannot and will not remain silent in the face of such injustice and inhumanity.

The overnight Israeli interception of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which is a convoy of medics, aid workers and peaceful advocates, is not only unlawful in anyone's book; it is a moral outrage. They are unarmed civilians, acting in accordance with international law, attempting to reach a besieged and starving population in Gaza, for which they have been detained, threatened and silenced. Let us be clear: the flotilla carries more than much-needed aid; it carries solidarity. It carries the moral weight of the millions of people who will not look away. It carries the message that the people of Gaza are not alone. It carries hope.

Among those on board was a face that we all recognise: that of Greta Thunberg — a young woman who has become a symbol of moral clarity. Let us not forget, however, the other heroes who were on board who are without fame or a platform: ordinary people who were showing extraordinary courage and compassion, offering a lifeline to those who are in unimaginable desperation and despair.

Gaza is dying, with hospitals that have been turned into rubble, ambulances that have been shelled and children who have been pulled, lifeless, from the ruins of homes that once echoed with laughter. They are a people who are being starved. This is not self-defence. This is not war. This is collective punishment. This is the slaughter of the innocent.

The world is watching, and when the world watches and we do nothing, we are not neutral but complicit. Desmond Tutu famously said:

It is outrageous that some people here and elsewhere have chosen that side and that they have done so not even through silence but through statements of support and attempted justification.

I urge the Executive and Governments around the world — all those who value justice and life — to condemn the actions unequivocally, to condemn the illegal interception of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, to demand the release of those who have been detained, to support an independent investigation into the atrocities in Gaza and to demand intervention and an immediate end to violence. History will remember not just what was done but those who stayed silent. Let us not be among them.

Mr Delargy: I acknowledge the significant achievement in the South of holding the highest educational attainment rate anywhere in the world. According to CBRE's research in the 'Global Tech Talent Guidebook 2025', over 52% of the population in the South now hold a bachelor's degree or higher qualification. That is a remarkable achievement that reflects a sustained commitment to education across Ireland and is testament to the value that families, communities and educators across the South place on learning.

In the North, we also have a fantastic and world-leading education system. I am proud to have been a teacher here and of the fact that I come from a family of teachers and educators. We know that our schools, colleges and universities punch well above their weight. We need to encourage lifelong learning, with more students staying in education and continuing their education journey throughout their lifetime. The Department for the Economy has done significant work to encourage more courses and greater student support for those who are in full-time employment or who have childcare or other caring responsibilities in order to prevent them from being locked out of academic opportunities and career progression.

Fundamentally, we must ensure that equitable opportunities for higher education attainment are accessible to those who wish to pursue them in the North or the South. Far too often, young people in the North face barriers to accessing higher education, not because of lack of ability or ambition but due to gaps in careers services, complex and confusing application systems and a lack of alignment between key processes. Differences between the Central Applications Office (CAO) and UCAS application systems, particularly the misalignment of results release dates, place unnecessary stress on and create a disadvantage for students who are navigating all-Ireland educational opportunities. We must work together to remove those barriers. That means improving careers guidance in our schools to ensure that it is timely, independent and comprehensive, and it means pushing for a more joined-up approach to higher education applications across Ireland. Aligning the CAO and UCAS results dates is an important enabler for moving in that direction.

We can recognise and applaud the South's achievement, but let it also serve as a call to action to us in the North. We must strive to ensure that our people, regardless of their background or geography, can access the education that they aspire to right across Ireland. Let us match ambition with action.

Mr Brooks: Today is Batten Disease Awareness Day. This is a day that carries great meaning for families around the world, and for around 100 to 150 families in the UK: a community that refuses to give up hope.

Batten disease is a rare inherited disorder of the nervous system that typically begins in childhood. It is progressive and, at this time, has no known cure. Children with Batten disease may experience seizures, vision loss, difficulties with movement and a decline in cognitive function. As the disease progresses, it steals the abilities that most of us take for granted. Batten disease does not just affect the child: it reshapes the lives of parents, siblings, caregivers and the networks and communities around them. It challenges them to find strength, courage and resilience in the face of unimaginable hardship.

Some in the House will know one such set of parents: my friend and former colleague George Dorrian and his wife, Lauren. Their beautiful daughter Edie, who is four years old, has the condition. They have been inspirational in how they have faced and are facing that unimaginable circumstance for their daughter. George told me recently that, thankfully, Edie is too young to be aware of the seriousness of the condition. She is a happy child who, like any other, enjoys few things more than watching cartoons. The family's aim is to ensure that she enjoys every day and that they do not waste a single day spent as a family with her. Anyone who wants to see a great picture of Edie should see me afterwards, as Lauren once sent me a photo of their little girl dressed in a beautiful pink Linfield T-shirt, which made her Glentoran diehard father, George, almost crash the car when he was told about it.

Today is about raising awareness, because awareness fuels research; awareness brings resources; and awareness helps families to feel seen, supported and less alone. More important, awareness drives action, from funding for scientific breakthroughs to better access to care and support. We celebrate the children and families who face Batten disease with unbelievable strength: your stories matter, and your voices are powerful and are being heard. It is also a day for us to let those families know that they are not alone. Those of us who know George, Lauren, Colin and Edie want them to know that we are here for them.

Ms Mulholland: Yet another morning, and I wake up to yet another humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza. The Madleen is a civilian vessel with 12 unarmed individuals carrying essential humanitarian aid for those in desperate need, and the eyes of the world are on it. Yet, instead of just facing the dangers of the open seas, overnight those individuals experienced the deeply troubling jamming of their communications and the despicable act of the interception of their vessel and the unlawful detention of activists on board.

Theirs was not a military operation but a humanitarian mission grounded in compassion and international law. The International Court of Justice has issued binding orders requiring unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza. Standing by while aid is blocked, stolen or used as leverage is not neutrality; it is complicity. I call on the Prime Minister to uphold the UK's responsibility to defend its citizens and vessels under international law, given that the Madleen is a UK-flagged vessel. The people aboard the Madleen were acting where too many Governments have failed by attempting to deliver hope and assistance to the most vulnerable. To threaten them is to threaten the idea that humanity must always come before politics.

I will also speak about the unimaginable pain being endured by one local family amidst the crisis. In Gaza today, nowhere is safe. More than 54,000 people, overwhelmingly civilians, have been killed since October 2023. Médecins Sans Frontières reports that Nasser hospital is being overrun by gunshot and shrapnel wounds, with its blood bank nearly empty and staff donating their own blood to save lives. Families are collecting bodies on donkey carts because ambulances cannot access the areas that are under fire. That is why I want to speak about Omar and Dalal, two valued constituents and friends of my colleague Kate Nicholl. They are well-known members of their community in South Belfast. Omar is a respected oncologist in Belfast City Hospital. On 4 December, they received the unenviable news that they had been dreading: 19 members of their family in Gaza had been killed in an Israeli air strike. They had fled their homes nine times, only to die in tents, burned alive. Three weeks ago, Omar's cousin and his cousin's two children were killed. Last week, another cousin was killed in an Israeli air strike, and, just yesterday, Omar's wife's cousin was killed in the south of Khan Younis when Israeli soldiers apparently opened fire on civilians who were trying to collect food. Immediate family, including children as young as two, who are trapped in Gaza are still in danger. Their lives are in danger every split second.

I will say this plainly: we have to respect humanity and international law, and we have to stand up for it. I call on our Government, on the Irish Government and on all who have influence to act.

The people of Gaza need urgent humanitarian protection from genocidal acts such as the limitation of access to food. Omar's family needs a path to safety. Humanity must come first, and the death of humanity must not be seen as inevitable, as, tragically, was the death of Omar's family in Gaza.

Mr McGuigan: Today marks the beginning of Cystic Fibrosis (CF) Week. Approximately 100,000 people have been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis worldwide. In Ireland, we have the highest rate of cystic fibrosis per capita in the world, and, in the North, 500 people live with it. In Cystic Fibrosis Week, we have the opportunity to raise awareness and promote understanding of what it is like to live with the condition. It is also an opportunity to share stories and host fundraising events, particularly on 13 June, which is Wear Yellow Day.

CF is a life-threatening genetic condition that severely affects the lungs, impacts on the digestive system and can lead to other complications, including diabetes, liver disease and infertility. Daily life for someone with cystic fibrosis often involves hours of treatment, the use of inhalers, having physiotherapy to clear mucus and taking multiple medications just to stay healthy. Cystic fibrosis is not just a medical condition; it is a life story for those who have it.

Despite its challenges, people with cystic fibrosis are resilient. Many become advocates, athletes and scientists, driven by the fight to find a cure. There was a time when cystic fibrosis meant a short life that often did not extend beyond primary-school years. However, thanks to research and innovation, life expectancy has improved dramatically, and we see people living longer and healthier lives. Breakthrough cystic fibrosis modulator drugs transform lives by treating the root cause of the disease for many patients, not just the symptoms. Those drugs can help about 90% of those living with cystic fibrosis to prolong and improve their life. Unfortunately, due to the cost of the drugs, many people across the world, including children, are denied access to that medication. Access to life-changing medicine should be made available to all.

Cystic fibrosis is a lifelong battle, but it is a battle that is slowly being won. Through awareness, science and compassion, we can support those who live with the condition and work to a future where "CF" stands not for suffering but for "cure found". For that to happen, continued research, funding and awareness are essential. In Cystic Fibrosis Week, I encourage people, be it in a school, local community group or business, to help to raise funds for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and life-changing research.

Mr Dunne: I congratulate our very own road racing legend, Mr Michael Dunlop, on winning his thirty-third TT on the Isle of Man last week. It is a truly incredible achievement that is worthy of celebration and recognition. It is an honour for another sporting hero from Northern Ireland of whom we can be proud. The Dunlop family name in motorcycle road racing is truly world-famous and iconic through the success of Michael's late uncle, Joey; his late dad, Robert; and his late brother, William, all of whom are sadly no longer with us but have left an incredible legacy of success in their sport of motorcycle road racing.

This summer also marks 25 years since the late great Joey Dunlop tragically passed away while competing in Estonia. He will certainly never be forgotten. It was fitting that a special event was held recently in Ballymoney to remember his legacy 25 years on. Stars from today and yesteryear turned out in style on some of Joey's most iconic bikes.

Despite many personal trials and tragedy, Michael continues to excel. To win a record 33 races at the Isle of Man TT — two last week in the very competitive super-sport class and another in the super-twin class — is an incredible achievement. The TT is one of the most iconic and competitive motor sport competitions in the world. The success that Michael has had is amazing, and we can all celebrate it.

We have a proud legacy and heritage in Northern Ireland of punching well above our weight in so many sports, including motor sport, and that success continues to this day. Congratulations, Michael Dunlop, and very best wishes to you. I am sure that many more victories are to come in the years ahead.

Mr Speaker: You have two minutes, Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a Member for Upper Bann, I mark the passing of an incredible and remarkable man: Hilbert Willis. Hilbert was 101 years old. A football fanatic and loyal-to-the-core supporter of Loughgall Football Club, his life was one that was well and truly lived. He described himself as an "all-round farmer".

Hilbert was born on 11 February 1924, and his life spanned an extraordinary period. Such was his character that he engaged with his community, rolled up his sleeves and continued to work as a volunteer at Loughgall Football Club. Right up to his death, he was seen at the club supporting the team in all its endeavours.

For 30 years, he served as groundsman and then as club chairman, among a host of other voluntary roles. In 2021, at the age of 97, inspired by the walk during COVID of Sir Tom Moore, Hilbert took to the pitch, doing 100 laps and raising £27,000 for Loughgall Football Club. It was remarkable for the man that he was.

We have lost a legend. A family is in mourning. To the Willis family, I send our deepest sympathies. Hilbert's life was well and truly lived. It is true when they say, "There was only one Hilbert Willis". Such was his contribution to the local community that a stand was named in his honour at Loughgall Football Club. He was a much-loved servant of that team and, indeed, many other organisations in the Loughgall community.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions, as this is not an opportunity for debate or long introductions.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement to set out my plans for the launch of the public consultation on the draft remediation strategy for the Mobuoy site.

At the outset, I declare in the register that my stepfather is quality manager for phase 1 of the A6 project.

I welcome the conclusion of the Mobuoy case in court last week. I share the public’s concern and recognise the concern and anger caused by the appalling situation at Mobuoy. That is why I will move to launch the consultation as quickly as possible in order to help people to understand the proposals to minimise risks to water quality and the environment.

Safeguarding public health, ensuring safe drinking water and reducing the environmental impact of the Mobuoy site are paramount to me. My Department recognises that it has a duty under the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 to promote the cleanliness of water in waterways and underground strata and will continue to take action to safeguard water quality and the environment at Mobuoy. There is no room for complacency, and I take the discharge of that duty very seriously. To that end, my officials have produced a draft technical remediation strategy for the Mobuoy site. The draft remediation strategy has been developed to mitigate the long-term risk that the contaminated site poses to water quality in the River Faughan and to address its contamination of the Faughan groundwater body. NI Water’s Carmoney water treatment works takes its supply from river water abstracted less than two kilometres downstream of the Mobuoy site, and safeguarding the drinking water supply and the environment is unequivocally a priority for me.

The draft remediation strategy is a detailed, technical and complex document that has been developed by a specialist contaminated land consultancy team in accordance with the industry standard process known as the "land contamination risk management" (LCRM) guidance.

LCRM guidance is the UK Government guidance on how to assess and manage the risks from land contamination, and, as well as in England and Wales, it applies here in Northern Ireland.

A detailed quantitative risk assessment (DQRA) was carried out in line with the LCRM process, drawing on extensive site investigations to establish the volume and nature of the waste and utilising over seven years of monitoring data. That provided a robust scientific basis for the specialist contaminated land consultancy team to work through a remediation options appraisal for a range of potential remediation options to develop the draft remediation strategy. The remediation options appraisal process was undertaken in line with the LCRM guidance and the Sustainable Remediation Forum UK (SuRF-UK) publication 'A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation'. That guidance was produced with the aim of encouraging more sustainable management of remediation practices in the UK. It outlines the principles of sustainable development and the criteria that should be used in the selection of sustainable remediation strategies.

At each of the stages, the work was presented to stakeholders and published on the DAERA website. That work has now culminated in the production of a draft remediation strategy for the site. It is a technical document that proposes taking an integrated remediation approach to how the site could be remediated in order to mitigate the risks highlighted by the evidence, in accordance with the outcomes from the remediation options appraisal process. The strategy sets out a technical proposal, which, following the consultation's conclusion, will require further development in order to take account of consultation responses, affordability and deliverability. That will inform the final remediation strategy.

At this stage, there is no agreed preferred option, and the way forward will not be decided until consultation has been completed. I want everyone who has an interest in the draft remediation strategy to respond to the consultation. Consultation is hugely important to me. The public consultation will ensure that all stakeholders and interested parties are afforded the opportunity to respond. It also presents an opportunity for stakeholders to provide information that they think that we need to consider in finalising the preferred approach. The consultation process is designed to ensure engagement with all, and I look forward to rolling out a series of engagement events as part of it. I am keen to hear stakeholders' views on any points that they believe should be taken into consideration before a preferred approach is agreed.

It is important that the stakeholder engagement be effective, and I will ensure that we provide the best opportunity for people to respond so that we can receive meaningful responses. For that reason, the consultation will run over a period of 16 weeks in order to take account of the July and August holiday periods. Stakeholder engagement meetings will be arranged for early September to maximise the opportunity for all interested parties to attend. Details of the meetings will follow as soon as possible.

Following the consultation, my officials will carefully consider the responses received, and an assessment will be undertaken to establish any changes that are required in order to determine a preferred approach. We will then need to evaluate that approach by looking at what is affordable and deliverable and by ensuring that it mitigates environmental risks and safeguards water quality for future generations. The consultation is a very important and significant step. It is important to note, however, that the consultation does not guarantee that everything in the draft remediation strategy will be delivered immediately. Nonetheless, it is an important and significant step forward in the process.

There is no quick fix, but I am committed to continuing to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to protect water quality and the environment during the processes. Next steps will be subject to a range of factors, including departmental and public spending approvals, meaning a wider role for the Executive and the Assembly in delivering a remediation strategy that recognises the constraints within which we operate. There will be important considerations to be made on the availability of funding and the realistic timescales required to deliver a remediation solution.

I am committed to protecting the water quality of the River Faughan and to working in partnership with Northern Ireland Water to safeguard drinking water in the north-west. To that end, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) continues to implement a comprehensive environmental monitoring programme (EMP) at the site. The EMP includes site and riverbank inspections, surface water and groundwater monitoring and daily laboratory testing of water quality at the NI Water drinking water abstraction point. The monitoring data is used by my officials and NI Water to assess continually any changes in risk to the water quality in the River Faughan and the water quality at the Northern Ireland Water abstraction point. Water quality reports are published regularly and are freely available on the DAERA website. I am advised that, to date, there has been no adverse impact on the safety of the drinking water that is being supplied from the River Faughan.

As I said at the beginning of the statement, there is, however, no room for complacency, and I am moving to launch the consultation on a draft remediation strategy to address the risks that the Mobuoy site poses. My officials will require some time, which is likely to be just a few days, to address the logistical details of the launch of the consultation, but I hope to launch it later this week, with engagement events planned for September.

Today is an important moment, and I put on record my thanks to all the officials in my Department for the work that they have done over the past number of years. I am happy to take questions, including on consideration of a public inquiry.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Before I call Mark Durkan to speak on behalf of the official Opposition, I remind Members to rise in their places. We will try to make sure that they are on the list.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. We will support his efforts to ensure remediation of the Mobuoy site and the removal of the risk that it poses to the environment and to human health, as well as to the block that it has put on the completion of the A6. While focusing on the future, however, we cannot just forget about the past and how an environmental crime on an industrial scale was allowed to happen. It could cost the public and public services hundreds of millions of pounds to put right. Will the Minister seek support from his Executive colleagues for a public inquiry into the scandal?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mark, for your question. This was an abhorrent crime on an industrial scale. I was on the record before I took up this job, and I am happy to confirm again today that I believe that there is merit in having a public inquiry. Therefore, I will take a paper to my Executive colleagues on that.

You rightly said that the cost to remediate the site is likely to be significant. It could cost up to £700 million. I will be looking to the UK Government not just for financial support for a public inquiry but for the cost to remediate the site. Those are significant costs for those of us who are in the Executive to bear whilst we are continuing to deliver public services in Northern Ireland and doing good work in supporting agriculture and, more broadly, improving our environment.

I am committed to engagement on the issue. Whilst I will bring my Executive colleagues a paper on the merits of holding an inquiry and of the remediation of the site while giving them an update, it is important that I engage locally. Therefore, I will seek to meet the five Foyle MLAs along with the mayor and the chief executive of the council to talk through the issues regarding the site, in particular its remediation and the way forward. It is important that we look to the past and understand any lessons that are to be learned, but it is also important to look to the future and have remediation of the site.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for your welcome announcement on what was an appalling assault on our environment. You outlined one of the significant barriers to reparations, that is, the costs. It has been estimated that the site generated in the region of more than £40 million. Are any steps or levers available to the Minister and his Department to recover those costs through the profits that were made from that site so that a strong message could be sent to those who deliberately assault our environment?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Robbie. Following sentencing, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency will pursue confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against three defendants with the intention of depriving them of the benefit that is generated by their criminal conduct and of asserting the "polluter pays" principle. The value of any confiscation order that the court may be minded to make will be a decision for the court.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, what impact has the contamination of the Mobuoy site had on biodiversity in the River Faughan, particularly on the quality of the salmon?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question. We continue to sample the water quality in the river, and, as I outlined in my statement, no concerns have been raised to date. However, that does not mean that we should not take action. We must take action on this site, and that is why I am moving very quickly on the consultation. I encourage people to engage with the consultation. I will engage with local reps, my Executive colleagues and, very importantly, the UK Government. We will need financial assistance in order to deal with the site. It is not fair to ask Northern Ireland to deal with the site, which will cost up to £700 million to remediate. The UK Government need to assist us with that.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, your statement focuses a lot on a 16-week consultation on a remediation strategy and the possible delivery of that, depending on finances and all that type of thing. Are you in a position to inform the House as to whether any works will take place on-site in the remainder of this Assembly term?

Mr Muir: I believe in consultation and in giving people the opportunity to have their say, particularly Derry City and Strabane District Council, which has been quite good in engaging with the process to date. It has technical experts who can make a contribution. I am not ruling anything in or out because that is the purpose of the consultation. The consultation will give people an opportunity to have their say, and there are a number of options in the draft remediation strategy that can be moved much more quickly than others. I will be interested to see people's responses in that regard. I have been to the site and have seen it. What happened there was appalling and disgraceful, and I am glad that the people who are associated with the site were sentenced on Friday.

Mr Blair: Along with my Alliance colleagues, I share the concerns that have been raised by other Members. I thank the Minister for his statement. Is the situation at Mobuoy holding up the delivery of the A6 road upgrade?

Mr Muir: The consultation will outline the options that are in place to deal with the relationship with the A6. I understand that concerns have been raised about that. Essentially, as part of the consultation responses, consideration could be given to prioritising the remediation of the area close to where the A6 is meant to run. It is important that that is considered in the consultation in the time ahead. I understand the concerns around phase 2 of the A6 and its importance for the north-west. That is why we are considering that as part of the consultation.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. We have heard mention, certainly from television reports, of vast quantities of money being involved. At some stage, will the Department consider those as proceeds of crime?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan. Any profits made from this situation are an issue of significant concern for the general public. As I outlined in my response to Robbie's question, we will move towards proceeds of crime proceedings on the matter.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I share the concerns that have been expressed. I want to look at it from a roads point of view. Roads infrastructure is really important in opening up the north-west, and I note the delay of phase 2 of the A6 project. What detailed discussions is the Minister having with the Minister for Infrastructure at this time? I know that he is waiting for the consultation, but what discussions are happening between the two Departments on the A6 road infrastructure project?

Mr Muir: As part of the consultation, the Department for Infrastructure will have an opportunity to engage on the remediation of the Mobuoy site. As outlined, phase 2 of the A6 Derry to Dungiven dual carriageway project extends from Drumahoe to the A2 Caw roundabout. Part of the works will encroach on the Mobuoy site. My officials are working closely with DFI Roads colleagues in order to ensure that there is an integrated approach so that the projects are coordinated and can progress efficiently. My officials are continuing to work through the land contamination risk management guidance, and the public consultation is the next step. That will be an important step, and my officials will continue to engage with DFI Roads colleagues as the consultation progresses. The start of the consultation is an important moment. I am very keen that we run through the consultation over 16 weeks and bring the responses back. We will then have to consider the way forward. I am getting the communication very clearly that the Mobuoy site should not hold up phase 2 of the A6 project. When it comes to prioritisation, however, we will have to consider where that fits and the costs associated with it. I get the importance of the A6 project to the north-west.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. Is he able to expand on how drinking water is being protected?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Andy. The protection of drinking water and what we do to manage that is an important consideration for people.

Safeguarding public health and ensuring that there is safe drinking water are paramount. My Department is committed to protecting the water quality of the River Faughan and is working in partnership with NI Water to safeguard drinking water in the north-west.

As I outlined in my statement, officials have put in place a comprehensive environmental monitoring programme at the Mobuoy site. The monitoring data is used by my Department and NI Water to continually assess any changes in the risk to water quality in the River Faughan and at the NI Water abstraction point. Water quality reports are regularly published on the DAERA website, and, to date, there has been no adverse impact on the safety of the drinking water being supplied from the River Faughan.

NI Water has also tested procedures to ensure that, if the need arises, it would immediately stop taking water from the River Faughan as an emergency measure. NI Water provides robust treatment to water abstracted from the River Faughan and continually monitors the water from the plant in the distribution system and at customer properties in the area supplied from the Carmoney water treatment works. NI Water has completed planned works to provide additional resilience whereby increased flow from the Ballinrees water treatment works near Coleraine, supported by the Caugh Hill water treatment works near Dungiven, will provide sufficient supply to the north-west for a period.

My Department provides a continuous response officer, who is available on a 24-hour call-out, to respond and coordinate required actions, should an emergency arise.

Mr Delargy: Minister, as you know, I have asked you a number of questions about tougher sentencing to prevent such instances from happening again. The major concern for people in Derry today is about potential water pollution and how that can be avoided. I appreciate that you have gone through a lot of the steps, but the House needs the detail of what the emergency measures look like. We need to ensure there are proper and robust procedures in place to ensure there is emergency backup, and we need —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question, Pádraig.

Mr Delargy: — to ensure that it will not happen again. What is your Department doing with NI Water to ensure that it is in place?

Mr Muir: As I outlined to Andy, we have measures in place in conjunction with NI Water. As part of the engagement, I want to meet you, the other Foyle MLAs, the mayor and chief Executive of Derry City and Strabane District Council, alongside NI Water and DFI, to give assurances about the issue and to talk about the remediation of the site.

The first part of your question mentioned tougher sentencing for environmental crime, and that is what l will seek the support of the Chamber to do. Later this month, I will consult on the fisheries Bill to give me additional powers to have heavier fines and penalties for environmental crime, particularly in relation to water pollution. I will also come to the Executive in the autumn to seek support for measures to improve and strengthen environmental governance. I will look for support around the Chamber.

I came to the Chamber earlier this year to remove the cap on penalties for water pollution as a result of cross-compliance. Only Alliance and Gerry voted with us. When people say to me that they want tougher penalties in the time ahead, they will need to support me and vote with me.

Mr Robinson: Minister, I condemn the death threat against you. In this day and age, whether it is 2025, 1995 or 1975, there is no place for such despicable behaviour.

Given the public health risks associated with the site, is the Minister aware of any other sites across the Province that may pose similar risks? What action is he taking to address them?

Mr Muir: Thank you for your kind comments, and I appreciate that. I will not be bullied or intimidated by anyone, and I am clear about that. I thank the police for dealing with the issue.

I have set out the action at the Mobuoy site. There are other sites where unauthorised dumping has occurred. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency works with district councils to manage those sites. There is a protocol in place between the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and district councils to deal with the wider issue of fly-tipping and dumping. Two councils have still not signed up to the protocol. I have written to ask them to sign up, and it is important that they do so. District councils and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency need to work together, and the other two councils need to sign up.

Ms Ferguson: I also thank the Minister for his statement this morning. I very much welcome the upcoming consultation on the next steps for the Mobuoy site, and I urge everyone to take part in that.
There has been significant concern ongoing over many years, particularly among local representative organisations such as River Faughan Anglers, Strathfoyle Community Association, Maydown Community Association and Enagh Youth Forum, all of which have been there from the start right through. Minister, you mentioned that you will meet the council and us as MLAs. Will you open that meeting to those representative organisations, which have continuously engaged throughout the process?

Mr Muir: No problem. That engagement is really important. As part of the consultation, my officials will engage with those organisations. It is really important that their voices be heard, because local communities have real concerns about the site. I will prioritise engagement with you, as representatives for the area, and the mayor and chief executive of the council. I know that Pádraig has also requested engagement with a local group. I will honour my promise to engage with them. I will see what we can do in the time ahead.

This is an important moment for consultation and engagement. To be fair to the council, it has been very good in engaging with us thus far. It is an important body from which to garner views on a complex and important issue. This should never have occurred, and it is important that we find a way to remediate the site.

Mr Irwin: I welcome the fact that criminal assets may be seized from those responsible. Will the Minister assure the House that every effort will be made to pursue those responsible and seize assets?

Mr Muir: I can assure the Member of that. As Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, my sole focus is on being fair and even-handed with everyone. If people break the rules, they can be assured that my Department will come after them.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your welcome statement today. Will the Minister ensure that the systemic issues that were exploited by the criminals to make millions and millions of pounds have been addressed, as recommended in the Mills review? BBC Radio 4 journalists investigated the issue and suggested that something on this scale could have been carried out only with the involvement of organised crime: what is your view on that?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Sinéad. What occurred at the site was appalling. The Mills review was conducted, and its recommendations are being implemented. There is a significant concern about the role of organised crime in waste crime. It is important that we say that. That is why my Department and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency collaborate with partners in the criminal justice sphere and take a coordinated approach.

As Minister, I have been very clear that we need to punish environmental crime much more harshly, because it is having an impact on our environment. We are talking about a potential cost to the public purse of £700 million. That is a significant cost. If we do not move the dial in how we deal with environmental crime and pollution in Northern Ireland, we will continue to see challenges emerge that will cost the public purse, so we need to have a different attitude towards it. I thank officials for the way they have engaged with the PSNI, HMRC and others on this. It is important that we tackle organised crime and that we view waste crime as part of that. We have committed to doing that. As part of our engagement with you as Foyle MLAs, I will have a bit more of a discussion and provide reassurance on what we are doing in that sphere.

Mr McGlone: Minister, on the issue of criminal assets and the like, what liability falls to the landowners on whose property the illegal activity took place?

Mr Muir: That is a technical question. The Proceeds of Crime action will proceed. That is the next step. It is important that we do that. I am happy to discuss the complexities of it all with you outside of here. The site has a lot of history, and that is what makes it a bit more complex.

Mr Carroll: I also condemn the death threats against you, Minister, and offer my solidarity and best wishes.

Mobuoy was one of the biggest illegal dumps in Europe. I welcome the action taken against those implicated. I commend all the activists in Derry and the north-west. It would be remiss of me not to mention my former MLA colleague Eamonn McCann 's work as a journalist in highlighting the Mobuoy site.

Minister, do you have a grasp of how many smaller Mobuoy sites may exist across the North? Do you agree that the example of Mobuoy underlines the need for an independent environmental protection agency?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Gerry, for your kind comments.

I thank the groups in the Foyle consistency that have continued to raise and highlight the issue. It is important that we thank them for that. The Mobuoy site is unprecedented in its significance. That is not to say that there are not other smaller sites and fly-tipping occurring in Northern Ireland. How we grade those things by size is an issue, but I am happy to write to you to outline that.

There is a wider issue: the need to strengthen environmental governance. I take that seriously, which is why I appointed an independent panel to look at it. It will come forward with an interim report soon. I will not be found wanting. We must strengthen environmental governance — we have to. Northern Ireland is an outlier in this regard. I will bring the paper to the Executive, and I look forward to receiving support for it. If we always do what we have always done, we will always get what we always got. We have to strengthen environmental governance.

I record my wholehearted thanks to all the officials in the NIEA, the Public Prosecution Service and more broadly for their work. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency does a lot of really good work, and Friday was an important moment for it. I thank it for the work that it does. As Minister, I wholeheartedly value the NIEA, and I am very proud to have it as a part of the Department.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement. Members, please take your ease before the next item of business.

Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Minister made a statement, but I did not get an opportunity to ask a question. It is revealing that his Executive colleagues from the main party of government have refused to support a public inquiry into the biggest environmental crime that the island has ever seen: why?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is a not a point of order. You were not here when the statement was being read out. You came in late, when questions were being asked. You cannot ask a question on the fly or on the side: it is bad manners, Justin. Had you come in even at the tail end of the statement, I would have brought you in. It is not a point of order. Do not try that again. OK? Members should take their ease.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no debate on the motion. 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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Second Stage of the Budget (No.2) Bill has been moved. In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits to the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate on the Bill.

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

The Second Stage debate today follows the Assembly's approval on Tuesday 3 June of the Supply resolution for the expenditure plans of Departments and other public bodies as detailed in the Main Estimates 2025-26. Accelerated passage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill is necessary to ensure that Royal Assent is obtained before any Departments reach the cash limits for 2025-26 set in the Vote on Account that was agreed by the Assembly earlier in the year.

As I have said previously, I am grateful to the Finance Committee for confirming that, in line with Standing Order 42, the Budget (No. 2) Bill can proceed under accelerated passage. The Assembly's agreement of the Executive's final Budget for 2025-26 on 19 May 2025 allows me to bring the Budget (No. 2) Bill to the Assembly to seek legislative authority for the expenditure of the Departments and other bodies for the remainder of the financial year.

Standing Order 32 directs that the Second Stage debate should be confined to the general principles of the Bill, and I shall endeavour to keep to that direction. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Main Estimates for 2025-26 and authorise the cash and use of resources on services to allow Departments and other public bodies to operate for the remainder of the 2025-26 financial year. Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) have been made available to Members, and the Main Estimates 2025-26 were laid in the Assembly on 21 May 2025.

The Bill will authorise the use of £27,431,599,000 from the Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £30,772,659,000 by Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedule 1 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2026 — this financial year. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of each of the schedules. The Budget (No. 2) Bill will authorise temporary borrowing by the Department of Finance for 2025-26. Up to £13,715,800,000 may be borrowed and is to be repaid no later than 31 March 2026. That is a normal safeguard to allow the efficient management of the Consolidated Fund and does not authorise any additional expenditure.

While the vast majority of expenditure by all Departments is done on the authority of the statutory powers provided through legislation and passed by the Assembly, there are occasionally some unusually small functions that may be done on the sole authority of the Budget Act. Table 5 of the Main Estimates 2025-26 sets out a summary of expenditures resting on the sole authority of the Budget Act. For some of those items of expenditure, the amount involved is greater than the Assembly would normally be asked to approve or is over a longer period. I assure Members that legislation is being developed to deal with those matters.

The numbers contained in the Budget Bill are significant, and I am sure that Members would agree that it is not an easy task to translate those figures into the delivery of public services on the ground. The reality is that this crucial legislation is required to ensure that all the day-to-day public services that we rely on can continue to be delivered to our citizens for the remainder of the financial year.

On that note, I conclude. I am happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget (No. 2) Bill that Members wish to raise.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for opening the debate.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak as Chair of the Finance Committee and as leader of the Opposition. Thankfully, in an untimed debate on legislation, we do not have the regular anomaly whereby a Chairperson's time and the Opposition's time are divided. I welcome that, but I promise not to detain Members too cruelly with my remarks.

First, I will speak as Chair of the Finance Committee. As I said, this is an untimed debate, and I thank the Minister of Finance for his comments and for bringing the Bill to the Assembly. The Committee also thanks the relevant departmental officials, whose regular engagement with the Committee has allowed members to put Budget scrutiny on a healthier trajectory than it has been in recent years.

Officials briefed the Committee on the Main Estimates and the Bill most recently at our meeting on 28 May, and we debated the Main Estimates in the Chamber last week. It is to be hoped that the strong working relationships that have been forged between the Committee and the Department will continue, despite there being the odd issue here and there. We need to deal with a specific issue to do with legislative consent motions, which I will come on to talk about later.

It seems not so long ago that we welcomed the Minister of Finance to his portfolio, not long before we debated the Second Stage of the previous Budget Bill, but it feels like an eternity since I spoke at Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill in 2024, as, since then, there has been a Westminster election, and there is, of course, now a new UK Government. On Wednesday, we will know the outcome of the comprehensive spending review (CSR). The CSR will tell us the settlements for Northern Ireland Departments and other bodies. As I said last week during the debate on the Main Estimates, the CSR announcement will be an important moment. Hopefully, it will mark the end of over a decade of single-year Budgets for this place. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister can indicate when he hopes to be able to give a clear and detailed update to the Assembly on the outworkings of the CSR, in specific and more general terms, for the block grant. Members have remarked at length in the Chamber about how difficult annual Budgets make running public services and making broader policy decisions. It is impossible to be genuinely strategic and to deliver meaningful long-term change using single-year Budgets.

Wednesday's announcement is expected to unveil resource spending for the next three years, with capital spending being announced for the next four. As has been said previously, multi-annual Budgets could be a game changer. It will be up to the Finance Minister and his Executive colleagues to make use of that change in order to deliver Budgets more strategically, allied to five-year business plans with baseline funding that, it is anticipated, Departments will publish in the autumn. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister can confirm that.

The Minister has talked about the five-year business plans, which I welcome as leader of the Opposition and as Chair of the Finance Committee, but it would be helpful if he could give an update on the latest timings. There should be much better opportunity for Statutory Committees to scrutinise departmental budgets. At this stage, it is important to say, as, I am sure, other finance spokespersons for the relevant parties will do, that it is not the job of the Finance Committee to scrutinise every Department's budget. It is the job of individual Statutory Committees to scrutinise their budget. Doing that will combine with the work that the Finance Committee has done and continues to do on simplifying financial information that is collated by the Minister's Department and then shared with other Committees. The Committee is working hard to ensure that Budget scrutiny reaches a new level, with greater access to more user-friendly information leading to greater transparency. As I said, multi-annual Budgets will be core to that.

I will now turn to the Minister's request for the granting of accelerated passage for the Budget (No. 2) Bill. At its meeting on 28 May, the Committee agreed that the Bill should be granted accelerated passage, and I wrote to the Speaker informing him of the Committee's decision. The Committee's agreement to accelerated passage for the Bill is predicated on:

As I have highlighted before, however, granting accelerated passage to the Bill is not just taken as a formality by the Committee. Each request is considered and debated: there is no waving through. Members understand that the nature of the Budget process is such that accelerated passage is necessary. The Executive do not get a free hand to decide the timescales that the Budget process follows, however. Everything flows from the actions that the UK Treasury takes initially, so Committee consensus on granting accelerated passage reflects members' understanding of the process, but it should not be taken as meaning untrammelled support for the Budget. I would not express that view in my Opposition capacity, but I am reflecting the Committee's view. Other Committee members will have the opportunity to give their views during the debate as it proceeds.

Accelerated passage is not the ideal way in which to do business. The return of multi-annual Budgets will, however, promote greater scrutiny throughout the rest of the Budget process, as Departments will be able to budget over the longer term, thus providing them with the opportunity to spend more strategically, to plan better and to offer greater security to those in receipt of public money to provide services to the public.

As Members are aware, the Budget (No. 2) Bill will give Departments legal authority to incur spending and use resources as agreed by the Assembly's Main Estimates document. We passed the Supply resolution last week, approving nearly £27·5 billion to be granted out of the Consolidated Fund to provide for Departments and other bodies. That is a significant sum, as it follows on from what was a bumper year in 2024-25 in drawdown from the Executive restoration package and other significant Barnett consequentials. The interim fiscal framework that was signed with Treasury last May provides for a 24% supplement to Barnett consequentials. Obviously, that is welcomed in the Chamber. We express hope that the work that Professor Holtham has undertaken on behalf of the Department and has now provided to the Treasury will persuade officials there that Northern Ireland's relative need requires additional resource. Obviously, we all support that. I hope that we get an update on that in the CSR announcement on Wednesday. I acknowledge the fact that the Minister and his officials have kept us abreast of those developments, and we look forward to being briefed on the outcome of the CSR at our Committee meeting next week on 18 June.

The Committee and, of course, the Assembly are aware of the fact that the Budget situation remains tight. The Committee stands ready to work with the Minister and his Executive colleagues to improve Budget sustainability. The Minister has already received and published a report on the cost of doing business in Northern Ireland. He is consulting on potential changes to the rating system, as well as undertaking a strategic income review under the terms of the Executive restoration package. I look forward to hearing an update from the Minister on both those items in his winding-up speech.

With budgets tight, it is vital that Departments apply their efforts to living within their means. Better management of budgets would mean an end to overcommitment in the hope of Estimates coming to the rescue, as it were. Hopefully, the work on an updated fiscal framework will provide for more sustainable budgets and, indeed, more flexibility in things such as end-year flexibility and the Budget exchange scheme. I have asked now for several updates from the Minister, but he will have lots of time for that in his winding-up speech later on. The Committee has received a draft of the Fiscal Council Bill and hopes to soon receive a draft of the financial provisions Bill. Those will go some way to address spending that is being approved under the sole authority of the Budget Bill.

As I highlighted in my speech on the Main Estimates and Supply resolution last week, the spend under the sole authority of the Budget Bill, which is also known as the black box, has fallen to around £13 million in the Bill. It has fallen considerably from the £25 million that it was at this point last year. Obviously, we hope that it keeps falling and that, at that point, we may even have a financial provisions Bill that has received Royal Assent, which would mean that the amount would be a lot less.

The implementation of the Financial Reporting (Departments and Public Bodies) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 has resulted in a number of changes to how financial information was presented in the Estimates last week and in today's associated Budget (No. 2) Bill. Those changes include the Assembly's ability to now authorise the use of income directly in the Bill. The Executive agreed the draft Budget for 2025-26 on 29 December 2024, and that was subject to a 12-week public consultation that ended on 13 March. The Executive agreed the 2025-26 Budget on 3 April. The Supply resolution for the Main Estimates agreed last week set the individual budgets for Departments and other bodies. The Budget (No. 2) Bill gives that resolution legal authority by virtue of the Committee's agreeing at its meeting on 28 May 2025 to accelerated passage for the Bill. The Committee supports the call in the motion that the Bill pass its Second Stage.

I will now make some remarks in my other capacity as leader of the Opposition. While it is welcome that we are now in a much more regularised Budget process than we have been here for many years, there are very profound concerns about the Budget-making process, strategic prioritisation and, frankly, the delivery of the Executive. The Budget (No. 2) Bill is a direct consequence of, and puts into law, many of the decisions that were made in the Budget 2025-26, which was voted on — obviously, the Opposition opposed it — in the Assembly just a few short weeks ago. The Budget 2025-26 was supposed to be an enaction of, or to put into place, the financial resources to deliver on the Programme for Government.

I promise not to detain the Assembly for very long today, but I want to call out the abject failure of the Executive to set clear targets in the Programme for Government and then meaningfully put resources behind it. It is not just me saying that: it is the Department's own Programme for Government and Budget, when you read them alongside each other. Table 4.1 of the Budget sets out the resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) — that is, everyday, day-to-day spending allocations — matched to Programme for Government priorities, and the total matched to Programme for Government priorities is £328 million. You can see what those allocations are, and many of them are very worthwhile: £2 million for ending violence against women and girls; £50 million for the childcare strategy; and £215 million for the elective care programme. However, that £328 million should be read alongside the £27 billion that we are authorising. It is barely 2%. It is the case that a few per cent of the overall Executive Budget are going to deliver Programme for Government priorities. I imagine that the Minister may — he may not — turn around to me and say, "That is the wrong way to read it. Our Programme for Government priorities stand by themselves, and we also have to do all the everyday business of government".

I go back to the question about the Programme for Government: the public expect clear targets, and they expect delivery, not least when big promises were made and when, in the first full financial year of us being back — 2024-25 — there was, as the Minister's own officials acknowledged at Committee, a record year of allocations. The argument is constantly made that we are constrained by finances. Of course, we have inherited a decade and a half of austerity. There is no doubt that it has been pernicious and damaging. However, last year saw a record allocation to the Executive, so the public have a right to ask, "What is it being used for? How are funds being strategically prioritised to deliver on the things that we care most about?". Those include getting waiting lists down; dealing with the crisis in our water infrastructure in the broader ecological breakdown that we face; dealing with childcare; and dealing with social housing.

The Programme for Government was very short on specific targets. It was long on warm words, waffle and pleasant photographs. One of the very few specific targets in the Programme for Government was for social housing starts. It said that there would be just under 6,000 social housing starts by 2027 — by the end of the mandate. We are now two years off the end of the mandate. The Communities Minister has brought forward his budget proposals for this financial year, and he says that the maximum that he can build, in terms of getting them started, is 1,000 social homes. You do not need to be a mathematical genius to work out that, if you have two years left to build just under 6,000 homes, and you are building only 1,000 in year 1, there is no way at all that you will get anywhere near to your target. It is fooling people; it is gaslighting people to pretend otherwise. Then, to turn around and say to people, as the Minister did last week, "Be grateful" is always the way. It is warm words, waffle and promises, and then, when people are held to account for the failure to deliver, the message that we get back is, "Be grateful". That would never be said to voters south of the border. It would never be accepted on behalf of Sinn Féin by voters who expect action on the housing crisis but are simply told, effectively with the back of the hand, "Be grateful for it. You should be glad that there are 1,000 social homes". Those were, effectively, the words of the Minister last week. It is because he does not have —.

Mr O'Dowd: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Mr O'Dowd: I know that the SDLP runs the alternative Hansard in here, but, even in the SDLP's alternative Hansard, I will not be found to have said the words, "You should be grateful".

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to have given way for the intervention and that the Minister has clarified that. I was paraphrasing. I do not have his precise words in front of me. He said that we should acknowledge the fact that there were 1,000 homes that families would be in. That is true, of course, but our job is not to simply say, "Isn't it good that some people will benefit?". It is wonderful that those families will benefit, but that is not the target, and that would not be a good enough answer south of the border, so it is not a good enough answer here. I recognise and accept that the powers in the North are different from powers in the South, but my job, as the official Opposition — in the same way that it is the job of the Opposition in the South — is to hold Ministers to account for delivery for people. If it makes people uncomfortable, that is fine too.

Social houses are already way, way, way under where they need to be.

There is literally no chance of us coming close to delivering much-needed houses, particularly in areas such as my constituency and others where working-class communities need extra houses. We are a long way short of the ambition for 100,000 and more homes over the next 15 years, which we were given just a few short years ago in the Chamber. Barely 1,000 will be delivered this year. However, we are told that we should be — not to put words in the Minister's mouth — grateful for what is being built. No, we should demand better from our Budget and from our Governments.

It also comes back to issues that are connected to the delivery of social housing, one of which is water infrastructure. The waste water funding for NI Water in this Budget, which we are authorising in the Budget (No. 2) Bill today, does not even touch inflation. Everyone — from the Construction Employers Federation to housing associations to any academic who has looked at this — will say that one of the core drivers of unlocking housing in this country is our crumbling waste water infrastructure. By the way, that goes for businesses as well. I am sure that every MLA deals with these issues. There is no plan to fund and invest in our water infrastructure. A big report is coming out about that tomorrow.

The Finance Minister, who was previously Infrastructure Minister, appears, at times, to be in denial about this problem. When the Executive are challenged on it, the answer is simply, "We do not want to do water charges". I agree: I do not want to do water charges either, but, in that case, there needs to be an explanation as to whether we are going to borrow more, or there is going to be progress on some kind of developer charge, which has been talked about but never explained, or are things simply going to be left alone? That would mean that the housing backlog, the businesses that cannot invest and all the other challenges, including environmental damage, that come from having crumbling waste water infrastructure are simply left to fester.

I have picked two connected things. I have not gone through a laundry list of all the ways in which the Programme for Government and this connected Budget and Budget (No. 2) Bill are failing the public of Northern Ireland, I have given two: social housing and our crumbling waste water infrastructure. Those are two areas in which we have had no clarity, no ambition and no delivery. When it is pointed out and Ministers are challenged on it, we are told, "People should be grateful". We are not; it is not good enough. Thank you.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Tacaíonn an Coiste Pobal leis an Dara Céim den Bhille Buiséid (Uimh. 2).

Mar is eol do Chomhaltaí, soláthraítear an t-údarás reachtúil riachtanach leis an Bhille seo do na pleananna caiteachais a leagtar amach sna Príomh-Mheastacháin do 2025-26 a pléadh sa Tionól an tseachtain seo caite. Cé gur céim nós imeachta é, tá sé ríthábhachtach le caiteachas na Roinne don bhliain atá romhainn a chumasú. Tugaim aitheantas don ráiteas is déanaí ón Aire agus do na cruinnithe faisnéise a bhí againn le feidhmeannaigh, inar léiríodh go soiléir na brúnna airgeadais atá ann agus inar taispeánadh na tosaíochtaí caiteachais don bhliain airgeadais reatha.

Tá freagracht an-leathan ar an Roinn Pobal – freagracht atá lárnach do leas ár bpobail: leas sóisialta, tithíocht agus tacaíocht do dhaoine le post a fháil, athghiniúint, na healaíona, cultúr, oidhreacht, agus an earnáil dheonach agus pobail atá chomh tábhachtach sin.

Labhair mé le déanaí sa Seomra faoin bhrú atá na deacrachtaí airgeadais ag cur ar na daoine is leochailí inár sochaí, agus an éiginnteacht atá os comhair an oiread sin daoine. Cuireadh an éiginnteacht sin chun donais de dheasca na n-athruithe atá beartaithe ar an chóras leasa shóisialaigh in Westminster agus de dheasca an pháirt-athraithe ar íocaíochtaí liúntas bhreosla an gheimhridh. Mar sin féin, tá tacaíochtaí do dhaoine i mbaol go fóill. Faigheann an Coiste comhfhreagras ó earnáil na n-ealaíon agus ó ghrúpaí eile faoin tionchar atá ag na cinntí airgeadais ar a maoiniú.

Údaraítear suimeanna móra airgid leis an Bhille do na feidhmeanna seo, lena n-áirítear teorainn chaiteachas ghlan na Roinne de £954·9 milliún agus teorainn chaiteachas caipitil ghlan na Roinne de £318·1 milliún. Mar sin féin, cé go soláthraítear an t-údarás dlí don chaiteachas sin leis an Bhille, agus b’fhéidir go bhfuil cuma suimeanna móra orthu, tá sé tábhachtach iad a chur i gcomhthéacs na faisnéise a cuireadh ar fáil don Choiste ón Roinn. Léirigh an Roinn easnamh i dteorainn chaiteachas neamh-imfhálaithe na Roinne de thart ar £98·6 milliún, i gcomparáid lena riachtanais féin. Is easnamh ollmhór é sin a léiríonn fadhb leanúnach: ní riarann an blocdheontas a fhaigheann an Tuaisceart ar riachtanais ár bpobail ná ar riachtanais ár seirbhísí poiblí.

Seo fírinne an scéil: cé go n-údaraítear caiteachas tábhachtach leis an Bhille Buiséid (Uimh. 2), tá ar an Roinn Pobal cinntí an-deacra a dhéanamh. Mar shampla, chuir an Roinn in iúl dúinn go mbeidh teorainn ar infheistíocht sna hidirghabhálacha i gcúrsaí easpa dídine, sa chlár Tacaíochta do Dhaoine, agus sna hearnálacha cultúir, ealaíon, spóirt agus oidhreachta.

Tugann an Coiste faoi deara go bhfanfaidh an maoiniú san iomad earnálacha mar atá sé, rud a chiallaíonn, mar gheall ar an bhrú boilscithe reatha, go mbeidh dúshláin mhóra ann seirbhísí a sholáthar. Tá an Coiste ag coinneáil súil ar na brúnna atá ag teacht chun cinn.

Mar shampla, cé go bhfuil an Roinn ag déanamh measúnú ar na hathruithe ar an leas shóisialach i mBileog Ghlas na Breataine, níl leithdháileadh airgeadais ar leith nó nua sa Bhuiséad do na hidirghabhálacha tacaíochta fostaíochta cuimsitheacha a bheadh riachtanach leis an dífhostaíocht a laghdú nó leis na hathruithe sin a mhaolú. Meastar go mbeifear ag brath ar thairiscintí maoinithe in-bhliana éiginnte sa réimse sin. Ar an chaoi chéanna, cuirfidh an bhearna atá ag an Roinn le bainistiú laistigh den bhliain brú breise ar na comhlachtaí páirt-spleácha agus ar an earnáil dheonach agus pobail – na comhpháirtithe soláthair is tábhachtaí atá againn.

In ainneoin an tsocraithe maoinithe lochtaigh atá ag teacht ó Westminster – tá imní orainn faoin athbhreithniú caiteachais atá le teacht Dé Céadaoin – is ar an Roinn Pobal atá an dualgas na srianta sin a threorú ar bhealach cothrom soiléir, taobh istigh den chreat a údaraítear sa Bhille seo.

Gheobhaidh an tAire agus a chuid feidhmeannach comhpháirtithe fonnmhara sa Choiste san obair thábhachtach sin lena chinntiú go bpléitear le tosaíochtaí mar is cóir agus go ndéantar acmhainní a dháileadh go héifeachtach ar ár bpobal. Táimid ag súil le rannpháirtíocht bhríoch a bheith againn sa phróiseas monatóireachta agus sna hiarratais buiséid in-bhliana, ós rud é go bhfuil tionchar suntasach ag an mhaoiniú sin ar ghníomhaíochtaí riachtanacha. Coinneoimid linn ag díriú ár n-airde lena chinntiú go n-úsáidtear acmhainní ar bhealach éifeachtach, go háirithe le príomhsheirbhísí do na daoine is leochailí a chosaint. Beidh súil ghéar againn fosta ar fhorbairt plean cúig bliana airgeadais de chuid na Roinne.

I ndeireadh na dála, is uirlis riachtanach rialachais é an Bille Buiséid (Uimh. 2). Ach, má tá fíor-athrú ar sheirbhísí poiblí le bheith ann, caithfidh Rialtas na Breataine samhail maoinithe ilbhliantúil, inmharthana a thabhairt dúinn –bunaithe ar riachtanais ár bpobail, a éascaíonn an phleanáil fhadtéarmach, a thacaíonn leis an Chlár Rialtais, agus a fhágann gur féidir linn bogadh ón chur chuige géarchéime atá i réim faoi láthair.

Ms Forsythe: We are all well versed in the Budget circumstances here. We know that we face pressures in delivering public services and that Northern Ireland has long been underfunded. The DUP leader, Gavin Robinson MP, has led the campaign for an improved funding package for Northern Ireland for some time, and we remain committed to fighting for that. I welcome the Finance Minister's review of our funding and his progressing discussions with Treasury on our increased funding need. I hope to see that reflected in the comprehensive spending review this week. I look forward to the spending review announcement, which, as has been noted, is expected to set out resource spending for the next three years and capital spending for the next four years. That will transform our ability to plan for the better use of public money, to improve delivery of public services, to realise efficiencies, to make strategies that are underpinned by longer-term financing and to make huge strides in securing the status and existence of our voluntary and community sector, which delivers critical public services in Northern Ireland. Our annual Budgets make the running of public services and our economy challenging, especially where we roll forward on Votes on Account and set the Budget Bill when we are already three months into the financial year and in the process of June monitoring rounds.

The Budget (No. 2) Bill that we are dealing with has been brought before us as at a time when we face extreme financial pressures and does the best that it can under the circumstances. Across Departments, Ministers have bid significantly more than has been allocated to them in the Budget, leaving disappointment with allocations across the board. The Ministers, the Executive and the Assembly have a responsibility to ensure that Departments keep running and delivering essential public services to the best of their ability. To do that, they need the Budget (No. 2) Bill to be approved. This year, although we are in the position of the Budget's having been brought forward following the publication of an agreed Programme for Government, the available Budget is putting constraints on how much can be delivered. I am disappointed that the leader of the Opposition is not in the Chamber. He is very critical of the Communities Minister's allocations to housing, but we can be assured that, were more money available to the Communities Minister, he would deliver more housing. Budgets are constrained, however. Our Ministers are making the best of their allocations, and there remains ambition and commitment that any more money that becomes available will be used to deliver for us in Northern Ireland.

We face the spending review against a backdrop of uncertainty, following the Labour Government's unpredictable and disappointing actions of recent months, such as taking the winter fuel payment from our pensioners; the attacks on family farms; and the hit to small businesses that has been caused by the move to increase employers' National Insurance contributions and the minimum wage, which came at once and at short notice. Such uncertainty is not good for financial planning. Our priority is to approve an operational Budget in Northern Ireland to keep our public services operating and delivering the best for us. As we move on the Budget, it is important that we ensure that we achieve the best value for money in our public spending. We need to see real transformation of our public services and public money being spent wisely. I welcome last week's publication of the new public procurement policy statement. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am committed to ensuring that the £2 billion of goods and services that are procured each year are delivered by spending public money in the most transparent and efficient way.

Another important point that came to the Public Accounts Committee was about the management of capital projects. Given that it can be cited that we face a £3 billion overspend on key projects, it is imperative that things are done differently. Last week, my colleague Diane Dodds rightly highlighted that the hundreds of millions of pounds of overspend on capital projects in Health could have paid for the mother-and-baby unit that we all want to see delivered, and for many more much-needed capital projects, including enhancements to Daisy Hill Hospital and Craigavon Area Hospital in my Southern Trust area.

We need to work together to ensure that the money that we receive is spent wisely. The financial package that we received required that a balanced Budget be delivered. Not a lot has been said about the fact that that has been achieved in 2024-25 — although the year is not quite closed off — but I wish to acknowledge that and to commend all the officials in the Department of Finance and across the Civil Service for their continued work in monitoring, reporting on and managing the Budget, month in, month out.

I also extend thanks to the Finance Minister for his officials' continued engagement with the Finance Committee. I genuinely believe that, working together and sharing that work with other Committees, we have been able to improve some processes to enhance Budget scrutiny across the board. I look forward to continuing to work closely with them. However, I note that, in 2024-25, we had huge in-year allocations, the like of which we do not expect to see repeated in 2025-26, so we approach the year with caution.

The 2025-26 Budget will be challenging, but the DUP supports the progression of the Budget (No. 2) Bill today.

Mr Tennyson: As I open my remarks, I will say that it is notable that, although the Opposition talk a good game about paying close attention and holding Ministers to account, not one member of the Opposition, official or unofficial, is in the Chamber to scrutinise crucial Budget legislation. Perhaps the Opposition will reflect on how effective they are in their role in the Chamber. It is all well and good to make grand speeches for the camera, but, when the real work needs to be done, the Opposition are nowhere to be seen.

I support the Bill at Second Stage, and I also support its proceeding by accelerated passage in order to ensure that Departments have the statutory authority that they need to draw down cash and avoid the risk of their reaching the spending limits previously set down by the Assembly. I will discuss some of the context of the Bill, which comes after an unprecedented number of years of financial challenge, be that the cycle of crisis and collapse at the Assembly, a global pandemic, Westminster austerity or the decision to leave the EU, which deprived us of vital funds locally. We know that working families in our constituencies also face that enormous financial pressure.

Our job in the Chamber is to come together to offer hope and transform our public services, economy and communities. The additional funding provided through the UK autumn statement — hopefully, there will be further funding through the comprehensive spending review — is significant, but it falls far short of the pressures that Departments face.

It is important to note, when we discuss the context of our financial position, that the UK Government have, in many ways, added to the challenges that we face as an Executive, not least through the increase in employer's National Insurance contributions, which has short-changed our public services by about £60 million. Tory austerity has, in many respects, been replaced by Labour austerity, with cuts in support dealt to the elderly through changes to the winter fuel payment — it is positive that there appears to be progress on that this week — to the sick and disabled through welfare reform and to farmers through inheritance tax changes.

As we await this week's spending review, I say gently to the Chancellor that it is not too late to change course to finally pursue progressive taxation, invest in our public services and deliver the change that was promised at the general election last year. Whilst those of us who are in the Chamber cannot possibly mitigate every cut that is made at Westminster, such cuts underline the importance of our having a local Executive in place to take difficult decisions and prioritise spending in line with Programme for Government priorities and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

It is important to reflect on the progress, despite the challenging circumstances, that has been made in this year's Budget, be that the £215 million that is ring-fenced to cut health waiting lists and invest in elective care; the doubling of investment in childcare to £55 million, with a 15% childcare subsidy scheme rolling out to eligible families with primary-school-aged children from September; or, being made available through the public-sector transformation board, the £61 million to improve access to GP services, £27·5 million to enhance support for children with special educational needs and £21 million to speed up our justice system.

I am proud of the role that my party has played in the Executive, in working with other parties to secure that progress and in negotiations prior to the Executive's formation to make the case for dedicated funding for transformation of public services, which made much of that investment possible. In Alliance, we are keen to see the remaining £102·5 million of public-sector transformation money made available as soon as possible to support that vital work. Undoubtedly, there are areas in which we must go further, but I want to be fair and say that I recognise that it is the opening position and that we are likely to see some funding flowing through monitoring rounds as the year progresses, albeit not to the level that we experienced last year.

I am sure that every Member in the Chamber will agree, as will the Minister, that we want to see stabilisation of the PSNI and an uplift in PSNI officer numbers. To achieve that, it is vital that we see progress made on the PSNI's business case, which is under consideration. It is also true to say that every Member wants to see additional investment in and progress made on social housing, but it is not all about money. Where I do agree with the leader of the Opposition is where he said that we must go further with public service reform to ensure that the money that we invest goes further. We often hear Ministers decry the lack of available funding, but those same Ministers are often less forthcoming when it comes to honest reflections on the need to do things differently. NI Water is a classic example of that.

It is refreshing that, this year, we have returned to a normal budgetary cycle for the first time in many years. It has to be said, however, that it is depressing that that seems to be a novel feat for the Assembly. This is the eleventh single-year Budget cycle in a row, largely as a result of the cycle of crisis and collapse that I mentioned earlier that has deprived our public services and the community and voluntary sector of key opportunities to plan for the medium term and the longer term and to make crucial reforms. As I say every time that we debate a Budget Bill, we cannot have financial sustainability without political stability underpinning it. Reform of our institutions therefore remains crucial.

Unlike last year, however, a 12-week public consultation was undertaken on the underlying Budget policy, which enabled the public to make their views known. The Minister's commitment that the Budget will be the final single-year Budget of this mandate is, of course, welcome. I hope that we will be in a position this time next year to debate a strategic multi-year Budget, with the benefit of multi-year clarity, which will hopefully be forthcoming in this week's spending review announcement.

Alliance has consistently argued that the 124% needs-based factor that was provided for in the restoration package does not adequately account for Northern Ireland's relative need, not least because of the particular considerations for policing and justice but also because of issues such as the rurality of our population and the significant role that agriculture plays in driving our economy. It is welcome that the Department commissioned a study by Professor Holtham, which will build on the progress that was made by the interim fiscal framework. We all, I think, eagerly await the outcome of that work and that negotiation, which the Department of Finance and the Treasury are undertaking. It is also vital, however, that we hear more from the Minister about his priorities for a new and permanent fiscal framework, including on issues such as fiscal devolution, so that we can make our system fairer and more progressive and support economic growth.

Ultimately, as is always the case, the fundamental question before us is not whether we believe that each individual spending decision of every Minister is wise. Nor is it whether we believe that the Budget is adequate or sufficient to meet the scale of departmental pressures that we face. First and foremost, the question is whether we believe that the allocations are fair in the circumstances. More fundamentally, however, it is about ensuring that Departments have legislative cover to continue to deliver public services without interruption.

With the Assembly having been back in place for just over a year, progress towards having more sustainable public finances has been made. Alliance will continue to work with the Finance Minister and with other parties to secure the investment in our public services and communities that we so desperately need and that they so desperately deserve. The Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill is another important milestone on that journey, so Alliance supports its progress.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when the next Member called to speak will be Robbie Butler.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): We are pleased to report that the competition to appoint a Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland is well progressed. A commissioner will be appointed as soon as possible following the conclusion of that appointment process. The First Minister and I have agreed the person. They have to go through a number of checks before there is a public announcement on that, but that should happen very shortly.

Mr Mathison: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. The appointment has taken a staggeringly long time, given that we have known about the vacancy since the restoration of the institutions. Can the deputy First Minister give us any sense of a date for an appointment? I know that, in Committees, including the Education Committee, there have been multiple queries about public appointments, but there has been no mechanism for scrutinising that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The person will have to formally accept, and they have a period in which to do so. In addition, once they accept, we have to, understandably, go through a number of checks, including statutory checks. That process normally takes about 10 days after the acceptance, so we hope to be in a position to make that name public in the next number of weeks.

Miss Hargey: Does the deputy First Minister agree that all public appointments should be made on the basis of merit?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Yes, the approach to public appointments is set out in the legislation and the guidance. We operate many of those appointments in accordance with and in the spirit of that, as opposed to that being a regulated appointment of the commissioner's office. Of course, those people must be suitable for the role for which they have put their name forward.

Mr Harvey: Deputy First Minister, can you provide an update on the current Victims' Commissioner vacancy, please?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am pleased to announce that we have selected a person to be the new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. That person has accepted that position, and they are undergoing the final stages of the statutory checks that I referred to. With this one, we hope to be in a position to make that name public in the next number of days.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We are committed to establishing the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, the Irish Language Commissioner and the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition and to making the appointments as soon as possible. All three recruitment competitions are now at an advanced stage. Interviews are due to take place in the coming weeks, and appointments will then be made.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, deputy First Minister. I welcome that update. Can you speak to the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report and the section in it on bonfires? You will know that there is a wide of range of legislation that touches on the outskirts of bonfires, but could you clarify whether the new director will have a role in trying to provide greater clarity and certainty for landowners around their responsibilities where bonfires are being constructed?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. As the Member will be aware from the legislation that was passed through Westminster, the OICE — the office that sits at the centre — does not have that specified as a statutory function. However, there is a discretion and a flexibility in the work that it does. There is a statutory responsibility around promoting reconciliation, and I have no doubt that there will be issues that people will seek the body to take forward, albeit with sensitivity and co-production and after speaking to all the key stakeholders and trying to promote reconciliation in all of that.

Miss Dolan: Can the deputy First Minister provide an update on the position for each competition?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The appointments process is well under way. As I understand it, the shortlist for interview has gone out, and those interviews will take place shortly. Those should be concluded throughout June, and, at that point, the First Minister and I will get a list of those who are deemed suitable for appointment for each appointment process. We will then consider that.

Mr Brett: Deputy First Minister, we often hear the line that political agreements need to be honoured. There was a clear commitment given by the UK Government to fund the work of the Castlereagh Foundation and, indeed, to restore Craigavon House. Does the deputy First Minister agree that they need to get on with doing so? Will she further support the campaign by my colleague Frank McCoubrey to have Fernhill House brought back into use as soon as possible?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. It is so important to protect our history and heritage because the stories of our past are part and parcel of who we are. They are important, too, in moving forward by educating us about the complexities and nuances of our past. These are incredible buildings in which were seen incredible things. The UK Government promised to support the restoration of Craigavon House. The Castlereagh Foundation, which was in that legislation passed at Westminster, will be a responsibility under OICE, which has a statutory power to establish that for the specified purposes.

I agree with the Member on Fernhill House. It is a real pity that those houses are sitting with all that history and potential to tell the story of this place, and we do not have the funding support that they require to make them usable again and protected, moving forward.

Mr Speaker: We can hear Members conversing from the Chair, so if, in general, Members want to say something to their colleagues, will they do it quietly, please?

Mr O'Toole: Further to the previous question, deputy First Minister, many members of the public watching us will not know what the Castlereagh Foundation is. It emerged in a private bilateral discussion between, I believe, your party and the then Tory Government. Perhaps you would like to put on the record what the Castlereagh Foundation is and whether you have had discussions with the First Minister about its establishment.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member is correct. The Castlereagh Foundation was set up in response to the significant number of North/South bodies and groups looking at better cooperation North and South. The foundation is a body designed to look at better cooperation across the UK, particularly east-west. That is in light of the huge amounts of funds going towards North/South cooperation. Some good organisations work in that space, such as Co-operation Ireland. This is to be really a "Co-operation UK" to make sure that there are opportunities across universities and young people and civic and business groups. There is so much that we can learn from each other, yet there has not been focus on or support for east-west work outside the political space. In that legislation there was provision for the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression to create the Castlereagh Foundation for the purposes set out.

Ms Sheerin: Ceist uimhir a ceathair, le do thoil.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I presume that the Member is asking for oral question 4. I do not speak Irish, so I am assuming that that is what you are asking.

We are committed to establishing an Office of Identity and Cultural Expression along with the Irish Language Commissioner and the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition and making the appointments as soon as possible. All three recruitment competitions are now at an advanced stage. Interviews are due to take place in the coming weeks, and the appointments will then be made.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, agus gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad-Aire as a fhreagra sin.

I am glad that you were able to work it out from the document in front of you. Will you detail what work the Executive Office has done to progress those bodies?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The Member will be aware that we have progressed the business cases for all three bodies. Those have now been processed. Those were predicated on an initial £1 million for each commissioner office and about £1·6 million for the central Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. At this stage, those will very much rely on the statutory functions as set out. Of course, what will then need to happen is that, when those positions are filled, the commissioners and those in the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression will put together their business and corporate plans and their staffing requirements. It is important in all of these things that we move forward fairly and equitably to make sure that all bodies get the support that they require.

Mr McGlone: To be more specific about the appointments process, do you have a timeline? There are many people, specifically in the Irish language community, like me and, I am sure, others who see a lot of delay in the process, which was anticipated to happen much earlier. A timeline or a time frame would be much appreciated by those communities.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As indicated, we anticipate all the interviews to be concluded by officials and the interview panels this month. At that point, a list of those deemed suitable for appointment for each post will be submitted to the First Minister and me for consideration.

I share the Member's concern about the time that public appointments now take. That is why we have asked that a departmental official be that single point of contact and responsible person in order to ensure that, when a date comes up either for a renewal or for a post to be filled, we start that process at a much earlier stage. It takes almost 12 months at the very least to put documentation together, arrange interviews, get people to come in, get them processed and come up with a list. That is a lengthy period, and that is why we must start that process sooner rather than later.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that it is a basic courtesy not to walk between two people when they are having an engagement. I have spoken about that a few times before. Hopefully, I will not have to remind Members again not to do it.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Alongside the continued delivery of the current racial equality strategy, work is ongoing to develop a new approach to that important issue post 2025. This remains a key priority, and we continue to engage with stakeholders, including the racial equality subgroup and the wider sector, to inform our approach. We launched a call for views earlier this year to assist with the development process, and an analysis report is being finalised for publication. We are also finalising a review of the race hate and violent disorder that we unfortunately witnessed last summer to ensure that learning can inform future work. We have taken knowledge from other programmes that deal with societal issues, and our focus is on identifying preventative actions and effective interventions in order to tackle racial inequality.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad-Aire as a freagra.

Minister, will you provide an update on the refugee integration strategy and how it will be implemented and funded?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am pleased to say that the refugee integration strategy has been published and is available online. We will continue to work with the sector and the relevant bodies to ensure the roll-out of the strategy. The Member will be aware that it is not a devolved issue, although we have had significant engagement on it with the Home Office and the UK Government. Indeed, when I was over in London a couple of weeks ago, I took the opportunity to attend an intergovernmental meeting in person in order to talk to the Minister of State, David Hanson, about the ongoing issues.

It is not just about refugee integration. We know that there is a range of pressures around it. Some of those pressures are in workplaces, while others are in the community around housing and public services. It is a really important issue, and it is important to get the tone right on it, but it is also important that we raise the very understandable pressures that are being faced by communities throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr Buckley: Deputy First Minister, you are aware of the huge concern across the United Kingdom in particular with regard to illegal immigration, given the strain on social services, housing and hospitals. Were you reassured by the Government's response in their conversations about the White Paper that those issues will be adequately targeted?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. This is a significant issue for many communities across Northern Ireland. The meeting dealt with two aspects: the first was legal migration and workforce requirements, and the second was illegal immigration. We know that there are businesses, many of them in Northern Ireland, that rely on labour from across the globe. We also need to be able to attract the brightest and best, regardless of where those people come from, in order to grow our cybersecurity, tech, AI and advanced engineering, and they can make a huge contribution.

We also know, however, that the scourge of illegal economic immigration needs to be tackled, because it creates a huge amount of pressure. There are two aspects to that: there is supply and demand. We know that more and more people find it incredibly difficult to get access to public services, should it be education or GPs, but particularly in relation to housing, including renting accommodation, and that pressure is coming on. We need to deal with this in a logical and rational way that recognises the understandable concerns that communities have when they cannot access the basic housing, education and health services that they should not just demand but absolutely need.

Mr Donnelly: What precise steps have been taken to update the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. A significant amount of work has been undertaken. He will be aware that the public consultation came to a conclusion some time ago.

We also, as indicated, put out a call for views using an online survey. I would have liked more engagement with that survey by people from ethnic minority and racial minority groups in Northern Ireland to get a sense of their lived experiences. We will bring forward proposals for the required legislation. He will be aware that it is in the Executive Office's legislative timetable. We intend to move that forward as quickly as possible, recognising the limited amount of time that is left in this term.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Ebrington Plaza is leased to Heron Property Limited. In recent months, both Alchemy Technology Services and Ernst & Young have opened new offices at Ebrington Plaza, bringing a combined total of around 250 new jobs to the area. The First Minister and I were delighted to attend the official opening of both offices, and it really was a good-news day for the north-west. Although TEO has no role in securing underletting for Ebrington Plaza, we have invested £37 million in the transformation and regeneration of the entire Ebrington site. We are delighted that it is now almost fully occupied and thriving. The Department continues to work with tenants and stakeholders to showcase Ebrington, and to ensure that it plays its part by creating opportunities and attracting investment to help create a dynamic business hub.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Minister, will you set out the current position on the transfer of the Ebrington site to Derry City and Strabane District Council?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. You will be aware that the site was due to transfer a number of years ago. That did not happen for a range of understandable reasons; some of it was down to general delay. Talks are under way with the council. The council will want some support and guarantees about the site being able to continue to thrive and to be a place that attracts everyone. It is important that, in that transfer process. we make clear that it is a reconciliation site that is about bringing people together and that it needs to be welcoming to all parts of the community. That is at the centre of the discussions with the council, which are at an advanced stage.

Ms Brownlee: Will the deputy First Minister join me in welcoming the All Ireland Pipe Band Championships to Ebrington this summer and in recognising the positive social, cultural and economic benefits that our marching bands scene brings to Northern Ireland?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Yes. It is absolutely fantastic that the Ebrington site will host the spectacular display that is the All Ireland Pipe Band Championships. It is estimated that around 10,000 people will attend. I appeal for people to attend if they are in the area, because it will be a really good day. I know that the folks in the north-west are looking forward to it. The First Minister and I had the opportunity to formally launch the championships. I am really looking forward to it. It plays into the incredible depth and richness of the marching bands scene here. I was pleased that my colleague Gordon Lyons was able to increase the fund, but, as the Member knows, there is much more demand than supply. This year, we are looking forward to supporting our marching bands again. It is not just about the value that the funding gives to the members of the bands and the music that they play; it is about the value that they give back through the money that the band scene has generated over the years. It is important to recognise that value. We are very proud of our marching bands in Northern Ireland.

Ms McLaughlin: Local residents and businesses have raised concerns with me about ongoing issues on the site, particularly around cleanliness, access to toilets and illegal parking. Given the new entrants — Alchemy and Ernst & Young — that are now based there, and events such as the one that you have just spoken about, it is really important that the site is clean and safe for everybody who shares it. What is your Department doing to ensure that the site is safe and welcoming?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. As I said, we have invested £37 million in the site. We have been up to visit a number of times since taking up office, and Ebrington Square has looked really well. We visited the hotel and looked around it. The new buildings in Ebrington Plaza are amazing — they are cutting-edge buildings that are fit-for-purpose in the modern world. We look forward to the site being filled with workers and visitors. The events that have been held there have been hugely successful. I am very proud of what we have achieved at Ebrington. Of course, the issues that the Member raised must be addressed. I asked about antisocial behaviour or other issues on the site, and I was assured that the PSNI encounters a low number of problems, if any at all. That is a really positive message. It is a strong, safe site that is welcoming to all, and I encourage visitors and locals alike to use it.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Mr Speaker, with your permission, junior Minister Cameron will answer this question.

Mrs Cameron (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): There has been significant progress on the actions contained in the first ending violence against women and girls delivery plan since it was launched last September. The local and regional EVAWG change funds represent a £3·2 million investment for community and voluntary sector organisations in partnership with councils. We have been delighted to see the impact of the funding at grassroots community level. Councils are embedding action to end violence against women and girls in their service delivery and developing signposting and resources for local communities. In addition, eight community and voluntary sector expert organisations are delivering activity that will strengthen the impact and reach of EVAWG expertise and programmes that support schools, communities and workplaces.

The Power to Change campaign, in partnership with the Department of Justice and the PSNI, aims to challenge unacceptable attitudes and reduce harmful behaviours of men and boys. Work is progressing at pace on the development of the second phase of campaign work on EVAWG, and we look forward to sharing more of that with you soon.

We are only too aware of the serious and long-lasting impact of online abuse. Many Members in the Chamber have first-hand experience of that form of abuse. Junior Minister Riley and I met Ofcom, which has responsibility for online safety under the Online Safety Act 2023, to outline our concerns. We have also established key sectoral working groups to identify key actions to improve outcomes for women and girls in educational, workplace, social and night-time settings. We intend to provide a progress report to the Executive very soon.

Ms Egan: Thank you, junior Minister. The ending violence against women and girls change fund is very welcome. How does your Department work with local councils to evaluate and monitor how the money is being spent?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that very important question. The change fund is an important part of the delivery plan. We are investing £3·2 million up to March 2026 in community-based action to help end violence against women and girls. The Member will know that the change fund provides grant funding directly to local grassroots community groups in order to build capacity and allow them to take local action. The regional change fund provides grants to regional expert organisations in that field to support their awareness-raising, prevention and capacity-building work. The Executive Office has supported all 11 councils to open local change funds totalling £1·4 million, and those schemes have made awards ranging from £1,000 to £25,000 to local groups. Activity funded under the local change funds is well spread across all communities, including youth groups; sports organisations; schools; businesses; the arts sector; and organisations that support minority ethnic people, people with disabilities and, of course, neurodiverse people.

In support of the local change funds, all councils utilised the momentum support, which totalled £655,000 over the January to March 2025 period, with a diverse range of initiatives delivered to raise awareness and public engagement on EVAWG. That strategic investment by the Executive Office has mobilised all 11 councils in bringing EVAWG to the fore in each locality, raising awareness and establishing the basis for longer-term coordination. Eight of the EVAWG expert organisations now deliver as part of the £1·2 million funding from the regional change fund, which covers activity from 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2026. That collective body of work will strengthen the impact and reach of EVAWG expertise and programmes that are offered by key regional and community and voluntary sector organisations to support schools, communities and workplaces.

Mr Speaker: Your time for the answer is up.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for her supplementary question, because it is important for us to understand the evaluation process to make sure that we get the best value for money.

Will the Minister please outline how TEO is working collaboratively across the Executive to ensure that we tackle violence against women and girls? What are the expected outcomes from its collaborative work?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for her question. If I had finished my previous answer, I would have said that we will absolutely evaluate all the outworkings.

As for the Executive's collaborative work, "Working Better Together" is one of the six outcomes in the EVAWG strategic framework and is embedded in the Programme for Government. Collaboration with a range of Departments, including Education, Health and Justice, is ongoing, and we remain committed to taking that approach with all Departments.

It is worth noting that, just last week, junior Minister Reilly and I chaired the second meeting of the EVAWG oversight group, which includes all the Departments at a senior level and, crucially, the community and voluntary sector, which was instrumental in the co-design of the strategy. It is vital that that cooperation continue throughout the EVAWG strategy's delivery, as the sector's organisations are the experts in that field.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We had a wide-ranging discussion with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer at our meeting on 23 May. On the funding of public services, we discussed the forthcoming spending review, which is due to be announced this Wednesday, and we impressed on him the need for the Executive to be funded fairly, sustainably and at a level that will enable us to deliver the public services that our community needs and expects. We also expressed our concerns about the impact on the local economy of, for example, changes to inheritance tax and the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions.

Mr Dunne: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. As she says, the spending review announcement will be made on Wednesday. What are the Executive's key priorities out of it? What would you like to see on Wednesday?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his hugely important question. People throughout Northern Ireland see, every day, what each Department needs to do. They see potholes on roads, health waiting lists, an inability to access their GP when they need it, waiting lists for SEN, the need for affordable and flexible childcare and the need for investment in water and sewage infrastructure. Those are the key priorities for supporting people, no matter what their background or politics. In order to support people to be happy, to thrive and to get the jobs that they want with the education that they need, we really need to invest in public services.

We anticipate receiving some additional capital funding, and we need to look at the draft investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI) to determine how best to invest it. It is incredibly important, however, that we support investment in the public services that people throughout Northern Ireland are crying out for.

Mr Boylan: Following on from the previous question, will the deputy First Minister detail what the Executive are doing to secure a fair funding model for delivering public services?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. As I set out, we need funding for roads, schools and hospitals. We need to invest in water and in sewerage and to support people with public services that they not only need but deserve. That is why there has been a series of engagements with the UK Government. The Finance Minister was over in London having direct conversations. The First Minister and I took the opportunity to put our asks directly to the Prime Minister. I assure the Member that we did so robustly, making clear that we are up to and up for the challenge of transformation and reform. No one is simply saying, "Give us more money, and we will continue to do what we do in the way in which we do it". We have a very significant and ambitious agenda for transformation and reform, but we need the money to invest in order to transform, as well as funding right now to support front-line services for people.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We regularly meet the UK Government on a wide range of issues that matter to people here. Our priorities for engagement are focused on delivering for citizens at home, promoting Northern Ireland as a stable and successful region and ensuring that our international partners recognise our many strengths. Prior to the UK-EU summit on 19 May, we attended the meeting of the Interministerial Group on UK-EU Relations, held on 12 May, at which we highlighted the issues with the Windsor framework.

I will say this very clearly to the UK Government: the UK Government promised the people of Northern Ireland unfettered internal trade, and that is a promise that they must fulfil. It is our role to continue to hold their feet to the fire to ensure that they do so. The internal market of the United Kingdom is incredibly important to Northern Ireland. The promises were made; the promises must be fulfilled.

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

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Member will be more than aware that the promise was made but not fulfilled not because of a lack of political will but because of a lengthy process in planning, planning challenges and all types of logistical issues that were outside the control of the Northern Ireland Executive. The allocations that were made to rugby, football and the GAA were done in a fair and equitable way that recognised the relative strengths of each of those organisations, including their support, players and supporters. It is important that we move forward on a fair and equitable basis, because sports throughout Northern Ireland in many different areas are crying out for support and funding to enable them to reach their full potential. We want that to be inclusive, but that inclusivity must be fair and equitable. One particular organisation or sport cannot be a special case.

Mr O'Toole: The deputy First Minister did not answer my question. I, of course, want equitable funding for other grounds. Ravenhill and Windsor are both in my constituency. I am glad that they are there and are thriving, but Casement Park has lain idle for 12 years. I am not a unionist, but, if I were, I would think that the best way of demonstrating to nationalists that Northern Ireland is working would be to build a world-class GAA stadium in the middle of west Belfast. Does the deputy First Minister support the stadium's being built, and will she work in the Executive to get it built, including with additional funding, if necessary?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. I have said very clearly that an allocation was made, and, indeed, we stand by that allocation because there was a three-sport arrangement. It was allocated across those three sports fairly and equitably. Since that, for reasons outside of the control of the Executive or any political party, the Casement project did not proceed as was anticipated. That project is now significantly bigger than was anticipated in the original allocation, which, I think, was around £61 million.

As highlighted in earlier answers, there are many pressures across government. That includes people who are sitting in pain on waiting lists, children who need special educational needs assessment and other vital things. In all things, we have to look at moving forward to meet those needs. We want our sporting stadia and facilities to be fit for purpose and to make sure that any allocation of funding is done fairly and equitably.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. We believe in transition and in the ability of people to move on from where they once were, but that must mean that they move on. We will offer that support to those who have indicated a willingness to move on, but we must protect public funds in every way possible. We have procedures in place to make sure that there is full accountability for public funds; indeed, those who work in organisations in CIT sign up to a declaration that commits them to exclusively peaceful means. If any allegations are made against individuals, they are raised with that organisation and a full investigation is required by it, depending on the type of allegation that has been made.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, deputy First Minister. How can the public have confidence in the Executive's commitment to genuine community transition when one funded group saw fit to take young people on an awayday to Larne last year to observe the largest bonfire in Northern Ireland? What message does that send to communities that are genuinely trying to move beyond division?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. People's cultural traditions and identities should be respected across the piece. The Member may not like that tradition, but he does not have to. He does, however, have to respect the fact that there is difference in identities and that people have pride in their long-running traditions. As indicated in my initial response, we make sure that all funds are fully accounted for, that activities are carried out in line with the purpose for which the funds are given and that any allegations are fully investigated.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. Confidence in policing and justice is hugely important, but it is also important that policing and justice get the support that they need in order to do what they need to do. We have heard clearly from the Chief Constable the pressures that the PSNI is under. We need to step up and support the police. Our police officers go out, day in and day out, on the front line to do what they need to do to protect and serve. They deserve to get the funding required for them to fulfil their duties and do what they need to do.

Mr Robinson: I thank the deputy First Minister for her response. Will this week's spending review offer opportunities for extra money for policing?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. We hope not only that we will get additional funds but that the funding will cover a number of years. As part of that, I will make the case for additional funds for policing. Those are absolutely necessary. The PSNI needs to be given the funds that it requires to fulfil what it needs to do, which is to protect the people of Northern Ireland and, of course, to bring criminals to justice.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. There is no space for sectarianism in our society. Whether it comes from thugs who threaten others, from people who attempt to intimidate or from bands, singers or whoever else who are trying to put across messages that are clearly deeply sectarian, it is wrong, and we need to call it out at every level. One is not just a bit of a laugh and the other to be called out; we need to have consistency from top to bottom. Sectarianism is wrong. Call it out.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the deputy First Minister. Loyalist paramilitaries are behind many disgraceful attacks such as the ones that I mentioned. Does the deputy First Minister agree that it is entirely unacceptable in 2025 that loyalist paramilitary groups still exist, intimidating families and exerting control over communities? Does she also agree that those criminal gangs should immediately disband and leave our communities and families to live in peace?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. This is not about calling out just one side. I appeal to the Member to make sure that, in calling out such behaviour, she calls out all sides. There are activities by criminal organisations and by dissident republicans; there is glorification of the terrorism of the past; and there are ongoing threats and intimidation in some places. We have come a long way, but there is still a journey to go. We should not only stand shoulder to shoulder and call out all sectarianism and intimidation but do so not just for what is happening now but for all the terrorism, intimidation and sectarianism that happened in the past. We do not send that clear message to a new generation when we partake in the glorification of terrorism. That is why it is important for us to condemn not just such behaviour in the present but the absolutely unjustified acts of terrorism and sectarianism of the past.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I echo what I said on that occasion: I want to see the site moved forward. As I said, that can happen only in a space where we work with people with regard to the sensitivities — genuine sensitivities — and hurt about things that happened on that site.

As I have indicated, I do not believe that continued discussions on the listed buildings should hold back economic development on that site. That economic development is not controversial. It could be happening right now, if, indeed, there were agreement with the First Minister to allow that to happen. What happens with the listed buildings in the future will always be the most difficult aspect of the site. At the moment, that discussion is holding back the rest of the site. I appeal, of course, to the First Minister to allow for the economic development of the rest of the site. It is not just economic: we know that it has sporting potential and that a huge range of uses could happen on the site to get that moving while we continue to have those discussions around the listed buildings.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. We have heard it before. It goes round and round, and we never get anywhere. We are tired of inaction, platitudes and words. We need action. Sensitivities cannot continue to be an excuse for doing absolutely nothing. Is there the political will in her party to see the site opened up and to see the benefits for everyone in Lagan Valley and to ensure that we will have all those economic benefits and see that progress into the future?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. Look, I do not live in a world of wishes and lullabies; I live in reality, and that reality is that we need to get agreement on the future of the site. I believe that we have agreement on around 95% of the site for sport, community, nature and economic development. That cannot go ahead at the moment because there is no agreement on the listed buildings. As I indicated to you, the thing that will lift that is the First Minister agreeing with me to allow that potential to go ahead on the least controversial aspects of the site while we continue to work with stakeholders and others to find a possible future use for the listed buildings. That is the reality. That is what I hear on the ground in Lagan Valley. I am not sure whether the Member is not hearing that on the ground in Lagan Valley. Of course, I want to see that potential fulfilled. We have to move forward with sensitivity on that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I advise the Member that, certainly from my viewpoint, it is basic and logical. The provision of public services has two aspects: supply and demand. We need to do much more to ensure that the supply of GPs, health services and houses can be increased to meet demand. However, increased demand inevitably means additional pressure on supply. That is just logical.

Mr Donnelly: That does not sound much to me like evidence. How do illegal immigrants get places in schools and on health waiting lists or obtain a social home?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am not sure what the Member means, because, of course, they go onto a list and are allocated a place. On the wider issue of immigration, I have visited many primary schools where there are children from all over the globe. Many of those children are from families contributing positively to Northern Ireland; of course, they are. I advise the Member that, in the debate, when you have an increase of population in a town, village or city, there is a corresponding need for services for those people — of course, there is — because you need to meet a health need, an educational need for children and the housing need. It would be deeply irresponsible to put hundreds or scores of people in particular places and not have the services to meet that need.

Let us try to have a logical conversation about that, not one that is based on a back and forth about ideological positions.

It is very simple: if you have additional people coming in, you need to make sure that you have the public services to support that. At the moment, there is not that connectivity, there is not that planning, and there is already pressure on those public services — a pressure that we need to address.

Mr Speaker: Question 9 has been withdrawn.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I have, as I outlined last week.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for his precise and concise answer. The allocation that he has made, further to the allocation that he received from the Finance Minister, shows that the Executive will fall not just short, but far short, of their target for social home starts by the end of the mandate. Will he confirm, on the record now, given that the Programme for Government promised nearly 6,000 social homes by the end of the mandate, that there is literally no way that that can be achieved, based on the housing starts that he has announced this year?

Mr Lyons: At the start of last year, I had the budget in place to build 400 social home new starts. We ended up with over 1,500, so we do not judge the success of the Executive on where we are at the beginning of the year. Additional money will become available. We have the spending review later this week as well, and I am always looking for new and innovative ways to make sure that we can increase housing stock and, in particular, the number of social homes in Northern Ireland. That is something that I have done and will continue to do. However, I note that, in the debate on social housing last week, the Member said that the issue is:

The housing supply strategy was published in December 2024. If the Member is going to pontificate about housing issues, he should at least furnish himself with the basics.

Mr Delargy: An issue that we get all the time in my constituency is older people who want to downsize but say that there is no availability of specific accommodation for the over-55s. Will the Minister outline the plans he and his Department have either to build or to repurpose specific over-55s accommodation?

Mr Lyons: Over-55s accommodation is a key part of the social homes that are offered through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and other housing associations. Modelling is done and demand is counted, and actions flow from that. The Member is absolutely right to raise the issue: we need more social homes across all the different categories. I am well aware of that. We can only do what we can with the money that we have. I am looking for more money, but I am also looking at other ways of making sure that we can build more. If people want to change and that need is there, we need to make sure that we are targeting it, because additional over-55s accommodation does not only help that age group: it helps in other areas where homes can be freed up.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Minister confirm whether, under the social housing development programme, he has undertaken an evaluation of the outcomes of the shared housing programme?

Mr Lyons: I do not have that information with me, but I am happy to provide that to the Member to see whether an evaluation has been done. Nothing comes to mind at the moment.

Mr Allen: Should more capital funding come through the spending review, as the Minister mentioned, is his Department ready to go, and what number of homes could it deliver with additional funding?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely, we are ready to go. It is always the case that we have a plan. It is about getting the funding in place. I have full confidence in the team, the housing associations and the work through the Housing Executive to make sure that, when additional capital funding is made available, we are ready to go. That is why we were able to make some of the progress that we made last year when additional funding became available.

Mr Kingston: The social housing development programme is one of the areas in the Programme for Government with an actual target. Does the Minister agree therefore that there is, in fact, an onus on the Executive to prioritise capital to it?

Mr Lyons: I agree. We have not only a Programme for Government commitment but, importantly, a housing supply strategy in which Executive colleagues have pledged to work together to identify the issues that impact on supply so that we can target those and make sure that we have more homes, including more social homes. It is only right that that is followed up by a commitment from the Executive to ensure that I have the funding in place to do what I need to do to build more homes. I will also play my part in ensuring that we make it as simple and straightforward as possible to build more homes. I am bringing additional recommendations to the Executive so that we will be able to do just that.

Mr Lyons: The remaining actions that I will deliver in the current mandate are the introduction of longer notice to quit periods, the amendment of landlord registration regulations to make the scheme a more meaningful tool in raising property standards and consideration of the best way forward in respect of minimum energy efficiency standards for the private rented sector.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister. Given that it has been reported, in recent weeks, that rents have risen faster in Belfast than in London over the past year, do you accept that none of those measures that you announced is sufficient to deal with the crisis? Will you consider a system of affordable rent controls?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I accept that. We need more supply. That is why I brought forward a housing supply strategy. We all need to work together to make sure that we can have more homes across all tenures. That is how we deal with the issues. As the deputy First Minister said, just a few moments ago, the key issue here is supply and demand. Right now, we do not have the supply.

Mr McNulty: Minister, have Renters' Voice and many other housing campaigners got it wrong when they have called for an end to no-fault evictions?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware of the work that has already been undertaken on the issue — the work that began under my predecessor and that I am continuing, based on what was mandated by the Assembly. That is why I will be introducing longer notice to quit periods.

Mr Brett: Minister, the private rental market in my constituency of North Belfast is out of control. On a weekly basis, constituents who have been long-term tenants come to me because they have been evicted by their landlord to be replaced by tenants through Mears contracts. It is absolutely disgraceful. I see some Members shaking their heads; clearly, they are not in touch with their real constituents. Will the Minister outline what actions he can take to ensure that the impact of illegal immigration is not increasing rent prices in my constituency? [Interruption.]

Mr Lyons: It is interesting: at the start of his question, the Member simply stated fact, and that seemed to rile some Members. It is a fact that, when you have that increased demand, it impacts on supply. It is true that Mears is coming in and increasing the cost of private rented sector accommodation. That is fact. I know that it might not be a comfortable fact for some people, because it does not fit in with the arguments that they are trying to make, but, in some constituencies, you see it very acutely. It is wrong for us to ignore the issue. We need to be aware of it. The worst thing that we can do is ignore it, pretend that it is not an issue or simply sweep it under the carpet. I am committed to playing my part in making sure that we have increased supply, but we need to deal with the demand. There is no doubt that the actions of Mears are impacting on the housing market. Anybody who would argue otherwise is simply not in touch with reality.

Mr Lyons: Section 1 of the Act requires the Executive Office to make period products available, free of charge, to anyone who needs them. As it is not a delivery body, the Executive Office partnered with Libraries NI, an arm’s-length body that is sponsored by my Department, to fulfil that duty. The initiative launched on 13 May 2024, and free period products are now available in all public libraries across Northern Ireland.

Section 2 of the Act requires Departments to specify, via regulations, which public service bodies must provide period products on their premises. The Department's regulations were debated and approved by the House on 6 May.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Once implementation is complete, how does your Department intend to monitor whether the provision is working, particularly in respect of the requirement for dignity, choice and ease of access, as required by the legislation?

Mr Lyons: As the Member rightly points out, that is a requirement of the legislation. Therefore, we will need to monitor it to make sure that it fulfils the law, as we do with any regulations that come into being.

Mr Lyons: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 7 together. My Department is analysing the Supreme Court judgement and considering the potential implications of the ruling for policy responsibilities that rest with the Department. Officials have also sought legal advice on the issue. Departmental officials will continue to work closely with Sport NI as it considers the impacts of the issue on the sports sector. It is my view, and, therefore, the view of the Department, that only biological women should participate in women's sports.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his response. I agree that only biological women should compete with each other in female sporting codes. Will he commit to writing to the sporting bodies that his Department funds to make them aware of the Supreme Court judgement and ask for a response from them?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I will. We now have clarification in law, not that one was needed. It is important that we abide by that ruling and the law. Therefore, I will make sure that I take my responsibilities seriously in that regard.

Mr Gaston: Minister, time needs to be called on the ability of biological men to compete in women's sports, full stop. In the event that sporting bodies fail to respect the law, what ramifications will there be for funding coming from the Department and its arm's-length bodies to ensure that there is full compliance with the law?

Mr Lyons: Of course, all bodies need to comply with the law. It is normally a condition of funding being in place. That will certainly be taken into consideration.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, what role do independent sports governing bodies have in decisions about how their sports are played?

Mr Lyons: They have a considerable role to play. I will issue guidance and advice, but, ultimately, it will be up to them to decide. However, they will need to consider whether they are in compliance with the law and the implications of not doing so.

Mr Lyons: The Arts Council is an arm's-length body of my Department that is tasked with the distribution of funding for the arts in Northern Ireland. It does not fund using place-based criteria. Belfast is the registered address of many organisations that, in practice, provide funding well beyond the Belfast postcode area, so I caution that funding statistics do not always tell the full story of where beneficiaries are located. However, I want to ensure that priority is given to provide support that reaches younger people, people from more deprived areas, those living in rural areas and areas distant from Belfast and those not currently engaged in cultural activities.

Mr Durkan: The statistics tell the story only when it suits the narrative. Will the Minister commit to meeting Echo Echo Dance Theatre Company, which recently received the shattering news that it is to lose 100% of its funding, and other arts organisations in the north-west to hear their concerns and improve his understanding of their value?

Mr Lyons: I certainly recognise and understand the value of the arts. That is why I have done so much to promote the arts in Northern Ireland, including increasing their budget this year again. I have also provided capital funding for a musical instruments programme and a capital small grants programme, both of which go right across Northern Ireland. I have developed an additional new small grants programme and an artist in residence programme for every single council throughout Northern Ireland. I understand the concerns that the Member has expressed about his council area. Although it has 8% of Northern Ireland's population, it gets 12% of arts funding. My council area has 7% of Northern Ireland's population but receives only 0·6% of arts funding. That is disgraceful, and that is why I am working to make sure that we get an even spread across Northern Ireland, recognising that many arts organisations are based in cities.

I have done more to ensure that there is fairer distribution — a fairer spread — across Northern Ireland and will continue to make sure that that is the case.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, you touched on funding for bands, which, as you said, reaches everywhere — rural and urban areas — across Northern Ireland. Can you update us on when the scheme will open?

Mr Lyons: I think that the Member saw me outside earlier today with those who benefited from the musical instruments grant last year. It was great to hear from a wide variety of organisations, including school groups and other groups with children in them about its impact. I am not able to confirm just yet the exact timing for when the scheme will open, but it will be within days.

Mr McMurray: Has the Department consulted local authorities or community groups in the north-west about barriers to accessing arts funding?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I have talked to many groups right across Northern Ireland. I make the case, however, that the schemes are open to everybody. No one is discriminated against based on where they live. I want to make sure that people know about the funding that is there and that they are able to access it. That is why I have taken the action that I have and invested some of our capital and resource money in making sure that funding gets out across Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: By the end of this month.

Mr Chambers: Thank you very much. I was grateful for last week's media headlines and positive PR on the subject, but a large number of people to whom I have spoken in the past week have understandably said, "I'll believe it when I see it". Is the Minister confident that, later this month, we will see him in a high-vis jacket and hard hat welcoming the first digger on to the site, before the construction industry takes its annual break in July?

Mr Lyons: The Member complains about PR and headlines yet wants me to dress up for the event. [Laughter.]

On this occasion, I strongly disagree with the Member. The past few weeks have not simply been about PR or headlines. Rather, intensive work has gone on over the past few months. I committed to getting the project sorted. Mr Dunne had me out in Bangor within the first few weeks of my appointment to this post, and I worked closely with the previous two mayors. I highlight in particular the work of Alistair Cathcart over the past number of weeks to make sure that we got the scheme over the line. We have a legally binding agreement in place, and I will make sure that we deliver on it. I have said publicly that I want to see the work start by the end of this month. I will hold everybody else to account as well in order to make sure that we get the work started. Whether the Member will see me in a hard hat and high-vis vest is another matter.

Mr Martin: Minister, will you continue to provide detailed oversight of the ongoing delivery of that major capital programme over the next number of years? Will you continue to look at the issues as they arise? I thank the Minister for his commitment to making the project happen.

Mr Lyons: Yes, he can thank me for that. I am delighted to get the project over the line, because the people of Bangor have waited far too long for it. I know that it was of concern to Members, but we have got there: a legally binding agreement is in place. I assure the Member that I will have the same laser focus on making sure that the redevelopment is delivered as I had on making sure that the legalities were signed off on.

Ms Egan: Minister, as well as the Queen's Parade redevelopment scheme, you are responsible for the disability strategy. Will the new development be accessible to everybody in Bangor and have a Changing Places toilet and an adequate number of accessible parking spaces?

Mr Lyons: Accessibility is key to everything that we do in the Department. It would not make sense for us not to have such provision in place. As time goes on, I will be happy to update the Member on the progress that is made.

Mr Lyons: Sport NI has confirmed to me the support that it has provided. Through Crowdfunder schemes such as Creating Opportunities and Project Reboot, £122,500 of lottery funding has been provided to cricket clubs in the past three years, including £30,000 so far for 2025-26. Under the Sports System Investment - Governing Bodies programme, a total of £1·359 million has been invested in the past three years. That investment, including £457,000 for 2025-26, has meant that the number of children from Northern Ireland who are participating in Cricket Ireland's national junior programmes, "Smash it" and "It's Wicket!", has doubled from 496 to 1,000. Eight disability groups, five youth groups, 10 migrant groups and seven older-adult groups have been engaged through Cricket Connects programmes, and there has been a 20% increase in the number of trained match officials.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his answer, and I declare an interest as the president of Carrickfergus Cricket Club. As he will know, Ireland is a test nation — we are all very proud of that — and many of our cricketers operate at the highest level. I am sure that he will join me in recognising the great work of our cricket clubs up and down the country, which not only promote youth cricket but encourage ladies to get involved in the sport. Sadly, Minister, far too many of those clubs contact me as I travel the country, because they are struggling to make ends meet. They do not have the cash flow of many other sporting clubs. What more can your Department and the other Departments do to help those cricket clubs and promote the sport?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question. It is absolutely right that we fund all sports in Northern Ireland, especially those that are growing and those that are trying to attract more girls and women into the sport. I am delighted to hear about the progress that is being made in that area. The Member will be aware of the funding for cricket, which I set out earlier, and I assure him that I will encourage Sport NI to continue that because of the huge opportunities that exist.

Mr Brooks: The Minister will know that some international tests are held not far from where we are today. He will be aware of the upcoming Cricket World Cup. Will he make provision to ensure that Northern Ireland has the opportunity to host some games?

Mr Lyons: That is an incredible opportunity for us, and I have instructed officials to work to make sure that we can deliver in that area. It is always good to see the interest that is shown in Northern Ireland when competitions are held here. I have met Cricket Ireland on that matter, and officials are collaborating with stakeholders and the Northern Ireland Civil Service Sports Association to explore support for redeveloping facilities at Stormont

so that we can meet the International Cricket Council standards.

Mr Blair: How is the Department supporting pathways for Northern Ireland players to reach the Ireland national teams in the men's, women's and under-age sectors?

Mr Lyons: That support — resource and funding — comes from Sport NI, particularly through the Sports System Investment body, but, if there are any issues that he would like to raise with me, I would be happy to chase them up.

Mr Speaker: Question 9 has been withdrawn. Ms Sugden is not in her place. Miss Brogan is not in her place. I call Sinéad McLaughlin, hopefully, not the bot.

Mr Durkan: It is not the first time.

Ms McLaughlin: It is not the first time.

Mr Lyons: The Arts Council's opening allocation for 2025-26 is £10·292 million resource and £1·405 million capital, which is an increase on the 2024-25 opening allocations of £584,000 and £505,000 respectively.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, you failed to answer the question that my colleague asked about whether you would commit to visiting the Echo Echo Dance Theatre Company, which has lost 100% of its funding. It is not the first time that you have raised the issue of Derry getting too much money for the arts —.

Mr Lyons: I did not.

Ms McLaughlin: You did. You qualified it with percentages of population against percentages of funding.

Mr Speaker: Can we get to the question now?

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, based on that, do you believe that more funding should be removed from the arts sector in Derry? That was the suggestion that you made in the House.

Mr Lyons: I am sorry. That was not my suggestion at all. I simply laid out the figures. I am not saying in any way that funding should be removed. Those were her words — that was her suggestion — not mine. I said that bigger cities in Northern Ireland, including Belfast and Londonderry, are often the bases for arts organisations that do work elsewhere. That is the point that I was making. I was highlighting that there was underinvestment elsewhere, but I am not pitting areas against each other. I want to see more funding right across Northern Ireland.

The Member will understand my reluctance to get involved with a specific funding issue and decision of the Arts Council. I do not always think that it is appropriate for the Minister to individually get involved in those decisions. I met some people who were very concerned about that issue when I was last in Londonderry a few weeks ago, but it is important that those concerns are dealt with through the normal channels. Let me repeat this: I want to see more money for funding right across Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: My Department owns six sites in Antrim, five in Ballymena and 12 in Craigavon. That is land that was vested under the New Towns Act 1965 for the development of Antrim, Ballymena and Craigavon. My Department also owns a former railway track site in Coalisland, which is deemed surplus. The Housing Executive has two buildings in Omagh and Belfast and four development sites in the Newtownabbey, Larne and Magherafelt districts, which are deemed surplus.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, will you advise the House on what steps you are taking in consultation with your Executive colleagues to leverage surplus land or buildings for social and affordable housing?

Mr Lyons: Not right now, but I hope to be in a position to do so shortly. I am bringing a paper to the Executive to highlight options around how we can better use public land to make sure that we meet our social housing targets.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, when you are doing that work, will you include councils in that consideration?

Mr Lyons: Yes.

Mr Lyons: The ‘Sport is NOT a luxury’ research raises important concerns about the impact of financial pressures on children’s participation in sport and physical activity. It is apparent from the data that, although parents are aware of the importance of physical activity for children, increasing costs are a barrier for many. Through Sport NI, we are working to address the cost-of-living challenges by engaging with sports and councils to highlight low- and no-cost sports opportunities available across Northern Ireland.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for that. Will the Minister commit to establishing an NI physical activity inclusion fund to support targeted, co-designed interventions for children and young people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds?

Mr Lyons: I am always reluctant to set up something just for the sake of it, if there are already other options and opportunities for us to do that. We have many programmes in place to try to encourage those for whom cost may otherwise be a barrier to get involved, but it is certainly a suggestion that I am prepared to take on board.

Ms Forsythe: In the interests of increasing opportunities, what are the Department and Sport NI doing to promote female participation in sport?

Mr Lyons: A number of programmes are in place, including the Be Seen, Be Heard, Belong programme. I am pleased to see the success of that. It is a really important issue for me, and I see that as I go around. In fact, I was in the Member's constituency just a few months ago at a football club, and I saw at first hand the number of girls who are taking part in sport; such numbers have not taken part before. That is something that we need to encourage, and I will continue to do that.

Mr Lyons: Last week, I met the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary, Jane Hutt and Paul McLennan, Minister for Housing in the Scottish Government. We discussed a number of issues of shared concern across the devolved Administrations, including the impact of the Green Paper. I will continue to engage with them to make sure that we represent the issues of Northern Ireland and see how we can work together to oppose the changes that have been proposed.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. Are there any plans to develop a timeline to measure progress on how those matters develop?

Mr Lyons: We have agreed to meet again. In fact, over the next few weeks and, hopefully, days, we will be exchanging correspondence about how we can best lobby the Government on the issue.

Mr Speaker: We will now move to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: No, I do not. I will bring the anti-poverty strategy to the Chamber next week, and I look forward not only to promoting what we have in that strategy but to making sure that we genuinely give people the space to bring forward their alternatives and their ideas. I have no doubt that Mr McCrossan will do just that.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, you are a bit late to the race in that regard. It has been leaked, and, unfortunately, many have got sight of it and are disappointed. Therefore, Minister, what measurable targets are in the anti-poverty strategy, and what budget have he and the Minister of Finance agreed to deliver on those targets, which will change lives?

Mr Lyons: It is appropriate for me to bring the entirety of the anti-poverty strategy to the House first, before I go any further. However, I will say that there are actions in the strategy that will make a difference. There are actions that are funded, and I look forward to talking about them in more detail when the time comes.

Mr Lyons: Yes, I have sought and received legal advice on the matter, and it is clear from that advice that it is controversial and cross-cutting. That decision should have received Executive agreement, and I would be amazed if the Infrastructure Minister had received advice that is any different from that.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his answer and for that clarification. What further action has he taken in relation to the matter to ensure that the cross-cutting protections that have been put in place are respected by Ministers?

Mr Lyons: I have written to the Infrastructure Minister and highlighted the nature of the advice that I have received. It is clear to me and anybody who has read the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as amended by the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, that the move required Executive agreement. It is now incumbent on the Infrastructure Minister to remedy this by bringing it to the Executive so that further action will not need to be taken. I urge the Minister not to squander public money in an attempt to save face.

Mr Lyons: Very shortly thereafter. We want to make sure that this is as accessible as possible. We want easy-read documents. I have also had a request for a child-friendly document. I hope that that will happen imminently after the statement is presented to the Assembly.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, you disengaged from the anti-poverty strategy co-design group, which was a mistake, because you might have had a much more worthwhile document had you engaged fully with that group. How will you engage with the expert groups during the consultation? For the consultation and strategy to work, you need to work with the people who know what they are talking about.

Mr Lyons: First of all, I did not disengage. That group's work was completed, and it presented me with that work. Those people will have the opportunity to provide further comments during the public consultation in the same way as anybody else. I gently remind the Member that all members of the Executive had their opportunity to put forward ideas and other issues that they might like to see included in that. They also had the opportunity, at the Executive meeting, to put forward proposals or suggest any wider changes before the strategy went out to public consultation. I am happy to hear those, even if they are late in the day.

I am trying to bring forward a strategy that is affordable and deliverable and will make a change in people's lives. I see poverty and the effects of it every day in my constituency. I am absolutely committed to dealing with and tackling that issue, and that is what I am focused on. Others will have their chance to have their say again.

Mr Lyons: Over the weekend, some said that there were no new actions, full stop, in the strategy, and those accusations are absolutely false. When the strategy is published next week, everyone will have the opportunity to see exactly what is in it. There is a consultation, so everyone will have the opportunity to share their views on that. For me, it is difficult to take the issue of child poverty separately from poverty more generally, because children do not live alone. They do not experience poverty in isolation, which is why we are taking a much more rounded approach.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, the anti-poverty strategy will obviously require commitment from all Departments. Will that set a good precedent for cross-departmental working and moving away from a silo mentality in the Executive and Assembly?

Mr Lyons: I certainly hope so. We started to see the fruit of that with the housing supply strategy and the Programme for Government commitment on housing. I hope that the same will happen when it comes to the anti-poverty strategy, because it is not the responsibility of just one Department; in fact, it is not just the responsibility of government to tackle poverty. It requires buy-in and work from everyone. I hope that we can work together, but that has not been demonstrated so far when we have parties that agreed to the strategy and agreed for it to go out to consultation now being critical of it. They had the opportunity to put forward their ideas. Some of them failed to do that, but that is why we will have a consultation so that others can have their say, if they missed out the first time.

Mr Lyons: I would certainly like to think that there would be no difference in how those issues are dealt with in rural constituencies compared with other constituencies. However, it is important that we put the staff resource in place, and that is what I am committed to doing. There will be additional resource in place to make sure that any delays can be addressed.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, given the distress caused to vulnerable constituents by prolonged waiting times, will you commit to increasing the number of face-to-face assessments locally and improving communication with claimants throughout the process?

Mr Lyons: That is always what we want to see. If the Member has particular issues that have been raised by constituents in his area, I will be happy to look at them and identify any problems. I have no issue with doing that on behalf of the Member.

Mr Lyons: I have just come from a meeting with UK Government Ministers on that issue. Members will be aware of the changes that were announced in the media today. That was when we first heard about that; we had the meeting later on. Unfortunately, much more clarity is needed. Further discussions are taking place this afternoon between officials from the Department for Work and Pensions, my Department and the Department of Finance. I hope that those will provide some much-needed clarity.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo.

Will the Minister update the House on any discussions he has had with the British Government on the possibility of changes to the two-child limit?

Mr Lyons: That is something that I have raised on a number of occasions with UK Government Ministers, and it was the subject of a discussion last week between my counterparts in Wales and Scotland. It is a move that, if made, would have a considerable impact on poverty in Northern Ireland. Again, it is a reminder that, when it comes to tackling poverty, it is not just my Department or the Executive that have a role to play. The UK Government have a role to play as well, and I hope that they will step up to the plate.

Mr Lyons: That has been raised with me as an issue of concern. I was at Lisnagarvey Hockey Club recently, and we talked about some of those issues. There are good facilities there, and I want to see more such facilities across Northern Ireland.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. Given that hockey operates successfully on an all-island basis, are you having any conversations with the Irish Government around the possibility of accessing Shared Island funding for pitches in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I am always happy to have those conversations with colleagues where there are areas of mutual benefit and interest. However, we require much more investment in sporting facilities across Northern Ireland. I was delighted to be able, last week, to announce the Your School Your Club programme for this year. The budget was £500,000 last year; this year, it will be £3 million. I hope that that is indicative of my commitment to improving sporting facilities across Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. The next three questions have been withdrawn, so that concludes topical questions. I commend the Minister once again for getting through all of his questions. He has done that two months in a row.

Mr Lyons: Three.

Mr Speaker: Three? Thank you for the correction; I will take it on this occasion.

I note that 27 Members got to ask questions in the first set. I encourage succinct questions and succinct answers so that more Back-Benchers get an opportunity to question Ministers on issues of concern, as opposed to listening to long-winded responses. Those are necessary on occasion, because some questions need detailed responses, but it is good to get as many Members in as possible during Question Time. I encourage other Ministers to take note.

I invite Members to take their ease before we move to a question for urgent oral answer to the Health Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny Donnelly has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Assigning an issue to my Department's support and intervention framework creates a focused request for improvement by that trust. Level 5 is the highest intervention level and brings with it external support and escalated oversight. The Member will be aware that, at the Health Committee meeting on 29 May, when I attended with the permanent secretary, I agreed to release copies of that support and intervention framework to the Committee.

The accountability arrangements for the level 5 escalation in relation to cardiac surgery services in the Belfast Trust include enhanced arrangements with suitable external, experienced support, which, as I advised the Committee, will come from Peter McBride, accompanied by another experienced individual. I beg your pardon, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I advised that in a written ministerial statement rather than to the Committee.

My Department and the Public Health Agency (PHA) already had escalated oversight in place, which, given this report, has been reviewed and will now also include the Chief Nursing Officer and the Chief Medical Officer providing support. The accountability arrangements will ensure that pace and urgency are injected by the trust into appropriately managing all the issues involved.

Mr Donnelly: Minister, when the behaviour became public knowledge, you said in the Chamber that six patients had had their operations cancelled. Given that cardiac patients are very ill and at risk of life-threatening events until they get surgery, are you aware of how long it took for those six patients to get their operations and whether any of them suffered any harm in the interim?

Mr Nesbitt: If I used the word "cancelled" that was inappropriate, because there was a postponement, not a cancellation.

I understand that the postponement was over a short number of days, and I am not aware that any harm came to any of those patients. I believe that I would have been informed had that not been the case.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, the response to the Committee's request for departmental officials to attend a meeting so that we could interrogate the details of your written statement said the following:

the Health Committee in relation to the details of what level 5 means. We welcome the Minister's intervention, which is right and proper, but, even though it was a very important step, we are very unclear about what it means in reality.

Mr Nesbitt: I can only repeat what I said to Mr Donnelly: you have a copy of what levels 1 to 5 entail. As to the practicalities of that, Peter McBride will be available to me from the beginning of next week. He will, in effect, be my ears and eyes in the trust while it implements the recommendations of the independent report commissioned by the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) and the Public Health Agency.

Let me stress that I am not the employer; the trust is the employer. It is primarily for the board of the Belfast Trust to sort out the issues, and not just in cardiac surgery. Throughout the trust, where there are behavioural and cultural issues, they must be addressed. That is why I made the level 5 intervention applicable to the entire trust and not just the cardiac surgery unit. Peter McBride will go into the trust, and he will advise me whether the issues are widespread. He will advise where else I need to be looking and demand that the trust take action about the behaviours and cultures.

One of the joys of having a permanent secretary who has been embedded in healthcare delivery all his adult life is that he knows people who are good at certain things. He has identified a recently retired clinician who specialises in clinical teamwork. The permanent secretary is liaising to make this person available, so we will have a two-pronged approach. However, until those people report back to me, I cannot be definitive about the entirety of the next steps. I am trying to make the right official available to come to the Committee on Thursday.

Mr Robinson: Minister, it will come as no surprise that, following the leaked report on the cardiac surgery unit at the Belfast Trust, members of staff from other trusts are contacting MLAs to say that they, too, are working in toxic environments. What do you say to those staff? Will you support an individual duty of candour?

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware of reports — such reports are coming to me as well as to other MLAs, including the Member — that the cultural and behavioural issues are not necessarily confined to the Belfast Trust and may apply not just to the five geographically defined trusts but to all six trusts. The challenge is to sort out which are genuine grievances and reports, given the inevitability that some people will act in a more vexatious manner, and I am determined that we will address that. However, it will take time because we have only limited resources. We are starting with the Belfast Trust, but I hope that my saying that I do not think that we will finish with the Belfast Trust provides some assurance to the Member.

The Member will be aware that I have not been particularly supportive of an individual duty of candour with criminal sanctions up to this point. I accept that the revelations about what is happening in the Belfast Trust will make my position a lot more difficult.

Mr Chambers: I am grateful for the Minister's urgent response to the crisis to date. I also very much welcome the appointment of Peter McBride to a role of independent support in the Belfast Trust. Is it the Minister's belief that Mr McBride is not the sort of person to shy away from shining a light into dark corners when necessary and that he is also someone who has the skill set necessary to drive change throughout an organisation?

Mr Nesbitt: I have every confidence in Peter McBride. As I stated in my written ministerial statement, I have known him for some 17 years, since my time as a victims' commissioner, when he was chief executive of one of Northern Ireland's leading mental health charities. He has a lifetime's experience of organisational culture, so he has the right experience and the right skills. He certainly does not hide away from confronting issues when they arise, so I am convinced that he is the right person to do that job for me.

Let me emphasise once again to the Member and to the House that it is not for Peter McBride, the Department or me to do the implementation. Our job is to oversee the implementation and to satisfy ourselves that it is taking place and, ultimately, that it has taken place appropriately.

Mr O'Toole: A few days ago, I met a constituent who is going in for cardiac surgery in the next week. She is genuinely scared, given the revelations that she has read. She is getting open-heart surgery. If there is a wider cultural problem across the health service — Patricia McKeown of UNISON thinks that it is symptomatic of a wider leadership problem — what root-and-branch reforms will you put in place across the health service, not simply in the cardiac surgery unit and not simply in Belfast, if that is what is demanded?

Mr Nesbitt: First, I understand why that constituent is extremely concerned. She is being asked to go through a very serious procedure, but there is no evidence — no evidence — of bad clinical outcomes from that cardiac surgery team. I hope that she will find some reassurance in the fact that the outcomes from such procedures are first class. The difficulty is the environment in which those first-class outcomes are being delivered.

If the problem is more widespread, I will take advice from Peter McBride, and, if necessary, others: the Chief Nursing Officer, the Chief Medical Officer and whomever else I need to speak to. We will tackle the issue and do so wherever it occurs. Again, for public confidence, I say that there is no evidence to suggest that the situation is endemic. We therefore need to keep it in proportion. It is incredibly serious where it is happening, but I do not believe for one millisecond that it is happening everywhere in Health and Social Care (HSC).

Mr McMurray: What is the Minister doing to rebuild public trust in what is a vital service and to reassure cardiac patients and their families that it is safe and effective?

Mr Nesbitt: As I just said, there is absolutely no evidence that the outcomes from the procedures carried out by the cardiac surgery unit in the Belfast Trust are anything other than first class. To rebuild public confidence, I am putting in place Peter McBride. I hope soon to be able to announce the name of the second person, who has expertise in good clinical teamwork. They are the right people to go into the trust and make sure that the trust board is fulfilling its duty, which is to tackle the issues and detoxify the toxic atmosphere.

Ms K Armstrong: As my colleague Andrew McMurray just said, we need to build back patients' trust. Will Mr McBride be able to look at issues such as the number of appointments that are delayed because the consultant is not in the hospital? I have personal experience of a patient whose operation has been delayed five times. On one of the most recent occasions, they were gowned and ready to go to theatre when their operation was postponed again. Will Mr McBride look at that to ensure that patients are treated a lot more kindly and fairly throughout the process?

Mr Nesbitt: The answer to that depends on whether those postponements and delays are part of the toxic culture and to do with the behaviours of the surgeons in particular. If so, I absolutely expect Peter McBride to address that issue.

I should tell the House that we have not agreed the final terms of reference. One of the reasons for that is that, last week, I met the relevant unions and professional bodies and invited them to give me their thoughts on what they think the terms of reference should be, because it is important that those be genuinely co-designed and co-produced. There is a very little point in me saying, "I am satisfied with how we went about this and with the conclusions that we have come to", if the unions and others who deliver healthcare in the Belfast Trust are not.

Even if it did not fall to Peter McBride to address such events because they were not directly associated with those behaviours and the culture, they should not be happening anyway. I certainly expect all trusts to work to deliver standardised regional services. The quality of that work would be measured by people's not being gowned up at the fifth time of asking and then being told, "I am sorry. It is not going to happen."

Mr Martin: Will the performance accountability process as it is reviewed look at the wider issue of the trust's complaints process? I had one experience with Belfast Trust when I complained about a clinician. It took the trust a year and half to close that complaint. Will the Minister commit to saying that the performance accountability process will include the trust's current complaints process?

Mr Nesbitt: I give the Member that assurance; absolutely. We have two points here. When I had my 45-minute session with the chair the other Friday, we discussed the quality of the complaints process and how he and the trust quality-assure what their human resource team does when dealing with complaints. Reference was then made to the whistle-blowing process, which the trust has. I do not think that I am breaking the confidentiality of the discussion with the chairman when I say that I do not think that the level of staff confidence in the whistle-blowing process is as good as it needs to be. That is one of the areas that I will put in the terms of reference for Peter McBride. How do we quality-assure how complaints are handled? That includes the timeline. Also, if the way to move from complaints is to go into whistle-blowing, how do we ensure that the maximum number of staff has appropriate confidence in that whistle-blowing process?

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the fact that the Minister has engaged with the unions on the issue. That is positive, and I hope that it continues throughout the process, either through Peter McBride or the Department.

Minister, you have yet to receive the Belfast Trust's action plan. Will you reassure me that, in the interests of accountability and transparency, when you do receive it, you will publish it for everyone to see? That is about the public confidence that other Members and you have spoken about.

Mr Nesbitt: I see absolutely no reason not to forward the action plan to, for example, the Health Committee as soon as I get it.

Mr Dickson: Can we be assured that, at the end of the day, the Belfast Trust has the appropriate human resource responsibilities available to it so that it cannot and will not shy away from any appropriate disciplinary or dismissal actions that may be required as an outcome of all this?

Mr Nesbitt: I can give the Member that exact assurance. Again, I have been asking what I think are pretty basic questions about the number of doctors who have been referred to the General Medical Council and the number of whistle-blowing cases and tribunals etc. If I may put it this way, perhaps the responses did not demonstrate a depth of knowledge that I might consider appropriate. That needs to change.

Mr Carroll: It has been raised with me that some of the people who were affected by bullying at the Royal were targeted because they are members of the LGBT+ community. Are you aware of that and, if so, do you know how many people were impacted on by it? More crucially, what are you going to do about it?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not aware of that, but if the Member is and has details, I encourage him to take the responsible route and report it.

Mrs Guy: Will the Minister give a sense of how long the Belfast Trust will be on level 5 special measures?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not in a position to do that yet, because we have not scoped out to what extent the behavioural and cultural issues that are now known about in the cardiac surgery unit are replicated elsewhere across the trust. Peter McBride will be doing that for me, so, until he gives his assessment of that, it is impossible to put a timeline on it. For me, it is all urgent, so I say as soon as possible. What that means, I cannot tell you in days, weeks or months.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister on the question for urgent oral answer. Members, please take your ease for a moment.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Finance Minister, on behalf of the Committee, for tabling the motion for debate today. The Committee continues to assist the AERA Minister and his Department to achieve the best outcomes within DAERA's budget allocation. It is worth highlighting the fact that, compared with last year, the Committee can now support and scrutinise the Minister's spending decisions in line with a Programme for Government and the Department's business plan.

Moving to the Budget itself, I will quickly remind Members of the allocations for DAERA and then move on to some specifics that the Committee has been considering with stakeholders and DAERA officials in evidence sessions.

Overall, DAERA has £630·7 million resource DEL, which is a £21·7 million increase on this point in 2024-25. It is significantly lower than the pivotal provisions for 2023-24 at around £764 million. The total net capital budget is £119·5 million for 2025-26 compared with total provisions of around £97·5 million for 2024-25. However, those allocations do not come close to what was bid for by DAERA, so, although any additional resource in June monitoring will be welcome, it will be unlikely to be anywhere near sufficient. Obviously, that will become more evident as we move through the year.

In last week's debate, I gave the example of the capital DEL, where the allocation is £119·5 million, which is £7·1 million less than DAERA's £126·6 million of inescapable and high-priority bids. The Committee recognises that the final budget remains an extremely difficult outcome for DAERA, and, at last week's meeting, we discussed with officials the bids for June monitoring to determine the extent of the pressures. We heard that the Department was asked to provide the Department of Finance with details of reduced requirements, bids reclassifications, technical issues to be addressed, annually managed expenditure (AME) changes or non-budget movements and potential equality impacts for bids and reclassifications. We were advised that DAERA has no reduced requirements, reclassifications, AME changes or non-budget movements and that no adverse equality impacts of its bids have been identified at this stage.

Officials advised of a non-ring-fenced resource DEL bid of £3·2 million for bovine tuberculosis compensation and that current estimates indicate that the existing allocation is not adequate to deal with the issue. The compensation is, of course, a statutory obligation for DAERA. At this stage last year, the Department bid for £28·8 million at June monitoring and received only £5·5 million, which covered half of the £11 million bid for bovine tuberculosis compensation alone. This year, the situation is no better at this stage. We heard from DAERA officials last Thursday that the compensation amount for 2025-26 is estimated to be around £47 million compared with around £43 million in 2024-25 and that the overall cost of the programme is estimated at around £65 million compared with £60 million in 2024-25. DAERA is relying on the fact that it is early in the financial year and that, in the past, the Executive have funded statutory duties throughout the year, through perhaps other monitoring rounds.

Following the review of DAERA's estimated 2025-26 non-cash depreciation and impairment charges, there is a projected £39·8 million requirement against an opening allocation of £31·8 million. DAERA has therefore bid for £8 million of ring-fenced resource DEL as part of the monitoring round. As part of June monitoring, DAERA has bid for £8·9 million in capital DEL as part of managing down the Minister's opening overcommitment. Specifically, that bid is for £4 million for tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI); £2·3 million for the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) and estates improvements; £1·3 million for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's (NIEA) country parks improvements; and £1·3 million for scientific equipment for the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI).

The Committee has held a number of meetings with the Minister and officials on the budgetary pressures in 2024-25 and those going into 2025-26. I highlighted a range of those pressures across DAERA's remit in the Chamber on 19 May.

The Committee remains concerned by the disparity between the resource DEL bids and the allocations for specific statutory functions and projects, ranging from as little as one sixth to around one half of what was bid for. The Committee is, of course, pleased that the Executive agreed to earmark resource DEL of over £300 million for agriculture, environment, fisheries and rural development, which was a really good piece of collaborative work in the Executive.

The Committee has considered the Minister's decisions over the past year to allocate funding towards his top priorities, which include tackling climate change and protecting the natural environment. At its meeting last week, the Committee heard that much of the climate change spend is now mainstreamed into areas such as the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP) and the Lough Neagh action plan. As I said previously in the Chamber, the Committee was pleased to hear that the Executive had also agreed indicative 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.

I will now look at areas of spending that, I am sure, the Committee will discuss with the Minister in the not-too-distant future. When the Minister was here earlier, we heard about the remediation of the Mobuoy site, on which the legal case has been finalised, and the fact that a consultation is now taking place. The Minister pointed out the colossal amount of money that will be required to clear up the site, which is mind-boggling. In addition, at last week's meeting, we heard from officials about the new horticulture pilot scheme, which has an allocation of £7·7 million. Having recently completed the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill, the Committee was pleased to see development in the horticulture sector and feels that that is an untapped growth area for the wider agri-food sector. We look forward to seeing the uptake of those schemes, but we caution against the total budget being scooped up by larger organisations to the detriment of smaller growers with innovative ideas. Members have recently expressed concern that incentives are lacking to support farmers to play their part in improving the environment. That could lead to approaches with no carrot, just stick. With constrained budgets, there are concerns that the sticks outnumber the carrots.

We have continued our programme of external meetings and of hearing from stakeholders about the impact of funding shortfalls. The Committee looks forward to engaging with the Department on addressing its priorities throughout the year. As a general point, I highlight the fact that, although DAERA is leading many climate change actions, all Members need to be mindful of the relevant cross-cutting expenditure and its effectiveness in delivering the outcomes needed for a just transition for the whole of Northern Ireland. At the Balmoral show, we heard that farmers are committed to playing their part in improving water quality, but the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has warned, and continues to warn, that proposals fail to reflect the costs involved for farmers, the complexity of on-farm decision-making and the risks, potentially undermining environmental progress and farm viability.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Budget (No. 2) Bill. As we all have, I have spoken about the Bill on numerous occasions in the past couple of months. I will say a few words on the Health Committee's important role in scrutinising the health system and the Health Minister.

The Finance Minister has allocated £8·4 billion to the Department of Health. The Health Minister has outlined to the Committee that, even with that sum this year, he still expects to be short by some £600 million. When I look back at previous Budget debates, I see that, in the 2021-22 financial year, the initial resource allocation for the Department of Health was £6·45 billion. That means that, over four to five years, we will potentially have seen an increase in the Health budget of close to 50%. Whilst that shows the Executive's commitment to prioritise health, it is a worrying trend, in that we are seeing more and more money being put into a system that could and should function much better and in which patients are waiting longer and having worse outcomes. At present, we do not see an efficient system. We need to see change in our health system and how it works so that we do not end up, in another four to five years, seeing a similar increase in the budget with similar outcomes. All the money that is invested in the health service must be about ensuring the best possible outcomes for patients and citizens.

The Committee welcomes the £215 million that has been ring-fenced by the Executive to help to reduce our lengthy waiting lists, in line with Programme for Government commitments on health. It also welcomes the Minister's indications that there needs to be a system reset and that we need to see services shift left, out of hospitals and into primary care and our communities. It is worrying therefore that, at the first hurdle, the Health Minister has stopped negotiations with the BMA in relation to funding allocations for GP services. If we want to see a shift of services left, we need adequate resourcing and funding to ensure that all patients are treated equally and fairly.

Given all those challenges, scrutiny of the Health budget is imperative. Scrutiny ensures transparency, holds decision makers and our Health Minister accountable and allows for informed adjustments to allocations. The Health Committee has questioned the Health Minister, and will continue to do so, about whether funds are being used efficiently and the budget aligns with the strategic goals of improving patient outcomes and service sustainability. The Health Committee and the Assembly have a pivotal role in scrutinising the budget. We must ensure that allocations are equitable, justified and conducive to long-term health system improvements. We also see the need for public engagement. Citizens have the right to understand how funds are being utilised and to voice concerns about service delivery.

The Health Committee takes its role in scrutinising the budget seriously. The scrutiny of the Department of Health's budget for 2025-26 is not merely a procedural formality; it is a critical process so that we can determine the trajectory of healthcare here in the North. We look forward to doing that from next year, hopefully in an environment with multi-year budgets, which will really allow our health system to move forward at pace. We will continue to scrutinise the Health Minister throughout the 2025-26 year for the £8·4 billion that he has at his disposal in the Health budget and to ensure that patient outcomes are foremost in all the decisions that he takes.

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

The Committee is due to hear from officials about the Department's budget and financial position in the June monitoring round at our meeting later this week. It is unfortunate that the scheduling means that we will get an update after the debate. I am confident, though, that the key message will be the same regardless: Justice has been historically underfunded over many years and, as a result, despite an increased budget allocation this year, there are pressures right across the Department.

I will say once again what I have said in previous financial debates: the majority of the Department's budget is taken up with services that are demand-led, including, for example, policing, the Prison Service, the Courts and Tribunals Service and legal aid. The Department has little to no control over the level of demand for its services, which is showing no signs of slowing down. The Department received an opening resource DEL budget of £1,503 million, which includes ring-fenced funding of £87·7 million. The PSNI has been allocated £953·3 million of the resource allocation, which equates to over 63% of the total resource allocation. The Department has received a capital allocation of £100 million in the 2025-26 financial year, and the PSNI will account for almost 62% of that.

It is acknowledged that this is the largest ever budget settlement for the Department of Justice. I reiterate that it is welcomed by the Committee and the justice partners with whom we have engaged over the past number of months. However, despite that increase in funding, the Department still faces stabilisation pressures of some £31·6 million. Those include funding for pay, the much-needed PSNI workforce recovery, legal aid pressures and helping the Prison Service to cope with the increased prisoner population. Beyond those more immediate pressures, there are also the exceptional pressures of £227 million that I have mentioned in previous debates, relating to holiday pay, the PSNI data breach and the McCloud remedy.

Engagement continues with the Executive and the Department of Finance, as those pressures simply cannot be met from the Department's existing baseline.

The Committee has repeatedly heard from stakeholders about the impact that the lack of funding is having. Last week, we held an event in the Long Gallery to engage with community and voluntary sector organisations on the Justice Bill. A recurring theme was the need for greater investment in early intervention services to prevent people entering the criminal justice system in the first place. I should point out that that does not rest solely with the Justice Department; other Departments also have key roles to play. People often enter the justice system when other services have failed them, and cross-departmental collaboration across a range of issues is therefore crucial.

Concerns have frequently been raised in evidence to the Committee about the lack of suitable bail accommodation, legal aid funding, overcrowding in prisons and a crumbling courts estate. The PSNI might account for a significant proportion of the Department's overall budget allocation for 2025-26, but, still, it faces significant challenges. A recent report by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services found that continued financial pressures are adversely affecting service delivery. Members will be aware that the PSNI is implementing a workforce recovery plan, which aims to grow the number of police officers to 7,000 and staff to 2,500 over the next three years. It is important that sufficient funding is made available to allow that to happen. Officer numbers must grow.

In written evidence submitted to the Committee in advance of this week's oral evidence session, the Department states:

We will explore that further with the Department, but it is a position that gives rise to concern, especially when we know that the justice system needs more investment.

This Budget (No. 2) Bill is about the year ahead, but I want to touch briefly on the provisional outturn for the past year, which has been included in our papers for this week's meeting. The Department had an underspend of £3·02 million, which equates to just 0·23% of its resource budget. The capital underspend was slightly higher, at 3·15%. Overall, however, that illustrates just how tightly the Department manages its budget and how little room for manoeuvre exists. The Committee and, indeed, stakeholders would welcome a move towards a multi-year Budget, which, we understand, is under consideration. The Committee previously heard that that would at least allow the Department and its justice delivery partners to commit to longer-term planning and may help with efficiencies. We all appreciate that the budgetary position is difficult across all Departments, but more needs to be done if we wish to address the long-term and sometimes critical pressures affecting the justice system. We need to equip the PSNI with adequate staffing and resources to keep our population safe and to increase confidence in policing. We need to put more resources into fixing our overcrowded prisons and crumbling justice estate. We need to invest in preventative and deterrent measures to stop people offending and the revolving door of reoffending; to reform legal aid; to reduce the time taken, both for payment and for cases to move through the justice system; and to improve access to justice, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society. In short, we need to invest properly and wisely.

I will now speak in my capacity as an individual MLA. As the DUP's justice spokesperson, I emphasise our support for the PSNI's call for additional resources. There can be no question that the Chief Constable should not have to choose between his legal requirements to keep people safe from harm and his legal obligations, as accounting officer, to balance the budget. Already, our communities are feeling the impact of fewer officers and a reduced presence, particularly in neighbourhood policing, which I know the police have striven to protect as much as possible. However, the reduced numbers are now being felt acutely, internally and externally. It is imperative that that does not result in a diminution of confidence in the police, in the justice system and, importantly, in the public's willingness to contact the police about crime.

Recently, the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) was in front of the Committee to brief us and outline progress on its November 2024 report, 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland: A Strategic Overview'. It is one of the most damning reports that I have ever read. It was clear that, whilst good work is being undertaken, the Department and its bodies are not necessarily pulling in one direction and with one purpose. Silo working is a problem, but not just within the justice system or Justice Department. CJINI highlighted the lack of a collectively agreed vision and strategic priorities shared by the DOJ and key criminal justice organisations. In these times of considerable financial constraints, it is imperative that that be rectified as quickly as possible. The Department and its branches must pull in one direction, and priorities should be aligned and in keeping with the agreed Programme for Government. Collaboration will be key to efficiency. If that cannot be managed within one Department, how do we expect more efficient and effective cross-departmental working, which is fundamental to success, between Health and Justice particularly? Moreover, given that the Department is flagging that it may be required to cut services, we must be careful what we choose to add to the statute books.

The prospect of three-year Budget cycles is welcome. They should provide much greater stability for organisations and people. Annual Budgets are far from ideal for those in the community and voluntary sector. Three-year Budgets should afford them the ability to properly financially plan. As it stands, and through no fault or desire of the sector, there is little job stability; difficulty securing credit for mortgages and loans etc; and employees regularly end up being put on notice and/or spending a great deal of their time chasing funding rather than on focusing on the projects that they are seeking to deliver. That perpetual state of instability is no way to live. Given the extent to which government relies on the sector, we must do better for the service provider and for the sake of service users.

I am acutely conscious that we must provide value for taxpayers' money at every level and cut our cloth accordingly. We have repeatedly been made aware of the consequences for future funding allocations should we not do so. Hence, I want to be clear that my view and that of the DUP is that now is not the time for wasteful spending on niche and pet projects to pursue political agendas. Rather, now is the time to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have access to the fundamentals and basics — the services that they need and use — and that everything that is taken forward and every penny that is spent is for the benefit of all and not the few.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bunting: I am nearly finished, Eóin; I am sorry.

Now is the time for wisdom, fiscal prudence, common sense and effective and efficient stewardship of the taxpayers' hard-earned funds.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): The Executive Office is an unusual Department in that it has a relatively small budget, as I outlined last week during the debate on the Supply resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2025-26, but a diverse portfolio of expenditure. That ranges from highly sensitive issues, such as victims and survivors of the conflict, historical institutional child abuse and mother-and-baby institutions, to such items as strategic investment and the maintenance of the three overseas offices of the Executive. The diversity of the Department's responsibilities requires enhanced scrutiny to keep track of the different strands of the work that is undertaken by the Executive Office and to ensure that public money is spent wisely and well. That requires detailed planning on the part of the Department and time for the Committee to receive the necessary financial information, subject that information to scrutiny and discuss departmental expenditure in an open and public manner.

Public consultation on and parliamentary scrutiny of Budgets are essential components of any democratic society. Victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions need to know that the resources are there to consult on and initiate legislation to establish a public inquiry into what happened to them and to provide them with the support and redress that they deserve. People working towards peace and reconciliation in our communities need to know when and how much they will be paid to undertake the challenging work that they are engaged in. People living in the north-west or south-east need to know that investment in strategic sites is being efficiently and appropriately spent. How can the public be sure that the money is being spent wisely if the Committee does not have the information in a detailed and timely manner?

The Committee looks forward to a multi-year Budget next year — a Budget that is decided well in advance, fully consulted on and with the necessary equality impact assessments in place. The Committee also looks forward to receiving detailed spending plans well in advance in order to be able to scrutinise the Department's expenditure fully and to having the time and space to assist and advise the Department on the challenges of allocating money to its diverse but important areas of work, as it is required to do.

I will now make a number of points in my capacity as an Alliance Party MLA, including some about the value for money of our overseas offices. As I have said in Committee, I am concerned that we are spending over a quarter of a million pounds every year on our office in Beijing. That office has been operating for 11 years now. I think that the most recent press statement from it was issued in 2018 and that the most recent tweet from it was in 2020. We have absolutely no idea whether the office represents value for money from the public purse. When departmental officials were before the Committee recently, I asked them, "At what point do you say, 'This is not worth it for us'". I can see the value in the Brussels office and in the Washington office, but I am yet to be convinced that we should continue to have an office in Beijing. Minister, your officials should be working with Executive Office officials to assure us that money is being spent properly. If it is not, its closure is something that needs to be looked at.

I also have some concerns about the overall direction of the Communities in Transition funding and some projects that are funded under the banner of good relations. We know that some excellent work is taking place in our communities, but some of the projects being funded that the Committee has been given as examples could, frankly, sit under Belfast City Council's capacity building funding or Public Health Agency grant funding. I am concerned that the money is not being spent as wisely as it could be and not having the desired outcomes of delivering on our shared future, peacebuilding and moving forward as a society as a whole. When I ask questions about, for example, the monitoring and evaluation of some of the programmes, I hear vague answers or get responses such as, "We are looking at that as part of a wider review". When I then ask about that wider review, I am referred to another answer. I am therefore concerned about the best use of public money in that space.

Miss Dolan: I begin this latest debate on the Budget by highlighting the importance of the British Government's spending review, which will be delivered this week. The decision by the Labour Government to continue with a decade and a half of Tory austerity measures following the party's election victory last summer has left us facing another challenging Budget. This week is an opportunity for the British Chancellor to change course and move away from her policy of cuts, which hurt some of the most vulnerable in society, and instead to choose to prioritise investing in public services.

The Finance Minister has sought to prioritise the delivery of public services in these challenging financial circumstances not only by providing additional money to reduce health waiting lists and for childcare but by investing in key infrastructure projects, which are vital for developing our economy and helping address regional imbalance. He is also pressing the British Treasury to ensure that we are funded at our level of need. I am conscious that this Budget is due to be the final single-year Budget. I welcome the move towards having multi-year Budgets, as they will enable planning to take place on a strategic, longer-term basis. Given the Assembly's limited fiscal powers, however, the spending decisions made in London will continue to have a significant impact on our Budget until we have constitutional change.

Dr Aiken: I apologise for not being here for the entirety of the debate. Unfortunately, we had to attend the funeral of a very dear member of the Ulster Unionist Party, Pamela Stewart. I think that every member of our party, and the many people who knew her, will pass on their condolences to the family at this very sad time.

Minister, I am glad that the Member behind you talked about the fact that the comprehensive spending review announcement is coming this week. We are talking about the Budget (No. 2) Bill, but we know that there may be some extra allocations coming in our direction in a short time. We also know, however, that those extra allocations are highly unlikely to meet the various challenges that we have across all the Departments. We have already heard from the Chairs of Statutory Committees. It is very clear that there are challenges everywhere, but it would be remiss of me not to point out that the Department of Health is looking at how to deal with a challenge of close to £600 million.

There will be very many questions about capital allocations, particularly to capital projects. Speculation is already beginning over a particular capital project in the sporting field. That seems to be developing at the moment.

There is something that, I think, is important, Minister, and you could maybe comment on it in your closing remarks. I do not expect you to say anything about the CSR, because we will wait to hear what Rachel Reeves says. However, we can note today that she has mentioned the issues with the winter fuel allowance and the fact that she has walked back on that. From that, it can only be surmised that she will walk back on several other issues. Even though some Members have talked about the Labour Government's approach to continuing austerity, there seems to be a general shift away from that direction. The question that I would like the Minister to address is this: bearing in mind the constraints of the Budget (No. 2) Bill and the speed at which we do the monitoring rounds, how quickly will we be able to look at getting anything that comes from the CSR, which is likely to come through on Wednesday? How quickly before the Assembly breaks up for the summer, Minister, can you come here to explain to Members or, indeed, to Departments how those moneys are likely to be allocated so that we can look to the autumn and do some decent long-term planning?

If anything in the media is to be believed, the spending review will probably look at spending that will be spread out over the next three years of the budgetary review process. I again ask the Minister to look closely at that and to engage with Departments on how we can start to plan and profile those moneys over the next three years so that, as many Members said, we can get good value for money.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: A Steve, comhbhrón.

Very briefly, let me say that I am sorry for your loss and offer my condolences.

Our next speaker is Nick Mathison.

Mr Mathison: As Chair of the Education Committee, I will speak on behalf of the Committee in the first instance. The Committee was comprehensively briefed on this year's resource budget by officials on 7 May and had a briefing on the capital budget in March. Along with other Committee Chairs, I have spoken extensively on the 2025-26 Budget in recent debates, the most recent of which was last week's debate on the Supply resolution for the Main Estimates. I will therefore set out only briefly the financial position that the Budget represents for the Department of Education.

The Department has received just over £3·2 billion in non-ring-fenced resource and £391 million in capital. Despite that representing an improved budgetary position from last year, officials continue to report inescapable pressures in excess of £300 million in resource spending and £83 million in capital spending affecting the Department. I will not rehearse the areas of pressure in detail again today, suffice it to say that it will undoubtedly be schools and the Education Authority (EA) that will feel the pressures most acutely in day-to-day spend. The most up-to-date school budget deficit figure sits at £180 million. That is a staggeringly high figure that, unfortunately, has been going in the wrong direction for many years. As the budget comes under more and more pressure, it is, in the main, schools that struggle to balance the books and deliver basic statutory services to our children. Regrettably, the Committee fully anticipates future departmental updates to continue to present that crisis picture for school budgets in the year ahead. While that adds substantial pressure on teachers and principals who work in the system, ultimately, it is children and young people who will lose out.

That £300 million in resource pressures should not be referenced lightly, and the Committee certainly does not take it lightly. If the EA were required to find savings of that value, the impact on front-line service delivery and education could be devastating. Special educational needs (SEN) pupil support services; school transport services; catering services; specialist education supports; our youth services; and routine school building maintenance — those are just some of the direct front-line areas where the impact will, undoubtedly, be felt. The Committee will continue to monitor closely the savings and efficiencies that the EA is being asked to make and to prioritise the delivery of work to support SEN learners and SEN transformation and to invest in early years, childcare and measures to tackle educational disadvantage, as those are key strategic priority areas on which the Committee continues to focus.

The challenge to deliver meaningfully on the priorities that the Committee has identified is significant, given that the Budget that is being presented makes delivering basic statutory services difficult, but that is the funding picture that we are looking at across the Departments. The Committee will continue to scrutinise all aspects of the Minister's spending plans and delivery in the year ahead, particularly after the comprehensive spending review. While it recognises the undoubted pressures, the Committee will expect to see evidence of the Department delivering efficiencies where possible while still delivering for children and young people as a priority.

I will make a few closing remarks in my capacity as an Alliance education spokesperson. A Budget position that presents such a level of pressure on all Departments, including Education, is not where any Member wants to be. However, it is clear that — Members have referenced this — the position that we saw last year, with Barnett consequentials flowing into Departments, is not likely to be repeated. Departments across the board have to make difficult decisions in order to live within their means. We are voting to give legal authority for significant sums of money to be spent across our Departments, but that should not obscure the pressure that they are feeling.

It is in that context that I again call on the Education Minister to set out a clear vision of transformation for education. We cannot continue to maintain a cumbersome, bureaucratic, divided and complex education system and not expect those pressures to be exacerbated every year. I am concerned that the budget is often directed at just keeping the system running without questioning whether that system delivers effective services for our children and young people.

We are a year and a half on from the report of the independent review of education, but I have yet to see any real appetite for some of the structural reform that is needed. I will highlight the three key areas of work that, as far as I can see, the Minister and Department need to take seriously. First, we need to take a strategic look at our school estate. We have too many schools, and the schools that we have are often in the wrong places. That creates additional costs in maintaining and delivering the system and in delivering an effective school transport system. Clear steps are needed to establish an independent area planning commission on the long-term direction of travel in order to rightsize our school estate so that we can effectively deliver prudent spending on education that meets the needs of our children and young people effectively rather than unquestioningly accepting that the school estate that we have is the one that we must work with. If we do not start to have those conversations, we will not make the progress that we need to see.

There is too much duplication in the system. Our schools compete with our further education colleges and with one another, chasing pupil funding across school sectors and types. We desperately need an effective 14-19 strategy and an ambition to reform the outdated practice of academic selection in order to deliver a sustainable and fit-for-purpose education system that works collaboratively, not competitively. The fact that conversations are difficult, as those undoubtedly are, does not mean that we should not have them. I hope that the Minister will show leadership in that regard in what is left of the mandate and in the incoming financial year.

Finally, we need to reduce bureaucracy, not add to it. As far as I can tell, the most significant intervention that the Minister has outlined in progressing the report of the independent review of education is setting up a managing authority for controlled schools. In the budgetary position in which we find ourselves, I do not see how the case can be made for another arm's-length body. We need to move towards a single managing authority and the efficiencies that were promised in the establishment of the EA but have yet to be delivered. Leadership and ambition are needed if we are to see change in education. Change is undoubtedly required.

The Budget creates massive challenges for our schools. It creates huge challenges and pressures on the effective delivery of a SEN delivery and transformation plan and of investment in education more broadly. Many Members have highlighted the fact that the introduction — we hope — of multi-year Budgets could play a key part in enabling some of that transformative planning to be brought forward, but that planning and those multi-year Budgets need to be informed by a genuinely transformative agenda. We cannot just do more of the same but with multi-year Budgets. We need an ambition for something better. If we want to move beyond the cycle of cuts and last-minute rescue plans in monitoring rounds in Education, it is time to start serious conversations about the long-term structural reform of our system.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Nick. Had I known that you would speak as Chair of the Committee, we would have made arrangements, but we did not know in advance. I just put that on record.

Ms Egan: In my role as the Alliance representative on the Justice Committee, I will make some short remarks regarding the Department of Justice's financial position.

The Bill indicates a positive allocation for the Department of Justice, which has been underfunded to a significant degree over the past decade. In this year's Budget, the Department of Justice received the third-largest non-ring-fenced resource departmental expenditure limit alongside £100 million in capital spend. That reflects what I know to be the work that is ongoing in the Department to ensure that the Finance Minister and his predecessor have an understanding that the services that Justice funds, whether they are courts, prisons, police or support for victims and witnesses, are incredibly vital public services that deserve our attention alongside the likes of health and education.

Aside from Justice's core budget, I welcome the additional £5 million of investment in creating safer communities, as driven by our shared goals in the Programme for Government, and an additional £23 million of funding for justice-related transformation. Those moneys will go towards speeding up and transforming our criminal justice system so that we can provide quicker resolutions for victims and invest in electronic tagging to provide real-time monitoring of offenders. All the funding will contribute to the Justice Minister's plans to deliver effective services for victims, keep our streets safe and make access to justice easier, faster and more effective for everyone.

Funding for the PSNI has been much discussed recently in the Chamber. The Minister's commitment to stabilising the police is demonstrated through the fact that the PSNI currently receives approximately 65% of the Department's core budget, alongside the vast majority of the additional safer communities funding. It is to be welcomed that the PSNI recovery business case has been approved as being value for money. The Minister and her officials continue to engage with the Department of Finance and the wider Executive to ensure that the funding needed to fulfil the ambitions of that plan is provided.

This year's positive budget outcome does not change the fact that our justice system has been grossly underfunded for a number of years. While Stormont's block grant has increased by 66% in 14 years to 2025-26, DOJ's budget has grown by just over 25%. As a proportion of the total block grant, the Justice budget is now smaller than it was in 2011, despite the growing demands being placed on our prisons, courts, police service and other parts of the justice system. For example, the complexity of modern cases due not least to the mass and importance of digital evidence can make those cases harder and longer to investigate and process through the courts. Our prison population has risen, and many people arrive with complex or undiagnosed needs. Lack of capacity in health and social services means that the justice system is unfortunately becoming the place of last resort for people who should be supported by other public services instead. The costs of legacy systems have never been properly reflected in our devolved funding model. While critical to providing truth and justice for victims and survivors, they are, undoubtedly, on the capacity of the contemporary justice system. Those are just some examples of the extra demands. We need to reverse the historic underfunding to fully address them. This year's Budget is a welcome one, but it must be the beginning to build something better on a sustained, long-term basis.

Before I wrap up, I will say that it is positive to see the Budget and have a Programme for Government that states:

Now we have to get on with the hard work of delivery. We need continuity, and we need multi-year Budgets to allow for planning. We need transformation so that the public know that they can trust us to deliver for them.

Mr Gaston: Every time I open a Budget Bill, it strikes me that even the most nationalist of MLAs in the House must appreciate our place in the United Kingdom and the financial advantages that it brings.

Since coming to the House, we have all — me included — made the case for a more appropriate financial settlement for Northern Ireland based on our unique circumstances. I welcome the appointment of Professor Holtham and look forward to what he has to say ahead of the spending review. However, all that should not blind us to the reality of the eye-watering figure in clause 1(2) of the Bill: £30,772,659,000. Every time a Minister comes to the House and tells us that they have no money for front-line services, that is a figure that every MLA should bear in mind. What did the Executive do with their £30,772,659,000?

I fear that, once the "Made in Stormont" stamp is applied, that is when the squandering starts. We always have to bear in mind and think to ourselves: did we make the best use of that money? Well, my belief, going by the Budget that is before us today, is that we certainly did not.

This Executive are set to continue on their course of squandering money on things that the people of Northern Ireland see no benefit from. In recent days, I have highlighted the fact that the money allocated on page 6, line 11 to the Loughs Agency is of questionable value. That body could disappear in the morning and no one would notice, as its functions could be adequately performed by existing agencies in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The truth, of course, is that this place is not interested in finding efficiencies when it comes to the sacred cows of cross-border bodies. No one in this Chamber questions the fact that this Budget, when cross-referenced with the Estimates from last week, will see the Loughs Agency get £44,444,000. No one asks what better use could be made of £44 million than giving it to a body with a poor enforcement record, almost no prosecutions and excessive spend on PR and money for scientific work that could be done elsewhere. That £44 million would fund between 176 and 220 GPs a year: 200-odd GPs or the Loughs Agency? I know what I would rather the money is spent on.

Let us look at the Department of Health's allocation in this Budget. Minister Nesbitt is constantly telling us about the challenging financial position that he faces. I certainly do not dispute that, but, when I look at his budget, what do I find? In line 8 on page 20, I discover that our Health budget includes money for the Food Safety Promotion Board. That organisation is based in County Cork and does not employ a single person in Northern Ireland, yet we fund it out of the Health budget — according to the Estimates, which we debated last week, to the tune of £2,117,000. That is enough to fund between 47 and 59 band 5 nurses.

Members, I could go on and on, but I will concentrate my next remarks on the Assembly Commission. On page 31 of this Bill, that body is getting funding of £62·6 million, according to the Estimates, so that MLAs can award themselves a pay rise and, while doing so, recruit a media monitoring service to type up the transcripts of anyone who dares be critical of this Assembly on 'The Nolan Show' and other shows. What would Northern Ireland do with £62·6 million if we did not have a Assembly? Well, you could get over 2,000 full-time classroom assistants. Let us think about it. Ninety MLAs and all that goes with us, or a couple of thousand classroom assistants? I know what parents would choose.

I will spend a short time focusing on a few issues related to the Executive Office. As a member of the Executive Office Committee, I have been able to probe that Department a little more. I want to get the Finance Minister's view on how some of the money for ending violence against women and girls is currently being spent. That is a flagship policy of TEO and is referenced in the Executive Office spend on line 13 of page 29, yet, when we on the Committee drill down into how that money is being spent, we find that a lot of it is simply being doled out to councils — bodies that have, at best, a limited role in stopping violence against women and girls. The Committee has asked all councils for the criteria under which they have awarded the grant money. From the responses received to date, it is a bit of a scattergun approach, with no individual themes or criteria, it appears, being set by TEO. It sounds good that we are spending £2 million to tackle that issue, but surely a collective strategy is required to target problem areas and deliver better outcomes going forward. Take a step back: surely, instead of the Executive's Office's current approach, that money could be better spent by the PSNI and women's sector organisations such as Women's Aid

That section of the Bill also deals with the money required for redress for historical child abuse. I want to make two points about that. The House previously passed a Bill dealing with historical institutional abuse. The Committee will shortly begin looking at a Bill dealing with mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. The approach in that Bill is in stark contrast to the approach in Scotland, where they started with the child and looked at how common child abuse was and sought to address the problem from there. In Northern Ireland, we are again looking at the buildings in which the abuse happened rather than at the child who suffered the abuse. As one expert in the area asked me, why should a child who suffered abuse in an institution get redress and the child who suffered abuse in a foster home be excluded? Abuse is abuse. I have a second concern about that upcoming Bill: it cannot make the same mistake as the Historical Institutional Abuse Act, which, again, unlike the legislation in Scotland, failed to build in any provision to require institutions to contribute to compensating victims for the abuse suffered while in their care. We have a farcical situation whereby we have a mediator acting for the Executive Office who, apparently, has the job of sometimes asking the institutions nicely if they would mind terribly contributing —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — something to the scheme.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, this is a very sensitive issue. I invite you to come back to the Budget Bill, please. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Across the water, the same religious institutions are required by statute to contribute to compensating victims. To date, we do not have that in statute in Northern Ireland. I am passionate that that needs to change. I ask the Minister of Finance, as the guardian of public money, for an assurance that the legislation that is brought forward will have that requirement built in.

On Communities in Transition, we are beginning to fund phase 3, and we are still funding the same areas as we did in phase 1, which were identified in data that was collected in 2016. We are told that new areas have been identified but will be supported only if additional money becomes available. One must ask oneself: when do communities in transition become transitioned? That is a question that none of the Executive Office officials has been able to answer to date.

The next topic that I want to touch on is addressed in line 38 on page 28 of the Bill, which refers to:

During the debate on the Main Estimates last week, I highlighted the fact that a number of schemes within the scope of the Executive Office rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act. Five of the 10 schemes listed across the entire sector relate to issues associated with migration: the full dispersal asylum seeker scheme, costing £750,000; the Homes for Ukraine scheme, costing £1,965,000; the strategic migration partnership scheme, costing £37,000; the Northern Ireland refugee resettlement scheme, costing £200,000; and the Afghan citizens resettlement programme and Afghan relocation and assistance policy, costing £1,750,000. Taken together, the cost of those schemes comes to a grand total of almost £5·5 million. The Minister's guidance states that the authority of the Budget Act should be relied on only in certain limited circumstances, and normally for expenditure of no more than £1·5 million. Yet, here we are approving a Budget containing more than three and a half times that figure — an amount that is explicitly marked for issues relating to immigration. Quite apart from all the hidden costs, there is no legislation in place for it.

Why is this place, and specifically our First Minister and deputy First Minister, so anxious to avoid debate on those serious issues, which have been caused by immigration? Stormont needs to face the reality that, while immigration policy is not devolved, the task of dealing with it falls largely to the Executive Office.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, please get back to the Budget debate. We are not having a debate on immigration.

Mr Gaston: We are not, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know that that is your point.

Mr Gaston: It is an issue that is contained in the Bill. I have referenced —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Thank you, Timothy. I love your references, your page numbers and your line numbers, but I ask you to get back to the Budget debate. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for acknowledging the work that I have put in to ensuring that I am staying within the remit of the Budget Bill and this debate.

I will bring my remarks on those matters to a close. One must ask oneself whether all this money that is being spent is being well spent. Is it delivering? Look at the actions that happened in Ballymena over the weekend. I believe that that is a problem. We are pouring money into strategies that are simply not delivering.

I will move on to my next point and bring my remarks to a close. I want to make some observations about the efficiency — rather, the lack of it — in the Executive Office. Last week, I commented on the fact that TEO has spent over £126,000 on foreign travel, including flying a civil servant out to brief the First Minister when she was on holiday instead of using a video call. I will conclude with some observations on the expenditure of the head of the Civil Service, which is addressed at line 24 on page 27 of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The head of the Civil Service sails around the US in a private car, and the deputy First Minister uses another vehicle, while lowly Ministers such as Minister Nesbitt and Minister Lyons get by using public transport. Last week, the 'News Letter' revealed that the head of the Civil Service's budget has increased from £487,891 in the year before Mrs Brady took up her post in 2021 to a staggering £848,586 in the last financial year.

This Budget wastes too much on vanity, duplication and unaccountable bodies. Too little is spent on things that matter. At the centre of it all, the Assembly absorbs millions while too many working families struggle to access basic services. I began by pointing out the figure of £30 billion in the Budget, but now consider this: if the public ever ask, "Where did our £30 billion go?", what will you say as an MLA or a Minister? They will not find the answer in a hospital ward or a classroom. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Timothy.

Mr Carroll: Another year, another austerity Budget that fails to deliver the public services that people need and deserve. People are sick to the back teeth of hearing the Executive talk about doing the best that we can with what is handed down from Westminster. It is true that something should be done differently. Not every problem in Health and Social Care, Justice or Education can be solved by more money alone. Injecting a bit of cash into pilot projects here and there without reversing the effects of over a decade of underinvestment in core services is just fiddling while Rome burns.

Every Executive party agrees that this Budget does not provide enough money to meet people's basic needs. The obvious question is this: why are Executive parties hell-bent on playing by the twisted rules set by Westminster and ramming the Budget through? Are over a decade of declining living standards and disposable income, stagnant wages, rising homelessness and health inequalities not proof that the way in which we fund and deliver public services is not working? It does not matter whether it is a Tory or a Labour Government: Westminster is clearly capable only of financial cruelty. It should be a source of shame for the Executive that, with each Budget, health and social care workers are left wondering whether they will be granted pay parity with NHS workers in Britain.

The Health Minister is right to prioritise pay in his Department's budget, but fair pay should not be funded by extremely difficult and painful cuts elsewhere in the system or by stealth privatisation in the guise of tackling waiting lists, which will put more pressure on health workers when they are in work.

Executive parties say that they value strong, resilient public services, but, time and time again, their actions prove otherwise. The Budget will have real and serious consequences. Cutting social security means more families trapped in an endless cycle of poverty and destitution without access to well-paid, stable work. Poverty levels are shooting up, most acutely in my constituency of West Belfast. Cutting funding for youth clubs such as Clonard Youth Club that deliver early intervention and prevention programmes means that there are more people on the streets who are at risk of falling prey to paramilitaries, interface rioting, sectarianism or worse.

One of the few concrete targets in the Programme for Government is the construction of just under 6,000 social homes by the end of the mandate. The target is 2,000 homes a year, but less than half of that target will be met out of this Budget. All the while, private landlords hike rents and evict tenants at will, while spending on temporary accommodation skyrockets.

In all but one council area, at least one in five children is growing up in poverty. In West Belfast, it is one in three children. A small minority, however, are thriving under austerity. The super-rich and the wealthy corporations across the North are raking in profits like never before. This year, the 100 wealthiest companies in the North made pre-tax profits of £2·5 billion, which is an increase of 26% on last year, and the Finance Minister generally supports and applauds that economic approach. Some of those hugely profitable companies pollute our airways and waterways, mistreat workers and abuse animals, yet the Executive reward them with rate relief to the tune of £70 million a year. Last week, it was revealed that nearly 30 employers here, including wealthy hospitality businesses and property management companies, failed to pay the minimum wage to 1,650 workers. Invest NI has handed £19 million of public money to four companies in the North that manufacture parts for F-35 fighter jets, which are the warplanes that are dropping bombs on the people of Gaza.

Enabling the rich to get richer while the poor are bled dry is a conscious political choice, but it does not have to be that way. There is plenty of wealth in our society, and it should be properly taxed and used to fund public services and to protect the poorest. This Budget, however, is business as usual, and I will therefore not support it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak is the Minister of Finance, Mr John O'Dowd, who will conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the contributions from Chairs, Deputy Chairs and other spokespersons on the Budget (No. 2) Bill. As I have said before, it is useful to hear the views of the respective Committees and of Members on the important financial and economic issues that the Administration face. I have noted a number of issues that colleagues have raised today, and I will endeavour to get through as many of them as possible.

To Mr O'Toole, I say that I welcome the strong working relationship between the Committee for Finance and the Department, despite the odd blip and issues that have arisen of late. I hope that that relationship continues.

A number of Members mentioned the comprehensive spending review that will be announced in Westminster on Wednesday. It is my intention to make a statement to the Assembly on Monday, although a lot, if not all, of the detail will become clear during the Chancellor's statement. I will be here on Monday to present my understanding of the position and to take questions from colleagues. It is also my intention to publish the Holtham report on Monday and put it in the public domain.

The Department continues to work on finalising the five-year plans for the autumn, in tandem with work on a three-year Budget before its publication in the autumn or late winter. The Budget will then go out to consultation so that it can then be ratified within its normal time frame. The next move is then to hold further discussions with the Treasury on the fiscal framework. All of that will become clear as part of my statement on the comprehensive spending review to the Assembly next Monday.

As leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Toole questioned the targets in the Programme for Government and the Budget and how they match up. He gave a figure of £321 million. I argue that Departments will need to see a realignment across their funding streams as we move forward, particularly given a three-year Budget, but a lot of the work that already goes on in Departments can and does align with the Programme for Government. He chose a figure out of those. I would argue that the figure is closer to £425 million. His sums were a wee bit askew. He said that 2% of the £27 billion in funding is going towards the Executive's Programme for Government. He will be acutely aware that the Executive control around £16 billion of that. The other £11 billion is annually managed expenditure and is set for issues such as benefits and other matters. He will be acutely aware of that, but I suppose that imaginative figures are all part of the debate.

The reality remains that the Executive have made steps forward in tackling issues such as waiting lists. There is £215 million to cut waiting lists and improve elective care; £50 million towards childcare; £15 million towards skills; and £5 million towards Lough Neagh. The Executive have stepped forward to deal with a range of other issues and have started to shape the Programme for Government on the basis of the priorities of the people whom we serve. Of course people should challenge us. They should challenge me as Finance Minister and the Communities Minister on the social housing issue. The year is not yet over. The Communities Minister will bring a plan to the Executive. I look forward to hearing his plan for how we will fulfil the targets for this year and as we move forward.

Mr O'Toole claimed that there is no plan for NI Water — I beg to disagree — and for how we will deal with our waste water infrastructure and all those challenging issues. The sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) legislation will, I believe, be before the Chamber in the near future. The current public consultation on developer charges closes on 27 June. The Executive will continue their rolling investment in NI Water, both at the start of the budgetary year and during the year through monitoring rounds.

As part of the transformation projects, £15 million was awarded to the Department for Infrastructure for an urban drainage pilot project to transform the way in which rainwater is managed in our towns and cities, because we send millions, if not billions, of cubic litres of water to waste water treatment works that we should not send. If we can manage that in a different way, let us do so. There is a plan. You may not agree with that plan. As I often say in the Chamber, if you do not like that plan, produce your own and let the public judge it.

Colm Gildernew, as Chair of the Communities Committee, referred to the ongoing welfare cuts and the plans by the current Labour Administration to implement further welfare cuts. Those will have a significant impact on all our communities. Given their change of mind on the winter fuel payment, I hope that the Government will also change their mind on those welfare cuts and reverse that policy.

Diane Forsythe —.

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will, yes.

Dr Aiken: Thanks very much indeed, Minister. Apologies for not being here earlier. You just talked about the Department for Communities. One of the key issues in one of last week's debates was the reclassification of the Housing Executive and the ability to do that. Has the Minister had any insight into whether that will be allowed? Indeed, will that be part of his statement next Monday?

Mr O'Dowd: In fairness, I will refer to that next Monday in my statement and give details of my engagement with the Treasury in that regard.

Diane Forsythe referred to the need for an improved funding package, which everyone in the Chamber agrees with, apart, maybe, from Mr Gaston. A number of Members raised the importance of a three-year Budget. As I said, that will be a game changer. We will still have a restricted Budget, but the ability to plan for a three-year Budget will allow not only for services to be delivered more effectively and efficiently but for transformation.

Ms Forsythe also referred to the publication of the new procurement policy, which is a strategic step forward. It may not be the most attractive of documents for public debate and discourse, but it is an important policy that will, I hope, provide us with a more efficient and effective way of procuring goods and services for our public services.

A number of Members touched on the issue of taxation on family farms. I hope that the current Government will have a change of heart on how they plan to impose inheritance tax on family farms.

Eóin Tennyson referred to the absence of the Opposition Members during his contribution. Apparently, Opposition Members were absent during that. I have to say that I never noticed, but apparently they were.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister's giving way, because it allows me to point out that Mr Tennyson, who was quick enough to point out that I was outside the Chamber — I was out for about five minutes to meet some schools from my constituency — is not here now. What is good for the goose. Anyway, I appreciate the Minister's giving way for me to clarify that point.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not want to follow you down into the gutter, but I have to: there are four of his colleagues here.

Mr Tennyson also said that he is looking forward to an announcement on the remaining £109 million in relation to the public-sector transformation board. I hope to be in a position in late summer to make further announcements on that. The Executive have now agreed the terms of reference and the appointment of new board members. I await sign-off on that from the Secretary of State. Once that is achieved, the board can get down to seeking further bids from Departments for the transformation fund, which has been a remarkably successful project.

Robbie Butler set out the challenges facing the Department of Agriculture and how the Committee is working with the Minister and engaging and also exercising the challenge function, which is quite proper. He too referred to the farm inheritance tax.

Philip McGuigan pointed out the trajectory of the Health spend. It is currently at £8·4 billion but has risen considerably over the past number of years. As I have said before, I will work with all Ministers, including the Health Minister, on the challenges that they face, but we cannot continue with the journey that we are on with Health funding. It will consume the entire Executive Budget. That is simply undoable. As I have said, I will work with all Ministers, including the Health Minister with regard to the challenges that are faced in the Health budget and the actions that are required to bring that spend under control.

I turn to Justice again. A number of Members mentioned the PSNI and the challenges facing it and the entire Justice Department, whether it is overcrowded prisons, the crumbling estate or the delay in justice. I am acutely aware of all those things. I will work with the Justice Minister and the PSNI on the workforce recovery plan. The argument has been made about recruitment. However, the PSNI also has to work with us: every time that I sit down to look at funding for the PSNI, I cannot get past the £100 million that we will have to hand out in relation to the data leak. I encourage all organisations not to make our jobs any harder than they are already.

Paula Bradshaw referred to the diverse role of TEO and to the Beijing office. It is not my role to set policy or direction for any of the Departments, whether the office is in Beijing or Belfast. Committees have to continue their challenge and support function with regard to those. It strikes me, as an observer, that having a presence in the second-largest economy — it will be the largest economy — in the world is a sensible thing.

Jemma Dolan called on the Government to make the right choices. I support her on that.

Steve Aiken touched on the issues of the comprehensive spending review and the winter fuel allowance etc.

Nick Mathison said that we need to have an ambition for something better. I assure him that I do and that, as we move into a three-year budgetary process, I want to see that being not simply a 1 by 3 multiplication but a transformation process whereby we deliver better services and support our public-sector workers.

Timothy Gaston thinks that we have enough at £30 billion. As I said, around £16 billion of that is under the direct control of the Executive.

I congratulate him for working for free because, apparently, he is totally opposed to the Assembly Commission's budget. Congratulations to him and all his office workers, who work for free. [Laughter.]

It is a credit to him, and he deserves admiration for it. Well done on that one. The Member will realise that, to run this place, they have to pay us, all the people who work in this Building and the people who work with us to deliver the services.

He is quite right to challenge — as are all Members, and it was a common theme throughout the discussion — Ministers and Departments to run an effective and efficient service. He is quite right to do that, but to suggest that no money is being spent on Health is incorrect, there is — [Interruption.]

He has said that when people ask him, as an MLA, "What is my budget being spent on?", he says that none is being spent on hospital wards. There is £8·4 billion being spent in the health service, over £3 billion is being spent in Education and just under £3 billion, or thereabouts, in Justice. It tallies up, but can we deliver an effective and efficient service? We have to make sure that we do, but we also have to remember that, despite our obvious political differences around the constitutional question, I do not wake up every morning and praise the Lord that the British Government are responsible for our well-being and our affairs. [Laughter.]

You will not be surprised to hear that.

The reality is that I suspect that we are going to continue to live under a British Government that are going to continue to underfund our public services for a variety of reasons, including the fact that their economy is not going to grow, or is not forecast to grow, significantly over the next number of years. Whereas, if you look to our neighbouring jurisdiction, next door, its economy is growing. Look at the surplus that it currently has. I think, in fairness, the people who live on this island can manage this island much better than those who live on our neighbouring island. We may disagree on that point, but I believe that if we are serious about a significant improvement in the well-being and investment in our public services, the constitutional question has to remain front and centre.

Gerry Carroll told us all off — all the Executive parties — but, unfortunately, he did not give us an alternative. I agree with some of the things that he said about economic policies, taxation policies and other matters, but, in reality, we are responsible for the day-to-day support that we deliver to public servants, and I stand by the Budget that we delivered a week ago and are now implementing. It is far from perfect, but we are using our resources as best we can to support public-sector workers and public services while we continue to demand better from the Westminster Government.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way. How can the Minister stand by the Budget when poverty levels are increasing, and the highest level is in West Belfast? How can he defend the Budget in that context?

Mr O'Dowd: In the absence of an Executive and the Assembly, things were actually worse. Last year, my predecessor, Caoimhe Archibald, secured an additional almost £600 million for public services. Here is a challenge for Mr Gaston as well: if the Executive and the Assembly were not here, that £600 million would not be available. When you hear the announcement from the Chancellor on Wednesday and my statement next Monday, you will see the benefits of having an Assembly and Executive. We secure improvements for public services. I am not suggesting that they are perfect; they are far from it. I am not defending the British Government's economic policy: I am totally opposed to it. However, I believe that the Assembly and Executive make a difference.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that any positive changes from the British Government will be more down to the Labour Government looking over their shoulder at the Reform party and feeling the pressure in red wall areas and other areas in England where they have faced opposition to their economic policy, rather than anything that Executive Ministers did or did not say?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Lads — sorry, Minister — this is all very entertaining. The Minister has given way to Mr Carroll twice now, and I appreciate that, but can we get back to the Budget, thank you.

Mr O'Dowd: The challenges facing the current Labour Government in England, Wales, Scotland and elsewhere are clear for everybody to see. I stand by my record, and the Executive can stand by their record, of engaging with the Government and securing extra funding for this place, and we will continue to do so. With that, I draw my remarks to a close.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that, Minister. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business —.

Mr Donnelly: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. During his responses to the supplementary questions following the question for urgent oral answer earlier today, the Health Minister stated that he had shared the support and intervention framework with Health Committee members. I have not received it, and I checked with the Committee Clerk, who told me that the Committee has not received it. Should the Minister come down to correct the record?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, he should. It would have been preferable for the Minister to make a statement in the House than for people to have to hear about it through the media or second-hand. I will refer your point of order to the Speaker's Office for further information, Danny.

That concludes the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. As the Bill's Consideration Stage is scheduled for tomorrow, I remind Members that amendments may be submitted to the Bill Office for up to one hour from now.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has allocated no time limit to the debate. I call on the Minister of Finance to open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: I seek permission from the House to suspend Standing Order 39(2) in respect of the Budget (No. 2) Bill, given the time constraints and the need the move the legislation forward. It is not an exceptional circumstance — we have to do this every year for the Budget Bill — but I request that the House support the suspension.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak. Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease for a wee minute.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Mr Andrew Muir, to move the Consideration Stage of the Agriculture Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As no amendments have been tabled, the Question on stand part will be put on each clause, followed by the Question on the long title.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to clause 2, but a Member has indicated that he wishes to speak to the clause.

Mr McGlone: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Agriculture Bill, and I clearly support its intentions. It marks a long-overdue step towards bespoke agricultural policy for Northern Ireland — one that reflects our scale, land, climate and way of farming. The emphasis on food security, environmental sustainability, innovation and market resilience is timely and necessary. We have already seen how vulnerable food supply chains can be. Whether it is due to Brexit, the war in Ukraine, climate shocks or labour shortages, that can be a problem.

In theory, the Bill gives the Department the tools to act to support farming in a more forward-looking way. However, if we are talking about having a system that is tailored to Northern Ireland's needs, support for clause 2 to stand part of the Bill must be subject to one sector's getting the attention and support that it deserves. I call on the Minister to reflect on methods and ways in which to support the mushroom sector. Agus sin an méid atá le rá agam. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Míle buíochas, a Patsy. Go raibh maith agat as sin.

I call the Minister to respond to the debate on clause 2. Thank you.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Clause 2 provides the power for the Department to modify the assimilated law governing fruit and vegetable aid. Members will be aware that that legislation has not kept pace with changes elsewhere, including in the EU — changes that seek to support productivity while also contributing to protecting and enhancing our environment and tackling climate change. Those powers will therefore allow for improvements to the scheme in future, including to align with development elsewhere if deemed appropriate. During its scrutiny, the Committee raised concerns that, by virtue of clause 5, such modification could include repeal and revocation. Those powers would provide for repeal of primary legislation and revocation of secondary legislation in whole. Those powers provide for the omission of parts of existing legislation that are necessary, for example, to remove redundant, unworkable or simply unhelpful provisions.

Some Members may wonder about taking such powers in advance of completion of policy reviews. However, awaiting the outcome of reviews or other matters that call for changes to policy, and then having to seek those powers, would simply delay the point at which policy changes can be made. Importantly, by virtue of clause 4, the use of those powers would be subject to Assembly approval, which is an appropriate control. Finally, that clause also includes an enabling power to make regulations regarding the review of departmental decisions relating to fruit and veg aid, which is needed as a consequence of amendments to the common market organisation regulation. Members are asked to support clause 2.

It is important that I address the Member's concerns about the mushroom industry. I am aware that those concerns have been articulated during the passage of the Bill, including in the Committee's scrutiny at Committee Stage. I am acutely aware of the challenges that the mushroom industry faces, especially the labour force challenges that have arisen from the UK Government's decision on migration as a consequence of our leaving the EU. Recently, I welcomed the Northern Ireland Office Minister down to one of the suppliers near Mayobridge. We articulated to her the concerns that exist. I wrote to Fleur Anderson in the Northern Ireland Office off the back of that visit, outlining my concerns on the migration rules and the need for further UK Government support for automation, because that is expensive technology that would be an important intervention. I still await a reply to that correspondence. I will continue to engage with the UK Government on the labour force challenges that face the mushroom industry. I would also like to provide reassurance that I am conscious of the need for continued support for the mushroom industry. My Department and I will continue to engage with the industry to ensure that we are able to meet that wherever we can in the scheme of new policy formation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Agriculture Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I understand that Mr Donnelly made a point of order earlier to the effect that the supporting document that I mentioned during my response to the question for urgent oral answer had not been received by members of the Health Committee. I understand that there was some sort of administrative error in processing that. However, I confirm to the House that the Clerk to the Committee for Health is now in possession of that document.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that, Minister. Maybe you did not hear my response to that point of order, so, because you are here, I will repeat it. I said that it would be helpful if, rather than hearing about that matter in the media, we could have an oral statement from the Minister of Health on it at some stage.