Official Report: Monday 23 February 2026

Mr Speaker: The School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill has received Royal Assent. The School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 19 February 2026. It is chapter 1.

Miss Dolan: This morning, my party colleagues and I joined members of the lobby group Save our Acute Services (SOAS) as they pushed a hospital bed up the avenue. I thank SOAS, those who travelled from Fermanagh and MLAs across the Chamber who joined the group to commit to supporting the fight to get emergency general surgery reinstated in the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH).

This has been going on since December 2022, and we, the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone, still have not received the certainty or the action that we deserve. The Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, must urgently provide a clear, detailed plan, with timescales, for the future delivery of emergency general surgery. The plan must set out a clear process for recruiting and retraining consultant general surgeons at the hospital to make the service safe and sustainable. So far, no such plan has been produced, but that failure cannot continue: the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone deserve better.

Sinn Féin has been unwavering in its support for reinstating emergency general surgery at SWAH. The Health Minister is responsible for the final decision on emergency general surgery and must hold the trust to account for producing the comprehensive plan. The plan must give equal weight to the voices of the people in Fermanagh and Tyrone and the clinical evidence.

When the consultation on the closure of emergency general surgery was announced, we demanded a process that reached all affected communities; instead, it was deeply flawed, and, thankfully, it was paused. However, that pause has gone on for too long. The Health Minister must now rebuild public confidence, listen to the community and publish the plan that ensures that SWAH can meet the needs of today and of the future.

The ad hoc collapse of essential services is not transformation; it is unacceptable. The Health Minister and the Western Trust must focus immediately on recruiting the consultant surgeons whom we need to protect lives and maintain local healthcare. Sinn Féin will continue to fight to ensure that everyone in Fermanagh and Tyrone has access to high-quality, safe and effective clinical care. We should not have to wait longer or settle for anything less than the care that we deserve.

Mrs Dodds: Children in the United Kingdom are safer this Monday afternoon since the UK medicine authority expressed concern about the long-term impact of puberty blockers and paused the King's College trial. Let us remind ourselves who those children are in Northern Ireland. Hilary Cass describes them as vulnerable young people who have experienced bullying and trauma in their lives. Interestingly, she also says that they often present as clusters from the same schools.

Drugs that were deemed unsafe were banned by the Health Minister, and that was agreed to by the Northern Ireland Executive. How drugs can be unsafe one day and then used in a trial on vulnerable children the next should be a matter of huge moral and ethical concern for the House.

In that context, what did the parties in the House say about the issue? Interestingly, our Health Minister, who asked for the ban, then asked Hilary Cass to review Northern Ireland's gender services. Interestingly again, in her review, she talks about the Health Minister's support for her conclusions, including the King's College trial. On Thursday 12 February, the Health Minister and his Ulster Unionist leaders came out in strong support of the puberty blocker trial, saying that it involved only a small number of children. After pressure, on Friday 13 February, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Health Minister issued a statement to the Belfast 'News Letter' withdrawing Northern Ireland's vulnerable children from the trial. What changed between Thursday and Friday? It was not the evidence; the change was caused by pressure from the DUP and the fact that the Health Minister could not ensure the support of all of his colleagues, particularly his Member from Upper Bann.

The "First Minister for all" then decided that the decision was "disgraceful". There was no thought for the safety of children, just blind adherence to a woke ideology no matter how much damage that ideology caused. I had the pleasure of debating the issue with the deputy leader of Alliance on the BBC. Absolutely nothing matters to Alliance but the woke agenda. When it is pointed out that the safety of vulnerable children is at stake, it has a "Carry on regardless" policy.

I have to ask this: was there a deal to ban the drugs and then make them available to a small number of children in that trial? I am glad that the DUP has had a clear and consistent policy on the issue.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Dodds: Drugs that are unsafe should not be used —

Mr Speaker: I call Peter McReynolds.

Mrs Dodds: — in trials or at any other time on children who are so vulnerable.

Mr Speaker: Mr McReynolds.

Mr McReynolds: I rise as chair of the all-party group on road safety to acknowledge the tragedy that occurred in County Armagh over the weekend. Three people tragically lost their lives far too soon. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of Conor Quinn, Laura Hoy and John Guy, who will be deeply impacted by what happened. I wish those who were injured a full and speedy recovery.

Every death on our roads is one too many, which is why I started the all-party group on road safety. Road safety matters to us all, and we must all be part of the solution. Since the group was created, there have been 80 deaths on our roads. Each time we meet, there are more tragedies to reflect on, and I wish that that was not the case. As an all-party group, we hear regularly from Chief Superintendent Sam Donaldson, whose work on road safety is essential to improving safety for all road users. At the meetings, we hear about what can be done to improve road safety, and we will continue to advocate for safety measures to be implemented across Northern Ireland to ensure that such tragedies do not occur elsewhere. I encourage MLAs to attend the meetings of the group to learn more about what we can do together to ensure that the roads are safer for our constituents as we work towards reducing the number of road deaths to zero.

I express my sincere thanks to all in the emergency services who responded and attended the scene: the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and Air Ambulance Northern Ireland. The work that you do saves lives and cannot be overstated. I hope that, one day, I will no longer need to make statements such as this.

Mr Chambers: On 11 February 2026, the latest statistics confirmed that there were 397 alcohol-specific deaths in Northern Ireland in 2024, the highest number on record.

Over the past decade, the number of deaths has risen by more than 80%, and, in our most deprived communities, the rate is nearly four times higher than in our most-affluent areas. Yet, despite overwhelming national and international evidence, despite clear modelling for Northern Ireland and despite support from clinicians and addiction specialists, the Health Minister is being blocked from even introducing legislation on minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol to be debated in the House.

Let us be clear about what is being blocked. Minimum unit pricing is not a blanket tax and is not a tax on the poor, which, only last week, the Chief Medical Officer rightly labelled "a myth". It is not about penalising moderate drinkers; it is a targeted intervention aimed squarely at cheap, high-strength alcohol consumed disproportionately by the heaviest drinkers. In fact, 60% of alcohol-related hospital admissions come from just 3% of the population: the heaviest drinkers. That is where MUP would deliver the greatest impact. In Scotland, MUP reduced alcohol sales by 3% and cut the number of deaths wholly attributable to alcohol by 13%, representing around 120 lives saved annually. Wales has renewed MUP, the Republic of Ireland has implemented it and Scotland has uprated it. Meanwhile, Northern Ireland dithers while our death rate surpasses that of Scotland and the north-east of England.

The modelling for Northern Ireland shows that we could reduce dozens of alcohol-related deaths each year, cut hospital admissions, reduce crime and help reduce assaults on hospital staff, so the DUP needs to state its justification for blocking legislation that is evidence-led, life-saving and fiscally responsible. The party can oppose the legislation if it wishes, but it is an absolute disgrace for it to block it from even reaching the Assembly for debate.

The Assembly is criticised for the lack of legislation that we produce. Why would any party even try to shut down debate on what would be an impactive new law? The Chief Medical Officer recently gave a detailed briefing to the Health Committee. The DUP says that it is not happy with the evidence, but that party's two representatives on the Committee did not ask a single question and did not disassociate themselves from a letter that the Committee agreed to write to the Executive Office in support of the legislation.

There is no evidence to support the notion that MUP legislation would cause any meaningful damage to the hospitality industry or the retail sector. History will not look kindly on those who chose obstruction over action. The Health Minister should be allowed to introduce the legislation: lives depend on it.

Mr McGrath: I add my support to the need to restore emergency surgery services at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH). I recognise the crowds outside the Building today from across Fermanagh and south Tyrone who made their way here to make sure that their voice was heard. What a privilege it is to hear from such a committed, people-led, community-focused campaign and to have those people here with us. They represent farming families, school leaders, trade unions, business owners, sports clubs, church leaders and citizens who believe, simply, that rural lives matter.

The briefing paper that Save Our Acute Services (SOAS) provided makes the point starkly that where you live should not determine your health outcome. For those in Fermanagh and south Tyrone, however, it does. For three years now, emergency general surgery has been suspended at the SWAH. We were told that that was temporary, but, sadly, that approach from the Department of Health and the Executive is nothing new. Temporary always becomes the new norm.

The building is not the problem. With five operating theatres and a modern emergency department, it is a state-of-the-art facility built to serve a deeply rural population. In recent months, I have repeatedly highlighted the growing backlog in estate management across our health service that is not being adequately addressed — hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of work that needs to be done — but let me be clear about this: one place where there is no backlog of maintenance is the South West Acute Hospital.

The problem is that we do not have the workforce model or ministerial or departmental will to return emergency general surgery. Meanwhile, patients endure double emergency department waits, first in Enniskillen and then in Altnagelvin Area Hospital.

In Fermanagh and south Tyrone, ambulance response targets are missed more often that they are met. It is worth saying that again: they are missed more often than they are met. Rural families travel 65 miles for surgery. Every delay carries risk. In spite of that, thousands of rural people have endorsed the SOAS road map with one united voice, because they want a health service that delivers for them. This is their moment. They have come up to Parliament Buildings today and asked a question. Let me amplify that question in this place: will the Department and the Executive stand up for the people of Fermanagh, or will they not? The decision is theirs.

Mr Kearney: Cuimhníonn an Lá Domhanda um Cheartas Sóisialta dúinn faoina thábhachtaí atá an tsíocháin dhomhanda, cearta an duine agus an lucht oibre, meas ar an dlí idirnáisiúnta, agus comhionannas eacnamaíochta. Tugtar deis dúinn lena linn ár machnamh a dhéanamh fosta ar a luaithe a chaitear na prionsabail sin i dtrapaisí nuair nach mbíonn srian ar an chumhacht.

Ach inniu, tá an t-impiriúlachas, an comhéigean, an caipitleachas neamhrialaithe, an éagothroime eacnamaíochta agus bagairtí ar an cheannasaíocht ag baint faoi phrionsabail an cheartais shóisialta dhomhanda. Tá sin le feiceáil go soiléir sna hionsaithe atá na Stáit Aontaithe a dhéanamh ar Chúba — ionsaithe atá ag gabháil i ndéine i rith an ama. Is finscéal é an t-éileamh gur "bagairt os cionn na coitiantachta" é Cúba. Tá imshuí mídhleathach na Stát Aontaithe ar Chúba ag cur cruatan ar mhuintir Chúba le blianta fada anuas. Bhain sé faoi fholláine na ndaoine, nó cuireann sé srian leis an rochtain atá acu ar bhia, ar leigheas, ar chumhacht, agus ar bhonneagar riachtanach. Tá sin amhlaidh in ainneoin Cúba a bheith gairthe as tacaíocht leighis a thabhairt ar bhonn idirnáisiúnta.

Déantar an ceartas sóisialta a chur ó mhaith nuair a thagann an chumhact in ionad an dlí, nó nuair a chuirtear pionós ar phobail iomlána, amhail san Úcráin, sa Phalaistín, sa Chongó nó sa tSúdáin. Thig le hÉirinn a bheith bródúil as an traidisún neodrachta agus neamh-chomhghuaillíochta atá aici. Caithfidh an neodracht fanacht mar bhunchloch faoi bheartas eachtrach na hÉireann. Ach ní hionann sin is a rá gur chóir dúinn fanacht inár dtost. Tá deis againn aghaidh a thabhairt ar an éagothroime maoine agus cearta oibrithe anseo sa bhaile. Tabharfar cumhacht dár n-oibrithe le reachtaíocht na ‘bpost maith’, feabhsófar a gcearta cómhargála dá tairbhe, agus cruthófar poist agus coinníollacha is fearr d’oibrithe agus dá dteaghlaigh fosta.

Dá bhrí sin, ar Lá Domhanda um Cheartas Sóisialta, athdhearbhaímid ár dtiomantas don neodracht. Caithfimid cur i gcoinne gach cineál ionsaitheachta idirnáisiúnta agus dearbhaímid ár dtiomantas do chomhionannas eacnamaíochta agus do cheartas sóisialta do chách.

Mr Kingston: On Saturday, the Sinn Féin leader, Mary Lou McDonald, posted on social media to mark the 1st anniversary of the death of senior IRA figure Brendan "Bik" McFarlane, stating that his life was "a life well lived". I have no particular desire to speak ill of the dead, but, in the interests of the victims of the violence in which Brendan McFarlane was an active and willing participant, that blinkered tribute requires a response.

Last August, I attended a commemoration to mark the 50th anniversary of the attack on the Bayardo Bar on the Shankill Road. Five people were killed in that gun and bomb attack, and more than 60 were injured. I spoke to relatives of the victims at the commemoration. Their grief remains deep.

Brendan McFarlane led the group or IRA terrorists who carried out that indiscriminate attack on a civilian target, shooting dead the doorman and planting a no-warning bomb that exploded as people tried desperately to get out. Thankfully, during the escape, the IRA group was arrested at a roadblock and imprisoned. McFarlane later escaped from the Maze prison — a prison officer died during that escape — and continued with IRA terrorist activities.

He was involved in the kidnapping of supermarket executive Don Tidey. During a subsequent shootout, a trainee Garda officer and an Irish Army soldier were killed. Those are not the actions of a "life well lived", and for Mary Lou McDonald to repeatedly eulogise Brendan McFarlane in that style demonstrates the moral vacuum at the heart of Sinn Féin. Her comments are not just inconsiderate and deeply hurtful to the victims of republican violence, they are part of a deliberate policy of attempting to whitewash the past and desensitise future generations to the horror of IRA violence.

Sinn Féin makes vague comments about regretting all lives lost during the Troubles, and even about being sorry for them, yet they choose to repeatedly eulogise and praise those who carried out those sectarian killings, so their words of regret ring very hollow. We owe it to every person killed, injured or bereaved by violence carried out by the IRA and other terrorist groups to speak the truth and to not let the perpetrators of that violence be eulogised. They are a warning from history, not role models for future generations.

Mrs Mason: The Education Authority's so-called enhanced support model has caused real and deep anxiety for families right across the North since it was announced last week. Parents who have fought tirelessly to secure a classroom assistant for their child are now asking a very simple question: is that support safe? When you strip away the jargon about flexibility and school-led delivery, this policy moves away from clearly defined, enforceable provision towards a model where support can be reconfigured. There is no explicit guarantee that children who currently rely on one-to-one support will keep it.

For many families, one-to-one support is not a luxury. It is what allows their child to be safe, to regulate and learn, and to actually go to school and participate in school life. It has often taken months — sometimes years — of assessments and appeals to secure that support. They are entitled to clarity. The Minister should give that clarity today. Classroom assistants across the North are also, very understandably, deeply concerned. They provide vital and skilled support to some of our most vulnerable children every single day. They also deserve clarity from the Education Minister.

We have to remember that this is a Minister who already operates without the confidence of the Assembly. He has also reneged on commitments to school leaders on workload. He continues to drive forward a harmful reform agenda despite widespread opposition, and now families fear that, under his leadership, the most vulnerable children could lose dedicated support.

Let me say this very clearly. If there is no intention to undermine one-to-one classroom assistant support, the Minister should stand up and give unequivocal guarantees of it. Families, children and young people deserve certainty, and classroom assistants, quite frankly, deserve respect.

Mrs Guy: I highlight the increasing pressure on families as childcare costs continue to rise and question whether the draft early learning and childcare strategy is truly up to the challenge. Many families are being hammered by increasing fees. While we welcomed the NI childcare subsidy scheme as an emergency intervention, we were clear that it could not be the end point. It needed to be the foundation for long-term transformational reform. However, the draft strategy largely offers more of the same. Yes, there was consideration of capping fees, but that was dismissed as having caused problems in other countries. However, having spoken to those implementing fee caps in the South of Ireland, I challenge that assertion.

The headline affordability proposal is to increase the subsidy to 20% in 2026, 30% by 2030 and 40% by 2032. On paper, that sounds ambitious, and I welcome ambition, but in practice there are concerns. There are no protections if fees rise sharply; there is no clear definition of affordable childcare; there are no conditions around quality improvement or workforce development attached to receiving public subsidy; and projected savings for families are calculated using today's prices, ignoring the reality that costs will continue to rise.

We must be careful not to pit providers against parents. Providers, including childminders and community day cares, are not the enemy here. They face rising costs in wages, energy, insurance and regulation. They are trying to retain skilled, experienced and highly qualified staff in an already fragile workforce. The tension between rising operating costs and rising parental fees is real, but it is not for parents and providers to resolve that: it is for the Department to step in and provide a coherent, properly funded framework that balances sustainability, quality and affordability.

In the current draft strategy, there are no concrete targets to expand provision, particularly in the community and voluntary sector. There is a commitment to map provision — frankly, that should already be complete. While £169 million is cited to raise the subsidy to 30% by 2030, the draft Budget allocates only a fraction of what would be required to deliver that ambition.

Childcare is essential infrastructure. It enables parents to work, train and study. It underpins economic growth and shapes children's early development. If we are serious about reform, the strategy must go further, with clear definitions, real protections, proper workforce planning and sustainable funding proposals. Families and providers deserve nothing less.

Mr Buckley: There has been a certain irony in recent days that will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland. We had Sinn Féin claiming that it is boycotting a visit to the White House on St Patrick's Day, only for it to be later clarified that it was not, in fact, invited in the first place.

Some Members: Oh. Oh.

Mr Buckley: It seems a bit elementary to point out to Sinn Féin Members that you cannot boycott an event that you have not been invited to.

Sinn Féin's duplicity continues to be called out. Let us remember why Mary Lou McDonald and Michelle O'Neill told us they would not attend St Patrick's Day in the White House: they were going to take a principled position against President Trump and his Administration. Well, it would appear that that so-called position of principle is easily traded on the back of a $100 note. This weekend's 'Sunday Times' says it best: it reveals that Sinn Féin has continued with record donations to President Trump's Republican Party during his time as president. It states:

Some Members: Oh. Oh.

Mr Buckley: How brass-necked can you get? Where is the accountability? Nothing is louder than the echo of a mask slipping, especially when the face beneath it contradicts every word that they continue to say in public.

By contrast, the DUP will be in Washington. We will stand up and speak out for the people of Northern Ireland, progressing and promoting business and progressing and strengthening the economic ties to and relationships with the largest economy in the world and one of our greatest allies: the United States. It is an opportunity that we will seize and not squander. The ties between Ulster and the United States are great. We have to look only at the recent contribution by the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, when he paid tribute to the frontier men of Scots-Irish descent and many proud Irish descendants who made America their home and made it great today. He talked about that:

We are certainly proud of their contribution and will continue to mark it every time that we can.

Perhaps, in some respects, it is best that Sinn Féin does not attend —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — because everything that they put their hand to with their hard-left rhetoric —

Mr Speaker: I call Sinéad McLaughlin.

Mr Buckley: — costs jobs and reputation to the Northern Ireland economy. We will proudly stand up for Northern Ireland's interests.

Ms McLaughlin: I rise to address the figures recently published by the Office for National Statistics that outline healthy life expectancy across Northern Ireland. The statistics tell us something profoundly important about the lives that people are able to live. They measure not longevity but the number of years that individuals can expect to live in good health. That is a far more meaningful indicator of well-being and quality of life.

Aspects of the data are genuinely encouraging. Areas such as Mid Ulster and Lisburn and Castlereagh continue to record comparatively strong outcomes. That deserves recognition, as it demonstrates that better health outcomes are achievable and that public money, economic opportunity and living conditions make a difference. The picture is far more troubling in other regions, however. The figures for Derry are deeply concerning. Boys born in Derry between 2022 and 2024 can expect just 54·9 years of healthy living, which represents a decline of almost three years when compared with boys born between 2019 and 2021, when the figure stood at 57·7 years. The trend is even more alarming for girls. Girls born in Derry between 2022 and 2024 can expect to live a healthy life for 54·2 years. That is down from 58·2 years — almost 4·4 fewer years of healthy living. The changes are not marginal. They are significant and show a stark reduction in the number of years that people can expect to live in good health, and that really matters. It matters for how we plan our health service and for how we plan to support our older people, as it all costs money.

A decline of that nature cannot be viewed in isolation. Healthy life expectancy is shaped by wider determinants, including income, employment, housing, public services and access to opportunities. The outcomes reflect the cumulative effects of social and economic inequality. Regional imbalance is therefore not merely an economic issue; it is a health issue. It is about how people live, how well they live and the fairness of outcomes across our society. Where a person is born should not dictate the quality of their health or the length of their healthy life, yet the figures clearly show that geography continues to exert a powerful influence. I am therefore bringing a regional balance Bill to the Assembly so that we can implement legislation that ensures that tackling regional imbalance becomes a central consideration across government.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: Every Department has a role to play.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

I call Phillip Brett. You have a couple of minutes, Mr Brett.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I call out the continued sectarian campaign that is targeting members of the Protestant workforce at Belfast City Council. Just three weeks ago, three members of staff who were out doing their job, which is to keep our city clean and safe, were attacked for no reason other than their religion. In the past week, that targeted campaign against the Protestant workforce has intensified and put lives in danger. Other members of staff at Belfast City Council have falsely claimed that staff in the cleansing team in Belfast are members of a proscribed terrorist organisation. That has put a target on the back of our dedicated front-line workforce.

I do not know the religious background of the cleansing team in North Belfast, but I know that they are the salt of the earth. They do a job that many of us would never do. They go out early in the morning to clean up messes left by others and respond to elected representatives of all hues and political persuasions without fear or favour. If any other religious minority were targeted in this city, it would be on the front page of newspapers, and it would not take 37 minutes of Members' statements for the issue to be raised in the House. When it comes to Protestants being targeted, however, some people want to adopt the mantra that, if the person is a Protestant, it does not matter.

Under the leadership of the DUP's Sarah Bunting, a formal complaint has been made to the chief executive of Belfast City Council to ensure that any person, regardless of their religious background, can carry out the job that they are entitled to do. The Democratic Unionist Party stands with our council workers, and we will continue to call out the sectarian targeting of Protestants.

Mr Speaker: We will now move on —

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is made under either Standing Order 65(1)(c) or (1)(e). Last week, the Principal Deputy Speaker, whilst in the Chair, made a point of order about me and proceeded to call me a liar in the debate on Casement Park. Will you review Hansard and make a determination on whether that was in order or whether Standing Orders were breached?

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Carroll. I know that the matter is among those that the Principal Deputy Speaker has asked the office to look at. She has been discussing it with officials and intends to respond directly to the Member.

While I am on the subject, I will briefly acknowledge that a range of issues were raised with the Chair, last week. I do not intend to cover all of them. However, I remind Members that there is a difference between, on the one hand, conducting robust scrutiny of the issues and passionately challenging the arguments of a Member, which is acceptable, and, on the other, making a personal attack on a Member, which is not within our standards of debate. Ministers and Members are guilty of it, and no party in the House has clean hands in those matters. I would reflect that Members are often quick to challenge the comments of others and slower to reflect on their own behaviour. I also note that the job of the Chair is made more difficult when Members seek to rule legitimate debate out of order.

Finally, over the past two weeks, we have had examples involving David Honeyford and Diana Armstrong in one case and Trevor Clarke and Minister Muir in the other. When one Member highlighted the fact that they had an issue with remarks made by another Member, the Member in question quickly apologised in the House and withdrew their remarks. That is what should happen. I ask Members to take note of that this week.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston wishes to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak.

Mr Gaston: The petition that I present has been organised by the North Down branch of Traditional Unionist Voice. Particular credit for the gathering of the 1,309 signatures must go to branch chairman, Peter Wilson. However, while the petition had its origins in TUV, the issue on which it touches transcends party politics.

Bangor Castle has been a civic headquarters since 1941. The building was purchased with public money and has served as the seat of local government in the area for over 80 years. It remains a venue for civil wedding ceremonies and is attended by the public to register births and deaths, which makes it part of life's most important milestones. The building is grade A listed and has stained-glass windows honouring the RUC, the UDR and all those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service of our nation.

There are real fears that plans to convert the building into a hotel or commercial venue could restrict public use, destroy the stained-glass tributes and diminish its civic role. The prayer of the petition reads:

I present the petition on behalf of the 1,309 signatories from the Bangor area.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. I will forward the petition to the Minister for Communities and send a copy to the Committee.

I ask Members to take their ease while we change the Table.

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

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next two motions are on the Supply resolution for the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account. There will be a single debate on both motions. I will call the Minister to move the first motion. The Minister will then commence the debate on both motions as listed in the Order Paper. When everyone who wishes to speak has done so or when the time allocated for the debate has expired, I will put the Question on the first motion. I will then call the Minister to move the second motion. The Question on that motion will then be put. I hope that all that is clear — it probably is to those on the Finance Committee. If it is clear, I will proceed.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours and 30 minutes for the debate. The Minister will have up to 60 minutes to allocate at his discretion between proposing and making a winding-up speech. A representative of the Opposition will have 10 minutes to speak, as will a representative of the Committee for Finance. All other Members who are called to speak will have seven minutes. Hopefully that is clear. Without further ado, I call the Minister to open the debate on both motions.

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

As you have set out, the debate covers the two Supply resolutions for the spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs) 2025-26, which cover the current financial year, and the Vote on Account for 2026-27. Both are associated with the Budget Bill that will be introduced today. As Members will be aware, Budgets that set out the Executive's spending plans do not, in themselves, give Departments the legal authority to draw down cash or use resources. That is done through the Assembly's approval of Estimates and the associated Budget Bills. The Main Estimates for the 2025-26 financial year were presented to the Assembly and approved on 3 June 2025. The Supplementary Estimates seek the approval of funds for changes required since the Main Estimates were agreed for the same financial year. The Supply resolution for the 2025-26 spring Supplementary Estimates presented before the House relates to the final planned position that was agreed by the Executive on 11 February 2026. I therefore seek the Assembly's approval for Departments and other public bodies' changes as described in the spring Supplementary Estimates 2025-26 document laid in the Assembly on 16 February 2026.

Following Executive agreement, I made a written ministerial statement notifying the Assembly of the outcome of the Executive's January technical exercises. Members will be aware that, following the monitoring round, there remained significant pressures in the Department of Health and the Department of Education. Following the negotiations and in recognition of the significant financial challenges faced by the Executive, the Treasury agreed to provide a reserve claim of £400 million for 2025-26. I made a written ministerial statement notifying the Assembly of that outcome on 11 February 2026. That £400 million has been reflected in the spring Supplementary Estimates.

I apologise to the Speaker and to Members for the absence of a printed copy of the Estimates publication. While I understand that an electronic version has been provided to Members for consideration, unfortunately, due to the late confirmation of the reserve claim, it has not been possible, on this occasion, to provide hard copies of the document in the time available.

It is anticipated that they will be available later this week.

While I regret that that has occurred, I have said before in these debates that, in my view, we need to look again at whether the production of multiple printed copies of the Estimates documents is a worthwhile use of the finances that are involved, not to mention the environmental impact. Following the completion of the Budget process, I intend to write to the Speaker to understand whether an alternative approach could be adopted that still meets the needs of Members, particularly given that most Members now do their business on the electronic devices that the Assembly Commission has provided them with.

The spring Supplementary Estimates also incorporate areas of expenditure or income that rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act. That is where the authority of a statutory power has not yet been obtained through legislation. 'Managing Public Money' guidance provides for that as an interim measure, enabling expenditure until such powers are in place. My Department closely monitors reliance on the sole authority by seeking quarterly updates. I am pleased to announce that progress is being made, with enabling legislation planned to be in place by early 2027 on a number of those matters.

In addition to the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2025-26, a Vote on Account 2026-27 document has also been prepared. The Vote on Account provides Departments with the authority to utilise resources and access the amount of cash that is necessary to continue to deliver services until work on the 2026-27 Main Estimates and associated Budget (No. 2) Bill has been completed. The Vote on Account for 2026-27, which was laid on 16 February 2026, is routine and equates to 45·7% of the 2025-26 provision. I am keen to finalise spending plans for 2025-26 and put them on a legal footing. I therefore request Members' support for the resolution of the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2025-26 and the Vote on Account for 2026-27. I am looking forward to the debate and hearing Members' views.

Following today's Supply resolution debate, I will introduce the Budget Bill. The Bill will then be debated tomorrow, which provides legislative cover for the two Supply resolutions. Should the Bill proceed as planned, it is anticipated that it will receive Royal Assent by late March 2026, which will ensure that services continue to be funded for the remainder of the financial year.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole, who will speak on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr O'Toole: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account. Tomorrow, I will speak on the Budget Bill. I put on record my thanks to my colleague, the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, Diane Forsythe, who is stepping in to speak on behalf of the Committee in this timed debate due to the anomaly of my having an Opposition role and being Chair of the Committee. It is important to give both of those roles their proper due. That can be done in an untimed debate, such as the one that we will have tomorrow, but not in an untimed debate like this one.

The spring Supplementary Estimates and Vote on Account represent something that is, at once, highly technical and procedural and also unbelievably important and central to everything that we do here as a devolved legislature. Often, we are wont to trivialise that role and communicate to the public that we are a trivial legislature, partially because we do not seem to be very fond of legislating. We have an abysmal track record of introducing and passing actual legislation in this mandate.

I assume that the Supplementary Estimates will go through today and that the Budget Bill will go through tomorrow. Members will authorise spending of tens of billions of pounds. What could be more serious than authorising that spending? People who say that we do not have any power here to change people's lives and that all the power lies elsewhere should bear in mind the gravity of the responsibility that comes with that today.

I want to go through a few points. Obviously, we will have a longer debate tomorrow, when we will be able to debate budgetary matters. The first point is about what is in front of us: the spring Supplementary Estimates. I have a hard copy of last year's Supplementary Estimates. I do wish that I had a hard copy of this year's document. People might say that that is trivial. We should not print things for the sake of doing so — lots of reports and publications can be distributed in soft copy electronically — but these are quite useful documents to have in front of you in hard copy. I have printed mine out.

In section 1 of the introduction, there is a very straightforward table. People think that these documents are unbelievably complicated: they are when you get into their detail, but they are not in headline terms. The table sets out the Main Estimates and the total resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) funding, which was £16·6 million, that we voted for last June. We are now going to vote through an additional £2·1 billion of resource DEL, which is for day-to-day spending and pay for public servants — we will come on to that topic; it has been in the public eye over the past few days — for the financial year that is about to end.

We are told consistently that there is no money and that we are completely constrained. It is absolutely true that the UK Government have not consistently funded this place to our level of need. It is also true that we need a fairer funding model and more fiscal devolution. I want to hear more from the Finance Minister about when he plans to say more on those things and when they will be delivered. However, it is true that, since we voted in June, there is an extra £2 billion of day-to-day spending, which we are voting through today. I want the Finance Minister to explain to us how that money has been prioritised and how it has delivered meaningful change in people's lives. We have now been here for two years, and the public have a right to ask how that money is changing their lives.

One way in which it has not changed their lives thus far is through improved delivery by the Department for Infrastructure, which the Minister used to head. The introductory section includes the spring Supplementary Estimates changes for the Department for Infrastructure and an example of where the Executive have not delivered. It is spelled out clearly in black and white. If you go to the page with the heading "Department for Infrastructure", which is a Department that the Minister used to lead, you will find under "Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit" the figure that we voted through last June and the change to the half a billion pounds that we are voting for today, which is a fall of £100 million. We are voting through a reduction in the expenditure limits for the Department for Infrastructure. What a strange thing to be doing. Why are we doing that? It is because the Department is not able to spend the money that it allocated last year. It announced that it was allocating money to the A5, the A4 and a whole range of other projects. Those projects are simply not being delivered now, so the Department has to hand back that money.

We are told that the cause of all our problems lies elsewhere and that the Executive, or individual Executive parties, are not to blame. We hear, "Sinn Féin is not doing it right", "the DUP won't let us get that through", "London made us do it" or, "London made us not do it". Here is an example of the Executive's failure. They have an extra £2·5 billion from last June to be authorised for spending, but we will vote through one Department's handing back £100 million of capital funding, saying, "We cannot spend that money". That is the Department for Infrastructure, which is responsible for delivering modern road and rail infrastructure and for NI Water, which I will come on to. That really is a remarkable failure. I accept that a court case is still working itself out, and we all want to see a positive resolution to that, but the public have a right to ask whether that is acceptable.

We move on to what was supposed to be the solution to all the haphazard budgeting that we are talking about today: a multi-year Budget. We were told repeatedly by all parties in the Executive that they wanted to deliver a multi-year Budget that would allow us to set proper targets for public-sector wages and allow managers and leaders in the public sector to plan for how many doctors, nurses, midwives, teachers and street cleaners we want to see in our society, but it appears that we are not getting that multi-year Budget. I am not sure where it is. I know that it is out for consultation, but, based on the utterances of the two main parties in the Executive, which are massively at variance with each other, there does not appear to be any realistic prospect of their agreeing a multi-year Budget.

The multi-year Budget was supposed to be the answer to all the haphazard, contradictory budget-making that we see today in the spring Supplementary Estimates, with money being handed back and our having to vote through different totals because you were not able to properly plan and spend, but I do not think that we will get it, based on everything that we have heard. Perhaps the Finance Minister can update us on that. He talked about the strategic use of monitoring rounds being a solution to the problems that afflict NI Water. Talking about the strategic use of monitoring rounds is not 100 million miles away from talking about the strategic use of money that was found down the back of the sofa or was won at the bookies. Monitoring rounds are not for long-term planning; they are supposed to be used to deal with small and unplanned changes in spending that happen in-year. They will always happen, but you should not expect them. We have got to a preposterous situation. Yes, some of that has been created by the totally suboptimal way in which we are funded by the UK Government and the fact that the Treasury operates its devolved spending in such an unsustainable way. There are many examples in this document of where the Executive could and should have done so much better.

That brings me to what came out the week before last, which was the reserve claim from the UK Government. The fact that people are forced to go to the Treasury in such a haphazard way is an example of the failures of our devolved financing system. We now have a planned open-book exercise that was announced, it would seem, by the leader of the DUP on the Floor of the House of Commons, rather than by the Finance Minister on the Floor of the Assembly. I would like to understand what that open-book exercise will mean and how it will improve outcomes for the public. Or, are we simply giving in to the UK Government as they try to undermine the devolved financial settlement even further?

These things are not easy. The public did not have a right to expect miracles, but they did have a right to expect serious devolved Government, with plans and Budgets being set to match that. We have not seen any of that. We do not have a multi-year Budget. We have not had any coherent Budget to match what was in the Programme for Government, vague and waffly as it was. We have had evasion, deflection and blame shifting. We need to do much better.

We will not divide on the spring Supplementary Estimates, but it is worth us all reflecting, given some of the coverage of the past couple of days, that this document includes the budget for the Assembly Commission. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is worth us all reflecting on public trust as we come to future discussions on other matters, including our pay. I will leave it at that at this stage. Let us do much better in the future.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Diane Forsythe, Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee. Diane, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I speak today on behalf of the Finance Committee to allow the Committee Chair to focus on his role as leader of the Opposition. The Committee received a briefing from officials on the 2025-26 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2026-27 Vote on Account at its meeting of 18 February 2026. On behalf of the Committee, I thank officials for that.

As Members will be aware, the Budget process is complex and littered with technical language that is often difficult to understand. The Finance Committee is working hard to support the other Statutory Committees in their Budget scrutiny, and we continue to seek the breakdown of the information that is available to them in more digestible chunks, accompanied by a clearer narrative. The Committee is aware that not every Committee is receiving the information and engagement from their Department that it should. That is not acceptable. Committees must be given the appropriate information and time to do their scrutiny job.

The 2025-26 spring Supplementary Estimates are aligned to the latest agreed Budget position across Departments. The December monitoring position and final Budget position were agreed by the Executive on 11 February 2026. Compared to the previous year, which had been an exceptional year for Barnett consequentials, the tables showing the changes between the Main Estimates and spring Supplementary Estimates illustrate the limited amount of Barnett consequentials that were received throughout the financial year. Finance officials had previously warned the Committee of that, noting that much of the gains was baselined for 2025-26.

I also note, at this point, the Minister's recent announcement that the Treasury had agreed to provide the Executive with a reserve claim of £400 million resource DEL in 2025-26. That will be repayable over three years: £80 million in 2026-27; £160 million in 2027-28; and £160 million in 2028-29. That £400 million is reflected in the spring Supplementary Estimates.

Members are aware that the claim relates to the anticipated Executive overspend for 2025-26, primarily by the Education and Health Departments, that sits at £456·7 million, as indicated by the Minister in his statement on the reserve claim.

I will leave the scrutiny of the impact of the reserve claim on Departments to the relevant Committee Chairs. Although the Committee welcomed the £400 million reserve, questions remain about what impact the reserve claim will have on public finances in future years. The Committee scrutinised officials on that matter during last week's meeting and will continue to do so. With that in mind, I continue to encourage Committees to closely monitor overcommitments made by Departments in the coming year, as it is unlikely that consequentials and reserve claims can be relied upon to fill the gaps. Departments need to become better at budget planning and living within their means, as has been clearly stated to the Committee by Finance officials.

Scrutiny of Departments' budgets should be easier going forward, with the prospect of multi-year Budgets; the linkage between Budgets and the Programme for Government; and the production of five-year business plans by Departments, accompanied by rough baseline budgets. Those are all aspects of the Budget sustainability plan and the Budget improvement road map that derive from conditions that were set by the Executive restoration package settlement. That is the UK Government's way of encouraging the Executive to live within their means and to budget more strategically and with much greater transparency and clarity. Budgets must, by law, be balanced by the end of the financial year. There are, of course, some flexibilities such as the Budget exchange scheme. However, Treasury is not known for its willingness to tolerate poor budgeting.

While the Finance Committee keeps a close eye on the use of sole authority in the Budget Bill, I will not comment on that, as the Committee Chair will deal with it when he speaks for the Committee in tomorrow's Budget Bill debate. I will also let him deal with the request for accelerated passage for the Budget Bill that was made to the Committee.

I now turn briefly to the Department of Finance's Estimates. The Department is not programme heavy and, as a result, does not have a significant budget. However, what it lacks in budget, it makes up for in strategic importance and oversight roles, not least its role in overarching budget management across Departments and its ownership of rating policy, which is the Executive's single key fiscal lever. The Committee has monitored the Department's budget carefully through this financial cycle, with regular briefings following monitoring rounds and periodic briefings on monthly out-turns. Funding inflows to the Department have tended to be for strategically important systems such as Integr8 and NOVA that will have wide-ranging impacts and benefits. The Committee continues to pay close attention to the unquantifiable contingent liabilities, highlighted in the Estimates memorandum, that the Department continues to carry and will continue to scrutinise those in future.

I now turn to the Vote on Account. Members will have noticed that, at 45·7%, the rate is less than what has been applied in the past. Members will recall that, in recent times, the Vote on Account was set at 65%, allowing for a longer period by which to have the next financial year's Budget in place. Members are aware that the Vote on Account does not set the 2026-27 Budget. It is merely an agreement of the percentage of the current year's Budget that can be drawn down in the early part of the 2026-27 financial year before the Budget has been legislated for in the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Members are aware that this debate examines a largely technical exercise, and the Committee has applied an appropriate degree of scrutiny on that basis. While the timing and timescales are not ideal, the Committee will support today's Supply resolution motions.

I will make a few comments as a DUP MLA. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the importance of the efficient and effective management of public finances. The DUP has long been a champion of improving Northern Ireland's public finances, with our leader, Gavin Robinson MP, long leading the calls for a review of our funding and Barnett consequentials. Just over a week ago, as mentioned by the leader of the Opposition, he welcomed the £400 million reserve claim as an important intervention. At the Committee and in today's debate, the leader of the Opposition has criticised the DUP leader for effectively welcoming that on the Floor of the House of Commons. I and my party are very proud of our DUP MPs' championing, at the heart of Westminster, the cause of public finances in Northern Ireland. There are SDLP MPs over there, and I wonder where they may have been and why that was not fed back that way. We are very proud that Gavin Robinson was there to welcome to that. We believe that it is a clear example of our colleagues at Westminster and in the Executive working closely together and showing what that can deliver.

We have long talked about transformation, but the open-book exercise provides a clear opportunity to do it. Last year's end point should not automatically become this year's starting point. The Vote on Account rolls forward the previous year's Budget, but that is just a percentage. It should not, by default, be a roll-forward of how things have always been. This needs to be a moment not just for financial stabilisation but for meaningful improvement and modernisation across Northern Ireland. The DUP supports the Supply resolutions.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): As the Chairperson of the Committee for Communities, I will speak on the two motions that are before us today, which are the Supply resolutions for the spring Supplementary Estimates and for the Vote on Account. At the outset, I must advise the House that the Committee for Communities has not yet had the opportunity to reach a formally agreed position on the specific details of the newly published allocations. The Committee expects to receive a detailed briefing from Department of Finance officials this week. My remarks today will therefore reflect the consistent priorities that the Committee has championed throughout the mandate and our collective understanding of the pressures that the Department for Communities faces.

The spring Supplementary Estimates adjust our budgets for the remainder of the financial year. The Committee welcomes the allocation of over £49 million to the social housing development programme and for the provision of disabled adaptations. The entire Committee is aware, as is, I am sure, every MLA, that the North is in the midst of a severe housing crisis. Families continue to languish on waiting lists or to live in unsuitable temporary accommodation. We desperately need every single penny in order to build safe, affordable homes and to be able to adapt existing properties so that disabled people and older people can live with dignity and in comfort. We must, however, be clear about the reality of how that money became available. In part, the reallocation is the result of the deeply frustrating failure to advance the redevelopment of Casement Park. Some £27·3 million has been directly reallocated from that project, along with £5 million from the NI Football Fund (NIFF) and £14 million from city and growth deals. That is an indication of the fiscal straitjacket within which we are now trying to operate. Communities here deserve world-class sporting facilities and safe homes. None of our communities should have to watch a long-promised project fade or become less certain in order to fund what is a basic necessity.

The Vote on Account at 45% will authorise interim funding to keep essential services running in the early months of the financial year. We know, however, that there is still a cliff edge ahead. In its correspondence with the Committee, the Department has, for 2026-27, forecast a resource shortfall of over £174 million and a capital shortfall of £88 million. That gap threatens what the Department describes as inescapable pay pressures, homelessness interventions and vital employment programmes. The human cost of those shortfalls was laid bare for Committee members just last week. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation provided the Committee with stark evidence that shows that 330,000 people in the North are currently living in poverty. Most alarmingly, 64% of all children in poverty live in a household in which someone works. The Committee was told that work is not working as a route out of poverty for thousands of families who are still experiencing hardship. Our welfare and employment support systems are under immense strain, and, without adequate funding, we cannot provide the safety net on which people rely.

We must be clear about the root cause of the financial constraints that are driving that hardship, which is the British Government's ongoing, systemic underinvestment in our public services. We are continually forced to operate within a system that was designed in London and to rely on a block grant that fundamentally fails to meet our community's objective needs. That Westminster-imposed reality places the Executive as a whole in an impossible position. The burden of constrained budgets does not rest on the shoulders of one Department or one Minister. Rather, delivering on our priorities requires the Executive collectively to agree extremely difficult funding decisions at the Executive table. In the current financial climate, any spending increase in one area inevitably forces a painful reduction in another.

Although the Vote on Account keeps the lights on, it remains a sticking plaster over a flawed financial settlement. Decades of underinvestment and years of British Government austerity have left public services across the North in a weakened state. We need a united Executive front to demand a step change from Westminster, moving towards a sustainable, needs-based funding model that allows us to genuinely lift our people out of poverty rather than managing a permanent crisis.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): As Committee Chairperson, I will address the spring Supplementary Estimates and Vote on Account from the perspective of the Department of Education. Over the course of the year, the Committee has taken oral briefings from the Department on the resource budget, a written briefing on the capital budget, an oral briefing on December monitoring and a detailed written briefing on the Strule project. The Committee has therefore been well updated on the financial pressures, so the substantial areas of stress experienced by the Department in this year's financial settlement come as no surprise to Committee members.

However, that lack of surprise does not equate to a lack of concern, as members are acutely aware of the extent to which financial pressures in education leave school leaders, teachers and support staff feeling as though they operate on the brink of system collapse. That should be a matter of grave concern for everyone in the House.

The opening budget was just over £3·2 billion plus an additional £50 million for the Executive's early learning and childcare strategy. I make it clear that the Department of Education did not start from a position in which small sums of money had flowed to it. In fact, the Department was looking at a 3·8% increase on its 2024-25 closing budget. However, at mid-year point, the Department reported a £310 million shortfall, which saw the Department unable to fund a range of pressures, often in areas of core statutory responsibility. At end of year, prior to the reserve claim announcement, certainly, little had changed, and, as Members will be aware, staggering sums for the overspend, in the region of £288 million, were floated.

As has been referenced by other Members, a reserve claim has been agreed with Treasury, of which the Department of Education will receive a further £214·6 million. That is reflected in the Estimates, and it lifts the Department's resource DEL from £3·36 billion to £3·58 billion. The Committee, of course, welcomes that improvement in the Department's financial position but has considerable misgivings, as, I am sure, will be highlighted by a range of members, about where, in the coming years, responsibility for repaying that money will sit. I would be grateful, on behalf of the Committee, if the Finance Minister could provide some clarity on whether that will fall centrally or be the sole responsibility of the receiving Departments.

The financial context is challenging, and the Committee will continue to assist the Minister where it can with its scrutiny, in partnership with stakeholders. In challenging financial times, it will seek to present a way forward that addresses realities but remains child-centred. With all the caveats relating to the difficulties and the overspend that has arisen — substantial concerns have been highlighted about the unprecedented sums this year — the Committee is content to commend to the House the Estimates and the Vote on Account.

I will make some remarks in my capacity as an Alliance MLA. I will not rehearse the numbers that have been at play, but I will pick up on some of the key policy considerations relating to the financial pressures in this year's Education budget. As referenced, the normally anticipated sums flowing from monitoring rounds have not come through, and we have therefore seen cost-saving measures in Education that directly impacted on children and young people. Such impact came mainly through measures taken by the Education Authority (EA), not least the hike in the price of school meals that we saw in January, which had a disproportionate impact on those least able to afford it.

The Education Minister is, of course, facing an incredibly difficult challenge in managing his budget. Public services as a whole are chronically underfunded, and there are huge pressures in the Department, particularly the costs associated with delivering key responsibilities for special educational needs and school maintenance. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the DUP has held that Ministry for 10 consecutive years, and we have not seen moves towards any reform or transformation to put our education system on a sustainable footing. Moves in that space, as far as I can tell, have been non-existent, and, in this year's budget, we see the outworking of that. The Minister's five-year budget plan is out for consultation. Elements of it will, no doubt, cause concern for parents and stakeholders, but the Alliance Party is clear that moves to create a more sustainable education system are essential: they are necessary.

In outlining his proposals, the Minister has acknowledged that years of chronic underfunding and limited structural reform in service delivery have combined to create a financial crisis in education. I will not hold the Education Minister responsible for the years of underfunding, but there is an irony in a party holding the brief for so long and doing nothing, as far as I can tell, to deliver financial reforms that would deliver a more sustainable education system.

I look forward to scrutinising the work that will come forward as part of that budget strategy. I urge the Minister to ensure that the work is meaningful and impactful, because pupil numbers are projected to decline rapidly. With a 12·7% decrease projected by the 2033-34 academic year, the challenge to do something on the sustainability of the school estate is clear. There are also the ongoing costs of operating a divided education system. The Minister and his predecessors have done little to tackle that. Small schools often serve separate communities side by side. It is high time that that issue was tackled.

All parties will agree that our current education system is not providing the best outcomes for all children across the board. An influx of cash will always be helpful, but it would not solve all the problems nor is it the only solution that we should look to as we look at the financial pressures facing the Department.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member giving way. I often listen to him talking in these debates about structural issues in the Department of Education and the need for schools to be closed or merged. When the Member makes those remarks, he never gives examples. Which schools does the Alliance Party want to close?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. I refer him to the "isolated pairs" research and the work done by the independent review of education, which sets out clearly where there are small rural schools sitting side by side serving two separate communities. When the Department of Education faces challenges of the scale that we have seen this year, we need to take seriously the challenges of structural reform. I urge the Minister to look at it seriously and commit to delivery in that space and not just to another review that will sit on the shelf.

I want to highlight some of the concerns around the Minister's five-year plan, especially around special educational needs (SEN). It is important that we do not frame potential changes to SEN support in the context of a budget plan. That will not build confidence among parents, and it will not build confidence among educators. Every decision taken on education must have the best interests of the child as its fundamental starting point.

Mr Martin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Mathison: I will be short on time. I will see how I go.

That needs to be the starting point if we want to be taken seriously and are not just about implementing cuts to the detriment of children's education.

In 2025-26, we had the eleventh single-year Budget in a row, and that was intended to be the last single-year Budget. Unfortunately, however, it remains to be seen whether we will be looking at a three-year Budget as we look to next year. We need to move to a system of multi-year funding of education to allow us to put the system on a sustainable financial footing and demonstrate that we are clear about transformation. That wider work of transformation must focus on delivering —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Mathison: — the best outcomes for children and ensuring transformation of the system.

Mr Chambers (The Chairperson of the Audit Committee): The main role of the Audit Committee is to scrutinise and agree the budgets and estimates of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) and lay the estimates before the Assembly. The Committee also undertakes a budget scrutiny role in relation to the Assembly Commission. The Audit Committee fulfils its role in place of the Department of Finance in recognition of the independence of those non-ministerial bodies. The Committee, however, has regard to the advice of the Department of Finance and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in respect of the NIAO in carrying out that role. The Audit Committee does not always contribute to the debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates. I feel, however, that it is appropriate for me to make a brief contribution on the motion. The three bodies have provided ongoing information to the Audit Committee on their in-year monitoring returns, which was helpful to the Committee when it came to scrutinise proposed resource requirements for future years.

On 28 January 2026, the Committee noted that the SSEs for the NIAO and NIPSO showed minor variations against the Main Estimates and that the Assembly Commission variance was -5·06% against the Main Estimates position of £67·257 million, excluding earmarked expenditure relating to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. While an agreed threshold of plus or minus 5% variance in relation to the Commission's expenditure is in place for scrutiny, the Committee was grateful that the Commission nevertheless provided in-year monitoring figures throughout the financial year, which was helpful to the Committee when agreeing budget proposals for 2026 to 2029-2030. The full detail of the variance was set out in the Commission's memorandum, which the Committee was content to note. Key points noted were that the reduction in resource DEL arose mainly from the reduction in expenditure associated with a small number of projects, including roof repairs that had been anticipated in 2025-26 but are now included in the 2026 to 2029-2030 budget. In addition, the Committee noted that Members are not anticipated to utilise their full office and staffing costs and allowance for 2025-26. On capital DEL, the Committee noted reduced requirements relating to a change in timing of projects between financial years and differences between actual costs and those budgeted.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motions and specifically to outline the Health Committee's consideration of the Department of Health's budget and allocations over the 2025-26 Budget period.

The Committee recognises the significant budgetary constraints and pressures that the Department of Health is under; indeed, that goes for the wider Executive, with all Departments under significant pressure. However, the health system is under extreme and unsustainable pressure. The decisions that are taken will not just shape the health and well-being of our population this financial year but have an impact on them for years to come.

Although the Budget provided record headline funding of £8·4 billion, the Department outlined a significant shortfall of approximately £400 million. The Committee outlined its concern that, with that level of shortfall and the savings that were expected to be achieved by trusts, there would be an impact on patient safety and outcomes. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Department managed to avoid implementing any cuts that would compromise patient safety. However, there were impacts on health outcomes for patients across the system.

The Committee welcomed the Programme for Government Executive priority of addressing waiting lists and the money allocated and earmarked for doing so. The Committee welcomes the progress that has been made to date; however, it was disappointed that almost £75 million of the money was redirected to address pressures in the system and was not used directly to benefit those on waiting lists. The Committee was also disappointed that a number of capital projects were put on hold in this financial year and that funding was transferred from capital to resource to mitigate the pressures on the budget. The Committee would like that not to happen in the coming years. There needs to be a focus on delivering capital projects well in our health estate.

In previous years, the Department has relied heavily on in-year allocations that have allowed it to break even in those financial years. However, in this financial year, with the financial pressures on Departments, it has not been possible to allocate sufficient funds in the monitoring rounds. That has resulted in a £185 million reserve claim by the Department of Health that will need to be paid over the next three years. That provides some flexibility for the Department, but it still has a significant impact on the Health Minister's ability to implement the reforms that, hopefully, we all accept, are necessary. Last week, departmental officials told the Committee that, even with the reserve claim, the Department is looking at an overspend of almost £26 million in this financial year.

We need to ensure that our Health and Social Care (HSC) workers receive the pay that they are entitled to. It is disappointing that healthcare workers received their backdated pay only this month. It is also extremely disappointing that the Minister went back on his promise to pay the real living wage to care providers. Our Health and Social Care workers are key to our healthcare system and vital to delivering good patient outcomes across the North. I pay tribute to all those who work in the Health and Social Care system for the tireless work that they do in caring for people across our communities. I welcome the fact that the Minister has indicated that pay will be the number-one priority in this financial year; that is right and proper. I encourage the Minister to implement the pay award at the earliest opportunity and to implement the real living wage, as he promised.

I will talk about the Minister's new neighbourhood model, which is often referred to as "shift left". Every day, we hear about problems in our hospitals' emergency departments (EDs). Ambulances are backing up, and EDs are overflowing with patients. People wait in EDs for a hospital bed for days, while hundreds of patients await discharge when community care is not available. The Health Committee sees many examples of where investment in community services would have a massive impact on patient outcomes and we would start to see better patient flow through our hospital systems. We need to see investment in community services and a move away from more expensive treatments in hospitals. Significant efficiencies can be made by investing in community services, which would, ultimately, improve patient outcomes. The Committee has been particularly focused on that over the past few months.

The 2025-26 Budget has been difficult for the Department of Health, being unable to balance its books. I hope that a three-year Budget period will provide the Department with the ability to plan and to invest in our workforce to ensure that there are improvements for patients over the coming years.

That concludes my remarks as Committee Chairperson. I want to make remarks as Sinn Féin's health spokesperson, but I will keep those until tomorrow's Budget debate, as they are more appropriate to that.

Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I welcome the opportunity to set out the Committee for Infrastructure's approach to monitoring DFI's financial position over the financial year. The Committee received oral evidence from departmental officials at each in-year monitoring juncture so that it could assess the pressures on the Department and how it would prioritise any remaining resources in the event of submitted bids not being met. Given the obvious scalability of the bids in a range of areas that fall within the Department's responsibilities, it is able to prioritise its programme of works on the basis of allocations received in monitoring.

Lower-priority maintenance or repairs can quickly degrade road surfaces, particularly during cold spells. While we all recognise the funding constraints that the Department faces, the Committee considers that funding for that central asset in particular needs to be prioritised to enable us to maintain our road network to the highest standards and reduce reliance on temporary repairs. We have all noted that adverse weather has had an impact on our roads. As a consequence, we will, undoubtedly, see an increase in compensation claims, the costs of which are likely to be met by the Department. The Committee will pay close attention to the spending that arises from those claims and to the wider quantum of unsuccessful claims. Such claims put an additional burden on road users and take up a great deal of their time as they get their cars fixed.

As other Members have reflected, the uncertainty of funding applications from in-year monitoring has a wide impact.

The Committee received evidence from the Mineral Products Association Northern Ireland, which highlighted the impact that in-year monitoring has on its industry; not only on its ability to attract and retain staff but on its capacity to respond to repairs due to having to undertake projects across a range of jurisdictions.

We all recognise that the Department for Infrastructure plays an integral role in supporting our economy, providing the necessary foundations to deliver new homes, schools, hospitals and ensuring connectivity across our rural and urban network. Ensuring that there are sufficient resources to maintain our existing infrastructure and initiate projects to evolve that is essential for Northern Ireland.

The Committee has also received valuable evidence from Translink and Northern Ireland Water that very much underlined their financial constraints and their overriding need for sustainable, ongoing funding. It has been referenced many times in Committee that Northern Ireland Water lacks the funding, as determined under the current price control process, PC21, to enable it to undertake and deliver key programmes or projects to build capacity across our network. I will pick up on a few of those themes tomorrow as the Infrastructure spokesperson for our party.

I continue my remarks as Chair. Whilst recognising that a single year's investment will not resolve that underinvestment, it is imperative to seek to provide sufficient and sustained funding to enable those projects to commence. That investment will not only support the existing network but allow for incremental milestones to be delivered that should unlock the economic potential that we know that Northern Ireland has. Whilst we do not wish to undermine the value of the allocations that have been provided to Northern Ireland Water in this financial year — we recognise that the sums are vast and, in this case, in the billions — we know that what is allocated does not address what is needed, as set out by PC21.

The Committee welcomes all additional in-year funding allocations received in this financial year, but it is no secret that these still fall significantly below the capital and resource requirements of the Department. The concern is that, given the ongoing financial constraints and the likelihood of reduced requirements being declared in future monitoring rounds by other Departments, it is difficult to see how these bids will be met in future.

The Committee is also acutely aware of the impacts of funding on Translink, which, due to an increasing demand for concessionary fares, has seen its cash reserves steadily reduced to what are now critical levels. During oral evidence from Translink, the Committee heard that an independent Treasury report recommended that Translink maintain cash reserves of £30 million to meet its day-to-day costs. However, those reserves now sit at £10 million, which equates to a little over a single week's running costs for Translink. Given the forecasted increased demands for concessionary fares over future years, the Committee is deeply concerned that Translink will not have sufficient reserves to meet its costs, and that could equally be applied in-year. Therefore, at its meeting, the Committee agreed to write to the Department to ascertain the assessment of Translink's reserves, including what specific actions the Department and Minister will be taking to ensure financial sustainability for the company.

I turn to the Vote on Account — albeit briefly, you will be glad to know. The Committee has undertaken some preliminary work in assessing the funding requirements for the Department, Northern Ireland Water, Translink and Waterways Ireland in response to the Department of Finance's draft multi-year Budget, and that will continue as we examine the impact on front-line services. The Committee will continue to work collaboratively with the Department, to scrutinise the Department and the Minister and to advocate for the funding requirements, whilst ensuring that the scarce resources are managed efficiently by the Department and the Minister.

Miss Dolan: The debate provides an opportunity for us to reflect on the past financial year and to have an eye on the forthcoming year. A combination of factors means that we continue to face immense financial challenges in our efforts to provide the public services that citizens here deserve, the primary cause being the legacy of underfunding by the British Government over many years.

The spending review by the British Chancellor in the autumn once again highlighted how those elected in London will never prioritise the interests of people here, with just a further £18 million available to help us to deliver front-line public services for this year. Despite that, some positive interventions have been made during the year, including the allocation of additional funds to ensure that public-sector workers, such as teachers and those in the health service, receive pay awards.

A regular topic in the Chamber in recent weeks has been the condition of our roads. The resources available to the Department for Infrastructure over the past decade and a half are a prime example of the detrimental impact that austerity measures decided in London have had on us.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Miss Dolan: No, sorry.

It is welcome, therefore, that investment in our roads has been prioritised in recent months, with an additional £30 million allocated in December and a further £8 million in recent weeks.

The agreement of the £400 million reserve claim between the Treasury and the Executive is positive from the perspective that it will help to alleviate the pressure on the Budget for next year. However, it underlines again the pressures that we face in trying to protect our public services.

Moving forward into the forthcoming year provides us with an opportunity to agree a multi-year Budget. Investment in the areas that are central to the Programme for Government priorities is evident in the draft Budget proposals, including almost half a billion pounds to cut health waiting lists; £195 million to support parents with childcare costs; £21 million for skills to grow the economy; and £15 million for ending violence towards women and girls.

I reiterate the importance of agreeing a multi-year Budget. The benefits of doing so are clear: it will help Departments to strategically plan, rather than having a short-term approach to spending, and will support our efforts to deliver efficiencies and transformation. More on that tomorrow.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I rise on behalf of the Committee for the Economy to support both motions. I thank officials from the Department for the Economy who have recently provided written and oral evidence to the Committee on the anticipated 2025-26 spending out-turn. That included a spring Supplementary Estimates memorandum.

As the House is aware, the Department for the Economy had its 2024-25 accounts disclaimed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it expects to have its 2025-26 accounts disclaimed as well. That has been driven by a number of factors and, right across the Committee, has been a matter of concern.

The largest factor, in financial terms, is student loans. The Department has adopted a new model for estimating the future value of income from student loans and the value of residual loans that are not expected to be paid in full at the end of the loan period. That new model has generated a one-off, ring-fenced DEL charge of £1·7 billion, greatly exceeding the relevant budget. Usually, the related ring-fenced DEL budget is considerably larger than actual costs, owing to the different student loan plans in use here in Northern Ireland compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. It is also the case that those allocations can be used only for student loans and cannot be reallocated to other parts of the Northern Ireland block grant. Although it is an alarming set of figures, the Committee understands that that is a one-off technical exercise. It is also expected that, now that the new student loan model has been adopted, the ring-fenced DEL numbers will return to their usual position.

Other factors affecting the disclaimed accounts include the Northern Regional College. The Committee has seen the annual report and accounts, which include part of this financial year, for the colleges, but, yet again, the Northern Regional College annual accounts have not appeared before Committee.

The Committee will continue to scrutinise the Department as it makes its way back to a place where its accounts will no longer be disclaimed.

On non-ring-fenced DEL, it appears that the Department is on course to not overspend its £821 million budget, thanks to the in-year allocation of over £40 million from the Executive to cover things such as skills, pay and higher education pressures. The challenges here are around the loss of £24 million in Shared Prosperity funding.

Regarding capital, it appears that the Department is also on course to not overspend its £244 million budget, again, thanks to in-year allocations from the Executive and earmarked support from Treasury for projects such as Project Gigabit and Project Stratum, which now make Northern Ireland the most connected part of these islands.

The Committee noted a £6·7 million decrease in the funding requirements for city and growth deals owing to delays with various projects. The Department of Finance has overarching responsibility for delivering city and growth deals, so perhaps the Minister can articulate the Executive's continued commitment to delivering such deals across Northern Ireland in his winding-up speech. I particularly hope that he will reassure us that the higher education capital projects will happen largely as planned and that universities will not be left to foot inflated bills created by departmental delays.

If we strip out particular earmarked projects, the Department for the Economy's non-ring-fenced budget looks like being a flat-cash settlement over the next three years. The Committee has noted that, if we are to assume that the key pressures for Department-related pay and the demand for skill interventions continue, including for traineeships and apprenticeships, it may become difficult to balance the books. If he can, will the Minister provide clarity on the future of the emerging enhanced investment zone (EIZ) arrangements? This past week, the Committee received an update about that spending. The Treasury has allocated £150 million of available spending for the Executive through the Department for the Economy. To date, however, progress has not materialised.

That concludes my remarks as Chair of the Economy Committee. I will now make some comments in my role as an MLA. Following my demotion from the Finance Committee, I do not get to contribute to finance debates any more. There are, however, issues that I want to put on the record. A number of new Treasury funding models are available to the Department for the Economy. The EIZ represents a massive opportunity to deliver real and tangible benefits for communities right across Northern Ireland. I understand that the Executive are currently looking at proposed projects, but I encourage my Executive colleagues and all other Ministers to move those projects on as soon as possible.

The defence growth deal that the Ministry of Defence announced before Christmas will make £10 million available to Northern Ireland. It offers a vital opportunity to invest in the ever-growing aerospace, defence, security and space (ADS) sector in Northern Ireland. Three of the largest aerospace companies in the world are now based in Northern Ireland, so it is vital that we continue to take advantage of that fact.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I am very happy to give way.

Dr Aiken: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group (APG) on aerospace and space. Will the Member agree with me that it is vital for our ADS sector to have a skilled workforce and for it to have the ability to invest heavily in that workforce in order to make the sector work?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Chair of the Economy Committee has an extra minute.

Mr Brett: I fully agree with the Member. During exercises this year, the Minister of Finance has made a number of important allocations and created a dedicated fund for skills. Hopefully, the £10 million that will be available to the Executive will focus on making sure that the next generation of young people in Northern Ireland have the skills to take advantage of the ADS sector here.

I also encourage the Minister for the Economy to encourage our council colleagues across the Province to submit projects to the local economic partnerships (LEPs) as soon as possible. The Minister of Finance made £45 million available to the Department for the Economy over the next three years to support economic growth right across Northern Ireland. To date, none of the funding has been spent, so I encourage our council colleagues to come forward with projects as soon as possible so that all regions of Northern Ireland can continue to ensure that our economy delivers for all sections of society.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. We considered the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs' allocations over the year in oral evidence sessions, first for the June monitoring round and then for the December monitoring round. We received a written briefing a few weeks ago on the spring Supplementary Estimates and on the revised out-turn and forecast out-turn documents. Holding the monitoring round in December rather than in October was not ideal, but we understand that the delay was down to the lateness of the Chancellor's autumn Budget statement.

In June 2025, DAERA made one resource DEL bid of £3·2 million for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) compensation, and it also made four capital DEL bids totalling £8·9 million: £4 million for the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) framework; £2·3 million for estate improvements at the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE); £1·3 million for country park improvements by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA); and £1·3 million for scientific equipment for the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). The bids were based on unmet elements of the budget bids, particularly the bid for bovine tuberculosis compensation.

Officials advised the Committee that, since bTB compensation is a statutory obligation, it was more likely that a bid would be met for that than for anything else.

We have heard much in the Chamber about the unmet challenge of bovine tuberculosis. However, we note that DAERA is not unique in having to rely on in-year budget allocations to meet statutory aspects of its work. The Committee heard that the cost of the bTB compensation project for 2025-26 was £47·4 million. The Minister of Finance will understand that that is a £4·3 million increase on 2024-25. That means that the overall cost of tackling bovine TB will reach over £65 million in 2025-26, which is quite a failing.

On December monitoring, at our meeting on 27 November, we heard that DAERA had no resource DEL or capital DEL bids. However, under resource DEL reduction requirements, there was a non-earmarked reduced requirement of £4·9 million from the delay in filling vacancies and a requirement from Treasury of £2·9 million because the timing of staff appointments had been slower than anticipated. Many times during the year, the Committee expressed concern about the speed at which vacancies were filled in DAERA and particularly at the NIEA in regard to its planning function. There was also an Executive-earmarked reduced requirement of £3·1 million for PEACE PLUS.

One DEL reduced requirement of £0·8 million arose from a slippage in a lease at the Larne facility for 2026-27, and £108 million of non-cash resource annually managed expenditure (AME) budget cover was sought for a potential technical accounting adjustment in relation to the awful Mobuoy illegal waste site. That approach was consistent with last year.

Some £0·6 million non-cash resource AME budget cover was sought for a potential technical accounting adjustment in relation to the AFBI data breach that we heard about recently. At its meeting on 29 January 2026, the Committee held an evidence session with AFBI on the data breach and heard that it was due to human error and non-compliance with established controls. The Committee queried with AFBI the budget provision for the legal and staff costs that were incurred because of the breach.

I turn to the spring Supplementary Estimates, as considered at our meeting on 29 January. We noted that, during 2025-26, the main drivers of spending changes were an overall £69·2 million increase in resource DEL compared with the Main Estimates position, and an allocation of an additional £80·8 million in resource DEL. That included £63 million from HMT to administer the Windsor framework; it was not additional resource for DAERA programmes. There was also £7·9 million for depreciation; £5 million for the environmental improvement plan (EIP), including Lough Neagh; and £3·2 million for bTB programme delivery.

As part of the December monitoring round, the Department identified £11·2 million of reduced requirements. I reiterate the Committee's concern about the speed at which vacancies at DAERA are filled and the impact of that on service delivery, most notably the NIEA's planning turnaround times. DAERA had an £8·1 million increase in capital DEL compared with the Main Estimates position, and, during the year, £11·3 million of HMT funding was allocated for administering the Windsor framework.

I move to resource AME. As mentioned earlier, £108 million has been allocated for a potential technical accounting adjustment in relation to Mobuoy. The Committee is waiting to hear from DAERA on the way forward following the consultation on the draft remediation strategy. There is therefore very much a live, watching brief on that.

Unfortunately, the DAERA budgetary challenges of the past year remain familiar to the Committee. Compensation for bovine TB does not cover the full income lost, because it takes time to rebuild a herd, never mind deal with the emotional distress.

We know that the Minister shares our interest in supporting the agriculture sector to thrive. To that end, the Committee held a successful nutrients action programme (NAP) proposal stakeholder event, in November, to bring farming and environmental stakeholders together.

The Committee wants to see finance delivered for a just transition and has issued a call for views on the proposed statutory rule (SR) to establish the just transition commission. We encourage responses to that.

The Committee is considering the Dilapidation Bill and has heard evidence on the lack of resources for councils and on the Bill's application. On 5 February, we took evidence on the progress of the Lough Neagh action plan. The final 2025-26 allocation saw £6·3 million resource DEL and £9·2 million capital DEL allocated to help deliver the remaining 22 actions. I know that that is important to every Member.

I will bring my comments as Committee Chair to a conclusion and add a few comments as an MLA. The Estimates expose a Department that is still reacting rather than reforming. An extra £3·2 million for the delivery of the bovine tuberculosis programme is simply not financially commensurate with the scale of a crisis that is devastating farm families. A five-year project line for that action on bovine tuberculosis leaves those under the spectre of positive bTB cases feeling hopeless, especially when the compensation fails to cover the full income loss or the emotional toll. That is not ambition; it is administration.

We also see £11·2 million in reduced requirements while vacancies remain unfilled and planning turnaround times suffer, particularly in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Robbie.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Minister, for bringing the Estimates before us.

Members will notice that we have a £32 billion Budget for 2025-26, with £18·8 billion in RDEL, £2·14 billion in CDEL and £10·6 billion in AME. That gives us £20·94 billion in RDEL and CDEL combined, which is, by any recommendation, the largest Budget that Northern Ireland has ever had. We also note the £9·46 billion in health costs and the costs in various other areas.

I will draw attention to infrastructure, particularly the £1·6 billion budget. In the way that I read it, it looks as if there was an underspend of £133·9 million in capital when it comes to infrastructure. Bearing in mind the issues that we have with potholes on the roads, Northern Ireland Water, the A5 and road safety, it seems rather strange that we have a £133·9 million underspend in the infrastructure sector.

I am also glad to see that the black box has reduced considerably. When other Members used to sit on the Finance Committee, it was, at one stage or another, sitting at close to £1 billion. It has now reduced considerably to £17·2 million. That is much appreciated, and I encourage the Department of Finance to keep its fingers very closely on it to make sure that that continues.

However, with disclaimed as well as qualified accounts, it is not surprising, Minister, that we have now — albeit the Treasury is being very polite — been put under special measures. We have been put under special measures because, quite frankly, the Treasury does not trust our bookkeeping. Many of us have concerns with the open-book approach, and I have questions that I would like answered, but I have not had those answers yet. Does the open-book approach mean that this will continue ever more and that we will always be under close scrutiny from the Treasury, or is it another case of, "Just on this one occasion"? What are the likely implications of that?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for giving way. I have to respond at this stage, because I do not want it to get out that we are under special measures. We are not under special measures. I will give more details on the open-book process when I speak to Members later, but that is a process between the Executive and the Finance Department, and we will work together on it. We are most certainly not under special measures.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Principal Deputy Speaker. Minister, I am glad that you think that we are not under special measures. I just do not think that everybody else thinks that.

The real issue that we have is this: what are the implications when it comes to our future budgeting and how we manage it? We are now in a situation where, thank goodness, we have the Vote on Account back down to where it normally sits — at about the 45% level — rather than at the previous 65% level, which was completely unprecedented. In this period, does that give us the necessary vires to spend future moneys during the next part of the budgeting process? What I am trying to say, Minister, is that Treasury got a block on us budgeting, and, if there is, thanks for confirming that, Minister.

I notice that we are looking at some special accounting processes for financial transactions capital in the future. I do not have the in-depth Estimates in front of me, and it has no doubt been addressed that, sooner or later, Members, at least those on the Finance Committee, will get a copy of the cream book so that we can spend the next week or so going through it with a fine-tooth comb. There is a question about how we account for FTC in its new form, and I would be delighted to work out where that comes from. That concludes my remarks, but there will be more from me tomorrow.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That seems to be the theme of the day: more from everyone tomorrow. Everybody can tune in.

Members, as you are aware, the next item of business is Question Time at 2.00 pm. I will suspend the sitting until then. Timothy, you will be the next Member to speak in the debate after Question Time. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): The Bill is intended to provide clarity for the Utility Regulator on its ability to assist my Department by providing technical advice and information and to carry out its statutory regulatory functions in a way that will support the transition to the future energy system needed to fulfil my Department’s obligations under the Climate Change Act 2022 and the Executive’s energy strategy. Officials in my Department have worked with the Utility Regulator to develop the Bill. Following consideration of issues raised in the public consultation and further engagement with the Utility Regulator, the draft Bill has been circulated to my Executive colleagues, and I hope to introduce it to the Assembly in the coming weeks.

Mr Brett: I welcome the Minister's update on the Bill and thank her officials and her for their important work on it. The Bill will be important if we are to get anywhere near to meeting our targets.

Another key aspect of meeting our targets will be the development of the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme. Will the Minister articulate the progress that has been made on drafting that Bill and the terms and conditions that will follow it?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The policy intent of the electricity price guarantee scheme has been circulated to my Executive colleagues. I am hopeful that it will be considered by the Executive soon, which will pave the way for the drafting of that legislation. There will then be a consultation on the terms and conditions of the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme. Progress is being made on both matters, and I hope that they will be approved by the Executive shortly.

Mr Delargy: As the Minister knows, more and more people have had their electricity supply affected by extreme weather over recent years. Will the Minister update us on the Utility Regulator's consultation on payments to people who have been affected?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The Utility Regulator's consultation on its review of the electricity guaranteed standards of service and overall standards of performance closed on 15 January. The Utility Regulator is now analysing the responses and preparing its final decision paper to present to the Department by the end of April. My Department will then bring forward without delay any new arrangements, following Executive agreement, with the expectation that they will be in place for winter 2026-27.

Dr Archibald: With more than 400 events that will bring together hundreds of thousands of visitors for eight days of music, craic and friendship, Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann 2026 will be a celebration and a showcase of our community and the diverse cultures that it comprises. The fleadh is being delivered by Belfast City Council in partnership with Ards Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. Tourism NI will support the event as a strategic partner. That includes enhanced marketing to attract more visitors and dedicated engagement campaigns to encourage participation as a host, volunteer or visitor. Tourism NI will also focus on maximising the benefit that the Fleadh Cheoil will bring by encouraging visitors to travel beyond the city and experience the diverse communities, towns, coastlines and cultural sites across the North.

Through inclusive, creative events and workshops, the festival fringe programme is designed to encourage visitors to engage with our authentic cultural traditions and local communities. A campaign is already under way by Tourism NI to encourage local tourism businesses to engage with the fleadh programme. That also includes information for prospective accommodation providers to ensure that they get certified and are able to host the many visitors whom we expect to come and enjoy the event.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire,

for that answer. I have been to many fleadha across Ireland. They are amazing, and, hopefully, the place will be buzzing.

Minister, you referred to the fact that Tourism NI now has responsibility for promoting the benefits of the fleadh. Will you assure us that local businesses and residents will see benefits from the great opportunity that is coming to our shores?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Delivering a successful Fleadh Cheoil in Belfast will showcase the city and the wider region at its very best, providing us with a platform to deliver significant cultural, social and economic opportunities. Such major events have a proven track record of driving economic impact, attracting private investment, opening the door for other big events and creating opportunities for local businesses. Businesses will benefit from the influx of visitors as they spend money on accommodation, food, transport and shopping, in addition, obviously, to the substantial boost for our hotels, restaurants, pubs and retail. The fleadh will help to create growth in the local economy and support jobs.

The festival provides a platform for local musicians to perform and for residents to support through volunteering. One of the big successes of the Open last year was the contribution of volunteers. With opportunities for everyone to be part of the fleadh, support will be provided to develop new skills and experiences. Tourism NI is collaborating with Belfast City Council to deliver an industry engagement programme to ensure that businesses understand the opportunities presented from hosting the fleadh and to tailor their products to ensure that they provide an excellent visitor experience. I encourage businesses to engage with that.

Mr O'Toole: I agree wholeheartedly that the fleadh is a huge opportunity for the city and the whole region. I am very much looking forward to it. A lot of my constituents feel that they would have been able to benefit from the fleadh or any future fleadh that comes to Belfast, as hopefully it will, were the Glider to have been available to take people from the centre of the city into the south down the Ormeau Road and north up the Antrim Road. Do you agree that it is deeply regrettable for Belfast's economy that the Glider has been delayed for several years? Do you also agree that it is regrettable that your colleague the MP for North Belfast appears to be under the misapprehension that it is on track? It is not; it is six years behind schedule.

Mr Speaker: I remind the leader of the Opposition that it is the Economy Minister that we are talking to and not the Infrastructure Minister.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question to the Minister for Infrastructure. [Laughter.]

In fairness, there is a point about ensuring that public transport is available. That will be considered with the organisers, led by Belfast City Council, which is working with all partners, including Translink, in ensuring that we put on the best fleadh possible.

Mr Brooks: One of the hallmarks of the previous fleadh in Londonderry was the cross-community element. Can the Minister detail how the fleadh will embrace Ulster-British traditions?

Dr Archibald: Making the fleadh for everyone was a cornerstone of the city's successful bid. It has a focus on unity and shared traditional cultural heritage, so the celebration is not the preserve of one part of our community; it is for everybody. The Belfast Fleadh Cheoil and associated fringe events will showcase our local culture and heritage, bring people together across all communities and abilities and create an inclusive, welcoming visitor experience that reflects the city and the region's identity. That is something that we would all encourage. In recognising the breadth of the appeal of the Fleadh Cheoil, the bands forum sits on the fleadh's festival programming and cultural offering subcommittee, again bringing in all sections of our community.

Ms Bradshaw: Last week I attended a stakeholders' meeting regarding the new campsite that will be set up in Ormeau Park. It seems that it will be heavily oversubscribed. Can you outline any work that is ongoing by Tourism NI to identify other sites close to the city?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I met Tourism NI last week in relation to the fleadh, and one of the issues that we discussed was accommodation. It is working to ensure that there is enough accommodation for everybody who wants to experience the fleadh. I am happy to take away the Member's question on the specifics of the campsites and get further information.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, you mentioned the fleadh's importance as a community festival: what support can be given to the festival that takes place on 12 July every year? We saw the success at the Open in Portrush with the marching bands on display. That is a cultural expression in my community. What support can you give to that as a community tourism opportunity? Can you reaffirm that Tourism NI will, indeed, recognise this year's Twelfth as a community festival in all its advertising and promotional events?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am aware that organisers of events across all parts of the North will engage with their local councils on supporting events for the Twelfth. Event organisers will have opportunities to engage with Tourism NI, and, of course, they are free to do that on all the programmes and supports that it puts in place. I encourage people to engage in that regard.

Dr Archibald: The North’s aerospace and defence sector operates as an integrated cluster characterised by shared supply chains, advanced manufacturing capabilities and cross-cutting technologies, with firms serving both civil aerospace and defence markets.

Over the past three financial years, Invest NI has offered financial assistance of £1·04 million of support to companies operating in the defence sector. That financial assistance was provided to two businesses whose activities are solely within the defence sector. No financial assistance was offered in 2022-23. In 2023-24, £2,430 of support was offered, and, in 2024-25, £1,041,344 was offered. That support has contributed to business investment in innovation, skills development and trade promotion. Those interventions are designed to strengthen advanced manufacturing capability and enhance the competitiveness of firms in the North operating within highly regulated global markets.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. It is my understanding that our national Government — the UK Government — have amassed a £10 million fund for a defence growth deal for Northern Ireland. What specific engagement have you had with the Secretary of State for Defence in order to ensure that investment and jobs are provided in that important sector in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. My officials at Invest NI have been engaging and working with businesses in the sector to engage with the Ministry of Defence. It is my understanding that engagement had been quite slow until very recently but there has been engagement over the past couple of weeks on taking forward a proposition for businesses here.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, will you provide an update on the ethical investment framework?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The development of my ethical investment framework is under way. Officials are using the UN's 'Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights' as the foundation to ensure that the framework reflects recognised international standards. While Invest NI is a key delivery partner, my intention is that the framework will apply across the Department and its core delivery bodies in due course. Its purpose is to strengthen the North's trading position by ensuring that there can be no suggestion that companies operating here are engaged in unethical activity. The framework will be taken forward through a formal policy development process that will include consultation and the opportunity for a wide range of stakeholders to provide their views. My intention is that the framework will be operational within the current mandate.

Dr Aiken: I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on aerospace and space.

Minister, you will be aware that Airbus seeks to expand in Northern Ireland. Will you outline what your Department can do to reach out to it, specifically in the area of skills, which relates to the previous comments from Mrs Dodds about tapping into that Ministry of Defence money?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, I recently engaged with the senior leadership of Airbus and committed to supporting its efforts to expand here. I have corresponded with the Secretary of State in London on that. We are hugely supportive of such an expansion, as it would create more good jobs and strengthen the aerospace sector.

Mr Carroll: Minister, do you agree that we need an ethical just transition away from jobs being connected to the war industry in order to protect people who work in what is called the defence sector and to stop bombs being dropped on people in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I am on record as expressing my concerns about prioritising funding for the militarisation agenda instead of prioritising it for vital public services or for R&D on, for example, supporting our life and health sciences sector or developing new green tech and agri-tech solutions that will help people live longer and healthier lives. Those are the things that we should be prioritising in our public funding.

Dr Archibald: The subregional economic plan, which was published in October 2024, set out a new strategic approach to economic development that is locally led and has a mission to deliver regional balance. A key element of the plan was greater collaboration with councils and stakeholders through the creation of local economic partnerships (LEPs), alongside a £45 million regional balance fund to support the work of the LEPs.

Departmental and Invest NI officials have been working closely with economic development units in the 11 councils and have provided support, advice and guidance throughout the development of the local economic partnerships. I am delighted that all 11?local economic partnerships are up and running, with several action plans having?recently?been approved, including those for Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council and Ards and North Down Borough Council. My officials will continue to work closely with all partnerships on the delivery of their action plans, and we hope to see those action plans being approved in the coming weeks.

Mr Stewart: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group on micro and small business. I thank the Minister for her answer. It is over a decade since the review of public administration (RPA) led to increased devolved responsibilities for economic development. In that time, our councils have spent hundreds of millions of pounds, yet many people are not seeing delivery. There have been lots of strategies, and there has been a lot of discussion, but we are not seeing a lot of delivery. Do you agree that our local enterprise agencies, which are punching well above their weight and could aid the delivery of much more economic output, are ready and waiting for councils to give them the support and financial assistance that they desperately need?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. One of the reasons why we put in place the local economic partnerships was to bring all the relevant partners to the table and to encourage the development of local plans and priorities. Our enterprise agencies are key to achieving that, and they are involved in all those efforts. I agree with the Member about the important work of our enterprise agencies. Very often, they are the first point of contact for many individuals and for many businesses that are looking to start up or expand. I am really concerned about the British Government's direction of travel with the local growth fund, and we continue to engage with them on that. I am keen to work with our local enterprise agencies and councils to find a way forward. Alongside that, I recently set up an entrepreneurship co-design group to encourage the development of further entrepreneurial activity. We will produce an action plan on that in the very near future.

Mr Buckley: Minister, I largely agree with the local economic partnership approach. In many ways, councils are best able to tap into a rich vein of local entrepreneurship and thriving local business. As the Member for East Antrim said, however, there is a feeling that strategies are taking precedence over delivery. Will the Minister confirm that none of the £45 million that was ring-fenced for local economic partnerships has been spent?

Dr Archibald: I do not think that that is correct. As I said, a number of the councils have had their action plans approved. They have received letters of offer, which they will be claiming against before the end of the financial year. There has been a considerable amount of activity undertaken over the past year to set up local economic partnerships and develop action plans. We are now getting into the phase in which money will be spent on delivering programmes. I know that all our councils are really keen to ensure that that happens as quickly as possible.

Miss Dolan: Minister, do you agree that the Go Succeed service, which our councils deliver, is a critical part of our local economic infrastructure?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I said to Mr Stewart, Go Succeed is a hugely successful element of our local business support landscape. In the past three years, over 10,000 entrepreneurs have been supported to either start or grow their business. In line with my commitment to regional balance, Go Succeed is delivered in every region across the North.

Unfortunately, the future of that vital service is now at risk due to changes in the British Government's local growth fund. The local growth fund contains much less resource funding than its predecessor, the Shared Prosperity Fund. As a result, Go Succeed and other projects that were supported by the Shared Prosperity Fund face a critical funding shortfall. Along with Executive colleagues, on 22 January, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, urging him to address that situation. There is still time for the British Government to secure the future of Go Succeed and other projects supported by the Shared Prosperity Fund, but they need to act now.

Dr Archibald: The licensing agreement to include Fermanagh in the Ireland’s Hidden Heartlands brand was announced in December last year. I am pleased that 45 local businesses have already signed up to it.

I have since provided £300,000 of additional support to Tourism NI for a targeted marketing campaign that launched on 16 February. It showcases a range of Fermanagh businesses, such as the Killyhevlin Lakeside Hotel and Blakes of the Hollow. The campaign is underpinned by 26 special offers from the industry to encourage tourists, demonstrating its commitment to the opportunities provided by the campaign. Across Ireland, the campaign will generate almost 27 million opportunities for it to be seen, reaching 58% of adults. The campaign will run until 31 March and will be fully evaluated. Evidence from previous Tourism NI marketing campaigns indicates that, for every £1 spent, £60 is spent in the local economy.

In January, Fáilte Ireland aired in the Southern market a TV commercial promoting Fermanagh as part of Ireland’s Hidden Heartlands. Tourism Ireland will continue to promote the brand and to work with local partners on overseas campaigns.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her answer. Of course, I again welcome the inclusion of County Fermanagh in the Fáilte Ireland brand, which will be a game changer for Fermanagh's economy and, no doubt, the businesses that you mentioned.

Minister, we are just a stone's throw from County Donegal, which has the Wild Atlantic Way. Will you provide an update on funding from the Shared Island Fund for the Wild Atlantic Way and Causeway coastal route?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for the question. As the Member will be aware, the Wild Atlantic Way and the Causeway coastal route are being linked through a Shared Island Fund collaboration project that includes research, marketing, joint signposting and a small capital grant scheme to enhance attractions along those iconic routes.

The coast-to-coast investment scheme is the first cross-border funding scheme that the three tourism agencies have taken forward together, and the announcement of the successful applicants was made last week. A total of 13 projects have been approved across the two jurisdictions, with five projects along the Causeway coastal route receiving capital funding: the Giant's Causeway, the Derry Girls Experience, the Gobbins, the Museum of Free Derry and the Courthouse, Bushmills. That represents a direct investment of £861,000 via the scheme, and, with matched funding, it means a total investment of £1·12 million in local tourism businesses. Those developments will strengthen the appeal of the attractions and the two iconic routes while encouraging visitors to further explore the regions, stay longer and spend more, boosting our local economy and supporting local communities.

Mr Robinson: Will the Minister indicate whether she will travel to the USA to highlight and promote the tourism offer that we have in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: Yes, I will travel to the US in the next few weeks, at the beginning of March, and the focus of my trip will be the promotion of trade, tourism and our screen industry. I will travel to the west coast, and I will be joined on the trip by Tourism Ireland, NI Screen and officials from Invest NI.

Mr McNulty: Minister, will you provide a clear update on engagement with Fáilte Ireland regarding the expansion of the Ireland's Ancient East branding? What practical steps is your Department taking to ensure that areas that are currently excluded, including Counties Armagh, Down and Antrim, are not left at a competitive disadvantage?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I updated the House previously that Fáilte Ireland is evaluating the effectiveness of the Ireland's Ancient East brand. As far as I understand, that evaluation is not complete. When it is, I will continue to engage with Fáilte Ireland on the extension of that brand. There are huge opportunities for the inclusion of Counties Armagh and Down in particular, but also counties further afield, in that brand offering. The inclusion of those counties, and the many attractions that they have, would add significantly to what is currently on offer through the brand.

Dr Archibald: My Department published the Government response report to the consultation on support for low carbon heating in residential buildings on 26 January. The consultation findings highlighted a preference for domestic properties to undergo an energy assessment as part of a future scheme. Such an approach offers a clear starting point for keeping a household well-informed about their options and how different retrofit solutions may work for their circumstances. The method and approach for providing a home energy assessment will be considered as officials design a support scheme for energy efficiency and low carbon heating in residential buildings. My Department will publish a public consultation regarding the scheme design later this year.

Mr Wilson: Thank you, Minister. Your report, rightly, looks at incentivising consumers to switch to low carbon forms of heating. With that in mind, and given the stories that we have heard about retrofits going wrong, I am keen to understand, from a homeowner's perspective, what types of finance will be available. We know that, in certain circumstances, those technologies can be expensive to install and run. First and foremost, homeowners are the ones who need to see the benefits of the financial support rather the companies that carry out the retrofits.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It is important that we take cognisance and learning from the experiences of other jurisdictions where similar schemes have been implemented. We are looking at what is the most appropriate form of support and how we administer it to households. That will form part of the consultation later in the year. The Executive's energy strategy commits to funding the retrofitting of buildings. In that context, my officials are developing a domestic energy efficiency and low carbon heat programme that will replace the NI sustainable energy programme (NISEP), which provides part-funded support for the installation of energy efficiency measures and heating solutions, and is targeted at lower-income households. Again, we want to take on board the learnings from where that has been really quite effective.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Minister update the House on the development and implementation of smart metering?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. That was consulted on last year, and we hope to be in a position to publish the outcome of that consultation in a few weeks' time.

Ms Finnegan: Will the Minister provide an update on the closure of the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill, which will give the Department the power to bring forward regulations to close the scheme, is at Committee Stage. The Department has completed a public consultation on the policy proposals for the closure regulations that will accompany the Bill. A report on the outcome of the consultation has been published. Subject to passage of the Bill through the Assembly, my Department is working towards bringing the closure regulations before the Assembly, with the aim of having the closure arrangements in place prior to Ofgem's departure at the end of June.

Dr Archibald: I recently met both language commissioners, as well as the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, to discuss how we can strengthen cooperation and ensure a coordinated approach across our respective responsibilities. Those engagements provided an important forum to consider how my Department can better support linguistic diversity, improve the accessibility of services, and ensure that our policies and programmes reflect our statutory language commitments.

The engagements were an excellent opportunity to discuss the direction of travel of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression and its business plan as well as to identify opportunities for both language commissions to strengthen language provision across departmental services and economic programmes. The introductory meetings provided an opportunity to establish constructive working relationships, to hear about the commissioners' respective roles and priorities and to discuss my Department's statutory duties and areas of responsibility.

I remain fully committed to working closely with the commissioners and relevant partners, going forward, to advance language development, promote inclusion and ensure that everyone can engage effectively with the services and opportunities that my Department provides.

Mr Speaker: We will move to topical questions.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, I wish you a belated happy birthday and hope that you enjoyed your celebrations.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question and for her birthday wishes. In my previous engagement with her, I remained open to looking at the Bill once it was published, so I look forward to seeing the proposals in it. Obviously, I have statutory responsibilities in relation to the Department for the Economy. I have set out a direction of travel, with regional balance as one of the four priorities and a number of work streams flowing from that. However, I look forward to engaging with the Member on her Bill.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. I, too, look forward to that engagement. Although you have a subregional economic plan, including the development of local economic partnerships, those remain policy mechanisms rather than statutory obligations. Why do you believe that an approach that is based on discretion and short-term programmes is sufficient to change the structural imbalances that have persisted in Northern Ireland for decades?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. It is another case of looking at what we can do within our current remit. We always keep open the potential for other types of intervention. Regional balance is reflected in our Programme for Government. All Departments are responsible for ensuring that they take forward initiatives that support the delivery of more effective regional balance. As I said, I look forward to engaging with the content of the Member's Bill and being persuaded by her arguments as to why it is necessary.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Unfortunately, we have had a really uncertain landscape created over the past year. I was pleased to see the US Supreme Court's ruling that the tariffs that had been imposed on so-called Liberation Day were not lawfully enacted, but, while many Administrations and businesses rightly welcome that development, it creates further uncertainty. I continue to make the case that tariffs create uncertainty and added costs for businesses. They are bad for businesses, bad for workers and bad for consumers. In all my engagements on tariffs, I have reiterated that message time and again and have heard it time and again from businesses that are navigating the really volatile trading environment that we have all experienced since last April.

I was disappointed to see, over the weekend, the president's response to the ruling, introducing further tariffs that will once again exacerbate complexity and uncertainty in trading with the US. I have engaged again with the British and Irish Governments to seek urgent clarification on the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling, particularly in relation to the agreements that have been made. I, along with my officials, will continue to monitor the situation in partnership with my tariff working group to understand the implications for local businesses.

Mr Baker: Go raibh maith agat

for that answer, Minister. Our ties with the US go beyond the current Administration: will you provide a wee bit more detail on your planned visit to the US in the coming weeks?

Dr Archibald: We have a long-established and important trading relationship with the United States. Despite the recent disruption and uncertainty that has been created by tariffs in particular, it remains one of our biggest trading partners, with an export market worth £1·4 billion. Many of our local businesses choose to establish operations in the US, supported by Invest NI. That is why, in a small number of weeks, I will make my third visit to the US as Economy Minister, going to San Francisco and Los Angeles. As I mentioned, that visit will be in partnership with Invest NI, NI Screen and Tourism Ireland and will focus on trade, tourism and screen opportunities for the North with businesses, tour operators and the film industry on the west coast of America.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The 'Skills Action Plan', which I published last October, includes a clear commitment to:

who access vocational pathways. I am pleased to say that, with today's announcement of a new research project, I am delivering on that commitment. The research will help to ensure that learners who choose to study through the medium of Irish have equitable access to the skills that they need to support their learning and development. Importantly, the research will help us to better understand the challenges that Irish-medium learners face and where the system can be strengthened to support them. The centre for research in educational underachievement at Stranmillis University College will undertake the study. Its expertise will allow us to map current provision, identify barriers and benchmark against best practice in Wales and in the South. The findings from that research will help to inform future policy development in my Department and ensure that the available pathways are fit for purpose and genuinely accessible to Irish-medium learners.

Mr Kearney: Minister, you may have touched on my supplementary question in your response, but I will nevertheless ask it: how will the research take into account the lived experience of those who speak an Ghaeilge

?

Dr Archibald: The research team at Stranmillis is committed to engaging broadly and ensuring that lived experience, as well as operational reality, is reflected in its findings. Indeed, stakeholder engagement will be central to the research, with the views of Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, Gaelchúrsaí, further education colleges, training providers, awarding organisations and, crucially, young people being taken into account. The researchers will consult relevant officials in my Department and the Department of Education. They will also consult our counterparts in Wales and in the South to ensure that we draw on best practice in comparable minority language models. That will ensure that the research recommendations are practical, evidence-based and grounded in real experience.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for the question. As I outlined to Mr Wilson in a previous response, we published the consultation report just a few weeks ago. Officials are in the process of developing proposals for how we will support domestic households in respect of energy efficiency. Those proposals will go out for consultation later in the year.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her response. I am keen to see any support that will encourage people to incorporate renewables into their homes. What assurances can you provide that support will encourage people at the scale that we need it to?

Dr Archibald: As I have reflected previously, it is important that we take on board learnings from elsewhere and ensure that interventions are set at the right level to encourage people to incorporate renewables and energy efficiency measures. The consultation has been completed, and we are now moving to the stage of developing the support. All of those issues will have to be taken into consideration in what is set out and consulted on.

Ms Nicholl: I do not need to say, "Happy birthday" to the Minister, because I did it on Instagram.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I have a paper before the Executive with the detailed policy proposals in relation to the 'good jobs' Bill. As the Member will be aware from when I was at the Committee a few weeks ago, we anticipate that the drafting of the Bill will be completed by the end of March or early April. At that point it will go to the Executive for approval before being introduced to the Assembly. We are hopeful that we will get progress on that as quickly as possible and have the Bill before the Assembly before the summer recess.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for her answer. There is so much in the Bill about flexible working, parental leave and care, as well as updating employment legislation. The fact that the drafting has not been finished is causing a lot of concern. Is the Minister confident that we will see the full passage of the legislation in this mandate?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She is right: it is comprehensive legislation. The Office of the Legislative Counsel is working diligently to complete its drafting. Obviously, all parties around the Executive table will have the opportunity to ensure its speedy progression. Of course, once it is in the Assembly and goes to the Committee, it is over to the Committee to ensure its passage through the Assembly in the speediest way possible. Obviously, we anticipate that it will be properly scrutinised. That is, of course, what we want to see, but we also want to see it complete its passage before the end of the mandate. I see no reason why that should not happen, but there are stages of its progress that are in the hands of others. I encourage them to move it along as quickly as possible.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I too have received correspondence, perhaps from elected representatives, in respect of that issue. I do not have the detail before me, but, if the Member wanted to correspond with me, I would be happy to provide him with detail on that and provide signposting for his constituents to resolve the issues.

Mr Chambers: I would be grateful if the Minister would do that.

Dr Archibald: I referenced the issue to other colleagues earlier. I am hugely concerned about the approach of the British Government to the local growth fund. That concern is shared by all the Ministers around the Executive table. We know of the impact of the organisations across our community and voluntary sector who support some of our most vulnerable constituents with training and employability work. We have been collectively making the case that there needs to be a change of approach from the British Government in how they have broken down the funding and split the capital and the resource, which in no way meets the needs of our local communities. There is still time for the British Government to change their approach, and I urge them to make sure that that happens.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. I visited Action Mental Health, one of the affected voluntary sector agencies. You mentioned other Ministers: what work are you doing with those other Ministers, such as the Minister for Communities and the Minister of Finance, to ensure that voluntary sector organisations such as Action Mental Health will be able to continue the service that they provide and the associated contribution to the local economy?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The Finance Minister leads on the issue in engaging with the British Government, and he has also been engaging with all the relevant Ministers, because we are all really concerned about the impact. There is a significant funding shortfall. We obviously have a very constrained funding environment.

As I indicated, I believe that the British Government should change their approach and should ensure that appropriate resource funding is made available to ensure that those organisations can continue to provide their vital services.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Given the current capital budget position and the number of major works projects that have yet to be delivered, I have no plans at this time to bring forward further capital school projects previously identified under the major capital works programme. There are a number of projects at the pre-construction stage that cannot be progressed to construction at this time due to funding availability. I continue to make the case for much-needed investment for the major capital works programme.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for the update, Minister. As you are aware from your recent visit, St Brigid's College was ranked 12 out of 28 on the list. Currently, it awaits five specialist provision classrooms. They will not be delivered until January 2029. It has 14 locations that need minor accessibility work, which will not be completed until February 2028. It has a lack of car parking, and, for the past two years, the Department has been working to try to secure additional car parking. It has no sixth form. However, in particular, nothing has happened to its canteen that was ranked as one of the worst pre-COVID, and, once again, it has been closed down.

Mr Speaker: Do we have a question, Ms Ferguson?

Ms Ferguson: Basically, will the Minister go to the Education Authority and discuss with it what can be done to the canteen at St Brigid's, in particular, so that our kids do not need to go home —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Ms Ferguson: — at 11.00 am?

Mr Givan: I absolutely share the sentiment expressed and frustration articulated by the Member on behalf of her constituents. I certainly would love to be able to do more not just for St Brigid's but for many schools across Northern Ireland, but I can do so only based upon the financial resources that are available to me.

St Brigid's College and Lumen Christi College were two of the 28 schools that were announced under the major capital works programme in March 2022. The schools were scored and ranked using the published major works protocol that examined the condition and suitability of the buildings, as well as other factors such as levels of deprivation. I was able to announce that works at seven of the highest-priority schools would be restarted in February 2024, but, unfortunately, St Brigid's and Lumen Christi were not among the highest-scoring projects and remain on hold.

Mrs Cameron: We all recognise the huge needs that exist in our constituencies, including my own of South Antrim. Minister, what is the current status of the major capital works programme?

Mr Givan: There is an extensive list of major capital works projects that were announced by previous Ministers, and we are working through that pipeline of work. However, based on the current allocation of funding, that list will take decades to clear. That is why there is no point in putting out a further call for new builds when we have such a significant pipeline of work to be completed. Unless there is a significant increase in capital expenditure, we are in a difficult position.

Currently, there are eight projects that are on-site or in-contract, at the awards stage; 13 at technical design pre-tender stage, or stage 4; 13 in early design stages, or stages 2 and 3; and 16 at the feasibility stage, or at the commencement of the process. As I indicated in the earlier answer, 22 projects are completely on hold. That demonstrates the significant backlog of works that can be released only if there is a significant increase in capital allocations to my Department. I certainly welcome the support of all Members from all parties to achieve that as part of the Budget discussions.

Mr Givan: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 9 together.

With the agreement of my Executive colleagues, I released the draft Executive early learning and childcare strategy for public consultation on 17 December last year. The consultation will run for 14 weeks and will close on 24 March. I attended a meeting of the all-party group on early education and childcare on 2 February to set out my ambition for the strategy and had the opportunity to listen and respond to the issues raised at the meeting by fellow Assembly Members and stakeholders from the early learning and childcare sector.

At a departmental level, a mix of online and in-person public consultation events is taking place in the evenings to facilitate parents and childcare practitioners, with sessions planned for Belfast, Londonderry and Enniskillen.

In addition, my officials are currently taking forward a comprehensive engagement plan that will reach sector representative organisations and early learning and childcare providers, as well as workers and parents. It will create a forum to hear relevant views and opinions and to encourage responses to the consultation questionnaire. A number of separate meetings have also taken place at the request of sectoral partners such as the Northern Ireland Childminding Association, Early Years, Altram and the Education Authority's preschool education group.

Further sessions are planned with PlayBoard NI to take on board the views of Children in Northern Ireland (CINI), the school-age sector organisation, to explore how it sees the proposals impacting on the lives of children and young people. There will also be a separate event held that is specifically for young people.

Once the consultation period has ended, a thorough analysis of the responses will be undertaken to inform the final version of the strategy, which I will bring to my Executive colleagues for agreement, along with a draft implementation plan for the timely delivery of the priority actions. All that I can say at this stage is that the timing will be wholly dependent on the quantity of consultation responses received and the complexity of the issues that are raised. I am, however, committed to bringing the final strategy to the Executive as quickly as possible.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank his officials, who have been doing so much work on the issue. I declare an interest, as I avail myself of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme for my family.

Every day, I hear from parents who either have had either to reduce their hours at work or have had to leave the workforce altogether. In some of the saddest cases, people have chosen not to have the children they have longed for. I hear from providers that are struggling with recruitment and retention, and they all want me to ask the Minister the same thing: when will it start to feel easier? They know that so much work is being done and that it is a priority across parties, but they are not feeling its impact. In fact, they are feeling even more stretched. When will it start to feel easier for those who are experiencing the childcare crisis?

Mr Givan: That is exactly why the DUP prioritised the issue at the previous election. We made a manifesto commitment, because we know the challenges that many people right across Northern Ireland are facing as a result of the cost of childcare. It is a barrier to entering or re-entering the workforce, particularly for women.

With the childcare subsidy scheme, we made a very good start. We have been standardising the number of full-time places in early years settings, and that has had an impact. There have been rising costs, but, had the 15% subsidy not been in place, the pain would have been felt even more acutely. I want to do more, however. The Finance Minister's draft Budget, which is out for consultation, allocates only £55 million to childcare, which represents a real-terms cut to childcare support. I need £80 million to be ring-fenced in order to deliver year 1 of the strategy, the draft of which is currently out for consultation. When Members and the Executive look at the Budget, an opportunity exists to put our money where our mouth is and provide the support that is needed, rather than make the real-terms cut that is proposed in the draft Budget.

Mrs Mason: Minister, I had the opportunity to attend the consultation events held with Altram and PlayBoard, and feedback shows the passion that there is in the sector. Minister, you will know that the average full-day rate for childcare has increased by about 12% since the subsidy scheme was introduced. Have you discussed the increase with providers and parents directly to ensure that any future subsidy is not eaten up in the same way, given that the draft early learning and childcare strategy is planning to put a lot of money towards that aspect of the scheme?

Mr Givan: As I have indicated, there have been rising costs right across our economy, and childcare providers are feeling them no less than any other sector. They have to be able to pay their staff an appropriate wage if people are to be attracted into the sector. The draft strategy recognises that we must support the sector. When we introduced the 15% subsidy, which is attached to the UK tax-free childcare scheme, I also increased the cap by a further 10% in that financial year. I did so because I recognised the pressures from inflation that childcare providers were feeling and how the value of the subsidy was being diluted as a result. We therefore made an intervention to allow those pressures to be recognised. I agree with the Member: it is a very challenging area. The Executive have made a good start, but it is nowhere near good enough, and those who need the support are, rightly, demanding more. I am committed to providing that, which is why the draft strategy is hugely ambitious. That needs to be met with support from Executive colleagues when it comes to the resources required to implement it.

Ms McLaughlin: The strategy promises affordability. Why does it not have any mechanism to include, manage or regulate fee increases? How can parents have confidence that it will not simply result in large amounts of public money being used to subsidise rising prices?

Mr Givan: The Member has engaged with me on the scheme; it is something that she has supported. She is right to raise the point about how we can see accountability from childcare providers. The fear is that the subsidy is not being passed on to parents. We have documentary evidence there has been a benefit, but there is a significant disparity in the costs charged by providers. The alternative is to go down the route of a heavily regulated system. The Republic of Ireland has had that, which has created its own challenges, with providers opting out of the regulated process because it was not financially viable for them to continue to operate.

There are therefore pros and cons in all of this. There needs to be clearer visibility on how the benefit of the subsidy provided is passed on to the parents and those who avail themselves of that support. We need to address that further, but I caution against the heavily regulated capping process of other jurisdictions, because that approach has had unintended consequences.

Mr Givan: Last month, I returned to Executive colleagues with an updated paper seeking agreement to legislate to establish a managing authority for controlled schools. I did so following the clear mandate that I received from my Department's public consultation on proposals to improve management arrangements for the controlled sector. The 744 responses included over half of all controlled school leaders, governors, teachers, support staff, parents and education bodies. Some 91% of respondents agreed that support for controlled schools must improve, and 84% backed the creation of a new, dedicated organisation.

The consultation substantiates the findings of the independent review of education that management arrangements are suboptimal, particularly for controlled schools. The evidence also points clearly to the need for improved support. There is a 10% difference in GCSE outcomes between controlled and Catholic maintained non-grammar schools; 62% of schools that enter the formal intervention process are in the controlled sector, compared with 26% in the Catholic maintained sector; and only one of the 13 post-primary schools that were identified by the independent review of education as overperforming, relative to the proportion of free school meal entitlement, was in the controlled sector.

Public support for a dedicated managing authority is unequivocal. Indeed, the consultation response from the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) articulated that with striking clarity. It stated:

Such an organisation cannot be established without legislation. This is becoming time-critical. With Executive agreement, I will bring forward the necessary Bill at pace.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his answer and for his work to bring equality to our controlled schools. It was interesting to hear the testimony of the Catholic maintained sector. However, the work has brought from some Members an effort to find reasons not to support equality for our controlled schools. What evidence does the Minister have of the benefit of having a dedicated managing authority when it comes to educational results in those schools?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Time will tell whether those in the Chamber and elsewhere will face down the stark reality of the evidence and be motivated by other issues, in which case I would be gravely concerned about the basis of their opposition.

I have outlined the clear evidence to back up the need for a controlled sector managing authority. The findings of the independent review of education, alongside evidence from controlled schools, point to long-standing systemic challenges in delivery of effective and equitable support for controlled schools. Since the current system of support for schools was put in place through the formal intervention process in 2009, 62% of schools entering that process have come from a controlled sector background, compared with only 26% from the Catholic maintained sector. That is a credit to CCMS and the support that exists for the Catholic maintained sector. Public examination outcomes in the controlled sector are also consistently significantly lower than in the Catholic maintained sector. In the past academic year, there was a 10% differential between pupils in Catholic maintained non-grammar schools achieving five GCSEs at grades A to C compared with those in controlled non-grammar schools. That is clear evidence that pupil outcomes are impacted on by the suboptimal management arrangements for the controlled sector. International evidence consistently demonstrates that improvements in school leadership, governance and targeted support services lead to better educational outcomes — exactly the type of functions that the proposed new body would provide.

Mr Sheehan: I said a couple of weeks ago in the House that I was agnostic on this issue and asked the Minister for evidence. I will go further than that: I and Sinn Féin will support any initiative that raises educational outcomes for all our children. The Minister has brought forward a hypothesis that, if the controlled sector has its own managing authority, that will raise outcomes in the controlled sector. I am asking the Minister to produce evidence to prove or support that hypothesis. Support from the controlled sector is not evidence. Consultation responses are not evidence. I want the Minister to produce evidence. If he can produce evidence to support his hypothesis, I will also support it.

Mr Givan: The consultation evidence is from school principals, over half of whom are from the controlled sector. They are crying out for it. This is not Paul Givan and the DUP saying, "We need better support, a managing authority and equality with our counterparts in the Catholic maintained sector"; it is the school principals and boards of governors of the controlled schools who are saying that. I have outlined clear evidence. Indeed, I sent a letter this morning to the First Minister in response to a query that she raised. That is a detailed submission that gives an evidential basis as to how we can improve controlled schools and why this is necessary.

Ultimately, however, the test will be whether Sinn Féin really believes in equality for controlled schools or whether it prefers to maintain the status quo, which is a two-tier system that gives preferential treatment to the Catholic maintained sector over controlled schools. That will be the test upon which Sinn Féin and others will be measured. I trust that, having got all the evidence, there will be no more excuses left and that, when the Executive meet on Thursday, Sinn Féin will have removed its veto and blockade on allowing this issue to be placed on the agenda, so that other Ministers can take a decision to allow work to commence on drafting the legislation and, ultimately, allow the Assembly to take these decisions.

Mr McMurray: Minister, what engagement have you had on developing a proposal for a single management authority?

Mr Givan: The independent review of education outlined that suboptimal arrangements exist when it comes to managing authorities. That review also said that work should be done towards having a single authority, and I very much aspire to that. However, every member involved in the independent review of education has said in correspondence that there should be no impediment to allowing a managing authority for controlled schools to be created. Indeed, that would be an enabler towards the creation of a single authority: there would be equality in the existing provisions, and organisations could then work towards creating that single authority. However, we should not hold back our support for the controlled sector because of the issue that the Member just mentioned.

Mr Givan: My Department has set out its proposals for a five-year Education budget strategy, which has been brought forward in the context of an exceptionally challenging Budget position. Consultation on the strategy closes on 3 April 2026. The strategy identifies a number of key areas where reforms could reduce costs over the next five years, including reforming home-to-school transport; modernising school meals delivery; reshaping the SEN support model in mainstream schools; restructuring the schools estate, including reducing the number of schools; and introducing a new model of financial management for schools.

At this stage, those reforms are consultation proposals only, pending final confirmation of the budget position. However, I encourage all schools, including small rural schools, to take the opportunity to respond to the ongoing consultation. I should point out that consultation and equality and rural needs impact assessments will continue to apply to any forthcoming proposals for change to the pattern of educational delivery in rural areas.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat.

Does the Minister agree that certain small schools in rural areas, due to their unique geography or circumstances in their community, have strategic importance beyond any other impact? Can the Minister commit to protecting schools in that situation?

Mr Givan: I understand and share the sentiment that the Member has just articulated about the importance of rural schools to the community. I can certainly point to that in my constituency. I have benefited from visiting many of those rural schools. "Twinning", as it is often referred to, is where you have a very small controlled school and a very small Catholic maintained school, neither of which are viable on their own, but, if they pool together and even enter into a managing arrangement — they do not need to become officially integrated in that respect — they could share joint governance and managing arrangements, which would help to create greater financial efficiency. That is possible legally but has not been taken forward previously. There are examples across Northern Ireland where that could be encouraged in order to ensure the preservation of some of those smaller schools in rural communities.

Mr Bradley: My question is along the same lines as Mr Gildernew's. Rural schools play a vital role in the community. Will the Education Minister make allowances or concessions available for small rural schools to ensure that they are maintained?

Mr Givan: At present, the sustainable schools policy recognises the needs of rural communities. That is reflected in the lower enrolment threshold for rural primary schools, an accessibility criterion that provides guidance on home-to-school travel times and a "Strong links with the Community" criterion, which recognises the central place that a school has for many communities. Therefore, that is already recognised in the policies and approaches that are taken towards the provision of rural schools. I have no doubt that there will continue to be that recognition.

However, we are also dealing with hugely challenging times financially for Education and the Executive at large. There is a need for that proactive, managing-authority responsibility that exists for area-based planning to occur. That requires proper processes, engagement and taking communities with you. All that needs to be addressed. It is among the key areas in that five-year sustainability strategy when it comes to having an area-based-planning-type commission to be able to look at those matters independently of the Department.

Mrs Guy: Does the Minister accept that adding proposals for transformation of special educational needs support in a budget-saving consultation has undermined the case with families that those are entirely child-centred interventions?

Mr Givan: Everything that takes place when it comes to transformation should be done on the basis of the needs and best interests of the child. That has to be the driver, not financial considerations: it has to be what is in the best interests of the child. I have very much been struck by the number of principals and professionals who believe that there is a much better way in which to provide support for some of our most vulnerable children. I say this to Members: listen to those principals and professionals when it comes to how best the needs of young people and children can be met in our schools. I am certainly listening to them.

Mr McGlone: Minister, a very strong theme has been reverberating throughout the Chamber. Will you outline the direct engagement that you will have with small rural schools and their communities before those schools are assessed against any agreed criteria, and will you guarantee that rural schools will not simply be the first casualty of a budget?

Mr Givan: All those issues relate to the five-year sustainable financial strategy, which is out for consultation. I have made it clear that there are aspects of it that I do not want to take forward, but we also have to prepare for what the Department of Education might receive. Members can see what was proposed in the draft Budget. They know what John O'Dowd has indicated will come to Education, and the crippling financial consequences if that were to be the agreed budget. Every Department was asked to produce a five-year plan. I followed through and provided such a plan. It is out for consultation. Let the people and the public have their say.

There is a clear process to be followed for area-based planning decisions. No immediate closure will fall on any school without proper processes being followed. That is hugely important. As I indicated in my answer to the original question, such processes include area-based planning, a rural impact assessment and the various criteria that would be applied. That process already exists. One of the central tenets of the five-year plan is to look at an area planning commission that can review the sustainability of all schools right across Northern Ireland. That has not been established yet. The terms of reference have not been agreed. It is pending the consultation response and is subject to the budget allocation for the Department of Education that will follow from the Executive.

Mr Givan: My Department has no plans to extend financial support for student teachers at local higher education institutions beyond the provisions of the pilot initial teacher education (ITE) bursary scheme, which will commence in September 2026. The Department recognises that students who are not eligible for bursaries may be studying alongside recipients. The purpose of the scheme, however, is to target specific post-primary subject areas where recruitment pressures are most acute. Higher education students in Northern Ireland, including those studying to qualify as teachers, remain eligible to apply for financial support provided by the Department for the Economy through Student Finance NI. My Department will continue to monitor teacher supply in schools, along with the operation and scope of the ITE bursary scheme, as part of the wider teacher workforce planning process. Any future changes to bursary eligibility will be considered and implemented in that context.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. Although we welcome the initiative, a relatively small number of students will be affected. Will the Minister outline the obstacles to his implementation of something that would have provided fairness across that cohort of student teachers and those subjects?

Mr Givan: We would always like to do more when it comes to providing financial support to people. A clear need was identified by principals whom I met, as they were not able to fill vacancies in key subject areas. I engaged with the initial teaching education establishments, which recognised that there had been a shortfall in applicants to those posts. In order to fill the vacancies, we need to create a pipeline of graduates in those specific specialist areas.

I am pleased to tell the Assembly that, as a result of the bursary scheme, we are recruiting and attracting people to fill those key subject areas, and we will benefit from that in due course when they graduate. As a result of my intervention, new graduates who move into the teaching profession now start on over £32,000 per year, compared with £23,000, which was the starting salary only two years ago when I came into post.

Mr Givan: A new absence code was introduced at the start of the 2025-26 academic year to capture the number of half days that are lost as a result of emotionally based school non-attendance. Unverified management information from September 2025 to December 2025 suggests that 0·09% of total half days of absence at primary level and 0·5% at post-primary level are due to emotionally based school non-attendance.

That compares to 2·8% in primary and 4·1% in post-primary due to general illness. Officials continue to monitor the usage of the code and will provide advice to schools as required. When the absence code is used, schools are advised to engage with the Education Welfare Service immediately to ensure that every avenue is explored to re-engage the child with education as early as possible.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the time for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: A piece of work has been carried out by the Education Authority to ensure that taxi provision is as efficient as possible, given the taxpayers' contribution towards that. That has yielded approximately £1 million this year. Obviously, we want to continue identifying the most effective way to transport our young people. If community provision can be met, in compliance with all the various regulations associated with it, I encourage that. Ultimately, we need to transport our children and young people in the most effective way. When it comes to children with special educational needs, the most effective way would be to meet their requirements within their local community, as some of the highest levels of expenditure are associated with young people travelling long distances because there is no provision in their local community.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister. I met community transport providers this morning. Will you commit to meeting them to explore this further and to utilise them to provide a solution that is best for our children and is economically and environmentally beneficial for all?

Mr Givan: I am happy to meet anyone who can make the delivery of public services more efficient. In my constituency, Lagan Valley Rural Transport provides a hugely important service to our constituents. It is something that I very much encourage, and I support people to engage in that. Operationally, the delivery of transport is a matter for the Education Authority. While we provide the overarching policy on it, operational decisions on the utilisation of various means of transport are ultimately a matter for the Education Authority to procure.

Mr Givan: It is an important issue. I have met parents who are advocating for change in that area. There has been protracted engagement with my officials and the various interests around that, including the teaching trade unions. There is a difference of opinion as to the best way forward from those in the teaching unions when it comes to some of these practices and those who, ultimately, have to work in our classrooms. However, I believe that there is a clear need for accountability, for record-keeping and for people to be informed when their child is engaged in any form of practice to monitor behaviour or different situations that can be challenging in schools. That information has to be provided, and we continue to work to try to find a way forward on this difficult matter.

Ms Egan: Thank you for your answer, Minister. Will you commit to resetting relationships with the key stakeholders on the issue to make sure that we can all move forward collectively?

Mr Givan: I hope that we will be able to move forward shortly on the issue. It is likely that there will be revised guidance, which will have to go out for public consultation. That will be an opportunity for people to see the new guidance that will be in place on practices in our schools. I have listened to the voices of parents who have campaigned on the issue. I am listening to the practitioners in our schools who need support, and I am listening to the teacher trade union bodies, which have a clear view on it as well. It will be a difficult pathway to try to find a resolution, but, ultimately, we all want what is in the interests of our children and young people in schools.

Mr Givan: I have met and engaged with the Autism Reviewer. On the Member's specific point about children being in the most suitable school, that is a real challenge. Increasingly, we are looking to mainstream settings as the norm when it comes to placements, but we need to make sure that the appropriate support is in place for young people who have additional requirements and that they are given that support. We also need schools to come forward and engage with the Education Authority so that we can identify the most suitable locations for our young people to be placed.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is probably one of the most difficult issues for the Minister to find the right answer to. The Minister is right to say that schools with the proper resources are the best place for those pupils. Will he give a guarantee today that pupils will go to the school that is best resourced for them and not one that does not meet their needs?

Mr Givan: Ultimately, we want children to be placed in a school in their locality that best meets their needs. Undoubtedly, some schools go above and beyond to make provision available, but all schools can do more to provide support for children and young people in their own community. Schools need to be given assurances and have confidence that they will be supported by the Education Authority in particular when it comes to the resourcing of needs in school settings. I engage regularly with the Education Authority on that, and it does likewise with the schools. I hope that we will see greater engagement between our schools and the Education Authority, because the feedback that I have had from many principals who have opened up their school and made it more accessible is that it has been a very positive experience. That it not to say that it is without its challenges, but we need to move beyond the situation where only 26% of all schools make themselves available. That means that the overwhelming majority are not being utilised in the way that, I believe, they can be when it comes to getting the best support for our young people.

Mr Speaker: Ms Brownlee is not in her place.

Mr Givan: I have been to Kirkinriola. My colleague Mr Frew had me visit the school, and I was very impressed with the provision that is there. I was able to view the early years setting that is located right beside the school. I am happy to look into the issue that the Member has raised. I was not aware of it. The Education Authority may be taking an operational decision in that respect, but I am certainly happy to look into the matter for the Member.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister. He is right. The preschool beside the school plays a vital role in enrolment continuity. Given the fact that second- and third-preference allocations will not be known until next Wednesday, the true numbers for 2026-27 are not known yet. Given the long-standing pattern of good enrolment, will the Minister consider looking into that to ensure that there is sustainability of funding for 2026-27, pending the true figures?

Mr Givan: Without knowing the specific detail — the Member has articulated the case well — there may be an opportunity when it comes to the allocation of places to the early years setting through the subsequent preferences that are expressed.

I do not know enough to be able to give the Member that assurance now, but I will certainly look into the matter and correspond with him.

Mr Givan: The announcement was made only this morning, and a White Paper was published in the past number of hours. There has therefore not yet been an opportunity for me to examine its contents in full. Like Northern Ireland and most other jurisdictions, England is experiencing similar challenges, with rising levels of need, increasing expenditure and limited improvement in outcomes for children. Initial indications are that the proposed SEND reform in England aligns closely with the direction of travel already established in Northern Ireland's SEN reform agenda and five-year delivery plan, which I published in February 2025. Both place a greater emphasis on inclusion, early intervention, tailored support for the individual needs of the child and specialist support delivered in locality-based terms.

The proposals for England reflect several elements of our SEN transformation programme, which is funded by the public-sector transformation board, in particular the focus on earlier intervention, earlier-stage investment and professional development for the education workforce. Again similar to our SEN reform proposals, there is also an emphasis on giving schools more autonomy to support children in different ways, thus promoting inclusive practice in all classrooms and reducing over-reliance on one-to-one support where it is not the most effective approach to take.

Mr Wilson: Thank you for your answer, Minister. Are you able to outline the plans that the Education Authority recently set out for SEN in Northern Ireland?

Mr Givan: The Education Authority has developed a model for providing increased support for schools. It includes flexibility to give autonomy to schools. All political parties are represented on the EA, but I have noted some commentary from Sinn Féin Members about the model. They should check with their colleagues on the EA to find out their position, as they are supportive of the model. There was no objection to it at board level. It is about listening to professionals and practitioners. I visited Largymore Primary School in my constituency on Friday. Its principal has very successfully integrated an inclusive model that is providing support to children, not all of whom have statements of educational need. Rather, the school is able to identify the necessary additional support at a whole-school level, and that support is yielding benefits in education outcomes for those young people. There are many examples in Northern Ireland of principals having had to provide that type of support, and they have found it to be a more effective means of supporting children and young people. Ultimately, how we are supporting them is what has to drive the transformation of special educational needs. I therefore encourage Members to engage in the process, not with a closed mind but to test the evidence. I believe that they will come to the same conclusion that I have, which is that transformation is needed.

Mr Givan: Any child who requires one-to-one support will be guaranteed retained one-to-one support. Where that is in the best interests of the child, and where the process identifies it as being so, children can have an absolute guarantee that they will receive one-to-one provision.

The Member fails to recognise, and I ask her at least to acknowledge it, that, when speaking to them, school principals tell us that they have been unable to recruit classroom assistants to facilitate one-to-one provision. There are many examples of schools not having been capable of appointing people because the recruitment process has not provided them with the opportunity to do so. Those schools have therefore had to utilise other means of providing support to those young people. The model has proven that there can be more effective support for children's educational attainment that also creates higher levels of independence, which is hugely important to how a child develops. It is an important area and one that we need to navigate in supporting our children and young people, but the position that has been presented, in which there is an unending supply of one-to-one classroom assistants for all our pupils, has no basis in reality and is not what is conveyed by the principals to whom I speak.

Mr Gaston: I speak as a lowly Back-Bencher. Due to the seriousness of the debate, it is important to put my comments on record. The sums that the Assembly is today approving to be spent are simply eye-watering: £28,100,470,000 in cash and over £32 billion in total in authorised resources. That is what we are being asked to approve, and, naturally, it raises a simple question: where does that money come from? The answer, of course, is the block grant.

That reminds us of a basic truth that, I am sure, the Minister and I will agree on, which is that it is, indeed, good to be British. For all the talk of British austerity, Northern Ireland receives more per head than any other part of the United Kingdom: over £1·20 per person for every £1 spent in England. So, when people look around and see waiting lists growing and roads crumbling before their eyes, the issue is not lack of money, regardless of the narrative being peddled by nationalists in the House, but how the money is prioritised and spent.

Let me turn to something more fundamental. In the spring Supplementary Estimates, over £17 million of expenditure rests on what is known as:

In plain English, that means that services proceed without bespoke legislation having been brought before the House for debate and proper scrutiny.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. Your predecessor was always clear in pointing out what was or, indeed, was not in the "black box", but, on this occasion, the reduction from over £1 billion to £17 million shows a bit of progress.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker.

I admit that progress is being made, but, fundamentally, to do that is to go against your own guidance. The Department's guidance is absolutely clear. It states that the Assembly usually authorises spending by approving specific legislation setting out how a policy should operate. It further states that the sole authority of the Budget Act should be relied on only in limited circumstances and normally for expenditure of no more than £1·5 million — I raised the issue last year; I raise it again today — yet we are being asked to approve more than £17 million under that mechanism.

Over £15 million of that sum sits in one Department: the Executive Office. That is not an incidental, technical adjustment; that is a pattern of governing first and legislating later. MLAs should be concerned about that. Of that Executive Office expenditure, nearly £4 million relates to immigration and asylum schemes, including £1·2 million for the full dispersal asylum seekers' scheme. Many Members, myself included, support some of those — I certainly support assistance for those who served alongside our forces in Afghanistan — but the question is one of accountability. This is the only opportunity that the House has to scrutinise that expenditure, yet it proceeds without bespoke legislation and without detailed policy scrutiny.

That is not how serious Governments operate. Millions are being spent on a migration system that I and many others believe has failed: that should concern us.

I highlight the £6·77 million that is going to the ending violence against women and girls scheme. Violence against women and girls is an issue of profound seriousness. If that money was being well spent, it would be going to a worthy cause. From my work on the Committee for the Executive Office, however, I am increasingly concerned that those millions are not being put to the best possible use. The money has been pumped out to councils, and we have examples of councils coming back to the Department saying that they do not know what to do with it. We then have the issue of the nature of the groups that receive the money. I recently asked the Executive Office to clarify whether successful groups were limited to those that represent actual women and girls. Bizarrely, the Executive Office said that it did not collect that information. I can tell the House today that Ron McDowell, my colleague who sits on Belfast City Council, has established that at least one of the groups being funded via the £6 million scheme includes men who pretend to be women under the label of "transgender". That is an insult to every taxpayer —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — in Northern Ireland who believes —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, order.

Mr Gaston: — in single-sex spaces.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, this debate is on the Supply resolution, so could you please return to that? There will be an opportunity tomorrow to discuss how the Budget is spent, but this is primarily a separate issue. With that said, the Member can continue.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will turn, briefly, to the Assembly Commission. On page 228 of the spring Supplementary Estimates 2025-26, we see that the Commission is being allocated £64·687 million in resource and AME. At a time when public services are under pressure, the public are entitled to expect discipline from this House. If we speak about restraint elsewhere, we must apply the same standards to ourselves.

There are further issues of governance that the Minister should address. The Vote on Account normally provides around 45% of the previous year's requirements to allow services to continue until the Main Estimates are passed. Yet, I note that the Utility Regulator appears to be receiving 100% of its cash requirement at this stage. If there is a sound reason for that, I trust that the Minister will let us know it in his summing up. The Estimates and the Budget Bill appear to be running very close to the end of the financial year. Indeed, there has been a delay of a week. Standing Orders require time for legislation to progress to Final Stage. Will the Minister confirm that discussions with the Bill Office have already taken place and that Royal Assent will be obtained in time? If not, expenditure beyond the levels in Main Estimates would be irregular.

As I look around, I see plenty of blue Benches without anybody sitting on them. At a time when many families are struggling, MLAs are in line to get a £14,200 per year pay rise. At a time when sewerage infrastructure is at capacity, meaning that new builds cannot be built, we have an Infrastructure Minister handing back £134 million of capital. How many potholes would that repair? There are major questions for the Minister for Infrastructure.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is that you done, Timothy? OK; thank you. It was a bit of an abrupt ending.

Our next contributor is the Minister of Finance, who will conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Minister, you have up to 55 minutes.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you. You have caught me unawares: Members were very quick. Thank you, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle,

and thank you to all Members, Committee Chairs and Deputy Chairs who contributed. I listened with interest to the debate, which covered many aspects relating to public expenditure and, perhaps, a few topics not as closely related to the subject that is being considered, although I may be chastised for doing that myself before the end.

I will endeavour to address as many of colleagues' comments as possible. These debates are useful because the spring Supplementary Estimates and Vote on Account are important issues. The leader of the Opposition pointed out, as did a number of other Members, that the subject matter is of grave importance.

I will respond to a number of points that the leader of the Opposition raised. Of the moneys that he referred to — £2·1 billion, I think — a substantial amount refers to funding in relation to student loans. There has been a change to that system, which the Chair of the Economy Committee referred to in his comments as well. DFE has adopted a new student loan repayment model similar to that used in England, Scotland and Wales. The old model overestimated how much borrowers would repay, meaning that the loan book was valued too high. The new model shows that the Government will recover less from student loans than was previously thought, which means that the loan book has to be written down, and more Budget cover is needed. Of the remaining amount, £400 million relates to the reserve claim, while the rest of the funding relates to a number of other movements such as Barnett consequentials funding that was carried over.

The leader of the Opposition went on to challenge me on where the money is being spent. I have outlined some of the areas. Putting into context student loans etc, it is being spent on front-line public services and making real change in our society. I will give you a few examples. Since the Executive's restoration, the key priority for me has been the fact that there is an additional £1·4 million for public services here, which my predecessor and I managed to secure. There is ongoing engagement, which will intensify in the coming weeks, between the Executive and the Treasury on how this place is funded as, I hope, we move towards the settlement of a three-year Budget.

It is unfortunate to hear commentators, and the leader of the Opposition in particular, decrying well-researched and well-founded arguments that this place is underfunded and saying that things are simply all the Executive's fault. When the leader of the Opposition echoes, both privately and publicly to others, what the Northern Ireland Office says on how the funding in this place works, that undermines those of us who are engaging with the Treasury on such matters.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in a moment.

Apart from Mr Gaston, perhaps, even the truest blue in this place has to accept that public funding is not at the level that is needed in this society to deliver the public services that we rely on. As I said, it does not help our cause if the leader of the Opposition echoes such arguments.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I will say a couple of things. First, in my remarks, as he heard, I said that the funding model — the way in which and the amount to which we are funded — is not enough. I did say that, and it is wrong to say that I did not. Secondly, the Minister also says consistently at that lectern that Departments should live within their means, need to transform and need to spend better. What is contradictory between what I say about improving the way in which we spend our money and what he says when he says the same thing? Why is what I say somehow inappropriate and giving succour to the NIO, but, when he says it, it is responsible government?

Mr O'Dowd: The difference is that I balance my remarks, in the sense that I will and do expect Ministers to deliver effective, efficient service, but I do not, in any way, put forward the argument that this place is properly funded. It is not properly funded, and we should not say otherwise, even for party political gain, at this stage, because we are at a very sensitive time when it comes to engagement on that with the Treasury and others.

It is also worth noting that, perhaps understandably, there is a concentration, both in the Chamber at times and in the media, on what has not been achieved, but let us look at what has been achieved as a direct result of decisions made at the Executive and through the Programme for Government. The Health Minister outlined earlier this month that just over 200,000 additional activities had been delivered.

That is real and meaningful change in people's lives.

I will give you an example of a constituent who recently visited their doctor. It was a non-urgent issue but one for which they had to have elective care. On their way from the GP practice to their car, they were phoned and offered an appointment at the hospital. I accept that those are not the circumstances in every case, but there is a growing change in our health service, and that must be acknowledged. The health workers and the senior people in the health service must be acknowledged for that, and we have to recognise that a change is taking place.

Since September 2024, almost 19,000 families have benefited from the childcare subsidy scheme. It has generated £19 million in savings for those families, raising an estimated £40 million when combined with tax-free childcare.

There has been much discussion about the Department for Infrastructure. The leader of the Opposition wanted to know where the £133 million went. In fairness to the leader of the Opposition, I suspect that he knows exactly where it went, but all's fair in love, war and politics. The vast majority of that £133 million is the direct result of the legal case taken against the A5 and the delays that resulted from that. A significant proportion of that money has gone back to the Department for Infrastructure for other schemes that it is running. Only recently, we saw around £9 million invested in tackling the huge challenge of the state of our roads, which resulted from decades of underinvestment as well as from the second-highest rainfall in 150 years, which we experienced in January, and the intervening cold weather. That money has gone back into public services. Here is another important figure —.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for giving way. Of that £130 million, minus £9 million, why did the Department for Infrastructure not bid for extra funding for all the other problems that it has? That seems strange. I am looking at just the accounting process, because I do not have the big book in front of me, but it seems that that money has gone straight back to you, Minister — into the centre — apart from the £9 million, which seems to be the only thing that has been spent.

Mr O'Dowd: I will clarify that point further. The money that has been returned to the centre was a direct result of the funding being earmarked by the Executive. The A5, the A4, the A6 and a couple of other projects were all projects with earmarked funding, so that funding had to be returned to the centre. I assure the Member that the Department for Infrastructure bid for a significant amount of that money to be returned. In the most recent rounds of financial allocations, however, we provided over £76 million for vital investment in water services, transport and the road network, including funding to fix our roads. The Department for Infrastructure benefited hugely from that. The remainder of that funding has been used for other capital projects that I will go through in some detail shortly.

I will touch on the Department for Infrastructure and unlocking waste water capacity. Members should be aware that the Department for Infrastructure and NI Water have unlocked 5,300 properties as a result of the direct allocations that the Executive have made since their return in February 2024. That is higher than the number that was in NI Water's pricing period for that time. The Executive and NI Water have delivered connections to more houses than were in the original plan for NI Water's price control period. That has to be acknowledged. There has to be a question there or further inquiries made. Those connections were made at a greatly reduced cost compared with what was originally in the Utility Regulator's programme for funding. Is that something that the Executive should be criticised for, or is it something that the Executive should be acknowledged for? If we can connect more homes to our waste water capacity for less money than was originally envisaged, that is an area not for criticism but for acknowledgement: acknowledgement of the work that has been carried out by the Department for Infrastructure and NI Water, as well as by the Executive, in targeting the money to where it is needed most.

Other areas on which the Executive have delivered include health workers' pay, teachers' pay, police pay and civil servants' pay.

In line with our commitment to create more affordable social housing, we have provided a further allocation of £38·8 million for social housing in-year to the Department for Communities. That is in addition to the original £100 million provided to DFC. Sometimes the figures are just figures, but, on Thursday, I spoke to a young woman in my constituency who, after years of trying to get a home, had the previous day been shown her new home in a new social housing development — her and her young son, who was about nine years of age. It is the first time that they ever will ever anywhere that they can call their own "home". There are over two dozen houses in the same development, and that will be the same experience for many families.

Do the Executive have challenges? Without doubt, we have challenges. Have we funding constraints? Without doubt, we have funding constraints. Are we making a difference? Yes, we are. Those who see their elective care appointments come through and those, like that young woman and her son, who have been given the keys to their new home see the differences, and then there are those 5,000 properties that have been connected to waste water treatment. That is all making a difference to people's lives. That has to be acknowledged, as well as the challenges that we face as an Executive.

I turn to broader Budget issues, which we will touch on further tomorrow. Members are aware that the draft Budget has been published. It is open for discussion, and there have been significant changes, even since its publication. The £400 million reserve claim adds a new equation to my draft Budget. That will have to be taken into account as we finalise the Budget along with Executive colleagues. Colleagues asked what happens with repayments of the reserve claim; Mr Mathison asked that in particular. Are the repayments down to the Departments that receive the moneys or to the Executive collectively? That will be a decision for the Executive. As the Executive deliberate on their final three-year Budget, those deliberations will form a part of the conclusions.

It is too early to suggest, as some have done, that we will not have a three-year Budget. Today is 22 February, I think.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is 23 February.

Mr O'Dowd: The public consultation on my draft Budget closes on 3 March. The open-book process that the Treasury is involved in along with my Department — it is not "special measures", as Dr Aiken suggested — will close in the middle of March. That will give the Executive information, data and responses to analyse, in time, in my opinion, for it to make decisions ahead of 1 April. The next important step, as I said to the leader of the Opposition, is the important engagement that has to take place between the Executive and the Treasury about how this place is properly funded. That will take a united front from all the parties in the Chamber. I have no doubt that, despite all our differences, all the parties want to see a three-year Budget delivered. It will take a collective effort from everyone — not only the Executive parties but everyone in the Chamber — to move that forward and deliver the changes that we all want to see.

I turn to comments from other Members, such as the Deputy Chair of the Committee. I thank the Committee for its work on the motions before us today and the work that we will do tomorrow. As I said, we face challenges both in delivering a Budget and in delivering one without incurring an overspend. They are huge, but, working collectively, we can do this.

Mr Gildernew referred to the challenges faced by many, particularly those who interact with the Department for Communities and the services that that Department brings to the most vulnerable in our society. I also add that, over this last year, we have identified an additional £49 million for disability adaptations. That, again, makes real differences to people's lives, yet we have still a lot more work to do in that area.

I have referred to Mr Mathison's comments on the Budget and how the reserve claim will be repaid etc.

Philip McGuigan said that the challenges facing health are real. Everybody accepts that, but huge work has been done in the Health Department in facing up to its budgetary challenges and delivering change. Again, I refer to the massive change in accessing timely healthcare appointments. A lot more has to be done — I am not suggesting that anybody can rest on their laurels — but the work that has been carried out by senior officials and staff in the Department and in front-line healthcare has to be commended and acknowledged.

I touched on the issue of repairs to potholes etc and the funding that has gone towards that and to NI Water.

Mr Brett asked about enterprise investment and raised issues about the progress on our enterprise investment zones. On 22 January, the Executive approved the Economy Minister's paper on the planned thematic allocation of the £150 million enhanced investment zone funding from the Government. I understand that that now awaits Whitehall ministerial approval and launch.

I have already responded to Dr Aiken. FTC is now being provided to the Executive on the basis of net, which means that we do not have to repay it until it reaches a certain amount. In my opinion, that incentivises the willingness — I hope — of Departments to use FTC more and more, and that is a good step on the way forward for the Executive.

Mr Gaston, I do not know whether it is great to be British or not. I am Irish, right? I am sure that it is great to be British. I am not demeaning it. You seem to enjoy it, anyhow. If that is a measure to go by, you seem to enjoy it, which is fair enough. I am not in any way disparaging anyone who is British — I have no difficulty with anybody declaring their nationality in that way — but the BAFTAs were last night and you did not win an award for acting, in a sense. You always have to bring the issues down to culture wars, but I will not get into a culture war with you.

The fact of the matter is that we have provided open, transparent funding for all our society, including the most vulnerable and the marginalised. Any Government or any Executive should be proud of the fact that they are working with and protecting the marginalised. It is certainly something that I will wear as a badge of honour, not as a criticism.

Unless there are any further comments or points of relevance from Members that I have missed, I will draw my remarks to a close.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That was well under 55 minutes, Minister. Thank you.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to introduce the Budget Bill 2026 [25/22-27], which is a Bill to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources for the years ending 31 March 2026 and 2027 (including, for the year ending 31 March 2026, income); to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of those years; to authorise the use of those sums for specified purposes; and to authorise the Department of Finance to borrow on the credit of those sums.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Copies of the Bill are available for Members at both entrances to the Chamber and from the Bill Office.

I inform Members that the Speaker has received a letter from the Committee for Finance advising that it is satisfied that the consultation undertaken with it on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill was appropriate, as is required under Standing Order 42(2). The Budget Bill can therefore proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.