Official Report: Monday 16 June 2025

Mr Speaker: Members will have been saddened to learn that our former colleague Seán Neeson passed away over the weekend. Seán was first elected to the Assembly in 1982. Latterly, he was in the Forum from 1996 to 1998, and then he was one of the class of 1998 from which only Mr Kelly and I still serve in this Building. He served here with distinction for some 13 years thereafter. Seán had a particular interest in Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and he sat on that Department's scrutiny Committee for many years. Finally, he sat on the Assembly Commission.

Seán became leader of the Alliance Party in 1998. That was a difficult time for politics. Obviously, the Belfast Agreement had just been settled, and there were plenty of teething problems in getting the new Assembly up and running. Seán was a steadying influence in all of that. He was well regarded in his constituency of East Antrim, and I am sure that we will hear about that later. Seán was a Carrickfergus man through and through, and I can recall, many times in the Chamber, him speaking of his beloved town, which he served as mayor. Our condolences from the Assembly go out to, first, the Neeson family, who are mourning at this time, and to the Alliance Party, which has lost an esteemed colleague.

At this point, I will ask representatives from the parties to speak for up to three minutes. If there is time remaining after all the parties have spoken, I may be able to call others to say a few words.

Mr Tennyson: On behalf of my party leader, Naomi Long, who is sad that she cannot be here today due to illness, I rise to remember and celebrate the life of Seán Neeson: a statesman, a selfless leader and someone who had boundless hope and optimism for the future of Northern Ireland.

Entering politics at a dark time when sectarianism loomed large, Seán always took courageous stands against division and embodied what it meant to build a truly united community, because, for Seán, fairness, reconciliation and a shared future were not just political slogans; they were in his bones and were deeply held convictions that shaped his actions and inspired those of us who followed in his footsteps.

His leadership came at a crucial time for Alliance. Having served as Chief Whip in the Assembly, Seán, with unanimous support from his colleagues, stepped up to become leader when John Alderdice took the role of Speaker. He offered steadfast leadership through some of our party's most difficult days. After a sudden change in leader and in response to a brutal set of elections, Seán established a review by the party president — a review that set out the road map that enabled the party to stabilise and that laid the foundations that allowed us to build to where we are today. For that, we will be forever grateful. Seán also knew how to spot talent. As part of his efforts to rebuild the party, he appointed Naomi Long, a young upstart, to her first formal position in the Alliance Party as part of that review team. The rest, as they say, is history.

Seán's deep commitment to public service saw him serve in the Prior Assembly in the 1980s before it collapsed, and, later, in the 1990s, he served on the Police Authority in advance of the Patten reforms — often at great personal risk. He was always courageous, always brave and always fighting for progress and stability for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Seán was not just a leader for Alliance; he was a leader in the community. He was, quite simply, Mr Carrickfergus. Serving as a councillor for the town for a record-breaking 36 years between 1977 and 2013, he dedicated himself to the people of Carrick and established himself as the go-to elected representative to get things done. In 1992, Seán finally got the job that he was born for: serving the town that he loved so dearly as mayor and earning the respect and admiration of all who knew him. Such was Seán's love of and affinity for his home place that those who knew him often recount that, at the end of the night at an Alliance conference, you would often find Seán giving a spirited rendition of 'Carrickfergus'.

I am so pleased that, last year, Seán was well enough to join us at conference again, showing the same wisdom, warmth and good humour for which he was so well known. Even in his final years when he was unwell with cancer, he never lost that sharp wit. He phoned Naomi around the anniversary of VE Day, laughing and joking that he was born exactly nine months after VE Day, so we all knew how his parents had celebrated.

Beyond politics, Seán was a committed European and played an active role in the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities in Europe, as well as serving on the board of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. His love of maritime heritage led to roles on the board of National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland, the UK National Historic Ships Committee and the Northern Ireland Museums Council.

Seán's life and legacy have left an indelible mark on all of us on these Benches and all who knew him. Alliance has lost not just a leader but a part of our history. On behalf of Alliance, I extend my deepest and sincerest condolences to Seán's wife, Carol, and the wider Neeson family. He will be deeply missed but never forgotten, and his legacy will continue to inspire us.

Mr Kelly: A Cheann Comhairle

, we come from a certain age, as you pointed out earlier. I knew Seán from 1998. Moving towards that time, I first met him in about 1996. I start by sending my condolences to the party and his grieving family at this moment.

I was looking at some of the stuff over the weekend that people were sending in. When I was reading some of the things that were written about him, it showed the type of respect that people had for him. I had not realised that he had been a teacher in St Comgall's High School in Larne. That is probably where he got his diplomacy and patience to become a politician, because he had more of both than do many of us here.

He had a long history. In 1997, he became a councillor, and he was also on the Alliance talks team on two very important occasions in his life: when setting up the previous Assembly and this Assembly. He was a mayor. He was clearly respected in the type of jobs that he got. He ended up in charge of the Alliance Party for a period just after 1998, and he was then, of course, an MLA. He was the leader of the Alliance Party for a few years. He was clearly a stalwart of his party and is well remembered for that. As was pointed out, he was very passionate in his beliefs, as he should have been, and was very proud of the party that he was involved in.

I remember that he had a diplomacy and a patience, which perhaps some of us, including me, did not have, when he was talking to people with whom he clearly disagreed, but he always exhibited great diplomacy and showed respect to others across the board, and he was respected for that as well. Even when he was disagreeing with people, they never went away feeling annoyed at having had a conversation or, for that matter, a debate with him. He understood the value of dialogue, and he proved that throughout his long life.

He will be sadly missed by his family but also by his party. As you pointed out, Mr Speaker, he was there at the beginning, and he laid the foundations for the growth of that party. I send my deepest personal sympathies to his wife and family.

Ms Brownlee: It was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Seán Neeson. Seán dedicated much of his life to public service, serving with distinction as a councillor, mayor and MLA. His long and respected career was marked by a deep sense of duty and an unwavering commitment to the people whom he represented. He was a respected public servant, known for his calm and thoughtful approach and for the genuine love that he had for Carrickfergus and its people. That love was visible not only in his words but in the tireless work that he carried out on behalf of the town and its people. His name became synonymous with Carrickfergus and its civic life. Throughout his political career, Seán was a strong voice for his constituents. He was a passionate political leader and a tireless advocate for the values and principles that guided him. Whether in the council chamber or in the Assembly, he was known for his respectful manner, integrity and real desire to make a difference.

My thoughts and prayers are with Seán's family at this very difficult time. I know that they will take comfort from the high regard in which he was held by so many. On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I extend my deepest sympathies to all those mourning his loss, including his family, friends, colleagues in the Alliance Party and the wider Carrickfergus and East Antrim community. His contribution will not be forgotten, and his legacy will continue to inspire all who value public service and civic leadership.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating this tribute to Seán Neeson. It was with great sadness that I learned of his passing over the weekend. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I extend our condolences to his beloved wife, Carol, his children Claire, Peter, Ciara and John, his grandchildren, his entire family circle and everyone across the political spectrum, particularly his colleagues in the Alliance Party, with which he served with great distinction.

Seán was a man who devoted so much of his life to public and community service. He was a passionate advocate for Carrickfergus, as we have heard, and for the East Antrim constituency. Over many decades, Seán was a well-respected and influential voice not only in local government but in the Assembly and beyond and in his role as leader. Seán's career reflected his deep commitment to the people whom he represented. As a former teacher by profession, he carried that sense of fairness and dedication into his political life. His many record-breaking years as a Carrickfergus councillor, and later as an MLA for East Antrim, were marked by integrity, thoughtfulness and a quiet but resolute determination to make a difference. One has only to look at the tributes being paid on social media by the many hundreds of people who have commented to date to see the level of respect in which he was held in the local area. He was renowned for getting things done, and in a quiet way, for everybody.

On a personal note, I had the privilege of serving with Seán on the former Carrickfergus Borough Council between 2011 and 2013. I had been elected for the first time, and, even though we were from different parties, Seán took me under his wing. In that respect, I felt as though he was taking on the role of my mentor. His work ethic was incredible. Nothing was ever too much for him. I often said to him that I thought that he needed a nine-day week just to get done the amount of work that he was doing. Nevertheless, he did it as a gentleman, working for everybody, often in very difficult times and under huge strain to him personally and to his family. Many of us will know about that, but he always did his work with a smile, and he would work for anybody.

Again, I pay tribute to him and say that all our thoughts are with his entire family at this very difficult time.

Mr O'Toole: My thoughts and those of the SDLP are with Seán Neeson's wife, Carol, his family, the wider Neeson family and, indeed, his colleagues, and our colleagues, in the Alliance Party. They are grieving the loss of a profoundly important and decent man in their party and in our politics.

Just before we came into the Chamber, I texted a couple of our stalwart representatives in the SDLP to ask for observations about Seán Neeson. As has been said in the Chamber, Seán's career stretched back to the 70s in Carrickfergus Borough Council; the Prior Assembly, as it is sometimes known, in the 1980s; the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in the mid-1990s; and this version of the Northern Ireland Assembly. His decades of service were remarkable. Alex Attwood came back to me with a pithy comment: he said that to define Seán Neeson would be to talk about civility in all his dealings with others, fearlessness in the face of threats and conviction amid cynicism; he defined the best of our politics. That tribute stands to Seán Neeson.

A few weeks ago, I was in the beautiful town of Carrickfergus, which he served so diligently for so many years. It is clear that he matched the best of dedicated local representation and absolute commitment to serve the community that you come from and the people who sent you to work every day with a broader vision, which, in his case, was for a shared society and the values that the Alliance Party holds dear. His contribution to his local community in Carrickfergus and, indeed, to wider politics and society in Northern Ireland is remarkable.

I can only hope, as, I am sure, others in the Chamber do, that the grief that his family and his colleagues feel will be somewhat mitigated by the profound tributes that have been paid to Seán today and the real sense that his life and vocation were dedicated to something very profound: serving his community and building a better society in Northern Ireland. May Seán Neeson rest in peace.

Mr Dickson: I stand this afternoon to pay tribute, first and foremost, to my friend Seán. Seán was brought up in Carrickfergus in the Sunnylands estate. He went to St Nicholas' Primary School and attended St Malachy's College and Queen's University. After graduation, he taught history in St Comgall's High School in Larne. We came together just short of 1977 in the Alliance Party, and we were both invited to be candidates for the Carrickfergus Borough Council election in 1977. We were elected together on the same day.

We spent most if not all Monday nights together in that council. Back in the day, the council of 15 members did not meet just once a month. Everybody was on all the council committees, so all 15 members met every Monday night to discuss council business. Seán went on to be a Member of the parliamentary Assembly in this House from 1982 to 1986 as a Member not for East Antrim but for North Antrim, because East Antrim did not exist as a political constituency. He went to the Northern Ireland Forum from 1996 to 1998, and, of course, as we know, he came to this Assembly as an MLA.

At the heart of all that, however, Seán had a passion for our town of Carrickfergus and its history, particularly the harbour and its maritime history. Seán and I stood together in good times in Carrickfergus and in some extremely difficult times, supporting each other through the brickbats and, sometimes, the real bricks that flew at us in events in Carrickfergus over all those years.

My deepest sympathies go to Carol, Claire, Peter, Ciara and John: I know what your dad has gone through in the past number of years. May you rest in peace, Seán.

Mr McGlone: First, thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating this occasion. It is a sad occasion, but it is important that we remember the commitment to democratic principles of so many people who have since left this world, hopefully for a better one. I got to know Seán through serving in the Assembly. He had been on various Committees, and his dedication shone through in what he was doing. He knew my former colleague John Dallat — God rest him — pretty well too. John had a great word to say on him at all times.

One thing that struck me about Seán was that he understood the meaning of dialogue — of talking to people and, importantly, listening to them. That was vital; you could very quickly establish that from speaking to the man, and maybe that was a bit of his vocation as a teacher — a good teacher — coming through. On any occasion when you met him, he always had a good and respectful word for you. The measure of anyone is how they treat others. There was never an occasion when Seán did not treat me or others whom I was with with respect, courtesy and civility and with a bit of a chat and maybe a joke.

I offer my sincere sympathies to Seán's family, his friends and his colleagues in the Alliance Party. Ar dheis Dé go raibh sé.

Mr Donnelly: Seán Neeson was far more than just an elected representative in East Antrim: he was incredibly popular in his community, and he served the people of the area with unwavering dedication, humility and integrity from his first election to council in 1977 to stepping down in 2013.

Although Seán had stepped back from the Assembly before I joined the party in 2012, his presence and impact remained a constant in the minds of constituents. To this day, Seán is regularly mentioned when we speak with residents. Time and time again, we hear personal stories about how he helped someone or supported a family through a difficult moment. His legacy lives on in those conversations and in the lives that he touched.

Seán was the go-to person for people across the constituency, no matter their background. He was a trusted, compassionate voice, who earned respect right across the community. His historic election as the first mayor of Carrickfergus to come from a Catholic background in 1993 was a powerful moment not just politically but symbolically. It said something profound about the type of representative that Seán was. Seán's legacy is unquestionable in the local area, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Alliance Party and the East Antrim Alliance Association, where he remained and will remain a deeply valued and respected figure. Even in retirement, Seán stayed closely connected and was always eager to share stories about his political journey, celebrate local successes and offer support to new candidates. He took enormous pride in his long career, right to his final days. He will be sadly missed by many in politics, where he had many friends, especially by his good friend John Cushnahan.

It is a source of personal pride for me that Seán proposed me to be the Alliance Party candidate for East Antrim in the most recent Westminster election. He was always very supportive of local candidates and closely followed our election results.

Over the past few days, we have heard countless tributes from people in Carrickfergus and beyond remembering the remarkable man he was. They have spoken about his years teaching in St Comgall's High School in Larne, his passion for maritime heritage in the area, and, above all, his tireless work for the people of Carrickfergus and East Antrim. He was one of a kind: a true public servant, a proud East Antrim man and someone who left a mark that will not be forgotten. He will be very much missed.

Mr Speaker: That concludes tributes to our late colleague, Seán Neeson.

Mr Speaker: I have received notification from the Minister of Justice that she remains unwell and, therefore, will be unable to join us in the Chamber to deliver the statement on intergovernmental agreement (IGA) on cooperation on criminal justice matters. The statement will be rescheduled.

Mr Sheehan: Faoi dheireadh thiar thall, d’fhógair Rialtas na Breataine an tseachtain seo caite go gcuireadh siad maoiniú ar fáil le Páirc Mhic Asmaint a athfhorbairt. Má bhí muid fada go leor ag fanacht léi, níl aon amhras ná gur céim mhór chun tosaigh í an tacaíocht sin le staid den scoth a dhéanamh dár gcluichí náisiúnta i gcroílár iarthar Bhéal Feirste.

Ligeadh Páirc Mhic Asmaint a dhul chun anró le 12 bhliain anuas. Sin 12 bhliain de dheiseanna caillte agus 12 bhliain nuair ab éigean dár nGaeil óga inspreagadh a fháil in áiteanna eile. Ceileadh an deis bheith ag imirt i bPáirc Mhic Asmaint, ceileadh sin ar ghlúin iomlán. Tá i bhfad níos mó i gceist le hathfhorbairt Pháirc Mhic Asmaint ná áis den scoth a thógáil. Baineann sí le dóchas a thabhairt: dóchas do pháistí faoi ocht mbliana atá ag tosú ag imirt agus don té a bhfuil dóchas aige nó aici geansaí Aontroma a chaitheamh agus iad ag imirt ar son a gcontae i bPáirc Mhic Asmaint.

Dá mbeadh Páirc Mhic Asmaint i mbun gnó, ní haon áibhéil a rá go rachadh sí go mór chun sochair do gheilleagar an cheantair. Cruthóidh an tionscadal poist sna hearnálacha tógála, fáilteachais agus turasóireachta, chomh maith le poist san fhiontar áitiúil. Cruthóidh sé deiseanna agus tarraingeoidh sé isteach infheistíocht a bhfuil géar-ghá léi. Nuair a bheas an staid faoi lán seoil rachaidh sí chun sochair ní hé amháin do ghnólachtaí áitiúla ach do gheilleagar an cheantair uile.

Anois ó tugadh na gealltanais maoinithe, caithfimid a chinntiú go gcuirfear an tionscadal seo i gcrích — deireadh leis an mhoill, deireadh leis na leithscéalta. Caithfidh iomlán an mhaoinithe bheith ann le gur féidir tús a chur ar an obair lom láithreach.

Mr Frew: I condemn the violence that was perpetrated in my home town of Ballymena all last week. I am thankful that it has settled down, but I am concerned that my home town is still a tinderbox, as are all the other areas that suffered violence.

I thank the deputy First Minister for coming to Ballymena on Wednesday. It was much appreciated. The deputy First Minister met community groups; leaders; voluntary workers; residents of Queen Street, who suffered some of the violence; and residents of Clonavon, who suffered most of the violence in the town last week. She heard harrowing stories of how people were left to defend their homes and property against those who went on the rampage.

All violence is wrong, and everybody in the House should be categorical with regard to violence. Violence does not pay. Some people out there think that it does, but what we know for sure is that it comes at an awful cost. There is an awful cost to reputation, but, worse than that, there is a cost through damage to property. Thankfully, this time, there was no loss of life, but it was so close. As I stand here, I am thankful that no one lost their life, but a lot of people lost their home, and a lot of families were disrupted. That must be condemned. Of course, in the coming days, a lot of people will lose their liberty, and that will have ramifications for their life. That is really unfortunate. In fact, it is a tragedy. I thank the deputy First Minister for coming to Ballymena to speak to those people who suffered.

All throughout last week, be it on the street, in the Chamber or anywhere else, I made sure that I did not attack any other party, because it was not the time for gotcha politics or politicking. It was the time for representing and assisting people and assisting the police and community groups on the ground. Alas, there were parties that tried to take the opportunity to attack my party in North Antrim, the councillors in North Antrim, the wider party in North Antrim and the party in East Antrim. That is unforgivable. Parties trying to exploit the situation that we experienced last week is unforgivable. There has to be clear thought now as to how we move forward. When the cameras disappear, we need to see the future. I hope that all those parties that tried to slap down the DUP will be productive when it comes to trying to progress issues of real concern in Ballymena and further afield.

Dr Aiken: I wish to speak about a significant challenge to the safety of us all on this island, North and South. Many Members will be unaware of or know of but do not really care about the fact that the Republic of Ireland has only one offshore patrol vessel with no gun, and the Air Corps, whose main combat capability is a few turboprop training aircraft, cannot fly at weekends or in the evenings due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. Drug trafficking and people smuggling, which are on the rise, and the movement of illicit goods through the unmonitored and unprotected Irish Sea and Irish airspace are bad enough and are a direct threat to us here in the United Kingdom, but the failure of the Irish to defend their economic zone and airspace also undermines our physical security.

On 6 June, President Higgins, at the unveiling of his portrait in Galway, took the opportunity to lambast our Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, for spending an extra £1·5 billion on defence — a sentiment that has been echoed on the Floor of the Assembly in remarks from the SDLP, Sinn Féin Ministers and others.

That includes the rather bizarre defence of the so-called triple lock by them, which also gives Russia, China and, believe it or not, the United Kingdom the right to veto any deployment of Irish troops. That is also equally extraordinary.

Members cannot be unaware of the escalation of the many-years-long conflict between Iran and Israel. They will also know that, in July 2004, when Iran's use of Hamas and Hezbollah proxies was self-evident, President Higgins conveyed his best wishes to the new Iranian president and expressed condolences on the death of his predecessor. They may not be aware that Iran's leaders — those who are still alive and who have not run away to Dubai — threatened to attack with their ballistic missiles what they call "Big Satan's little friends in Europe". Those allies, according to all sorts of things, also include the Republic of Ireland and particularly the data centres and Shannon international airport. While we in the United Kingdom come under the protective umbrella of NATO, Ireland has decided to rely on the goodwill of the mullahs and appeasing Tehran with its opposition to everything Israeli, NATO, military or both. Iran also feels that it can threaten its only supporters in Europe with impunity. The back door is open not just to criminal gangs but to everyone who sees the Republic of Ireland as an open doormat. That should be a concern to us all.

Mr McCrossan: The scenes that we have seen unfold on our streets over the past week are absolutely despicable and disgusting and not reflective of our wider society or how far we have come. There is no place, ever, for racism, hate or violence on our streets. It is entirely unacceptable and unjustifiable for anybody to treat any other member of the community in the way that people have been treated in the past week.

The scenes that were shared all over social media and on the news across the world reflect a very depressing picture of this place. There is a requirement on us all, as leaders in our own community, to ensure that we show leadership, that our language is measured and that we consider carefully what we say and the actions that we take before doing anything. Unfortunately, some failed that test last week. Many people's lives were put in danger; many people who call this place their home remain afraid and scared. This is not the Northern Ireland that so many of us worked so hard to build. This is a shared home place for everyone.

Over the lifetime of this place, we have been able to travel the world, and doors have been opened to people from right across our island, no matter where we go. We have no right, and no one in our society has any right, to tell people that they are not welcome, burn them out of their homes, attack their property, or terrify children, mothers and daughters or vulnerable people in our community. It is unacceptable to attack our police officers, who are young men and women out doing a job to protect our society. Those scenes were despicable, and I hope that, when she recovers and is feeling much better, the Justice Minister considers establishing special courts over the summer, because we need to send a hard and clear lesson to those who think that they can get away with that behaviour that they will not be getting away with it. They must face the full consequences of the law, and elected Members across this House must support the PSNI in doing that job and call for clear and measured leadership in every part of Northern Ireland.

My thoughts are with everybody who has suffered over the past week and with every parent who had to explain to their children what this was.

Ms Finnegan: I speak today on behalf of the families, staff and children at Clady Tiny Tots Playgroup in Armagh. This is a small setting, doing incredible work in very difficult conditions. Its mobile unit has been declared unfit for purpose by environmental health inspectors. It is damp and has structural issues. The setting was forced to shut temporarily, and, even now, it has had to cut hours just to stay open. This is not about politics. It is about children, and it is about a rural community that is doing everything right — fundraising, volunteering and following every rule — but still being failed. The nearest alternative involves a 14-mile round trip. For working families, that is simply not realistic. If Clady Tiny Tots closes, the knock-on effects for the local community will be huge.

Clady Tiny Tots has asked for support to move into the adjoining primary school, which is a reasonable request. It is urgent and entirely possible. Today, I ask the Minister to step in, work with the Education Authority and meet staff and parents. Those children deserve a safe, warm place to learn and grow. They should not be left behind.

Mr T Buchanan: I put on record my condemnation of an incident that occurred in Omagh on Saturday during the pride parade: a place of worship — Omagh Gospel Hall — was used by those parading as the subject of their mockery. A drag queen posing on the boundary wall at the front of the gospel hall, with the images posted all over social media, was not only shameful and provocative but downright disgraceful. That despicable act and blatantly provocative scene have caused deep offence, concern and hurt amongst many Bible-believing Christians. I was absolutely horrified, yet not surprised, when I saw such a blatant display of disrespect outside that place of worship. The pride movement claims to promote respect, compassion and tolerance, but where were they on Saturday? Its very actions contradicted the words that proceed out of their mouth. With pride, it appears to be a matter of, "You do what you are told, but we will do what we want". It must be called out for what it is. It cannot be ignored or excused.

Today, I call on the Parades Commission, which gave the green light for this event in Omagh, to carefully consider that action, which is the cause of much offence amongst many in our communities. Over the years, we have become all too familiar with the strict principles of respect and sensitivity placed on loyal orders by the Parades Commission on parades in the vicinity of places of worship. Therefore, the same standards must apply to pride, and that incident cannot be ignored or brushed under the carpet. I also call on the National Lottery and Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, which provided funding for the event, to take careful cognisance of the situation in considering any future funding of events of that nature in Omagh.

I say to the organisers of the pride parade that such actions of disrespect and mockery will never be tolerated and will be continually called out for what they are. I also call on the organisers of the parade to issue a public apology for the hurt caused to so many Bible-believing Christians and others on Saturday at that event. I remind them that the word of God tells us:

Mr Tennyson: I add my voice to the condemnation of the violent attacks on PSNI officers in Portadown last week. I want to be clear: what we witnessed was not protest. It was not legitimate and cannot be explained, excused or contextualised. It was wanton, racist thuggery. Those responsible for violence over the past week cannot profess to care about violence against women and girls while targeting women and girls in their homes. They cannot profess to be worried about a housing crisis when burning homes. They cannot profess to be interested in pressure on public services when destroying a leisure centre. It is important that, as elected representatives, we be clear and unequivocal in calling that out.

I express my unwavering support for and solidarity with our ethnic minority community and our migrant community, particularly in Portadown, because I know that many of them are feeling fearful.

Last week, I spoke to a principal who noted that school attendance was down by almost 30% because so many families had been displaced from their homes. No family in our community should ever have to leave their home out of fear for their safety.

We need immigration in Northern Ireland: that is the truth. The people who choose Northern Ireland as their home make a valuable contribution to our society, be it through teaching in our schools or through working in our health service, agri-food sector, hospitality industry and so many other areas. I am ashamed of what I witnessed in my home town. Of course, there are deep-seated social issues and inequalities, and many of our constituents face poverty. We should never scapegoat migrants for that crisis, however. Rather, we should take responsibility for our role in addressing and dealing with such challenges in our communities.

To the politicians who have fanned the flames of division in recent weeks, I gently say this: please reflect, and let us work collectively to build a better and truly united community for everyone.

Mr Carroll: Over the past few days, we have witnessed the lengths to which Israel will go and the lives that it will take to maintain its genocidal project. On one level, we have the attacks on Iran and the death and destruction that they have caused. When it comes to who is the main instigator and perpetrator of violence in the Middle East, we should be in no doubt that the blame lies at the door not just of Netanyahu but of the Israeli generals, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Israeli state itself.

It is up to the people of Iran and the wider Middle East to decide the nature of their Governments, their states and their rulers and whether they want to keep them. [Inaudible.]

Mr Carroll: Israel has no right to be the bully and America's attack dog in the Middle East. It is worth remembering — by the Members to my right as well — that the previous time that a US- and Western-backed regime was imposed on Iranians, it was that of the brutal, autocratic Shah of Iran. It seems that Israel wants not only to implement a scorched earth policy in Gaza and the West Bank but to extend that to Iran, Syria, Lebanon and who knows where else.

On another level, in recent days, Israel's actions towards Palestinians seeking aid and assistance have been particularly heinous and disgusting. Israel, alongside the US, set up the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), but, when Palestinians go to seek aid, what happens? They are assassinated. They are killed. They get shot down. At least 66 Palestinians, if not more, have been killed in the past few days whilst they sought aid to prevent themselves and their families from starving. That violence comes on top of the collective violence of the mass starvation initiated and maintained by the Israeli state and backed by most Western Governments. Israel's actions have been so appalling that even that well-known Hamas supporter Ehud Olmert, a former Prime Minister of Israel, has come out against Israel.

Whilst business as usual continues for the arms suppliers and friends of Israel, people are really taking the extra step to do all that they can to end the slaughter. I commend everyone who has taken part in the Global March to Gaza from Cairo. Whilst Governments back and fund Israel, it is people across the world who are marching and defying normality. I pay tribute to everyone who has gone to Cairo, particularly to everyone from Ireland — including my party colleague Paul Murphy TD and my constituents Conor McCarthy and Brian Mac An tSionnaigh — who has gone out of their way to take a stand against Israel. They should be commended and congratulated for their important and brave work.

Mr Donnelly: I want to be clear that the violence that I saw last week in my home town of Larne, in Ballymena and across Northern Ireland must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The people of Northern Ireland lived through a generation in which violence was used to police identity and belonging, and we all know where that can lead. It is not an exaggeration to say that lives could have been lost last week. We have learnt the hard way that peace is not built through exclusion and that fear is not a foundation for community. Let me therefore say this clearly: everyone is welcome in our towns, centres and shared spaces, regardless of where they were born. It is the rioting, the hatred and the belief that violence is a tool for asserting control that have no place here.

I was in Larne on Wednesday night and watched what happened. I saw the fear on people's faces. I saw the violence up close. I saw a pillar of my community be attacked and destroyed.

I saw police officers being attacked for doing their job and trying to keep the place safe. Larne leisure centre is not just a building; it is a place where kids learn to swim, people go to feel better and older people meet for a chat and a cup of tea. It is a shared space — a place of health and community. Now it carries the stain of violence, racism and organised hate. That is not the Larne that I know.

I am disgusted that the pain of a young girl — a child — has been seized by some people not as a tragedy to grieve or a crisis to fix but as an opportunity to spew their vile, violent racism. It was never about protecting women. In the past five years, at least 19 women in Northern Ireland have been killed by a man whom they knew: their son; partner; brother; husband; ex-partner; grandson; or friend. That is not abstract; that is who killed them. However, instead of confronting that reality, we are still sold the lie that women should fear only the stranger in the alleyway, the foreign man or the outsider. In doing so, we erase the truth. Over 80% of domestic abuse here is committed by a man whom the victim knows. Where is the outrage for that? Let us be blunt: the same people who stormed a leisure centre and burned it while women and children fled, or who burned women and children out of their home, were not marching for better services to deal with domestic abuse, calling for tougher sentencing for sexual assaults or demanding investment in refuge spaces. They were targeting migrant families and attacking our community.

I stand here today, as, I know, do many others, to condemn what has happened and any inflammatory rhetoric that incites violence. This is a community, not a battleground. We are not going back.

Ms Sugden: Mr Speaker, first, I must apologise for not being in my place during Question Time last week.

Yesterday, 15 June, marked World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. That is a day on which we are asked not just to recognise elder abuse but to act on it. It is not a hidden issue. It is happening in our homes and communities and, far too often, is carried out by someone whom the older person trusts. Most of the time, that is family. It is a form of domestic abuse. It can take many shapes and is not just physical and emotional but financial.

In Northern Ireland, more than 100,000 older people have experienced abuse. Last year alone, over 2,500 domestic or sexual abuse crimes against people aged 55 or over were recorded. That is one in 10 of all such crimes. Financial abuse is especially common. Around one in five over-60s have experienced it. They might have had their savings stolen, been coerced into legal challenges or made to feel powerless over their own money. The impact is profound, causing anxiety, loneliness, withdrawal and a complete loss of confidence. In rural areas in particular, older people may rely on a very small network. When the abuse is also happening within that network, there is often nowhere to turn. Many suffer in silence, because the alternative, which means being isolated, feels worse. That is why community response is so vital. Local groups, luncheon clubs and charities often spot the signs first. They play a unique role in recognising and responding to abuse in ways that only communities can, but statutory services must also back that up with proper support in health, housing, justice and social care.

I acknowledge the work of organisations such as Hourglass, which was formerly Action on Elder Abuse, Age NI and the Commissioner for Older People. They have consistently raised the issue. It is time for government to listen and take action. We also need to stop treating older victims as somehow different. Abuse is abuse, yet it is often categorised separately as elder abuse, rather than domestic abuse. That affects how cases are handled and victims supported. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 rightly includes financial abuse, but we need to ensure that the Act is being used effectively and that the justice system supports victims from the first report to the final outcome. When are we going to see the adult safeguarding Bill? When will it be published? When will we see the consultation? We need progress before the end of the mandate, because victims cannot afford to wait.

Older people are our parents, grandparents and neighbours. They built the communities in which we now live. They deserve dignity, respect and protection. With an ageing population, we cannot ignore the issue. Every policy and public service must start by factoring in what it means to grow older in Northern Ireland, because the problem will only grow unless we act now.

Mr Buckley: Like all those who spoke before me in the Chamber, I condemn, utterly, the violence that took place on our streets last week. The violent scenes on our streets are not who we are as a people. There is and has always been an alternative to violence. I must say that the violent scenes have served to overshadow the serious sexual assault of a young girl in Ballymena. That is where our anger should be focused. That is where the full weight of the law should be applied, and that is where justice should be served.

I say gently to those in the Chamber who, with a condescending sneer, wish to brand the hundreds of thousands of people in Northern Ireland and the millions across the United Kingdom with serious and legitimate concerns about uncontrolled and, in some cases, illegal immigration and the impact that it has had on their communities that this is a serious issue. For those with zero lived experience to put them down and sneer at them is wrong. It is wrong in the extreme. I will continue to be a voice for them in the Chamber. We cannot get away from the fact that to sideline the topic — an issue of national debate — will only further give rise to sinister elements to manipulate and exploit. This is the place where those discussions should be had, firmly and robustly. Westminster is where those conversations should be had, firmly and robustly.

We have a serious issue with border control throughout the UK. Right now, we are living through some very difficult and turbulent times. It is political cowardice to walk away from those issues. We must have courage and, yes, compassion in dealing with them to ensure that we have a country in which all can live safely, now and in the future.

Mr Speaker: You have a couple of minutes, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Last week's disorder in Ballymena has greatly saddened me. A town that I am proud to represent has hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons, leaving destruction and heartbreak, including for the young men who are facing prosecution. I condemn the violence. I deplore racism. Violence has never been, nor will it ever be, the answer. However, the Assembly is part of the problem. When criminals walk free, some from the Maze to ministerial limos, is it any wonder that people think that violence pays? There is hypocrisy from Ms O'Neill in condemning Ballymena's unrest while commemorating the terrorist Thomas McElwee, who burned to death Yvonne Dunlop, a young mother, in my home town.

During my first speech in the House last August, I raised concerns about undocumented immigration in Ballymena. What was the response? It was sneering from the Alliance and nationalist benches. They have learned that I will not be silenced, but nothing else has changed. Without a mature debate on immigration, especially on undocumented immigration — people crossing from the Republic with zero checks — tensions will continue to grow, not just in my home town but in towns across Northern Ireland. The BBC claims that there is no influx. That is a nonsense. Do not cite documentation in an attempt to disprove undocumented immigration.

When will politicians stop gaslighting the public on the issue? Do not tell people that what they see is not real. Do not call representatives racists for speaking out and then act shocked when locals feel that the House will not listen to them, much less respond to their concerns. Do not send the South Belfast MP to Ballymena like an anthropologist to film the local environment and then deliver her lecture from her natural habitat of the BBC studios. Keep ignoring those issues, but know this: for all the talk, and by refusing to so much as facilitate a debate around immigration, you are fuelling the fire.

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

Mr Speaker: 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.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No

Mr Speaker: With Ayes from all sides of the Chamber and just one No from Mr Gaston — we recognise his opposition — we do not need to call a Division.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Mr Speaker: No amendments have been tabled so there is no opportunity to discuss the Budget (No. 2) Bill now. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage, which is scheduled to take place today. The Further Consideration Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): I beg to introduce the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill [NIA 15/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision relating to a Truth Recovery Public Inquiry into Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses between 1922 and 1995; to establish the Truth Recovery Redress Service and to enable payments to be made to or in respect of certain persons; and for connected purposes.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease when we change the top Table for the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Andy Allen to move the Final Stage on behalf of the Assembly Commission.

Mr Allen: I beg to move

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

Mr Allen: The Assembly Commission welcomes the opportunity to bring the Bill back to the Assembly to conclude its legislative process. From the outset, the Assembly Commission has set out that the Bill is a technical Bill, dealing with the process of how the salaries and pensions of Members are determined. That has been clear as the Bill has progressed through the House. I am therefore not going to go back through all the technical aspects of the Bill today. The key point is that the Bill gives effect to the resolution that was passed in June 2020, when the Assembly voted to give the Assembly Commission the power to make determinations on Members' allowances and agreed that decisions on salaries and pensions should be made by an independent body. That has been the settled position of the Assembly for some five years. The Bill simply seeks to amend the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to remove the independent body's powers to make determinations about allowances and ensure consistency with the 2020 resolution. In passing the Bill, the Assembly is fulfilling its responsibility to regularise the position and provide legal clarity.

As the Bill has been so long in development, it is appropriate that I acknowledge all of the Assembly Commission members who have been involved in the process over the past almost 10 years. I particularly thank all the Assembly Commission officials who have undertaken the detailed work over that time to get us to the final version of the Bill. I also thank the Chairperson, members and staff of the Ad Hoc Committee for the scrutiny of the Bill that they have undertaken in the past few months. The work that they have done, and the evidence that they have taken, has effectively dealt with some of the myths and false claims that have been made about the Bill. The Ad Hoc Committee brought forward an amendment to ensure that the independence of the remuneration board would be clearly reflected in the Bill's title. The Assembly Commission welcomes the Assembly's support for that amendment, as the core purpose of the Bill is to ensure that salaries of Members are determined independently. Throughout the Bill's development and scrutiny, the Assembly Commission's focus has been on ensuring that it upholds the independence of the board. Once the Bill has passed and been granted Royal Assent, the role of the members of the Assembly Commission, and Members of the House, ends. The Clerk to the Assembly/Chief Executive will oversee a process to appoint the independent remuneration board. No Member or party will be involved in it. The debate and the decisions around what the levels of pensions and salaries for Members should be will therefore rest with the independent remuneration board, not the Assembly Commission or the Assembly.

That is only right and is the main objective of the Bill.

Whatever outcome is reached, the independent remuneration board will have made its decisions through its own process and judgement. Members should not lose sight of the fact that that is what they are voting for today: for salaries and pensions to be determined independently. It is difficult to see how anyone could reasonably object to that.

On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I commend the Bill to the Assembly and look forward to Members' contributions to the debate.

Mr McHugh: I gcroílár an Bhille seo, tá prionsabal simplí, ach má tá sé simplí féin tá sé fíorthábhachtach: má tá athruithe le déanamh ar thuarastail Comhaltaí den Tionól Reachtach, ba chóir sin a dhéanamh go neamhspleách. Cinnteofar le the Assembly Members (Independent Remuneration Board) Bill gur ar fhoras neamhspleách seachtrach a bheidh an fhreagracht sin. Tuigeann Sinn Féin an imní a bhíonn ar dhaoine nuair a fheictear go bhfuil polaiteoirí ag socrú a dtuarastail féin. Baineann dearcadh den chineál sin de chreidiúnacht ionadaithe tofa. Níor cheart do Chomhaltaí aon chur isteach bheith acu agus a dtuarastal á shocrú. Caithfidh institiúidí daonlathacha an chothroime agus an oscailteacht a léiriú.

Cinnteoidh bord luach saothair neamhspleách úr go mbeidh an chothroime agus an oscailteacht ann i dtaca le pá na gComhaltaí de. Ní hé amháin gur chóir sin a dhéanamh; is é rud gur gá sin a dhéanamh. Cuirfidh sé le creidiúnacht, le cothroime agus le hoscailteacht na háite seo feasta.

Mr Gaston: Well, we have reached the Final Stage of a Bill that should never have made it this far. From the beginning, the legislation has been marked by secrecy, self-interest and, indeed, plenty of spin. It was conceived behind closed doors, pushed forward without proper public consultation and dressed up as reform. In reality, it is nothing more than a vehicle to enable MLAs to award themselves a substantial pay rise — one that they dare not put to the public in plain terms. One might wonder whether, had Mr Carroll and I not been here, anyone would even have mentioned the reason for the legislation before us.

Let us recall how we got to where we are today. The Commission consulted only the parties that are represented on it. There was no public consultation prior to the publication of the Bill, no transparency and no input from parties excluded from the cosy carve-up. It was a stitched-up deal from the start, and all the parties on the Commission know it. The names of the Members on the front of the Bill are telling: they are from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists, Alliance — none of them are in the Chamber — and the SDLP. Every party with a seat on the Commission has put its name to the scheme and would have carried it through quietly had it not been for the two of us in this corner being determined to shine a light on what they were doing. What about the official Opposition? Do not make me laugh. There was certainly no opposition when it came to awarding themselves a pay rise. Every amendment that I proposed at Committee Stage — amendments aimed at restoring some integrity to the process — was rejected. The message from the majority was clear: "Nothing to see here. The pay rise train is running on time".

We are told that the Bill merely empowers the remuneration board, but let us be honest: clause 3 gives the game away. When you instruct the board to have regard to salaries in other legislatures, each of which pays significantly more than the Assembly, it is not about reform; the dice are loaded for a guaranteed upward trajectory.

The justification from one member of the Commission is that MLAs with families need to keep up with their counterparts elsewhere. Tell that to the carers on £81 a week. Tell that to the young family on universal credit. Tell that to the nurses, the porters and the social workers. Worse, it rings hollow to compare us to other legislatures. Unlike every other legislature cited in clause 3, the Assembly has deliberately chosen not to exercise full legislative authority. It handed swathes of power to Brussels and cannot even set its own standards in key areas of economic life. An institution that abandons power should not demand parity of pay with those that exercise it.

Clause 5 makes former MLAs eligible to sit on the very board that will determine future pay and pensions. That is a conflict of interest dressed up as experience. The original rules rightly excluded former Members. The Bill removes that safeguard for no good reason.

The Bill is a symptom of what is wrong with Stormont: a culture of entitlement, enabled by back-room agreements and protected from public scrutiny.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

Mr McGrath: I am trying to get some concept of parity here. Did the Member's party leader, who sits in Westminster and was given a pay rise by a board that has a former Member of Parliament on it, take that pay rise without questioning it? What did he do in that situation? Did he disagree with that payment in the House of Commons Chamber or accept it?

Mr Gaston: A Member from the official Opposition speaks. It is great to see some scrutiny of the issue come from the official Opposition. He looks to Westminster. Westminster exercises all the powers —.

Mr McGrath: Answer the question.

Mr Gaston: Westminster exercises all the powers that it is given, so you

cannot compare Westminster to Stormont. The official Opposition, along with the rest of the pan-nationalist front, were happy to give away 300 areas of law to a foreign legislature. [Interruption.]

That is something that the official Opposition cannot and will not face up to. [Interruption.]

Chuntering from the sidelines is all that the official Opposition are good at.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We will return to the debate.

Mr Gaston: The people of Northern deserve better. They deserve transparency and integrity in public office. The Bill offers none of that. That is why I have opposed it from the beginning at every stage and in every form in full view of the public, who are footing the bill for it, and it is why I will vote against it again today. Shame on those who will vote for it and who have backed it from the beginning. Self-interest reigns supreme, and the Member from the official Opposition typifies that with his arguments.

Mr Carroll: My position on the Bill is clear, so my comments will be relatively brief. Underpaid workers across the North, including those in this Building, would bite your hand off for the chance to have their mates set their salaries and expenses. They are not being given such an opportunity, but, with the vote on the Bill today, MLAs are.

The legislation allows former MLAs to join the so-called independent panel that sets MLAs' salaries and pensions. Níl an coiste neamhspléach.

It also transfers the power to determine allowances and expenses to MLAs, which puts the Assembly out of kilter with other Parliaments on these islands. There was a claim for £4,000 for a year's worth of heating oil. There were mileage expenses of £19,000 for an MLA who did not drive. There were research expenses of £700,000 — almost three quarters of a million pounds — for a non-existent company. Executive parties have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted to oversee their expenses.

It is particularly disappointing that the official Opposition cannot muster the courage or common sense to oppose the Bill. Do Opposition Members really believe that the Executive parties deserve a pay increase?

Stormont has presided over a crisis of its own making. Working-class communities, including in my constituency, where there has been the highest increase, are being destroyed by rising rates of poverty. The health service is in terminal decline. We have stagnant wages, a shortage of school places and ecological collapse. Ordinary people will rightly argue that, rather than get a pay hike, MLAs should probably have their pay cut and that they are paid too much as it is. Members can continue to deny that the Bill will entail a massive pay increase. I say this to them: you are taking the public for absolute fools. Mark my words, months down the line — I will be back to remind people of this — it will be reported that the so-called independent remuneration board recommends a pay increase. The increase might not be the £20,000 all at once, but I guarantee that it will be much bigger than the paltry increases that have been offered to those who prop up our health service, teach our children, clean our buildings and serve the public in retail and hospitality.

It is worth repeating for the benefit of those in the House and those who are listening that almost 70% of respondents to the Ad Hoc Committee's call for evidence disagreed or strongly disagreed that the board should have regard for the much higher salaries that are paid to politicians in other jurisdictions. Did those submissions matter? Did they hell. Contempt for the public has been shown once again by those in this Building and the parties that run it. The majority of people disagreed that powers to determine allowances should be set by MLAs. Did they listen? You can guess the answer to that.

An Act Now petition that opposed any pay rise for MLAs attracted almost 1,400 signatures. Those people, again, were ignored by the Ad Hoc Committee and by the parties in the House and those that dominate the Executive. Public opinion is crystal clear. The Bill is completely tone-deaf and unwanted, and, once again, I will vote against it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Sinéad Ennis to conclude the Final Stage and make a winding-up speech.

Ms Ennis: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. During the Second Stage debate, the Assembly Commission acknowledged:

and that no Member is happy about or comfortable with discussing those issues. However, as my colleague Andy Allen outlined, the Assembly Commission and the Assembly have a responsibility to regularise the legal position through this technical legislation, following the resolution that the Assembly passed in 2020. The Assembly Commission also noted the understandable public attitudes to those issues and the potential that that created for some to play politics with them. The Assembly Commission welcomes the fact that the scrutiny process provided an ability to correct and clarify some of the misunderstandings and inaccuracies about the Bill that have been portrayed. Indeed, we heard some of those inaccuracies and misunderstandings being regurgitated today.

In progressing the Bill, the Assembly Commission focused on the process of determining Members' salaries, not the outcome. At no point has the Assembly Commission ever taken a position on or discussed what the salary of Members should be. If the Bill is passed today, future discussions and decisions on Members' salaries and pensions will shift to the independent remuneration board. That board has independence in deciding what factors it wants to consider before determining its view on the appropriate level of salaries and pensions for Members. That is the appropriate way in which to deal with those matters.

Should the Bill not pass, the Assembly should be clear about the consequences. The Assembly would fail to ensure that there is legal clarity, and inconsistency would remain between the 2011 Act and the decisions that the Assembly has already taken. Voting against the Bill would also mean that no structure would be in place to determine independently Members' salaries and pensions. It is important that we are all clear: a vote against the Bill is not a vote against a particular salary level for Members; rather, it is a vote against having an independent remuneration board in place to set the salaries and pensions of Members independently.

I echo the thanks given by Andy Allen to all those Members and staff who contributed to the Bill as it made its way through the Assembly Commission, the Assembly and the Ad Hoc Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Carroll: No.

Mr Gaston: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Ayes have it, and the two voices of dissent will be noted.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise when asking a question. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you for the opportunity to update Members today on the implications of last week's spending review announcement on our public finances.

As Members will be aware, my predecessor, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, secured a commitment from Treasury in May 2024 to review the approach to funding the Executive at the relevant spending review period. Since then, my officials and I have been in intensive negotiations with Treasury on our relative funding methodology. In January 2025, my Department commissioned Professor Gerry Holtham to conduct an independent review of the North's level of need to support that important work. Last Wednesday saw the outworkings of those negotiations, with the publication of the agreement that was reached between the Executive and the British Government to assess relative funding.

I thank Professor Gerry Holtham for his report, which was published last week. It added considerable weight in helping us to make the case to Treasury that the Executive must be funded fairly and sustainably. Professor Holtham's review provided a range of need levels. His estimates include a level of need of 123%, before Agriculture spending is included, and a central estimate of 128%, with Agriculture included.

A major factor influencing the funding provided to the Executive was the agreement that I secured from the Treasury to exclude £329 million in Agriculture funding, which was un-ring-fenced and baselined at phase 1 of the spending review from our relative funding calculation.

The agreement secured with the Treasury has ensured that we receive a 24% uplift on the additional funding provided by last week's spending review announcement, rather than the lower transitional rate of 5%, which would have otherwise applied. That will provide some £600 million more than the original Treasury position. Without that, the financial cliff edge that I previously warned Members about would have become a reality, resulting in damage to our front-line public services.

As a result of negotiations with the Treasury, my predecessor and I have delivered an additional £1·3 billion since the beginning of the mandate. Importantly, the agreement also lays the groundwork for agreeing a full fiscal framework. Discussions on it will begin immediately and will cover a number of areas, including the Holtham review of the Executive's relative need, borrowing powers of the Housing Executive and fiscal devolution.

In my view, the spending review represented a missed opportunity to significantly increase investment in public services and deliver the level of economic stimulus that was necessary. However, by setting the resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) funding envelope for the next three years and capital funding for the next four years, it has provided the Executive with the opportunity to set their first multi-year Budget in over a decade. That will bring funding certainty, enabling Departments to plan on a longer-term basis, and it creates the conditions to drive real transformational change in our public services.

Over the three-year resource period, from 2026-27 to 2028-29, the Executive will receive £16·3 billion, £16·8 billion and £17·3 billion respectively. While that includes an additional £3·1 billion in Barnett for day-to-day spending over the three-year period, it must be viewed in the context of rising demand and the increasing cost of delivering public services.

For capital, the Executive will receive £2·3 billion in each of the four years covered by the spending review ending in 2029-2030. I believe that there was an opportunity for the Chancellor to have been much more ambitious with capital investment to spur economic growth.

The reality is that the Executive will remain financially constrained, particularly in 2026–27, as the biggest uplifts in day-to-day spending power occur in subsequent years. That is why my focus is to ensure that every pound is used wisely and strategically. The Executive will work together to agree a multi-year Budget that aligns with and supports our Programme for Government priorities, focuses on what matters most to our people and delivers tangible improvements that will be felt across society in the years ahead.

Beyond the direct financial implications, there were other important announcements. I welcome the British Government's commitment to provide £50 million for Casement Park. That funding brings new momentum to a vital project that will deliver a modern sporting venue for generations to come but will also be an economic driver for the surrounding communities and region. I urge all partners to work together to get Casement built. I stand ready to play my part.

I am pleased to confirm that, subject to the final outturn, Treasury has agreed to write off £559 million of debt from the 2024 restoration package. While that should never have been viewed as a debt, that is still a positive outcome that is a direct result of the Executive's hard work in delivering a balanced Budget in 2024-25 and raising the necessary additional revenue by 2025-26.

Since taking up the role of Finance Minister, I have said consistently that I will do everything within my power to ensure that our public services are fairly and properly funded. I will continue to work with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on a full fiscal framework that ensures that the Executive have the appropriate financial tools, borrowing powers and taxation levers to deliver sustainable public finances and high-quality public services for the people whom we serve. While the spending review has not provided the economic stimulus that it could have, I will work with my Executive colleagues to develop a multi-year Budget that supports families, workers and communities.

Mr O'Toole: There is lots to unpack. I have only one question. The Finance Committee will be scrutinising this in detail later this week. Specifically on Casement Park, you say that you welcome the additional allocation from the UK Government of £50 million, and you say that you urge all partners to work together to get Casement built, but it is obvious that you are the Finance Minister. What specifically are you doing to find the additional allocation to get Casement Park built, and when will you make an announcement on how that money will be found?

Mr O'Dowd: Do you mean, "What am I doing apart from securing £50 million towards the project?"?

Mr O'Toole: So, that is you. Well done.

Mr O'Dowd: We will start on that basis. It is not a bad basis to start on — securing an additional £50 million for the project. I will work with my Executive colleagues, the GAA and others to ensure that we now move forward and ensure that that project is built and delivered. It will be a huge benefit not only to west Belfast and Belfast but to the entire region.

Miss Dolan: I welcome the Minister's statement. Minister, did the Chancellor announce a replacement for the Shared Prosperity Fund, and how will that be delivered?

Mr O'Dowd: The papers that we received from the Treasury after the announcement state that the Shared Prosperity Fund will continue at around £46 million a year. The exact delivery mechanism has not yet been fully detailed, and I will continue to engage with both the NIO and the relevant Ministers in Whitehall to ensure that that is delivered in a way that aligns with the Executive priorities in the Programme for Government and that respects the devolution powers for this place and allows the Executive and the Assembly to do their work.

Ms Forsythe: Much has been said in the news about the UK contribution of £50 million towards Casement Park, but when I read into the detail of it, I noticed that Treasury has indicated that the Executive will receive £50 million in financial transactions capital (FTC) between 2026 and 2030 for Casement Park. My understanding of financial transactions capital is that it is a loan, not an award of money. Can you confirm whether the £50 million announced for Casement Park is an award of money or a loan that is ring-fenced for that purpose? If it is a loan, who will have to repay it? Will it be the Northern Ireland Executive or the GAA?

Mr O'Dowd: FTC can take a number of forms, and we are continuing to work with the NIO and the Treasury on the form that it will take in regard to Casement. However, I am satisfied that there is £50 million on the table that was not there before. How it will be paid and when it will be repaid is all yet to be worked out, but I am satisfied that the terms, thus far, are satisfactory and will allow the project to move forward.

Mr Mathison: Will the Minister outline any representations that he has made to the UK Government in relation to their proposed punitive welfare reforms and policies? Has there been any ongoing engagement on that issue?

Mr O'Dowd: The welfare reforms do not form part of the discussions on the comprehensive spending review, but I am on record with both the Treasury and the Secretary of State in stating my opposition to those reforms. They will do significant harm to people here. As with other measures that the British Government introduced and now have decided to take a different tack on, I encourage them to take a different tack on their so-called welfare reforms.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, Minister, for your remarks. I notice the £559 million of debt relief from the 2024 restoration package. Does that realign the baseline for the Budget and the Estimates this year? [Interruption.]

It does not, Jayne? OK. [Laughter.]

Mr O'Dowd: As has been indicated, it does not realign.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you referred to the exclusion of the £229 million of agriculture funding. Can you explain to us why it is important to have agriculture excluded from the relative funding per head methodology?

Mr O'Dowd: That was a vital point of discussion with the Treasury, and it was crucial that it either was not included in the funding for relative need or was included in both sides of the equation — one or the other. The fact that it has now been excluded means that our relative funding need is based on the 124% without agriculture in it, which means that, when you join the two together, you are up at around 127% in Barnett consequentials. I think that we have managed to negotiate a good package. Separating those elements has benefited the Executive and therefore will benefit public services.

Mr Brett: I want to tease out the point raised by my colleague on FTC. As the Minister rightly outlined, there are a number of options in relation to FTC: either equity or repayment. Is the Minister saying that, despite the announcement last week by the UK Government, details have still not been provided as to whether the UK Government will own part of Casement Park or whether the GAA will be required to make a repayment to the Northern Ireland taxpayer?

Mr O'Dowd: The details of that are still to be finalised. It will involve the GAA as well, because the stadium belongs to the GAA, and whether the Executive or the Westminster Government take a share in it is a discussion that will have to be had, first and foremost, with the GAA. The fact of the matter remains that there is now £50 million that was not there previously on the table to advance that project.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, what are the next steps, following last week's spending review, on setting a multi-year Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: Engagement between my officials and officials in other Departments is already taking place as to how we move that forward, and we are assisting Departments with their five-year plans and strategies. I hope to bring a multi-year Budget to the Executive in December, have a draft agreed in December and then go out to public consultation. I then intend to bring a final document forward in March, in line with the time frames to which we work. As for next steps with the Treasury, I intend to engage with it and my officials will engage at official level on a full fiscal framework, which will involve fiscal devolution and borrowing powers for the Executive, among other things.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his statement. There has been only one uplift in the additional security funding budget in the last decade. Does the Minister agree that that simply does not go far enough towards meeting the extra costs facing policing across Northern Ireland? Will he make a commitment to fund the PSNI recovery plan for the duration of the spending review?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have the figures in front of me that the Member quotes, but I will say this. What police are dealing with in our society has changed over the last number of years, so it is only natural that the funding package will reflect the changes. That is for the better, it has to be said. New challenges arrive, and we saw the challenges at the weekend in relation to street disorder.

Professor Holtham looked at policing in his report, and he was satisfied that the Fiscal Council's equation for policing was satisfactory. My officials have approved the business plan forwarded by the PSNI in relation to policing numbers moving forward. I support that in principle, but, as with any public body coming to me seeking further funds, I want to be assured that those further funds will make a crucial difference to front-line public services and that they are doing everything in their power to reduce their costs. Regardless of the title of the public body that comes to me, I ask, "What are you doing to help yourself?", and I will ask the same question when I meet the Justice Minister on policing.

The police have asked for an additional £5 million in relation to the cost of the operations to deal with the rioting and street disorder over recent days. As part of the June monitoring round, I will recommend to Executive colleagues that that £5 million request be met in full.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, in your statement, you were keen to stress that the settlement avoids a potential cliff edge in future funding restoration. However, we are mindful that your party and Alliance were happy to come here before that certainty was provided. Therefore, can ratepayers have confidence that, as Minister, you will relentlessly pursue a full financial framework that delivers £128 per head for every £100 spent in England through Barnett?

Mr O'Dowd: "Yes" is the answer to the second part of your question, although not to your initial statement, it has to be said. Yes, I will continue to engage with the Treasury on the £123 to £128 range in the Holtham report. One of the key outcomes of the negotiations is that the Holtham report remains on the table. The Treasury is still open to engaging on that report, and it is very important that we still have a comprehensive, detailed analysis of our level of need on the table and that the Treasury is still prepared to talk about it.

Mr Gaston: The £50 million loan for Casement leaves a large shortfall. Does the Minister support a clawback clause for money from non-GAA events held at Casement?

Mr O'Dowd: Would the Member support such a clause being introduced to the other projects that the Executive have funded?

Mr Carroll: Minister, you said that an extra £600 million would be made available. How much, if any, of that will be used to address and resolve the housing crisis, and, if there is money, what will those plans be?

Mr O'Dowd: Moving forward, the Executive will have to agree their Budget as part of the three-year budgetary programme; four years for capital. I have no doubt that the need for social and affordable housing will be front and centre in those discussions. I am keen to continue to support the Communities Minister in the delivery of social and affordable housing. I have no doubt that the rest of the Executive are as well.

Mr Honeyford: The £50 million for Casement is really welcome. I welcome what the Minister said and the economic and community benefits for the wider area. The timeline is critical. We have 12 months until the planning permission lapses. Will you meet the Irish Government, the Shared Island Fund and the GAA in the coming months to address the shortfall? Will you give us a timeline for that? Will you work with the Shared Island Fund to get funding into wider sport in Northern Ireland? There is a barrier there, so could that be looked at?

Mr O'Dowd: I have to be careful not to cross into the domain of other Ministers but I will work with the Dublin Government in any regard to ensure continued financial support — indeed, increased financial support — for this place. I will play my part in that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the last exchange, when I asked the Finance Minister a question, he turned it round and rhetorically directed it back at me. Surely that is not the process for a Minister who comes to the House to deliver a statement. He should be obliged to give a Member, no matter who that Member is, a sensible and respectful answer to the question that he has asked.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK, Mr Gaston, thank you. That will be scrutinised to see whether it was a point of order, as will the content that you refer to, and the Speaker's Office will report to you.

Thank you, Members. Just take your ease for a moment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for the Economy that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise when asking their question. Hopefully, they will hear that. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. I call the Minister.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Today is the start of Learning Disability Week, and I will provide an update on the review of education, skills and training provision for young people with special educational needs. Last year, my predecessor, Conor Murphy, advised the Assembly of his concerns over gaps in provision for school-leavers with special educational needs and the inequalities and injustices that those young people face. He tasked officials with reviewing the issues.

My team has since engaged with schools, colleges, community and voluntary groups, training providers, social enterprises, parents, young people and subject matter experts. I put on record my recognition of the way in which officials have embraced that piece of work. It has been done comprehensively and thoroughly, as will become clear in the rest of the statement. My team and I have also met Alma and Dee from Caleb's Cause, a campaign that has done so much to raise awareness of the issues. Moreover, Stranmillis University College was commissioned to carry out a comparative analysis of the different legislative frameworks across Britain and Ireland. I am grateful to everyone who contributed to the review. Now that officials have completed their work, I will outline the key issues and challenges that have been identified, as well as the measures and actions that, with appropriate resources, my Department intends to take. I will also highlight issues that require collaboration across Departments.

Leaving school can be a huge milestone for any young person to navigate. For people with special educational needs and their families, however, there are often additional challenges. The review highlighted many examples of excellent support from colleges, training providers, day opportunity providers and social enterprises. There are many dedicated workers in the service who go above and beyond in order to ensure that our disabled young people are fully engaged, learning and thriving. I have met some of those people during visits to further education colleges and to providers such as Access Employment Ltd (AEL) in Larne, Springvale Training in Belfast and Compass Advocacy Network (CAN) in Ballymoney.

The system is not working for all our young people, however. The challenges that I will outline will no doubt be familiar to many families who have tried to navigate the system. Improvement is needed primarily for school-leavers who come from special schools and from specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS). The challenges for those learners often begin before they leave school, during what is known as the transition process, which starts after they turn 14. The transition process, on which the Education Authority (EA) leads, involves a range of stakeholders. Some of the initial issues arise owing to a lack of capacity in the stakeholder organisations, such as the Education Authority's transition service and the health trusts' children's disability teams.

There are gaps in timely, accurate and comprehensive information on potential options and eligibility requirements and questions about whether there will be sufficient places, the required level of supervision and available supports. There is also uncertainty over transport arrangements. That means that planning for life beyond school can create significant stress and uncertainty for families.

The majority of learners from special schools and from specialist provision in mainstream schools typically progress on to one of two pathways: a Department for the Economy-funded pathway that involves further education or training provision or a Department of Health-funded pathway comprising day opportunities or day care. The feedback that was received did not suggest that those pathways are wrong. Rather, it signalled a need for investment in both. There is simply not enough suitable provision available, and young people are not guaranteed access to the most appropriate pathway for their needs.

Funding and capacity are two of the biggest challenges that are faced across the entire post-school system. The loss of the European social fund and associated provision in the voluntary and community sector has reduced the available offer, and in the provisions that currently exist, there are regional imbalances. The issues have been exacerbated by a 29% increase in the number of learners with special educational needs over the past 20 years, a 134% increase in the number of pupils with a statement of SEN and the growing complexity of needs. The consequences of not ensuring that the right supports are in place are stark. There are far too many young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEETs). If a young person with SEN is in that category, it is highly likely that their parent or carer also faces leaving work or reducing their hours to meet the care needs of their disabled young adult. My officials spoke to many people who are in that situation. It is damaging to the well-being, mental health and household income of those families, and it is damaging for our economy to lose skilled and experienced workers in that way.

I am committed to driving forward a significant programme of reform to my Department's education, skills and training offer for learners with additional educational needs. My reforms sit under three broad themes. The first is improved provision. There are excellent examples of our six further education colleges providing support to learners with a disability. In the review, my officials received some inspiring feedback about lives that had been changed. A young woman at the North West Regional College (NWRC) completed her HND in childcare, and she hopes to continue her education up to degree level. A young man received tailored support at the Southern Regional College (SRC) so that he could fulfil his ambition of studying animation at Ulster University. A student in the north-west had a fantastic college experience and is now on a placement with Translink. He is now doing a level 3 extended diploma and has won an NCFE Aspiration award. A young woman with complex medical and learning difficulties has been supported to achieve her level 3 qualifications, and she has secured employment as a classroom assistant.

My officials also received very positive feedback about the various training providers that deliver my Department's Skills for Life and Work programme, with half the participants on the programme having disability-related support needs. However, funding for further education provision for students with learning disabilities and difficulties has not increased for many years. That has constrained the growth of capacity and subjects at our colleges. The entry level provision for SEN learners has not always been refreshed to ensure access to newer programmes, such as digital arts and creative media.

I want to see investment in the colleges to enable them to update and expand their offer; to improve physical accessibility, particularly in our older buildings, some of which lack lifts, ramps or Changing Places toilets; and to ensure that their staff can refresh their knowledge and skills to deliver high-quality programmes and support to all learners. I want a more consistent offer across the college network so that people who are in rural areas have the same level of provision as people who are in urban areas. I want the continuation of a strong part-time offer.

That pathway is often accessed as part of the health-based day opportunities programmes for adults with a learning disability, and it enables lifelong learning. To help us build on existing best practice and inform the shape of our future expansion, my Department has asked the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) to undertake an evaluation of the existing further education provision. That work commenced last week, and the inspectorate will report in the autumn. Once complete, the evaluation will also help ensure that the funding bids that I bring forward are evidence-based and focused on excellence.

Apprenticeships are a fantastic pathway for many people, and in-training disability support is available for apprenticeships. In addition, through my apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund, two dedicated disability projects are testing approaches to improve participation and outcomes for people with disabilities. The projects are piloting new pathways that enable individuals with disabilities to thrive and reach their full potential. We know that learners with special educational needs can flourish in work-based environments. Our aim is to partner with employers in order to create sustainable, long-term employment opportunities. Therefore, an action identified in my three-year apprenticeship action plan is to co-design a pilot approach to a new model for apprentices with special educational needs.

Social enterprises provide opportunities for disabled adults to engage in training and employment initiatives, often as a core part of the health and social care trusts' day opportunities programme. The work to strengthen the social enterprise sector through our social enterprise action plan therefore also has a contribution to make. The review highlighted, too, the unrealised potential for higher education-based provision for learning disabled students, and I have asked officials to examine how we might give effect to that. Stranmillis University College recently carried out a feasibility study, funded through our Step Up programme, on the possibility of higher education opportunities for learning disabled students, informed by the model at Trinity College Dublin. I can see real value in enabling inclusive pathways of that nature for raising aspiration and opportunities for all our young people.

The second theme is enhanced learner support. If our further education colleges are to become a destination of choice for a greater number of learners with special educational needs, provision must be accompanied by the right learner support. We have had feedback about the challenges of accessing support at college being exacerbated because the statement of special educational needs does not continue beyond school. Students and their families report being nervous when choosing a college, because they do not know in advance of starting what support a young person will receive, and colleges report spending significant time at the start of an academic year on duplicating assessments that will have been carried out at school to assess support needs, exam support requirements and so on. Those systems should be more integrated so that the transition from school to college is more seamless.

To that end, I have asked my officials to develop a statutory assessment and support model for students with learning support needs in further education. We anticipate that building on the current special educational needs statement approach through schools but being tailored for the further education environment. The new assessment and support model will be underpinned in legislation. Having approved that approach, I have tasked my officials with working up a costed plan to design and deliver the new model. The assessment and support model will give clarity and assurance as to the support that a young person will receive in college, with appropriate mechanisms to raise and resolve any disagreements.

In the short term, I have asked my officials to explore with the colleges, the Education Authority and the Department of Education administrative mechanisms that can give greater certainty to young people aged 16 to 18 who had a statement in school and are moving to college. That interim measure is aimed at ensuring that those young people do not lose support because they have to leave school at 16 years, often because their school does not have appropriate post-16 provision. Of course, the best possible solution is that schools provide specialist provision, and I will work with the Minister of Education on that issue.

Another concern is that families often do not know who to ask for guidance when they face challenges during the transition from school to college. The Education Authority transition team is closely involved with all young people from the age of 14 who have statements in planning for their next destination after school, yet the Education Authority's role ends the minute that the young person leaves school. The young person and their family can quickly feel lost if, a few weeks into a college course, they decide that it is not the right fit and that they instead want to look at training, a different college or Health-based options. The Education Authority is no longer able to guide or support them. Furthermore, sometimes, they need extra support to plan for their transition onwards at the end of their college programme. I have therefore asked my officials to bring forward proposals for creating a new transition support function for learners in my Department's education and training provision. We want to provide learners with the information, guidance and practical support that are needed to ensure a more seamless transition from school, and we want those learners to feel suited to their chosen pathway, make progress, enjoy their learning and flourish in their new environment.

Our third theme is strengthened foundations. Better provision and enhanced learner support need to be underpinned by improvements in other areas. More effective and timely data-sharing among Education, Health and Economy will help to improve understanding of the type of demand that is coming into our systems and to facilitate better forward planning. There is not a direct read-across between the categories such as special education in schools, to learning disability in Health, to disability in our system. That creates confusion and increases the risk of people not being identified and their needs not being met.

We need to improve our understanding of which pathways and provision are most effective in supporting learners to progress and achieve positive outcomes. The ETI evaluation will contribute to our knowledge in that area. Stranmillis University College recently secured funding through the EPIC Futures partnership to take forward some provision-mapping work, and we have launched a research and innovation policy fellowship to undertake SEN-focused research, using the longitudinal education outcomes dataset. That type of work is crucial to ensuring that evidence, data and best practice underpin all that we do.

Our Careers Service also has a key part to play. That is recognised in the new DFE and joint-DE careers action plan, which will be published in the coming week and sets out a range of measures that will strengthen support for people with disabilities and special educational needs. The measures include, for example, professional development for careers advisers so that they are better placed to understand and adapt to their clients' needs. It involves the development of innovative software solutions for autistic clients and the new careers portal will provide inclusive and equitable access to careers information, tools and resources for people of all ages and backgrounds, including young people with special educational needs as well as their parents and guardians.

My Department's actions alone will not meet the needs and aspirations of all school-leavers with special educational needs. Many issues were raised with my officials that are outside our remit but which I intend to bring to the attention of the Executive because they have an impact on so many young people and their families. Young people and their families want choices. While many young people with special educational needs aim to progress to skills- and training-based pathways after school, a very substantial number of special-school-leavers want to progress to a Health-based pathway, usually day opportunities, as they feel that they are the most suitable destination. A smaller number want a work-focused route such as supported employment. Those pathways also need significant investment to be able to respond effectively to the level of need.

I would like to see a model here that gives all young people the opportunity to progress to the pathway that is right for them and will best enable them to thrive. My proposed changes to the assessment and support model for further education will, hopefully, encourage and enable more young people to choose our colleges for their next step beyond school. However, we know that it is not the right destination for everyone, and for those young people who are more suited to a Health-based pathway, I would like to see similar assurances in relation to their entitlement, access and support. That is an issue that I intend to raise with the Health Minister.

Many school principals highlighted the situation of a particular group of school-leavers who have attended a special school from the age of four to 19. They have evident additional needs. Those young people and their families do not consider that further education and training options are right for them. They want to access day opportunities. However, access to those Health pathways is determined by a learning disability assessment. Every year, a group of special-school-leavers are assessed and deemed not to meet the relevant learning disability threshold, meaning that they are ineligible for Health-funded pathways despite their evident vulnerability. That closes off the Health pathway and it can it can prevent them from accessing college too if, for example, they need a direct-payment-funded support worker to help meet their personal or other care needs. Without access to Health or further education pathways, those young people and their families often feel in limbo. We may be able to explore the development of collaborative and co-funded cross-departmental pilots to try to provide pathways for those young people for whom our existing systems do not work. There may also be a need to revisit the existing learning-disability eligibility arrangements, especially in relation to autistic young people, as the feedback suggests that those are the vulnerable young people most affected by this issue.

Many schools have also raised an issue in relation to the requirement to leave a special school at 19 years. It was flagged that there are flexibilities —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister.

Dr Archibald: — in deferring starting school and transition from primary 7 into year 8.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, I am afraid that I have to interrupt your statement as we are about to commence Question Time. Members, we will continue the Minister's statement after Question Time, and questions on the statement will follow that. In the meantime, Members should take their ease while we change the personnel on the Table before questions to the Education Minister commence.

Mr Speaker: Questions 5 and 9 have been withdrawn.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): On 23 May 2025, Ards and North Down Borough Council accepted proposals to treat amendments to facilitate the inclusion of enhanced learning support provision at the school as a non-material change to the existing planning permission. Therefore, it is anticipated that construction will commence in early 2026. However, that will be dependent on the relevant approvals being obtained.

Mr Chambers: Thank you, Minister. I am absolutely delighted to receive that update, and I certainly look forward to work commencing on that much-needed new build. Does the Minister have any concerns that a brand new primary school in that area could have a negative impact on the enrolment numbers for nearby Bloomfield Primary School?

Mr Givan: I understand that, in every new build, there could be implications for neighbouring schools. We have been carrying out significant investment in the North Down area. Crawfordsburn Primary School is another one for major construction works, which are due to commence next month. There are school enhancement programmes as well and minor works programmes that we want to take forward. All of those are there to try and improve the school estate.

Ultimately, supporting all schools is what I want to do as Minister, but it is a good news story that we can move forward with the new build at Bangor Central Integrated Primary School. It is where I went to announce a series of major new builds. There have been some issues that we had to look at, but we are now able to make progress.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his commitment to that school and other schools in North Down. He visited the school with me last year. Can the Minister advise why there has been a revision to the technical design of the project for Bangor Central Integrated Primary School?

Mr Givan: I thank Mr Dunne for his question. He has advocated investment in that school and other schools in North Down. As part of the announcement to take forward the new build, officials identified a steady decline in pupil numbers that was more in line with a 17-class enrolment band rather than the 22-class school that had been approved. Having engaged with the school, we identified the best way forward to rightsize the school on the basis of the need in the community, and that is to deliver a 17-class primary school. However, we will include the provision of four classrooms for pupils with special educational needs (SEN), as there is a need for SEN accommodation. Therefore, the school can go ahead as planned but with the adaption to accommodate children with special educational needs. I know that the Member will welcome that.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give an update on the schools that lost Fresh Start funding about 15 months ago when the Executive first returned? I declare an interest, as my child is a pupil at one of those schools. It would be helpful to have an update on what is happening.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. Obviously, a number of schools were announced that we were taking forward with regard to construction. Sorry, I just do not have the particular information to hand.

Millennium Integrated Primary School is one where the construction contract has been entered into, and works are expected to commence next month on that school. We moved forward with Millennium Integrated. I know that other schools were part of that Fresh Start funding, and I was able to provide them with assurances that they are part of my overall departmental capital programme, which has allowed them to continue to progress. In particular, in the Member's constituency, I was able to move forward on Millennium Integrated Primary School, and construction will commence imminently.

Mr Givan: A technical feasibility report has been completed by the integrated consultant team that has identified options and costs to provide suitable accommodation for Tandragee Junior High School. A review of the options identified in the report was completed by the Department’s technical advisers in September last year. A business case to identify the preferred option to be taken forward in design is being drafted.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. Are there other ongoing works at the school, given the length of time for which the school will remain in its current premises?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. He has advocated for Tandragee Junior High School and other schools in his constituency, and I will meet him later in respect of Markethill High School, for which he has been an advocate of work and support.

The fact that we are moving towards bringing the business case phase to a conclusion is progress, but, as the Member understands, we still need to progress through a number of stages to the point at which the works will be subject to capital funding being made available. In the interim, we will continue to support Tandragee Junior High School. Since April 2022, we have responded to 177 tasks and spent around £55,000. We will take forward 19 planned tasks, with the work that we will provide to the school estimated to be worth in the region of £150,000. As we make progress through the stages for Tandragee Junior High School, it is important that we continue to provide support through ongoing maintenance works, and that is what we intend to do.

Mr McNulty: My question is on another Armagh education facility. Minister, I have written to you about Tiny Tots in Clady. After a health and safety inspection, its premises were deemed not fit for purpose. The neighbouring school, St Michael's, wants to accommodate the new premises. The GAA club has accommodated Tiny Tots for the past 25 years. It provides a wonderful service.

Mr Speaker: Can we get to the question, please?

Mr McNulty: Will you pull out all the stops to ensure that Tiny Tots has appropriate accommodation ready by the start of the new school year in September?

Mr Givan: A response on that matter will issue to the Member today. I absolutely understand the dilemma that Tiny Tots is in. In that particular situation, however, it is not a legal obligation on the Department of Education to provide support for preschool provision in that respect. I suggest that the Member engage with the Education Authority (EA) and seek its support, if there is an opportunity for it to intervene, because preschool provision is important, and working with the providers is an important role that the Education Authority has. I direct the Member there.

Mr Givan: The purpose of the programme is to target investment in priority areas that will support and enhance the delivery of the Northern Ireland curriculum. The programme's initial focus in 2024-25 has been the refresh of desktop computer equipment in post-primary and special schools, with expenditure of £5·9 million, and provision of outdoor play equipment and resources at all preschool, nursery and primary schools, with, to date, expenditure of £2·4 million. Procurement has also been completed for the provision of defibrillators to all schools in Northern Ireland that are currently without them. I expect roll-out of those to commence in the coming weeks.

In regard to physical education provision, under the programme, a survey was undertaken of post-primary schools. It received 125 responses and identified 31 schools without a sports hall and 71 without a synthetic pitch. My officials are working on the selection, procurement and delivery of an initial tranche of pitches and on the selection of an initial tranche of sports halls to advance to planning.

With regard to the pilot exercise for covered sports, my officials are working with professional colleagues on the range of provision that is available and will move shortly to a call to primary schools for nominations for inclusion in the initial pilot programme at 20 schools.

Mr Robinson: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Will he provide additional information about the current position on synthetic pitch provision?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question.

He has been an advocate of investment in schools in the East Londonderry constituency that I hope will be able to avail themselves of funding from the capital investment programme. Currently, there is work being done with colleagues in the EA and in Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) on selection, procurement and delivery of the initial tranche of pitches. Seventy-one post-primary schools had been identified as not having a synthetic pitch. Although the capital budget that I have will not permit me to address the need at all 71 at the one time, my officials are working to group the identified schools into tranches. That will ensure that the need is addressed in a managed way over a number of financial years within the capital budget that is available to me.

Mrs Guy: Only 8% of primary-school pupils and 20% of post-primary-school pupils receive the recommended 120 minutes of PE a week. What difference will the curriculum-led capital investment programme have on those figures?

Mr Givan: The Member rightly points out the need when it comes to 120 minutes — two hours — of PE. Unfortunately, there are many examples of schools not meeting the required two hours that we want them to provide. Part of the reason for that has been the lack of facilities. When we were choosing which part of the curriculum to prioritise — for example, a case could have been made for home economics equipment or science labs — why did we choose to provide synthetic pitches, sports halls and covered outdoor play areas? We chose that area because we identified a lack of provision right across Northern Ireland. Rolling out that programme will undoubtedly enable schools to have the kinds of facilities that they need to enrich their PE offering. I want to drive up the number of schools that are reaching the two-hour target. That is why there is a focus on that particular aspect of the curriculum-led capital investment programme.

Mr McGlone: Minister, can you clarify how the curriculum-led capital investment programme will address some of the long-standing infrastructure inequalities among sectors, especially in Irish-medium schools, which have failed to achieve enough capital investment despite growing enrolment and demand?

Mr Givan: The scheme is applicable to every sector. The amount of funding that is being allocated to the curriculum-led capital investment programme is limited. It is in the region of £10 million. There are other capital works planned, including for major new builds, school enhancement programmes and minor works, all of which continue to face significant demands, with a lack of resource to meet the need that I want to see met. The curriculum-led capital investment programme is designed to place a specific focus on that element of the curriculum. It will be available to all schools to make an application. One of the Irish-medium schools that I was able to take forward was Scoil an Droichid in south Belfast. It was one of the seven schools that I announced for a new build in order to meet its particular needs. I will continue to apply that approach in future.

Mr Givan: Earlier this week, I was pleased to launch an independent review of assessment. The panel is chaired by Tim Oates CBE, former director at Cambridge Assessment, who sits on it alongside Garry Matthewson, the former principal of Holy Family Primary School, and Dr Mick Walker, former director of the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency (QCDA).

It is critical to ensure that our assessment system is fair, reliable and aligned with international best practice, providing clear insights into student outcomes. The review will examine assessment throughout primary school and at Key Stage 3 and will engage with education stakeholders across Northern Ireland over the coming months. The review will look at best practice within and beyond the United Kingdom and undertake a strategic assessment of current arrangements, identifying strengths and areas for improvement, in order to make detailed proposals about the future purpose, nature and design of assessment in Northern Ireland.

The review is a vital step towards having an evidence-informed, world-class education system in Northern Ireland that is excellent, equitable and responsive to the needs of all our young people. While the review is being carried out, it is important to have consistent and reliable interim arrangements. Therefore, on 19 March, I announced interim arrangements for statutory Key Stage assessment for the three-year period from the 2025-26 academic year. The new system-level sample assessments will evaluate pupils' literacy and numeracy at the end of Key Stages 1, 2 and 3. The assessments will be developed and delivered by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). They will provide insights into learning outcomes across the education system and play a vital role in shaping educational policies and interventions. The assessments will be taken by a sample of pupils and will be used to identify national trends in education performance.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his very full answer. What level of participation did this year's statutory assessment have, given that industrial action and the Department's decision came after teacher-directed time budgets had already been agreed?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. Industrial action has had a varied impact on conducting assessment in the context of the interim arrangements for the 2024-25 academic year. However, given that assessment is a statutory requirement and should be an integral element of teaching and learning, it was still reasonable to ask teachers to comply. The information that the schools returned for this year will be extremely useful for comparing the teacher-assessed outcomes this year with the outcomes of next year's system-level sample assessment.

I put on record my thanks to those schools that participated. The participation was on a much more significant and higher level than we anticipated, which was a demonstration of a willingness in our education profession to move forward as we emerge from that long and protracted period of industrial action.

Mr Givan: My Department is progressing an update to the guidance on supporting pupils with medication needs in collaboration with the Department of Health and the Education Authority. Officials have met parents and organisations representing pupils with allergies, including Food Allergy NI and the Benedict Blythe Foundation. The information that is shared at those meetings is being considered as part of the review of the current guidance.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. Further to that, what changes, if any, will the EA implement in time for the new school year?

Mr Givan: It is a hugely important area and one that lacks data. From census figures, we know the number of young people who have anaphylaxis, for example, but that is not properly captured in the education data. Schools, particularly through their catering services, ensure that meals and menus, for example, are screened for allergen content before being used. Obviously, when it comes to the various special dietary needs, when catering staff in the Education Authority and schools consider their policies, they take them very seriously. We are doing an important piece of work to update the current procedures to make sure that the right support is made available.

Mr Givan: I recognise that this is an important health issue that is clearly of concern to many young women and that should be dealt with in a respectful and inclusive manner. Well-being and health are core to the Northern Ireland curriculum, which aims to:

The Northern Ireland statutory curriculum statements of minimum entitlement ensures that schools are able to respond to important updates in health messaging and priorities by adapting and including resources to best meet the needs of their learners. My Department is committed to supporting the development of young people's health literacy, including the understanding of menstrual conditions, in a sensitive and age-appropriate manner. Endometriosis falls under the umbrella of period dignity, and from Key Stage 2, which is ages 8 to 11 onwards, all pupils should be learning age-appropriate and accurate scientific facts about periods and be having open conversations about them. That can help to break common taboos about periods, prevent stigma and reduce negative perceptions and behaviours.

CCEA has published a number of resources for primary, post-primary and SEN pupils on period dignity and menstrual well-being that are available to download on the period dignity hub. There are accompanying films and posters for primary and post- primary pupils on period dignity and menstrual well-being. On endometriosis specifically, unit 5 in the post-primary suite of resources covers endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). It can be accessed via the CCEA website.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for that answer. I hope that he agrees that there is a lack of services. There is no NHS-funded centre for endometriosis treatment despite the efforts that have been made by campaigners. Do the Department, the EA or schools have a database on the number of days that are missed by people suffering from endometriosis? Would he support more work being done to try to get endometriosis advocacy groups into schools to talk about the unit 5 resources and other resources to make people more aware of the condition?

Mr Givan: It is an area that I know that the Education Authority takes seriously. I have outlined in detail the level of support and resources that are being made available by CCEA. When it comes to collecting data and information, it is area on which we need more information; I do not believe that we have sufficient information. However, we are working towards providing better support in the area so that we can deal with the issues more effectively than they have been dealt with to date.

Mr Givan: I am able to confirm that work to create a new controlled schools unit (CSU) within the Education Authority is under way. It is anticipated that the unit will be operational for September of this year — the start of the new school year.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer and ongoing support for controlled schools across Northern Ireland. Does the Minister believe that the new controlled schools unit will deliver greater equity for the 150,000 children in those schools?

Mr Givan: This is the start of a process of providing the support to the controlled sector that has been absent for many years. The first phase is the establishment of the controlled sector unit within the Education Authority. The second phase is to introduce legislation in the Assembly to allow for the provision of a managing authority for controlled schools. I have issued Executive colleagues with an Executive paper on that for their consideration.

The basis upon which that is considered to be necessary and required is very much grounded in the independent review of education. That report highlighted:

and proposed:

It outlined the perception of controlled school leaders:

Therefore, in September last year, I established a controlled schools task force to provide a model for a dedicated managing authority for controlled schools, alongside the identification of key performance issues and required improvements for controlled schools under the current model. That is a welcome development, and one that is long overdue. Other sectors have their own stand-alone managing authority. The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), for example, provides that support to the Catholic maintained sector. The controlled schools do not get the same treatment when it comes to equity, and they do not get the same services. The controlled sector is a diverse group of schools across Northern Ireland, including nursery schools, special schools and Irish-medium schools, and it requires better support than it has received.

Mr Mathison: I declare an interest as a governor of a controlled primary school. Will the Minister confirm whether he will, in this mandate, start progress towards the establishment of a single management authority for all schools in the system in Northern Ireland, as recommended by the independent review of education?

Mr Givan: That is certainly something that I would be supportive of, but the starting point has to be addressing the inequality that exists. There is not equity for controlled schools; it is suboptimal. Those are not my words; they are the words of the independent review of education, which was informed by principals in controlled schools. Those who engage with the controlled sector will know that its schools do not receive the support that they should receive, because the EA is there to provide services to all schools but has a unique function to be the managing authority for controlled schools. That has been diluted and not given the requirement and support that it has needed. That is why controlled schools have been left behind. I do not believe that those who advocate for equality and fairness in our education system would be opposed to addressing that inequality. It could create the opportunity for more consistency. Were the Catholic maintained sector, the grant-maintained integrated sector and the controlled sector all willing to create a single managing authority, I would certainly support that. However, we cannot leave behind one particular sector with a current inequality in pursuit of a single authority. Let us address that inequality and then move to the next phase, which is a single managing authority. Although that would have my support, all the stakeholders in education from all sectors would be required to support a single managing authority for all schools.

Mr Givan: My Department does not own any surplus sites, but the Education Authority owns 10 sites that have been declared surplus to requirement. They are planned for disposal within this financial year and the 2026-27 financial year.

Mr Allen: The Minister said that his Department does not directly own any land or buildings that are surplus to requirement, but will he outline to the House whether he supports land or buildings that are no longer required for educational purposes being utilised to tackle our social and affordable housing crisis?

Mr Givan: I absolutely believe that, where there is no longer an educational purpose, which is the starting point for any surplus buildings, they should be disposed of. That process includes, before putting such sites on the open private market, highlighting their availability to other Departments. If there were a need for social housing, for example, we would ask the Department for Communities whether it wishes to avail itself of such sites. After that process, you make them open to the private market.

It is not in anybody's interests for the state to continue to retain ownership of buildings that are surplus to requirement. Part of the reason why few former school sites become available for disposal is the increasing need for special educational needs facilities and the potential to repurpose some of those vacant buildings to fulfil that requirement. I certainly share the Member's sentiment.

Mr Buckley: Minister, quite often, those buildings could be put to really good use for local communities. I have engaged with your Department, albeit through the EA, on a number of examples. It is a sad reflection on the EA that, sometimes, the length of time taken means that those buildings fall into significant disrepair. Does he agree that there is a need to speed up the process?

Mr Givan: I share the frustration that the Member has highlighted. A setting in my constituency — the former Ravarnette Primary School site — is one of the 10 schools that are listed for disposal in the 2026-27 year. It has taken many years to get to the point at which it will be available for disposal. In the meantime, it has become an eyesore in the community. That is replicated in many other areas across Northern Ireland. The process for identifying an educational purpose or another public-sector purpose needs to be improved, and, following that, you need to be able to move to disposal and allow the private market to acquire those sites so that they can be used for another purpose.

Mr Givan: My Department has invested in the educational psychology work force and is currently funding 40 places on the doctorate in educational child and adolescent psychology course at Queen's University Belfast. Fourteen of those students will graduate this year and join the staffing complement in the Education Authority's educational psychology service. In addition, the Education Authority has removed educational psychology service gatekeeping for access to support services, which will allow more time for psychologists to complete statutory work, capacity building and early intervention.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much, Minister. That is welcome news. Do you have any idea of what the waiting lists are and when those new appointees will make a meaningful impact on them?

Mr Givan: The time that it takes for assessments to be carried out is unacceptably long. That is why we have invested in getting more people into the workforce through the doctorate scheme for which we have provided support. That is also why I made an application to the transformation programme around SEN reform and a delivery plan. We secured just over £27 million to take that forward. That will allow us to stand up more support in the form of educational psychologists to meet current demand and to set up local impact teams. That is all designed to improve the current performance, which is inadequate. It is young people who suffer because of that. It will take some time before we see the benefits of the investment that we are putting in.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: I absolutely share the sentiments expressed by the Member. It is outrageous that, over the past week, we have been dealing with children who have come into school traumatised, showing all the signs of trauma as a result of what has happened on our streets. Alarmingly, we have also been dealing with children who engaged in the rioting and attacked the houses of children who are in their class. It is an appalling and complicated situation that requires intervention. My team has engaged with a number of schools as a result of the picture that we have had to deal with. We have engaged the Education Authority's emotional health and well-being unit and its intercultural education service to try to provide support for those schools.

I will give an example. Last week, at a number of schools, including Harryville and St Patrick's Primary Schools in Ballymena, attendance has been less than half of the school. That is a clear problem, complicated by the fact that we are dealing with children in both schools who were engaged in the trouble and children in both schools who were the victims of it. It requires a concerted effort. I assure the Member that my team and I are very much engaged in trying to provide that support.

Mr O'Toole: I acknowledge and welcome the fact that the Minister offered no equivocation or context for the trauma that has been visited on children. In that context and given that his Department has been engaged in a review of the curriculum, will he look at the curriculum to ensure that children in Northern Ireland at both primary and secondary school understand that difference is something to be respected? When we have an issue with people going out on the streets to commit acts of hate, surely the education system needs to take real action to counteract that.

Mr Givan: As I have gone round schools — controlled schools, Catholic maintained schools, integrated schools — I have been hugely impressed to see the many newcomers in school settings and the work that the school leaders and teachers do to ensure that there is an inclusive environment in which diversity is respected and, indeed, celebrated. Often, our schools have been the safe haven in their communities when there have been challenges outside the school walls. I have found what has happened in a number of those schools to be particularly alarming. That is why there needs to be support. My team have engaged on that at senior levels.

I take a simple view. There is a time and a place to debate immigration policy, but someone who is in Northern Ireland, particularly a child, whatever their background, has to be treated with respect. They have to be supported and protected. That has not been the case over the past week, and that is wrong. I absolutely condemn what has happened in respect of these issues.

I will do all that I can to support those in our school environments who need support. Some of these young people have fled a war-torn area. My family provided support to a Ukrainian family with three children, who were housed in my parents' home and went to school in Lurgan. Both of the schools that they went to went out of their way to make them feel welcome. They regard Northern Ireland as their home, they will be here for many years to come, and they should be welcome in Northern Ireland.

Mr Givan: When Mr McNulty addressed the issue at Question Time, I said that the Department of Education did not have statutory responsibility for provision in that kind of situation. Where there are financial difficulties in preschool settings, the Education Authority can avail itself of emergency funds. I very much encourage the providers in that setting to engage with the Education Authority, which has responsibility for providing support.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Tiny Tots has requested to be relocated to St Michael's Primary School. Can his Department do anything about that?

Mr Givan: When Mr McNulty raised the issue with me, my officials engaged with the Education Authority, and, absolutely, I am sympathetic to the position of Tiny Tots. However, the Department of Education does not provide financial support in that situation. The Education Authority is there to provide assistance, and I encourage the group to engage with it on that issue.

Mr Givan: Where we have identified a particular need, I have personally engaged with schools. About 300 children, we believe — the figure changes as we bring more settings online — need provision in September. When I spoke in the Assembly on the issue this time last year, about 450 children needed placements. We set about a programme of capital works for specialist provision and have stood up a significant number of classes across the school estate, but more work is needed to meet the current need for September, and the Education Authority has been working with my Department to identify the areas and schools that require support. I have engaged with those schools to encourage them — a system-wide level intervention is needed, and I need schools to work with me — and reassure them that, when they open their schools for additional capacity, support will be provided.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his response. We are in a marginally better position than last year, but 300 pupils without a placement is 300 too many. Can the Minister confirm what support will be provided to those pupils and their families, who may face a scenario in which no placement is available for them in September? How will the Minister assure the Assembly that we will not face the same scenario in the academic year ahead?

Mr Givan: I agree with the Chair of the Committee, Mr Mathison, on the issue. We have provided hundreds of additional places, but that does not diminish the fact that, as we stand here, there are still several hundred children without a place who need to be provided with one. We were able to do this last year: the system responded, and I thank the schools that engaged with my Department and indicated a willingness to provide places. We will invest upwards of £70 million this year on top of the £50 million that was spent last year to meet the needs.

Special education provision is the first priority for a capital call in my Department. It is the first priority for all the teams in the EA in taking forward the relevant procurement business cases and feasibility studies. Other, conventional programmes are not moving at the same pace because of the increased demand. I assure the Member that this is the priority for me, my permanent secretary and the chief executive of the Education Authority as we seek to meet the needs that are being presented.

Mr Givan: We have been able to take forward the childcare subsidy scheme. The 15% subsidy, which links with the UK tax-free allowance, has drawn in around £18 million since we started the scheme. It has reached 16,000 children. That is how many have been registered. We have been able to expand the scheme because of the funding that we were able to secure as part of the Executive Budget process. The Executive endorsed the paper, and the subsidy scheme will now be available to all school-age children up to the age of 11. That is a 60% increase in who, we believe, will be eligible. It should take us up to around 24,000 children who will be able to qualify. I encourage people to avail themselves of the support, because it has a real and meaningful impact on meeting childcare costs. The support that we are providing enables people, particularly mothers, to take decisions on increasing their hours or on returning to the workforce, if they wish to do so.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. He said that 24,000 children will be eligible for the scheme in the incoming year. Will he give some detail on the impact that that will have on families?

Mr Givan: The impact is already being felt. I have heard that directly from parents who have expressed their appreciation at the fact that the scheme is available, but we have much more work to take forward on it. People had called for a comprehensive early learning and childcare strategy. We are rightly taking one forward. I will present a comprehensive strategy to the Executive in the autumn.

We also felt that it was necessary to take immediate action, given the urgency around the issue. That is why we stood up the childcare scheme and intervened to support programmes such as Sure Start. We are also implementing the standardisation approach in preschool settings so that all children get a full-time nursery place. Currently, the majority of children get part-time places of 12·5 funded hours a week, compared with full-time places of 22·5 funded hours a week. From this September, we will have equalised that, so there will be a 50:50 split. The Executive have now agreed to bring 100 more settings into scope for September next year. A majority of children will therefore be in full-time places then, but I want every child to have a full-time nursery place, because that has a real impact on children's education outcomes.

People talk in theory about early intervention, but we often do not put it into practice. We are now doing so. Full-time nursery places also enable families to take decisions about re-entering the workforce, and, financially speaking, that is when the highest pressure points in cost start to reduce. We need to do more, however. I am not content with what we have achieved, but it is a good start. There is much more that we need to do to support our hard-working families, however.

Mr Givan: There is a recording of absenteeism that occurred as a result of what happened last week. I have the precise figures for the schools in the Ballymena area. For example, 84 newcomer children in Harryville Primary School have not been at school. The figures for St Patrick’s College show that attendance levels are sitting at around 65%. We therefore have that information. It will drive the interventions that we feel are necessary in order to provide support to those schools. We have that information about not only Ballymena but other areas. We will certainly use it to inform the approaches that need to be taken to provide support to schools.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. Are you minded to provide any additional resources to the Education Authority's intercultural education service (IES) so that it can better support pupils and their families?

Mr Givan: The intercultural education service is one area with which we have been engaging, but there are also emotional well-being services to consider. We will engage with the principals of some of the schools that have been impacted on, and if support is needed in those two areas or, indeed, in others, we will make sure that it is provided to them. We have not quantified what that support may be. At this stage, we are engaging with the schools. There are only a couple of weeks left in this academic year, and, following the conversations that we have been having, it has been flagged up that that support will be available in September when the schools return after the summer break. Where support needs to be provided, I will respond to the Education Authority positively to make sure that we can support people who are in that situation.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Education. I am marking Ministers' homework. The Communities Minister answered 27 supplementary questions last week, the Economy Minister answered 16 and the Education Minister answered 16. We will see whether the Finance Minister can do any better.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): The final Budget provided earmarked funding to the Department of Health for reducing waiting lists, reflecting the Programme for Government commitment. Funding for the PSNI is primarily a matter for the Minister of Justice. Including the indicative June monitoring allocations, Budget 2025-26 provided the Department of Justice with a resource budget of some £1·425 billion, which is the highest budget settlement that it has ever received. Of that, some 95% was un-ring-fenced, providing significant flexibility in the management of the Department's budget. The PSNI also benefited from £37·8 million of Treasury earmarked funding for national security. It is now for the Justice Minister to determine how best to use the budget that was provided for her Department against the competing priorities that she faces.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. We know that Health was in a desperate position, so you ring-fenced money for waiting lists. The PSNI is in a desperate position, and I welcome the £5 million that you have given to it for the riots, but will you take proactive steps to fund the PSNI properly in the absence of the Justice Minister having it as a priority?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. As I said, that is, first and foremost, a matter for the Justice Minister. I am hoping to meet the Justice Minister tomorrow to discuss the recent business case that the PSNI submitted to her Department and then on to my Department. That business case has been approved, but there are still affordability issues.

I believe that the matter is best dealt with as part of the three-year Budget period that I am now entering into and am in discussions on with all Departments. I accept that, in principle, there is a case for further funding for the PSNI, particularly for recruitment and retention, and I will do everything that is within my power to provide that. However, as I said in my statement earlier, the first question that I ask anyone who is coming looking for money off the Executive is this: what can you do to help yourself? I will ask the same question of the Justice Minister and the PSNI.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for his update. The Minister of Health made a bid for ring-fenced funding to tackle waiting lists. Can the Minister confirm whether the Department of Justice, through the Justice Minister, has put forward a business case requesting ring-fenced funding for the PSNI?

Mr O'Dowd: The history to the ring-fencing of funding for waiting lists is that it was as a direct result of a commitment in the Programme for Government by the Health Minister. I can confirm that the Minister of Justice has brought forward a bid for ring-fenced funding for the PSNI. That may well happen as part of the three-year budgetary programme that the Executive are entering and the discussions that are ongoing at official level. We will be around the Executive table in the near future. As I said, in principle, I support more funding for the PSNI, but this question remains: what can it do to help itself?

Mr Durkan: Last week's violence showed us just how quickly our Police Service can be strained to breaking point. We know that the Chief Constable was pretty critical of the budget, and I welcome the fact that you are meeting the Minister of Justice tomorrow on the issue, but will you also commit to meeting the Chief Constable to hear from him or suggest to him what he could do better to make the Police Service's money go further?

Mr O'Dowd: It is not normal practice for me as Finance Minister to meet the chief executives of the various arm's-length bodies and public bodies that other Ministers have responsibility for. I have committed to meeting the Justice Minister, and I will sit down with the Justice Minister and will discuss that. If the Justice Minister suggests that I should meet the PSNI Chief Constable and is comfortable with that, I will be comfortable with that as well. First and foremost, we have to respect the role of the Justice Minister in the matter.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, in your discussions with Treasury, was there any specific discussion of the issue of funding for policing and justice in Northern Ireland?

Mr O'Dowd: The Holtham report examined the issue of policing and justice here and the weight that it carries in our overall level of need. That formed part of our deliberations with the Treasury and the settlement that we reached with it.

Mr O'Dowd: I am delighted that over £25 million has been awarded from dormant assets funding, under the policy directions set by my Department to increase capacity, grow resilience and encourage sustainability in the voluntary and community sector. Earlier this month, I attended the launch of the Digital Futures report, made possible by dormant assets funding and delivered through the National Lottery Community Fund. Voluntary, community and social enterprises are at the core of our communities, doing incredible work to improve the lives of some of our most vulnerable people. Equipping them with the right digital skills and support to enhance the valuable services that they provide, particularly in improving the health and well-being of people, can only be welcomed.

In February 2025, I approved the development of the third phase of the fund, which will be announced tomorrow. It will support voluntary and community organisations across the North to be stronger and more resilient to deal with future challenges.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

Has that fund been successful so far?

Mr O'Dowd: I think that it has been. The independent evaluation of phase 1 of the dormant assets grant programme has been ongoing since November 2023. An interim evaluation report was published in July 2024, and a second interim evaluation report was published in January 2025. The evaluations to date confirm the continuing success of the grant programme in strengthening third-sector organisations. Many reported outcomes and impacts are directly attributed to the grant funding. Grant holders reported either that they would not have achieved the outcomes at all without the grant or that they would not have achieved the same quality, pace and scale. That highlights to me the fact that the funding programme has been successful.

Mr O'Dowd: I welcome the sustainability report from the Fiscal Council and thank it for its work on this. While the report is very comprehensive in its coverage of the history and current funding model of NI Water, the options provided to support greater investment are limited. Indeed, the report highlights the complexity of the issue. In my previous role as Infrastructure Minister, I was clear that the challenges with water infrastructure are a consequence of underfunding for basic public services over many years and that the solution does not lie in introducing water charges and charging hard-pressed workers and families for an essential public service.

The Executive's Budget 2025-26 recognised the importance of NI Water by providing it with £105·7 million from reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing. Following the Chancellor's spending review announcement on 11 June, I will bring proposals to the Executive on a multi-year Budget, covering three years for resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and four years for capital DEL. That will allow for more long-term and strategic planning.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for that. Minister, I heard your recent interview. The absence of adequate investment in infrastructure is causing serious problems with the new-build programme for social housing and for private housing new build. Indeed, it is affecting the market in that it is putting up the prices of existing houses. When will we see your proposals for a developer's charge, Minister?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will appreciate that those are no longer my proposals and that the current Infrastructure Minister is making those proposals. I understand that the consultation ends towards the end of June and that, at some stage beyond that, the Infrastructure Minister will bring the relevant information to, I assume, the Assembly and the Committee.

Mr Mathison: Will the Minister outline the discussions that he has had with the Infrastructure Minister on the need for a new funding model for NI Water?

Mr O'Dowd: I have had no discussions with the Infrastructure Minister about a new funding model, but I have had discussions with the Infrastructure Minister about increased funding for NI Water and engagement with me on how the Executive can support her and her Department in bringing that forward.

Mr Boylan: Minister, what steps are being taken to provide NI Water with multi-year funding?

Mr O'Dowd: As with all arm's-length bodies and government companies, we can only provide multi-year funding when the spending review allows us to do so. The announcement on Wednesday by the Chancellor in Westminster allows the Executive to bring forward a multi-year funding package. That will allow the Infrastructure Minister to provide NI Water with a multi-year budget as well. Across our budgets, we are still in a constrained period, but the advantage of a multi-year budget is that you are able to plan in a more strategic way rather than from year to year, and that benefits organisations such as NI Water.

Mr O'Dowd: I visited Warrenpoint banking hub on 10 April to see at first hand how the services that it provides are supporting the local community there. At the visit, I met local banking representatives, who operate out of the Warrenpoint hub, and representatives from Cash Access UK, which oversees the hub roll-out. I pressed them on the need to urgently increase the roll-out of those hubs to other areas that have been impacted on by bank closures. I also highlighted the disparities in the locations of the hubs, especially for rural areas such as Fermanagh and Tyrone, where there are currently none.

Last week, I addressed the Financial Conduct Authority's reception in Belfast to mark the launch of its new five-year strategy and raised the importance of maintaining access to cash in rural areas. I am deeply concerned about the impact of bank branch closures on local communities, particularly in our rural towns and villages. While I do not support bank closures, and they should only take place as a very last resort, the banking hubs ensure that there is still some level of banking presence in rural towns and villages for customers while also bringing people into our local town centres. It is important that the banking sector rolls out the hubs at speed in affected areas, and I encourage communities to request a cash access review directly with LINK if they face difficulties accessing cash locally.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is really important for rural areas. I was disappointed in LINK. It did a reassessment in Lisnaskea, which is an area that I have raised a number of times in the Chamber. That area is without banking services and needs a banking hub. Unfortunately, on Friday, I got news that LINK has not changed its decision, so I ask the Minister to step in. There is a crisis in access to banking services in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Will the Minister step in and support the calls for Fermanagh and South Tyrone to be treated as a special case to ensure that we receive that equality of banking services in our area?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that the Executive and, indeed, the Assembly have no direct locus over banking services, but I am more than happy to make representations to LINK on that matter. I heard the news about the second call being turned down, and that is hugely disappointing. I will make representations to LINK on that and call on it to ensure that areas such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone are represented and have access to cash equal to other areas.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, how does an area qualify for a banking hub?

Mr O'Dowd: Areas make an application through LINK, and it will assess the needs of the area, including what access there has been previously, to ensure that communities have access to cash. However, as the Member who asked the previous question said, when you have large rural communities such as that in Fermanagh, which was turned down for a hub, and in Tyrone, that is disappointing. I will raise that issue with the banking sector.

Mr McGrath: Will the Minister accept that there can be a problem where these hubs can be in towns where there is no banking provision? If there is one bank left, it means that, disproportionately, it is having a bigger slice of the pie of local people, and that is not good for competition. Might the Minister raise in discussions that there might be an opportunity for some hubs in bigger areas where there is only one bank remaining?

Mr O'Dowd: Regulated competition, particularly in the banking system, is a good thing to ensure that the public have access to services and banks and get quality for their money and the services that they seek from a bank. I am happy to raise that when raising the issue about Fermanagh.

Mr O'Dowd: With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 5 and 15 together, and I request an additional minute to respond.

In the 2024-25 rating year, a record-breaking £1·6 billion was collected directly from ratepayers, the largest amount ever collected in a single rating year, providing much-needed funding for our public services. That was achieved despite a difficult financial climate following the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-of-living/doing business crises. At the close of the 2024-25 rating year, £180·9 million in rates remained due for payment. That represents a 0·2% increase compared with the previous year's figure. However, that slight increase must be viewed in the context of the overall value of collectable rates having risen by 6% in 2024-25. The £180·9 million is a cumulative figure of rates carried forward from previous years. It comprises £84·9 million from 2024-25 and £96 million from earlier years that included the pandemic period. It is worth highlighting that the £180·5 million in rates carried forward into 2024-25 was reduced by 47%, down to £96 million, through ongoing billing and collection activities — a significant achievement.

Land and Property Services (LPS) remains committed to collecting unpaid rates and continues to take proactive steps to do so. The ongoing billing, collection and recovery processes are designed to maximise rate collection. To maximise rate collection, LPS will make arrangements with ratepayers that will mean that not all rates are collected within a single rating year due to payment arrangements extending into future years. For persistent non-payment, however, LPS will pursue legal recovery actions.

I urge any ratepayers having trouble in paying their bill to contact LPS as soon as possible. Payment arrangements can be made for historical unpaid rates, and LPS can assist by offering direct referrals to support services such as Make the Call and Advice NI's debt management service.

Mr Clarke: Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer. If I heard you right, you said that it represented a 0·2% increase on what was outstanding, but you did not tell us what percentage of the total amount of rates is outstanding. Given the time that it has taken to get this in order, is it fair to continually make it a priority to make people who are suffering financial difficulties pay their rates while there are those who continually flout the rules to avoid paying them? If we take those two figures, a historical figure of £96 million does not suggest that the Department is doing much to recover that.

Mr O'Dowd: I will clarify in writing the point that you raised with regard to what percentage it is of the overall rates.

Anyone who persistently avoids paying their rates will end up being brought to court; that is the reality. It has to be remembered, however, that, in many instances, people not paying their rates or not paying them in full are facing severe financial difficulties, including small and medium-sized enterprises and domestic properties. LPS works with those people to put in place a fair rates recovery programme to bring the rates in.

There is one figure that is clear. The overall value of collectable rates rose by 6% in 2024-25, so we are collecting more rates than previously. I accept that there is a historical deficit that continually needs to be challenged. There needs to be compassion and cooperation from LPS for those who are willing to pay their rates, but there also needs to be court action for those who refuse. That is the balance that those who collect rates have to achieve daily.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer on this important issue. Minister, you say that there is an increase of 6%, but surely that is just our rates bills increasing. Are there particular industries or areas where persistent non-payment seems to be a problem? What is the Minister doing to bring fairness to the system?

Mr O'Dowd: I have no specific figures or lists in front of me that would suggest that there is a particular problem in one or other area. If those are available, however, I will ensure that the Member receives them.

LPS has a focus on the matter. I have met LPS officials on a number of occasions, and the issue is on the agenda on each of those occasions. We press home the need to ensure that all rates are collected and that that is done fairly and compassionately. LPS gets that and is taking measures to do so. It is putting in place measures that ensure that the rates of people who can pay them are collected or, where necessary, that a programme of repayment is put in place. Unfortunately, we are always running into people who refuse to pay or who work the system in certain ways. I have made it clear to LPS that, where those people exist and there is no alternative, we have to bring them to court.

Mr O'Dowd: There is a long-standing commitment in the Fresh Start Agreement that the Executive can bid for a share of demonstrable, Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR)-verified fraud and error savings. A business case, along with other information, was previously submitted to the Treasury. Those discussions have stalled, however, and I am keen to progress the matter with the Treasury. On 10 April 2025, I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the setting out a number of Executive-specific issues to be considered. I reiterated the issue of fraud and error and my desire to make progress in that area. I have asked my officials to pick up those conversations with Treasury officials and to continue to engage with Department for Communities officials on the matter as well.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer. In a recent Committee for Communities briefing, we were informed that the estimated loss due to customer fraud across all benefits in 2023 was £163·2 million, which is a substantial amount. The Minister referred to an opportunity — the Committee was told about this — for us to retain an element of savings from fraud of up to 50% by agreement with the Treasury. I urge the Minister to continue those discussions. Is he hopeful that we will be able to achieve a result in the matter?

Mr O'Dowd: Dealing with the Treasury is a unique experience in that regard. We have, however, had some recent success, so I intend to build on that and on the working relationship that we have built up with the Treasury on these matters. It is an important area, and, if we can have some of that money coming back into the Executive for our use, we will certainly not miss the opportunity to make a strong case for that to the Treasury.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, what action have you taken in the interim to aid welfare payment delivery?

Mr O'Dowd: My understanding is that the Department for Communities forecasts that it will pay approximately £10·4 billion in welfare benefits in 2025-26. That funding is made available by the Treasury as annually managed expenditure (AME). As part of the 2025-26 Budget, given the Communities Minister's concerns about the transition to universal credit, the Executive agreed to earmark an allocation of £16·9 million to the Department for Communities for benefit delivery. That allocation reflects its bid for that purpose and will ensure the delivery of annual statutory payments and other support services, including employment support, as well as social security parity with Britain.

Mr O'Toole: The Fresh Start proposal talked about savings that are verified by the OBR. That does not appear to have been progressed over the past 10 years. Are you confident that we have not missed out on potential additional Barnett consequentials here from actions taken by the UK Government that have, in some cases, penalised benefit recipients here? I am slightly worried that we appear to have simply let that stall and not pursued it. Are you confident that we have not missed out on significant Barnett consequentials that we should have been pressing for?

Mr O'Dowd: On the basis that we have not yet been able to reach agreement with the Treasury on the matter, I am confident. It is a benefit to the Executive, but the Treasury will see it as a loss to it. It has a point of view that I do not necessarily agree with, but it will come to the table saying, "If we give you that, we lose a certain amount, so that is a loss to the Treasury".

Engagement has reopened. I am pursuing the matter, and I will ensure that the needs of the Department for Communities and the Executive are heard at the highest level.

Mr O'Dowd: I have been engaging with the Treasury and the Secretary of State about the redevelopment of Casement Park. I welcome the funding from the British Government. It should give momentum to that important project, which is good news not just for Belfast but for the wider region. Casement Park is an Executive commitment of more than a decade and was reaffirmed in our Programme for Government. All partners should now work together to make progress. I am committed to doing all that I can to make sure that a stadium at Casement Park is delivered.

Now that the outcome of the spending review is known, the Minister for Communities should engage with all partners to set out how he plans to move the project forward. My Department will shortly be starting work on developing the upcoming multi-year Budget, which will provide the Communities Minister with an opportunity to set out his capital requirements for meeting any remaining funding shortfall.

Mr McNulty: Minister, it was great news that the UK Government had offered to pay £50 million towards Casement Park, but that still leaves us £90 million short of the projected cost. Can you commit to funding being made available to meet the difference? If not, how much of the £90 million can the Executive meet to ensure that Antrim Gaels and Ulster Gaels have a stadium in west Belfast to call "home"?

Mr O'Dowd: I am mindful that my role is to protect the public purse. In doing so, it would not be wise for me to negotiate in public or on the airwaves. The best way forward is for all interested parties to get around the table and set out clearly what they are prepared to do to deliver the project. Since last Wednesday's announcement of the £50 million, we have seen huge momentum behind the project, and all partners should now get around the table to plan how we will finance and deliver the project. I am confident that we will be able to do that.

Ms Forsythe: Will the Minister outline to the House what engagement he has had with the Minister for Communities about the other strand of funding that is required for sport, which has sat now for over a decade, namely the funding for subregional stadia?

Mr O'Dowd: The Minister for Communities has made two bids for the stadia. I understand that one bid was for around £5 million in 2024-25 and the other was for around £2 million in 2025-26, and both bids have been met in full. I am committed to supporting all sporting organisations. I do not care who plays the sport or the shape and size of the ball, because sport is a good thing. I am therefore prepared to work with the Communities Minister on all matters with regard to sporting organisations and on how the Executive support them.

Ms Flynn: Minister, as you said, all partners have a responsibility to get around the table to find a solution for getting the rest of the required funding. What can you do specifically, as Finance Minister, to ensure that the redevelopment of Casement Park will be delivered now that we have the funding from the British Government?

Mr O'Dowd: As the Member knows, I have engaged with the NIO and the Treasury on the matter and, with others, secured the additional £50 million that is now on the table to move the project forward. The best way forward now is for all the partners to get around the table and discuss the matter. I have heard all sorts of projections of the cost of the stadium — some may be right, and some may be wrong — but, until we sit down and engage with partners, we simply do not know. It would be foolish of me or anyone else to say on the airwaves how much they are prepared to put on the table. I want to do it in partnership with others.

Dr Aiken: Minister, we are utilising financial transactions capital (FTC), which, of course, must be repaid. Was any consideration given to using funding from the National Wealth Fund or the British Business Bank, which seem to be the alternatives that HM Treasury has mentioned for infrastructure projects?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that FTC takes on a number of guises, and its use is flexible. The issue of repayment is open to discussion, debate and engagement among the various partners. The use of the National Wealth Fund is, again, open to engagement and discussion. It may prove beneficial to the completion of the stadium, and I am aware of it. It is at the back of my mind when I think about those matters.

Mr Speaker: Colin Crawford's question has been withdrawn. I call Jemma Dolan for a question — sorry, we will move on to topical questions. The Minister's time for listed questions is up.

Mr O'Dowd: For the record, I have not dismissed the Fiscal Council's report. It has to be noted that the Fiscal Council report makes no recommendations. It has views on a number of areas that I would expect such an independent body to examine fully. Of course, it was going to examine whether water charges should be paid directly by members of the public. That should come as a surprise to nobody in the House. The question that you have to ask yourself is this: should we charge £590 per annum per household? That is the figure that is in the report, I believe. Are you prepared to endorse that? That is the question.

I have never heard a proposal from the Opposition on how we should move forward with NI Water. I support the current model and the provision of more funding for NI Water. As Infrastructure Minister, I lobbied hard for more money to go to NI Water. I support the current Infrastructure Minister's plans for a sustainable drainage Bill, because we send hundreds of millions of cubic litres of water to waste water treatment works that we do not need to send there, so let us correct that. The Infrastructure Minister is engaging with Executive colleagues on the need for more funding for NI Water, and I will support her in that. I also support her consultation on developer contributions. I want to hear your ideas.

Mr O'Toole: With respect, Minister, you have some neck asking the Opposition what their plan for NI Water is. For the past 15 months, you have been the Infrastructure Minister and then the Finance Minister. You have not brought forward a plan, Minister, so do not throw it back to the Opposition.

Lough Neagh, which is our biggest natural resource, has become an open-air sewer; we cannot build social homes; and, last September, in your constituency and in your own house, Minister, you admitted that there was an unpleasant smell coming from the tap water. What will finally prompt you and the Executive to take action on our water crisis?

Mr O'Dowd: The cheek of me to ask the Opposition what their ideas are. It is really rude of me to do so, it really is. [Interruption.]

I am sure that the Speaker will challenge me over that at a later stage.

The Executive fund NI Water to the tune of half a billion pounds every year, so a significant amount of funding goes to it already. I accept that that is not the amount that is needed, but it is a significant amount. I have already set out to you the Infrastructure Minister's three-pronged approach to NI Water, which I support.

We are building social homes. It has been confirmed that we are building around 1,000 this year. I will work with the Communities Minister to ensure that even more homes are built in this financial year.

I have not given up on any of the issues. We have forwarded to the AERA Minister £5 million to support his Lough Neagh action plan, and that amount has been ring-fenced. In a range of areas, we are supporting not only the environment but NI Water and Executive colleagues in the provision of social housing. I will say this again: at some stage in the House, you will bring me a plan.

Mr O'Dowd: We are consulting on a number of areas — one second, please.

We have completed our consultation on the cap and early payment. That report is on my desk, and I am studying it to see the way forward on that. We are out to consultation on a number of items to do with how we support businesses and on how we raise rates from them, it has to be said. There are a number of areas that have been completed and a number on which we are currently or will shortly be going out to consultation.

Mr Donnelly: Does the Minister believe that the strategic rating review road map set out by his predecessor is still the best course of action to enable a much-needed comprehensive review of the rating system?

Mr O'Dowd: It is. I have said that perhaps we can expedite the timescales on some aspects, but I believe that it is the best way forward.

Mr Speaker: Mrs Dillon is not in her place.

Mr O'Dowd: It has started to an extent. We are engaging with Departments on their sustainability plans and five-year plans etc. However, it will intensify as we move forward, because I want to see a multi-year Budget presented to the Executive around December, to have an agreed Budget at that stage and then to go out to consultation.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra.

Minister, what benefits will a multi-year Budget bring?

Mr O'Dowd: The benefits of a multi-year Budget are as follows. I would prefer it if there were more money in the Budget, I have to say, but being able to plan on a three-year basis allows a wide range of our public services to ensure that they are able to look at transformation differently, because they know their budget over the next number of years, and at how, where and why they deliver services. It allows them a longer-term planning process. I also want to work pay etc into a three-year Budget so that our workers — the important people who deliver the public services — are aware of their pay scales over the remaining years of the Budget, but that has to happen in discussion with the unions.

Mr O'Dowd: I have not received a formal reply to date, but the report formed part of the evidence pack that I presented to Treasury in relation to the comprehensive spending review.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister. What tangible actions can the Finance Department take to mitigate some of the impacts on local businesses identified by the report?

Mr O'Dowd: The report covers a wide aspect, as the Member will know, of the challenges and opportunities for local businesses — certainly the challenges. I will continue to engage with the local business sector about those matters. We have consultations going on about rates and how they impact negatively and positively on businesses; positively because services and support also come from those rates to local businesses. I have shared the report with Executive colleagues so that they are aware, when they engage with the business sector or make decisions to do with it, of the challenges and opportunities that businesses face.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department is responsible for recruitment on the basis that, when Departments come to us seeking recruitment, we run the process for them through NICS human resources service (HRS). However, the level of recruitment required in each Department is a matter for that Department.

Mr Kingston: In a recent briefing, the Committee for Communities was told that 2,551 declared vacancies existed as of March 2025, which is over 20% of posts in that Department. Recruitment has increased over the past year, but so has the number of vacancies. Given that his Department is responsible for the recruitment exercise, can the Minister give a commitment that we will see a reduction in the number of vacancies in future reports?

Mr O'Dowd: It all depends on the number of jobs for advertisement that come from the Communities Department. It would have to make a decision on whether it can afford those recruitment practices. That decision has to be made.

There is also difficulty recruiting a workforce when there are low unemployment rates. We are trying to recruit in an employment market that is quite vibrant, and there are options for many people in the employment market. People make decisions about where they apply to and for what jobs. Those challenges exist in filling posts, but it is up to each Department to bring forward a recruitment programme, and they have to make the decision on whether they can afford it.

Mr O'Dowd: We continue to work our way through the Budget sustainability plan. I announced earlier that, as part of the returns, the Treasury and the British Government no longer require us, on confirmation of the returns, to repay around £500 million, which was part of the package for return. That is a good thing. While we still have challenging times ahead, we are in a more financially stable position than we were at the restoration of the institutions.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. Have targets associated with the plan been tracked since its publication to ensure that there is confidence in its delivery?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not sure whether actual targets have been published, but, with regard to Budget sustainability, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As I said, our returns show that we now have a stable Budget in the sense that we have cleared what should never have been classified as a debt but was classified as such by the British Government. On confirmation of our returns, which, I am confident, will be cleared, we will no longer have that debt. We are sustainable in that sense, and we have made the necessary decisions to be sustainable, but I will still make the case that the Executive need more funding for their public services.

Mr O'Dowd: I recently met officials on that matter, and it is an area of work that I am interested in continuing. However, as with many Departments, we have limited resources and have to prioritise what programmes of work we can realistically bring forward in this mandate. I have asked my permanent secretary to bring forward a paper on the matter, including what the cost would be to bring the programme forward and, if I bring it forward, what impact that would have in other areas of work in the Department.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he aware of any codes of practice or associated regulations that are specific to the operation of property management companies?

Mr O'Dowd: I stand to be corrected on this, and I will follow up with the Member in writing. While my Department has the lead on it, there may be regulations in other Departments that might cover certain parts and aspects of that work. I can explain my experiences from engaging with property management companies in my constituency and ensuring that residents, who, in many instances, are shareholders of the company, fully understand their rights and entitlements. When the shareholders fully understand their rights and entitlements, there is a more cooperative tone from the management companies. I will share more information with the Member in writing.

Mr O'Dowd: In financial terms, it will make around £600 million difference over the spending review period. It was crucial that we were able to secure that agreement with the Treasury and separate agriculture funding from the formula, which, in part, helped to secure that additional £600 million.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the agreement. How important was Professor Holtham’s work in the agreement that was reached?

Mr O'Dowd: Professor Holtham’s work was crucial to securing the agreement. He is very highly regarded across these islands for his work in the field and, particularly, in his work on a similar funding model in Wales. He is respected by the Treasury and others, so it was important to bring that independent and respected voice to the table for the engagement.

Mr O'Dowd: I am not aware of any plans at this time, but I will follow up with the Member in writing.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that. You exceeded the previous record of 16 questions and got 19, Minister. There is a little more work to do, but it is certainly an improving picture.

Mr Speaker: I encourage Members to be concise with their questions and get to the point.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): The Housing Executive participates in the established interagency civil contingency arrangements, which include the provision of shelter and other assistance in emergency situations. In line with that responsibility, the Housing Executive has assisted a number of families over recent days as a result of the civil unrest in Ballymena and other areas. I am sure — I certainly hope — that the whole House will join me in condemning all the violence and rioting that took place.

The Housing Executive has provided emergency temporary accommodation for 16 households in the Mid and East Antrim council area over that period, in line with its homelessness duties. Additionally, the Housing Executive is responsible for the administration of the hate incident practical action scheme, which is available across Northern Ireland to support victims of hate incidents in their homes and can provide victims with personal and home protection measures if the home has been damaged. The scheme ensures that individuals who have been the subject of a hate incident at or close to their home are afforded appropriate support. I encourage anyone affected by violence who is feeling unsafe in their home to contact the Housing Executive for advice and assistance. Over the past week, the Housing Executive has provided advice and guidance to around 50 households as a result of civil unrest.

Mr Gildernew: Given that the families, including a pregnant woman and young children, were forced from their homes in Ballymena in the middle of the night to access emergency accommodation, why did the Minister feel that he should have been consulted?

Mr Lyons: As I have set out before, it is important that local representatives are consulted so that they are aware of the situation on the ground. One of the problems that we have had in recent times is that people have not had access to information. Elected representatives should be made aware of what is going on, for one reason more than any other, which is to dispel rumours that can go around and often lead to unrest.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, how will households that are eligible for assistance be helped?

Mr Lyons: As I outlined in the answer to the main question, there are a number of ways in which we can make sure that those in need are helped. Individuals who are affected by the recent disorder who are ineligible, for example, for recourse to public funds, or those otherwise not owed the full housing duty under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, can avail themselves of advice and assistance from the Housing Executive. That includes information on self-referral to hostels and referral to floating support services. The Housing Executive recognises that some of those who are impacted on by the recent disorder may not be eligible for housing and homelessness assistance, and it is working with a number of partners to explore what additional support can be provided beyond any assistance in line with the 1988 Order.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, I was involved in the evacuation, or at least the coordination of the evacuation, of the people who were brought to Larne leisure centre in the late hours of Tuesday morning. Do you regret the tone and commentary of the conversation that happened below that post, which was not moderated by you or your team and may have actually contributed to some of the ill feeling around what happened that evening?

Mr Lyons: What has happened is that there seems to have been continual blame here. First, there is a focus on one element of my statement, and then it is recognised that that focus is inaccurate. The focus then moves to another element of the statement, and that is dealt with. Now, the accusation seems to be to do with my social media moderating responsibility. I see exactly what is going on here. Look, I have absolutely no time whatsoever for those who threaten or intimidate other people. The Member has raised the issue. I will certainly go back and look at that. To be honest, social media has not been my focus over the past number of days. My focus has been on ensuring that we dampen down some of those issues, that we try to lower the temperature rather than raise tensions and that we work to ensure that those who are affected have been listened to and helped. That is where my focus is.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I am afraid that your response, just a minute ago, reinforced the sense that many of us have that, rather than take responsibility for your actions and a statutory agency for which you are responsible — the Housing Executive — or empathise with people who were put out of their homes, your instinct is to double down and be pugilistic. Will you express some measure of regret and take some responsibility for what was said in that post and the fact that it placed vulnerable people in real fear?

Mr Lyons: I am sorry, but I do not agree with the Member's characterisation of what I was doing. That is where his real problem comes from. I took the decision to put up a post later that afternoon because of the rumours that were circulating. At lunchtime, a post had gone up on another page saying that there was to be a protest at the leisure centre that evening. That was the reason for the protest in the first place. I was making it clear that there was no longer anybody in the leisure centre. I provided that clarification, which the council had already provided and news outlets were already reporting. I was trying to temper the situation and stop it getting out of hand. It is absolutely outrageous that the Member has tried to use that for political means. In his comments over the past number of days, he has tried to get political capital out of the horrendous events that have taken place. It is absolutely outrageous. Violence is wrong. We saw absolutely despicable scenes. As a House, we should be united in condemning the violence, supporting victims, supporting the police and listening to the communities that have been affected and, yes, to those who are affected by some of the immigration policies that we have in place as well. The Member is asking me to say sorry for my role in that. I simply do not believe that I have done anything that is worthy of an apology.

Mr Chambers: Threatening graffiti has appeared on the windows of a number of homes in Bangor, which is disgraceful. Can the Minister assure me that his officials are engaged or will engage with the families who have been so disgracefully targeted?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I utterly condemn any graffiti or racist messages that have appeared in his constituency or, indeed, anywhere else. I hope that that can be dealt with. My officials and the Housing Executive have been working to ensure that all necessary support is provided to those who need it. I will continue to ensure that that is the case.

Ms Brownlee: Can the Minister advise the House of what correspondence he or his office had with the PSNI over the course of 11 and 12 June? Can he share with the House any details of those discussions?

Mr Lyons: Yes. On the violence and disorder that we saw in Larne, a member of my office staff was contacted just before 2.00 pm that day. During the call, the PSNI advised us that people had been moved away from Larne leisure centre. The PSNI encouraged that message to be shared: it was trying to defuse the situation and was looking for help in doing that.

I also wanted to do that, and I am glad that we were able to get the message out that the leisure centre should not be a place at which people assemble.

Mr Dickson: Minister, if social media is not your focus, your focus must be on your role as housing Minister. Can you tell the House whether you have taken the opportunity to meet privately the people who were displaced and brought to Larne leisure centre traumatised? Have you accepted that that is part of your role as housing Minister? Have you visited those people and heard their stories?

Mr Lyons: That is absolutely a part of my role. That is why I have reached out to the Housing Executive and said that I am happy to meet anybody who has been affected. I have offered to meet them, but they are families who have gone through significant disruption over the last little while. I have made the offer. It is up to them to decide whether they want to take me up on it. Much is happening at this moment in time. It is not all about photo opportunities. I have been making sure that help is being given to those who need it.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, regrettably, you have shown no regret over what you have said and done over the past few days. You have failed the test as a Minister and as a community leader. People expected better and more from you. It is disappointing. Given your poor judgement over what was written on Facebook, did you give any serious consideration to your position?

Mr Lyons: No, I did not. What I am sorry about is the continued mischaracterisation of my position on the issue by people who should know better. I know that it can be very tempting to jump on the political bandwagon. That is exactly what Members of the House have done. They have not taken the time — when we all should be taking the time — to sit back, consider the whole situation and not rush to judgement. That is a lesson for us all to learn: to sit back and think about what has gone on. For the SDLP and others, however, it was far too tempting to jump on the political bandwagon in order to see what political points they could score, and that is despicable.

Mrs Erskine: I stand with our Communities Minister on everything that he is trying to do to deliver for Northern Ireland. I support him wholeheartedly. As we have seen in the Chamber today, Members are still playing political games on the issue. For those who have not been listening, will the Minister clarify for the record the timeline in this case, given the ambiguity that some in the Chamber have presented over the past number of days?

Mr Lyons: Some have presented lies as facts, and that is wrong. Let me therefore provide clarification about the timeline of what happened on that day. At around lunchtime, a Facebook group put up a notice about a protest that was taking place at Larne leisure centre because a number of families were being offered emergency accommodation there. That had become known to the police, and, just before 2.00 pm, the police contacted one of our local councillors, asking, in order to try to defuse the situation, that the message be shared that the people who had been getting shelter there had been moved out. The council also put out that clarification. It issued a press statement, and a media outlet ran with it as well. That is why I posted my clarification, backing up what had been said by the council and by the police. After that, others disgracefully tried to link me in some way to highlighting or revealing the location of the people.

Let me make it very clear to the House that I did not reveal the location of anyone. Members across the House have insinuated that I did. That was absolutely not the case. I was doing the opposite. I was highlighting where individuals and families were not. I think that that was the right thing to do, but, unfortunately, some could not help themselves. They needed to jump on the political bandwagon and score some points.

Mr McHugh: Minister, at the time, I said that I was both shocked and surprised at the element of your statement in which you said:

There is a whole lot of difference between being informed and being consulted. Being consulted implies that you would have an opinion on whether that particular facility should be used as a refuge for people in dire straits. Minister, can you see the difference between "informed", which you think that every elected representative is entitled to be — I agree with you there — and "consulted"?

Mr Lyons: That is a change in position, because there were those in the media and political parties who were saying that I had no right to be informed. Now, here we go again — another change. They are now accepting that I should have the right to be informed. Yes, when emergency protocols are put in place, it is right that we know what is going on so that we can input into it because we care about the safety of individuals and the environment in which we find ourselves and about how things were whipped up and taken out of proportion and out of control. We want to make sure that we have the information. I will be very clear about this: there are operational matters for the Housing Executive, the police and councils — I am not taking away from that; that is their role and job — but there is a responsibility for elected representatives to be informed.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I agree with you that we need to support victims. I also agree that actions need to be taken to ensure safe and appropriate accommodation. Therefore, will you now direct the Housing Executive to remove all "Locals only" posters, racist graffiti and paramilitary flags from all their developments to make sure that the people who are victims do not constantly have them rubbed in their face?

Mr Lyons: Let me make it clear that the Housing Executive will make decisions that are based on the information that there is locally about the impacts that those things are likely to have. It often works in coordination with the police. It is very rare that anybody would want or ask me to intervene directly in matters that are the direct responsibility of the Housing Executive. I would have liked to see more action being taken a number of times on issues, but, ultimately, the Housing Executive often works in very difficult circumstances in difficult areas where there are lots of issues at play. Let me make it very clear that I want to make sure that we have safe, welcoming communities and that there is no room for racism or sectarianism in society.

Mr Bradley: I agree with the Minister. I work with the police behind the scenes. They contact my office on a number of issues throughout the year, not just at this time. The onus is on each and every one of us to work quietly with the police behind the scenes. I did not rock up for a photocall, and I did not make any publicity out of it.

I was travelling to Stormont last Thursday for Committee meetings and could not help but hear the reports on the radio. I was disgusted that the Secretary of State made a reference to the Minister. Has the Secretary of State had the honesty to apologise to the Minister? If not, why not?

Mr Lyons: I have had a private conversation with the Secretary of State, and, out of respect, I will keep that private. A number of comments were made last week by several individuals, and, by the way, some comments were not just wrong but offensive and, in many cases, defamatory. I put that on the record, and I put it out as a warning to some people, if they would like to take some action in the short to medium term on it.

I wish that others had taken more time to consider all the facts before rushing to judgement. I make that point to the Communities Committee in particular. I have been told that, within minutes of convening and without taking evidence from me or anybody else, the Committee decided to put through a motion of no confidence. I have not seen the meeting — I do not watch the Communities Committee meetings — but I have been told that the Committee was quick to do that. Perhaps we could all take a little bit of time and consider the facts rather than rush to score political points.

Mr Tennyson: The truth is that when families, including a pregnant mother, were put out of their home and into temporary accommodation, your response as Minister was to, first, amplify the location of that temporary accommodation and, secondly, distance yourself shamefully from the decision to place them there. Minister, do you accept that your actions were irresponsible and reckless? Do you recognise that if you were a Minister anywhere else in these islands, you would already be gone?

Mr Lyons: Here is Mr Tennyson's problem: he starts by saying, "The truth is" and then follows it up with anything but the truth. That is the problem. He tries to present his version of events as fact when it is wrong. There was nobody in the leisure centre at that time. That is why I was highlighting the fact that nobody was there. I was saying that nobody — [Interruption.]

The Member is saying that I highlighted the location. I highlighted the fact that it was a location but that it was not any more. I heard about things that were going on in my constituency; people told me, "There are people who are heading down here because so-and-so is being held" or "because more is going to happen here". I tried to calm the situation by saying, "No, you're wrong. That's not what is going to happen. Your energies should not be there". That is absolutely the right thing to do. I guarantee you that, if I had not made public comment, many people in the media and many Members around the House would have said, "Where was the leadership from Gordon Lyons? He knew that it was no longer being used for that purpose, but he failed to put anything on the record. He knew that it wasn't being used for that purpose, but he failed to clarify that".

I say this to Mr Tennyson: I see exactly what you are doing. You are trying to score political points. The people who have been in contact with me over the past 72 hours do not believe you.

Mr McNulty: Minister, do you agree that the motion that was brought forward by you and your party, and the related rhetoric, served as an anti-immigrant dog whistle, stoked racial tensions and fuelled rioting, and that you and your party should show a degree of remorse and move to put things right?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely not. In fact, it is attitudes like that of Mr McNulty that are the problem. He refuses to acknowledge that legitimate concerns exist. Some Members hate the phrase "legitimate concerns", but they exist. Now, let me be clear: that is never a justification for violence. However, we need to listen to people. One of the problems that we face in communities is that people feel that they are not being listened to. They raise concerns about housing, such as what Mears Group is doing in communities across Northern Ireland and the impact that that is having on the cost of rent and the availability of properties in the private rented sector. People such as Mr McNulty continually belittle the concerns of other people. It is not the rhetoric from this side of the House that is causing a problem. There is no excuse whatsoever for violence in any of our communities, so let us make sure that we have an honest debate. That means dispelling some of the myths that exist out there and providing clarification. However, we should not hide anything from people, either, or belittle their concerns.

Mr Kingston: In light of the clarity on timelines that the Minister has provided, does he believe that many who jumped on the bandwagon, including, regrettably, members of the Committee for Communities, were perhaps too eager and, in doing so, diverted their attention and priority away from calling out the violence in exchange for political point-scoring?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right. The focus at the end of last week was not where it should have been. The focus should have been on those who were responsible for the violence and caused the damage that we witnessed in Portadown, Ballymena and Larne. I will say it again: there were too many people in the House who could not help themselves; they could not wait to score some points. Unfortunately, that happened not only over the course of the past few days; it continues to happen this week.

Mr Gaston: This afternoon, we have heard plenty of hand-wringing from MLAs who were neither on the ground that night nor are they even from North Antrim. I put on record my thanks to a couple of people in the Housing Executive: Brendan Doherty from the out-of-hours team and Roy McClean, who went above and beyond to help elected Members on the ground on Monday night and Tuesday morning to get people rehoused. Minister, I trust that those who are focusing their attention on solely your Facebook post will ask the council why it did not close the leisure centre and will ask their Justice Minister where the police were when they knew about what was going to happen. The police had four members of staff stationed at the leisure centre, but they disappeared. My goodness, what a dereliction of duty. The Justice Minister should be here —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr Gaston: — to answer questions about where the Police Service of Northern Ireland was.

Mr Speaker: We have the question, Mr Gaston.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his kind words about the Housing Executive staff, who do a brilliant job in very difficult circumstances. I will certainly pass those on. I am grateful to him for that.

In answer to the Member's other question, unfortunately, my experience of this place makes me think that he will be disappointed when it comes to questions such as those that he raised being put to others, because the focus for many in the House will continue to be on political point-scoring more than on anything else such as getting clarification or real answers.

Mr Carroll: Minister, there have been, unfortunately, plenty of victims over the past week. You are not one of them. There are only two possible explanations for your actions over recent days: either you are so ignorant and lacking in judgement that you did not foresee the risk of violence occurring as a direct result of your social media post, or you saw the risks and decided that it was OK to put a target on the leisure centre and on those inside it. Which is it?

Mr Lyons: Neither. The Member is the wrong in how he has characterised it, and not for the first time. In most of his comments on this issue and others, he is wrong. As I have said, I stand by what I said and what I was trying to do in my post. I do not need to take any lectures from Mr Carroll on how I can best serve my constituents in East Antrim and the people across Northern Ireland.

Mr Durkan: It is easy to understand how people have come to the conclusion that they have come to about the Minister's comments, given the narrative from the DUP over the past few weeks. It is rich of the DUP to accuse anyone of trying to use this issue to score political points, when, only a couple of weeks ago, it secured a motion —

— raising concerns about immigration and calling on the Infrastructure Minister to answer questions about the role of HMOs in this crisis. Have the Communities Minister's colleagues been raising these concerns with him as Minister responsible for housing, and what has he done about those concerns?

Mr Lyons: Yes, those issues have been raised with me.

Mr Clarke: You just gave us the motion.

Mr Lyons: As the Member behind me said, you have heard about the motions that have been raised and the issues that have been brought forward. That is why I have taken action and am trying to increase supply. Ultimately, however, many of the problems that we are talking about come from UK Government policy, so perhaps the Member will have a word with his friends in the Labour Party.

Mr Brett: I congratulate the Minister, who, despite Members' charges changing continually as their "facts" are disproved, continues to call them out. They clearly are not listening to the facts, Minister; hopefully, they will listen to you now. Will you make it clear that you will not resign and that you will continue to deliver for all communities in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to confirm to the Member that I am not going anywhere. I have a job to do, and I have been getting on with that job. I look forward to continuing to deliver for people across Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Communities.

Mr Speaker: Paula Bradshaw has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Executive Office. I, again, remind Members to be succinct. They were probably not succinct for the previous question for urgent oral answer, but I was very lenient.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: First and foremost, my thoughts and support are with those who have been impacted on by the recent disorder. The Executive unequivocally condemn the violence that has been witnessed, and I, again, call for calm across our communities. We assure you that ensuring the safety of and support for all those affected is of paramount importance in our collective response. There can never be justification for the violence that has taken place, which has resulted in residents fearing for their lives and numerous PSNI officers being injured. We send our best wishes to all those who have been affected and thank the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS) and the many community organisations and local representatives for what they have done to try to support those communities.

We recognise that we live in an increasingly diverse society and that good community relations go beyond what are often referred to as traditional community backgrounds. The T:BUC review and plans for the new approach to racial equality post 2025 acknowledges that, and we are committed to developing a more collaborative approach across relevant strategies as part of the refreshed approach to good relations.

However, we cannot tackle the issue in isolation if we are to create a safe, prosperous and welcoming society for all. Critical to the success of our work is a truly joined-up approach to addressing the issues across government and wider society, and everyone has their part to play in that.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, deputy First Minister, for your answer. I hope that the tone of this item is more cordial than the previous one, because this is not the time for political point-scoring.

I am concerned that, as I stated in my question, a number of directorates in the Executive Office have responsibility, and, when they come before the Committee, we feel that, in some ways, they are not joined up. Is this a time for cool heads and a bit of focus on whether there could be better collaboration between your programmes and strategies and, as you say, across the Executive?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her follow-up question. She is absolutely right: it is important that, when we talk about collaborative working, which we often do, we talk not just about collaboration between the Department and those outside it but about collaboration within the Department. That is why I am pleased to say that we have joined up the refugee and asylum unit and the race relations unit. Also important is the fact that the T:BUC review is under way. As we look forward to T:BUC 2 coming down the line, we see that its focus will be social cohesion, which, as I said, goes much wider than references to the traditional communities. We know that identity in Northern Ireland is much more complex than that and goes beyond those often referred to as the "host community". We are an increasingly diverse place.

Ultimately, we want the strategies to work. It does not matter how many of them there are, how glossy they look or how long they are: we want the outcomes at the end of them. That must mean that they are all joined up and that we use resources in the best way possible to effect positive change and increase social cohesion.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, with respect, a vulnerable family listening today and hearing waffle, frankly, about moving beyond siloed working and greater collaboration would think that it is pathetic that the best that the heads of the Government can offer after an attempted pogrom on the streets of Northern Ireland is bureaucratic verbiage. To cut to the chase, some of your colleagues have talked about the context of the violence: one piece of context is the continued and pernicious presence of loyalist paramilitaries in those communities. Do you agree that that is the context for the violence? If it is proven that specific individuals or organisations had a role, formal or informal, in the violence, will any public funding that the Executive Office is responsible for be removed from them forthwith?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The PSNI has come out with a clear assessment that there is no evidence of loyalist paramilitary involvement. I have to say to the Member that it is not about standing here and waffling. Over the course of the past week, I was in touch with the Chief Constable every day. I spoke to local representatives on the ground. I went to Ballymena to speak to residents. I met the family of the child who was assaulted. I met families from the ethnic minority community whose properties were subject to arson. I have been in contact with many people because I believe in action: being there and listening to people.

I advise the Member to calm his rhetoric and, if he is talking about working together, to truly work together, because everything must come together for this to work: action on the ground, the right funding support for the PSNI, work with our community organisations and listening to local residents. From a policy perspective, importantly, we need to get the strategies right, because the strategies will support that work and those structures and that funding going to the right people at the right time. That is not waffle. That is not a waste of time. That is absolutely essential, if we are genuinely to change people's lives for the better.

Mr Gildernew: Does the deputy First Minister accept that the social media comments by her colleague the Communities Minister were entirely inappropriate in an already volatile situation?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We have been absolutely clear and united. The Communities Minister has been unambiguous, I have been unambiguous and politically, we have been unambiguous: the violence was wrong and needed to stop. Indeed, as the Communities Minister said clearly, he was endeavouring to defuse the situation and ensure that it was made clear that the rumours and myths that were going around in the community were not true. There was never any justification, even if those rumours had been true. There was certainly no suggestion of a justification that any violence take place. As he clearly said, his intentions at all times were to defuse tensions and avoid violence and any type of racism. Let us be clear: we are unambiguous in saying that the violence was wrong and that it had to stop.

Mr Brett: I pay tribute to the deputy First Minister for being on the ground at those scenes. Rather than engaging in megaphone diplomacy, she spoke with those who were truly impacted on. Does she agree that we should pay tribute to community leaders, particularly those involved in CIT areas, who have been out on the ground with real elected representatives to ensure that tensions have been defused? Will she continue to work across the spectrum to calm things down and not engage in nonsense, unlike some Members?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. It has been disappointing over the past week to see people take part in party politics and silly games at a time when it was really important to the people whom we serve that we send the message that we stand united, that our clear demand is that the violence stop, that we offer our clear support to the PSNI and that, importantly, together we will listen to local communities and do everything in our power to prevent this from happening again. Last week, because of ongoing the distractions and debates, the messages were mixed; indeed, if this were to happen again — I hope that it does not — the lesson should be learned that we need to show the leadership that is demanded of us. That means supporting all those who were impacted on by that terrible, violent disorder.

Mr Beattie: Despite the numerous strategies and policies, many of which were mentioned in the question, our criminal justice system has seen little improvement in15 years. Those are not my words but those of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland. My question to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister is this: as the leaders of our Executive, what will they do to sort this out? It is clear that our Justice Minister cannot. Maybe special measures?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He is absolutely right: for us to have the right response, all parts of that response must work. Of course, we want to prevent it from ever happening again, but that will require those strategies, interventions and funding support. However, were it to happen again, it would demand a robust policing response. That requires the right support to be given to the PSNI, which has not happened thus far. We need to do our best to ensure that we give the PSNI the funds that it needs. We also need to ensure that the criminal justice system is responsive to such issues so that people can be processed and that justice is not only done but seen to be done. We have to ensure that a clear message is sent that, if people are going to go out on to the streets of Northern Ireland to cause fear and destruction, a swift penalty will be paid. That is the way in which our justice system ought to work.

Mr Dickson: Deputy First Minister, I want to ask about the review of T:BUC. When will the refreshed approach to T:BUC and good relations be published?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As the Member is aware, that process is under way. Many of the key aspects of T:BUC endure, and many key principles will remain. Of course, as I have said before, I would like to have seen in the first Together: Building a United Community strategy a focus not only on what were termed "traditional communities" but more widely.

The T:BUC strategy is grounded in section 75(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Of course, that is wider and covers race relations as well. It is incredibly important. Similar interventions are required across this area. Really good learning from what we have done in good relations and the CIT programme can be deployed in those areas. We need to continue to identify areas where there are tensions and issues, and we need the right interventions that are based on the good practice that we have seen in other situations. It makes huge sense for it to be joined up.

That is what the First Minister and I will strive to do through the reviewed T:BUC strategy, which will be coming very shortly.

Ms Mulholland: First, I can speak for nobody other than me, but there are absolutely no party politics at play when I try to work with people on the ground, so I refute that suggestion.

There was an opportunity after the violence of last summer to apply learning and to seek independent counsel, as was done elsewhere in the UK. It was not done here, despite a motion coming before the Assembly. Will there now be a proper, comprehensive review of good relations policies and programmes, with the objective of ending violence targeted at foreign nationals and our ethnic minority communities?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I assure the Member that that work is under way, and some of the learning from it has already been put into practice. One example is the coming together of the particular units under one directorate in the Executive Office. While some of that does not sound particularly interesting, it is really important that the aspects work well together. Likewise, the review of the first racial equality strategy is really important, because a number of structures have been set up. Some are working really well. For example, in our forums, we have regular exchanges and listen to those from the ethnic minority community. There is also work being done on the policing and justice side to tackle hate crime.

There are many elements. The best of them will be rolled forward into the revised racial equality strategy, but, importantly, on your colleague's point, it is not just about equality but about social cohesion, which is why social cohesion must be fully integrated into the new Together: Building a United Community strategy as well.

Ms Ennis: What we have seen from the deputy First Minister's colleague is a masterclass in, "If you are explaining, you are losing". What he has done today is try to double down on his actions over the weekend and try to "legitimate concern" his way out of it. At what point does ministerial accountability outweigh political posturing?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: At the moment, there are people on the ground who feel scared. There are people on the ground who have lost their home. There are communities that genuinely want their serious concerns and the issues that they face day in, day out to be listened to. It demeans this place and demeans all of us to keep coming back to what is effectively a party political point-scoring exercise. Let us drop the silly games and focus on working together for communities, listening to communities and addressing the big issues. I advise the Member that we can address those issues only by standing together, united, and not by taking lumps out of one another in this place.

Mr Carroll: In the House, we often hear attempts to blame migrants or asylum seekers for the real crisis in our public services, which is caused by underfunding, not by migration. Will you, Minister, take the chance to distance yourself from those comments and say clearly that migration adds to our communities and to the fabric of our society and does not put pressure on our services? People are living in terror and want to know that the deputy First Minister, at least, has their back.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I take the opportunity today to pay tribute to the many people who come to Northern Ireland who significantly contribute in many ways, not only by adding to the richness of our identities and cultures but by working in our health service, which simply could not survive without their incredible work. They also work in so many other sectors.

We also want to attract the brightest and the best from across the world. If we are to be global leaders in technology, cyber and advanced engineering, we need to attract the brightest and the best. The reality is this, however: many communities in the most deprived places really struggle to get access to housing and public services. It is our duty to listen to those people. The frustrations that we have seen are around what we need to do to support those people to get access to affordable housing and access to services.

There is an issue with supply and demand. The challenge with that is that, when people are frustrated and in a difficult position, there are forces out there — people out there — that are prepared to do everything that they can to manipulate the situation. We need to step up and do our part, but we also need to listen to people in those communities when they talk about social cohesion and the issues that they face in order to make sure that their lives are much better than they are at the moment.

Mr Kingston: Does the deputy First Minister agree that there is a need to prioritise the communities that are most affected by increased immigration into Northern Ireland for future good relations and community cohesion resources and programmes?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. The reality is that integration often does not happen by chance. It will not happen accidentally. When communities have been changed or are changing, there can often be those frictions and social cohesion issues. We know that; it is common all over the globe. Therefore, as I said, it is important for us to get down into communities to really listen to them about the challenges that they face. However, it is also important that we are careful about the policies and approaches. Last summer, we saw a huge number of clusters of Mears housing and different things coming in and impacting on communities, and communities were feeling that the politicians sitting in this place did not understand and were not listening to what they face day in and day out.

It is really important to listen to people, do everything that we can and do that work to see where people are coming in, what the social cohesion issues are and what support we can give to support those communities. That is why the racial equality strategy, our race relations approach and Together: Building a United Community are important. For 50 years, we have been working on relationships between the communities that have been here for many generations, so, of course, there is a huge amount of work to be done on working with new communities and the host communities. That is what we really need to focus on as an important part of our work in the Department.

Ms Egan: Minister, your Department is, obviously, responsible for ending violence against women and girls. The racially motivated attacks mean that many women and their children have had to leave their home in Northern Ireland. What work will your Department do to ensure that women who are from ethnic minorities here feel safe and confident in making a life here?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: That strategy is about making every woman and girl feel safe in Northern Ireland, and that is an inclusive approach. The Member will be aware that the strategy and the framework clearly include those from an ethnic minority background. From talking to people on the ground, I know that they are clear that there is a fear about the safety of women and girls. We have those schemes coming out through the councils, and that money is already hitting the ground.

There is much more to be done. We have said before that the money that we have secured is welcome. However, we would love to have more money to put towards the measure not just in working with great organisations such as Women's Aid and other groups that work with the victims of that violence but, importantly, in doing preventative work on tackling the misogynistic attitudes that give rise to the violence. That is all really important. The more money that we can get for that important work, the better. We will seek that as we move forward through the delivery of that framework and delivery plan.

Mr Gaston: Deputy First Minister, I trust that, when you came to Ballymena, you got the message loud and clear that photographs, buzzwords and glossy brochures are simply not working. At what point do we go back to the drawing board to ensure that money is spent on strategies that will deliver on the ground and show that there is an alternative to violence for getting your voice heard, which is a narrative that has been created by your partner in government?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: First, we need to be clear about our message, which is both that the violence is wrong and that we will listen to communities on the ground. It is absolutely important in all this that communities feel empowered to talk to us about the issues that they face. We need to listen, and we need to take action. I assure the Member that I am very much about action. I was very much involved in creating the Urban Villages scheme. Together: Building a United Community involved real money getting out on the ground, should it be for summer camps, working with schools or whatever the projects may look like. The social investment fund benefited so many parts of Northern Ireland, and I was very much involved in creating that. We have very much been about action.

Yes, we need the strategies, but a strategy is a strategy only if it works. If it is a strategy that sits on a shelf and does nothing, it is absolutely useless. Our strategies must work, and our frameworks must work. We need to get the money out to support people with the right interventions at the right time. Those must be the interventions that work with local communities and local people that help to solve the challenges that people face.

Mr Chambers: Will the deputy First Minister agree that some of the comments made in the House this afternoon may have undermined public confidence in the operation of the Executive Office and, indeed, the Executive?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am not aware of which comments in particular the Member refers to, but let me be clear: people need to stop the silly games; people need to grow up; and people need to step up. That is what the people of Northern Ireland demand of us; that is what the people of Northern Ireland expect of us; and that is what we need to do. We need to get together, get our act together and send the clear message that violence is wrong but also that we have people's backs, we will listen to people, and we will do our best to really bring about positive change on the big challenges that people face.

Let me be clear: there are too many people across Northern Ireland who are facing difficult times, are really facing that hardship and really need the support of their Executive. That is what we need to do. No matter what part they come from, we should be there to have the backs of the people of Northern Ireland, and we should do that in a mature way and by showing the leadership that the people of Northern Ireland expect of us.

Ms K Armstrong: Deputy First Minister, given that the Executive Office resources various units, including the foreign offices, whose value for money remains a mystery, how can we be assured in the House that work to tackle and end racism and xenophobia is being adequately resourced and carried out by properly qualified personnel?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. There are a number of aspects to it: the PSNI and the criminal justice system, and we have the Home Office coming in. It supports just over £11 million a year for integration work, but, of course, that is coming in from a non-devolved source. The Executive Office distributes that through the other Departments. We have councils, the Housing Executive and housing associations. Importantly, we have those incredible organisations in our third sector — the community organisations. I pay tribute to the organisations that worked on the ground to get people off the streets and to get young people back in their homes and appealed to people to stop the violence. That was incredibly helpful in the past number of days. They require that support. In the Executive Office, we can try, as a central Department, to coordinate that under the strategies and to make sure that those strategies are cohesive and come together and, importantly, that the right interventions are identified, the right people are delivering them and they are delivered in the right way in the right place. That is critical.

Mr McMurray: I am sure that, like me, the deputy First Minister will extend to newcomers here — be they my neighbours, those who come to my office or those whom I sit beside on a Sunday — that they are valued, welcomed and appreciated. Will the deputy First Minister provide an update on the Race Relations Order? When will we see an amendment on that before the House?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member will be aware that that is in the legislative programme and that it is the responsibility of the First Minister and me to bring that forward. He will also be aware that the aim is to get all legislation introduced no later than mid-autumn in order to give it the best chance to get through the House before the next election. That is the time frame that we are endeavouring to meet. The consultation ended in 2023. A lot of work has taken place on that legislation with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), which is the drafting office. We hope to have those proposals with us prior to the summer recess. That will enable finalised drafting to happen over the summer, with the aim of introduction in September or October of the new term.

Mr Durkan: I commend the Minister for her work on the ground in Ballymena last week. Can the Minister tell us when the refugee integration strategy will be published? The consultation on that closed in, I think, February 2022.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Good news: it has been published. It was published several weeks ago, so I hope that the Member will take a look at that online. Indeed, we are moving forward with implementation of that.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the deputy First Minister. Members should take their ease before we move back to the statement from the Economy Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. The Minister will resume her statement.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I thank you, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle,

and it will not take much longer. I will return to where I left off.

The question was asked whether a similar one-year deferral in exceptional circumstance could be introduced for a small number of students at the end of the school journey for whom an extension was assessed to be in their best interests. Another education issue that was raised, which I referred to earlier, was the inequity of young people in specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) having no alternative but to leave school at 16 because there was no sixth-form SPiMs provision. The Education Minister's proposed legislation to require participation in education or training until the age of 18 may provide a vehicle to address that issue.

Transport issues were raised by many stakeholders as a clear barrier to accessing any form of provision, whether health-based day opportunities, college training or even employment once school ends. Issues such as travel, training, accessible taxis and affordability of transport were raised. Disability and inclusion are cross-cutting issues and engage all Departments. The comparative analysis that Stranmillis University College carried out for us highlighted the need for a whole-of-government approach to transitions for disabled young people, as is the case in Scotland. That approach recognises that transition occurs over many years and encompasses issues such as health, social care, education, employment, independent living, inclusion and active citizenship. I intend to bring a paper to Executive colleagues so that we can take a collective, coordinated approach to those issues.

One cross-cutting issue is an appropriate legal right for young people with special educational needs (SEN). First and foremost, parents want their children to be in the right setting, so the priority is to build up and resource pathways for people with special educational needs. Spending time and money in courts is a last resort, but parents want the reassurance of legal recourse if necessary. I want to see the Executive work together to give people with special educational needs a legal right to an appropriate pathway, whether in an education- or health-based setting. If the Executive were to agree such an approach, developing the model and drafting the associated legislation would require close collaboration between my Department and the Departments of Health and Education. There is a lot of goodwill around the Executive table on the issue, so I am hopeful that that work could develop at pace. In the meantime, we must build up service provision so that parents do not have to resort to the courts.

What I have set out today involves a comprehensive transformation in services for school-leavers with special educational needs. Considerable scoping and design work is now required to quantify the cost of the proposals. We will then need substantial and multi-year investment and close collaboration across Departments. We still have much work to do, but today is an important step forward. I hope that everyone will get behind this and work together to deliver the improvements, which will be life-changing for learners with disabilities and their families.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Mark Durkan to ask the first question on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for that statement. I commend all the families and groups that have campaigned long and loud to bring us this far, with systemic failings being recognised and legislation promised. However, when I think of some of those families — we have some in the Public Gallery today— and the particularly acute and complex needs of their precious sons and daughters, I worry that, while the statement might give the impression that they have been listened to, it appears that they may not have been heard. Will the Minister give any assurance to or about the young people who do not or will not have any qualifications or entry-level requirements that they will have support with mental capacity to access the pathways outlined in the statement?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Like him, I very much recognise the campaigning efforts of many on the issue and those who contributed to the work that was undertaken.

As the Member mentioned, that includes some of those whom I met today, including Alma and Dee from Caleb's Cause, who have really shone a light on the issue and must be commended for the work that they have done in that regard.

The review highlights the range of issues that there are to be addressed. Importantly, I think, it gives a voice to all those who contributed as well as to all the young people and their parents, carers and families who face real challenges in accessing the type of support that they need and deserve. As the Minister with responsibility for the Department for the Economy, I am determined to do everything in my remit to make things better and to work across the Executive where other Departments have responsibilities to ensure that we make the type of progress that is needed. As I set out in the statement, I will bring proposals to the Executive in order to ensure that young people, whatever their pathway is, whether it is in further education supported by the Department for the Economy, or whether it a Health-related pathway supported by the Department of Health and the trusts or the community and voluntary sector, get the right support and that they and their families are being supported to get it.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I thank the Minister for her statement and for meeting me this morning. That is typical of the courtesy that she has shown me since taking office. I can speak on behalf of the whole House in paying tribute to the campaigners who have been involved in this matter. It is a testament to their work that we have advanced this important cause. As the statement indicates, there is much to do, and interdepartmental cooperation will be required. Is the Minister able to outline timescales for the completion of the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) review of existing provision and the scoping of what may prove to be considerable additional costs?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question and for taking the time to meet me earlier today. He rightly recognises the cross-departmental nature of the work that is required but also the cross-party support that there is for addressing the challenges that have been outlined. We anticipate that the ETI review will be completed by the autumn, and then the scoping work will be done. It may take up to a year to get an understanding of exactly what is needed, but I am determined to work at pace. I pay tribute to my officials for the work that they have done on the review, and they are determined to work at pace in order to outline what it is that we need to do and then ensure that the provision can be put in place.

It is also important to recognise that things are already being undertaken and changes are being made. There are things that have become apparent over the course of the review where good practice is being undertaken, for example, in our further education colleges, and that can be rolled out across the board. There are some things that can be done immediately and others that will take a little bit of time.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for the statement. Like her and others, I put on record my admiration for the campaigners, and particularly for Alma White who, through Caleb's Cause, has shone a particular focus in recent times on this issue. Clearly, the statement is long and detailed and its most important positives are for the many young adults, their families and their carers who are affected. Further to that, Minister, what potential long-term savings are there from investing in support for young people with learning disabilities?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. In my statement, I recognised that there are challenges not just for young people but for their parents and their carers, who very often find themselves having either to reduce their hours or leave work. We know that young people with disabilities are five times more likely to not be in education, training or employment than their non-disabled peers. Even with a degree, a young person with a disability finds it much harder to secure employment than a non-disabled graduate. Failing to invest in appropriately supported skills and training opportunities has knock-on impacts on health and well-being and social security costs and creates a ripple effect on economic inactivity and, as I mentioned, parents and carers' household incomes. My officials are in discussions with experts to support us in building the evidence base for that and to help reinforce not just the moral case, which is well made, but the economic case for investment.

Mr Honeyford: I would also like to acknowledge Alma and the Caleb's Cause campaign. I really feel for them today: overall, this statement might be disappointing for them. The Minister mentioned data sharing, and she said that we need to improve working between Departments. She went on to say in the statement — I do not mean to put words in her mouth — that she would have a look at that. It is critical that Departments work together, and everyone knows that that part of government is not working. What action does the Minister believe needs to happen to address that? What action does she intend to take to ensure that it absolutely does?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It was one of the issues that became apparent across the review. We measure things in different ways and call things different names, so, for some of the data, there is no direct read-across. However, as I also reflected, things sit in different Departments, and we need to ensure that there is a cross-departmental approach. I will bring proposals to my Executive colleagues on how we can better share knowledge and data to ensure that we can plan for these young people — we know that they are in the education system and that they will go on somewhere afterwards, whether that is to further education or elsewhere — which is important.

In my statement, I also mentioned the approach that is in place in Scotland, which is a whole-government approach to transition. I would like to explore that approach with my Executive colleagues, because, when you listen to the range of issues, such as transport, health and income support, you realise that there is a function for all Departments. Therefore, it is important that we work collectively, and that is the right approach.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I broadly welcome the statement, but I note the aspirational tone throughout. I pay tribute to Alma and the campaigners for bringing Caleb's Cause to this moment. Can the Minister expand a bit on the joint venture between the Department for the Economy and the Department of Education to create the joint careers action plan? Specifically, can she outline any initiatives that may emerge from the venture and how she intends to assess them? The Minister will agree with me that everyone deserves the fairest start in life.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The joint careers action plan has been agreed by the Executive. Therefore, it will be published in the very near future. In my statement, I mentioned some of the actions that we are taking to ensure that careers advice and guidance are accessible to all. There should be specific access and support for autistic people in a format that is accessible to them. There should also be advice and guidance tailored to everyone so that we have a truly inclusive Careers Service. Hopefully, that will be reflected when the action plan is published.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, thank you for the statement. Like others, I welcome it, and I want to place on record my appreciation of the campaigners, such as Alma and others, who have done so much. Can you give some additional information about how the assessment and support model will work in real time?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. We want to ensure that young people who choose to study in further education are supported to thrive in their courses. The clear message that my officials took away from their extensive stakeholder engagement was the anxiety that is created by the lack of clarity on what support a young person can expect when they move from school to college. The message was particularly emphasised by the 16-year-olds with SEN statements in specialist provision in mainstream schools, who were leaving at the end of year 12 because there was no provision for them in years 13 and 14.

It is intended that the assessment and support model will build on the type of model in the school system — the special educational needs statement — and tailor it to the FE college environment. We want to give greater clarity to young people and their families about the support that they can expect, and that will increase the consistency and transparency of support across all areas. After considering the findings of the review, I have approved that approach, and officials, in conjunction with other partners, will now move as quickly as possible to develop the details of the design and administration of the model.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her statement. As chair of the all-party group (APG) on voluntary and community sector, I was pleased to welcome the Minister to a meeting of the group a couple of weeks ago, at which she heard a lot from groups about their community-based, grassroots recognition of issues and how they build on that when responding to need, especially in rural areas such as those in my constituency of South Down.

Minister, you talked about co-design in your statement. Will you give a bit more detail on how groups in the voluntary and community sector will work with your Department to provide that critical link-up when developing the policy?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. It is a really important aspect of the support. We know that many organisations in the community and voluntary sector do really amazing work to support young people and adults with learning disabilities and other disabilities. That work can be supported through the social enterprise action plan that we have implemented in the Department. As we move forward, there will be opportunities to ensure that there is that level of engagement with all stakeholders that have a part to play. There is a really important role for our community and voluntary sector to play, particularly in Health-related provision. I am very keen to discuss that with the Minister of Health. I had a brief conversation with him about it this morning, but we need to take a greater look at it. Where there is best practice, we need to roll it out across the board.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. The reason that we are here today is Caleb's Cause. The statement simply does not deliver on Caleb's Cause. Alma has been crystal clear that the provision has to deliver for all.

The Minister confirmed that she supports people with special educational needs having a legal right to an appropriate pathway, be it in an Education or Health setting. Has she confirmed with the Education and Health Ministers whether they support the introduction of legislation? If she has not had those conversations yet, why not?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. It is important to recognise that there are still big challenges with what we are trying to achieve. I have gone as far as possible within my Department's remit to ensure that we can improve provision and support across colleges and training providers. There are other cohorts of young people who will have a different path into Health-related provision. We need to ensure that similar protections and support are there for them, so I am committed to working with my Executive colleagues to make sure that that is the case. I have spoken to the Health and Education Ministers. They have not yet seen the detail of the proposals that I will bring to the Executive. We will therefore have to discuss them around the Executive table.

Miss Dolan: I thank the Minister for her work on the issue and for her statement this afternoon. Minister, will you consider introducing apprenticeships for young people with SEN?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The apprenticeship programme works really well, but I want to see increased representation from a number of different cohorts, including people with disabilities. It has been rightly reflected that the uptake of apprenticeships among people with disabilities is quite poor. We have therefore placed a particular focus on addressing that. Under my apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund, two dedicated disability projects have been selected to test approaches to better apprenticeship participation among, and better outcomes for, those with disabilities. The projects will pilot new pathways to supportive environments that enable individuals with disabilities to thrive and reach their full potential.

In addition, we want to co-design a pilot approach to a new model for apprentices with special educational needs in order to maximise their potential in employment. Our aim is to explore a model that will work for employers and potential apprentices to ensure that apprenticeships are a realistic progression pathway for young people with special educational needs who have built their skills through our vocational programmes. That commitment signals my ambition for a workforce that has a place for everyone and in which individuals who are valued for their unique contribution continue to develop their skills throughout their life.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Like others, I thank Alma and all those involved in the campaign. Like me, they will have mixed emotions about the statement. We are interested in some of the things that are the responsibility of the Department for the Economy, but we realise that there is a whole swathe of young people with difficulties and learning disabilities who are excluded and have not particularly been mentioned. Their problems are outlined, but the solutions to those problems have not been. We would really have loved a whole-Executive approach.

Further to what you have said to us, Minister, can I ask about the assessment and support model for students? You say that it will be a statutory assessment. Will it have the same legal clarity as a statement of educational need?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She is right to reflect the fact that this is a really challenging area. I have worked within my remit to bring forward proposals that I can progress on my own as a Minister, but I really want to work with colleagues across the Executive. I know that there is enough goodwill around the Executive table to make progress on this. Special educational needs is one of the priorities in the Programme for Government, so, on that basis, I hope that we will be able to make good and speedy progress.

You asked about the assessment and support model. It is intended that the statement model from Education will be built upon. We are still working through the detail of what that will look like and at how we can potentially move from one to the other to get a model that fits and works and so that we do not have duplication in the system. How exactly that will look is still work in progress.

Mr McHugh: In my previous life, I worked as a youth training programme (YTP) coordinator in the former North West Institute. For many years, I was involved in establishing and setting up courses for those with special educational needs. I welcome the current direction of travel. Is there potential for an all-island approach when making provision for those with special educational needs?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. One of the Department's key objectives is to improve all-island skills mobility, and we are working with the Irish Government to bring forward skills projects under the PEACE PLUS programme. My Department maintains oversight of that programme in the North. There are initiatives to help reduce skills gaps across the island, especially in under-represented groups. There are already some really good examples of where that is happening, such as the Mencap helping equality, respecting others and enabling success, or HEROES, youth project, which is an inclusive cross-community and cross-border project that supports young people with and without learning difficulties with personal development, citizenship and good relations. There is also the recently launched Skills Connect programme, which will enable people with disabilities to attain skills in areas where there are clear regional shortages. My Department has also had some early engagement with the office of an Taoiseach on progressing skills projects through the Shared Island Fund. I certainly think that there is scope for something in that space, and my officials will explore it further.

Ms Brownlee: I very much welcome the statement, Minister, and the acknowledgement that more must be done for our most vulnerable young people and their families. I pay tribute to Alma and Caleb's Cause for the work that they have done. However, it really concerns me that so many young people do not meet the learning disabilities threshold, even those children who currently attend a special school. They are ineligible for Health-funded pathways or direct payments, leaving them in limbo and their parents and carers without the support that they need to handle and deal with their complex needs in the right way. How will your Department work with Health and Education to address that gap and ensure that parents and carers receive the support that they need?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. It was one of the issues that was clearly highlighted in the work. There is a particular challenge there, because those young people are left with no support or provision. I really want to work on that with the Department of Health and the Department of Education to see how we can address that gap and do so at pace.

Mr Mathison: When we look at special educational needs provision in the school system, we see that there has been a systemic failure in Health and Education to collaboratively work together and deliver real change. You have highlighted the need for your Department to work together now with Education and Health to deliver not only what you propose today but the legislation that the campaigners, such as Alma and Caleb's Cause, have been seeking, providing a legislative protection regardless of the pathway that the young people follow. Minister, how will you lead the way to ensure that the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 is properly applied and that we actually see meaningful collaboration in the space where we have failed to do so for many years?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It is clear that there is a real need to see better cross-departmental collaboration on this issue, in particular, and on others. The priority in the Programme for Government of special educational needs puts a particular focus on it from a cross-Executive perspective. Therefore, we need to see Departments and Ministers stepping up and working together on the issues. I have absolutely no doubt about the intentions of other Ministers on the issue. I am very hopeful that we will see that level of collaboration on special educational needs and on the reforms that the Education Minister has already proposed in that regard. There is a recognition of the need to see that collaboration across Departments as well. It is something that I am very hopeful that we will see in the very near future.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I spoke with Alma and Dee, the parents here today whose children have been damaged or impacted on by this statement. They do not want warm words. They do not want admiration. They want the support that their children need and are entitled to. They told me that they feel as though their children are invisible. As this is such a complex and cross-cutting piece of work, parents want to know who is going to take the lead. Are the Executive, which the Minister's party lead, going to step up —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Justin, is there a question?

Mr McNulty: — or will she return to type, point fingers of blame and pass the buck as usual?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, do you mind taking your seat? I know that this is a political arena, but when Members ask a question, I ask that they watch their tone. You can ask the same question but in a different tone.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I do not see anybody passing the buck. What we did with this piece of work was to take on an issue that was obviously very complex. I have had the opportunity to engage with campaigners — Alma, Dee and others — on the issue. I can say very clearly that I heard their ask and their voices, and I recognise the needs of their young people. I am keen to see that cross-departmental working to try to make progress on the issue. I think that there is a commitment across the Executive to do that; certainly, I will bring forward proposals, and I hope that they will get a very warm hearing.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister, and I welcome the statement and the progress that has been made to date. I pay tribute to and am quite proud of Alma White and Dee Geary, in particular, who have advocated on behalf of children. For children and families that currently feel in limbo — those who are not under Health or Education — the Minister mentioned that we may be able to explore the development of collaborative and co-funded cross-departmental pilots to try to provide pathways for those young people for whom existing systems do not work. I am conscious that there is goodwill within the Executive. Will the Minister throw some light on that aspect?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. There are some things that we can do on a very speedy basis in relation to smoothing things across Departments, as I mentioned in my statement, for young people who are partly on a Health-based pathway and partly on an Economy one. We can certainly tighten up work across the board there and, again, in relation to the type of investment that we want to see in our further education colleges to better support our young people. There are examples of good practice already, and we want to make sure that that is across the board. I also mentioned in my statement that there are regional disparities in the level of provision that we have across the board, so that is something that I am keen to address.

As I mentioned, there are things that we can make quick progress on. There are things that the Department is already beginning to implement and a number of measures that do not require additional finance: for example, the apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund, which is already being undertaken. There is work within our careers portal in which we are working across the Department for the Economy and the Department of Education and other work that is, for example, about improving accessibility in colleges. There are a lot of things that we can do quickly and things that will take longer.

Mr Donnelly: As chair of the all-party group on learning disability, I welcome the Minister's statement. It may not be everything that everyone had hoped for, but I hope that it is a turning point and a start that can and should be built on, with the other Departments, to ensure improved provision for all our young people with additional needs.

Will the Minister share the results of her review with MLAs and/or relevant groups such as Caleb's Cause that have campaigned for so long?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for the question and for his recognition of the work that has been undertaken. We have published a range of relevant materials on the Department's website today, including a summary of the report's findings, the comparative analysis of the legislative framework that Stranmillis University College prepared for us and additional information on participation. I anticipate that all of that will be available after today's statement.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, the statement is substantive. It is long and detailed, and most people would expect no less from you; you are a substantive politician. However, it is not what the Caleb's Cause campaign asked for, and the campaigners are genuinely disappointed, to say the least, today. Do we have a problem in our politics with making empty promises to people and then failing to deliver? It is a problem to drag people who sincerely wish for better for their kids with difficulties up to the hill and then to disappoint them. Should we not do better than that?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Over the course of the work that was undertaken, there was a clear recognition of the challenges that we face. They are not just structural challenges across Departments but financial and resource problems. We need to see significant investment across the board in our further education services and our health services, so that young people can access the type of support that they deserve across the board, regardless of where they live in this region. That is the first thing that we want to make sure happens. Obviously, parents, carers and families will want to have the protection of legal recourse if that is not the case. As I outlined today, I am committed to taking that forward within the remit of my Department. I cannot do that across other Departments, but I am committed to working with other Ministers to achieve that.

Mr Gaston: Minister, a number of months ago, Colin Crawford and I hosted the Education Minister at Castle Tower School in Ballymena. The principal is keen to pilot a scheme similar to that for colleges, which is set out in your statement, but it requires the buy-in from the Department of Education, the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy.

In the statement, under the strengthened foundations theme, we read:

It goes on to say:

Will you give a commitment here today to do your best to set up a cross-departmental working group to address those issues, and, without the buy-in of the other Departments, will you lead on them?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I have set out, we will try, through the transition support service, to improve that read-across in the immediacy. Certainly, I am more than happy to work cross-departmentally to achieve that and also to engage with the Member and his constituents on it. Where good practice already happens, we want to build on it and roll it out across the board. If there are examples, I would be keen to hear about them and see them.

Mr Carroll: I pay tribute to Alma and all the campaigners in my constituency who stand for proper support and services for people with SEN.

Minister, your statement referred to different pathways for young people, apprenticeships and other items. I am concerned about reports that I hear — I wonder whether you hear them too — of people going into work and being underpaid compared with their colleagues and, in effect, being exploited because of their disability. Is your Department aware of that, and does it plan to take action on it?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question and for bringing that to my attention. I am not aware of that, but, if he wants to write to me about it, I will certainly ask officials to look into it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement. Members, will you take their ease for a moment while we change the top Table? Thank you.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion today.

The amendments to the Environmental Protection (Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and other Dangerous Substances) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2000 will prohibit the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). They will require all equipment containing PCBs above the new lower threshold concentration of 0·005% PCBs by weight and a volume of 0·05 cubic decimetres to be removed from use by the end of 2025 and environmentally sound waste management to be applied thereafter. That is a requirement of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, to which the EU and the UK are both signatories and where the amendments come from.

PCBs fall into the category of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Parties to the Stockholm convention are committed to removing PCBs from production and use. The use of PCBs has been regulated in the UK since the early 1980s, but some PCBs are still in use, predominantly in high-voltage transformer equipment in energy infrastructure. In Northern Ireland, the main stock of equipment that still contains PCBs is held by Northern Ireland Electricity Networks. That equipment was brought into use before 1987. Oils containing PCBs can leak from transformer equipment and enter the environment, where they can cause serious health effects in humans and animals. PCBs can have adverse effects on the immune system, liver, skin, reproductive system, gastrointestinal tract and thyroid glands. PCBs remain common contaminants of animal and human food chains, generally at low concentrations, and thus diet remains one of the main sources of exposure.

A regulatory impact assessment was carried out by my officials in order to assess the impact on NIE Networks, which was identified as the biggest holder of stock containing PCBs in Northern Ireland. A number of other holders were not considered to be statistically significant and were therefore excluded from the assessment. PCB-contaminated equipment has to be replaced at the end of its useful life. The amendments bring forward the replacement date of some of the NIE Networks equipment that would have to be replaced eventually. The assessment indicated that the central cost of £385,625 would be incurred by NIE Networks to meet the requirements of the legislation. The cost incurred by NIE Networks is due to the decommissioning of equipment before the end of its useful life, where there is a cost that is considered acceptable to achieve the safe destruction of the equipment.

A consultation exercise carried out by my Department ran from 23 May to 22 July 2022. My Department engaged with approximately 60 targeted NI stakeholders, including small and medium-sized companies and public bodies, via a short survey that ran for nine weeks. A total of seven responses was received from businesses and public-sector organisations. None of the responses expressed any misgivings about the proposed legislation.

The amendments were made in England and Wales in July 2020 and in Scotland in February 2021. They came into force in the Republic of Ireland in 2020. Northern Ireland continues to follow EU legislation on persistent organic pollutants, as required by annex 2 of the Windsor framework. Both the EU and UK are party to the Stockholm convention. Therefore, the amendments will bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain and the EU. By not laying the regulations, we will be in breach of the Windsor framework and will remain divergent from GB and the EU, as well as being in breach of the Stockholm convention. That incurs the risk of EU infraction action against the UK, the costs of which will have to be borne by the Northern Ireland Executive.

Holders of PCB-contaminated equipment must register their pieces of equipment with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). To make that easier for customers, digital services in my Department have developed an online registration system that will go live shortly after the amendments come into force. The amendments will also provide the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, which is responsible for regulating PCBs, with the legislative powers to take action where the registration duty is not complied with. Any action undertaken will be in accordance with DAERA's enforcement and prosecution policy, with enforcement tools ranging from warning letters up to formal prosecution through the courts. The costs of registration have not increased from those laid out in the 2000 legislation, due to the efficiency savings of having an online registration system.

My officials will be able to check for PCB-contaminated equipment during inspections for other regulatory regimes. The charges will remain at an annual charge of £155 for holders of fewer than 20 pieces of equipment and £250 for holders of more than 20 pieces of equipment. The registration system will facilitate Northern Ireland Environment Agency engagement with registered holders and enable holders to notify the agency when the PCB-contaminated equipment has been disposed of and can be removed from the register. Officials in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency chemicals compliance team work collaboratively with the waste teams in the agency's regulation unit and will ensure that the destruction of the material is undertaken by appropriate means, in this case by high-temperature incineration.

My officials have been engaging with other regulators in the UK and Ireland and have had discussions with NIE Networks, which, as I said, is the largest holder of potentially PCB-contaminated equipment in Northern Ireland. Officials issued an Executive paper on 5 March regarding the amendments. They received replies from the Justice Minister, Health Minister and Economy Minister, none of whom had any issues with the amendments and were supportive of them. The amendments were approved by the Executive at a meeting on 30 April and by the AERA Committee on 8 May.

Mr McAleer (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs first considered the SL1 letter for the draft amendment regulations at its meeting on 8 May 2025. The Committee heard from the officials that DAERA intended to make the statutory rule (SR) under the draft affirmative procedure for the implementation of amendments to the Environmental Protection Regulations (NI) 2000. That will enable us to comply with the Stockholm convention and remain aligned with the EU persistent organic pollutants legislation, as required under the Windsor framework, and the SR will bring us in line with Britain.

We heard from officials that PCBs are persistent organic pollutants and that parties to the Stockholm convention are committed to removing them from production. The Committee was concerned to hear that PCBs remain common contaminants of animal and human food chains and that diet remains one of the main sources of exposure in the general population. We heard that the amendments will require all equipment containing PCBs that are above the new lower threshold concentration of 0·005% PCBs by weight and a volume of 0·05 cubic decimetres to be removed from use by the end of 2025 and to ensure environmentally sound waste management going forward. We were advised that not making the amendments would mean NI remaining divergent from Britain and the EU and being in breach of the Stockholm convention and the Windsor framework.

Officials highlighted the fact that holders of PCB-contaminated equipment have to register that equipment with NIEA, and an online registration system will go live shortly after the amendments come into force. We heard that officials had also been engaging with other regulators in the UK and with NIE Networks, which is the largest holder in NI of potentially PCB-contaminated equipment. The Committee queried whether there had been any negative concerns in the consultation about the amendments and was reassured to hear that, given the impact that PCBs can have on human and animal health, the responses were supportive of their removal.

The Committee also queried the cost to NIE Networks of more than £385,000. We were advised that that is the cost of decommissioning the equipment that would still have been in use and that the economist who did the regulatory impact assessment considered that to be a reasonable cost under the "polluter pays principle". When Committee members sought clarity on whether all elements of the draft statutory rule stem from the Stockholm Convention and are replicated from Britain, with no deviation, officials confirmed that that was the case. At our meeting on 12 May in Castle Archdale, we considered the final draft SR, and members agreed to support it in this debate.

In conclusion, the Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Environmental Protection (Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and other Dangerous Substances) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2025 be affirmed and made by the Assembly.

Miss McIlveen: I will place my comments in context, because it is important to reiterate my party's position. The Democratic Unionist Party believes that it is wrong that change to legislation in Northern Ireland be made at the behest of the EU as a result of the Windsor framework. Doing so is undemocratic and leaves those who elect us bereft of effective representation in the making of laws that govern them. We also recognise, however, that today's draft regulations are the product of an international agreement that takes steps to reduce risks to the environment and human health from PCBs, which can be released from ageing electrical equipment.

As we have heard, the UK and the EU are parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. In recent years, as, again, we have heard, England, Scotland and Wales have passed regulations requiring the removal of equipment containing more than 0·005% PCBs by 31 December.

In Committee, I sought and received reassurance from officials that what is before us will provide full parity with those arrangements, that there is not going to be any divergence and that the convention that has been mentioned should serve to minimise the prospect of that happening. Although I am uncomfortable with the aspects that are attached to the EU, I am therefore content that we support the draft regulations. Members should, however, be in no doubt about the rationale behind our taking that position. We are doing so not out of concern about keeping pace with the EU or to avoid a breach of the oppressive requirements of the Windsor framework but because we believe that the cause of preventing the accumulation of PCBs and the adverse effects that those substances can have on animals and humans is an important one.

Mr Gaston: I oppose the draft statutory rule because of how and why the legislation is being brought forward. Let me be clear: these draft regulations are not simply a technical update but part of a broader and far more troubling pattern, which is the ongoing subjugation of Northern Ireland's lawmaking powers by the European Union via the Windsor framework.

Paragraph 9.1 of the explanatory memorandum could not be clearer. It states:

It is therefore not retained EU law. It is not assimilated law, nor is it law that we in the House have freely chosen to adopt on its merits. No, it is a requirement that is being imposed externally, which the Assembly is being compelled to implement in order to comply with the obligations under the Windsor framework. We are being told, "Vote for this or violate an international agreement". That is not democratic accountability. That is not devolution. Rather, it is dictatorship. Let us reflect on what that means. The people of Northern Ireland are subject to laws that they did not vote for, made by institutions that they do not elect and forced by powers that the Assembly cannot resist. The draft regulations exemplify that reality. Even the explanatory memorandum admits that the draft statutory rule partially implements regulation (EU) 2019/1021. Our laws are being progressively adjusted and realigned to fit the European rule book. Although that may not bother the Minister, and, by the looks of things, it may not even bother other unionist MLAs in the Chamber, it bothers me, as a democrat.

What exactly is the Assembly's role? Is it to rubber-stamp it or risk being told that we are in breach of the framework? That is not technical alignment; it is political submission.

Furthermore, it will not stop with that one regulation. There will be others. This is a process, not just a single event. EU law remains hardwired into Northern Ireland's internal system through the Windsor framework, and the price of that is our legislative independence. Some may ask whether this is really worth opposing, given the subject matter. My answer is yes. Principle is important. Today it is PCBs, but, tomorrow, it may be food standards or energy policy. What we tolerate in principle today we will be expected to submit to in practice tomorrow. I will not support a process that turns the Assembly into a mere implementation arm of Brussels diktats. I am here to represent the people of North Antrim, not the Brussels establishment.

I will vote against the motion. The Union is being hollowed out before our eyes, and the statutory rule is just another brick in the wall of constitutional betrayal. I urge other unionists to do the same.

Mr Muir: To summarise, amending the Environmental Protection (Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and other Dangerous Substances) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 will require the removal of all PCB-contaminated equipment by the end of 2025. The amendment will result in Northern Ireland no longer being divergent from either Great Britain or the EU, both of which have already implemented such amendments. In order for Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the UK and the EU, to continue its efforts to reduce persistent organic pollutants, which, in this instance, are PCBs, we need to pass the amendment. I commend the order to the House.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Ayes have it. Mr Gaston, your vote against will be suitably recorded.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members should take their ease while we await the next event.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The next item of business is a debate on two motions to approve statutory rules, both of which relate to social security benefits. I will call the Minister to move the first motion. He will then be invited to commence the debate on both motions that are listed in the Order Paper. When all those who wish to speak have done so, I will put the Question on the first motion. The second motion will then be read into the record, and I will call the Minister to move it. The Question will then be put on that motion straightaway. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on both motions.

Mr Lyons: The uprating package usually increases the rates of social security benefits, pensions and lump-sum payments each year in line with inflation. It begins at the beginning of the tax year. These two rules came into operation in April 2025. I seek the Assembly's approval of the two rules, which form part of the main uprating package for 2025-26.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required to undertake an annual review of the rates of benefits in relation to the general level of prices. The percentage increase is determined by the CPI rate in the 12 months up to the previous September. The CPI indicated a positive growth of 1·7% for the period up to end of September 2024. For the 2025 uprating package, that means that benefits linked to prices have been increased by 1·7%. That generally relates to benefits that contribute to extra costs arising as a result of a disability or health condition.

In addition to the commitment to the triple lock, the package continues to apply to the basic state pension and the new state pension. Those pension payments are increased in line with the highest of the growth in earnings, the growth in prices or 2·5%. The growth in earnings is measured by the increase in average weekly earnings in the year, up to May to July 2024. The UK Government's commitment to the triple lock for the basic state pension and the new state pension means that, for 2025-26, those have been uprated by 4·1%. Where the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has discretion to increase rates of other benefits, such as working-age benefits, those have traditionally been uprated by the growth in prices — CPI. For 2025-26, the personal or standard allowances — universal credit, income support, housing benefit, jobseeker's allowance and employment and support allowance — have been uprated by 1·7%, as have income-related benefits and additions, the savings credit maximum amount in pension credit and statutory payments, such as statutory sick pay. The standard minimum guarantee in pension credit has increased by 4·1%, in line with state pensions.

When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions makes an uprating Order in Great Britain, my Department is empowered to make a corresponding order for Northern Ireland. My Department has no power to increase the amounts of benefits by a different or greater amount than that in the annual uprating Order. The uprating order is the main statutory rule to provide for the increase in benefit rates, but some technical provisions for the annual uprating have to be made by regulations, and so they cannot be included in that order.

This debate also encompasses the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, which make technical provisions required for the accurate implementation of the increased rates. The regulations are made as a consequence of the uprating order and also include an increase to the personal expenses allowance for residents in care homes and the earnings limit on carer's allowance. As a result of the 2025 uprating package, approximately £264 million more will be paid out, by my Department, to people in Northern Ireland who are on social security benefits and pensions.

I would therefore welcome Members' support for the uprating order and the consequential uprating regulations, so that people in Northern Ireland continue to receive the increased rates.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): On behalf of the Committee, I support both motions: that pertaining to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order (NI) 2025 and that pertaining to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations (NI) 2025. The Committee considered the order and the draft regulations at its meeting on 3 April 2025 and agreed that it had no objections. The Committee regularly considers secondary legislation pertaining to social security benefits and is aware that this order is one of several statutory rules that relate to the annual uprating of certain benefits, pensions and allowances.

The Committee welcomes the uprating of premiums that are paid to disabled people who receive working-age benefits, universal credit, income support, housing benefit, jobseeker's allowance and employment and support allowance elements, in line with CPI, which is 1·7%, as measured over the period of October 2023 to September 2024. The Committee also welcomes the fact that certain child and family elements will be uprated in line with the increase in relevant HMRC rates.

Whilst any increase is to be welcomed in a cost-of-living crisis, the Committee continues to hear regularly from witnesses about the ongoing hardship that is faced by many of the most vulnerable in our communities. As I have stated repeatedly in my contributions to Budget debates, reforms proposed by the British Government, as set out in the 'Pathways to Work' Green Paper, such as the health top-up to universal credit being removed for those under the age of 22, add to a sense of unease for many benefit recipients. A 13-week transition period simply does not address those fears. We must not overlook the fact that carers and individuals with disabilities continue to struggle to meet their daily needs. Carer's allowance remains a subject that Members are interested in, and we continue to call for that to become a tapered benefit rather than being what is described as a cliff-edge benefit.

On behalf of the Committee, I am content to recommend that the Assembly approve the order and the associated regulations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister to wind up the debate on the motion.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the support from across the House.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The motion has already been debated.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Lyons: The regulations are part of the annual uprating package and increase the lump sum compensation that is payable by the scheme under the Mesothelioma, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. Unlike the main benefits uprating order, there is no explicit requirement in the regulations to review the level of payments under the scheme each year. However, the regulations have increased the amounts payable by the scheme in line with the rate of inflation. Those amounts have been increased by 1·7% for 2025-26, which mirrors the percentage increase in industrial injuries benefits in the main uprating order.

Under the scheme, those who have been exposed to asbestos can claim a lump sum payment if they are not entitled to payment under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, known as the 1979 scheme, and do not otherwise have a civil claim. The scheme provides financial help to persons diagnosed with that horrible disease or, if the person has died, to their dependants, within weeks of diagnosis and without the need to establish an occupational link or, indeed, any causative link.

Provided that they have not already received a compensation payment from another source, people who suffer from that awful disease are therefore eligible for a payment regardless of whether they were employees, self employed or, indeed, they had never worked, which may well be the case for family members who contracted the disease through secondary exposure, for example by cleaning asbestos-covered clothes.

For 2025-26, the amount payable to a person aged 37 or under at diagnosis, for example, has been increased from £114,210 to £116,152, which is the same as the maximum that can be paid under the 1979 scheme. The regulations ensure that the compensation provided under the scheme maintains its value relative to inflation. I am sure that all Members will warmly welcome the provisions.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I support the introduction of the regulations. The Committee considered the rule at its meeting on 3 April. The primary purpose of the change is, as the Minister said, to increase the lump sum payments made to individuals who suffer from diffuse mesothelioma and to their dependants.

The payments are crucial for individuals afflicted by that debilitating disease, which often results from asbestos exposure. Under the 2008 Mesothelioma, etc., Act, the payments are made without requiring proof of negligent exposure to asbestos or that the exposure occurred during employment. That ensures swift and fair compensation for those who are affected. The amounts are usually increased each year in line with the rate of inflation, as measured by the consumer price index in the previous September. This September's CPI was 1·7%, and the uprating of payments is consistent with other disability benefits, reflecting our commitment to supporting those who have been severely impacted on by asbestos-related diseases.

The rule aims to adjust the lump sum payments in line with inflation, ensuring that beneficiaries receive adequate compensation that reflects the current economic conditions.

In terms of financial and regulatory compliance, payments under the 2008 scheme are funded through the recovery of amounts from civil compensation, ensuring that there is no extra financial burden on public funds. Additionally, the regulations comply with section 24 of the NI Act 1998 and align with the corresponding regulations in Britain, maintaining parity in line with existing policy.

Following consideration, the Committee remains satisfied that the regulations are necessary and beneficial. We should always do our utmost to support individuals affected by serious health conditions like diffuse mesothelioma, who will continue to experience financial implications associated with the disease. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Communities, I am content to recommend that the Assembly approve the regulations.

Mr Lyons: There appears to be consensus from all around the Assembly. I am grateful for that, and I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments while we change Ministers.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move

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

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I regret that I am unable to move the motion in the way that I would have wished for the debate. I will provide an update on why that is the case and why I am unable to seek the Assembly's consent to all the clauses in the Bill that engage devolved matters.

The handling of the Bill by the British Government has been unacceptable from the outset. There was no substantive engagement with my officials prior to its introduction, and it was then immediately clear that I could not support consent for the Bill as drafted.

The Bill provides powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations in a wide range of areas, with a small number of those falling under devolved competence. The Bill made no provision for the Secretary of State to require consent from the devolved Governments. My predecessor raised that matter directly with Minister Leong and was assured that there would be engagement at official level to find a mutually beneficial solution. Due to difficulties with the Bill's passage in the House of Lords, the offer to amend the Bill to resolve my concerns was not made until Committee Stage in the House of Commons. The offer to amend the Bill resolved my concerns, and the Bill now contains the devolution amendment.

I met Minister Madders and set it out in writing that the Bill's passage in Parliament must allow time for the Assembly to carry out its scrutiny role, to debate and to meaningfully vote on the consent request. My officials also set out the requirements and time frames of our consent process in detail to the Bill team. Unfortunately, those requirements were not fully respected, and Parliament moved to Report Stage on 4 June before I was able to bring the motion before the Assembly. As a result, most of the Bill is no longer amendable and cannot be subject to a consent request.

The only substantive devolved matter that is now within the scope of a consent vote is the devolution amendment. That is a completely unacceptable situation, and I have written to Minister Madders to seek assurance that it will not be repeated. However, as the request for consent to the Bill was able to obtain my support and the approval of the Executive and as the Committee's report was supportive, I propose a motion that asks for your consent, where possible, and further asks that you note and support the areas that cannot be subject to a full consent vote.

I will move on to the Bill. A priority of the Programme for Government is to grow a globally competitive and sustainable economy, which my Department supports with our prioritisation of good jobs, regional balance and raising productivity. Anything with the potential to undo the harms of Brexit, smooth trade flows and reduce regulatory divergence, with the unnecessary additional burdens placed on business, is to be welcomed.

The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill was introduced at Westminster on 4 September 2024. The Bill aims to support economic growth, provide regulatory stability and deliver more protection for consumers. It seeks to respond to new product risks and opportunities to enable us to keep pace with technological advances such as AI and address issues such as incidents of ingesting button batteries and fire risks associated with e-bikes. It identifies new and emerging business models in the supply chain, ensuring that the responsibilities of those involved in the supply of products, such as online marketplaces, are clear and modernised for increasingly complex supply chains to support consumers' confidence in the products that they buy and in those from whom they buy them.

The Bill ensures that the law can be updated to allow a means of recognising new or updated EU product requirements, with the intention of preventing additional costs for businesses and providing regulatory stability. It enables improvements to compliance and enforcement, reflecting the challenges of modern digital borders.

The Bill seeks to enable the British Government and their regulators to tackle non-compliance and target interventions by allowing greater sharing of data between regulators and market surveillance authorities. It updates the legal metrology framework that governs the accuracy of weights and measures for purchased goods. That seeks to give consumers and businesses confidence in what they buy and to allow for technological progress, including in support of net zero aims and infrastructure: for example, enabling innovation while ensuring that energy smart meters are accurate in their readings.

The Bill confers powers to make product regulations; make product requirements; enforce product regulations; make metrology regulations; enforce metrology regulations; make regulations in respect of data sharing; and make regulations in respect of cost recovery.

Most product regulation is not devolved under the 1998 Act. However, areas such as chemicals are, and it should be for me, as Economy Minister, and other relevant Ministers to set those policy directions for devolved matters. The original iteration of the Bill did not respect devolution. I therefore sought amendments that would allow us to consent to the Bill. Our Welsh and Scottish counterparts had similar concerns. Those efforts led to a devolution amendment that requires the consent of NI Departments to be sought to regulations covering devolved matters that the Secretary of State lays at Westminster. However, it is important to note that most areas of product regulation will fall under the Windsor framework and that most future regulations made under the Bill's powers are anticipated to be applicable only in Britain. Indeed, the Bill allows Britain to align with EU product regulation already applicable in the North. I encourage the British Government to utilise the powers available to undo many of the harms of Brexit and align key product regulations with those in the EU. That would benefit businesses here and in Britain.

Metrology, weights and measures is generally a devolved matter and does not form part of the Windsor framework. That means that regulations in relation to metrology could extend to the North. However, the devolution amendment also requires consent to regulations on metrology, meaning that devolved competence is respected. My officials advise me that metrology is an area of long-standing, cooperative and positive engagement, with regulation in the area mainly being scientific and/or technical.

The Executive have given their support to seeking consent to the Bill, and the Economy Committee's report is also supportive. I thank the Committee for its engagement and report. It is primarily an enabling Bill, providing powers to make regulations, and it has the potential to allow Britain to align more easily with EU product regulation, which would greatly benefit our businesses trading east-west. I therefore commend the motion to the Assembly and thank Members for their support at this juncture.

Mr O'Toole: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, from earlier in the Minister's speech, I was not entirely clear whether she was specifically seeking legislative consent for the Bill or was agreeing with it. For the purposes of the Assembly, may I clarify that she is satisfied that we should grant legislative consent and that that is the position of the Minister and the Executive? It was not entirely clear from the beginning of her speech.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his intervention. We are at too far advanced a stage to give consent to all the clauses, so we are asking for consent to be given to the particular clause on the devolution amendment. I am content with that, the Executive are content with that and the Committee report is supportive of that. There is not an ability to amend further the other clauses, given the Bill's current form, so we can ask only for consent to be given to that particular clause.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): To be clear, the motion in the Order Paper is very clear on what the Assembly is due to discuss. The Minister moved the motion. She is entitled to give her view on the issue, but what we are discussing and voting on is in the Order Paper, and that has not been amended.

I will first speak as the Chair of the Economy Committee. The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill was introduced in Westminster on 4 September 2024. The Bill deals with the UK product safety and metrology framework, which was derived from European Union law but, since Brexit, has become an independent UK framework. The Bill is described as providing powers to the UK Government:

The Department provided evidence on the Bill at Committee meetings on 29 January and 14 May 2025. It advised that the Bill would permit the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to introduce delegated legislation to extend changes to EU product regulation and metrology rules that might apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework to the rest of the United Kingdom. In that way, it is understood that divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK internal market would be minimised. Officials advised that the legislation would apply across a range of relevant matters, including but not limited to eco-design, product safety, artificial intelligence and lithium-ion batteries.

The Committee also considered proposed UK Government amendments to the Bill, which would require the agreement of relevant Northern Ireland Departments prior to the passage of related delegated legislation associated with the Bill. Based on assurances about the relevant consent amendment, the Committee agreed that it was content to support the request for legislative consent. The Minister recently wrote to the Committee explaining the Bill's scheduling difficulties with the UK Government, but, to be fair to the Department, officials have in this instance kept the Committee updated. It is, however, my understanding that there have been issues with other legislative consent memorandums, and clearly those issues are coming forward today. The Committee's view was that it would support what was in the Order Paper.

I will now make some remarks as a DUP MLA. The Democratic Unionist Party recognises that the powers contained in the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will potentially be used to prevent divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are, however, also categorically clear that that does not deal with the root problem at the heart of the Windsor framework, namely the European Union's jurisdiction over laws that govern large swathes of our economy. That is why my party opposed the Windsor framework. Should the Government opt to use the mechanisms in the Bill to align product regulations in Great Britain with those in the European Union, the people of England, Scotland and Wales will be similarly faced with the democratic affront of living to abide by rules made in other jurisdictions, without any input from their locally elected representatives.

Although the Government have gone so far as to make an amendment to the Bill that would require devolved consent where regulations cut across our devolved competencies, that, in our view, does not go far enough. Proper parliamentary scrutiny is needed, not just on product regulation but on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regulation. At Westminster, DUP MPs worked with like-minded unionists to co-sign amendments that would have seen increased scrutiny of changes to product regulations, including through the re-establishment of a European scrutiny Committee. We also signed amendments that would have clarified that the powers to change product rules to match those in the EU could be used for other countries as well.

The Government have so far resisted those calls, which is regrettable. We do not believe that the Government's approach to regulations should be wedded to one market. That is not in the interests of the UK economy or of global free trade. It has never been our preference for the harm of the protocol to be addressed by subjecting Parliament, businesses and consumers in the rest of the United Kingdom to undemocratic and oppressive arrangements similar to those imposed on Northern Ireland.

At the same time, though, we are mindful that, whilst this is not a substantial and long-term answer, a level playing field, irrespective of whether it was promoted by this Bill or separate terms, has the potential to reduce trade disruption in the UK internal market. We cannot close our eyes to that. The security of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom remains the Democratic Unionist Party's overriding aim. Withholding consent for the LCM could mean more divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Democratic Unionist Party will not allow that to happen.

I have to put on record points that I have raised before. The Minister raised concern about laws being made by our sovereign Parliament without the input of elected representatives in Northern Ireland, but neither she nor her party has any similar issue with the European Union making legislation that governs the role of the Assembly. The hypocrisy of that will be clear for all to see. The DUP will support the LCM that is in the Order Paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Emma Sheerin.

Ms Sheerin: I am not down to speak on this, sorry.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You are. I call David Honeyford. Don't you say that as well.

Mr Honeyford: I was about to stand up and say just that. Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for bringing the LCM. When it came through to Committee, there was concern about the communication between Belfast and London. Where we are is not ideal, but I appreciate the work that you have done in bringing the LCM forward, which we broadly support.

Keeping control of legislation in the Assembly and keeping decisions close to people here are priorities that should be maximised. It is essential for the Assembly, and our businesses need certainty, clarity and a stable environment in which to work, so we broadly support the motion. We will always prioritise people and the needs of our economy and business in order to create better opportunities for our constituencies. Our priority must be giving that clarity, and we must give that and our support to local businesses so that we are able to provide a stable platform for them to flourish.

Very simply, I am happy to support the motion.

Mr Gaston: This legislative consent motion should concern every unionist in the House. The Bill that it concerns gives Westminster Ministers sweeping powers to make regulations not through debate, not by vote and not by parliamentary oversight but by diktat. Why? It is so that Great Britain may, at the discretion of the Executive, align its laws with those of the European Union, and not because the people voted for it or because Parliament debated it but simply because Ministers chose to do so.

Clause 2(7) allows a product to be deemed compliant, not because it meets UK law or EU law, but automatically, dynamically, without scrutiny and without consent. This part of the UK already lives under dynamic alignment with EU law in over 300 areas. That was the price that was imposed on us by the protocol and its rebranding under the Windsor framework. If Northern Ireland is already aligned with EU law and Great Britain is now being given the legal vehicle to follow suit, who is aligning with whom? This is not the United Kingdom respecting the will of its people. This is not taking back control. It is the rest of the United Kingdom being brought into line with the part that has been left behind, namely Northern Ireland.

The Bill behind the legislative consent motion is a constitutional Trojan Horse. It has the potential to reverse Brexit by stealth by bringing the rest of the UK into something of the same bondage that we in Northern Ireland endure. If anyone claims the label of "unionist", they should be on red alert. The Bill behind the legislative consent motion is the means by which GB is brought into line with Northern Ireland, not the other way around. It is not a tool for restoring the Union. We are, to a degree, exporting the protocol.

I remind those unionists who view the protocol as, to some degree, a pragmatic solution to the sea border that 17·4 million people voted to get out of the EU. That is the biggest mandate in UK history. Some in this place like to pontificate about how regions of the UK voted. If you want to get into that game, I say that I am proud to represent North Antrim, which returned one of the largest Leave votes in the whole of the United Kingdom. Regardless, the solution to the protocol will never be to export it to the rest of the UK. As unionists, we should be demanding that the result is respected, not subverted UK-wide. With the rise of Reform in Great Britain, the idea that people across our nation will tolerate such a situation for very long is for the birds.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way and his being willing to debate. Just to be clear and for the purpose of the record, given that the Member is clearly a passionate unionist, his position is that he does not want a UK Minister to be able to make regulation for Northern Ireland in relation to aligning with the EU. Is that what he is saying?

Mr Gaston: There is the leader of the Opposition trying to distort. What I am saying to you is that this is to be used as a Trojan Horse by the Labour Government, which is your sister party, no doubt. You sit among them in Westminster. You sit on their Benches and support them when you want, but, at other times, you like to step away and not have anything to do with the Labour Party.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, can we go back to the LCM? Thank you very much indeed. I think that we would appreciate that. Please.

Mr Gaston: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I got sidetracked there with the SDLP trying to divert attention from its sisters in the Government who forced this upon the United Kingdom.

I will finish with this: what is needed is the honouring of the 2016 referendum result, which was a vote for the United Kingdom to leave the EU. This legislative consent motion does not respect that result. Accordingly, I will vote against it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Gaston. Minister.

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I thank Members for their contributions and welcome the interest in this important issue. Again, I thank the Economy Committee for its report.

As I set out in my opening remarks, it is not yet clear how the Bill will operate in practice, as it is an enabling Bill. However, most applications in relation to products are expected to be inapplicable here due to the Windsor framework, and application in Britain could limit regulatory divergence and maintain smooth east-west trade flows. The metrology areas are non-controversial, with long-standing cooperative working in place for a technical and scientific field. I successfully obtained a consent mechanism that respects devolved competence and ensures that future application of the powers will be subject to effective scrutiny and consent. Therefore, I recommend that the Assembly passes the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, before we come to the vote, I have to read out a couple of points.

Following discussion in the Chamber during the debate, and before we take the vote, we just want to clarify some of the points that have come through. As the Report Stage of the Bill was scheduled in Parliament for 4 June, it is too late for the Assembly to give its consent to the devolved provisions in the Bill. However, the Speaker is satisfied that there is still time for the Assembly to gives its consent or otherwise to the amendment relating to the specific devolution consent mechanism.

Members will be aware of the Speaker's concern regarding the timeliness of laying legislative consent memorandums in the Assembly. Indeed, the Speaker wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister on that matter last week. It is for the Minister to explain why the legislative consent memorandum in respect of this Bill was not laid in sufficient time for the Assembly to be able to consider whether or not it wishes to give its full consent. The Speaker is satisfied, however, that the motion in the Order Paper is in order.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, your No vote is on the record.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for making those clarificatory points. It is important to put on the record that we appear to be in a bit of a running fiasco with legislative consent motions. I fear that we are at risk of placing our already somewhat compromised reputation for legislative competence in even more disrepute. Will the Speaker's Office be coming forward with more guidance on where we are? That is two LCMs that were brought forward too late for the Assembly to give meaningful consent. Frankly, that is a shocking position for the Assembly to be put in.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I shall ask the Speaker's Office to investigate the issues surrounding the LCM. I can say very clearly that the Speaker is frustrated by the LCM process and how it is being delivered to the Assembly.

Dr Archibald: I set out very clearly in the course of the debate the reasons why this particular LCM was in the format that it was.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: Today's Final Stage concludes this part of the legislative process of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Bill provides the legislative authority for the expenditure of the Departments and other bodies as set out in the Main Estimates, which were laid in the Assembly on 21 May 2025. The Main Estimates are, in turn, based on the departmental spending plans that are set out in the Executive's Budget 2025-26, which was agreed by the Assembly on 19 May 2025. The Bill provides the legislative authority for that expenditure.

My Department continues to engage with all Departments in order to ensure that the Executive have an up-to-date picture of the pressures that Departments face and how the available resources are being used. As the year progresses, the Executive will make further decisions on the allocation of resources, and I will bring those decisions back to the Assembly through the spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs) and a subsequent Budget Bill at the end of the financial year.

Once again, I express my gratitude to the Finance Committee for giving its agreement to accelerated passage. I also thank all the departmental Committees and all Members for the scrutiny that they have been able to bring to the process. This is the Final Stage of the legislative process for the Bill. I look forward to hearing any final thoughts from Members on this important legislation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole as Chairperson of the Finance Committee and leader of the Opposition.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. People will be relieved to hear that I am going to speak very briefly in both my capacities. First, I will speak about the Finance Committee's scrutiny. In fairness to the Finance Minister, he has sat through a lot of scrutiny of the Budget (No. 2) Bill, and he is probably exhausted from hearing all our voices, including mine. However, that is the purpose of this stage of the legislation, and we will be doing it again at some point in the not-too-distant future. We hope to have a June monitoring round very soon. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update on that. I am not sure whether we got one earlier, during questions on his statement, but it would be helpful to get an update on when he thinks that he will get a June monitoring round.

The Minister is probably fairly exhausted now, and we are also mindful of the comprehensive spending review (CSR), which we heard about earlier. We will be debating that in detail in the Finance Committee on Wednesday. We reach the Final Stage of the Budget (No.2) Bill with a greater understanding of the direction of travel Budget-wise, not just for this financial year but for the following financial years, than we had during the Bill's Second Stage.

The Committee granted accelerated passage for the Bill, as it has done for its predecessors in this mandate, in part because we have developed a good relationship as a Committee with the Minister's officials. There is a growing awareness and understanding of the Budget process in speeches. That is really important, and I say that in a non-political sense. The Budget process is one that involves political scrutiny, in an overarching sense, of priorities, and I do that in my capacity in opposition, but also detailed scrutiny of the Budget process, and the Committee has been doing lots of that.

It is also worth reflecting on the fact that, following the CSR announcement, we know that the Executive will be able to bring forward a multi-annual Budget in the autumn. Obviously, we will be encouraging them to do so. That will make the Budget process more transparent and, in theory, will make scrutiny easier. As has been well rehearsed, multi-annual Budgets will provide greater security, predictability and ability for Executive Ministers to be strategic in their budgeting. In short, Budgets should be better spent and better planned going forward.

The CSR announcement has provided further funding for the Budget at hand, and the Committee commends the Minister and his officials for the Department's work on the fiscal framework. The Committee will continue to scrutinise that work and encourage the Minister and his Department to bring the information before it sooner rather than later. Officials will be in front of the Committee this week, and members will be able to question them more fully on how the fiscal framework is progressing and how Professor Gerry Holtham's work fits into that. That concludes my remarks as Chair of the Finance Committee.

I will say a brief few words in my Opposition role. As this is the legal authorisation of the spending rather than the strategic statement of Budget priorities, the Opposition will push for a Division on the Budget (No. 2) Bill this evening. However, I will take the opportunity to restate the fundamental flaws in the Executive's approach to Budget-making. First, the Budget 2025-26 is already failing because it barely allocated anywhere near enough funding to deal with the specific priorities promised in the Programme for Government. Even in the areas where it promised something approaching a specific target, most notably around social housing starts, it has already failed miserably. The Programme for Government promised just under 6,000 social homes. The Communities Minister's budget was allocated by the 2025-26 Budget document that the Finance Minister provided, legislated for in the Budget (No. 2) Bill that we are about to pass. The Communities Minister walked in here and told us about his failure, which he would see as inability, to allocate the money to build more than 1,000 social homes in this financial year. Mr Kingston is shaking his head. I am happy to give way if he wants to correct me.

Mr Kingston: That is tomorrow's debate, and I look forward to having the debate then.

Mr O'Toole: This debate is about the Budget, and the Communities Minister was talking about his budget. I am afraid that it is all about what is in the Budget (No. 2) Bill, because we are authorising spending that will not be sufficient to deliver the social homes that the Communities Minister, the Finance Minister and all the other Executive Ministers promised. I am afraid that it is entirely linked to today's Budget (No. 2) Bill. It is way, way, way short of being anywhere near the run rate that is needed to get close to 6,000 social homes; it is already failing on its promises. It fails to deliver on investment in NI Water. There is a below-inflation rise for NI Water at a time when Lough Neagh is an open-air sewer; when we are failing to deliver enough social homes; and when our waste water infrastructure is preventing economic development across the North. The Minister, in his Budget document, is content to simply wave it through. That, among many other reasons, is why the Opposition cannot and will not support the 2025-26 Budget.

As has been said, we will have the opportunity to debate more of those subjects during the Opposition day tomorrow. I will not detain the House any further. We do not support the 2025-26 Budget, but we will not push this Budget (No. 2) Bill, which is an authorisation of spending, to a Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Matthew, for clearing that up.

Mr Gildernew: Thar ceann an Choiste, tacaím leis an Chéim Dheiridh den Bhille Buiséid (Uimh. 2).

Tar éis dúinn pleananna caiteachais na Roinne Pobal a scrúdú go mion tríd an timthriall buiséid seo, tá fócas an Choiste fós dírithe ar na dúshláin a bhaineann le soláthar seirbhísí do na saoránaigh is leochailí, i bhfianaise na ndálaí airgeadais a leagtar amach sa Bhille seo. Ba mhaith linn a chinntiú go gcomhlíonfaidh an Roinn a dualgais ar fud a réimse leathan freagrachtaí, lena n-áirítear spórt, oidhreacht agus na healaíona.

Cé go gceadaítear maoiniú suntasach leis an Bhille, tá fócas an Choiste dírithe ar na himpleachtaí praiticiúla a bhaineann leis an socrú foriomlán. De réir mar a chuir feidhmeannaigh in iúl don Choiste, cuireann buiséad ina bhfuil easnamh suntasach ar acmhainní neamh-imfhálaithe brú mór ar na seirbhísí tábhachtacha ar an líne thosaigh – bíodh sé i gcúrsaí tithíochta agus easpa dídine, nó i measc ár n-earnálacha pobail luachmhara.

Baineann ceann de phríomhábhair imní straitéiseacha an Choiste go príomha leis an spleáchas chórasach ar mhaoiniú laistigh den bhliain chun brú nach féidir a sheachaint agus tosaíochtaí dearbhaithe na Roinne. Dúirt feidhmeannaigh linn go mbeidh gá le babhtaí monatóireachta amach anseo chun bearnaí maoinithe i réimsí amhail tithíocht shóisialta agus cláir tacaíochta fostaíochta a líonadh. Cuireann an cur chuige sin, go háirithe i gcomhthéacs buiséadú aon-bhliana, bac ar phleanáil straitéiseach, agus cruthaíonn sé éiginnteacht do sholáthraithe seirbhíse agus don phobal araon.

Tá dúshlán straitéiseach soiléir roimh gach Roinn. Cé go bhfuil clár bunathraithe agus athchóirithe ag an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin, is deacair – agus beidh sé deacair go fóill – an clár sin a chur i bhfeidhm nuair a bhíonn buiséid na Ranna á n-úsáid le freastal ar ghealltanais reachtúla agus chonarthacha atá ann cheana. Is ceist bhunúsach é sin a leanfaidh an Coiste de bheith á scrúdú.

I ndeireadh na dála, is gá an Bille seo a rith mar ghnáthnós imeachta, ach caithfidh an plé maidir le seirbhísí poiblí inmharthana a chruthú, caithfidh sin leanúint ar aghaidh. I ndiaidh athbhreithniú cuimsitheach caiteachais Rialtas na Breataine an tseachtain seo caite, nach raibh gan dea-scéala a bheith ann, caithfidh an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin leanúint ar aghaidh le cás láidir a dhéanamh ar son samhla maoinithe ilbhliantúla a bheidh bunaithe ar riachtanais an Tuaiscirt. Sin an t-aon bhealach inmharthana amach ó bheith ag bainistiú brú airgeadais bliantúil, agus i dtreo infheistíochta straitéisí ar son leas ár bpobail. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil an tAire Airgeadais ar aon tuairim leis an anailís sin agus go bhfuil sé tiomanta an sprioc ríthábhachtach sin a bhaint amach.

I ndiaidh rith an Bhille seo inniu, díreoidh an Coiste ar an obair ríthábhachtach a bhaineann le cur i bhfeidhm an Bhuiséid a scrúdú i rith na bliana airgeadais, agus leanfaidh muid de bheith ag tabhairt na Roinne chun cuntais lena chinntiú go n-úsáidfear na cistí a cheadaítear leis an Bhille Buiséid (Uimh. 2).

Ms Forsythe: We have discussed the Budget (No. 2) Bill at length as it has progressed via accelerated passage, and the DUP will support it today. We are now three months into the 2025-26 financial year that started on 1 April and are operating under a Vote on Account, so it is necessary that we pass the legislation to ensure that our public services have the authority to continue to run.

We know that the Budget faces immense pressure at a time when many public services are under incredible strain, with all Ministers bidding for well in excess of what they were awarded. It has never been as critical that every Department demonstrate value for money in how it spends its allocation. We need to see demonstrable improvements in financial management and processes in 2025-26. We also need to see improvements across public procurement, contract management and the management of multimillion-pound capital projects. It is unacceptable to see reports of the ongoing waste of public-sector money with no signs of improvement. An overspend of £100 million on one hospital means that there is £100 million less to spend on another hospital, while we have other serious health needs in places such as Daisy Hill Hospital or the long-overdue mother-and-baby unit for Northern Ireland. That is unacceptable.

We have seen some improvements in the financial position through the comprehensive spending review announcements last week, but it is imperative that we proceed with caution and financial prudence.

Through the Finance Committee, I know that the officials in the Department of Finance are highly capable and that they play a pivotal role in the monthly reporting of each Department's forecast versus out-turn, which requires explanations for significant or unexpected movements. Their role will continue to be critical throughout 2025-26 as we target a balanced Budget.

The DUP has been committed to fighting for a long-term, fair funding package for Northern Ireland and continues to do so. We look forward to hearing the outcomes from the Holtham review as progress is made.

We must be prudent in our financial management and, at the same time, be ambitious with our plans for public-sector transformation. Under the agreed Programme for Government, significant commitments have been made. The move forward to having multi-year Budgets presents an opportunity to secure huge potential for strategic planning. We are therefore now in a position to work together to deliver for people and really make Northern Ireland work. The DUP supports the Budget (No. 2) Bill at its Final Stage.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, to conclude the debate on the Bill's Final Stage.

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

I thank all Members who have expressed their views in today's debate and all those who contributed to earlier debates on the Bill and to the debate on the associated Supply resolution two weeks ago. I also record my thanks to my departmental officials, who have put considerable work into this legislation while dealing with negotiations on the CSR. It has been quite an intense period for them.

The debate was short — some may say thankfully so — but we have debated the legislation and the Budget extensively, and rightly so. It deserves the attention that it has been given, and, although debates can at times be frustrating for either side, it is always useful to hear Members' views on legislation. As I said previously, it is useful for me as Minister to listen to the varying issues, challenges and opportunities that there are in the different Departments that the Budget finances. It has been useful in that context, although I am glad that the Bill is at Final Stage.

In answer to Mr O'Toole's comments, I hope to make a statement to the Assembly on the June monitoring round before recess. As I said at Question Time, the work on multi-year budgeting has commenced. I am tempted not to get into debate with Mr O'Toole. Sometimes our verbal jousts are enjoyable, while at other times they are not, so I will call a temporary ceasefire for this evening. My views are well on the record, as are his.

Mr Gildernew, the Chair of the Committee for Communities made an important point. As he emphasised, the role of the Committee is to scrutinise the role of its Minister and the Department's spending. That is crucial to ensuring that the Executive and the Assembly run effective and efficient public services. Ms Forsythe referred to that. It is important that, in these constrained times, we make effective and efficient use of the limited resources that we have. The best place in which to scrutinise that, in my experience as an MLA, is in Committee. I therefore commend the Committees on the work they do in that field. I commend the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Before I put the Question, I advise Members that, because this is a Budget Bill, the motion requires cross-community support.