Official Report: Tuesday 24 February 2026

Ms Reilly: Tá scéim sparánachtaí Gaeltachta Líofa oscailte d’iarratais ó bhí an tseachtain seo caite ann. Bhunaigh mo chomhghleacaí, Carál Ní Chuilín, Aire Pobail ag an am, bhunaigh sí sparánachtaí Líofa sa bhliain 2012. Ó shin i leith, fuarthas breis agus 3,000 iarratas agus deonaíodh sparánachtaí do níos mó ná 1,100 duine.

Is iontach go deo an t-athrú a rinne an scéim sin Líofa don iomad Gaeilgeoirí sna Sé Chontae, nó thug sí deis dóibh a gcuid eolais ar an teanga a fhorbairt agus a fheabhsú. Trí fhreastal ar chúrsaí Gaeltachta, bíonn faill ag rannpháirtithe iad féin a thumadh go hiomlán i bpobail Ghaeilge, i gcultúr na Gaeilge agus i spóirt Ghaeilge, rud a chothaíonn muinín agus líofacht.

Tá líon na ndaoine ar fud ár bpobail atá ag foghlaim Gaeilge ag méadú leis, rud a chuireann lena beocht agus leis an athbheochan bhríomhar atá faoi lán seoil cheana féin. D’óstáil an chathair s’againn, Béal Feirste, sraith imeachtaí, agus tá tuilleadh le teacht. Bhí rath ar Oireachtas na Samhna, bhí Ard-Fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge againn an tseachtain seo caite, agus táimid ag tnúth le Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann i mBéal Feirste sa tsamhradh.

Agus Seachtain na Gaeilge ag tosú an tseachtain seo chugainn, níl aon am is fearr le clárú le Líofa, leis an ghealltanas a thabhairt agus le hiarratas a dhéanamh ar sparánacht agus le hiarratas a dhéanamh le freastal ar chúrsa coláiste Gaeltachta. Mholfainn do dhaoine a chomhlíonann na critéir iarratas a chur isteach ar an scéim agus leas a bhaint as an tacaíocht atá ar fáil.

Mr Clarke: My statement is timely in following the previous contribution: Sinn Féin finds itself able to encourage people to apply for a bursary for studying the Irish language but not to encourage members of its community to apply to join the PSNI.

In the past few weeks, much has been made of the low proportion of applications in response to the PSNI's most recent recruitment campaign that came from members of the Roman Catholic community: 26%. That is disappointing; it is disappointing because the nationalist leaders have failed their communities. I have heard feeble excuses that people were not invited to recruitment events or were not aware that the events were on, but those people are on the Policing Board, so they were well aware that the events were taking place. There is no excuse whatsoever for "nationalist leaders", as they describe themselves, not being aware that events are taking place and not showing leadership by going amongst their communities to encourage them, if they are so concerned that nationalists are not joining the police.

However, I do not believe that things will change in this country until we stop the fixation on one's community background.

During 'Nolan Live' on TV last week, I heard a young man, who described himself as being from Crossmaglen, say that police officers do not look like or sound like him. I am sorry, but I do not look at police officers and try to define their community background, and I am sure that they would never wish to look like me, with my size. I am not concerned about what they look like, where they come from, where they worship or anything else. My concern is that they will be impartial and that they will come into our communities and police them in an impartial manner. From what I have seen of them, police officers whom I perceive to be from the Roman Catholic community do just that.

Until the leaders from the nationalist community do otherwise and encourage people to join the police, I do not believe that things will change. The belated call for 50:50 recruitment will change nothing. We have been there, done that and got the T-shirt, yet the numbers are declining. The numbers are declining simply because the same Members opposite do not speak out when officers are attacked in their communities. A few weeks ago, I met a lady who initially told me that she was from Dunmurry. When she found out that I was a DUP representative, she was slightly more comfortable and said that a family member had joined the police. Then she admitted that she was from Ligoniel. She told me that she was annoyed and ashamed that her son had had to leave the community in which he grew up, not because he wanted to but because he was forced to after he decided to join the police and represent his community in that area. However, because he was a Catholic who had joined the police, they did not want him in that area and did not want him to represent them.

I call on the Members opposite to do more in their own communities and call out the scourge and the threats against all officers and in particular those from the Roman Catholic community who are targeted. Until we resolve that issue, we will not fix the problem for people who want to join the PSNI.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Clarke: It is interesting to listen to the comments about the bursary scheme. This is a career in which many people can go on to make —.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Egan: I have come to the Chamber today to raise a deep concern that was brought to my attention by one of my North Down constituents, Rachel McCullough, about allergen identification in hospital settings. Rachel got in touch with my office last year after the devastating passing of her father, Mark Dyer. I extend again my sincere condolences to her and her family. Loss is never easy, and that is particularly so in this case given the circumstances of Mark's death.

Mark, a beloved husband, father, grandfather and friend, was diagnosed with stage 4 metastatic kidney cancer in July 2024. With the right care, Mark should still have had years to live and time to spend with his family, but, instead, by the following summer, he had died in the Ulster Hospital, where he had been for months. Mark had an allergy to dexamethasone, which a medical professional first identified in 2017. That was then reiterated verbally multiple times by Mark, his wife and his family during his care. Despite that, it was never recorded on his electronic patient record, and Mark was administered multiple doses on multiple occasions, including during his final surgery. He was expected to have months after the surgery; instead, he had nine days. Serious questions must be asked about how that was allowed to happen. Mark, who was full of life, trusted the medical professionals around him to deliver the care that he needed. Rachel and her family deserve answers and the truth about her father's death.

Rachel, being incredibly brave and selfless, is determined that no one else will face the devastating consequences of an allergy falling through the gaps. She is proposing Mark's law. Her modest asks are implemented in different trusts already, but a clear regional protocol could make a real difference. Those asks include the implementation of a coloured wristband system when a patient is admitted with an allergy that causes airway restriction; a review of the processes for recording allergies in patient records, because, despite the fact that electronic records are meant to prompt regularly to record allergens, evidence shows that that did not happen in Mark's case; and, finally, an upgrade of staff training to remove any systemic vulnerability in allergen visibility across the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust in particular. Those are asks of the Health Minister and the trusts.

At the end of the day, Mark was a man who should have had more time, and, sadly, we do not yet know whether the same thing has happened to somebody else. It is tragic, and we must all take steps to ensure that it does not happen to any other person or family ever again.

Mr Burrows: I need to deal with an elephant in the room, which is whether Sinn Féin is committed to promoting Northern Ireland and dealing with reconciliation or is promoting decline and division. I say that because Sinn Féin's conduct in recent months has been so consistently inept that one wonders whether there is a deliberate scorched earth strategy in place.

I will start with the basics. The roads are an absolute mess, with potholes everywhere, yet the Infrastructure Minister has called not one meeting to deal with that. I found that out by asking a question. The "First Minister for all" blamed the potholes on climate change. The infrastructure around our sewerage system is creaking. That means that we cannot build new homes for our young people and that house prices are going up as the supply and demand is distorted. It also means that businesses are not able to get planning permission to expand, yet the Department for Infrastructure has sent back £133 million of an underspend.

That ties in with Sinn Féin's general view on the economy. The Finance Minister proposed rate revaluations that would have decimated the pub and hospitality sector, putting some pub rates up by 500%. Was that incompetence, or is there a deliberate strategy to undermine Northern Ireland business? In fact, we see that all the time. Instead of talking up the fact that we have the lowest unemployment in Europe, vibrant sectors in cybersecurity and fintech and are attracting banking jobs from around the world, Sinn Féin calls the Northern Ireland economy a basket case.

Sinn Féin refuses to go to America at a critical time to promote Northern Ireland but is happy to go to China, which is a communist state. It says that it will not go to America because of human rights abuses, but it will go to China, which has a hand that drips blood from crushing dissent when persecuting Christians. Of course, we then have Sinn Féin's position on other international matters: pro-China, pro-Russia, pro-Iran and anti-Ukraine. In Sinn Féin's mind, Ukraine is not allowed to defend itself.

Maybe it is in policing, justice and security that Sinn Féin is at its most morally moribund. Last weekend, its leader, Mary Lou, hailed a man who blew up five people in a pub, yet Sinn Féin votes to exclude a man from this Chamber for saying the word "breathe". It has decimated the reputation of the Police Service by falsely accusing it of being incompetent and sectarian and of spying on people and then criticised the PSNI for not recruiting people from Sinn Féin's community. We need positive leadership from Sinn Féin, not positive discrimination. Last week, Sinn Féin traumatised victims of sexual crimes during the Troubles by comparing the rape and abuse of young women in our community to the prison security regime during the Troubles.

You are offending and hurting people, promoting division and failing Northern Ireland. I want you to work to make Northern Ireland a better place, and I ask you to please stop this strategy and get back to making Northern Ireland work.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Durkan: I rise to add the SDLP's support for the UNISON Good Work campaign not just as a public representative who recognises the huge value of our classroom assistants but as a parent who has seen my son, as well as so many other children, benefit beyond words from their wonderful support and genuine care. Every day, we see the transformative impact of that support on my son's life, never mind his ability to engage with his education. For my family and thousands like us across the North, those workers are not merely support staff; they are a lifeline. They are the difference between a child struggling in the shadows and thriving in the classroom and beyond.

Despite being the backbone of the Department of Education, those workers are being pushed to the brink. At a public meeting last week, I heard from many assistants who feel undervalued and overlooked. It is a disgrace that those whom we trust with our children every day and trust with our children's futures are often the lowest-paid members of the school team. While the recent movement on the pay and grading review was a necessary step, it did not go far enough to fix the systemic issues.

We see a retention crisis because some staff simply cannot afford to stay. A proposed move away from the one-to-one model of support has caused great concern among classroom assistants, yes, but will cause great panic among the wider public as it becomes better known. I stand with UNISON in demanding fair pay and a wage that reflects the high level of skill and responsibility that is required; contractual security, with an end to the term-time-only model that leaves families struggling badly over the summer; and respect, through a seat at the table when the future delivery of special educational needs is being discussed and planned.

If we continue to undervalue those workers — the backbone of our education system, as I have said — we effectively undervalue all our children, not only the ones who rely on that support themselves. On behalf of every child who relies on that vital support, the Executive must ensure that those professionals are finally given the recognition, dignity and support that they deserve.

Ms Sheerin: I commend Jill and the whole team at the Ponderosa Bar on the Glenshane Pass for an event that they are running this Friday night to raise funds for Suicide, Talking, Education Prevention and Support (STEPS), a mental health charity in my constituency. STEPS is a brilliant organisation born out of sadness. In 2012, after a spate of suicides in our area, a group of families who had been affected came together to lift the lid on the issue of suicide, raise awareness, open the conversation and, most important, offer support to people who were struggling with their mental health and prevent further suicides. The families who took that initiative at that time have to be commended for the strength and fortitude that they have shown and the excellent work that STEPS has done since. There is no doubt that they have saved lives through the extensive work that they have done in our area.

The event on Friday night is another example of that, because it is in honour of a very special young man who, very sadly, died by suicide in January 2025: Pádraig Kelly or Poddy Ned, as he was known, from Slaughtneil. I am proud to say that I know Poddy's family really well. His father, Paddy, is a lifelong republican and Sinn Féin activist. He has been active in his community for many years and a Sinn Féin councillor since 2023. He is well known, well loved and well respected in our area. A heart of gold — somebody who just could not do enough for anybody. Poddy's mother, Leonie, has been a pillar of strength over the past year. She wrote and delivered the most beautiful tribute to her son at the mass in his honour. Of course, Pádraig's only sister, Áine — our lovely Áine — is such a wonderful young woman, whom he doted on, and has been a pillar of strength for her family since the tragedy.

I know that Friday night will be bittersweet. It will be tough. However, it will be full of laughs as well, which is the legacy that Pádraig has left behind. I know that the Ponderosa will be packed to the rafters, which is testament to the esteem in which Pádraig was held in the community and in which the whole family are regarded. There is an old Irish proverb that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken: that is true of young Pádraig Kelly.

Mr Dunne: This week will mark the 21st anniversary of the disappearance of Lisa Dorrian, aged just 25, from a caravan park in Ballyhalbert in County Down on 28 February 2005. Lisa's disappearance has left an unfillable hole in the lives of her loving family and many friends. It continues to cast a dark shadow across our local community to this day, as, tragically, her body has never been found. For over two decades, Lisa's family has endured unimaginable pain and heartache, yet, through it all, they have shown incredible courage, resilience and determination in their quest for justice. Their campaign to find answers has not only kept Lisa's memory alive but shone a light on the important issue of unresolved cases across Northern Ireland and beyond. I commend the Dorrian family for their bravery and resilience in continuing to search for justice, shine that light for innocent victims and find Lisa. The courage and commitment of Lisa's family — her father, John; her late mother, Patricia; and her sisters Joanne, Michelle and Ciara — over the many years has given great hope to so many other families in similar dark situations. Having met members of Lisa's family on several occasions, I know that their desire for truth and justice is just as strong today as it was 21 years ago.

No family should ever have to face the additional heartbreak of not being able to bury a lost loved one. The "Let's Find Lisa" campaign has been a strong advocate of the introduction of Charlotte's law to Northern Ireland. The long-awaited progress on that is welcome, and I encourage the Minister to continue to make progress on that. I know that it is close to the heart of Lisa's family, and they have courageously campaigned for it for many years. I will continue to support those efforts.

I again take the opportunity to urge anyone with any information at all to contact the PSNI. Any information would help the ongoing investigation. As the family continues to campaign to bring Lisa home, I say, "Do the right thing and speak up". Let's find Lisa.

Mr Donnelly: Yesterday marked the beginning of Eating Disorders Awareness Week, led by the eating disorder charity Beat, which has called for a fully funded implementation plan for action 29(d) of the mental health strategy:

and for equitable access to intensive community and day treatments for eating disorders in order to shift care closer to home. I know that the Health Minister is keen to do that. This year, the focus is on community because of the crucial role that it can play in supporting those affected towards recovery. Greater public awareness of eating disorders will mean that those affected are more likely to encounter understanding and supportive communities. Beat is encouraging people to learn more about eating disorders and how they can help.

Eating disorders are serious mental illnesses, and they have high mortality rates. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, and one in six people with binge eating disorder attempt to end their life. They affect people of every age, gender and background, and they are not simply about weight or appearance. They are complex conditions that impact on mental and physical health.

Across the UK, at least 1·25 million people live with an eating disorder. Beat estimates that that could equate to as many as 37,500 people in Northern Ireland. Many of those individuals, however, will feel completely alone. They face a health system that may not even recognise their condition and, in turn, cannot offer adequate support. Binge eating disorder is a clear example. It is one of the most common eating disorders in the UK, yet, in Northern Ireland, it is not currently treated at specialist eating disorder services. Instead, patients are referred to general mental health services, and regional adult eating disorder services are commissioned to treat anorexia, bulimia and atypical presentations of those conditions. The Department of Health has confirmed that it does not collate data on how many people live with binge eating disorder here and there is no current review of how the condition is treated. If left untreated, it can lead to serious physical health risks and worsening mental health difficulties, including conditions such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, anxiety or depression, any of which can be fatal.

Recovery is possible. Access to the right treatment and support is life-changing, and early intervention provides the best chance of recovery. Experts are clear that specialist care in the health service is urgently needed to ensure that people can access a formal diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

Eating disorders are real, complex and life-threatening conditions. Ignoring the problem does not make it disappear. This week provides an opportunity not only to raise awareness but to renew our commitment to early intervention, specialist provision and supportive communities across Northern Ireland. I encourage everyone to take the time to follow Beat's guidance and improve their knowledge of the reality of eating disorders and of how we can all play a part in supporting recovery.

Mrs Mason: Soaring childcare costs continue to place a real strain on families across the North. Living costs continue to bite, and we must do all that we can to keep money in the pockets of hard-pressed workers and families. While the childcare subsidy scheme has helped to reduce costs, the draft childcare strategy lacks a commitment from the Minister to ensure that future subsidies will not be eaten up by inflation.

Providers continue to struggle with rising overheads, workforce capacity and staff retention. Childminders continue to be squeezed by the British Government's withdrawal of the 10% wear-and-tear tax allowance and by challenges with the minimum income floor. All the while, they eagerly await the findings of the review of the minimum standards from the Minister of Health, who seems either unable or unwilling to bring them forward. Perhaps the new leader is in the middle of making that decision for him. Who knows?

Parents and childcare providers are clear in saying that the Minister of Education needs to spell out exactly how his strategy will cut bills for parents accessing early years and school-age childcare, support struggling providers and guarantee high-quality childcare. The strategy must be designed to serve every single child, with clear commitments made for those who have special educational needs and physical disabilities. The strategy must also set out a road map for the expansion of Irish-medium childcare and early years provision, ensuring that there is the capacity to meet the rising demand and to stop the Minister's current trend of viewing the Irish-medium sector as an afterthought.

Accessible, high-quality and affordable childcare is fundamental to children's early learning and development. It is equally essential for families who are trying to balance work and home responsibilities. Over the past number of weeks, I have had the pleasure of engaging with the Irish-medium sector, childcare providers, statutory and non-statutory preschools, childminders and sectoral bodies. They all have the single aim of helping shape an early years and childcare system that has the best possible outcomes for children and young people, thus giving them the very best start in life. Each of those groups has real lived experience and knowledge of how the strategy can make a difference to people's lives. It is important that the Minister does much more than just acknowledge that. He also needs to listen and implement the required changes.

I therefore urge everyone to make their voice heard by responding to the consultation on the early learning and childcare strategy. I also call on the Education Minister to listen to the growing concerns, work with providers and prioritise making childcare of good quality and affordable.

Mr T Buchanan: Today, the A5 has again been in the news for all the wrong reasons, as a result of a serious road traffic accident that happened last night. The road was closed in both directions, and it was still closed when I was driving here this morning. I assure those who were involved in the accident, and their families, that they are in our thoughts and prayers this morning.

The accident again highlights the dangers on the A5. So many vehicles use the road, and I ask all drivers to exercise great caution when doing so because of those dangers. Over the years, we have witnessed far too many accidents on the A5. Many homes have an empty chair and a voice missing as a result. Many homes have been torn apart because people have suffered serious injuries on the road.

I again appeal to the Minister for Infrastructure to consider introducing safety measures on the A5. There are proposals for a new road: it may come at some stage but we do not know when that will be. Simply having a new road in the pipeline, as we have had for the past 15 years, does not mean that the A5, which is notorious for accidents, should simply be forgotten about. Safety measures can be put in place on the road, such as installing cameras in certain areas, upgrading road junctions and providing better signage and clearer road markings. We have been on to the Minister about that before, but in light of last night's serious accident I again call on her to consider putting in place some of those safety measures in order to curb the number of accidents on the road.

We also remember those who lost their lives on our roads at the weekend and the families who have been bereaved. We pass on our sincere sympathies to them at this time.

Ms D Armstrong: Today, I draw the Chamber's attention to the outstanding work of the Junior Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. The organisation continues to make a meaningful and positive contribution in communities right across Northern Ireland by investing in young people and encouraging them to grow in confidence, character and faith. In particular, I warmly congratulate the winners of this year's annual lecturing competition, Annahoe District Junior Loyal Orange Lodge (LOL) 286, along with the runners-up, Magherafelt District Junior LOL 80 and Tandragee Junior LOL 190.

Those young people have demonstrated remarkable dedication, discipline, and ability in public speaking, which are qualities that will serve them well throughout their lives. I am especially proud that Annahoe juniors hail from my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Their success reflects not only their hard work but the commitment of the leaders, parents and volunteers who give so generously of their time to nurture the next generation.

Some may ask why such matters deserve recognition in the House. The answer is simple: organisations such as the Junior Grand Orange Lodge provide a structured, values-based environment in which young people can express their Christian faith, develop leadership skills and build lasting friendships. In doing so, they help to shape for the future communities that are responsible and have community-minded citizens.

Those who organise, coordinate and sustain the annual competitions, often quietly and without fanfare, deserve our sincere thanks. Without their dedication at a local level, there would be no competition, no development opportunities and no thriving junior movement. It is only right that the House recognises and commends their efforts today.

Mr Speaker: Ms Brownlee, you have two minutes.

Ms Brownlee: I rise to address a matter that continues to cast a shadow over public life: the ongoing controversy surrounding the former Prince Andrew, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Let me be clear from the outset that the Democratic Unionist Party is steadfast in its support for the Union and the constitutional role of the Crown. However, with privilege comes responsibility, and with public position comes accountability. No one, regardless of their status in public life, should be above the law: everyone should be subject to its full rigour.

There have been serious and troubling allegations about Prince Andrew and the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Those matters have been deeply disturbing; they have damaged public confidence and are particularly disturbing to victims of abuse, who deserve justice, dignity and our support. Regardless of the conclusion of the legal process, we must never lose sight of those who have suffered exploitation and harm.

Recent developments include questions about public role, status and even a name change. Today, the debate about the release of documents relating to the appointment of the former prince as a UK trade envoy has reignited the debate in Westminster and beyond. There are legitimate concerns about associations with powerful figures such as Lord Mandelson and about the wider culture of influence and access amongst elites.

The public are entitled to transparency and to know that no individual is above the law. Integrity in public life matters, as does confidence in our institutions, and all of that depends on accountability. Even locally, we have seen the fallout of the scandal, with Mid and East Antrim Borough Council unanimously voting to change the name of Prince Andrew Way in Carrickfergus and rightly so.

Above all, we must remember the victims. Their stories and their suffering must never be repeated or forgotten. Here, we all know that public trust is hard won and easily lost. It is restored only through openness, responsibility and a clear commitment to justice. That must be the standard for everybody.

Mr Speaker: Philip McGuigan has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Ms Brownlee: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take the point of order after this.

The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak.

Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I present this petition, entitled, "Urgent call for action on Fairhill Street, Ballycastle", on behalf of the residents and local business owners of Ballycastle, particularly those who operate in and around Fairhill Street, Castle Street and the Diamond area of Ballycastle town, who have endured prolonged and continued disruption. The petition currently has over 2,300 signatures. I begin by thanking Claire and Julie, who instigated the online and physical versions of the petition, for their work in providing local residents with a forum to express their frustration at the ongoing situation in Ballycastle town centre.

Structural concerns about the Antrim Arms Hotel, a building with a history dating back to the 17th century, were raised towards the end of 2024. As a result, Fairhill Street in Ballycastle was completely blocked off in October 2024, 17 months ago. Since that date, there has been an ongoing and complex dispute involving the property owner, the council planning authority and the historic environment division of the Department for Communities as to how best to progress the matter. That has included legal proceedings, and the matter will, I believe, be before the courts again in the next few months.

As stated in the petition, the prolonged closure of Fairhill Street has had a profound and continuing impact, restricting traffic and pedestrian access through the town centre and placing an unacceptable burden on local residents, the wider community and local businesses. It is having an economic impact on the viability and vitality of the town. Those who signed the petition are stating that the ongoing situation is creating uncertainty and hardship for traders, residents and visitors, as well as safety issues for children attending the local gaelscoil, and that progress towards a permanent resolution has been insufficiently transparent and inadequately communicated to the local community. Essentially, after 17 months, the residents and businesses of Ballycastle want to see movement and be told when they can get their town centre back to normal.

Ballycastle and its people are suffering as a result of the disruption caused by the safety concerns about the Antrim Arms building, but the impact is now going beyond the safety concerns and disruption. Work on the planned £2 million public realm scheme investment to rejuvenate Ballycastle town centre has been halted because of those structural and safety concerns. That is a much-needed scheme designed to breathe new life into Ballycastle: it was scheduled to be completed by 2027, but it has now been halted; we cannot allow that to continue.

As I said, I am aware that the structural, safety and planning concerns about the Antrim Arms are likely to be in the courts again in the near future, but I appeal to all parties involved, including the owners and statutory organisations, to work together to come up with a solution urgently. The people and businesses in Ballycastle want to see that happen without delay, and that is the view of the petition, with 2,300 signatures, that I present to the House today.

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

Ms Brownlee: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not being in my seat yesterday at Question Time.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. I ask Members to take their ease while we make changes at the Table.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits to the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate on the motion.

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

This Second Stage debate follows the Assembly's approval yesterday of the final expenditure plans for Departments and other public bodies, as detailed in the spring Supplementary Estimates 2025-26. The Assembly also approved the Vote on Account for 2026-27, enabling Departments to utilise resources and access the cash necessary to continue to deliver services until work on the 2026-27 Main Estimates and the associated Budget (No. 2) Bill has been completed.

As Members will be aware, Departments are operating under the authority of the Budget (No. 2) Act 2025, which authorised the 2025-26 Main Estimates.

Following agreement of the final Budget position by the Executive on 11 February 2026, Departments and other bodies prepared their spring Supplementary Estimates on the basis of that Budget position. The Assembly's agreement of the Executive final Budget for 2025-26 allows me to bring the Budget Bill to the Assembly to seek legislative authority for the expenditure of Departments and other bodies for the remainder of the financial year.

There is a short window between the January monitoring position being agreed by the Executive, Estimates being produced and the Budget Bill completing the full legislative process. It is vital to secure Royal Assent to the Bill by the end of March 2026 to ensure that Departments and other bodies can continue to access the cash and resources required to continue to deliver services for the remainder of the 2025-26 financial year. I am grateful to the Finance Committee for confirming that, in line with Standing Order 42, the Budget Bill can proceed under accelerated passage, and I thank the Committee for its support. In addition, the suspension of Standing Order 39(2) has been requested to facilitate prompt passage of the Bill.

Standing Order 32 directs that the Second Stage debate:

and I shall endeavour to keep to that direction.

The Bill will give effect to the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2025-26 and authorise the cash and use of resources on services to allow Departments and other public bodies to continue to operate for the remainder of the 2025-26 financial year. The Bill will also authorise the 45% Vote on Account for 2026-27 to enable Departments and public bodies to keep delivering public services in the 2026-27 financial year until the Main Estimates for 2026-27 and the associated Budget (No. 2) Bill have been prepared and authorised. Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) have been made available to Members. The spring Supplementary Estimates 2025-26 and Vote on Account 2026-27 were laid in the Assembly on 16 February 2026.

The Bill authorises the revised issue of £28,100,470,000 from the Consolidated Fund and the use of resources totalling £32,672,027,000 by the Departments and other bodies listed in schedule 1 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2026. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in schedule 1. Those amounts supersede the amounts that were previously authorised by the Budget (No. 2) Act 2025.

The Bill includes a Vote on Account for 2026-27, as detailed in schedule 2, to allow Departments and bodies specified to deliver services into the early months of the incoming 2026-27 financial year. It is important to stress that that does not constitute setting a 2026-27 Budget. As Members are aware, I launched a consultation on the proposed draft Budget for 2026-27 on 6 January. The consultation period closes on 3 March 2026. Once the Executive agree the 2026-27 Budget, it will be brought to the Assembly to consider the 2026-27 Main Estimates and associated Budget (No. 2) Bill.

While the majority of expenditure by all Departments is done under the authority of the statutory powers provided through legislation passed by the Assembly, some functions may rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act until appropriate legislation is in place. Table 5 of the spring Supplementary Estimates 2026-27 document sets out a summary of expenditure resting on the sole authority of the Budget Act. My Department has been proactive in liaising with Departments to reduce reliance on the sole authority.

This crucial legislation is required to ensure that the day-to-day public services that we all rely on can continue to be delivered to citizens for the remainder of the financial year. On that note, I will conclude. I am happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget Bill that Members may wish to raise during the debate.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will begin by speaking as Chair of the Finance Committee, reflecting the viewpoint of the whole Committee. I thank Diane Forsythe, the Deputy Chair, who spoke on behalf of the Committee in the Supply resolution debate yesterday. Diane's experience as an accountant and auditor has been useful to the Committee as a whole and has added to our scrutiny, and we thank her for that.

I also thank the Minister for his comments. Obviously, we seek to continue and maintain the generally constructive engagement between the Committee and the Department, notwithstanding our job of scrutiny and occasional moments of challenge.

I turn to the request for the granting of accelerated passage, which is a specific and formal responsibility of the Finance Committee. At its meeting on 18 February, the Committee arrived at a consensus that the Bill should be granted accelerated passage. That was not a formality, albeit it is a habitual thing in the Finance Committee. There was debate around the basis for that agreement, because we are obliged to give the Speaker assurance that we have had appropriate consultation. The decision to grant accelerated passage was unanimous, but that does not necessarily mean that there will be unanimous support for the Bill. All Members will agree, I am sure, that accelerated passage is not the ideal way to do business. However, Budget processes are different, and a Budget Bill is unlikely to pass in time without it. Obviously, the Finance Committee and, indeed, all Members have an ongoing job of scrutinising the Budget; indeed, we have Budget documents that provide an opportunity for the Assembly to give its view on the Executive's overall spending programme. I will talk about that later.

The Finance Committee received a briefing on the Bill and on the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2025-26 and the Vote on Account for 2026-27 at its meeting on Wednesday 18 February. At that point, the Committee had sight of the Bill. As I mentioned, the Committee's agreement to accelerated passage is predicated on appropriate consultation as per Standing Order 42(2). While every Budget Bill has been given accelerated passage, members are still somewhat wary of the phrase "appropriate consultation". The Committee has received legal advice on that wording. Without a Committee Stage, the Committee is not in a position to provide input to the Bill. Standing Order 42(2) may have to be reviewed to be more reflective of the reality of the situation. That is not to say that officials did not brief us; it is to say that the Bill, unlike all other Bills, does not have a normal Committee Stage, so there is some merit, as members from various parties have said, in looking again at the usefulness of that phrase. Nevertheless, we gave our approval, and we are grateful to the officials who gave us a briefing.

We appreciate that, as a devolved legislature, we are, of course, subject to the actions and timescales at Westminster for the allocation of our Budget and the Estimates processes to which it is subject. Following engagement with stakeholders, the Committee has noted that our Budgets would be much more strategic and better applied if they were directly linked to the Programme for Government (PFG). In addition, multi-year Budgets provide security to invest and reform, and members are extremely supportive of the aspiration to have a multi-year Budget. The Committee notes that consultation on the draft multi-year Budget closed on 2 March — excuse me, will close on 2 March — we have not reached that date yet; I am messing around with time and space — and we anticipate hearing the Minister's next steps, considering that, at the moment, it remains a draft Budget without Executive approval.

The Committee is conscious that the Bill is to legislate for the reconciliation of accounts for 2025-26, but members are also aware of the impact that balancing this Budget will have on the Budgets of subsequent financial years. The Committee notes the provision of a £400 million reserve claim by the Treasury for this financial year that will obviously need to be repaid in future financial years. While the Committee welcomed the provision of the claim, there are outstanding questions about the full nature and purpose of the "open book" exercise that has been referenced. The impact of that exercise and its short timescale, the impact of the repayment of the reserve claim over the next three financial years and how the Executive will cope remain to be seen.

Officials have warned the Committee not to expect extensive Barnett consequentials in the years to come, and members have noted a potential cliff edge in the 2026-27 Budget as aspects of the Executive restoration settlement end. The Committee therefore urges all Departments to apply their efforts to living within budgets and move beyond the culture of overcommitting budgets in the hope that Westminster Estimates, Barnett consequentials or, as is the case in this financial year, reserve claims will come to the rescue and provide for the shortfall.

The Finance Committee has been commissioning much more detailed information on departmental spending that we are sharing with other statutory Committees. We take that job seriously and will continue to advance that work, but I say gently to other statutory Committees that the scrutiny of their Departments' budgets is their job, as is familiarising themselves with the Budget process, including the purpose of Estimates documents and Budget Bills. That would be useful for other statutory Committees, as it is not in the purview only of the Finance Committee. During the Committee's consideration of the Bill and in all our evidence sessions on the Budget and related matters, it has reflected on the considerable complexity of the Budget process, which tends to be compounded by the use of technical terms and accounting principles that are alien to most of us. There is pressure on the Finance Committee not just to understand the processes and terminology involved but to explain them to colleagues, and we continue in our efforts to do that.

As Members are aware, Budget Bills provide the statutory means for the Assembly to authorise spending by Departments and for the issuing of cash to Departments to fund that expenditure. Budget Bills hold Departments accountable for managing and controlling expenditure within the limits authorised for that financial year. As I indicated, Budget Bills are supported by the Estimates process, with the December monitoring round and final Budget position having been agreed by the Executive on 11 February. It is important to stress that Executive Budgets set the Executive's spending plans but do not give Departments the legal authority to spend the money: that is what Budget Bills and Supply resolutions do.

This Budget Bill signals that we are coming to the end of the 2025-26 financial year, with departmental accounts comparing their audited out-turn with the limits voted by the Assembly. The 2025-26 Budget began its life on 3 April 2025, following its agreement by the Executive. Following that, the Main Estimates 2025-26 were prepared, and the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2025 received Royal Assent on 28 July 2025, giving Departments the authority to spend. Following completion of the December monitoring round process and the "January technical exercise", the Executive agreed the final 2025-26 Budget position on 11 February 2026. That allowed for the completion of spring Supplementary Estimate templates, which required the finalising of departmental expenditure plans, recording on accounting systems, the preparation of Estimate templates and receiving final internal reports and clearance from Ministers. The DOF Supply team compiled the 18 Estimates across Departments and public bodies. That is what is contained in the spring Supplementary Estimates memorandum. The completion of the 2025-26 spring Supplementary Estimates provides a reconciliation between the Main Estimates Budget position and the spring Supplementary Estimates Budget position.

As Members will recall, in a previous financial year, the Vote on Account was set at an exceptional 65%. This year's figure of 45% is much more usual, providing, as it does, interim resources and funding for the first few months of the 2026-27 financial year until work on the 2026-27 Main Estimates and Budget (No. 2) Bill has been completed. The figure of 45% may indicate progress on an agreed Budget, but perhaps the Finance Minister will elaborate on that. The Vote on Account ensures that departmental business can continue before the Assembly considers the 2026-27 Budget and Main Estimates prior to the summer recess.

The Committee has been led to expect that Consideration Stage for this Budget Bill will be held next Monday, 2 March, with Further Consideration Stage on Tuesday 3 March and Final Stage on Tuesday 10 March, working towards Royal Assent by 23 March and the end of the financial year.

I will touch briefly on the use of the sole authority of the Budget Act — the "black box", as it is commonly known. As Members are, no doubt, aware, any charge on public funds must be authorised by legislation and the majority of expenditure by Departments is supported by specific enabling legislation. If that legislation is not in place, expenditure must, generally, rely on sole authority of Budget Acts. The previous absence of a functioning Executive and Assembly meant that expenditure that fell into the sole authority category built up. When the Main Estimates were produced, the total amount being sought via sole authority was £13·4 million. Following updates, that figure has increased to £17·2 million, and the majority of Departments have indicated that further legislation is expected by 2027.

The Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill and the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill are currently being scrutinised by the Finance Committee. Both Bills but particularly the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill will remove a significant amount of what remains in the so-called black box, because they will legislate to provide a legal power for Departments to spend money that does not exist at the minute. Both Bills are on track for Committee Stage completion by the end of next month. The Minister may want to give us an update on when, he thinks, Consideration Stage could be scheduled for the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill, as it has been stated in briefings to the Committee that the Bill's Final Stage will take place in autumn 2026, with Royal Assent in early 2027. The Committee is scheduled to finish its scrutiny on time. I repeat: we will complete that work on time. Given that the Bill's Committee Stage is due to finish in the next month, however, there seems to be a rather significant delay in the legislative process. I find it unusual that it will take a year for the Bill to get from the end of Committee Stage to Royal Assent. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister can give us an update.

I thank the Assembly for allowing me to speak as Chair of the Finance Committee. I will now make some comments as leader of the Opposition.

I welcome the fact that we are debating a Budget Bill today. The official Opposition will not divide the House on the Bill's Second Stage. We would like the opportunity to divide the House on a Budget, but we do not know where the Budget is.

The Executive were restored two years ago. Ministers came to the Chamber and accepted ministerial office, with the Civil Service resources, chauffeured cars and salaries that come with that. They promised the public that they would apply themselves to dealing with the huge challenges facing our public services, particularly the challenges in healthcare, the crisis as a result of the lack of affordable childcare, the ecological crises at Lough Neagh and elsewhere in Northern Ireland and the failure to deliver meaningful improvements in infrastructure.

The public did not expect miracles. They did not expect everything to be sorted out overnight, but they did expect a serious plan. Part of that serious plan had to be a multi-year Budget to help deliver on the public's priorities, which, the Executive promised, would be prioritised, yet here we are, two years on from the formation of the Executive, with no idea of whether a multi-year Budget will be agreed. The Minister may say in his response to me that the delay is a result of waiting for the UK Government to provide their own multi-year Budget, but that happened last June. We are now eight months on from the UK multi-year Budget. The Executive, led by Sinn Féin and the DUP but with the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionist Party in there too — along for the ride, one might say — were to make improvements to public services. They promised a multi-year Budget. They said that a multi-year Budget would be key to unlocking some of the long-term challenges to improving our public services. Thus far, they have failed.

I hope that the Minister will tell us today that we have made some progress on agreeing a multi-year Budget, but, thus far, we simply have no evidence that such a Budget will be agreed. The Finance Minister will say — perhaps he has some legitimacy for doing so — that he is trying to get a multi-year Budget agreed, and, to the extent that he has done so, I commend him.

The draft multi-year Budget is a scant and high-level few pages of allocations. It was published on 6 January, and it is better than nothing. The public in Northern Ireland, however, deserve more than something that is better than nothing, and they will not even get that if the DUP does not face up to its responsibilities and agree a multi-year Budget. That is where we are starting from. Today is an exercise in legally authorising spending in the absence of an agreed strategic plan.

That is the bare minimum that the public should expect when they elect a Government.

We then come to the position in the Budget this year and what will happen next year. Today, the Fiscal Council, an independent fiscal watchdog that we are putting on a statutory footing, described as "a de facto bailout" the £400 million reserve claim from the Treasury that has gone to the Executive before the end of the financial year. That "de facto bailout" gets to the heart of the Executive's failure to grip the long-term challenges.

Let us be absolutely clear about this, because the Minister cast some unfair and inappropriate doubt yesterday. The Opposition want to build a new Ireland, where we hold all the fiscal powers on this island, and, I believe, that is also what the Finance Minister wants. However, here and now, in the context of our current constitutional dispensation, we need to do everything that we can to deal with the situation that we find ourselves in. We need to manage our finances properly here and to seek the maximum fiscal devolution and the greatest level of power locally so that decisions are not made in London. I say in parenthesis that we have not seen those plans from the Finance Minister — we have heard a lot of rhetoric — but it is our job to scrutinise what is happening in public services and spending.

We have a £400 million reserve claim. That £400 million is not a balance that can continue to be transferred, year after year, from one credit card provider to another. It will have to come out of the Budget next year and the year after that. Furthermore, if, as the Fiscal Council says, the opening position for the Health and Education Departments in the 2026-27 financial year is already behind where those Departments are likely to finish in the 2025-26 financial year, we will be starting at a detriment.

The Finance Minister will say, "That's a result of underfunding and long-term austerity from the British Government". He is right about that in part, but he is not wholly right, because local Ministers have responsibilities and powers. They have the power to improve things locally. Otherwise, why bother? Otherwise, why take up ministerial office? Otherwise, why tell, as the Finance Minister does, other Departments to live within their means? He and his officials constantly discuss that with other Departments, asking them, "Why are you profiling that spending in that way? Are you genuinely prioritising the things that matter most" — that is supposed to be the title of the Programme for Government — "or are you simply continuing to do what you did before without prioritising genuine transformation?".

The problem, as we debate yet another Budget Bill, is that the public look on and lose trust in the willingness and ability of the Executive to prioritise their needs by improving their public services: making healthcare work, getting waiting lists down, delivering affordable childcare and improving infrastructure. They see us marking time, coming here to pass pointless motions. Then, when it comes to something as grave as this — as the Finance Minister said in his opening remarks, we are authorising the spending of £30 billion today — we come in, we nod along and we do not take responsibility for improving public services. The public have lost trust in these institutions and the people who populate them, because we simply are not taking responsibility.

The Opposition will not divide the House on the Budget Bill, because we look forward to a proper debate on a multi-year Budget, when the parties of the Executive agree one and it finally comes to us, ideally with a plan for the people of Northern Ireland that shows how the Executive intend to improve public services and deliver some improvement in their lives. I say that because the past two years have seen a signal failure to do anything of the sort.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of the Committee for Health. As I mentioned in yesterday's debate, the financial landscape in which we find ourselves has presented significant challenges to all Departments. That has had considerable impact on the provision of services in our communities. Today, I will specifically outline the Committee's scrutiny and consideration of the Department of Health's capital spend in the Budget.

The Committee has concerns about the persistent and serious problems that affect capital projects in the Department of Health. The problems are not merely infrastructural; they directly affect our ability to deliver safe and effective healthcare. Over the past several years, the Health Committee and, indeed, the wider Assembly have been presented with increasingly troubling evidence about failure in the delivery of major capital schemes. Reports from the Public Accounts Committee show that capital projects across Departments, including significant healthcare investments, have accumulated over £3 billion in cost overruns, a situation that has been described as unacceptable and unsustainable. Many of those projects, such as the Belfast maternity hospital and the children's hospital and associated major works, fall directly within the Health portfolio. The maternity hospital has run many years over its original timeline for completion and is at almost double the original cost. Just last week, the Committee heard that a further £4 million has been allocated for remedial work, which will take at least another two years. The Committee has considerable concerns about the delay in opening the maternity hospital, which should be a good news story for the Department. It is a fantastic facility — I had the opportunity to walk around it — that will provide excellent care for mothers and their children. However, instead of talking about the good news, we have an unused facility in which it is costing over £40,000 per month to maintain regular flushing of the water system.

Meanwhile, the wider health system is operating under enormous strain. There are deep structural issues that result from over a decade of underfunding and delayed transformation. In such a context, every pound wasted through poor capital delivery represents a missed opportunity to address waiting lists, pay pressures and declining infrastructure across the health and social care estate. The Committee has had a particular focus on accountability across the health system. We have very large trusts and a larger budget than most other Departments. We must ensure that services are provided in the most efficient way. Just last week, the Committee took evidence from the Department of Health’s interim finance director, who, when asked about savings in the trusts, stated that trusts could do better in the way they spend their money. Accountability is key, especially when finances are extremely pressurised and given that we send the trusts billions of pounds to deliver services. That is why the Committee is focusing on how the Minister is holding the trusts to account for the money that they spend. We need to ensure that lessons are learned and that the same mistakes are not made again.

We have already heard from the Belfast Trust that the timeline and costs for the children's hospital have had to be revisited and revised less than a year after work started. At last week's Committee meeting, we heard that the Department is having to prioritise its already prioritised list of capital projects and that a number of projects will, unfortunately, have to be postponed. We also have a maintenance backlog of over £1·6 billion. We need to see how the Department intends to strengthen oversight and governance across the system. We must ensure that any future capital programme is aligned to a multi-year Budget framework and is supported by clear lines of responsibility between the Department and trusts. The Committee will pay particular attention to the Department's capital programme in the Budget period to ensure the delivery of modern, safe and effective healthcare.

I will now say a few words in my capacity as an MLA and Sinn Féin's health spokesperson. Health receives over 50% of the Executive's available Budget — over £8·5 billion. That demonstrates the commitment of the Finance Minister and the Executive to protecting and prioritising Health, even in a constrained fiscal environment. We are all aware of and accept the constrained fiscal environment that Health, and every other Department across the Executive, is forced to operate within. The decline of investment in our public services over the past 15 years is a direct consequence of the years of underfunding imposed by successive British Governments, a legacy that is widely acknowledged even by those who would criticise us for highlighting it. It is impossible to have a debate about forward planning, budgets and improving public services without providing the important context as to why our budgets are stretched and our constituents are still dealing with the impact of decisions made elsewhere.

When I correctly highlight the legacy of underfunding, I do so because it helps shape the choices that are available to us in this and future Budget debates. It will not surprise anyone to hear that I think we could do much better in a new Ireland, free from British Government interference. In my opinion, that will improve public services and outcomes for the people whom we represent, particularly in the health sphere. I look forward to that day becoming a reality, hopefully in the not-too-distant future.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGuigan: Yes.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that that same British Government care little for their own constituents — the people who actually elect them — so there is absolutely no chance that they will be concerned about the issues that are of concern to the people here in the North, who do not elect them?

Mr McGuigan: The Member is absolutely correct. We have decades, if not centuries, of evidence to suggest that the British Government could not care less about the people here. The point that she makes is particularly valid: they seem determined to spend more on military matters than they do on public services.

In the here and now, it is important to work together to deliver better outcomes within our current constraints and to push for fair funding for public services. I put on record my thanks and praise to the current Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, and his predecessor, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, for their work in advocating for our Executive in very difficult negotiations with the British Treasury. However, as my party's health spokesperson, I want to be clear: this debate cannot simply be about how much we spend but how well we spend it. In that context, I agree with the comments that were made by Mike Farrar, the Health Department's permanent secretary, when he attended the Health Committee, a couple of weeks ago, on 5 February. He said:

the North's:

With an envelope of more than £8·5 billion, there are many avenues by which we could spend the Health budget better to deliver better outcomes for the patient. However, as a start, it is also important to say that a multi-year Budget is an absolute necessity. It will allow us to plan and transform; invest to save; spend the available money much better; and, ultimately, improve patient outcomes. We must have a multi-year Budget. Year-to-year budgeting forces short-term decisions; costs us more in the long run; undermines important actions, such as workforce planning; and delays capital projects. A multi-year settlement would provide certainty; create a space for an important invest-to-save approach, which I mentioned; and allow us to prioritise long-term transformation to reduce our waiting lists, expand our workforce, complete critical capital builds and shift resources towards prevention and community-based care. If we are serious about delivering the neighbourhood model of care, we must be serious about the substantial upfront investment that is required to make it real. We cannot transform our system while funding it on an annual cliff-edge basis.

I will highlight specific areas that demand prioritisation from the Health Minister. First, pay. Our health and social care workers and staff have carried our health system through extraordinary pressures. They deserve fair and timely pay awards. That is essential for recruitment, retention and morale. The Minister has indicated that pay will be the first item on the agenda when he receives his budget. That must be the case. We cannot have this scenario that we are in, where staff are getting last year's pay award now and where the promised minimum wage uplift for our social care workers has yet to be delivered.

Secondly, I will focus on our cancer and mental health services. The cancer and mental health strategies cannot become aspirational documents, simply gathering dust. I tried to find out how many strategies exist in the Health Department. There are many: there are many good strategies, but we need to implement them, fund them and see them become a reality so that they can have the impact in reality that they have on paper. Both strategies require sustained funding over multiple years if they are to deliver the transformation that has been promised to patients and families. I welcome the Executive's priority in the Programme for Government to tackle waiting lists. That is a key priority — it must be. I also welcome the fact that the Programme for Government's ask has been matched with funding, because you cannot reduce our waiting lists without funding.

Our waiting lists here are too long, but some good work has happened. An additional 200,000 people have had elective treatment as a result of the Executive's prioritisation and additional funding. Whilst more needs to be done, that is a good news story.

Thirdly, I want to see prioritisation within primary care. GP negotiations are ongoing, and there is a clear case for stabilising and strengthening general practice. If we want to reduce pressure on emergency departments and hospital waiting lists, we must invest in primary and community care. Similarly, I want to see core funding issues in community pharmacy dealt with and its needs met.

Fourthly, as per my remarks on behalf of the Committee, there is a need for capital investment and spend. Priorities such as the potential Birch Hill mental health facility in my consistency and the maintenance requirements at Holywell demonstrate precisely what "invest to save" means in practice. Delayed maintenance costs more in the long term, financially and clinically. Last week, the Committee was told that, I think, £24 million will need to be spent over the next five years on maintenance alone for Holywell, but we have the potential to build a new, modern facility for those who work in it and the patients who require it. Fit-for-purpose infrastructure is not a luxury; it is fundamental to safe and efficient care.

Finally, we must look outward, beyond the Six Counties, to the enormous potential for all-island cooperation in order to deliver better outcomes and better value for money. We have already seen the success of cross-border working in the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin and the children's cardiac surgery unit in Dublin. We should build on those successes and others through initiatives such as an all-island paediatric pathology service, shared specialist treatment pathways and greater cooperation in research, infrastructure and data sharing. Collaboration will reduce duplication, improve expertise and deliver better outcomes for patients across the island. All of that requires prioritisation, transformation, political stability and, in my opinion, an agreed multi-year Budget.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I welcome the opportunity to speak as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice on the Budget Bill. The Committee for Justice has scrutinised the Department of Justice's budget through regular oral and written briefings and updates throughout the past financial year, with the most recent session happening just last week. The recurring theme in all the briefings has been the historical underfunding of the Department, which is seeing pressures building right across the justice system. Members will be fully aware from previous financial debates that the Department of Justice's budget is mainly demand-led. The majority of its resource allocation is taken up by funding for the PSNI and our prisons, spending on courts and tribunals, and legal aid expenditure. Demand in those areas shows no sign of slowing down; instead, it is increasing.

The Department of Justice's opening budget allocation for 2025-26 was £1,415 million of resource DEL and £100 million of capital DEL. The resource funding included a general allocation of £137·7 million — £135·8 million general allocation and an earmarked allocation of £1·9 million for judicial salaries — as well as funding for the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime of £16 million, security funding for the PSNI of £37·8 million and transformation funding of £5·4 million. The opening baseline represented a 10·9% increase in non-ring-fenced DEL from the previous year. While that was undoubtedly welcome, given that it was the Department's largest-ever budget settlement, the Department nonetheless began the financial year with stabilisation pressures in the region of £44 million. The Department also anticipated exceptional pressures of £227 million relating to the settlement of the PSNI data breach, holiday pay and McCloud that it advised were not affordable under the Budget settlement in any circumstances. The capital allocation of £100 million also represented a significant shortfall against the £146·3 million of capital funding bids submitted by the Department.

At the time when the Budget was agreed, indicative allocations for the Department, which were agreed by the Executive for allocation at June monitoring, were £5 million for the safer communities initiative, which is a Programme for Government commitment; £4·7 million for increased employer National Insurance contribution costs; and £0·6 million for the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund towards judicial salaries.

At June monitoring, the non-ring-fenced resource pressures facing the Department stood at £31·7 million. Bids were submitted to cover PSNI workforce recovery; increased employer National Insurance costs; ill-health retirement costs; legacy inquest costs; legal aid pressures related to increased fee rates; and Northern Ireland Prison Service pressures relating to the increased prison population. An additional bid for £5 million was submitted in relation to policing the public disorder in June. The Department received that £5 million for policing the disorder, whilst the remainder of its non-ring-fenced resource bids were not met.

The Executive agreed that the Department would be given first call on up to £7 million in future monitoring rounds towards the bid for PSNI workforce recovery. Members will know that the number of PSNI officers and staff has fallen to its lowest level. A workforce recovery plan is in place to restore officer numbers to 7,000 and staff numbers to over 2,500 over a three-year period, and it is important that that plan is funded and supported. The receipt of £7 million towards the recovery plan in December was therefore welcome, allowing recruitment and rebuilding to proceed. The Department also received £4·6 million to meet the PSNI pay award. The Committee was advised that the allocations in December, along with easements and cost reductions that had been identified, meant that the Department was projected to manage its pressures and live within its resource budget for 2025-26. The House will also be aware that the Executive agreed to ring-fence £119 million to compensate PSNI officers and staff as a result of the 2023 data breach. Again, that agreement was very welcome, as that compensation could not have been met from the existing departmental or PSNI budgets.

Concerns remain, however, about the other exceptional pressures that have been carried forward to the multi-year Budget, and I will turn to them briefly. Whilst a multi-year Budget has been something that the Department, its non-departmental public bodies and other justice partners have been asking to receive for many years, that Budget has to be sufficient to meet the ongoing needs, otherwise severe pressures will remain. As part of its scrutiny of the draft multi-year Budget, the Committee asked the Minister and the Department's non-departmental public bodies for their views on the proposed Budget and its implications for their work. The responses have not made for positive reading for the Committee. I will not go into detail on the responses at this time; that is a debate for another day.

When it comes to the year ahead, the Minister has stated that the indicative allocation will leave the Department facing pressures of £101 million. While the shortfall is less than in the subsequent years covered by the proposed Budget, the Minister has informed the Committee that it is difficult to see how the Department could live within its resource budgets over the next three years. The Minister has also advised that there is an annual shortfall in capital funding of £150 million, including for the next financial year, which, she advises, will severely restrict plans to transform and modernise the justice estate. One positive from the draft Budget is that it includes an allocation of £133 million for PSNI workforce recovery costs, which includes £25·8 million in the coming year. The Minister advises, however, that that will be of limited value as there will still be a significant shortfall in the essential funding needed by the PSNI to meet existing staff costs and running costs.

I mentioned the £119 million of funding agreed by the Executive for the PSNI data breach, which has been allocated for 2026-27. The Department advises that that is an estimate based on assumptions about take-up rates of a universal offer settlement and legal fees. The Committee understands, however, that there are still test cases ongoing that may impact on the final cost of the settlement.

Those are far from being the only pressures that the Department of Justice will face in the coming year and in the years thereafter. It is clear that its budget position will be challenging. The Committee will continue to monitor the situation, and we expect to be kept fully informed as the years progress.

I will now speak as a private Member and as the DUP spokesperson for justice. It is clear that justice is demand-led and that that demand is increasing. Why is it increasing, however? It is increasing to ensure that we remain safe. It is also increasing as a result of the Assembly's work and the Executive's decisions. The work that has been undertaken to end violence against women and girls is very welcome, but it needs to be funded. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 and the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 were very welcome. Those pieces of legislation were groundbreaking. I welcomed them. I was all over them. I worked with the Minister and the Department on them. I amended them. They have, however, led to an increase in demand, and that demand has not been funded.

The wave —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Gaston: Out of interest, does the Member share my concern that the Executive Office allocates £6·077 million a year to ending violence against women and girls? Does he agree that that funding would be better spent in the Justice Department, where more tangible benefits could come from it, instead of its being given to councils, where we cannot then determine the outcomes from the money that is spent?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his contribution. He makes a valid point about joined-up government. Can we be really sure that the money that goes to TEO before filtering down to councils is being spent appropriately and profitably to ensure that we protect women and girls properly? That is a question for the Finance Minister. I doubt that he will be able to answer it, because he is so far removed from the different stages of that funding. That is why we need to see better Executive funding and to work together to see an end to the silo approach. Instead, we need to work together to ensure that the money that we spend is spent appropriately. I will come on to that in a moment.

We have also seen a wave of court cases for sexual offences. It is very welcome that such cases, some of which are historical cases, are coming to the fore. People now feel that they have the ability and confidence to come forward to report crimes of that very serious nature that have been committed against them and that they can then seek justice. For so long, they did not have the confidence to come forward. Their doing so, however, results in a cost to policing, to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and to the court and judicial systems. The increase in the number of sexual offence cases is not being funded appropriately to meet demand, to keep us all safe and to ensure that people can get justice.

Our prison population has increased by over 20%. There are so many more people spending time on remand awaiting the outcome of their case. Again, that may in part be down to the influx of sexual crime cases. It is affecting the day-to-day running of our justice system and what cases are taken forward.

I come on to police numbers. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the lack of an establishment figure for the police is creating a risk to security. To ensure that the population is kept safe, we need our PSNI to be fully funded up to the establishment figure and above.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. Having worked with him for 10 years now, I know that he is committed to justice, security and a peaceful settlement. He went from speaking about the Prison Service to speaking about the Police Service. He highlighted the fact that the prison population has risen. Does he accept that the establishment figure for serving prison officers has also decreased over the past 15 to 20 years?

Does the Member accept that that is a discrepancy and that it needs the Committee's attention?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his contribution. He makes a valid point. During my time on the Justice Committee in this mandate and the 2016 mandate, not only as Chair but as a member, I have visited prisons and spoken to prison officers. I have seen the pressure that they are under. I also saw the tremendous work that they do to keep the prison population safe and to rehabilitate. It is crucial work, but it is thankless and is not really that popular. If you were to ask the population whether it would rather see a brand new hospital or a brand new prison, there would only ever be one answer. However, it is up to the Justice Minister to inform not only the population but the Executive where that spend needs to go. A lot of work is done in our prisons by our prison officers that goes unseen. It is thankless, but our prison officers do tremendous work in keeping us all safer. Is that not one of the priorities in the Northern Ireland Executive's Programme for Government?

That brings me to my next point: where in this Budget and over the past year have we seen alignment with the Programme for Government?

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I share on some level his concern about the need for a strategic focus on investment in infrastructure. Does the Member agree that it is about time that the Executive Office brought forward the investment strategy 2050 and laid out the capital projects and investments in infrastructure so that we can spend strategically?

Mr Frew: The Member makes a valid point. I agree that, if a report is pending, it should be released. I can tell you now, however, that any report released by any Minister in the Executive will sit on the shelf if it is not funded appropriately.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. When there is no time limit on the debate, it is easy to be generous with your concessions.

I agree with the Member that there should be alignment between the Budget and the Programme for Government. I draw his attention to an amendment to the Fiscal Council Bill that has been tabled by the Opposition and would require the Fiscal Council to report on the exact question of whether Budgets are aligned with Programmes for Government. I encourage the Member and his party to support it.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his contribution. I look at all amendments with great interest. As the Member knows, I love amendments to Bills, especially miscellaneous Bills. I look forward to the year ahead — I am probably the only MLA who looks forward to the final year of a mandate — because I see opportunities to amend Bills. A Justice Bill is coming soon; we will not talk about it now.

The important thing about the Budget Bill, considering last year, next year and the next three years, is that, if it is not aligned with a programme, it will go nowhere. With no strategic footing for it — no strategic direction whatever — the Finance Minister becomes a bean counter, and he hands his beans out. I have this message for the Finance Minister: those beans are not magic beans. They will create nothing other than a salami-slicing of Departments, when we face some of the most challenging fiscal pressures that we have ever faced.

The amount of day-to-day funding available to the Northern Ireland Executive in 2026-27 will generate unprecedented pressures. The Executive will face difficult choices about efficiencies, and it is time for decisions. That underlines the urgent need to accelerate the transformation of public services so that they are affordable now and in the future, yet I see nothing in the blue pages of the Bill that will lead to that transformation. It is not a matter of allocating a token £5 million here and £7 million there; we need to transform our public services completely to ensure that, when people pay their taxes and their rates, they get value for money. We cannot say that at the minute. Why is that the case? Why have the Finance Minister and the Executive not stepped up?

We have received a £400 million reserve claim loan. That is a massive injection into the heart of our finances that we badly required, yet we will face massive issues in our finances. We cannot simply keep on carrying on; something has to change. We have to do something different. We have to transform our public services, and we are not doing that; we are nowhere close to doing that. I thank Gavin Robinson MP for the work that he did to secure that £400 million reserve claim loan. Where would we be without it?

It is vital that the Finance Minister and Sinn Féin get to grips with what they are about. Forget the nonsense that Sinn Féin comes out with every day. All we have heard about for the past two weeks is 50:50 recruitment, whereby Sinn Féin would discriminate against my children, my grandchildren and my nieces and nephews. Sinn Féin ignores the fact that our establishment figures are well below what they should be, which means that none of us is as safe as we should be. We have had enough of the nonsense from Sinn Féin, its play in the media and its mantra about a united Ireland. I have a message for you, folks: people in the Republic of Ireland are much shrewder than you make them out to be. They do not want Sinn Féin in government; of course they do not. They see the policy difference between the North and South. They see how the drama is played out in Northern Ireland compared with Sinn Féin's policies in the South and vice versa. People in the Republic of Ireland are no fools. They do not want Sinn Féin about the place when it comes to forming a Government and rightly so.

There are opportunities to do something really good in the three-year Budget. I have spoken about the fact that the three-year Budget cannot be three one-year Budgets. That is not strategic, and it goes absolutely nowhere. Therefore, it is important that we do something different. The Finance Minister has missed opportunities this year. The things that we, as an Assembly and an Executive, have to do are the things that most households do: to look at the inescapable pressures. Those, for Northern Ireland, will mostly be in pay. Sinn Féin signed up to pay parity. It signed up to making sure that teachers, nurses, police officers and everyone else in the public sector get pay that is sufficient and that they deserve, yet the Finance Minister will not fund it.

Mr O'Dowd: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr O'Dowd: If the Finance Minister is not funding public pay, how come police pay has been delivered; health pay has been delivered; Civil Service pay has been delivered; teachers' pay has been delivered; and, indeed, all pay across the public sector has been delivered?

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that. He neglects to mention the other inescapable pressures in the Department. It is not good enough just to say, "I funded this, this and this", when Departments, in trying to get the money to deliver that pay parity, have to exclude other inescapable pressures that they cannot deliver. Then, when Departments complain to the Finance Minister, the Finance Minister says, "You have your budget. You agreed to your budget. Live within your means".

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Baker: You are talking about constrained budgets. Let us take the example of the Education Minister. Do you agree that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on a mobile phone gimmick is not a good use of public money?

Mr Frew: It is good to spend money on keeping our young people safe from the internet and all of the issues that they face. It is a failure of the people on the opposite Benches that they did not support the Education Minister in keeping our children safe from the problems that all Western societies face as regards mobile phones and the internet.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: While we are all, no doubt, enjoying the debate, Paul, I encourage you not just to throw the word "Budget" in but to speak to the Budget debate, if you do not mind.

Mr Frew: Yes, I can.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr Frew: With the Budgets from previous years, the Minister of Finance has missed so many opportunities. I will give him a couple of examples. The Communities Minister has a housing strategy: why can the Finance Minister not support it? After all, housing is a Programme for Government aim. The Programme for Government is called 'Our Plan: Doing What Matters Most', but why is it, when we prioritise housing in it, the Minister of Finance fails to fund it? Not only do we have a Budget that is not strategic and is going nowhere, but we have a Programme for Government that sits on a shelf and is ignored.

The Communities Minister is doing something about saving money for the Executive. He used Housing Executive reserves to purchase 600 homes, keeping families out of hotels and saving the Northern Ireland Executive £75 million over seven years. If something works, why are we not encouraging it, increasing it or funding it appropriately? The Finance Minister will have to ask himself why he is curtailing a Minister who is effective in saving money. There are Members across the way who want fiscal powers. They call it "tax-varying powers", but what that really means is that, if they get tax-varying powers, they will raise taxes. That is basically what it means. They will raise taxes so that the public will have to fund their inefficient public services. Over the past year, however, the Communities Minister has used reserves to buy 600 homes to make sure that families are not stuck in hotel suites but have a proper home and a roof over their heads. That is not being supported properly, even though it is saving and could continue to save £75 million over seven years.

Why will Sinn Féin not support tackling fraud and error in the benefits system? That is about rooting out fraudulent activity in our benefits system that will save the Executive £25 million. It will also save the Treasury the same amount of money, but, of course, Sinn Féin does not care about the Treasury; it just wants more money from the Treasury. It does not care about saving money for the Treasury so that maybe we could speak to the Treasury with a wee bit more kudos. Those are all things that the Communities Minister wishes to deliver, but he is hamstrung by the Executive, the Finance Minister and Sinn Féin and cannot do so.

The disability strategy aims to get people who are disabled and deaf people into full-time, wholesome employment. Why can the Finance Minister not support that? If we can get more people into work by creating wholesome jobs that help their life and their physical and mental health and produce something for our GDP, why will Sinn Féin not support that? We are good at placing duties on Ministers and Departments through the laws that we pass: it is about time that we started to fund the issues that really matter. That might be by way of a legislative programme, through a Programme for Government or a capital strategy and all of the things that have been mentioned today. At the moment, however, all we see is a rudderless Finance Minister going round in circles and not delivering for the people of Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There is no time limit on this debate, but I am not encouraging filibustering either. I am not saying that Members do not have anything of value to say — they absolutely do — but I bring everyone's attention to the fact that Members cannot throw in a reference to the Budget Bill and then say whatever they want. I want to encourage good debate. We have had Members speaking for 20 minutes each. Paul, I think that your speech lasted 27 or 28 minutes.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It probably feels longer for those on the opposite Benches. [Laughter.]

That being said, because of the nature of the debate, there are quite a lot of Members down to speak, so please be mindful of your colleagues who are waiting to speak. That is all that I am asking. Whether that will happen or not is another day's craic.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I rise on behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office.

The Executive Office has a relatively modest budget: flat cash resource DEL of £191 million along with £18·7 million capital DEL. It is important to note that the majority of that money is allocated in some way to support victims and survivors, mostly on a statutory basis, which means that the Department has little room to manage budget pressures. However, while the total amounts are relatively small, the Department deals with some of the most sensitive issues in our society: victims and survivors of the conflict, victims and survivors of historical institutional child abuse, victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions, fostering good relations between our communities, and striving to make our society safer and more tolerant. The Committee strives to ensure that the resources for those important areas are sufficient and that the money is spent well and in the public interest.

While financial scrutiny has been applied to all areas of spending, the Committee has been particularly exercised about how payments through the redress scheme for mother-and-baby homes are to be recovered from the institutions that are responsible for the terrible ill treatment of women and children. It is estimated that, by the time the redress scheme opens to new applications, hopefully later this year, tens of millions of pounds will have to be allocated from the block grant to cover the costs of the inquiry and the redress scheme, yet, despite questions from the Committee on that, we have no idea as yet on how much the institutions will pay back to the public purse. Yes, the state was also culpable in what happened to the most vulnerable people in our society, so it is expected that the state should pay some of its share, but it is imperative that the institutions also contribute and that that process is transparent. The victims and survivors of that abuse are adamant that the institutions must pay up, and the Committee continues to place pressure on the Department to use whatever levers are necessary to ensure that that is the case. Indeed, to assist the Department in that area, the Committee has recently looked at legal recourse. That is a theme to which the Committee is compelled to return time and again. Members have been asking questions about historical institutional abuse cost recovery for a number of years, and we may well have the same conversation in the future about clerical sexual abuse. This is something that needs to be done right, and the resources need to be made available for that purpose.

The Department also has its flagship strategy for ending violence against women and girls, and I am sure that all Members agree that that must remain a well-resourced area of work and that cross-departmental effort is required to deliver on the strategy. The Committee stands ready to support the Executive Office in that important work.

There are areas in which members wish to see further value for money. The overseas bureaux make up a departmental unit that continues to come to the attention of the Committee, and Ministers must ensure that the taxpayer receives value for money for the work carried out in those bureaux, especially the ones in the USA and China. The Committee intends to spend more time on that in the coming months.

I will now make some remarks as an individual MLA. Last week, we had an oral evidence session with organisations that are delivering on the strategy for victims and survivors of the Troubles/conflict 2024-2034, and it is increasingly apparent that the organisations that access funds through that victim support programme are dealing with evermore complex areas of work in an ever more challenging financial environment. I was struck by the impact that the ongoing discourse around the new Troubles Bill is having on victims and survivors and the families that they support. I urge the Finance Minister to do everything in his power to put pressure on the Treasury to ensure that funding is forthcoming for the new legacy commission and the infrastructure around that but also for the groups on the ground that are providing support to those most traumatised and impacted on by the Troubles.

The capital works budget is small at £18·7 million. Some capital projects have been in development for many years, and the costs for delivering those are rising. There is a commitment to delivering those through the Urban Villages programme. They are important pieces of infrastructure to deliver on good relations and a shared future, and I urge the Finance Minister to do all that he can in working with the Executive Office to ensure that those projects are delivered as fast as possible.

Mr Chambers: Further to my contribution yesterday as Chair of the Audit Committee, I wish to make some remarks today as my party's spokesperson for health. I promise that I will not speak for 27 minutes.

How the Department of Health, as the largest Department with the greatest breadth of services and responsibilities, with a number of arm's-length bodies (ALBs) with budgets in excess of £1 billion, manages its budget each year will have the greatest single impact on the wider Executive Budget. At the beginning of the financial year, the Department of Health was reporting a significant deficit position of £615 million, including pay. In the past 12 months, costs grew further, and there were additional inescapable operational pressures.

It is widely recognised across the Executive and Stormont political parties that no one has done more this year to drive efficiencies and close their funding gap than the Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt. He has already delivered hundreds of millions in savings and efficiencies. Some of that has been short-term cash releasing savings, but other efficiencies, such as converting expensive locum shifts into long-term NHS-paid jobs, have delivered significant permanent annual savings. He has done that whilst delivering real improvements across various areas, including a fall in the number of people waiting totally unacceptable lengths of time for treatment.

Nevertheless, given that Health and Social Care experiences significant inflationary pressures each year — typically 6% a year — it has to run incredibly fast in terms of efficiencies just to stand still. Health experiences significant increases in demand, in additional to underlying price inflation. The number of people over the age of 65 is increasing by 2·5% annually.

We cannot ignore the wider UK context. Whilst there is a narrative in some quarters that we are overfunded compared with the rest of the UK, the reality is quite different. The level of additional spending on health in Northern Ireland compared with that in England is now projected to be at a 10-year low in 2025-26 based on the draft Budget. At 1·5%, that is also well below the 4·7% that the Fiscal Council reported was necessary to meet the additional health needs in Northern Ireland, including dealing with the mental health legacy of the past.

I acknowledge that there has been significant in-year movement this year. In Health, resource DEL has increased by £560 million from the Main Estimates. That increase is primarily from additional funding received during 2025-26 to address a significant funding gap in the health sector for existing services and to enable a pay award to be made in line with that in England. It has also increased owing to the agreement with HM Treasury on a reserve claim for 2025-26.

Although I commend the Minister for the progress that he has made and welcome the in-year allocations, we are still in a very difficult position. The reality is that, even with this year's reserve claim, the Executive are still lurching towards another budgetary cliff edge next year, but they are doing so in slow motion and in full view of everyone. An overspend of £400 million to £500 million this year, had it been left unchecked, would likely have grown to well in excess of £1 billion by this time next year. In the immediate time ahead, the Executive urgently need to step up a gear to prepare for and respond to the budgetary crisis that is unfolding. They could do worse than to look at the approach that the Health Minister has adopted this year.

I place on record my party's appreciation of and grateful thanks to the entire staff in the health and social care sector, who do a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Following yesterday's debate on the Supply resolutions, I will focus today on the mechanisms of the Budget Bill and on the broader reality of people in the North who rely on the Department for Communities.

The Budget Bill is not merely a procedural step; it provides the vital legal authority for the expenditure that is required to run our public services. Around this time last year, our Committee raised strong concerns about spending that relied on the sole authority of the Budget Act, specifically the £12 million in vital welfare mitigations that rested on that precarious temporary mechanism. I acknowledge that that issue has now largely been dealt with. The passage last spring of a package of associated welfare regulations placed those critical mitigation payments on a much firmer statutory footing. Securing that legislation was a vital step towards providing certainty to vulnerable people and to the organisations in the advice sector that work so hard to support them.

We must, however, also recognise that, although it provides a crucial reprieve, the extension of welfare mitigations kicks the can down the road to 2028. We cannot allow ourselves simply to wait for the clock to run down again. That is why the Committee has formally asked the Department what it is doing now to prepare for legislative reform. To avoid another cliff edge in 2028, we need strategic, long-term planning, not last-minute legislative scrambles. Furthermore, we must note that the sole authority mechanism has not disappeared entirely from the Department's remit. This year's Budget Bill includes roughly £885,000 under sole authority to provide transitional protection for disabled carers moving to universal credit. We understand that the funding for disabled carers is necessary only because the Department for Work and Pensions in London is yet to amend its IT systems to reflect formally a recent court ruling. While we wait for Whitehall to catch up, it is vital that such claimants in the North be protected and not left in limbo. The situation, however, again highlights a system that is overly reliant on emergency fixes rather than settled policy.

Taking a broader view, the Committee believes that the Budget Bill highlights the profound difficulties with managing the Department's exceptionally wide remit, which spans housing, social security, employment, the arts, culture and the community sector. For the coming year, the Department faces a projected resource shortfall of £174·4 million and a projected capital shortfall of £88·2 million. Those are not abstract figures. As I said during yesterday's debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account, the human context of the Budget was made starkly clear to the Committee last week by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. We operate in a society in which 330,000 people live in poverty, including one in four children. Behind those numbers are families who rely on the community and voluntary sector for their basic survival, yet that very sector faces immense distress and uncertainty over issues such as the local growth fund and core infrastructural support.

Similarly, our housing providers cannot commit effectively to the multi-year investments required to deliver the social housing development programme without long-term financial certainty. The Supporting People programme and essential homelessness interventions cannot be planned strategically when funding is piecemeal.

The Budget Bill grants the necessary legal authority for the year ahead, but we must be absolutely clear on where the root of our structural problems lies. Public services in the North continue to be systematically underfunded by the British Government. The block grant simply does not reflect the evidenced objective needs of our population, and that Westminster-imposed financial straitjacket has forced the Executive into an unenviable position. We must be honest: balancing the Budget requires incredibly difficult funding decisions to be made and agreed to collectively at the Executive table. When the British Government fail to provide adequate funding, the burden of those painful choices falls squarely on all the Ministers here to manage together.

The financial oversight that we in the Chamber exercise cannot fix a system that has been fundamentally broken by British Treasury policy. It is incumbent on the British Government to acknowledge the unique systemic pressures on the North and to deliver a fair and sustainable funding model. Our communities cannot afford another year of emergency fixes; they deserve a strategically planned, fully funded future.

The Minister of Finance will engage with all Ministers on their budgets in the context of the draft multi-year Budget. We are well aware of the challenges that all Ministers face in delivering on their priorities within their allocated budgets. The Minister for Communities has announced a number of significant allocations, and, while any investment is welcome, it has not always been clear how funding decisions are aligned to departmental priorities. Going forward, we need to see how funding allocations by the Department for Communities deliver on Executive commitments.

Before I conclude, in the spirit of accuracy and of being helpful, I advise Paul Frew that, despite his rather extravagant claims, not one of the 600 homes that he referenced has been purchased; in fact, I think, the business case has not even been fully confirmed by the Minister for Communities.

Mrs Dodds: I do not know how long I will take, but I will certainly not wander into the Celtic mists of everything being fine with the health service in the Republic, where you have to pay to see the GP.

As health spokesperson for the DUP, I will spend my time talking about the Health budget and the position in which we find ourselves. The Health Committee was briefed on the budget position last week. At first glance, it makes for dispiriting reading. On the positive side, however, the outline figures contained all the anticipated wage pressures. I am pleased that, unlike in the current financial year, the Minister has, at the very beginning of the next financial year, turned his attention to the health service's most valuable asset: its staff. For too long, the Minister and the Department have left that issue until the end of the year, and salary increases that were paid some time ago in other parts of the United Kingdom have been left to the very end of the financial year in Northern Ireland. We will, however, need to see much more detail on public-sector pay, and I hope that the Minister will soon be in a position to provide that detail, particularly on the real living wage for domiciliary care workers. An important promise was made, and the Minister must address the issue.

Equally, waiting lists should be prioritised in the budget. The funding in the budget that is directed specifically at waiting lists should be delivered at the outset of the year. Last year, a very difficult precedent was set for the health service budget: £73·4 million allocated to waiting lists went instead to paying off the deficit. That means that we are still not reducing waiting lists at the rate at which we should be and that people continue to wait in pain for a long, long time. While I am on that issue, I say to the Executive and to the Finance Minister, since he is in the Chamber, that the Committee was briefed on waiting lists by the Southern Health and Social Care Trust two weeks ago. They told us that they had interrogated the waiting lists in their trust area and reduced them by 40%. You are the Minister concerned with ensuring that we have accurate data to assess what is going on in Health and with the Budget: surely we should be able to do much better than that. Such figures need much greater interrogation.

There has been much discussion about savings and how to meet pay commitments, deliver change and reduce waiting times. This year, to be fair to the Department and the Minister, trusts were able to make significant savings on a range of service delivery options. Importantly, those included a reduction in the use of agency and temporary staff. That kind of interrogation needs to continue in order to see not just savings but long-term investment in staff and service delivery. Investing only in agency or locum staff is not good enough. We need the long-term investment in health service staff that will enable us to build services in Northern Ireland rather than just manage where we are.

The interrogation of trust and Department of Health budgets must also include a prioritisation of funding that is aligned to the key objectives of reform and delivery. We need to see the Minister outline his priorities in the Budget, rather than continually asking for more funding from Executive colleagues. Like the Chair of the Health Committee, I was heartened to hear the new permanent secretary in the Department of Health indicate that they all acknowledge that. All of us in the Chamber — I know of no one who would demur from this — want to see more done in healthcare, but other services matter too. When we have an Executive Budget that is under such pressure, each Department must do its best to protect services and deliver value for money. There is certainly plenty that can be done to make sure that we deliver value for money. There are plenty of questions that can be asked to make sure that the trusts and the Department are working to make that a reality.

I will give an example of something in which we are completely unsure about and have no evaluation of such spend and its value for money. I recently asked the Minister about the leadership centre. It is a rather obscure centre in the health service; I do not know how many have heard of it. The centre has 326 associate consultants. They have experience in a range of issues: for example, 194 are listed as having experience in facilitation; 176 have experience in investigation of grievances; and 167 have experience in report writing. My goodness, if a star was given for report writing, we would get it. Over the past six years, spending on that centre has doubled from just over £3 million in 2019-2020 to £6·5 million in 2024. The centre also uses consultancy firms. It is unclear how the centre's delivery of value for money is evaluated. We need much greater transparency from the Minister on that issue. Of course, the Minister has told us that he will introduce a Bill on a duty of candour: we could certainly have more candour on departmental spend.

Management of the Health budget will require prioritisation and difficult choices. I have led debates on our cancer waiting times, which are the longest in the United Kingdom. That is not just a clinical issue but a moral and ethical one. Cancer cannot wait. Only 6% of women in Northern Ireland who discover a concerning lump in their breast are seen within the departmental target time. In England, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is introducing a cancer plan: surely we need a specific action plan for waiting lists. While the Minister argues that that is within his elective care plan, it is clear that it is not working.

The prioritisation will also require political parties in the House to make difficult choices. The Health Committee has been told that the implementation of the Hospital Parking Charges Act will cost £7 million. I know that the Minister wants to defer the implementation of the Act but cannot get agreement on the matter, particularly from the party opposite. However, if we consider that the savings on that might allow us, for example, to introduce a full-time, 24/7 thrombectomy service for Northern Ireland, those are choices that we must face up to. That service for stroke sufferers would not just save lives but change lives. Many consultants tell me that access to a thrombectomy a short time after a stroke is the difference between walking out of hospital and a lifetime of disability. It is estimated that 160 lives a year could be saved by the introduction of that full-time service. Surely, it is important for us to make those obvious, evidence-based choices and not just simply grasp at what is popular.

The Minister has also indicated that he has put in high-priority bids for the reform of primary care and his neighbourhood health model. Implementation of that reform will ultimately require the transfer of funding from the expensive hospital model to care in the community. I understand that trusts have been asked to make sure that they transfer 2% of their budget in the next year to begin that process. In my view, it should be about new or expanded community services that actively take the burden from secondary services in hospital into the community, but I fear — we already see some of the trusts talking about this — that it may end up being a repackaging under the neighbourhood model of existing services. If we want to see transformation, we need to make sure that the money follows the transformation. That can be done only by trusts ensuring that they transfer money from expensive secondary care into the community. It will also require the Minister to settle his disputes with general practitioners and to make sure that we have a sound footing for that model going forward.

We are also currently considering the Adult Protection Bill. The Minister has submitted bids in relation to that, and I understand the need to ensure protection for the most vulnerable. The scandal of Muckamore Abbey Hospital and Dunmurry Manor Care Home has heightened that need for change, so I accept that entirely. However, the Minister has also indicated on numerous occasions that he can implement the Bill only in bits and pieces, as and when he has the funding to do so. That would be a really difficult way to proceed. The Bill allows the state to exercise significant power over the lives of individuals. If we do not give individuals the support and the right to respond to that exercise of power by the state, we will fail those individuals, so I worry that that is an issue as well.

I notice that, in the briefings from the Minister and the Health Department, there is nothing in the package about the issue of hospital flow. We cannot get people into emergency departments (EDs) in our hospitals because so many beds are being used by patients who are fit and well and able to go home. Yesterday, that number was 531. At a recent briefing by the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, we were told that over 800 care packages, either partial or full, were still to be fulfilled. We cannot make our health service work if the Minister does not direct his attention and some of the funding to that area.

I will spend a little time talking about the Department of Health estates budget.

We are told that the available budget will allow work on the new children's hospital to proceed, but I do not see any contingencies for a situation where the budget overruns, which it almost certainly will. We already know that it is in difficulties, because the chief executive of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust indicated to the Health Committee during her briefing a couple of weeks ago that new laws would mean changes to the contract. It defies logic that Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD), presumably, and the health estates directorate are signing off on stuff that they know will have to be changed and will cost the taxpayer more money.

I have repeatedly called for an inquiry into how the Health Department and the Belfast Trust have handled the new maternity hospital on the Royal site. As the Chair of the Health Committee said, that hospital is long overdue. It is sitting there, brand new, looking lovely and cleaned every day, but it cannot be used. In fact, it is not safe to be used. In March — in another couple of weeks — it will be two years since the building was handed over to the Belfast Trust, but it is not safe for the mothers and babies who need it so badly. My sources tell me that, a few weeks ago, signs went up all over the building, indicating that the water was unsafe to drink. The trust's latest information to the Health Committee indicates that the repair work could take another 28 months. It should concern every single party in the Assembly that, if the trust holds even to that 28 months, it will be a staggering four and a half years since the building was handed over, and at a cost of many more millions. The trust openly acknowledges that that timeline is dependent on its fixing the problem. We could be facing a longer delay.

Minister, I asked you questions about that in the House a couple of weeks ago. You seemed unconcerned; you said that that was a matter for the Health Minister to sort out. I ask you again: what are you, as Finance Minister, doing to hold the Health Department and the trust to account for that appalling situation? It cannot continue. Craigavon Area Hospital in my constituency, which was built in the 1950s or 1960s and has not changed, whose windows shattered and came in around people during a recent storm, cannot be rebuilt because we are literally flushing money down the drain with the flushing regime for the maternity hospital. I cannot understand why people do not want to grasp that issue and hold someone to account for it. It will take some kind of independent look at what happened to make sure that we learn lessons, so that it never happens again.

I am disappointed that some things have not been acknowledged in the Budget. The Health Committee spent weeks on end discussing the palliative care situation in Northern Ireland. None of us knows when we might need the services of Marie Curie or the hospices in Northern Ireland. Currently, we leave dying to charity. We fund it at less than 40% of the actual cost, and charities and people who leave money in their will are left to make up the difference. If your family has experienced hospice care, you will want to give back. That is great, but the state needs to look seriously at how we fund palliative care and what we are doing to support people at a really vulnerable time in their life. These should not be things that are optional. They should be core principles and services of the Department and the Executive. It is to our shame that they are not.

In closing, there are many, many challenges for the Health budget in Northern Ireland, but there are also some amazing, brilliant things that go on within the health service involving our health staff. We owe them a debt, because, as I have said many, many times, they are the glue that keeps our system together and keeps us running. It is up to you, Minister, to allocate the funding; it is up to the Health Minister to make sure that that funding is allocated in the right way; and it is up to the trusts to make sure that every line of their budget goes where it should go so that we stop seeing the waste that we see, particularly in relation to the capital budgets in Health, which I can only call a disgrace.

Mr Donnelly: First, I acknowledge the constraints that are faced in the budgets. I do not envy the job of any Minister under the current circumstances. However, those who take on the role are taking on a responsibility to make it work as best they can. Unfortunately, too often in Health that has not materialised. We have heard in the debate, time and time again, about the need for a multi-year Budget in order to plan and deliver for better services. I sincerely hope that that can be achieved.

The most important asset of any service is its workforce. I highlight the £209 million pay award for healthcare workers. The Minister proceeded with it, rightly recognising the case for pay, but without full funding being in place. The Executive subsequently covered £100 million, and the Department was required to find the remainder internally. We know that that has now been covered. The decision will have real and lasting consequences, not only for the budget but in the uncertainty that has already been created for our healthcare workers who will only be receiving that uplift this month; in fact, I think that it is tomorrow. When a Department is required to absorb tens of millions of pounds in unbudgeted costs, the pressure translates into service constraint, delayed reform and increased operational risk; adds to the structural instability; and rolls forward into the next financial year.

In community pharmacy, the £20 million clawback that has been taken from community pharmacies is, in effect, being used to stabilise pressures elsewhere in the health service, while community pharmacies face medication shortages, supplier pressures and increased difficulty sustaining the services that so many people rely on. Community pharmacies are a cornerstone of primary care and a pillar of every community across Northern Ireland. If financial adjustments in that sector are being used to shore up wider HSC pressures, that is not strategic reform. It is internal cross-subsidisation that risks weakening one of the most accessible parts of our health system. If we are serious about shifting care closer to communities, we cannot continue to draw resource away from that sector. Mrs Dodds talked about palliative care, which is another important example of that. The Health Committee recently produced a report on access to palliative care. It is clear that it is a critical service, and it needs to be funded as such. Hopefully, going forward, we will see palliative care funded in a better way.

A mental health strategy was launched with huge ambition and expectation, yet reporting over the past year has indicated that 80% of its actions have been paused or shelved and only 16% of the originally envisaged funding has been allocated. If prevention and early intervention are to be more than rhetoric, the forthcoming Budget must address the gap. Otherwise, pressures will continue to manifest in crisis settings, at far greater human and financial cost.

In the community and voluntary sector, core grant funding underpins services that keep people well, support people in their communities and prevent escalation into acute care. Where core funding is reduced or fails to keep pace with cost pressures, we undermine the very capacity that enables system flow.

Finally, we must confront a broader truth that has emerged in Committee discussions over the past year. Too often, decisions have been framed in terms of immediate savings rather than long-term efficiencies. The thrombectomy unit that has been mentioned previously is a good example of that. It is a service that will save lives, prevent disabilities and save money, but it is, as yet, unfunded. I do not need to highlight to anyone the fact that another crisis is being kicked down the line, and the forthcoming Budget must demonstrate what lessons have been learned.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated, Danny.

As Members will know, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The next Member to speak in the Budget debate after Question Time will be Jemma Dolan.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): The focus of my banking round table in December last year was to bring together relevant stakeholders primarily to discuss access to cash issues for our local communities and how access to cash and other important financial services can be maintained locally. Those in attendance did not raise the financial conduct of individual banks.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) have the regulatory authority and responsibility to ensure that firms that operate in the financial services industry do so ethically in all aspects of their operations. It is therefore for those bodies to ensure that appropriate governance is in place and that any concerns about conduct are investigated thoroughly.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for his answer. First, I recognise that financial conduct and related matters are not his direct ministerial responsibility. Given the Minister's interest in the area, however, I put on record the very serious concerns that I have about the experience of my constituent Ms Jamison, whom a tribunal found was unfairly dismissed by an entity named the Bank of London. It is a clearing bank that operates here, and there are very serious concerns about its propriety. Its PR was done by none other than a certain Lord Mandelson. I therefore have very serious concerns. Ms Jamison blew the whistle and is still being hounded by the bank. If I forward correspondence to the Minister, will he ask his officials to have a look at it to see whether they are satisfied or whether any further action needs to be taken by the Department to raise

?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. Mr O'Toole has spoken to me briefly on that matter. I am more than happy to assist in any way that I can, within my Department's remit.

Miss Dolan: Minister, what contact does your Department have with the regulators?

Mr O'Dowd: My officials and I have regular engagement with the Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA attended my banking round table on 3 December 2025 to hear at first hand about local issues with access to cash. I also addressed the FCA's five-year strategy launch event in Belfast, at which I took the opportunity to reinforce the need for banking facilities to remain accessible to those who need them, particularly people in rural areas and vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with limited digital skills.

Dr Aiken: Minister, you will be aware that some of the banks are removing themselves from some of our small towns and not-so-small towns. As a result of their doing so, they are supposed to work towards creating banking hubs and related processes. Is there any indication of why they are not doing that? I refer particularly to the town of Larne, where that has happened.

Mr O'Dowd: There is a process whereby MLAs and so on in towns and villages can request that an assessment of their area be done in order to ascertain whether there is suitable access to cash in the vicinity. One of the purposes of my banking round tables has been to raise concerns, particularly, it has to be said, those of people in smaller towns in the border communities, where access has been limited and people feel that the system has not treated them fairly. I am particularly concerned that cross-border business and commerce activity is not taken into account when decisions are being made. I will therefore continue to engage with Link and others on the matter. If the Member requires any further information, my officials will be happy to share with him what MLAs can do.

Mr O'Dowd: In this financial year, between April 2025 and January 2026, a total of 3,020 vacancies were filled. As part of the next Civil Service people strategy, my Department is taking forward several initiatives to standardise and streamline the recruitment process. Their key focus will be on reducing the length of time that it takes to fill vacancies across the Civil Service through implementing simpler, faster and more flexible recruitment processes. A key example of such an initiative is the pilot administrative officer competition to recruit staff in the north-west, which was launched at the end of October 2025. The first tranche of 155 successful candidates took up post at the end of January 2026, meaning that the end-to-end recruitment process was completed in around 12 weeks. Recruitment of that size and scale had never been done before in such a short period. The pilot marks a shift away from running traditional annual recruitment campaigns towards taking a more agile and dynamic approach. My Department is now planning to run four further competitions in the coming months using that model.

Work is also under way to digitise key elements of the recruitment process, with further improvements to be delivered through the transition to the new integrated recruitment platform. That will provide enhanced automation, improved management information and greater end-to-end visibility, supporting faster decision-making and more timely appointments.

Ms Hunter: Minister, in America, the state of Pennsylvania ran a successful pilot of the removal of university degrees from the essential requirements of 90% of civil service job applications. Currently, it takes up to 11 months to fill a Civil Service vacancy here, and many people without degrees feel left behind and frozen out of such opportunities. Would it not be fairer and wiser to explore doing the same thing here?

Mr O'Dowd: It depends on the recruitment process, but there is equivalence in the application process between someone's career pathway and their qualifications. We do not automatically rule people out because they do not have a university degree. There are other pathways into the Civil Service.

Mr Delargy: That initiative has been transformational for Derry. It has introduced new skilled jobs with huge opportunities for people to progress. You mentioned the number of jobs that were brought forward last year. Will the Minister outline any lessons learned from the recruitment process about what could be done better? I appreciate that some of the information has already been given.

Mr O'Dowd: The recruitment process is being evaluated, and the lessons that are learned from it will be built into future recruitment processes. I can say, however, that it has been a successful scheme. Unfortunately, I was not able to make it to the hotel where the recruitment exercise took place over a couple of days, but all the reports from the event suggest that the enthusiasm and excitement in the venue was palpable and that those who were applying for jobs were enthused by the process, as was my team. We have to build on and learn from that strategy. Everybody accepts that we have to speed up the recruitment process; in that exercise, we achieved that goal.

Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 3, 9 and 12 together. I may take slightly longer than normal.

As Members will be aware, on 29 January, I announced that I had stopped Reval2026, having listened to the concerns of businesses and elected representatives. Small and medium-sized businesses across all sectors are the backbone of our economy. The sustainable growth of our local economy is crucial to all our people. My decision to stop Reval2026 reflected the clear need to take stock and allow for constructive dialogue and engagement to ensure that any changes are implemented in a way that is fair, evidence-based, transparent and sensitive to the economic realities, positive and negative, that face non-domestic ratepayers.

The conversation has started. I met hospitality representatives on Thursday 29 January. I will look at any proposals for an alternative methodology that people want to offer. Such proposals need to be transparent and fair to every ratepayer and to meet the need to support public services and the wider economy. Stopping the Reval process allows space for the business sector to provide the much-needed evidence to allow a full examination of the issues raised. I am considering the most appropriate form of engagement to enable sectors to bring forward their information and evidence. Any further approach will be informed by that material and will aim to ensure that the rating system remains fair and transparent.

As Finance Minister, I am absolutely committed to supporting business growth and development. I value our businesses and their contribution to the local economy and civil society. My focus remains on supporting our public services and local businesses and on growing our economy.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Minister. My constituents in North Belfast appreciated the stopping of Reval2026, but they said to me, "That does not mean that all our concerns and worries have been alleviated". You touched on the methodology and said that you are willing to look at any and all proposals. I want to explore that further: are you undertaking a review of our methodology for collecting business rates? Will we have our own, local review, rather than waiting for the outcome of the review in England and Scotland?

Mr O'Dowd: I am considering the options at this stage. As I said, I am open to viewing and analysing any proposals that are brought to me. Our system is the same as that in England, Scotland and Wales when it comes to how we evaluate the rental value of premises.

I appreciate that there are still questions for all the businesses, including those in hospitality, office, retail and manufacturing, that were reviewed as a result of Reval. Taking a bit of time to evaluate where we are going will have long-term benefit. I have not finalised what my next move will be, and I am open to suggestions.

Mr Speaker: Mr McGrath is not in his place.

Mr Gaston: Minister, the hospitality sector can no longer survive with its rates being calculated based on turnover, while the soaring cost of food and utilities is ignored. I understand that you have refused to commission a working group to partner with the sector to design a methodology that is fair and equitable. Reval2026 was going to cause devastation to the industry: what help are you offering the sector today? You said in your initial response that you are open to looking at what people offer, but what is your Department doing to ensure that the methodology is correct, fair and equitable?

Mr O'Dowd: I have refused nothing at this stage: let me send that clear message from the Chamber today. We have to look at Reval2026 in its entirety. While a lot of focus was on the hospitality sector and understandably so, Reval2026 was not solely focused on the hospitality sector. The retail sector, offices and other non-domestic ratepayers were involved, and all their voices deserve to be heard. You will have heard in recent times cinema owners, for instance, raise concerns around what impact it might have on them. While the Member may be solely focused on one sector, I, as Finance Minister, have to take on board the views of all sectors.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, what support are you currently providing for businesses?

Mr O'Dowd: It is important to reflect on the fact that we offer around £0·25 billion of support each year to small and medium-sized enterprises, including many hospitality groups. My officials recently completed a consultation on what further support we could offer the small business sector. I have set aside £10 million in the draft Budget specifically to support the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. Many of those businesses are in the hospitality sector, but there are others. Moves are afoot to continue our support for the small and medium-sized business sector, because it is the backbone of our economy.

Mr McNulty: Last year, the Assembly passed a motion tabled by our party calling on you to lobby the Treasury to lower VAT on tourism and hospitality. Given the strain on the hospitality sector, will you outline what engagement and progress has been made on that?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member raises an important point: a lot of the pressures on our business sector and particularly on small and medium-sized businesses are the result of decisions made elsewhere around VAT, National Insurance contributions and other things. Those decisions are made elsewhere and imposed on us. I have been an advocate of fiscal devolution and bringing more powers back to this place so that we can make decisions based on the local environment in which our businesses operate.

On your specific question around VAT, the Economy Minister and I met Hospitality Ulster and the Food to Go Association — I think that that is the name of the organisation: I apologise if I have got it wrong — last month. Both of us have since corresponded with the Treasury in relation to lowering the VAT rate here under a pilot scheme. In any engagements that I have had with the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury (CST) and the previous CST, I have consistently raised the issue of VAT and the impact that it is having here, particularly considering the all-island nature of our economy, and the challenges that the difference in VAT rates present to businesses operating along the border.

Mr O'Dowd: I welcome the £400 million of reserve claim support provided by the Treasury. Securing Treasury agreement to spread repayments over three years is a positive outcome, as it helps to reduce the immediate pressures on public services. However, as that support falls short of the total forecast pressure facing the Executive, it is essential that we continue our collective efforts to reduce the remaining overspend. I remain committed to working with ministerial colleagues to manage the remaining pressures and to protect front-line services.

To strengthen our case for fairer funding for public services, the Executive will work with Treasury to review their spending and pressures through an open-book review of departmental spending. That will support a fuller understanding of the significant challenges that we face.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for his response. I am keen to find out what negotiations you had with the British Treasury that resulted in the reserve claim. If you were to listen to some DUP Members, you would think that you had absolutely no role in it.

Mr O'Dowd: Success has many parents, but failure is an orphan. I am of the view that, if people want to claim these things, fill your boots. We need to work collectively, particularly in the time ahead, to ensure that the Treasury fully understands the pressures that the Executive face and that, as a result of the open-book process, political engagement takes place at the highest level to ensure that the Executive are properly funded.

My engagement with the Treasury comprises regular meetings with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In each of those meetings, I constantly raise the issue of the pressures that our Executive face in delivering front-line public services. The figures started to crystallise in November, and I corresponded with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to set out the scale of those pressures and to ask for access to the reserve. Since then, I have engaged in intensive negotiations with the Treasury on behalf of the Executive. Throughout those discussions, I have pressed firmly for a longer repayment period to minimise the detrimental impact. The outcome of the negotiations was the reserve claim and the agreement that the repayment will be phased over three years.

This is a phased negotiation. I would like to see the open-book process start in the next 24 hours. Once that starts, that allows Executive Departments to firmly set out the challenges that they face. The Treasury will have its views on things, but the quicker we go through that process, the quicker we will get to the political negotiations around how the Executive are funded.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his work on the reserve claim.

Minister, you mentioned your ongoing work with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury: will you update the House on what is on the table for negotiation? You mentioned that, previously, you made bids for the PSNI data breach: we now have the reserve claim settlement, and there are ongoing issues with the local growth fund. Can we expect anything to come through in the next couple of months from the discussions?

Mr O'Dowd: At the moment, the focus is on the open-book process. As I said, I would like to see that formally start in the next 24 hours or so. That will allow the Treasury to achieve a better understanding of the pressures that Executive Departments face in delivering public services, all of which are experiencing growing demand. The local growth fund, the PSNI data breach and other areas, such as VAT, are some of a wide range of areas on which we are engaging with the Treasury. All of that will form part of the discussions, but there will be a very tight focus on the open-book process in the next couple weeks. I want that to be completed, so that we can sit down at a political level and have serious discussions about how the Executive are funded to deliver public services. In my opinion, it is clear that we have been underfunded for many years, and I think that that view is shared around the Executive table. We need to use our collective political resources to ensure that we are properly funded moving forward.

Mr O'Dowd: I am deeply concerned about the impact of branch closures on local communities. I raised the issue directly with the industry at the banking round table on 3 December 2025. I pressed them on the importance of maintaining the branch network and access to cash and essential banking services here, especially for our most vulnerable citizens, who need in-person services. I also stressed the banking needs of small businesses and community and voluntary groups.

In addition, I stressed that cash access assessment criteria need to be appropriate and to reflect our particular circumstances here, including cross-border travel and commerce. In that regard, local representation on reserved matters that have had a significant impact here is essential. I reiterated my disappointment that the Financial Inclusion Committee set up to advise on the recently published financial inclusion strategy did not include a representative from the North.

My officials are now preparing a summary report to share with the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), seeking appropriate action, given their respective responsibilities for banking and financial services.

Furthermore, I have been pushing the sector to roll out the banking hub concept at speed here in areas impacted by bank closures. Those hubs provide at least some level of in-person banking presence for affected customers. Rest assured that my officials and I will continue to press the banking industry and the regulatory authorities on those matters.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. He made valid points about impact, particularly concerning vulnerable and older citizens' access to cash and the negative impact on our business sector. We have seen it in every constituency. Most recently, it was announced that the Santander branch in my constituency will close in a matter of weeks. What more engagement do you have planned? Will you have any engagement this year, or are you just relying on your meeting from 2025? It is a very important issue. I encourage the popping up of unofficial banking hubs as well as official banking hubs. I urge you to do what you can to encourage that.

Mr O'Dowd: I think that the banking round table takes place every six months, so it is not a one-off event. We will continue to engage at that formal, structured level, but there is continued engagement at official level. As I said in my substantive response, I am preparing a response to the most recent report from the banking sector and to the Treasury programme around this, setting out my concerns, one of which is that we do not have representation on that group. The financial inclusion group is not inclusive: we need to correct that straight away so that people who are making decisions elsewhere fully understand the needs of this place. The engagement is ongoing; it is not a one-off.

Mr McGlone: Minister, on the issue of the drive towards a cashless society, can you advise whether your Department, perhaps in conjunction with the Treasury, has done any evaluation of how vulnerable that leaves people in the event of a crash in either the banking system or the electrical supply, as happened in Spain fairly recently?

Mr O'Dowd: Work on inclusion and the need for access to cash is being carried out by the Treasury. I do not support the idea of a cashless society. The Member has pointed out a number of examples of where, when things go wrong, they can go dramatically wrong. It is important that cash remains part of our services, and that people can use it in shops and for whatever other services that they use. As I said to Mr Dunne, I will continue to engage with the Treasury on the matter. It is vital that the Treasury and others fully understand the needs and uniqueness of this place, hence why I am pushing for proper representation on the committee.

Mr Boylan: Following on from that, Minister, what is your Department doing to promote digital inclusion?

Mr O'Dowd: My Department has a dedicated digital inclusion outreach team, which promotes the use of online government services and provides free tailored training in libraries and community centres. Those sessions help individuals to build the digital skills, confidence and trust needed to engage effectively in today's digital world. I attended one of those sessions in my constituency, at which the training course was delivered to a group of older people. It was fascinating to watch and learn about the training, and to hear about the positive impact that it has had for many.

There is great concern about online scams. That is an issue for us all. People are deeply concerned about using services and being scammed out of their precious savings. I commend the work that is being done. If MLAs want more information on promoting that work in their community, I am happy to provide it. The people who attended the session that I observed got great value from it.

Mr O'Dowd: To strengthen our case for fair funding for public services, the Executive will work with Treasury to review the Executive's spending and pressures through an open-book review of departmental spending. That will support a fuller understanding of the significant challenges that we are facing. Locally, the demands being placed on public services are growing significantly while, at the same time, the cost of providing them is increasing. As such, that is an opportunity for the Treasury to gain a fuller understanding of the significant financial pressures that we, as an Executive, face in delivering public services. Each Department will have a crucial role in that work, as they are best placed to articulate the challenges in their areas. The process will be firmly grounded in the principles of devolution and will respect Executive autonomy in making funding decisions. It is intended that the exercise will be completed by mid-March, with the outcome of the process supporting the Executive in their efforts to agree a multi-year Budget. The review will inform wider discussions on Budget sustainability and negotiations on the fiscal framework.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his answer. He talked earlier about the case for fairer funding, which I welcome. Will the Minister outline the consequences for Departments of not balancing their books? How will that affect us in future years?

Mr O'Dowd: While the reserve claim is very welcome and allows us some breathing space, the reality is that we have to pay it back: £80 million in 2026-27, then £120 million in each of the subsequent two years. That places further pressure on future-year Budgets, and when the Executive come to finalise those Budgets, that will have to be built into our calculations. It is vital that Departments balance their books. However, I accept that there is growing demand in the delivery of front-line public services. Ministers face significant challenges in delivering those services — in some cases to deliver the bare minimum — and balancing their books, so the balance has to be right.

The open-book process is an opportunity for the Treasury to better understand the challenges that we face. The Treasury will have its views. We need to go through the open-book process, working together and with Departments, get to the point where we have an informed document, and then enter the necessary political negotiations, ensuring that this place is funded properly by the British Government.

Miss Hargey: Minister, you said that the open-book process could show how the Executive have been underfunded. Will you assure the Assembly that the exercise will not impinge on the Good Friday Agreement and the architecture around it?

Mr O'Dowd: I can give that assurance. I have been clear in my responses to the Treasury and others on this matter that that is non-negotiable. There will be no undermining of the institutions, the authority of Ministers or the authority of the Executive in relation to how we govern this place. That is how the process will be conducted.

Mr Harvey: Minister, during your ongoing work with the UK Treasury, have you called for a further assessment of and increase in the Northern Ireland level of need and our funding model?

Mr O'Dowd: There is already an agreement with the Government, as part of ongoing discussions in relation to the full fiscal framework, that the Holtham report will remain on the table and that further investigation into its findings will continue in relation to our level of need.

Mr Durkan: Can the Minister give any other example since 1998 in which the Treasury was brought in, or came in, to conduct a line-by-line examination of a devolved Government's Budget? What does this process mean for his stated ambition of securing greater fiscal devolution?

Mr O'Dowd: The open-book process is not a formal process. There is not a document sitting on a shelf in Treasury or in the Department of Finance that says, "This is an open-book process". The exact nature of the process is open to interpretation, and we, with the Treasury, will set the terms of reference. There may have been similar projects in the past under different titles or frameworks. I am not overly concerned about the title of the programme. Obviously, the terms of reference will be vital, but, as I said to Miss Hargey, there will be no undermining of Executive or ministerial roles.

As for future and ongoing discussions around fiscal devolution, this strengthens our hand, because the Treasury and the British Government are going to have to understand the uniqueness of this place. They will have to understand that it has been underfunded for many years. Even the successful work that was done around the Holtham report brought us to a level of funding need. However, there was no recognition from the Treasury that we were still playing catch-up and that achieving the level of need of 124% for one year would not allow the Executive to fund services and have transformation.

We have a very strong case in a number of areas, and the ending of the stabilisation fund is a very strong argument. The £520 million stabilisation fund came to an end abruptly. If you are going to have a stabilisation fund, it has to give the Executive time to stabilise public services and have a transformation programme in place.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: My colleague will understand that I do not deal well with finger-wagging, and so he will also understand that I will not sit somewhere if someone wagging their finger at me. What has or has not changed over the past two years? That is the fundamental question that is at play here. Despite the Executive's best efforts to deliver front-line public services, we remain with a financial challenge at hand. In my opinion, that is because the place is underfunded.

I have just mentioned the stabilisation fund to the Member's colleague Mr Durkan. The ending of that £520 million fund has left the Executive in a very difficult position. Let us go back to the talks in Hillsborough Castle: it was emphasised during those talks that that £520 million stabilisation fund should have continued for much longer than it did; in fact, it should have been brought into our line of spend rather than simply being a transitional payment. If we are continually underfunded, we will continually end up in the same place.

Transformation has been working across the Executive at a scale that is possible, given the funding that we have in hand. You need funding to perform transformation. I have already announced £120 million of transformation funding projects, and I hope to be in a position in the coming weeks to announce further use of that transformation funding on some exciting transformation projects. Changes have taken place across Departments, but one of the challenges of decades of austerity is this: Departments find it difficult to move from the position that they are in, because they do not have the funding to make the changes that are necessary. In my view, the stabilisation fund would allow Departments to make the necessary change.

Mr O'Toole: We were supposed to be able to start doing that transformation two years ago. That is what we were told by your predecessor and your colleagues, but, clearly, it has not properly started in earnest. Minister, the public out there will wonder what has happened. Yes, I agree that the Treasury does not prioritise this place — you will never find me disagreeing with that — but the corollary to that is that, if we are going to negotiate with the Treasury, which you have just said that you will do, we have to demonstrate that we are engaged in meaningful transformation and that we want to take more fiscal powers here in order to take more responsibility for ourselves. I have seen no evidence of either of those things. If we get a final, agreed, multi-year Budget, will there be anything in it on additional powers for revenue-raising/fiscal devolution in the North?

Mr O'Dowd: The Budget is not the place to devolve more fiscal powers; it is about setting your financial priorities for the years ahead. In tandem with that, I will engage with the Treasury around devolution of more fiscal powers and make recommendations to the Executive as those discussions proceed. However, the Member has to accept the point that we keep ending up in the same place because the fundamental issue has not been resolved: this place is underfunded by the British Government. We have done great work in getting the level of need to where it is, but steps remain to be taken.

The stabilisation fund is part of the answer to the challenges that we face. Transformation has been taking place across Departments. That transformation will be welcomed or objected to, depending on a person's view not just on the nature of politics but on life. I have already announced a significant amount of money for specific projects as part of the formal transformation process, and I will announce further projects in the coming weeks. I have also set aside chunks of money for transformation in my draft Budget.

Mr Speaker: Doug Beattie is not in his place.

Mr O'Dowd: I am very keen on achieving regional balance and am proactive in supporting it through engagement with my Executive colleagues on where and how they invest their budgets. A standout example is the recent recruitment process in the north-west. It was hugely successful. There were around 900 applicants, with 200 posts being filled. Other posts will come along as they are required. That represents tangible change for the area. I have also made priority investments in the Magee campus and elsewhere.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. You mentioned there having been 900 applicants for those administrative roles. Will you provide some further detail on the pilot?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. It is a new pilot programme from Civil Service colleagues who recognised the frustration that there was across the Executive and among MLAs at the length of time that it was taking to recruit into posts. They implemented a new process that has significantly sped up the time from advertising to placement. It is around 12 weeks, which represents a significant change. As I said in my response to a previous question, I unfortunately did not make it up to the hotel over the two days that the programme was being run, but the atmosphere in the hotel was a testament to the fact that, when we are able to deliver something new, the public will respond to it. The initiative enthused not only the applicants but my Civil Service colleagues.

Mr O'Dowd: The consultation is now closed, and my officials have presented me with a report on the way forward. There is a huge opportunity for us to broaden the amount of support and to increase the number of businesses that receive it. Additional finance will be required, but it will be finance well invested. I set aside around £10 million for the small business rate relief scheme in the draft Budget. The question is whether I try to move on it ahead of the Budget or wait until we fulfil the Budget obligations before making the investment. I will give that consideration over the next period.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he specify how the scheme will support businesses, particularly those in the north-west?

Mr O'Dowd: Over 2,300 small businesses in the Derry City and Strabane District Council area already benefit from the small business rate relief scheme, with over £2 million of support being delivered. Through the Back in Business scheme, six businesses in the same council area have been granted support of over £102,000 to bring vacant properties back into use by putting businesses in them. As I said in my response to the Member's original question, I hope to expand that support in order to sustain existing businesses and, hopefully, to create new businesses.

Mr Speaker: Question 5 from Mr Brett has been withdrawn. Mr Wilson had to leave because he is unwell. Ms Ennis is not in her place. I therefore call Nick Mathison.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did not think that I would get to ask my question today.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have in front of me information about the exact number of meetings, but I must give credit to the members of my team who have been working on the local growth fund. They have been extremely proactive in their engagement not only with the sector but with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in Whitehall and with the NIO. In fairness, without their energy behind it, there are those, particularly in Whitehall, who would be wishing for the local growth fund just to go away. My team, as well as the community and voluntary sector, have made sure that their voices have been heard, however.

Mr Mathison: I appreciate, Minister, that you might not have detailed meeting logs in front of you, but can you confirm whether that funding working group has facilitated direct engagement between the community and voluntary sector and the Northern Ireland Office on the local growth fund? Can you give any sense of when there might be light at the end of the tunnel for the charities and community and voluntary organisations that face a funding precipice at the end of March?

Mr O'Dowd: I will supply the Member with the details so that he receives accurate information. However, in my engagement on the matter and my pursuit of the cause, I have been hugely frustrated with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in Whitehall. It has been completely dismissive of this place and has been dismissive not only of me, as a Minister, but of the Executive. The Executive wrote to it in January — I do not have the exact date in my head — but we are still waiting for a response. When the Executive write to a Whitehall Department, the courteous thing would be for it to respond as quickly as possible and to take on board their observations and concerns. Dealing with that Whitehall Department is hugely frustrating.

We continue to engage with the NIO and others to make our case heard, but, at this stage, there has been no positive response.

Mr O'Dowd: Local businesses have similarly been in contact with me to raise concerns about the matter. I will ask my officials to engage with the Treasury to ensure that it is fully aware of the new challenges that the scheme brings to small businesses.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for making such representations. I know that it is not a devolved matter, but I appreciate that. Childcare providers have expressed serious concerns about what the removal the 10% wear and tear tax allowance will mean for their businesses. Minister, will you also make representations on behalf of those childcare businesses?

Mr O'Dowd: As the Member says, it is not a devolved matter, but I either have made or am in the process of making representations to the Treasury on that matter.

Mr O'Dowd: The matter has been the subject of yet another Audit Office report, and my Department is analysing that report. It covers a range of issues in the Civil Service, sickness levels being one of them. We will respond in due course.

It is a very complex area. We are a huge employer with over 25,000 staff. Sickness levels reflect wider societal issues, given in particular that a high proportion of sickness absences are related to mental health. As the Member knows, poor mental health is an issue across our society, and that is reflected in the Civil Service figures.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, given the scale of sickness absence across the Civil Service and the clear impact of that on service delivery, are you satisfied that your Department will put interventions in place that will deliver positive results in that area?

Mr O'Dowd: I am engaging with my officials on the matter, and I am satisfied that actions are afoot to delve into the level of sickness absence; to put support in place, where necessary, for staff on sickness leave; and to ensure that managers at all levels in the Civil Service understand their role and are there to support colleagues on sick leave and, where possible, work out strategies and pathways for them to return to work.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance.

You are a busy Minister at the minute, Mr O'Dowd.

Miss Dolan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Our financial position has not only been well debated in the Chamber in recent days but is at the heart of almost all our discussions as we seek to deliver the public services that our citizens deserve. A combination of factors means that we continue to face immense financial challenges, the primary cause being the legacy of underfunding by the British Government over many years and the austerity measures that they have implemented.

Since the restoration of the Executive just over two years ago, the Finance Minister and his predecessor, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, have pressed the Treasury about our underfunding. That has secured £1·3 billion in additional funding. The recent agreement of the £400 million reserve claim between the Treasury and the Executive is positive from the perspective that it will help alleviate the pressure on the Budget for next year. However, it underlines the difficulties that we face in trying to protect our public services.

Investment in the areas that are central to the Programme for Government (PFG) priorities is evident in the draft Budget proposals, including the almost half a billion pounds to cut health waiting lists; the £195 million to support parents with childcare costs; the £21 million for skills to grow the economy; and the £15 million for ending violence against women and girls. Earmarked funding that will deliver £433 million for water infrastructure and £441 million for social housing will help the construction sector, while increasing capacity for more homes and businesses. We have an opportunity to enable Departments to strategically plan for the longer term by agreeing a multi-year Budget. That will also support our efforts to deliver efficiencies and transformation, which will achieve better outcomes across the public sector.

Negative spending decisions made in London continue to impact us detrimentally. We have seen the British Government prioritise investing in, for example, militarisation, which provides no Barnett consequentials for us, meaning that we do not get additional income to invest in our health service, education service and roads.

The VAT disparity between the two jurisdictions here means that businesses in my constituency face a disadvantage compared with those just a few miles outside it. That, of course, is one of the financial powers that rest with those not elected by the people here. That is why we need to see what many in the Chamber, including me, and across the North desire: constitutional change. In the interim, I encourage the Finance Minister to continue his work on progressing a full fiscal framework and delivering more fiscal powers locally to allow us to make different choices that better suit the needs of our economy and generate income for public services in a fair way.

Mr Kingston: I rise as a DUP member of the Finance Committee. We were once again in the position of having to grant the Budget Bill accelerated passage in order for it to pass. Whilst that is generally the position for this process, I repeat what the Finance Committee Chair said: Members should not imagine that it was a formality. There was debate about the basis of that agreement, and, while the decision to approve accelerated passage was unanimous, that does not mean that agreement was arrived at lightly. However, we acknowledge that the Budget Bill would be unlikely to pass in time without it.

The Budget Bill passes the two points of resolution discussed here yesterday: the finalisation of the 2025-26 figures and approving a 45·7% Vote on Account to enable services to keep running into 2026-27. On the 2025-26 financial position and settlement, it has been clear that Ministers and Departments need to take steps to be more agile in the best interests of delivering high-quality public services in Northern Ireland. Nobody should sit back and wait for monitoring rounds to take action when there are significant changes that should be acted on instantly, especially to the capital budget.

Last year, we saw significant hand-backs: for the A5 in the December monitoring round and then, in January, for the A4 Enniskillen bypass. Late hand-backs of capital put incredible pressure on other Departments to deliver by 31 March, as capital projects have necessary lead time. In July, the A5 legal case made it clear that the project could not progress due to our stringent climate change targets. The money that was allocated to that should have been reallocated at that point; we should not have had to wait five months until a monitoring round. The Communities Minister stands ready to build more homes if he is allocated the budget, but that needs to be better managed from the centre. Also in Infrastructure, the late allocation for winter pressures on our roads has led to frantic pothole patching, with limited suppliers available in this short year-end window. Surely that is not the best way to strategically manage our roads, which are in complete crisis.

It is clear to all that Northern Ireland's public finances are overstretched. That is challenging for the four-party Executive — for every Minister and their Department — but it is also a challenge for all MLAs, including the opposition parties, if their interests lie in the public good and our public services. This financial year, we have been effectively bailed out by a £400 million reserve claim from His Majesty's Treasury that, in particular, enables costs and pay claims in the Health and Education Departments to be met. I commend all those who assisted in securing the reserve claim, including our party leader, Gavin Robinson MP. It shows the importance of active representation at Westminster, where Sinn Féin leaves constituencies unrepresented.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will give way in a minute. I have listened to the SDLP leader of the Opposition in the Assembly. He seems perturbed that his party's MPs were behind the curve on the matter, but I welcome the fact that the DUP was in front of it. Perhaps he can update us on what role the SDLP's MPs had in securing the reserve claim. He seems to focus on the DUP's role.

Mr O'Toole: The DUP is jointly in charge of the Executive with the Finance Minister, so it is natural that I ask those questions. I appreciate the Member giving way.

I ask this question because there is an irony here. The Finance Minister's party will often say that the UK Government are awful and evil and that austerity is a huge problem that is responsible for absolutely everything. The DUP will say that His Majesty's Treasury has generously given us this beneficence and we are grateful supplicants and subjects. However, you will both claim credit when you negotiate a balance transfer. Is that not a strange irony, which gets to the heart of our problem in this place?

Mr Kingston: I did not hear the Member answer the question about what the SDLP MPs did to achieve the £400 million reserve claim. Perhaps he will consult them to find out, because it is a blank page at the moment.

On the Member's point, the Finance Minister said yesterday that he is Irish. He is entitled to be Irish, but Northern Ireland is British, and we are part of the sixth-largest economy in the world. Because of that, we receive £19·3 billion from His Majesty's Treasury as our block grant, which is a substantial amount of money. At the same time, we argue that we need more, and the DUP has led that argument. The allocation of 124% is the largest in the UK, but we are entitled to more. We can do the two things at once: we can acknowledge the benefits of our place in the United Kingdom, and we can campaign for a larger settlement.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member giving way for the purpose of healthy debate. He mentioned the benefits of being part of the sixth-largest economy: we can debate all of that, and, of course, Brexit substantially reduced the size of the UK's economy versus what it would have been. He talked about His Majesty's Government, but does he accept that the public here pay taxes, whether they like it or not, to His Majesty's Revenue and Customs? We are not getting beneficence out of the goodness of their heart; people here pay their taxes.

Mr Kingston: Absolutely, and I will come to that point later. Northern Ireland makes a substantial contribution to the United Kingdom. Our economy is worth £63 billion and more, and I will come to that point in due course. You are right: some of the £19·3 billion has come from us, but we acknowledge that all regions of the UK outside of London, the south-east and the east of England receive a net subsidy, and we receive that because we are part of the United Kingdom.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, before you ask me to return to the subject, I will do so.

As things stand, the reserve claim has to be paid back over the next three years. We cannot continue to operate with an accumulating overspend year-on-year. We must scrutinise all public spending in Northern Ireland to find out where savings can be made and efficiencies can be found to reduce costs without impacting negatively on the delivery of front-line public services. Therefore, we welcome the commitment included in the reserve claim for an open-book exercise to be carried out by the Home Civil Service in GB to scrutinise the Northern Ireland Civil Service, which has traditionally been independent. We should welcome every opportunity of assistance to ensure financial sustainability.

I trust that all MPs support the campaign for an increased block grant settlement from Treasury, as 124% of the rate of funding per capita in England is not sufficient for our needs in Northern Ireland. That campaign, which has been led by the DUP at Westminster, will continue. As I said, every part of the UK outside of London, the south-east and the east of England receives a net subsidy as part of the United Kingdom, which is the sixth-largest economy in the world. I am thankful for that.

I will not repeat things that I have already mentioned. I move now to our overall finances. Some parties want to focus on increasing taxation on our people. We in the DUP make no apology for saying that our first recourse must be finding efficiencies and pushing forward with reform and transformation in our public services, rather than just seeking to increase taxation on hard-working families who are doing the right thing, playing their part and trying to make ends meet.

Of course, there are other ways in which we could increase our income by growing our economy and increasing non-domestic rates income and by getting agreement from Treasury on tackling benefit fraud and error and retaining an element of those savings for our public services, as was brought forward by the Communities Minister. Perhaps the Finance Minister can give an update on negotiations with the Treasury about the tackling of benefit fraud and error. When I raised that with him most recently, he said that the business case was with Treasury. The Communities Minister has advised that the Executive as a whole need to reach agreement on taking that forward. I would appreciate an update on that from the Finance Minister.

There are other ways in which we could increase our income. We have the transformation package of £235 million over five years; the city and growth deals, with a net contribution from Treasury of £600 million across the four deals, totalling £1·3 billion with all the contributions; the enhanced investment zone, which is a £150 million project covering all of Northern Ireland that focuses on green industries, digital tech and advanced manufacturing and engineering; the defence growth deal of £10 million, which recognises that we have three of the largest aerospace and defence companies in the world in Northern Ireland; and the recently announced £30 million Belfast to Londonderry corridor to develop research and development strengths in cybersecurity and digital technology. There are important opportunities to increase funding from outside of the block grant by playing our part in those initiatives.

It is also important that every Department engage in long-term financial planning. Last year, the Department of Finance — I am not sure whether it was under the current Minister — issued a call on all nine Departments to development their five-year plans and five-year budget plans. I commend the Education Minister, who published his five-year budget plan this month. Some Departments have done just a five-year plan without the budget part. I do not know whether the Minister can update us on how that work is progressing and the pressure on Departments to produce those five-year plans.

Of course, we have the incoming local growth fund as a replacement for the Shared Prosperity Fund. We discussed during Question Time with the Minister the frustration that we all feel about the restriction by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) of only 30% going to revenue and the impact that that is having on community-based employability support programmes to help long-term unemployed people into employment. That has created a particular squeeze for the next financial year. I understand that the local growth fund is likely to come under the control of the Northern Ireland Executive the year after that. I do not know whether, among all of the negotiations with Westminster Departments, the Finance Minister considered, was able to find or will be able to find extra funding to help those community-based projects in the next financial year to get past that squeeze in the reduction of support for those employability programmes. Will he update us on that?

Before closing, I will reference what we said earlier. Whilst Northern Ireland receives that net subsidy of £19·3 billion through the block grant from Treasury, we should also recognise and celebrate Northern Ireland's contribution to United Kingdom plc. The Northern Ireland economy is worth over £63 billion as a contribution to the UK economy. We have particular strengths in our economy, such as advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, fintech, financial services and the creative industries, including TV and film production. Outside of London, we have the highest rate of investment from US companies in the UK. We make a substantial contribution to food security in the UK, producing enough food for 10 million people. We have the highest rate of recruitment into the armed forces, pro rata, in the UK. Sinn Féin and the SDLP repeatedly turn a blind eye to the reality of the need for defence and military capability as in Ukraine, but even they must recognise that the Republic of Ireland is increasingly exposed as the weak link in European security, relying largely on the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force to compensate for its neglect of the real threat that Europe is facing. They are the outliers when they turn a blind eye to the defence needs of not just the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland but Europe.

In conclusion, the challenge for our Executive is stark. That challenge is to, at the same time, live within our overall Budget; champion reform, transformation and efficiencies; make more effective use of our Budget; campaign for a greater block grant settlement from Treasury that recognises our true level of need; grow our economy and increase rates income, which means talking up the positives of Northern Ireland; and advance other initiatives, such as those that I have mentioned, that bring extra government funding to Northern Ireland. That is our joint responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland, who expect us all to provide good government and good public services and to make efficient use of the finances at our disposal from the public purse.

Mr Sheehan: As my party's education spokesperson, I put on record our support for the approach set out by the Finance Minister. He has been frank about the scale of the financial challenge facing the Executive. After years of underfunding by successive British Governments, our block grant does not reflect the level of need here. The gap continues to limit what we can do. The reserve claim secured this year was not about expanding services; it was about stabilising them and protecting Health and Education. We will continue to press the British Government for a fair funding model that delivers based on objective need. It was almost laughable to hear the back and forth between Brian Kingston and Matthew O'Toole about who was responsible for securing the reserve claim. According to Brian, Gavin Robinson went and whispered in Rachel Reeves's ear and asked her for extra money. How long has Brian been involved in politics? He knows that that is not the way that it works.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Yes, I will.

Mr Kingston: Can the Member explain what role Sinn Féin MPs, who do not even take their seats at Westminster, played in getting the £400 million reserve claim? Were they just sitting at home?

Mr Sheehan: OK. If you had let me finish before you intervened, I would have explained to you how we get money from the Treasury. What happens is that the Executive negotiate, through the Minister of Finance, any extra moneys coming here. It was the Minister of Finance who secured the reserve claim. It was nothing to do with Gavin Robinson and — I am not attacking Matthew here — nothing to do with the SDLP MPs either. That is the way that the world of politics works. The Member has been around here long enough. I thought that he would have known that by now. Apparently not.

I will move on. In a constrained budget, priorities matter. The Department of Education, led by the DUP, manages a budget of over £3 billion. That is a substantial allocation, yet we have seen hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on a phone pouch gimmick, millions of pounds directed towards panels and reviews with predetermined outcomes and further millions of pounds earmarked for a harmful reform agenda that teachers and school leaders are telling us is overwhelming them and the system. The Minister is also eyeing up pouring another couple of million pounds into a new managing authority for controlled schools; a policy that has no evidence base and is contrary to the expert recommendations of the independent review of education.

I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions about that proposed managing authority for the controlled sector. His argument is that the Catholic sector has its own managing authority, so the controlled sector needs its own managing authority, because, when it gets that, it will improve educational outcomes in the controlled sector. If that were a cost-neutral issue, I would say, "Fill your boots. Go ahead. Let's see what the outcome is", but it is not: it will cost £1·2 million to set up and millions of pounds of resource funding over the time ahead. The Minister has been unable to produce one scintilla of evidence that setting up that managing authority will improve educational outcomes in the controlled sector.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. I listened to the Education Minister and the Member chat about that — it might have been yesterday. My understanding was that, in his answer to the Member, the Education Minister said that there was clear evidence from principals across the controlled sector who were calling for that controlled sector body. Does the Member not accept that school principals are experts in education?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Pat, I remind you and all other Members who wish to speak — even those who intervene — that this is a Budget Bill debate. If you do not mind, please get back to the Budget, even if it is to talk about Education.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat as sin, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

My issue in raising that was the cost to the public purse of setting up something for which there is no supporting evidence. There has been no academic research. That is what we need to see. I will leave it at that. I have not seen any evidence so far.

In order to fund all his so-called priorities, the Education Minister is taking aim at our most vulnerable learners. At the direction of the DUP, the EA is looking at a cost-cutting exercise around the future of one-to-one classroom assistant support. All that is happening while schools struggle with escalating special educational needs pressures, classroom assistants are deeply anxious about their future and principals and teachers face relentless workload pressures. Of course, the Education Minister highlights funding pressures. We all recognise the growth in demand, particularly in special educational needs. However, it is not unreasonable to ask whether the more than £3 billion — £3 billion — that is already allocated is being deployed in the right way. Efficiency in transformation must be reflected in decisions that prioritise learning and support for children and young people.

In Education, every pound must be focused on delivering better results and opportunities for our young people. The priority has to be supporting vulnerable learners and backing the teachers and classroom assistants, who work tirelessly every day in our schools. In the challenging financial context, our duty is clear: secure fair funding.

A few years ago, Sinn Féin was being accused of economic illiteracy, and there was always talk of a begging bowl. I am glad to see that every party in the Assembly is now on board with the assertion that we have been underfunded by the British Government for decades. The cost of running this place is still not being met by the British Exchequer. I welcome the fact that other parties have moved on to our ground.

In that challenging financial context, our duty is clear. It is to secure fair funding, spend it wisely and ensure that we prioritise our vital public services.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Sure. I will give way.

Mr Kingston: The Member has plenty of time. Does he agree that it is also important that we do what we can to grow our economy and to play up the strengths of Northern Ireland and what it offers so that we secure foreign direct investment?

Mr Sheehan: Of course I agree with that. In fact, the regional economy in the North is outperforming that of every other region in the UK at the moment, apart from, I think, the south-east. I do not know why you thought that I would disagree, but there you go.

Sin mise críochnaithe. Sin a bhfuil le rá agam.

Mr McMurray: I will try to keep between the tramlines. If I need any lessons in filibustering, I will go to Mr Frew, because he gave a good lesson in it earlier.

I speak in my capacity as the Alliance Party's infrastructure spokesperson. Infrastructure affects us all in our everyday lives, and we all know the pressures that the Department is under from roads, waste water and flood alleviation. The Department is responsible for some of the most important functions in our society, but people feel, rightly, that they are being let down.

DFI got its largest capital budget in the history of devolution in 2025-26, and that funding should have been prioritised to where it was needed most. Instead, we have crumbling roads and a waste water system that has turned large parts of Northern Ireland into no-go areas for investment and housebuilding. DFI has a massive role to play in tackling climate change and in protecting our environment, but, again, it is falling far short.

I shall rehearse some of the issues that the Department faces as a result of financial pressures. Only last week, we debated at length the dreadful state of our roads and the long-standing neglect that they have suffered. We can see accelerated deterioration as a result of climate change and the inclement weather that comes with it. There was broad agreement that we need to invest more in maintaining what is a vital asset, but we cannot ignore the fact that we also need to invest much more in tackling climate change. Such investment needs to be directed at achieving modal shift and upgrading the public transport fleet to using less polluting technologies.

We also need to invest better. We heard recently that the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) found no evidence that spending on active travel has significantly increased uptake. That is the case not only because little is spent on it but because active travel schemes were poorly prioritised. Some in the Chamber may feel that active travel is a nice add-on that should not be a priority when there are roads to fix, but pitting road maintenance and active travel against each other is a false economy. Both are vital responsibilities of the Department for Infrastructure, and both need to be properly funded. We will never achieve the modal shift that we so badly need if we do not put in place vital infrastructure. As things stand, neither roads nor active travel are funded to the level that is required.

Translink is facing an equally dire situation. Increased demand for concessionary fares has put even more pressure on its budget, but, so far, the Minister has done little to address the threat. The company expects to make a significant operating loss in this financial year, to the point at which it may not be able to meet its day-to-day expenditure requirements.

I have not mentioned Northern Ireland Water (NIW) yet. Waste water infrastructure is one of the biggest issues holding this country back. The argument about the impact of our crumbling waste water infrastructure is well rehearsed, but, because the debate is on the Budget Bill, I shall focus on NI Water's finances only. NI Water has said that its 2025-26 funding forecast is below the minimum viable level for a utility of its size. It advised the Committee of an estimated shortfall of approximately £735 million in capital funding and a further estimated shortfall of £49 million in resource funding over the Budget period 2026-29. That sits between the need that was independently assessed by the Utility Regulator and the funding that the utility believes that it might receive over the next few years.

The Minister's three-pronged approach has unlocked some capacity for homes, but it has done little to address the fundamental constraints that NI Water faces.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. It is good to see somebody else from the Infrastructure Committee, aside from Harry and me. The Minister relies a lot on the three-pronged approach that the Member has just mentioned. Given that he has raised an incredibly serious issue about Northern Ireland Water's funding, is he confident that the three-pronged approach will work?

Mr McMurray: It is not for me to say whether it will work, but, at this point, no: one prong outweighs the other two prongs. That is the nettle that has to be grasped, and it will be up to the Minister to develop and articulate her ideas about that.

In order to help to address the devastating state of Lough Neagh and Belfast lough, in-year funding injections have allowed for limited works in different areas across the Infrastructure portfolio, but such one-off injections are inevitably dwarfed by the huge scale of the shortfall that NI Water and DFI Roads face. The large-scale works that are needed to turn our infrastructure around cannot be delivered by an on-off, drip feed of resources. Better solutions are needed.

I turn to Department of Justice matters. Whilst the Executive's agreement to set aside funding for PSNI data breach settlements is welcome progress, I draw attention to the outstanding exceptional pressures in the region of £120 million that the Department faces, which relate mainly to the McCloud pension remedy and the settlement of holiday pay claims. It is unclear when those will crystallise, but it is clear that they cannot be absorbed in the Department's general budget allocation. A solution must be found in collaboration with the Minister of Finance.

The Department of Justice funds access to justice, building safer communities, our Prison Service, reducing offending rates, support for our Courts and Tribunals Service and the PSNI. It deals with prevention, protection and the aftermath of much of what we deal with as a society. It is all vital work.

As my colleagues and I frequently say, the Department of Justice has been historically underfunded. Given that so much of the work is demand-led —.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member's taking an intervention. Does he agree that, like every other Department, the Department of Justice has a responsibility to ensure that it saves money where it can? For almost seven years, I have been raising with the Minister the need to address ill-health retirement and injury-on-duty issues and to change legislation in order to save millions of pounds in her Department. That is money that is being paid to police officers who should not be getting it, so it is being lost to her Department. The Minister needs to take responsibility and bring forward legislation that will save her millions of pounds.

Mr McMurray: Thank you for the intervention. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to continue to work constructively with the Member.

Given that so much of the work is demand-led, only around 3% of the Justice budget is discretionary. That means that services are incredibly stretched. The Justice Minister, Naomi Long, has sought to prioritise allocations on the basis of the values of a victim-centred justice system, but we cannot continue to underfund Justice while spending elsewhere can be improved.

Mr McGrath: I do not intend to speak for long. I will just put a particular slant on the issue of the Health budget and our system, which looks back at the Budget over the past year. We often think that Budget debates are about the year ahead, but this one puts in proper order the decisions that have been taken over the past year.

It is evident that there are many problems in the health service and that those problems remain as a result of two issues.

The first issue is the underfunding of the health service. Even though — this is the anomaly — it gets the largest slice of the Budget here, that does not reflect the massive scale of the need in our community for people to avail themselves of health services for treatment, whether that is because of waiting times in emergency departments or as a result of waiting lists. There is a backlog in and underfunding of our mental health services, people are desperately waiting for ambulances, there are problems for people in accessing GP services and with the funding of community pharmacies, and Fire and Rescue Service funding also comes out of the Department of Health's budget. The list goes on, and, in every element, there is a shortage. When there is a shortage in the Department of Health, it means that people are impacted on or that they will wait longer, or that, as on most occasions, they are impacted on as they wait longer.

The second issue is transformation. We have been promised health service transformation for a generation. That transformation will require funding, and I want to address that budgetary element. As I look back over the past year, I do not see an awful lot of movement towards meaningful transformation, and some of that is as a result of a lack of funds. Looking forward to real change, we need to see transformation baked into a three-year Budget, so that the service is fit for the future, will deal with the backlog and will be able to treat people in a timely manner. I do not believe that the transformation agenda has been taken forward correctly.

I do not claim to be an expert in finances and figures, but, if it is possible, I would like the Minister, in his summation, to look again at the £842 million that was reduced in the annually managed expenditure (AME) Health budget. As I understand it, that is money that can be flexed around and moved into different places. However, £842 million is not too far off 10% of the Health budget, and it has been reprofiled and moved into different places. We have to wonder how, if priorities are set at the start of a year, we end up where we are at the end of a year and with such massive movements as the year progresses. That makes the process of looking at annual budgets even more difficult. Quite often, at the start of one year, you get what you had at the end of the previous year or you move from the start of the year before. However, when there are such massive movements in-year, that makes tracking a budget very difficult. We, in the Health Committee, try our best to monitor that through the in-year processes. It is reflective of the massive changes that take place throughout the year.

I contend that it is very difficult to be strategic if you are constantly changing the platform from which you move. Our health service desperately needs strategic planning and transformation to be able to serve the people whom we represent. That massive movement of in-year money about the place means that the things that we were planning to do at the start of the year are not happening by the end of the year; we are doing something different. We are still spending the money on Health — that is not the argument — but I worry that that massive movement of money does not help us to plan the future and make our health service as responsive as it can be for the people in our communities.

Mr Martin: I will speak in my capacity as the DUP's infrastructure lead. I will focus my comments on the financial issues facing the Department for Infrastructure and the implications of inaction. The vote that we are talking about today is about money: how it is allocated and how Departments spend it. It is worth making the point, as many contributors have, that there are limited resources and, of course, infinite demand. In this case, and in all such cases, it becomes a question of how we use our limited resources and, to use an American colloquialism, how much bang we get for our buck. In economics, that is often referred to as efficiency.

Given the budget that has been provided to DFI, the Minister for Infrastructure needs to do two things: prioritise more effectively and deliver quality services more efficiently. The Department's starting resource budget for 2025-26 was £637 million, an increase of £77 million on the previous year. Its capital budget for 2025-26 was £917 million, which was the largest capital budget ever proposed for any Northern Ireland Civil Service Department and an increase of £69 million on the previous year. I remain concerned, however, that the issue is what is done with that budget. In my view, the Minister needs to consider her priorities and place money behind them.

Seldom does a day go by without us hearing someone talk about potholes. In fact, I heard this week that a minister incorporated potholes into his Sunday morning service. If that is a priority for the Minister for Infrastructure, there needs to be investment in it, but she needs to decide what her priorities are.

We discussed yesterday in the debate — some Members have reflected on it this afternoon — the fact that the Minister received £38 million in the last two months of the current financial year to spend on roads, mainly from the monitoring round, and an additional £8 million from the Finance Minister as part of a winter recovery fund. I have to ask — other Members have also wondered— whether that lends itself to strategic spend or whether it is a panicked, stopgap measure. Does it address the underlying issues that infrastructure in Northern Ireland faces or is it a hurried temporary fix, a little like some of the pothole repairs that we see in Northern Ireland? My wider concern with the strategy that the Infrastructure Minister is adopting to address the issue that my colleague across the way from South Down mentioned is with the funding gap for Northern Ireland Water. It is that sticking plaster that I have just referred to. My fear is that that solution, which the Member referred to as a three-strand or a three-pronged approach, is simply a stopgap: something that will get the Department and, perhaps, the Minister over the line until the election in May next year. She has put all her faith in what she has called the three-strand approach to solving the Northern Ireland Water crisis. I know that the SDLP Member for Newry and Armagh calls it the three-straw approach.

In summary, for those who are not on the Infrastructure Committee, there are three aspects to the approach. The first is more money from Treasury, and if we had a pound for every Member who has stood up and said that today, perhaps that would solve Northern Ireland's Budget crisis. The second is voluntary developer contributions, and the third is the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which the Committee is currently scrutinising.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed give way to the Member.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much indeed to the Member for outlining the issues at NI Water and the infrastructure requirements on the ground. Will the Member add a fourth element? That element, as it should be for all public bodies, is the efficient running, administration and management of public funds.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for his question, and I, of course, agree with him. Perhaps he is driving towards greater efficiency in Northern Ireland Water. Obviously, we had quite a critical report of NIW quite recently.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Peter. This is not a discussion on infrastructure. It is on the Budget Bill.

Mr Martin: Sorry.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know that you need to make your points like everybody else, but please refer to the Budget.

Mr Martin: I will see whether I can wind my way back into it.

How the Infrastructure budget is being spent is having a real impact. We know of the 19,000 new residential units that are unlikely to proceed any time soon because of the problem that we are discussing. Housebuilding completions have dropped to a 60-year low in Northern Ireland, so we need a solution to the financial pressures that Northern Ireland Water faces. I do not believe that the three-strand approach will be the solution to that.

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

Mr Martin: Of course I will give way to the Minister of Finance.

Mr O'Dowd: The Member may not have been in the Chamber yesterday when I made the point that NI Water and the Department for Infrastructure have unlocked 5,300 homes as part of the programme of work that he says is failing. That is more than the Utility Regulator's price control period would have unlocked.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Budget, everybody, please.

Mr Martin: I think that the Principal Deputy Speaker is making a criticism of you, Minister. Perhaps she is; I do not know. You are the Finance Minister, so I will, of course, answer your question. I was not in the Chamber yesterday for that, Minister, but I am aware that, whilst those additional homes have been unlocked, we do have a depression in the market, with developers not building new houses because they cannot get the waste water infrastructure. That has been very well documented at the Committee.

What impact is that crisis having on Northern Ireland and the general finances in Northern Ireland, and why is it relevant? It is relevant to anyone who is buying a house. Recent data from the Nationwide house price index for 2025 showed that house prices in Northern Ireland are going up 10 times the rate of house prices in London. House prices in Northern Ireland are now outstripping house prices in the Republic, which, as far as I am aware, was having a housing crisis.

Whether you are a working family or a young couple who want to buy your first house, that is the impact that that is having on house prices and finance in Northern Ireland.

The current head-in-the-sand approach is not what we need. The leader of the Opposition said earlier that Ministers are appointed to do a ministerial job, to assume the office and role and to make decisions. I am increasingly concerned that, whether you live in Strabane, Fivemiletown, Newry or Donaghadee, the impact of what we are discussing will be felt by you eventually, unless something is done about it.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Further to his point about what I said earlier about Ministers' taking responsibility, does he agree that the outworking of that is that the members of his party who are Ministers, and the Ministers from other parties, need to take responsibility and agree a multi-year Budget and, while we are at it, the investment strategy? I have significant criticisms of decisions that have been taken by the Finance Minister, but there is a draft Budget. You guys need to agree it, change it or work to change it because, if there is nothing at all, the infrastructure position is not going to get any better.

Mr Martin: I thank the leader of the Opposition for his question. I am not in the Executive or party to those discussions, but, from the conversations that I have with the private sector and people who are interested in putting foreign direct investment (FDI) into Northern Ireland, I know that that is where we would like to get to. I do not know whether that is achievable this year. The Finance Minister might tell us shortly. I certainly agree with the Member on investment security and knowing where the economy is going, and that it is wider than that.

If the Infrastructure Minister wants to bring additional ideas or concepts to the table, I, as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, am sure that the Committee will continue to work constructively with her. I am confident that the Committee would work alongside her. However, we need to solve that looming crisis for Northern Ireland. The Committee will continue to hold the Minister to account for the budgetary and strategic decisions that she makes, based on what we are talking about today, that impact on service delivery throughout Northern Ireland.

Mrs Cameron: I rise as a member of the Committee for the Executive Office and the Committee for Communities, and as a DUP Member for South Antrim. This Budget debate takes place against a challenging financial backdrop. The Executive continue to operate with funding that is significantly below what is required to meet the demand for public services. The reality of that will shape decisions not only this year but well beyond it.

I welcome the announcement by His Majesty's Treasury on the reserve claim and additional funding loan. The DUP was right to push for more support from the Treasury. It provides an immediate relief to pressures in the Health and Education budgets. I welcome the open-book approach on the back of that reserve funding for the Northern Ireland Executive, and the commitment to working with the Treasury in reviewing Executive spending and pressures. Those pressures affect every Department. I acknowledge in particular the challenges facing the Education Minister, especially around special educational needs, workforce pressures and rising demand. Those long-standing issues are widely recognised across the Executive, and they will require continued collective effort. Special educational needs provision is a key Programme for Government priority, and therefore must have funding priority.

There is broad agreement across the House on the need to move towards a multi-year Budget settlement. Greater certainty is essential if Departments are to plan effectively, deliver reform and make real progress against Programme for Government commitments. John O'Dowd's draft multi-year Budget is out for consultation. I encourage organisations from the community and voluntary sector, which will be very much affected, in particular to respond to it, especially due to the lack of a funding stream to mitigate the devastating impact of the withdrawal of the local growth fund. It is vital that the opportunity to respond to the draft multi-year Budget consultation be taken by those most affected, so that the Finance Minister has a clear picture of the impact that the draft Budget will have on their valuable work in Northern Ireland. At the same time, it is clear that future Budgets must be more closely aligned with Programme for Government priorities. For example, progress on housing supply depends on adequate capital investment, and the Communities Minister has been clear about the scale of that challenge. I am pleased that the Committee, after some deliberation, agreed to write to the Executive to support the earmarking of the full funding requirements of the social housing development programme, which reflect the Executive's housing commitments as expressed in their Programme for Government and housing supply strategy.

There is nothing more important than having a secure, energy-efficient and comfortable home — something that many of us take for granted. We are short on housing stock, and we hear every day from our constituents about the need for housing stock to be brought up to a good energy-efficient standard that is appropriate for the needs of our people, including those with disabilities. I trust that the Executive will ensure that the Minister receives the full housebuilding allocation to make those housing targets achievable, as the lack of housing impacts across all tenures in Northern Ireland. Later today, we will talk, rightly, about damp and mould in the home and the health impacts that such poor conditions have on people. We need to see adequate funding made available in order to bring homes up to an acceptable living standard; I am sure that we can all agree on that. Likewise, the delivery of priorities such as disability support, JobStart initiatives and SEN provision will require sustained and properly resourced funding streams.

From the perspective of the Executive Office, the relatively small budget presents challenges for how we deliver on the obligations placed on us. Executive Office responsibilities are inherently cross-cutting, dealing with highly sensitive issues around victims and survivors and delivery in areas such as equality, good relations and the Programme for Government. Coordination depends on strong, stable, long-term investment rather than short-term allocations. In that context, I place on record support for the work of the Executive Office in driving Programme for Government delivery and upholding statutory equality duties. Those are foundational responsibilities of the Executive, and ensuring that they are properly resourced is essential to effective and inclusive government.

I also highlight the scale and importance of the victims' payments scheme. To date, over 12,500 applications have been submitted, including around 900 from outside this jurisdiction, reflecting the far-reaching legacy of the Troubles. More than £126 million has been paid out, and the Victims' Payments Board has issued over 4,300 determinations. These figures underline the scheme's significance and the need for stable and sustainable funding so that victims can have certainty and dignity and the system can continue to operate fairly.

I understand that all our Departments face incredible financial pressures. There remains a clear need for reform, including transformation, efficiencies and ensuring that the size and structure of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is appropriate to the demands placed on it. That work must proceed alongside efforts to secure a fairer funding settlement.

I also emphasise the urgent need for meaningful investment in Northern Ireland Water infrastructure. Capacity constraints are already restricting housing development and economic growth, and there are environmental consequences, particularly for Lough Neagh and our wider waterways. Recent debates in the House have related to my constituency of South Antrim, where residents have been flooded in Antrim town and Dunadry. Those residents continually live off their nerves on rain watch, waiting for the next invasion of contaminated waters that destroy homes. The need to upgrade water and sewerage infrastructure to ensure that it has capacity, including in extreme weather conditions, is vital. That is also required if we are to ensure that we continue to build the much-needed properties for our homes.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member very much for taking an intervention. She properly highlighted something that I forgot to mention, which is the impact of the sewerage issue in Northern Ireland. I cited the fact that it impacts on house prices, but she has raised the fact that it impacts on our landscape, including Lough Neagh and a whole range of things. Does she agree, therefore, that it is a multifaceted problem and one that the Infrastructure Minister has to grasp, because it has reach beyond Infrastructure and into DAERA in particular, since it deals with pollution?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that intervention. I agree wholeheartedly. We have Lough Neagh in my constituency of South Antrim, and, every summer, we see the blue-green algal blooms coming up. We know of the complications, environmental and otherwise, caused by sewage flowing into those waterways. That and a combination of other issues cause the problem to literally surface whenever the sun shines.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member taking an intervention. I am sure that the Education Minister and the Communities Minister do not want to give up any of their budgets. Given her earlier commentary about not asking the British Government for any more money because, "How dare we?", does the Member agree, and might she like to put that agreement on record, that the British Government underfund us? Does the Member agree that they underfund Infrastructure, Education, Communities and every other Department here? They underfund our public services across the board.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that intervention. I am quite sure that the DUP has always made the case that the required funding has not been made available, and we will continue to lobby to ensure that we get the required funds.

I welcome the work that is being taken forward by the Communities Minister on tacking benefit fraud. The ability for the Executive to retain a proportion of the savings generated through that work presents a practical opportunity to strengthen our overall financial position and deserves continued support. It is right and proper that we do not prop up or ignore criminality. We support and encourage those who are in need to claim the benefits that help them in very difficult circumstances at periods in their lifetime, but we should not sit back and idly ignore the fact that some people act outside the law. By clamping down on all such activities, we will, in turn, claw back a proportion of the savings. We will then be able to use that to, for instance, retrofit and build more houses, which are so desperately needed.

I welcome the commitment in the Budget to funding the PSNI. Police officer numbers have been far too low for far too long, and, as we all know, that investment is necessary for supporting front-line policing, community safety and, indeed, public confidence.

None of us envies the role of the Finance Minister in having to balance the figures in Northern Ireland. The Budget reflects difficult decisions taken in difficult circumstances. While challenges remain, the Budget will allow Departments to continue to operate and to deliver essential services. I therefore support the motion and reiterate that there is a need for a Budget settlement that provides certainty, supports reform and enables the delivery of our shared Programme for Government priorities. I encourage the Minister to concentrate on those agreed key priorities for public service delivery and to ensure that funding is made available for the Executive-agreed Programme for Government commitments.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of the Budget Bill as an SDLP representative for Foyle. The legislation authorises spending for the closing financial year but also allows us to address issues that have long-term consequences. One such issue is funding for the expansion of Magee campus in Derry and the sustainability of higher education more broadly. Magee is not simply a university campus; for the north-west, it represents opportunities, skills and economic growth, and it is central to regional balance and the city's ability to retain its young people.

There has been genuine progress at Magee, and that deserves recognition. There are now 6,505 students studying at Magee, which is exciting. We are on the cusp of making that university sustainable in a way that it should have been for many years. That headcount figure is important to us in itself, but that growth tells us something important: demand exists, Magee is expanding and students want to study there. However, growth of that scale cannot be sustained without financial certainty, and that is why the Magee example is important to the debate. Funding remains the defining issue for Magee's future development: the task force update made that very clear. Expansion requires stable, predictable and long-term support. We have been told that the proposed multi-year Budget includes £46·1 million in match funding for the expanded teaching block at the school of medicine, but we still do not have agreement on the Budget.

That uncertainty creates real and long-term planning difficulties.

The challenge is not unique to Magee; it reflects the wider pressures across the higher education sector. Institutions cannot continue to operate within cycles of uncertainty, and students cannot continue to shoulder the consequences of funding instability. We have already seen what can happen when the sector is not adequately supported. The proposed rise in tuition fees causes students and their families genuine concern. I know many students who really suffer as a result of the loans that they have taken out, and that suffering persists right up until they have to make decisions about buying a house later in life. It is therefore really important to get those things right. The SDLP opposed the proposal, because access to education should not be determined by financial pressures. Such a barrier could prevent people in my constituency and people in other deprived areas of Northern Ireland from participating in education.

That is why the Minister for the Economy must act with urgency. The sector requires clarity, stability and a sustainable funding model. Delays and short-term approaches only deepen existing pressures. Magee's growth shows what is possible. What is required now for Magee and for higher education more widely is funding certainty that matches progress. The demand is proven, the case is clear, and we need the Executive to resolve the situation.

I have heard so many Members in the Chamber today complain about the British Government's failure to fund Northern Ireland. We all agree that it has been underfunded. We say that it is underfunded on the basis of need, yet, when money comes into Northern Ireland, the spending of it is never prioritised on that basis. It is never prioritised on the basis of need. If we demand that prioritisation from the British Government, we should demand it of those who sit around the Executive table as well.

Mr Gaston: Today the House is being asked to place statutory authority behind enormous sums of public money. Clause 1 of the Budget Bill authorises the use of £32,672,027,000 of resources for the year ending 31 March 2026. Clause 3 authorises the issue of £28,100,470,000 in cash from the Consolidated Fund. Those are extraordinary figures, and they come, of course, from the United Kingdom block grant. For all the talk from nationalism of British austerity, Northern Ireland continues to receive significantly more per head than England does. The issue before us again today is not whether the money exists — the Bill tells me that it does — but how it is spent and, in some cases, how it is not spent.

Let me look briefly at the Department for Infrastructure, where many of people's frustrations lie. That Department cannot fix potholes or grit roads in rural locations leading to schools. It also oversees Northern Ireland Water, whose infrastructure is at capacity in many towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland, bringing construction to a standstill. That is a major fear that I have, and it will strangle our economy. It is, however, the very Department that handed back £134 million of capital moneys owing to the collapse of the A5 project, after it was struck down by the climate change legislation that this place voted through. You could not make it up. The farce continues from mandate to mandate.

I ask Members to turn to schedule 1 — pages 28 to 30 —and read the Executive Office Estimate to see what sits within its remit. There is £1 million allocated for an Irish Language Commissioner, an office established jointly by the DUP and Sinn Féin. We have another £1 million for a Climate Commissioner, again as a result of Sinn Féin and DUP agreement. In returning to the Executive, the DUP maintained its claim that the Irish Sea border was gone, yet, on page 30 of the Budget Bill, we see money from a Department that it jointly runs going towards the outworking of the Windsor framework.

Yesterday, Dr Aiken observed rightly that expenditure relying on the sole authority of the Budget Act has fallen since we last debated the Estimates and a Budget Bill. I acknowledge that, as I acknowledged it during the debate yesterday. However, it is worth observing that there is over £17 million of such expenditure. A massive £15 million of that sits in the Executive Office, and it includes all the money spent on asylum seekers.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. Even when we disagree, he is willing to have a debate.

The Member talked about the money being spent on the Windsor framework. That is a consequence of Brexit, so, in a sense, I agree with him in that I would rather that it was not spent at all.

As has been said, whatever your view on the extent to which the British Government are responsible for the position that we find ourselves in, we are ultimately reliant on the British Government for the block grant. They spent more than £100 million of public money on an operating model for the border between GB and the EU — Dover/Calais — and they had to abandon it. Does the Member agree that that is a waste of public money?

Mr Gaston: The money spent on the Irish Sea border comes courtesy of Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance, all the "Remoaners", all the Remainers and all those who called for rigorous implementation. That is a cost. There, Mr O'Toole: you got your bingo money tonight. That came at a cost, thanks to those sitting to my left. They seem to champion that and to trumpet it, but that is what they have delivered: money coming out of our capital spend to clean up a mess because we did not get the Brexit that we should have; because we have the protocol; and because of the rigorous implementers. They are the ones who cost us money.

The £15 million that sits in the Executive Office includes money for asylum seekers. There is no greater concern in many working-class areas throughout Northern Ireland than losing their local identity, yet here we are, debating the passing of a Budget with over £4 million going into immigration issues, as referenced on page 29, lines 39 to 40. That, instead of bringing legislation to the House for proper debate, is how the Executive have chosen to allocate the money.

Let us look at ending violence against women and girls. That is a real concern in every community across Northern Ireland. As I said yesterday, the scheme has £6·077 million allocated to it in the Budget but Mrs O'Neill and Mrs Little-Pengelly do not know and do not want to know how much of that will go to groups that include transgender women. To put it into language that everybody can understand, money allocated to that flagship policy will support groups that support men seeking access to female-only spaces. That is not combating violence against women and girls; it is creating concerns in our community.

Nodding through spending, as the Assembly will today, without clarifying such issues and without legislation in place is not how a proper legislature should operate. If the Executive wish to fund new structures, new commissioners and new immigration programmes, they should introduce legislation and subject those policies to scrutiny before the money flows or is released to them.

As I have said, clause 1 highlights the fact that Northern Ireland receives substantial support because of our place in the United Kingdom, yet, when we look around, we see record waiting lists; crumbling roads; and, when the Finance Minister launched the consultation on the Budget, an Education Minister who rushed to the press to air his grave concerns that the allocation to his Department left him in an impossible position. I think today of classroom assistants, many of whom have reached out to me to ask what the Minister's announcement means for them. We should prioritise those services and not the waste that this place loves to blow money on.

People can read in the Executive Office budget on page 29 about Climate Commissioner structures, Windsor framework coordination, identity offices and cultural commissioners. They all come with bells and whistles attached, but they are not the public's priorities, and many, including me, regard them as wastage. They do nothing to address the pressures that ordinary people experience in their daily lives and nothing to ease the current cost-of-living squeeze.

The Bill authorises billions. It gives legal force to spending across an ever-expanding Executive Office remit. It provides for spending on an Irish Language Commissioner, a Climate Commissioner, Windsor framework coordination and asylum integration programmes, but the Executive Office cannot tell me when a community in transition becomes transitioned. Since 2018, over £26 million has been poured into the same communities, while other communities have been starved of money. At what point do we say, "Enough is enough", and start to scrutinise what the money is spent on?

The Executive Office's remit includes seeking contributions from institutions towards the cost of redress. My experience of seeing that in action is underwhelming. The House needs to do more; it should not always be left to the state to pick up the bills. That may be the core element of Sinn Féin's economic policies, but more needs to be done to go after the perpetrators, who must contribute to redress for the pain and suffering that was inflicted on many people throughout Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland benefits greatly from its place in the United Kingdom. The Budget provides for just under £33 billion of public spending, which works out at roughly £17,000 for every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland per year. That is an odd kind of austerity. The people of the Province are entitled to ask whether they each get £17,000-worth of value from public services: I believe that the answer is a resounding no. I will vote against the Budget, as it simply does not deliver value for money. The priorities of the Executive are not to look after the hard-pressed in our society, and that is why I will not support the Budget that has been presented to us today.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Our last contributor is the Minister of Finance, who will conclude and make a winding-up speech on the debate.

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

I thank the Members, Chairs and Deputy Chairs who have contributed to the Second Stage debate on the Budget Bill.

In yesterday's Supply resolution debate, I said that, while the Executive faced many challenges, it was important to note the achievements since restoration in 2024. Over £1·4 billion of extra funding for services has been secured. Some of that funding has been invested in health service waiting lists, as I mentioned yesterday. Over 200,000 additional elective care activities have been delivered. Some 19,000 families have benefited from the childcare subsidy scheme, which has generated £19 million of savings for those who take part. There has been enough investment in waste water capacity to unlock more than 5,000 extra properties across the North, which is more than were in the Utility Regulator’s plan for the same period. That and the other achievements have to be acknowledged.

Pay awards have been delivered for health workers, teachers, the police, civil servants and NI Water workers. Some £100 million of funding in the 2025-26 Budget is earmarked for the building of new social homes, and there is an additional £38·9 million of in-year funding to supplement that work. I will come back to the issue of housing. There was a further £10·5 million to help people with disabilities adapt their homes. For clarification, when I mentioned a figure of £49-odd million for that project in yesterday's debate, I was including the additional £39 million of funding for social housing that had been secured in-year: the actual figure for disability adaptations is £10·5 million.

That shows that, despite the financial challenges faced, we are making progress and delivering real change that creates hope and brings about tangible improvements in people's day-to-day lives.

As Members know, I have brought forward my proposals for a multi-year Budget. It is clear that a significant gap remains between our ambitions and the resources at our disposal. Bridging that gap will require adequate funding from Westminster for our public services — despite Mr Gaston's view that we are properly funded — as well as reform and transformation in how we design and deliver public services. The open-book process in which we are currently engaged with Treasury provides an opportunity to strengthen our case for further funding for public services and to present to the British Government a fuller understanding of the significant challenges that we are facing. It is essential that the Executive grasp the opportunity presented now to set a multi-year Budget that provides Departments and public-sector organisations with certainty and the ability to make long-term plans and to enable strategic investment that delivers lasting benefits for our economy, environment and society.

I will go through some Members' comments on how we are moving forward. Mr O'Toole referred to the Financial Provisions Bill. I thank the Finance Committee officials for their work on the Bill. Once the Committee Stage is completed, my officials will be working at pace to bring the Bill through its further stages. The provisional timetable is that the stages will be completed before the autumn, but, of course, every effort will be made to progress that work more quickly, if possible. A lot will depend on the issues that are raised as the Bill goes through Committee and in the next stages of the legislative process. Officials have indicated that it is their aim to have the Bill completed by autumn, but a lot of that depends on getting Executive agreement on amendments etc, and on the will of the House, obviously.

Mr Frew was going along quite smoothly. He was making his points, arguing his case, and then, as we say in Lurgan, he went off on one. [Laughter.]

I do not know whether he got a text from on high, or whatever, saying, "Don't forget to have a go at the Shinners", but he dutifully responded and had a go at the Shinners.

Mr Frew: At every opportunity.

Mr O'Dowd: His contribution and Diane Dodds's contribution were interesting — in fact, in some ways, they overlapped. Diane had a go at the Shinners as well, but she put it in a different context. I will put this into context. Paul was, understandably, defensive of his party's Ministers and their Departments. Towards the end of his comments, he claimed that I was blocking a couple of initiatives — neither of which I am blocking, by the way. In relation to housing, he suggested that I am blocking Housing Executive proposals to purchase homes that could be used to house those who need temporary accommodation etc. That is simply not true. I am aware of the proposals, and I believe that there is merit in them, not least making sure that those who need emergency accommodation can receive it. There is an issue relating to the proposed rent that can be charged on those properties, and discussions with Treasury are required to resolve it. My officials are actively pursuing that matter with Treasury, as are officials in the Department for Communities. I hope that that matter can be resolved quickly.

According to Mr Frew, I am refusing to properly fund social housing. In 2025-26, between reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) loans, direct funding and top-ups from the monitoring rounds, the Department for Communities received £234 million for social housing, and there is always the option for the Communities Minister, whoever that might be, to provide further funding. My proposals for the three-year Budget are £444 million over three years, plus the Department for Communities has a general allocation over those three years of £570 million. Again, the Communities Minister can, if he so wishes, provide more funding for social housing. It is about prioritising, within your Department, what you decide to do.

That brings me to the comments from Diane Dodds on what the DUP expects from the Health Minister. These rules should apply to all Ministers. If you expect something from the Health Minister, let us apply those expectations to all Ministers. She asked him not to be continually asking for more money but to prioritise his budget; to deliver value for money; to provide greater transparency; to adopt a duty of candour on the Department's spend; and to bring about transformation. If the DUP expects that from the Health Minister, whose duty, and whose Department's role, is, at the end of the day, to save lives, it is only right and proper that we expect those same standards from all Ministers. When colleagues on the opposite Benches are challenging me — they have a right to do so; it is part of their role — about what I am or am not doing for their Ministers, I ask them to reflect on Diane's comments about what is expected from the Health Minister. I expect that from all Ministers.

We are making significant progress on alignment with the PFG, both in this year's Budget and in the three-year Budget. I think that there are Members — this comes across regularly in the Chamber — who want to give me more powers when it comes to how I govern other Ministers. I would take on those powers, but I am not so sure that your Ministers would be as keen as you are to give me them. We have regulations, legislation, codes of conduct and Standing Orders that relate to how the Executive do their business and what role each Minister has. I have a role in setting the Budget, but I do not mark Ministers' homework. That is not my role, but I will tell you who does do that. I have said before in the Chamber that the media and others do not pay enough attention to the role of scrutiny Committees in this place, which mark Ministers' homework and scrutinise them and their spends. That is where a lot of the challenges that were presented to me today need to take place. In many cases, that is taking place. The Committees deserve much more credit than they are given beyond the realms of this place.

That brings me to Andrew McMurray's comments, although this point does not specifically relate to him. It is not the role of Committees to simply echo what arm's-length bodies tell them and then come to the Chamber and say, "Arm's-length body A needs this, arm's-length body B needs that and arm's-length body C needs the other". It is the role of scrutiny Committees to scrutinise what arm's-length bodies are saying to them and to challenge, if need be, the figures that they are presenting to Committees; how they are spending public moneys; how they intend to move forward; what transformation programmes they are involved in; and how they are taking on the reality of the financial challenges that we face and trying to do things differently.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. Further to that comment, I am interested in the Minister's view on this. We can agree that we would like more money, and we can be sceptical about the Treasury and the funding model that applies to this place. He and I agree on the long-term future. However, does he also agree — I have kind of heard this from him and have certainly heard it from his officials in Committee — that, given the way in which our model works, there is sometimes an incentive for officials in other Departments to profile in spending that they have always profiled in, even if it is not a high priority in the context of what the Executive are doing, and even if it is not necessarily delivering the best possible outcomes, whether they relate to poverty reduction, healthcare or whatever else? Is he concerned about that? Is he trying to tackle it? Will that be looked at during the open-book exercise? By the way, that is not a left/right question, and nor is it a question about underfunding. Is he concerned that stuff has always been profiled in a certain way because people do not want to lose any of their budget?

Mr O'Dowd: There has been a practice in the past, which continues, in relation to how budget challenges are presented. No Department comes forward and says, "I need less money". That is maybe unfair to Departments, because who is going to do that in the current climate? This is where Ministers, Committees and individual Departments come in. Ministers sign off on all bids, so they have to scrutinise them and be more realistic about what is achievable in the period ahead. As I said, our ambitions far outstretch —

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Just one second.

— our funding, but we can still do things. However, the strategy that is known as shroud-waving does exist and can colour and cloud a debate about setting budgets. My role as Minister, and that of my officials, is to try to get underneath that. There is certainly a role for scrutiny Committees. I am not saying that they do not do it, but the point that I was making about arm's-length bodies and others needs to be driven home. It is not the role of a scrutiny Committee or a member of a scrutiny Committee to come here and simply echo what they have been told. They have a role to interrogate what they have been told.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for giving way. I will pay due deference in that regard. However, as a member of said Committee, when arm's-length body A comes in and says, "This is what we need to do", arm's-length body B comes in and says, "We have looked at this, and this is what we believe is required", and then arm's-length body C comes in and says, "We cannot progress whatever industry needs us to progress because of A and B", what is the member to do?

Mr O'Dowd: Let me put it in this context: if DFI had simply accepted that NI Water needed more money and could not progress without significant amounts of money, 5,300 homes would not have been unlocked for future connection. The Infrastructure Minister has said, "I accept that NI Water is underfunded. What can we do to make progress?", and she has brought in the three-pronged approach. That approach is working. The very fact that more homes have been unlocked than were in the Utility Regulator's plan proves that it is working. The Infrastructure Minister will bring her recommendations in relation to developer proposals in due course, and we will see where that brings us. As I understand from the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, the sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) Bill is in front of the Committee. Those are three tangible programmes of work that are making a real difference. If you get into the mindset of saying, "We have no money, so we cannot do anything", then you will not do anything.

I will move on to general comments from other Members. Obviously, Health has huge challenges. Mrs Dodds set out how she believes the Minister should be held to account on that and what can be done. I share her concerns about the capital programme in Health, particularly with regard to the mother-and-baby hospital. It is not justifiable in anybody's mind. However, the challenge that was put to me was what I was going to do about it. I do not have any direct powers to do anything in that regard other than to raise my concerns with the Minister. I know that the Minister has raised his concerns, and there has been protracted engagement with the Belfast Trust both at ministerial level and by the Committee, which has played a huge part in that as well. I will continue to raise my concerns about that.

In my opinion, there is a broader aspect here with regard to capital delivery etc. A direct question was put to me about CPD's signing off costs that it knows will have to be changed. CPD and the Department of Health estates should not, will not and do not — I have been informed — submit costs that are known to be out of date. As the Member will know, the costs of capital programmes can change very quickly and rise very dramatically. There is definitely a scrutiny role across that for the Committee, for the broader Executive and for me as Finance Minister. However, I do not have a direct pathway by which to intervene on those matters.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. It is a really serious issue, and I will make very serious points about it. We are talking about a maternity hospital that is costing double what it was anticipated to cost and could now, potentially, be four and a half years late in its delivery. That is unacceptable in anybody's book. We are also talking about the mental health unit in the grounds of the City Hospital having to be taken apart bit by bit so that we can look at the damp and mould in it. The trust took that building in 2018. We have the children's hospital, which is late again and hugely expensive. I am told that the regulations have since changed, which will potentially — almost inevitably — require more funding.

Surely, you have to be interested in that. Surely, we have to get to the stage where we say collectively, "We need to take an independent look at what is happening with those buildings".

Mr O'Dowd: I assure the Member that I take an interest in the matter and share her frustration at the costs and delays. It is not only about the costs and delays but about the very fact that patients and staff are not getting into the premises to enjoy the modern facilities. I am just pointing out that I do not have any direct role in holding the Department of Health to account on that matter. I do not have any direct control over it. Collectively, the Executive, the Committee and others should play a part in ensuring that there is a proper return on public investment in a timely manner and that, where mistakes are made and where faults lie, accountability kicks in.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Minister take an intervention?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Minister agree that the Member opposite, having been a Minister herself, should know exactly what a Finance Minister's remit and powers are over any other Minister or Department? Does he agree that it is necessary that the Health Minister and the Department are held to account in relation to all the issues that were outlined?

Mr O'Dowd: While we are on the subject of the Department of Health, I turn to Colin's comments on the AME funding. I think that it was around £820 million. As the Member will know, that funding is not used for day-to-day spending. The reduction was mainly due to two accounting adjustments in Health, as there has been provision in the Health accounts for two items that are no longer required due to court cases having been successfully litigated in the Department's favour. I will get the Member more detail on that.

I have spoken about the infrastructure issues. Understandably, a lot of issues were raised. A lot of them fall within the role of individual Ministers and Departments. I do not think that it is appropriate for me to go through them. It is not the role of the Finance Minister to mark the homework of individual Ministers.

A number of infrastructure issues were raised, and it is understandable, given the amount of money that was handed back in relation to the A5, that that matter came up regularly. Mr Kingston raised it and questioned why the money was not used earlier in the financial year. The reality was that there were significant, complex legal issues to overcome before the Department for Infrastructure could return the moneys to me for redistribution. The Department was dealing with land compensation etc. It was not clear until very late in the day exactly how much money would be handed back in this financial year. That is the reason for those delays.

The Department for Infrastructure is not the only Department to hand back significant moneys. The Department of Education handed back £24·8 million throughout the year from the Strule project. Again, that is a reflection of the challenges in delivering major capital programmes.

The scale and size of the Civil Service and the need for work on that issue was raised. During Question Time, I was asked about the Audit Office report. The Department will respond to that report in due course. Work is ongoing on all those matters.

I think that I have covered the generality of the issues that were raised in the debate. I welcome the fact that there seems to be unanimity among Members, apart from Mr Gaston, on a unified approach to the British Government's need to properly fund this place. Pat Sheehan summed it up well when he said secure proper funding and "spend it wisely". That should be the strapline for us all. That should be the way forward in ensuring that we have proper funding for this place. There is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that that money is spent wisely and accounted for.

I will continue to debate those issues, but I will draw my remarks to a close. I tried to respond to as many individual issues as possible and the broad thrust of the debate. It is imperative that the legislation that we debated continues its passage through the Assembly so that public services can continue to be delivered to our citizens without delay or interruption. I ask Members to support the Budget Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2025-26 and the Vote on Account for 2026-27.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. The Second Stage debate on the Budget Bill started at 11.08 am. It has been a very good debate. I put on the record that Timothy Gaston was the only Member throughout the whole debate who spoke to the schedules to the Bill. I did not agree with one word that he said, and I do not think that anybody else did, but he was the only Member who properly referred to the Bill.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston's objection has been recorded.

Gerry, I am glad that you are in the Chamber. I have been trying to get you since yesterday. I want to offer you an apology. During the Casement Park debate on 17 February, I said that I would refer a matter to the Speaker, and I did so. I checked Hansard, and my intervention fell below the standards expected of someone in the Speaker's Chair. It would have been dead on if I had been sitting on the Benches, but I cannot say such a thing in the Speaker's Chair. I did not call you a liar, but what I said was not appropriate for someone in the Speaker's Chair to say. I therefore offer you my apologies. Hopefully, that has been acknowledged.

That concludes the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. Amendments to the Bill may be submitted to the Bill Office up to 9:30 am tomorrow.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank you for your help with progressing the Budget Bill.

Standing Order 39(2) requires:

1998 Act

I request that the Assembly agree to the suspension of Standing Order 39(2) in order to allow the Bill to complete its passage in a shorter time frame and to enable the Bill's Final Stage to occur on Tuesday 10 March 2026.

When the Budget Bill completes its passage through the Assembly, there are still further steps to be completed before Royal Assent is secured. There will be an opportunity for the Assembly to discuss in full issues relating to the Budget Bill at its upcoming Final Stage on, if the motion is agreed, Tuesday 10 March 2026.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: When I said that there was no time limit on the debate, everybody's shoulders dropped. No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak. Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been notified by the nominating officer of the DUP that, with immediate effect, Tom Buchanan has replaced Diane Forsythe as Deputy Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee and that Diane Forsythe has replaced Gary Middleton as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy.

Members, please take your ease while we change the personnel at the top Table.

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

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

Mr Nesbitt: The need for a legislative consent motion (LCM) has arisen as a result of the need to extend the provisions of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill to Northern Ireland. The Bill was tabled in the House of Commons on 13 January 2026. It introduces a UK-wide duty on all providers of medical training to prioritise applications from United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland (ROI) medical schools. Given that the Bill applies to devolved health and social care (HSC) matters, an LCM is required to extend its provisions to Northern Ireland.

I have apologised to the Speaker and the Health Committee for the short window that was afforded for scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill, and I extend that apology to Members. Unfortunately, the emergency nature of the legislation, coupled with the need to secure Executive approval for the tabling of the LCM, hindered my Department's ability to comply with the usual protocols. Having secured Executive approval on 12 February 2026, I wrote to the Health Committee that very day to advise it of my intention to table a legislative consent motion. I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the motion on 19 February 2026 and to the Speaker for facilitating today's debate at short notice. I fully appreciate the Committee's decision not to adopt a position on the LCM.

I will briefly explain the policy background. The Bill introduces a UK-wide duty on all providers of medical training to prioritise applications from UK or ROI medical schools. Its application to devolved health and social care matters necessitates an LCM to extend the provisions here. The Bill's policy aim is to ensure that there is an employment pathway for United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland graduates of UK medical training programmes. It aims to implement the UK Government's commitment, as set out in the 10-year health plan for England, to prioritise UK medical graduates for foundation training places and UK medical graduates and other doctors with significant NHS experience for speciality training places.

The Bill also includes provisions to prioritise others in a priority group that includes graduates of Irish medical schools and those of countries with which the UK has agreements on the recognition of professional qualifications and the provision of "no less favourable" access to practice. It will be possible to add to the list of countries to take account of future arrangements.

I can confirm that each of the UK nations is committed to supporting and developing a sustainable domestic supply of doctors, recognising that medicine is a global profession and that the movement of doctors from the UK to other nations and vice versa is desirable and, sometimes, necessary.

The proposed LCM asks the Assembly to endorse the Bill's extension to Northern Ireland for provisions within its legislative competence. Approving the LCM will ensure UK-wide consistency and will enhance career pathways for UK and ROI medical graduates. It will also protect UK-wide recruitment practices and ensure that there are sufficient medical foundation places for the output of all local higher education institutions. Without that provision, Northern Ireland might face increased competition for training places from international applicants and might have to withdraw from national recruitment processes, placing a significant administrative burden, with associated increased costs, on our local provider, which is the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency (NIMDTA).

I have repeatedly acknowledged the huge contribution that internationally trained doctors make to the health service, and I will continue to do so. Through the Bill, we aim to prioritise for future training posts internationally trained doctors who have significant NHS experience. That will not exclude anybody from applying for training places. While international staff will always play an important role in our health service, we are recruiting doctors from abroad when there is already a substantial pool of eligible applicants who have trained in the UK or are already employed in HSC. Those doctors are more likely to work in the health service for longer and to be better equipped to deliver healthcare that is tailored to our population, because they better understand our epidemiology.

The Bill will ensure that we have a more sustainable medical workforce that can meet the health needs of the population, meaning that we will be less reliant on an unpredictable labour market and can make best use of the substantial taxpayer investment in medical training. The Bill will reduce competition for places and give homegrown talent a path to become the next generation of HSC doctors.

If the legislation is not passed, the number of applicants to these training programmes will continue to grow and the bottlenecks into speciality training posts will worsen. To prevent that escalation and ensure that changes take effect for the current application round for posts starting in August of this year, the UK Government have asked Parliament to expedite the progress of the Bill, with the aim of achieving Royal Assent by 5 March 2026.

The content of the Bill has been widely consulted on with constitutional, equality and Windsor framework senior counsel, who have indicated that they are content with the stated policy aim, which is to ensure that there is an employment pathway for UK and ROI graduates. Due to the expedited time frame for the introduction of the Bill, public consultation has not been undertaken. On human rights and equality, as recruitment to the medical foundation and speciality training programmes is carried out on a national, UK-wide level, all data pertaining to applications is held by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in England, which has, therefore, undertaken the relevant screening. The analysis by DHSC demonstrates that, while this approach supports the aims of sustaining a domestic pipeline of doctors and ensures that all UK medical graduates can complete their basic medical education, it will likely alter the demographic composition of the foundation programme workforce over the longer term. Recognising those risks, DHSC and the devolved Administrations will ensure that they continue to monitor and evaluate the impacts of that policy.

I can advise Members that there are no known financial implications for Northern Ireland as a result of the Bill. DHSC published a regulatory impact assessment of the provisions, and I can confirm to Members that no Northern Ireland-specific impacts are anticipated beyond the general impacts that have been identified.

I am supportive of the provisions. In the interests of good government across the United Kingdom, insofar as the provisions of the Bill deal with a devolution matter, they should be considered by the UK Parliament, particularly considering the policy basis for the proposals in relation to the introduction of a UK-wide duty on all providers of medical training to prioritise applications from United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland medical schools. There is reassurance in the Bill in that the consent of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland is required before the making of regulations on matters within the Assembly's competence. The Bill will ensure the prioritisation of UK and ROI medical graduates for foundation training places, and UK medical graduates and other doctors with significant NHS or HSC experience for speciality training places. I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I am disappointed to advise the House that I cannot provide a Health Committee position on the motion regarding the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill. As today's debate is taking place just eight working days after the LCM was laid by the Department, there has been limited opportunity for the Health Committee to give proper consideration to the matter. I am sure that Members will agree that the timescales set out under Standing Orders for Committee scrutiny of LCMs are already challenging and that any reduction in that time makes proper scrutiny impossible. It is important to highlight that the Committee's disappointment was compounded by the fact that other devolved legislatures received LCM papers much earlier than we did, enabling their Committees to scrutinise the proposals and report in advance of debates on legislative consent. The Committee welcomed the Minister's written apology for the reduced scrutiny time, and we welcome the apology today in the Chamber. However, the apologies do not resolve the underlying concern that proper legislative scrutiny, which is a core function of the Assembly, was not enabled in this instance. We hope that that will not be repeated.

Setting aside the difficulties that the Committee faced in respect of the process, I wish to put on record that the Committee recognises the importance of the Bill. The proposals aim to create a clear framework for the prioritisation of applicants to foundation and speciality medical places, ensuring that there is a clear employment pathway for British and Irish medical graduates. Ensuring appropriate access to training places is vital for workforce planning, patient care and the stability of health systems across these islands. Those are matters that the Committee takes seriously.

The Committee received a briefing from departmental officials on the LCM last Thursday, and I will bring to the attention of the Chamber a number of issues that were raised during our discussions. The Committee questioned officials on whether the Bill would impact on quality standards. Officials explained that quality standards would remain unchanged, advising that the best candidates would still be appointed, but from a reordered pool. The Committee asked what engagement the Department had undertaken with stakeholders here and noted that engagement was limited as a result of a push by the British Government to expedite progress on the Bill.

The Committee wanted to understand how the Bill would address the specific workforce challenges in the North. Officials confirmed that workforce needs here were considered in shaping the Bill. Those included ensuring continued cross-border movement, specifically securing the inclusion of graduates from the South in the priority pool thereby reflecting our unique labour market.

Concerns were raised about the impact on our reliance on internationally trained doctors. Officials stressed that the Bill does not cut off international recruitment. Rather, it seeks to stabilise the system so that local graduates are not frozen out of training, and international doctors will continue to play a vital role in our health service. The Committee wanted to understand the impact on recruitment to some of the more-difficult-to-fill specialty training places. The Department's view was that the policy may actually help to fill harder-to-recruit specialties, such as general practice and psychiatry, by making it more attractive for internationally trained doctors who are seeking the experience needed to enter the future priority pool.

The Committee noted that all Administrations had committed to closely monitor the impact of the changes, recognising that it would take several years for the full effects of the policy to become clear.

I remind everyone that the Health Committee did not take a formal position on the merits of the LCM. The time frame simply did not allow for the examination that members wanted to undertake. The result is that the Assembly is being asked to take a position without the benefit of a Committee report — a situation that we should try to avoid in future. Such a situation should not occur. Legislative consent is not a box-ticking exercise. It is an important mechanism that protects the role of the Assembly in shaping legislation.

I will finish my Committee remarks by emphasising the importance of early engagement with Statutory Committees, particularly when legislative consent is required. When time frames are not honoured, the quality of scrutiny suffers. The Committee therefore urges the Minister to ensure that, in future, the Assembly and Committee are afforded their full and proper place in the process.

I want to make some remarks in my role as Sinn Féin's health spokesperson. Again, I emphasise that the time frame to scrutinise the LCM was short and offered limited opportunity for ourselves and others to have stakeholder engagement and properly assess the impact that the Bill could have in the North. It is important to put on the record that it is always preferable that we bring forward our own legislation. That is the best way to ensure proper scrutiny.

The departmental briefing last Thursday made clear to the Committee that evidence for the Bill was based largely on combined figures for England, Scotland, Wales and the North. I ask the Minister to provide, in his closing remarks, further information specific to the potential impact on the North. In particular, it would be helpful to understand how the proposed changes are expected to affect workforce pressures in the immediate and long term, given our current reliance on international doctors — the Minister referred to some of that in his opening remarks — and the demographic profile of the workforce in the North, as well as training capacity and the particular recruitment challenges faced here.

While I recognise that the policy intention of the Bill is to ensure that funded training places are allocated to those most likely to continue working in the health service, and I acknowledge the operational challenges that could arise from any deviation from that model, I ask the Minister to confirm whether a full screening has been undertaken in accordance with statutory requirements and whether he is satisfied that the assessment identifies no adverse or differential impacts across the section 75 groups. Also, I would like the Minister to clarify whether the flexibility provided in the Bill, specifically the power to respond to future changes in recruitment training and workforce needs, applies to each of the devolved Administrations individually, based on their unique circumstances, or whether any such changes must be initiated and led by Westminster.

It is important to state that, while the Bill may go some way towards addressing concerns that are raised by organisations such as the BMA about the earliest stages of the training pipeline, it does not provide additional opportunities for doctors approaching the end of their training. In several key specialities, such as paediatrics, the number of consultant posts continues to fall short of what is needed, despite growing waiting lists. Without a comprehensive, long-term workforce strategy that aligns training capacity with projected service needs and addresses recruitment and retention challenges, those systemic pressures will persist. There needs to be a whole-system approach.

Mr McGrath: I was not expecting to be called so quickly.

I echo the remarks that have been made about this not being the ideal way in which to do things. Last week at the Committee, we had questions that the officials did not have answers to. There were numbers in the background that I would have liked to see to give us the opportunity to scrutinise the LCM properly. Of course, we are in the strange position of being asked to discuss something today that will get Royal Assent next week. I am also cognisant of the fact that we were told that, if we do not approve it, that might create an anomaly whereby Northern Ireland goes in a different direction from the rest and ends up being the back door for people to come through to get that training, because different opportunities would be available here from those everywhere else.

I cannot help but think that the core of the issue is the 'Little Britain' attitude that has taken hold of local people's getting the opportunities first. I am glad that that has been extended to the UK and Ireland. It is always good to retain our own workforce where we can. I raised an eyebrow last week at Committee when I realised that only 10% of the places at university were for people from overseas. That means that 90% of the people in each year's intake to university whom we train in medicine are defined as the "local cohort", so it would seem odd if they were disproportionately represented in the cohort that gets the training places.

As with everything else, it is about a holistic journey in which we should try to maintain opportunities for people to train locally, work locally, provide their services locally and have their entire career locally. Nobody wants to see a local person being left in a position in which they have to travel overseas, because we are then left in a position where we train people, spend money on putting them through university and then do not give them an opportunity to train further to work here, which means that they have to go elsewhere. In other words, we spend our money to train people to go off somewhere else. If the Bill helps to reset that in a fashion, that is good.

However, we need to look at the pressures that make people who are five, 10 or 15 years into their careers say, "Do you know what? I can't be annoyed with the stress and pressure that we are under in the service that we have here. I want to go somewhere else, where it is easier to work, be that Australia, Canada or America". We need to keep our workforce here and give them a local service in which they can work, keep their work-life balance and enjoy their full working career.

On the basis of the pressure that there is to pass the Bill, we will reluctantly support the LCM. There has been a lack of scrutiny, but we will agree to it.

Mrs Dodds: I add our support for the LCM on the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill.

Like many in the House, I am concerned about the short time frame and the fact that we had so little time to look at the Bill in Committee. I understand that it was introduced and went through all its stages in the House of Commons in one day — Tuesday 27 January — and that its Third Reading will be this week, on 25 February. There may be a lesson in all that about legislation being introduced efficiently, even if the LCM was a bit late on the go.

Minister, I am keen to support the Bill, because, this year in particular, a number of young people have come into my office to say that they are about to graduate or finish training but are unsure whether they will have a job in our National Health Service here.

For all those young people who have worked so hard and who see their future here, working in the health service in Northern Ireland, the Bill is potentially an important step forward. I understand that we will keep the legislation under review, and it is right and proper that we do that.

As the Minister said, the Bill prioritises UK medical graduates for foundation training places and UK medical graduates and other doctors with NHS experience for speciality training places. That is also really important, because those speciality training places are difficult to come by in the NHS at times, and it is the speciality training that helps to develop services across our acute hospitals. Many times, we have heard from trusts and from the Minister about the inability to continue services or about there being a lack of sustainability in services because we do not have dedicated people in those speciality training places who want to develop that service in their community. For all those reasons, I am happy to support the LCM. I hope that it will have a positive impact on our health service.

Minister, I also have to mention that you have talked about a safer staffing Bill. Can you say when that legislation might come forward? Allowing staff to have the proper working conditions and the proper ratios of work and work-life balances will help to retain those staff as much as the Bill will.

Mr Donnelly: I note the Minister's apology for the short notice that was given to the Committee and the Committee's disappointment at the lack of time to examine the issue.

At its core, the legislation is about workforce sustainability. That is welcome. The Association for the Study of Medical Education identified the core purpose of the legislation as being to:

and to

As we have heard many times in the Chamber and at the Health Committee, Northern Ireland faces persistent workforce pressures across primary care, acute services and specialist disciplines. Competition for medical training places has increased significantly in recent years, creating real uncertainty for many graduates who have trained in Northern Ireland and the UK and who are seeking to move on to the next stage in their careers.

The intention of the Bill is to restore balance to the system, reduce bottlenecks and ensure that those who train here have a clear route into long-term careers in our health service. It is right that people who train here should be able to do that. It is equally important, however, to state that internationally trained healthcare staff make an enormous contribution to our health and social care system. They are valued colleagues and essential members of our workforce. The Bill does not exclude those who trained outside the UK from applying for training posts, but the memorandum acknowledges that the demographic composition of the workforce may change over time. That means that it is essential that implementation is transparent and subject to proper monitoring. That need was highlighted at the Health Committee meeting, and I ask the Minister to speak a bit more to how that monitoring will be achieved.

Any reform to training pathways must strike a careful balance between supporting domestic graduates to promote workforce sustainability and maintaining the openness and diversity that has characterised our health workforce for decades. We should be honest about the fact that prioritisation alone will not resolve the issue of workforce shortages. Mrs Dodds mentioned the safe staffing Bill. I am keen to see progress on that. Training capacity, supervision, retention and working conditions all matter, and, if those core aspects do not improve, frustrations will remain. They will just be at a different point in the system. This legislation is one part of addressing a wider workforce challenge, but it is a welcome and needed step towards addressing the workforce challenge, and we will support it.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the opportunity to make a few brief remarks on the LCM. The process has been very quick, and, as the Chair of the Committee explained, the Committee agreed not to take a position on the LCM due to insufficient time to scrutinise it. The Minister referred to that and apologised. I understand that the delay was largely with the time that it took to secure Executive approval rather than with any fault of the Minister or his Department.

In my view, the legislation represents not just the right thing to do; it is fundamentally the right initiative for Northern Ireland to be a part of. How many times do we, as MLAs, stand up in the Chamber and say, "We need to do more to support our own staff coming forward"? The Bill and, hopefully, our consent to it will at last give our own, domestically produced and trained staff some priority access to crucial training places.

Whilst the health service right across the United Kingdom has long relied and will continue to rely largely on our international workforce, to whom we are absolutely indebted, we cannot ignore the fact that we are also fortunate to have a substantial pool of appointable doctors who are already available within the NHS. They are staff who are much more likely to work in the NHS for longer. It is a similar concept to the idea that our own Health Minister has already tasked officials with exploring: ways to financially reward students who then commit to working within the health service.

If Northern Ireland were excluded from the arrangements or chose not to give consent, it would face an invidious choice: accept increased competition for limited training places or withdraw from national recruitment altogether, neither of which would be good for local staff or local patients. That is why I and my party are very happy to support the LCM.

Mr Nesbitt: As somebody who served on statutory Committees from 2011 until taking up this post in March 2024, I absolutely get the fact that Committees need the appropriate amount of time to scrutinise legislation, including LCMs. However, in defence of my departmental officials, I say that Mrs Dodds talked about the Bill going through the Commons on 27 January this year, and it was on 27 January this year that we sought clearance from the Executive Office through urgent procedure. Therefore, we moved as soon as we could. The delay was that a number of further information requests came out of the Executive Office, which had to be answered before we were able to get the LCM tabled for the Executive decision. It was cleared by the Executive on 12 February: the LCM was tabled on 12 February, and the letter to the Health Committee was issued on 12 February. Again, it is regrettable, but I make the point that it had to be green-lighted by people who were not within the Department at the time.

The Chair asked for some reassurance with regard to section 75 and the Bill's impact, and I can tell him about that in the following terms. On disability, data shows that the Bill is unlikely to change the proportional representation of doctors with disabilities entering a foundation training programme. On race and differences in the ethnic profile of prioritised and non-prioritised applicants: overall, the impact will be that there is a greater proportion of white doctors in the foundation programme and fewer doctors from other ethnic groups. On sex, the Bill is likely to have a neutral impact on the proportion of females and males. Overall, the Bill is likely to have a neutral impact on representation of doctors by sexual orientation. On age, the Bill might slightly increase the representation of younger doctors. On religion, there are minor differences in the religious proportions of the priority group compared with the all-applicant group: differences typically within 1% of the all-applicant group. The Bill may also cause a very slight decrease in the proportional representation of foundation trainees in a marriage or in a civil partnership. On the impact on the headcount of people with primary medical qualifications, I can say that, in 2024, UK numbers were 1,671, Republic of Ireland numbers were 62 and international numbers were 405. Again on impact, NIMDTA has expanded its foundation programme to ensure that every graduate from Queen's University Belfast and Ulster University will be admitted to the course.

Mr Donnelly wondered about monitoring and evaluation. That will be done in the normal way. A statistical analysis will be done of who is coming from UK schools and who is coming from ROI schools and of where there may be gaps. Will the Bill have an impact on hard-to-fill posts? We do not expect it to have a major negative impact on posts that are harder to fill. In fact, there is potential that the Bill may have a positive impact, should the prioritised applicants realise that, by applying to a post in a hard-to-fill speciality or location, they are increasing the prospects of their application being successful.

On the mix of applicants and the regard in which I hold our international colleagues, I say that international medical graduates will continue to play a crucial role in health and social care delivery. Prioritisation does not mean that they will lose all their opportunities. In fact, in specialties such as core psychiatry, internal medicine and general practice, where there are often multiple vacancies, we are still likely to see strong opportunities for international graduates, as competition is not as intense in those specialties as it in others.

I return for one moment to monitoring. In common with the introduction of significant changes in policy, the UK Government and officials here will make monitoring a priority for the demographic uptakes and fill rates under the new regime.

I thank Members for their contributions and their support. I notice that that support is limited, or conditioned by the lack of scrutiny of the Bill, but I commend the legislative consent motion to the House.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Gerry, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is clear that damp and mould is a public health issue that needs to be tackled urgently, which, up to this point, it has not been.

I begin my contribution with the testimony of a constituent of mine. Marcus lives on the Shankill Road in West Belfast. He is also a member of the Community Action Tenants Union (CATU). He rents from a private landlord and lives with his partner and his one-year-old daughter, and I quote from him:

Marcus and his partner are usually fit and healthy. Since moving into that home, however, they have been plagued throughout the year with severe coughs and chest infections, which get worse in the winter months.

Unfortunately, that is not an isolated case. Their windows are covered in mould, despite attempts to paint over it. When the oil boiler began to leak, the family was without heating for over a week; conveniently. The agent could not get hold of the landlord. The house has next to no ventilation, and the few ventilation bricks are plugged up.

Marcus now constantly leaves windows open, and he buys multiple damp traps for each room in the house every two weeks. The walls are soaked because of structural damage to the house and guttering, and parts of the outside wall are broken and hanging off, which makes it incredibly unsafe for the family to be outside it. Marcus said that, when the issue was raised with his property manager, they replied with questions about how his family ventilated and heated the home, as if they had caused the issues. Again, that is not an isolated case but something that happens across the board.

It is abundantly clear to me and many people out there that the Executive have prioritised landlord wealth over people's health. At its core, the debate is about power. It is not just about damp and mould, although it is undeniable that tenants are getting sick and dying because their homes are in such a shocking state of repair. People may ask how many are affected: the truth is that we do not know, because the data and figures are not captured. The debate is about who holds power in our society and who is left to suffer the consequences of the imbalance.

The facts are damning. In 2023-24, in my constituency of West Belfast, Housing Executive tenants made 1,379 requests for repairs due to damp and mould. In the same year, the Housing Executive completed just 141 repairs, including a single installation of cavity wall insulation. That is a 10% response rate, and it is the result of a system that pushes tenants and their most basic rights to the bottom, while landlords and the bureaucracy of an increasingly privatised state are at the top.

The power imbalance is felt most acutely in the private rented sector, with more than 60% of respondents to the Renters’ Voice survey stating that they delayed reporting a repair for fear of eviction and over half saying that they decided not to report at all. People are living with black mould crawling up their walls, their windows soaked with condensation and their children going back and forth to A&E, but they say nothing because they are terrified of losing the roof over their heads: that is a hostage situation. It is bad enough that people live in mouldy and damp conditions, but they also live in absolute fear.

There is also the culture of blame. For too long, landlords and social housing providers have pointed the finger at tenants and their cooking, ventilation and heating habits. We saw it in the most devastating terms after the tragic and entirely preventable death of Awaab Ishak, a two-year-old child who died because of prolonged exposure to mould in his home. When his family reported the problem, the housing association suggested it might be linked to the family's bathing and cooking habits.

You may ask what that is about. However, it is something that I have heard before: people who are or are presumed to be from a Muslim background — it is institutional racism — being blamed for their terrible housing conditions. It is what happens when working-class communities, people of colour, migrants and refugees are treated as lesser and their lives and health considered to be expendable. Grenfell showed us the same thing: the people who died in the tower were, overwhelmingly, poor people. Safety warnings were ignored in the face of deliberate corner-cutting, and working-class residents paid the price with their lives.

We keep hearing that lessons will be learned, but lessons are meaningless without accountability and structural change. Our housing system is built to enable profit, and the attitude in the private rented sector is, essentially, that tenants should put up or shut up. If they complain, they will be put out because there is no protection from no-fault evictions, unlike elsewhere on these islands. I hope that my private Member’s Bill can change that situation in the coming months.
A member of the campaign group Renters’ Voice was hospitalised recently after falling through the crumbling decking at the back of her property, which she had reported to her landlord. When she escalated the complaint to environmental health, she was told that her lease would not be renewed, and she was, in effect, evicted: a 79-year-old woman was made homeless. That is the reality for tenants, and it needs to be heard in the debate today.

The environmental health teams in councils are chronically underfunded and do not have the resources to carry out enough inspections to enforce the existing minimal standards. In the social housing sector, the Housing Executive's maintenance and repair work is increasingly contracted out to private companies with minimal oversight. Private landlords and companies — the likes of Mears and Tarasis — rake in record profits from temporary accommodation. They put homeless families into damp and mouldy single lets and tell them that they should be grateful to have a roof over their heads. That is not fair or acceptable. For that reason, I welcome the SDLP amendment, which references the temporary accommodation stock and calls for damp, mould and disrepair to be tackled within strict time frames.

I turn to the DUP amendment. I have some questions that, I hope, Members can answer now or in their contributions. How can they guarantee that more borrowing powers will not mean that the Housing Executive will be reclassified from a public body to a mutual or cooperative — in other words, privatised? My party will always oppose and always has opposed any attempt at privatisation, be that full-on privatisation, half privatisation or privatisation with a fancy wrapper. All of those things undermine public accountability for tenants, the public and public services more generally. I ask the DUP Members this: will strict time frames for investigation and carrying out repairs be included in the new Decent Homes Standard review? Meaningful enforcement action is one of the key principles of Awaab's law, so will that be included in the new Decent Homes Standard? If it is not, it will not be worth the paper it was written on. The Decent Homes Standard, of course, applies only to social housing. Minimum energy efficiency standards may help to tackle damp and mould in the private rented sector over time, but that would take far too long to implement in practice.

I held a cross-organisational meeting upstairs today. I thank everybody who attended it. Representatives from National Energy Action (NEA) were there. Ahead of the debate, I received an NEA briefing — I think that all Members received it — that stated that 43% of respondents to a poll that it had commissioned said that their home had damp and mould and 39% of respondents were living in fuel poverty, with that figure rising to a shocking 64% for those in social housing. A lot of work needs to be done in the social housing sector as well as in the private rented sector .

You cannot tackle damp and mould without tackling cold homes. We urgently need minimum energy efficiency standards in the social and private rented sectors. We lag far behind England, Wales and the South of Ireland in that regard. We need Awaab's law to be introduced here — not in the next mandate but now. Tenants deserve meaningful and enforceable rights, not non-binding guidance and empty words from Executive parties that refuse to act. I encourage Members to support the motion.

Mr Durkan: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1, Mark.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. The importance of a warm, safe home cannot be overstated. We often speak about home as a place of comfort and warmth, especially during these colder winter months, but, for many families in 2026, the conditions of the place in which they live are nothing short of Dickensian. People are going to sleep in and waking up in cold, damp bedrooms, wiping black mould from walls and fearing what damage and sickness the colder temperatures will bring. The cost-of-living crisis has compounded that fear: the fear of rising bills and of having to choose whether to eat or heat. The issue is not confined to social housing, as the Member who has just spoken said; it persists across the private rented sector, and the picture for temporary accommodation, which I will come to later, is even worse.

We are debating this today because of a tragedy: a child's death. That tragedy has forced Governments across the UK to confront the reality of damp, mould and disrepair. While other jurisdictions are moving to prevent a repeat of such a tragedy by introducing legal protections that compel landlords to act within clear, enforceable time frames, this Minister continues to stall and sidestep. There has been no urgency nor any indication of a political will to act. At a time when families are living in unsafe conditions, that reluctance is indefensible. Maybe the Minister will explain it, but repeatedly dismissing questions or recycling the same answers in the face of a mounting public health issue speaks to a failure to grasp the seriousness of what tenants are enduring.

The Communities Minister continues to refer my Assembly questions on the matter — there have been quite a few — to a response that he gave me in March 2024, which was two years ago. Meanwhile, in the last 12 months alone, almost 14,500 reports of damp have been made to the Housing Executive. That does not include housing associations or private tenancies, where conditions are often worse, meaning that the true picture is undoubtedly much worse. In my constituency, I have been in and have seen homes that are riddled with damp. Westway in Creggan comes to mind, where older Housing Executive stock has been left to decay because insulation works have been delayed time and again. Tenants pay through the roof to heat homes that simply cannot retain warmth. Heat seeps through uninsulated walls and poorly fitted windows. Many of those residents suffer from persistent coughs, asthma and COPD. That cannot be a coincidence.

I will turn specifically to temporary accommodation, because that is where the focus of our amendment lies. I believe that the amendment complements the motion, and I commend the proposer for bringing the motion to the House. We feel that urgent attention is required on temporary accommodation.

I have witnessed at first hand examples of shocking damp and mould across temporary accommodation provision in my constituency. One deeply distressing case involved a young mother and her baby who had been homeless. They came to my office for help after the child was hospitalised with multiple serious chest infections — something that the baby had never suffered from before. I was horrified when I saw what they were living in. There was black mould spread across the walls, clothes and toys, and even the baby's pram was destroyed by mould. Here is the most disturbing part: I recognised that property because, a few months earlier, I had complained to the Housing Executive about it on behalf of a previous tenant. That individual was moved out of the property, but the property was not fixed, and no one was held accountable. Instead, another vulnerable family was simply moved in. That is systemic failure.

Following a series of Assembly questions, I have learned that single-let temporary accommodation used by the Housing Executive is not subject to routine ongoing inspection beyond its initial acquisition. I was advised that an inspection exercise on a small number of properties was conducted in my constituency, with repeat exercises planned, but, to my knowledge, that was simply to ensure that the premises were being occupied, not to address the serious concerns about the quality of those premises. Maintenance responsibility rests with private providers, and the Housing Executive acts as an intermediary when problems are reported. Therefore, those responsible for monitoring the situation are also responsible for ensuring that repairs are conducted; they are essentially marking their own homework. As we all know, temporary accommodation houses some of the most vulnerable people, including families experiencing homelessness, individuals fleeing domestic abuse and people at their lowest ebb. If any accommodation should meet the highest standards, it is that.

Our amendment seeks to do a number of things. First, it supports, as the motion does, legislation similar to Awaab's law, with strict time frames for addressing damp and mould across the social and private rented sectors. Secondly, it explicitly includes temporary accommodation in that protection and, critically, places a clear statutory duty on the Housing Executive to regularly inspect and enforce those minimum standards. There currently are none.

This is not about blaming the Housing Executive but about recognising that, when public money is used to place vulnerable people in accommodation, there must be proactive oversight rather than reactive complaint handling. You are sometimes lucky to get even that.

The DUP amendment touches on the issue of borrowing powers and long-term standards. It does not really address or provide the urgency that is required to prevent a child sleeping in a damp room tonight or tomorrow. It is a big issue that is worthy of debate, but it is a debate for another day. The amendment also dilutes the call for legislation or a legislative underpinning of minimum standards, the need for which has been recognised by other Parliaments in the UK.

We know that damp, cold homes carry serious health risks and financial implications. One in four people who died here in 2022 were in fuel poverty. That should shame every one of us into action in the immediate and the long term. In the long term, we need to look at resources and adequately funding existing and, hopefully, future measures.

We in the SDLP have long championed a comprehensive, green and energy-efficient housing strategy. We believe in retrofitting, proper targets, accountability and a just transition that does not leave low-income families behind. Undoubtedly, we need investment in new homes — and we support the Minister in any bid to get that — but we also need to fix what we have. The affordable warmth scheme, which was intended to be our front-line defence against fuel poverty, remains underfunded and overwhelmed. In 2023-24, it received over 11,500 applications, yet only 24% of those applicants received support. The 2019 cavity wall action plan found that 63% of Housing Executive properties were not compliant with current standards. Only 9% were deemed to have sufficient cavity wall insulation. In four years, just 203 of those homes were supported. None of them was in Derry and Strabane, which is an area with some of the highest numbers of reports of damp. It is certainly the area in which there is the highest incidence of deprivation.

Today, we are dealing with a living reality that demands urgency. Every cold home, every child who lives with damp and the sickness that comes with it, every pensioner who is afraid to turn on the heating, and every homeless family who is placed in substandard temporary accommodation represents serious policy failures. We need to do better. My party's amendment seeks to close a dangerous oversight gap. It protects the most vulnerable, ensuring that temporary accommodation meets the same safety standards as any other home. Let us not continue to compound the suffering of people who are already in crisis by dumping them in damp hovels.

Mrs Cameron: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Pam, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Pam, please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

No one should live in a home that is affected by damp, mould or serious disrepair. That is a basic expectation, and one that should apply to everyone, regardless of tenure. Damp and mould are not minor issues; they cause real harm to health, particularly for children, older people and those with respiratory conditions. They can worsen existing illness and create long-term problems if they are not dealt with properly. The tragic death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak was devastating. It should never have happened. It has rightly led to a renewed focus on housing conditions and landlord responsibility.

However, it is important that the Assembly focuses on solutions that can actually be delivered. Good intentions alone will not fix damp and mould. What matters is whether the right systems, funding and powers are in place to deal with the problem properly. Much of Northern Ireland's social housing stock is old. Many homes were built decades ago and require significant work to bring them up to modern standards. That is not a new issue; it is the result of long-term underinvestment.

The Housing Executive is dealing with a large and complex estate. In many cases, damp and mould are not caused by a single fault but are linked to poor insulation, outdated heating systems, ventilation problems and structural issues. Those problems cannot be fixed through short-term or reactive repairs; they require planned, large-scale work. That is why access to borrowing for the Housing Executive is so important. Without proper borrowing powers to secure funding, the Housing Executive is limited in what it can do. It is forced to prioritise urgent repairs rather than addressing the underlying causes of damp and mould. That approach is not sustainable, and it does not deliver lasting improvements for tenants. Access to borrowing would allow the Housing Executive to plan ahead. It would allow work to be done at scale and investment to be made in insulation, heating systems and wider retrofit programmes that prevent damp and mould from returning.

The Communities Minister has been clear that securing access to borrowing for the Housing Executive is a top priority, and that is the right focus. The amendment that I propose reflects that reality. It calls:

so that additional investment can be targeted at our housing stock. It is not about creating new obligations without providing the means to meet them; it is about ensuring that the Housing Executive has the financial tools that it needs to meet existing standards and improve living conditions in a lasting way. Standards alone will not fix damp and mould. Guidance alone will not fix damp and mould. Funding and investment are essential.

The amendment also recognises the importance of standards. It calls:

That is a sensible and balanced approach. It recognises the seriousness of damp and mould and the need for clear processes, proper assessment of risk and timely repairs, but it also recognises that any approach must work in practice and be suited to the housing system in Northern Ireland.

It is important to be clear that protections already exist. Environmental health officers have enforcement powers across all housing tenures to deal with damp and mould. The Department has issued guidance to social housing providers and continues to monitor how cases are being managed. Work is also ongoing to revise the Decent Homes Standard. That revised standard will strengthen requirements around damp and mould. It will provide clear expectations around inspection, prioritisation and repair. It is about improving how issues are identified and addressed, not simply creating new rules on paper.

In the private rented sector, minimum energy efficiency standards will also play an important role. Poor thermal efficiency is a major contributor to damp and mould. Improving energy efficiency will improve living conditions and reduce long-term problems. At the same time, it is important that regulation remains proportionate. The private rented sector must remain viable and able to provide much-needed housing. Damp and mould cannot be tackled through a single measure. They require enforcement, clear standards, skills and capacity. Above all, they require investment. Without sustained funding and access to finance, progress will be limited. Our amendment is focused on delivery and on giving the Housing Executive the ability to invest properly. It focuses on improving standards in a way that is workable and effective. It is clear that there is more to do, but progress depends on long-term planning, proper funding and the ability to act at scale. For those reasons, I urge Members to support our amendment.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Member for tabling this motion on Awaab's law. No doubt Members will be familiar with the tragic case of Awaab Ishak, a two-year-old boy who died in 2020 due to overexposure to toxic black mould which was present in his home. Awaab and his parents had been living in a flat in Rochdale that was owned and managed by a social housing provider. His parents had repeatedly reported the presence of mould in the three years prior to his death, but the housing authority consistently failed to take the matter seriously and carry out the necessary work to fix the issue. Awaab's death was utterly tragic, but it was entirely preventable, had the housing authority shown any duty of care to its tenants. Frustratingly, it is yet another example of a problem being taken seriously only after it results in a death, which is far too late. As we debate the motion, many families in the North live in cold, damp homes, and they too will be struggling to find anyone who will listen and take action. A poll commissioned last year by NEA found that 43% of respondents had been affected by damp and mould, showing the scale of the problem. If that statistic does not act as a wake-up call, I am not sure what will. As public representatives, we have an absolute duty to ensure that there are no more cases like Awaab Ishak and that damp and mould never again become an issue of life or death.

The motion calls for the extension of Awaab's law to the North. Sinn Féin supports that call and supports the SDLP's amendment. Awaab's law was an important step in ensuring that social and private landlords are obliged to take action when damp and mould are reported by their tenants. Landlords who fail to take action can be subject to enforcement notices, and persistent breaches can lead to fines and prosecution.

The issue of damp and mould in homes is directly connected to fuel poverty, and I am pleased to say that, at long last, we now have a published fuel poverty strategy, which will hopefully go some way to tackling the problem. Key to the strategy will be the roll-out of the new warm healthy homes fund. The fund will be vital in ensuring that lower-income families are able to make adaptations to their homes that will make them more energy efficient. Another key component of the fuel poverty strategy will be the updating of the fitness standards and the Decent Homes Standard. The standards that are currently in place are long since out of date and are no longer fit for purpose.

We must also recognise that there is a particular problem with damp and mould in the private rented sector. Time and time again, we see some landlords acting as though they are above the law by choosing to ignore the issues raised by their tenants. We must send a very clear message to those landlords that that will no longer be tolerated. We must see the updated standards and Awaab's law being extended to the private sector, as has already been achieved in England and elsewhere.

We must always endeavour to support and strengthen the rights of renters. We urgently need to see a package of reform being brought forward to build on the work of my party colleague Deirdre Hargey's Private Tenancies Act. At a time when we are seeing our neighbouring jurisdictions bring in some of the most progressive reforms seen to date, it is disappointing that we have not seen a similar level of reforms here in the North. I would appreciate it if the Minister could outline what reforms to the private rented sector he will introduce in the remainder of this mandate and whether he is carrying out any preparation work for reforms in the next mandate.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank Gerry Carroll for tabling the motion. We are debating it today because far too many people in Northern Ireland are living in homes that are simply not safe. The evidence is overwhelming and very troubling.

On 15 November 2023, I tabled a motion in the House asking for Awaab's law to be brought in here, and we are talking about it again today. Across social housing, private rentals and even owner-occupied homes, damp, mould and disrepair are not isolated problems. They are systemic failures that are harming citizens' health, dignity and life chances.

The Department for Communities guidance makes the situation starkly clear. It states that damp and mould are some of the most common problems in housing and that they can lead to residents having:

It is not abstract. Those are harms that are being experienced by families across every constituency. We know the scale of the problem. We have evidence, and Mr Durkan said earlier that the Housing Executive has received more than 14,000 reports of damp, mould and condensation since the start of the mandate in 2022. In the past four years of the current mandate, the number of reports has doubled. Those are not minor numbers. They are huge numbers, and they are symptoms of a housing system under severe strain and of tenants who are bearing the burden of homes that should be of a far better standard.

It is not confined to social housing. I am glad that Mr Carroll included private and social housing in his motion. Renters' Voice survey shows that 62% of tenants delayed reporting repairs for fear of eviction, and over half said that they did not report issues at all. One tenant said that they had lived with no heat in their home for at least eight years because asking for repairs would trigger a rent increase. Another was evicted after reporting raw sewage in their garden. That is the lived reality of retaliatory eviction.

Mrs Cameron mentioned reporting damp and mould to environmental health, but people cannot do that if their landlord will throw them out as a result.

After there not being enough houses to meet need, the biggest issue raised in my constituency office is the amount of damp and mould in homes. One constituent, who lived in a Housing Executive house, regularly had to take a shovel to her bedroom wall to scrape off the mould. Damp and mould disproportionately affects the most vulnerable people in our society. The guidance highlights the fact that babies, older people and those with respiratory conditions are at heightened risk, and the mental health impacts of living in such a situation are profound. A home that has mould or damp staining can lead to depression and anxiety for people. Families feel shame, isolation and helplessness from living in conditions that no one in Northern Ireland should be forced to endure.

We cannot ignore the lessons from the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. The coroner's report warned:

It also highlighted a dangerous culture of blaming tenants' lifestyles rather than addressing structural failings.

That culture exists here as well, and it must end. For example, how many times have we heard that damp and mould is caused by somebody drying clothes over a radiator or not having opened the windows enough, when we do not even test the mould to determine how dangerous it is?

Other jurisdictions have acted. England introduced Awaab's law in 2025, while Scotland has legislation to implement similar protections from March 2026. Meanwhile, here in Northern Ireland, we still have no equivalent statutory duty to require landlords, be they social or private, to investigate and fix dangerous hazards within fixed time frames. Our Housing Fitness Standard dates back to 1992. Even then, it stated that homes should be:

Without enforcement powers, timelines or accountability, however, our standard is not protecting people, so why not replicate Awaab's law here?

I do not agree with the DUP amendment, because it talks only about reflecting the principles of Awaab's law here. Why not just make it law here so that it can protect people?

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I share her concerns. If I recall correctly, when he came into office, the Minister for Communities said that he was minded to implement legislation along the lines of Awaab's law. The Member is on the Communities Committee, so does she know why he has apparently backtracked on that earlier position?

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

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about that, but I cannot answer for him.

We need to look proactively at the way in which we are dealing with housing. We need some sort of retrofitting plan to be put in place. The Department for the Economy's foresight report emphasises that decarbonisation and energy efficiency are essential, not only for meeting climate targets but for health. Cold and poorly insulated homes trap moisture, worsen the condition of the house and drive fuel poverty. We will hear today from many Members who have had constituents come to their offices to talk about the impact of damp and mould, so I hope that everyone in the House will respond to the Minister's current consultation on the Decent Homes Standard.

I have said that I cannot support the DUP amendment, because it calls on the Minister only to reflect the principles of Awaab's law here. I look forward, however, to hearing from the Minister about his potential housing Bill. Will it include minimum standards across all tenures?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to draw her remarks to a close.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Housing Executive continue to be allowed to mark its own homework?

Mr Butler: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion and thank the Member for West Belfast for proposing it. The issue is not an abstract one for me but one of the most common issues that is raised in my constituency office. Given the questions that I have previously asked him, the Minister will know that that is a fact. Time and again, families contact my office about maintenance problems, delays in repairs and the poor standard of work when repairs are eventually carried out.

I will give credit, however, to the local Housing Executive team in Lisburn. They met me in my office to discuss the challenges. Damp, mould, persistent leaks, heating systems that fail, windows that do not seal and, very often, repairs that treat the symptom and not the cause lie at the root of those challenges. Issues with maintenance and standards of repair are probably the single biggest category of housing complaint that my office deals with. People are not just frustrated from having to wait but worn down from having to report the same problem again and again. A wall is cleaned, but the ventilation issue remains. A patch is painted, but the water ingress is never addressed. That is not good enough for any tenant, whether in social or private rented accommodation.

As has been referred to, the Housing Executive's own data shows that, in 2023-24, there were 17,198 damp-, mould- or condensation-related repair requests. In 2019-2020, that figure was just over 10,000, and, after a dip during COVID, the numbers have risen year-on-year. Given that we have just had the wettest winter on record, I think that 2025-26 will be a disaster. Those figures represent real households, real children and real older people. We know that damp and mould are linked to respiratory illnesses, asthma and infections and that they have an impact on mental health, especially when they are not addressed properly. When a parent contacts my office, worried about their child's breathing, it stops being a policy debate and becomes a matter of urgency.

We cannot speak about that without thinking of Awaab Ishak. His death was a tragedy that shook many of us: a little boy who lost his life because of serious hazards that were reported but not resolved urgently enough or properly. We owe it to his memory to ensure that, when families raise concerns about damp and mould, those are taken seriously and acted on. The introduction of Awaab's law in England shifted the focus from expectations to enforceable time frames. Northern Ireland does not yet have an equivalent. If our current framework provides the clarity required, it still needs urgency and accountability, and we must strengthen it.

Clear standards and timelines protect tenants and give landlords certainty. I know that there is a commitment to inspection within 24 hours, which is welcome, but inspection is only the first step. What matters is proper diagnosis and fixing the root cause, whether that be installation failure, ventilation problems, heating inadequacy or structural water ingress.

We must listen to wider lived experience. In polling commissioned by National Energy Action Northern Ireland, 43% of respondents said that their home had been affected by damp and mould and 39% said that they were living in fuel poverty. That should concern each and every one of us. It tells us that many households may be struggling beyond what is captured by official repair statistics. Fuel poverty and housing conditions are closely linked. If homes are poorly insulated and families cannot afford to heat them properly, condensation and mould are, as we know, much more likely. That is why retrofitting and improving the fabric of our housing stock is not optional: it is central to prevention. Better insulation, effective ventilation and energy efficiency measures will reduce damp at source and ease pressure on the Minister's finite budget in the long term. We must also recognise that some private tenants feel disempowered and fearful of raising concerns because of the risk of retaliatory eviction. Enforcement powers mean little if tenants are too afraid to have them used.

At its heart, the motion is about dignity and basic standards. No child should grow up in a mould-affected bedroom, no older person should sit in a damp, cold living room, and no tenant should feel that asking for a repair is asking for too much. Our constituents are simply asking for safe, warm and well-maintained homes and for problems to be fixed — the first time. That is not an unreasonable request. It is the very least that our communities should be able to expect.

Mrs Mason: For too many in social homes and privately rented properties, the battle with the Housing Executive and landlords to combat damp, mould and disrepair is constant. Similar to what many Members have said, my constituency office deals week-on-week with mould and disrepair issues on behalf of people in South Down. I thank Gerry Carroll not just for tabling the motion but for the real-life example that he gave. Mark Durkan also gave an example, and I am sure that we could all share similar stories from the people who come through the doors of our offices.

Families are at their wits' end, forced to sleep in rooms where mould spreads faster than it can be contained. Parents helplessly watch their children's lung conditions worsen day after day because the air that they breathe is damp and unsafe. Others care for elderly loved ones whose health is steadily deteriorating in the very place that should be safe and protect them. The Housing Executive's maintenance system is plagued by long delays, leaving tenants in unsafe and, sometimes, unlivable conditions while they wait for basic repairs. Communication routinely breaks down, contractors are sent to fix only part of the problem, and tenants are then forced to fight for the remaining work to be progressed. That cycle is unfair, and it places even more pressure on people who are already struggling.

A home should be a safe, secure and comfortable place. Right now, the system is just not guaranteeing that, yet, unfortunately, the Minister does not seem to be interested in bringing forward solid legislation, similar to Awaab's Law, to compel landlords to tackle damp, mould and disrepair in social and private rented accommodation, instead hiding behind the claim that existing legislation is enough. Minister, that is simply not the reality facing families. It is another deflection, or "sidestep" as Mark Durkan put it, and another failure to grasp the urgency of your responsibility.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I appreciate the Member's giving way. It is unfair of her to say that I am not interested in this issue, and she will find out more about that when I make my remarks. I am content to legislate if that is what the House wants. We can put in place legislation, however I am moving forward now. We are moving forward with the Decent Homes Standard to put those time frames in place. We are doing many other things that reflect what is in Awaab's Law. I am interested in getting things done now. If we want the legislative backup, we can have it, but it is wrong of her to say that I am not interested in the issue. That is unfair.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute —

Mrs Mason: Thanks.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): — and the Minister should keep his interventions short.

Mrs Mason: Minister, I look forward to hearing about that, because the reality that I see on the ground does not reflect that. Press releases and statements like that do not reflect what is actually happening.

During her time as Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey set in motion a major shift in how the private rented sector was regulated. She introduced the Private Tenancies Act 2022, a landmark piece of legislation that delivered real and practical protection for tenants. It capped deposits at the equivalent of one month's rent and extended notice-to-quit periods to 56 days so that families had greater security and stability. At the time, however, she was clear that that was only the beginning. Rather than following that through, the current Minister has dithered and let renters and families down. We need to see additional protections being brought forward as a matter of urgency and backed up with legislation.

Minister, I really do regret the fact that the motion speaks to a wider problem with your approach as Communities Minister. It is your job to set priorities for your budget, protect the most vulnerable and deliver on housing. Right now, people across the North are asking you just to do that job. Deliver better protections for renters, deliver safe homes and deliver the social and affordable housing that people so desperately need. Do not push the blame; just work with everyone to try to deliver that.

Mr Brooks: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. We have heard similar speeches by and large, which reflects our experiences with the people we work with through our constituency offices. Whilst there might be nuanced views about approach, I think that we all want to see better outcomes for our constituents. On that basis, I thank the Member for tabling the motion.

This is one of the few days when we have had no rain in what has been one of the dampest starts to a year on record. With prolonged rainfall comes additional challenges for tenants, such as saturated external walls and overflowing guttering. At this time of year, there is also reduced opportunity to do simple things such as drying clothes outside. Those challenges have created the perfect conditions for mould growth. I take the Member's point that, sometimes, those things are used as excuses, but they nevertheless can contribute.

The motion looks at the specifics of social and private rented homes, but it is important, first, to set the issue within the wider housing context. Across Belfast, we still live with the legacy of homes that were never designed for modern living standards. Properties were built quickly, row on row and cheaply — they were built for a very different era. They were never designed to be sealed, insulated and retrofitted like in the programmes being rolled out now. Twenty years ago, it was recognised that many properties in the Village area of the Donegall Road in south Belfast simply did not meet modern standards. Row upon row of houses were demolished to make way for newer, more energy efficient housing.

On paper, that addressed the structural issue, but, in doing so, it displaced established communities.

That challenge is now faced by communities in my constituency in areas such as the Ravenhill Road and the streets off it. A social housing provider owns a number of the properties in My Lady's Road. Those three-storey homes were built over 120 years ago. From the outside, they appear solid, but, internally, many are houses of horrors. I am aware of one case in which a tenant experienced rainwater pouring down the chimney breast in her bedroom every time it rained. There was, in effect, a waterfall inside her home. She was provided with an industrial dehumidifier while plans to deal with wider structural issues were considered, but the dehumidifier was so powerful that it tripped the electrics, and an electrician had to be found to reinstate the lighting. That tenant had tradespeople coming in and out of her house for over two years. Mould was glossed over, false walls were installed inside the house, and she was repeatedly advised to stop drying clothes inside her house. Clothes were not the issue; the issue was the structural failure of the house, the saturated brickwork, the failing chimney stack and the ageing building fabric.

That same social housing organisation has advanced £25 million worth of retrofitting into the area, but that comes with a shelf life of 20 years. The investment is significant and welcome. It will improve living conditions and energy efficiency in the short to medium term. However, the projected lifespan of the retrofitting works is approximately 20 years. The investment is not wasted, but it means that we are extending the life of housing stock that was never designed to meet modern accessibility standards and the requirements of modern family living. That relates to the point made in our amendment about the importance of the Housing Executive's being able to borrow and build new homes.

That brings me back to the motion. No tenant should spend their life on hold waiting for a tradesperson and enduring two years of reactive patchwork while the underlying issue is structural failure. Equally, however, when we speak about replacing homes to meet modern standards, we must understand the consequences of that decision: renewal cannot mean displacement. Raising standards cannot come at the cost of breaking apart established communities. The debate requires balance. We need clear standards and time frames for tackling —

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes. I am happy to.

Mr Carroll: For clarity, will the Member elaborate on his previous point about higher standards not breaking apart communities?

Mr Brooks: Sorry, will you repeat that?

Mr Carroll: The Member said that higher standards should not be about breaking apart communities. I have no idea what he is referring to.

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

Mr Brooks: Thank you.

I am saying that a balance needs to be struck. In some working-class communities, there is a fear of displacement and of people being pushed out of their area, and that has to be balanced against the need for new homes. Providing new homes is a challenge, which I recognise. I gave the example of the Village in south Belfast, where new homes were built, which were necessary, but that meant a lot of people being displaced from the area. I am reflecting the concerns of the communities in the lower Ravenhill area that I represent.

We need to be clear about the standards and time frames for tackling damp and disrepair. We also need honesty and recognition when housing stock has reached the limits of what retrofitting alone can realistically achieve. If we fail to be honest about that, we risk trapping tenancies in a repeating cycle of repair and decay.

Mr McHugh: We know the facts: damp and mould drive respiratory disease, worsen asthma and place a real and lasting burden on children, older people and families who are, often, already under pressure. The tragic death of Awaab Ishak is, unfortunately, the catalyst that has driven the introduction of Awaab's law, and I, like many others, have witnessed the same circumstances in private lets and, unfortunately, in Housing Executive tenancies, where blame and responsibility have been left with the residents and their lifestyle.

Too much of our housing stock is old, poorly insulated and simply not fit for the climate reality that we now face. Retrofitting is not a luxury; it is a public health intervention. If we are serious about prevention, about reducing pressure on the health service and about basic human dignity, we need a new, enforceable, Decent Homes Standard that sets a clear baseline for what people in the North can expect for their homes.

Crucially, amendment No 1 shines light on an area that is too often overlooked: single-let temporary accommodation. People who are placed in temporary accommodation are often there because they are already in crisis. However, as the amendment makes clear, much of that accommodation is not subject to routine ongoing inspection with responsibility sitting with private providers, while the Housing Executive acts as an intermediary only when problems are reported. That is not good enough. We should not have to rely on families who are often fearful of the consequences having to complain before action is taken. We should not accept a system in which the most vulnerable are the least protected.

Amendment No 1 is right to call for:

That brings me back to Awaab's law. Extending its principles, clear legal duties, strict time frames and real enforcement across the social housing and private rented sectors is the responsible thing to do. It is not about just fixing walls or drying out rooms; it is about setting a new Decent Homes Standard that is meaningful, enforceable and backed by law. An extension of Awaab's law will ensure that no child, family or tenant is left waiting while their health is put at risk. For that reason, I support the SDLP amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion.

Last week, Mr Carroll said:

This week, I find myself agreeing with the Member for West Belfast. We could go outside and check, but I do not think that the sky has fallen in. I completely agree with what he said about this being a serious issue. I do not think that anybody in the House who is in any way connected with their constituency could fail to recognise that the issue affects many people and increasingly so.

I make it clear to the House that I am committed to improving the quality and safety of our homes. That is a clear objective of the housing supply strategy, and I am taking forward several actions that are focused on ensuring that everyone, regardless of their tenure or the type of house in which they live, has a good-quality, safe and warm home. That is why, on 5 February, I launched the warm healthy homes strategy, which sets out a long-term cross-government approach to lifting households out of fuel poverty and ensuring that everyone in Northern Ireland lives in a warm, healthy home. The strategy reflects one of the most extensive engagement exercises undertaken by my Department. It has benefited from contributions from a broad range of individuals who know what it means to struggle to pay energy bills and from the organisations that support them. The focus is on improving energy efficiency for low-income and vulnerable households, raising housing standards and ensuring that those standards are properly measured. It also aims to protect consumers by improving access to reliable advice and better metering so that people can manage their energy use and bills.

Work is progressing on the development of an initial action plan that will agree timelines, assign responsibilities and coordinate the steps needed to implement the first phase of the strategy. One of the main themes in the strategy is improving the energy efficiency of homes. It also includes a strategic action to launch an ambitious, long-term warm healthy homes fund that will seek to deliver increased investment over its first five years. It is anticipated that that fund will launch in 2027 and will continue to take a whole-house approach to retrofitting, delivering energy efficiency measures to the households on the lowest incomes. The final scheme design will be shaped by further public consultation, which will be published in the spring.

Since its launch in 2014, the outgoing affordable warmth scheme has invested over £140 million in improving the energy efficiency of over 31,000 private sector homes, helping low-income owner-occupied and private rented households across Northern Ireland to reduce heat loss, lower their fuel bills and live in warmer, healthier conditions.
As the largest provider of social housing, the Housing Executive's landlord programme of energy efficiency or thermal improvement works for its housing stock continues. It has spent £42·71 million on energy efficiency or thermal improvement works to properties this year and has a planned spend of £41·75 million in 2026-27.

The Housing Executive has now reached a critical juncture. Its homes, one of our most important public assets, are at increasing risk of significant deterioration and decline if urgent action is not taken. It has been confirmed that the treatment of Housing Executive borrowing will form part of negotiations with the UK Government on a new Northern Ireland fiscal framework. While that confirmation is welcome, a solution is needed urgently. That is one of my main priorities as Minister, and I continue to raise the borrowing issue at every possible opportunity. I urge the Government to provide the necessary approval so that the Housing Executive is permitted to borrow immediately without further delay.

On that point, I assure Mr Carroll that this is not about the reclassification of the Housing Executive; it is to treat the Housing Executive in the way in which local authorities treat their housing arms in other parts of the UK. It is absolutely not about a reclassification. I hope that that provides some assurance to him, and I hope that he joins others in the Chamber in fighting for that change.

Moving on to the private rented sector, I am progressing a wider programme of reform to improve quality and strengthen standards. I have already introduced minimum fire and electrical safety standards, giving stronger protection for tenants, and improving energy efficiency is a key priority in the programme. Work is already under way to develop new minimum standards for the private rented sector. It is complex, cross-departmental work, but getting it right will deliver long-term benefits for tenants, including helping to reduce damp and mould and increasing thermal comfort.

I have also transferred responsibility for the landlord registration scheme to local councils. It is a significant step in raising standards and complements broader policy work on raising conditions in the private rented sector. Evidence indicates that registered landlords are more likely to meet their wider legal responsibilities. Building on that work, we will shortly launch a consultation on amendments to the underpinning landlord registration legislation, and a key proposal will be to require landlords to confirm compliance with fitness, safety and energy efficiency duties during registration, further strengthening enforcement and improving outcomes for tenants.

I hope that that goes some way to answering the queries that Cathy Mason had in regard to the work that I am doing and Mr Gildernew's queries as well. I will check with officials in the Department. This should all have been shared with the Member, through that Committee, multiple times. If that is not the case, something has gone wrong, but all that information should have been provided. I believe that it has, but we will check that out.

My officials closely monitored Awaab's law as it progressed in England. I hope that this will answer some of the questions that Kellie Armstrong and others had. While that was monitored as it was progressing, I did not just wait; I took immediate action to ensure that people living in social homes were protected. We developed new damp and mould guidance that was issued to all social housing providers in January 2024. Since 2023-24, the Department, as the regulator, has undertaken periodic surveys to ensure that registered housing associations appropriately manage all cases of damp and mould in their stock and have policies and procedures in place to address damp and mould.

Compared with England, we have a much smaller social housing sector, consisting of the Housing Executive and a small number of housing associations, which are registered with my Department for that purpose as well as being registered charities. Therefore, we have good relationships with those providers and work with them to ensure that there is appropriate oversight and accountability. There are already measures and standards in place here that provide similar protections for tenants in Northern Ireland. Legislation here, specifically the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, includes the standard of fitness for housing in Northern Ireland and requires homes to be:

That is distinct from the position in other jurisdictions in that it links the condition of the property to its impact on occupants' health. Environmental health officers in councils already have powers to address damp and serious disrepair by enforcing the statutory minimum fitness standard across all housing tenures.

Where we do not have equivalent protections that seem necessary to me, I will take action. That is why I am consulting on proposals to revise and enhance the Decent Homes Standard that applies to all social housing here. Some of the new proposals include an enhanced approach to damp and mould and the introduction of requirements to risk-assess and triage repairs for investigation, including time frames, with emergency and urgent repairs prioritised appropriately. If those proposals are supported through the consultation, it will also help to align Northern Ireland with the principles of that legislation in England.

I take issue when others say that nothing has been done on it. To begin with, we were in a different starting position from England. There were already actions that others here were able to take if problems were encountered. In social housing, the complaints process with the landlord and the housing associations is available. The Department could take action. Of course, the legal route was also there, because we have the standards that they would have failed to keep. I believe that avenues were in place. However, additional changes were needed, which is why we are bringing in the Decent Homes Standard as well.

Those are routes that can be taken. However, if Members believe, and it is the will of the House today, that legislation replicates that and improves what is already in place, we are happy to do that. I will, however, still progress with the work that we are currently doing, especially around the Decent Homes Standard, because that will introduce the time frames that most people here are interested in. No one really went into the detail this afternoon of specifically what it is in Awaad's law that they want to see extended. I assume that it is those time frames. They will be coming in anyway. There are already avenues for redress, including legal avenues for redress. I believe that all those things are, largely, covered. If additional legislative protections are needed, that can be put in place. However, I want to make sure that we continue with this work, because that will make a difference in the shorter term; and, anyway, legislation will require those issues to be followed up on, and it will only be enabling legislation. Of course, we are bringing in some of the other work as well for the private rented sector, specifically in relation to minimum energy efficiency standards.

To pick up on the amendment moved by Mr Durkan, I certainly support the amendment brought by my party colleagues, because our focus needs to be on getting the resources in place that can actually make a difference. However, I believe that there is support around the Chamber for Mr Durkan's amendment, which means that a decision will not be taken on Pam Cameron's amendment. That is fair enough.

I say to Mr Durkan that we are on the same page in wanting to make sure that those issues are addressed. I encourage him to come to my office with the specific queries. I want to check some of the issues that he has raised and why they have happened. I mean that sincerely. If there have been issues, I want to make sure that they are addressed, because I have been assured that those inspections are already in place at the point of a property becoming available. I understand what he is going to say: he is going to say that those need to continue through the time of a tenancy and not just between tenancies. That will already happen anyway because of the development of the temporary accommodation standards framework. That is commitment in the Housing Executive's strategic action plan for temporary accommodation. Work has already started on the development of that framework. The intention is that it will include physical standards, suitability standards and service standards for all types of temporary accommodation. That work is ongoing; it will happen anyway. I appreciate that Members still want to support his amendment, but I can assure him that work is ongoing on what he is looking for. I appeal to him to let me know about any specific issues that he has as well.

I have addressed most of the other issues that were raised. I hope that Cathy Mason will not mind my coming back to a couple of the points that she made. I think that she accused me of trying to blame somebody else for this. I am certainly not blaming —.

Mrs Mason: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to give way.

Mrs Mason: I did not say that you were blaming somebody else. I just asked you not to.

Mr Lyons: I can assure her that I am not blaming anyone else. I take full responsibility. That is why I am driving forward the social housing development programme and was so passionate when speaking about social housing at the Committee. I want to make sure that we get the programme done. I want there to be progress made on social housing. I need the support of others in the House in order to do that, but I am determined to do things that make a difference and bring about change. She said that I do not seem to be interested. After having heard me outline the steps that we have taken over the past number of months, I hope that she will perhaps change her mind. She also previously said in Committee that I do not "do housing".

People may disagree with me and with some of the actions that I have taken, and that is fine. I can take it, but I hope that, if they look at my record and see what has been achieved in the past two years, Members will agree that social housing has been a focus for me. That is why we have brought in, for the first time, the intermediate rent scheme, which I hope to develop. It is why we have made changes to the housing selection scheme, brought in additional protections for private tenancies, ring-fenced money for homelessness, introduced the housing supply strategy, made housing a Programme for Government commitment and, in what will make one of the biggest changes of all, introduced the warm healthy homes strategy. Housing is therefore not a secondary consideration for me. Rather, it is one of the most important priorities in the Department. It certainly takes up most of our time, because we know that having warm, healthy homes can make such a difference to our population. It is why today's debate is so important and why housing more generally is so important. I am committed to doing everything that I can to make sure that changes are put in place to enable us to make a real difference to the lives of people right across Northern Ireland. I look forward to having the House's support to do that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Maurice Bradley to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Maurice, you have five minutes.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Carroll for proposing the motion and Mr Durkan for proposing amendment No 1. As the Minister said, there is not much difference between our amendment and Mr Durkan's. I join Members in expressing my sympathy to the family of Awaab Ishak, who lost his life far too soon and for a very unnecessary reason.

Nobody in the Chamber disputes that people deserve warm, safe and healthy homes. Damp and mould in homes is unacceptable in this day and age, and it is a common theme of the complaints made in my constituency office, and I expect that it is the same for every other MLA. Addressing damp and mould is a priority. The motion, however, fails to confront a simple reality that is a barrier to delivery, which is the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's inability to borrow. The Housing Executive manages more than 82,000 homes. Most of them were built decades ago and now require a significant retrofit, which it is estimated will cost millions of pounds over the next 10 or 20 years. That level of investment simply cannot be delivered through annual Budgets alone. Unlike housing associations, the Housing Executive is classified as a public body and is therefore prohibited from borrowing to invest in its own stock. The result is predictable: essential upgrades are delayed; preventative maintenance is crowded out by emergency repairs; and progress is far slower than tenants deserve. That is not mismanagement but a structural funding problem.

The Communities Minister has been right to press for reform. Without borrowing powers, even well-designed strategies remain constrained by the Treasury's rules rather than by housing need. Granting the Housing Executive access to borrowing would unlock long-term, planned investment that would allow damp and mould to be tackled proactively, homes to be insulated properly and energy efficiency improvements to be delivered at scale. That is why the warm healthy homes strategy 2026-2036 matters. It provides a clear framework, but it will succeed only if the Housing Executive has the financial tools to deliver it. Damp and mould are not minor maintenance issues. Much of the problems stem from houses' poor design and from inadequate insulation, ventilation and heating systems. Damp and mould are serious public health hazards, which have been linked to respiratory illness, poor mental health and a negative impact on children's development.

Fuel-poor households are particularly vulnerable, because low incomes, high energy costs and poor energy efficiency all combine to create cold, damp homes. It is also important to be clear, as Awaab's law recognises, that damp and mould is not caused by tenants' lifestyles. It is not caused by cooking, washing, drying clothes or doing other normal household activities. Where homes lack proper insulation, ventilation or heating, condensation and mould are predictable structural outcomes, which are made worse when families cannot afford to heat their home. If Members are serious about tackling damp and mould, we must be serious about enabling the Housing Executive to borrow. Without that power to borrow, progress will always fall short and be slow.

The DUP will continue to focus on delivery, reform and realism, ensuring that safe, healthy homes are delivered in practice, not just promised in principle.

Gerry Carroll suggested that the poorest in society are affected most, with their living methods being blamed as a cause of damp and mould etc. It is totally untrue that those things cause mould; there are other contributory factors. Mark Durkan insisted that the problem affects not just Northern Ireland Housing Executive property but the private rented sector, and he encouraged the Minister to look into both. It is a rising problem in my constituency, where the number of complaints has risen from 744 in 2019-2020 to 1,307 in 2023-24.

Pam Cameron said that no one should be living in a home with damp and mould. She called for action on Awaab's law and for recognition of problems and periods for taking action when emergencies or significant faults are identified. Colm Gildernew highlighted the fact that Awaab's life could have been saved had action been taken — that is a sad reality; it was an unnecessary loss of life — and called for reforms to the private rented sector.

Kellie Armstrong highlighted the fact that too many people in Northern Ireland are living with damp and mould. She suggested that the fact that they are doing so is a sign of a sector that is under pressure. Robbie Butler said that one of the most common complaints heard in his office is that work is done to cover the problem but not to address the cause. Cathy Mason highlighted the battle that residents must have with landlords and the NIHE to address problems with mould and damp in a timely fashion, and she suggested that there is too much delay. David Brooks cited inclement weather as a contributor to mould. He also mentioned old housing stock, some of which is in use today. Maolíosa McHugh —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Maurice, will you draw your remarks to a close?

Mr Bradley: OK. Sorry, Maolíosa.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Excellent. Thank you for that. I call Daniel McCrossan to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Daniel, you have up to five minutes.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend amendment No 1 to the House. As my colleague Mark said, it is an important issue. Clearly, across the House, there is unanimous support on and understanding of the issue.

Every person in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they live in social housing, private rented accommodation or temporary accommodation, has the right to a safe, warm and healthy home. Damp, mould and serious disrepair are significant and serious issues for so many of our people. Those are public health issues. They aggravate asthma and worsen respiratory conditions, they can affect a person's mental well-being, and they damage childhood development from a young age and can prevent opportunities and lead to further problems. In the most tragic of circumstances, they can lead to death, as we saw in England, with the death of Awaab, which Members have referenced quite a bit. That showed the worst possible consequences of the situation: a child lost his life, and there is potential for other children or vulnerable adults to lose theirs.

Awaab's law was introduced because the system failed: it failed to act quickly; it failed to treat complaints with urgency; and it failed to put the health of a child above bureaucracy. We cannot wait for a similar tragedy to happen here before we act.

The substantive motion, rightly, highlights the fear that many private tenants feel. Too many are afraid to raise concerns about mould or structural problems because they fear eviction. That imbalance of power must be addressed; a home should never come with a silence clause. Our amendment seeks to strengthen the motion by addressing a gap that is too often overlooked: single let, temporary accommodation that is used by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is not subject to routine, ongoing inspection beyond the point of acquisition. Once the property enters use, responsibility for maintenance rests with the private providers, and the Housing Executive acts only when issues are reported. That is reactive and has led to issues; the Minister recognised that in his comments.

Families who are placed in temporary accommodation are among the most vulnerable. Many are homeless through no fault of their own. Some are fleeing domestic abuse and violence, and others are living with complex health needs. Placing them in accommodation that may not be inspected regularly, relying on complaints being made rather than carrying out proactive checks, is a serious systemic weakness.

We need a statutory framework that does three things. First, it must compel landlords across the social and private sectors to investigate and remedy damp, mould and disrepair within strict and enforceable time frames.

Secondly, it must protect tenants from retaliation when they raise legitimate concerns. Thirdly, it must place a clear statutory duty on the Housing Executive to regularly inspect and enforce minimum fitness standards across all temporary accommodation. Inspections should not depend on whether there is a crisis; enforcement should not depend on media attention; and standards should not depend on your postcode.

We also need to recognise the wider context that much of our housing stock is ageing and energy-inefficient and that poor insulation and inadequate ventilation has led to significant issues with damp and mould. Members referenced how the Housing Executive — I have experienced this in meetings — has said to residents that the issues are occurring because they are not opening windows and there is not good ventilation and that is what is leading to the dampness, with the suggestion that they simply give it a wipe. That is unacceptable. It is affecting people's health and well-being. If we are serious about tackling the major health inequalities related to housing, reducing hospital admissions and protecting our young people and the vulnerable, we must be serious about housing standards. This is not about giving landlords a hard time — the vast majority do the right thing — but, where standards slip, properties fall into serious disrepair and tenants feel powerless, the law has to be on the tenants' side. We have a duty to fix that.

The SDLP amendment ensures that we do not overlook those in temporary accommodation. It also ensures accountability and clarity of responsibility and that no one is left in unsafe housing simply because they are in transition.

A safe home is not a privilege; it is a basic right. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Gerry Carroll to make a winding-up speech on the debate. Gerry, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for the debate. There was, for the most part, unanimity and agreement, which is good, but I hope that action can follow rather than it just being a good debate and a pat on the back. We need real action from the Minister, and I will come to that in a second. I will run through some of the comments — obviously, I cannot deal with all of them — and then make some closing remarks.

The Member for Foyle Mark Durkan — I encourage Members to vote for his amendment — talked about damp and mould being Dickensian, which it is, and about the health impacts. I think that he initiated mention of the Minister's sidestepping and stalling, and I largely agree with that. He talked about a child in his constituency being hospitalised because of damp and mould. That is pretty grim. I think that that was in a single let being used by the Housing Executive. That is an all-too-common issue that many people hear about. In my experience — maybe it is the same for the Member — when you go to the Department, it says that, in a single-let situation like that, it is up to the landlord to fix the problems. However, the Department is not — maybe it is — cognisant of the fact that there is no obligation on landlords, for the most part, to fix those problems. Tenants are living in fear, and the issues of damp and mould are not addressed or fixed.

One suggestion is to restrict payment to landlords in that situation. They should not be paid and should probably be financially penalised if they house people in substandard accommodation, and there should be legislative protection for people during their tenancy so that they are not turfed out. The Minister and his officials who are listening to the debate should consider that.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's giving way. This is important, because there is perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding on his part. If I have got that wrong, I am sorry. There is legislation in place that can deal with this, and there is a responsibility on councils to deal with it. In fact, councils can instruct properties and enforce required actions on:

There is legislation in place here, and those landlords need to be held to account.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for that. He may be referring to the 1981 legislation or the 2011 legislation. When speaking to environmental health people, they often say that, in a general sense, the legislation is not strong enough. This is from recollection — I will be happy to correct the record at a future date if it is not the case — but, in an answer to me, the Department basically said that nothing can be done in those situations and that the Housing Executive effectively has no power over those properties. Again, if I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected, but that is my recollection of the answer that the Minister gave me a few months ago.

Pam Cameron said that damp and mould are not minor issues but serious health issues: obviously, I agree with her on that. She talked about the tragic death of Awaab Ishak and said that good intentions alone will not fix damp and mould: I agree. That is why legislation is needed.

Colm Gildernew talked about Awaab's death being tragic but preventable. That is absolutely the case.

Kellie Armstrong talked about problems in the private rented sector and how people who are living in damp and mouldy conditions also live in fear of being evicted. Most Members across the House stated that. It should give the Minister focus on how fearful private rented sector tenants are. In a general sense, he is reluctant to regulate too much, but there is a power imbalance. Private tenants are living in fear and in unsuitable housing.

Robbie Butler said that the issue is not abstract and is one of the most common issues to come through his office. In some ways, that is unsurprising. It is not good to hear it but good that it will, hopefully, put pressure on the Minister to act. He also mentioned that people are being worn down by repeatedly reporting problems to the Housing Executive and other providers. That is the case for me and the people I represent.

Cathy Mason also mentioned that the fight is constant and that it is the biggest issue that her constituency office comes across. Again, that should give the Minister focus on how urgent and widespread the issue is in urban and rural areas across the North.

David Brooks mentioned the need to tackle the issue and said that people should not be pushed out of their communities: I did not really understand that point. I think that he was referring to the Village. It is not in my constituency, but, since 2007, I have been supporting people there who live in bad housing conditions and challenging that. I remember the story in the early 2000s of an elderly woman who died because her oven was lying open and she was poisoned. Disgracefully, that was the only way in which she could heat her home. If the Member is serious about protecting working-class people in the Village or elsewhere and about them remaining there, he needs to look at a ban on no-fault evictions, rent controls and supporting the measures that I am proposing — not today, obviously — generally and through my private Member's Bill.

The Minister said that he has been in worse positions than agreeing with me. I will say this to you directly: you talked about Housing Executive borrowing and support, and I am glad to hear your announcement, if I picked you up correctly, that it is not connected to reclassification of any kind. The Housing Executive should be able to borrow but should remain a public body. I know that you are sharing information with the Communities Committee. I ask that it be shared with my good self as well.

The Minister mentioned the guidance from NIFHA: we had NIFHA upstairs today. That guidance is important, but, obviously, guidance is just guidance; it is not enforcement. That is a big difference. He talked about the powers that are already in place. Some powers are in place, but they are not strong enough. They are quite limited.

I think that the Minister mentioned the Decent Homes Standard consultation. I am happy to give way to him. What aspects of Awaab's law will be or are likely to be in the legislation to come out of that consultation? Obviously, minimum energy efficiency standards are welcome and long overdue, but they will not be as strong as the time commitments and clear time frame set out in Awaab's law.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I am happy to confirm that work is ongoing. The consultation is out. Absolutely, we intend to incorporate the additional protections, such as time frames for investigating and beginning repairs and engaging with tenants. We have not waited for that to be put in law; we are doing it. That will make the changes when it comes through.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for that. I look forward to reading the detail of that when it comes through.

Everybody talked about the human cost of damp and mould. I am glad that the Health Minister has joined us for the end of the debate. The NHS spends at least £1·4 billion a year treating illnesses caused by cold and damp housing directly. When wider societal costs are included, that rises to £15·4 billion. This is not about tight budgets and a lack of resources but about political choices. I tabled a question for written answer to the Health Minister, asking:

the public health impacts of poor housing. It was tabled on 17 February 2025, which is more than a year ago, but no answer has been received. After today's debate, I will chase up that answer for the House and me.

Nye Bevan, the socialist Labour MP who founded the NHS, was the Minister of Health and also had responsibility for housing. He and many people in the 1940s understood that there was a connection between housing and health. The issues are fundamentally connected. However, apart from today's debate, that connection seems to be something from a bygone era, and both things are not referred to as closely as they need to be.

In conclusion, I will quickly mention a constituent of mine — Raja — who lives in the Rockdale Street area of West Belfast. Black mould is crawling all over her ceilings. At one point, she had mould inside her oven. The house is completely overcrowded, with two teenage daughters sleeping in a box room and one sleeping on the floor. The Housing Executive does not seem to have the will or ability to get the private landlord to make the repairs.

The issue is widespread, Minister. I urge you to implement legislation that addresses that problem urgently. I urge Members to support the SDLP amendment and the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Jemma Dolan to raise the matter of the potential of the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) as a cross-border hospital.

I call Jemma Dolan. You have up to 15 minutes, Jemma.

Miss Dolan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I rise to speak about the South West Acute Hospital, a modern hospital with untapped potential as a true cross-border healthcare resource, and the urgent need for leadership to make that potential a reality. When the hospital was commissioned, its business plan received approval on the basis that the hospital would be positioned in a cross-border service network for trauma, emergency and elective care; in other words, the development and commissioning of future services was to be done on a cross-border basis to ensure the sustainability and clinical viability of services. More than a decade on, that vision has not been followed through. It is clear that the area needs a new, ambitious, whole-system, all-island healthcare approach that does not accept the existing constraints put in place as a result of partition on this island. We cannot continue to live in the way that we are living.

Fermanagh and Omagh is a uniquely rural district, representing 20% of the North's land mass and 6% of its population. It has the longest share of the border and is deeply interconnected with its neighbouring Southern border counties in trade, agriculture, workforce mobility, daily life and, indeed, cultural connections. Health cooperation would improve the range of service availability; reduce travel times, particularly for emergency care; and support shared workforce planning. An integrated cross-border model of care is an absolute priority for the people of Fermanagh and Omagh.

The breadth of the health issues raised by my constituents from all-island paediatric pathology services to autism provision and suicide support points to a simple truth: our current systems are failing to meet people's needs. They are not isolated concerns; they are symptoms of deeply rooted, systemic shortcomings in how healthcare is planned and delivered on the island. On this small island, we operate two health systems, each facing deep, structural challenges. It makes no sense that, on an island of just over seven million people, we run two entirely separate health systems that try to solve the same problems. Waiting lists in the North are unacceptably long, rural areas such as ours are especially hard hit, and patients continue to fall between the cracks.

Where cooperation has been embraced, we see success. The All-Island Congenital Heart Disease Network has delivered world-class outcomes for children. The North West Cancer Centre in Derry has a catchment area of approximately 500,000 residents, enabling those people to avail themselves of chemotherapy and radiotherapy services closer to home.

The current CEO of the Western Trust is on record as saying that, without the cross-border population, there would not be enough people to sustain the service. There is ample evidence that when we approach healthcare at the scale of our island, not the scale of partition, people benefit and we achieve world-class clinical outcomes for the people whom we serve. Why then has the same logic not been used in the SWAH to increase footfall and to build resilient emergency surgical services?

In July 2025, the Health Minister in the South, Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, stated:

I understand that, when our Health Minister gave evidence recently at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, he rightly indicated his support for cross-border health service development and implementation. Cross-border cooperation is already happening in places, but there needs to be more leadership on it. It must be developed at scale because, when it comes to health, there should be no borders.

I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber and would like to know what he has done to build on cooperation for the future sustainability of the SWAH, particularly in relation to emergency surgical care. Whilst we acknowledge the scaling up of elective care at the hospital, those are short-term measures that depend on independent sector provision and do not address the fundamental long-term issues of emergency surgery provision in the area. That is echoed in the recent work of the International Centre for Local and Regional Development. Its report on community and spatial planning in the Irish border region underlines how joined-up cross-border approaches to planning can deliver better outcomes for communities that span administrative boundaries. Its research shows that coordinated planning does not just improve services; it strengthens the fabric of border communities. Healthcare should be no different. We also heard those calls made powerfully at the Enniskillen event hosted by Pat Cullen MP on delivering rural health and care in a new Ireland. The event brought together voices from across health and rural communities, highlighting not just the crisis that we face but the opportunities that exist if we reimagine how health and care are delivered across the island. The message was clear: rural health needs a system that is equitable, sustainable and rooted in the needs of people, North and South, without artificial barriers.

People want to talk about the future and what a new and united Ireland could look like, and healthcare is one of the first places that they go, because cooperation in health just makes sense. An all-island national health and care service that is public, universal, free at the point of delivery and based on clinical need, will be more sustainable and will ensure that everyone on this island could access the best services available. Sinn Féin will continue to champion that integrated all-Ireland approach, ensuring that specialist care is accessible to people, North and South, on the basis of need. The future of health and care in a new Ireland is of enormous importance to citizens, and the South West Acute Hospital can and should be at the heart of a cross-border solution. Let us not waste another year of opportunity, leave another patient waiting, or have another family burdened by inadequate care. I call on the Health Minister to show leadership and make moves to build the health service of the future for all our communities, without borders and with the dignity that every person deserves.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): All other Members will now have approximately six minutes in which to speak.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the chance to speak on this important Adjournment topic. I feel compelled to contribute to it. As has been stated, the SWAH is a state-of-the-art, modern hospital that was purpose-built to provide high-quality, safe and efficient healthcare in a rural region. There is no doubt that the SWAH deserves to have, and must have, a long and secure future. As such, I am very supportive of cross-border opportunities being explored. It is an issue that I have raised directly with counterparts in the Republic of Ireland.

For the people of Fermanagh and West Tyrone, the SWAH is not just another hospital in a wider system; it is a vital lifeline. Rural healthcare must never be allowed to be treated as an afterthought. Access and geography matter in Fermanagh; we know that all too well. I truly believe that the Minister recognises that. I have accompanied him on multiple visits to the hospital, most recently only a few weeks ago. There is barely a staff group that he has not met or a corner of the hospital that he has not seen. The South West Acute Hospital was designed with the future in mind. Its individual rooms, modern infrastructure and theatre capacity position it perfectly as a major hub for high volume and for complex surgery moving forward. At a time when we are all acutely aware of the intolerable waits that patients face across Northern Ireland, the SWAH is demonstrating through actions on the ground that its facilities are capable of expanding care and that it can play its full part in reducing backlogs. In recent months, the Minister has been able to deliver the utilisation of more of the previously uncommissioned theatre capacity, with further plans well advanced. That is tangible progress, and it demonstrates what political determination and focused advocacy can achieve. It shows that, when we fight for the SWAH, we deliver for the SWAH.

However, support for the hospital cannot be complacent. It must be active and vigilant, because we have seen how fragile public confidence can become when decisions are taken without transparency or proper oversight. The temporary removal of emergency general surgery (EGS) by the Western Trust in late 2022 was deeply concerning. It occurred only a few weeks after the Assembly and the Executive had collapsed, but also only after the previous Minister of Health had sought written assurances on safety and planning that were never provided. That, understandably, undermined public confidence. When communities feel that decisions are being imposed on them without proper explanation or accountability, that concern is not only justified but powerful and entirely legitimate.

Within weeks of the Assembly being restored in early 2024, the then Health Minister ordered a Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) review to ensure that the issues were properly and independently examined. That was an important and necessary step, and, whilst the RQIA report provided some assurances and, most importantly, an agreement from the trust on what further measures were needed, all local MLAs will be aware that further challenges remain. I trust that the RQIA, given its most recent work on the hospital, will be able to ensure that further progress is made.

One of the greatest knocks to public confidence in recent times was the trust's failed attempt at a consultation last summer. As we will all remember, the Western Trust launched a ham-fisted consultation that was aimed at making the temporary closure permanent. Even though all the glaring shortcomings and errors were entirely obvious, the current Minister had to take the very unusual step of directly intervening so that the trust would listen. The Minister ordered the trust to halt that flawed process and, instead, to develop a long-term vision plan for the SWAH. Minister, whilst I have long believed that the work was too important for the trust to try to rush it through, in the seven months that have passed since then, the local community and key stakeholders would have liked to have seen more of the vision plan. They are not expecting to have the final document in their hands, but they would have liked, at least, to have had an assurance that detailed conversations were taking place and that planning was under way. Yet again, the Western Trust is falling below standard.

As you know, Minister, as local MLAs who live among the community, we will not accept short-term fixes dressed up as strategic reform. We will not accept consultation processes that undermine trust rather than build it. I hope that, as public representatives, we can give you our assurances that we will assist you in promoting the SWAH as a safe and sustainable hospital and as a great place for any staff member to work in. I have no doubt whatsoever that the SWAH's future is secure. Its outlook is one of growth and stability. It should be a centre that delivers acute services, maximises its modern design, expands elective capacity, supports staff and retains public confidence. However, that confidence will not be retained unless we continue to listen to the strength of local concerns and treat them with the seriousness that they deserve.

Although we acknowledge the potential of cross-border health services, we need to ask what appetite there really is from our counterparts in the Republic. Today, I reaffirm my party's unwavering commitment to the South West Acute Hospital. We recognise its strategic importance and the strength of feeling in the community, and we will continue to stand up firmly and consistently to ensure that the SWAH has not just a future but a thriving one. One last thing, Minister: where is the vision plan?

Ms Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Adjournment debate, which was secured by my party colleague, on the future of the South West Acute Hospital and, indeed, its future on a cross-border basis.

The South West Acute Hospital is a lifeline for people across Counties Tyrone and Fermanagh and the wider border region. It serves rural communities where patients already have to travel for hours to access emergency and specialist surgical care. For many families, it is the difference between timely treatment and dangerous delay. The clinical evidence is clear: there is a direct correlation between time delays for treatment and increased mortality rates.

We must approach the issue with ambition and realism. Border communities have long endured the disadvantage of partition, with fragmented services, unnecessary duplication in some areas and glaring gaps in others. Healthcare should not be one of those gaps. We now have a genuine opportunity to develop the South West Acute Hospital as a cross-border centre of excellence that works in partnership with services in other border counties. Indeed, when the hospital was commissioned, it was always anticipated that services would be expanded on a cross-border basis. Approximately four theatres and two wards were to be commissioned for use on that basis. The Department of Health and the Western Trust, however, have done little to realise the commissioning intent, and, as a result, those important resources have remained not commissioned for their intended purposes.

It is well recognised that we can address the challenges with recruitment and retention of expert clinical staff through the delivery of an all-island service to a population of seven million. Continuing to provide services to five million people in the South and fewer than two million people in the North will remain a barrier to recruitment and retention of staff and must therefore be urgently addressed. Staff at the South West Acute Hospital are highly expert and committed professionals who deserve certainty about the hospital's future. Repeated reviews, service changes and staffing challenges have created understandable anxiety in that community. We must now provide a clear strategic direction. The existing models of all-island service delivery show that it can be delivered safely and effectively and that world-class clinical outcomes can be delivered for citizens on both sides of the border. Importantly, this debate must be grounded in the needs and experiences of our rural population. Rural demographics must be considered when commissioning health and social care services. This is also about equality. Rural border communities are entitled to integrated solutions that reflect how they live their lives along the border region, while staff are entitled to stability, investment and long-term planning.

Minister, I will address the issue of the ongoing suspension of emergency general surgery at the South West Acute Hospital. Seven months ago, you asked the trust to pause the consultation on the permanent removal of EGS. Seven months later, the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone are still waiting for a way forward. That prolonged uncertainty is simply unacceptable, and soon we will be eight or nine months down the line. Yesterday, party colleagues and constituency colleagues stood with members of our local community and the local lobby group Save Our Acute Services (SOAS). I take the opportunity to welcome Helen and Jimmy, who have made it up the road two days on the bounce now, to the Public Gallery. They have clocked up a lot of miles to join us here today. People gathered at the front steps yesterday to call for emergency general surgery to be reinstated at the hospital. Those people are patients, families and healthcare workers, all of whom care deeply about their local hospital and about the safety of service in their area. They deserve honesty, transparency and respect, not the confusion and uncertainty that has been shown to date.

Minister, the trust has indicated that it has written to your Department to ask whether you wish to make the case for commissioning a new emergency general surgery service model. I recently submitted a question for written answer to you on that very issue, but, unfortunately, you have not answered it to date. Given the strength of public concern and the ongoing uncertainty, I ask you to provide clarity today. I put this question to you directly: have you requested that the Western Trust develop a fully costed business case to deliver a new EGS service at the South West Acute Hospital? The people of Fermanagh and Tyrone deserve answers.

Mr Gildernew: My colleagues from Fermanagh have largely dealt with a lot of the detail of the issue. I will touch a bit more on the general stuff, which is really critical. It is critical for the South West Acute Hospital, because it is not just the hinterland to its south that is excluded from playing a role but, given its geographic location, the hinterland to its west and east. That makes the hospital really important. I was reflecting on the fact that, before Christmas, the Brantry area rural development (BARD) centre hosted a meeting of the Southern Trust area integrated partnership board (AIPB).

It was noticeable that everyone who came to that meeting arrived extremely stressed; you would have thought that they were being taken to Timbuktu instead of the Brantry. Councillor Gael Gildernew, who is a member of the AIPB, pointed out to those from the Southern Trust that they were not by any means at the extreme end of their area. In fact, they were about 30 miles from Craigavon and had almost another 30 miles to go to get to Fivemiletown. However, she also pointed out that where they were sitting was about three miles from Monaghan, so there is a bit of a lesson in that.

I was privileged to serve as Chair of the Health Committee. In that role, I visited Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin and, as I mentioned previously, explored with people there the potential for a paediatric pathology service. They indicated — my colleague made a similar point — that some services require an economy of scale to recruit and provide a full rota that allows everyone to be confident that they will get the time off, the training opportunities and the volume of cases that they need.

Interestingly, during that conversation, colleagues from the Crumlin children's hospital stated that the good ideas of professionals and clinicians sometimes went into the Department and that, sometimes, that was where those great ideas went to die. That was said not disparagingly but simply because the Department did not have the same focus or momentum in prioritising the development of services. It has often been said to me, however, that clinicians and professionals are often well ahead of trusts and Departments on that.

As the end of the previous mandate, when we came to draw up our legacy report, we stipulated that, on the basis of what we had heard from health sectors including cancer, children's services and older people, one of the key recommendations from the outgoing Committee should be on the need for a small island such as this to cooperate better on delivering healthcare. That need was stark, and, as one of our main recommendations, everyone and all parties agreed that it should be a priority. Minister, will you commit to putting in place a task force to look across different areas at what services could be better delivered and at using the South West Acute Hospital to serve, as was intended, its wider hinterland?

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for being here. We have heard much about the development of cross-border services, and there is no doubt that the South West Acute Hospital, given where it is situated, lends itself to such services. However, there are a few fundamentals that we must consider prior to moving to any development of cross-border services. First, there must be protection for local capacity. The South West Acute Hospital, which is a state-of-the-art hospital, as has been mentioned, was built to serve the people of the rural south-west quarter of Northern Ireland. We must not do anything to undermine or hinder its development for service delivery to those people.

We saw a protest at Stormont yesterday because of the removal of emergency general surgery. The people who were here were from the rural hinterland of County Fermanagh, and they came to lobby for the restoration of that service and others. They want to see the hospital utilised to its full service delivery potential for people from the area and from the whole south-west quarter of Northern Ireland. First priority must therefore be given to protecting local capacity. Waiting lists in Northern Ireland are among the worst in the UK, and I thank the Minister for the work that he has done in recent times to reduce those waiting lists. Therefore, local people must be given priority.

I am sure that, like me, Members around the Chamber deal weekly in their constituency office with constituents' health issues, including lengthy waiting times. Frankly, until that issue is resolved, we do not need to put further pressure on the South West Acute Hospital, which would add to the problem.

Let us look at the funding issue. The South West Acute Hospital is funded through the Northern Ireland Health budget, so Northern Ireland taxpayers should not be subject to reduced access as a result of capacity being allocated elsewhere. That would not happen in any other jurisdiction. If cross-border usage were to be expanded to the South West Acute Hospital, full and consistent funding would need to follow the patient, or would the Health Minister be expected to find that funding from an already stretched Health budget?

What about staffing? We all know that we face severe staffing issues across our health and social care system. If the South West Acute Hospital were to become a cross-border hospital, would that result in staff being shared across the border? From conversations that some of my colleagues have had, I know that there would be a logistical and HR problem in developing and delivering this.

What about the extra demand? Our doctors and nurses are already overstretched. Adding demand risks burnout and retention issues. In rural trusts such as the Western Health and Social Care Trust, staff recruitment is difficult at the best of times, so extra demand in the absence of extra staff would render it unsustainable.

We are all too well aware of the downgrading of services at the South West Acute Hospital in recent times, such as the changes to emergency general surgery. We are all passionate about that and want to see it restored. Before any consideration is given to exploring cross-border access, we must focus our energy on stabilising and restoring full services in the South West Acute Hospital and across the Western Health and Social Care Trust area for the local population. Take the Hospital at Home concept: the Western Health and Social Care Trust has made provision for that service at Altnagelvin and in Enniskillen, but there is no provision whatsoever for it in Omagh. That points to a real disparity in service delivery, with services not being delivered evenly and equally across the trust area.

Until all those issues are resolved, I see no merit in adding a greater burden to a system that is already under pressure. Any decisions must be taken incrementally with full Assembly scrutiny and transparency.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the potential of the South West Acute Hospital as a genuine cross-border hospital and what that could mean for patients across the island.

Like other Members, I have met representatives of the SOAS campaign; I met campaigners today, and I believe that they are here. I assure the people who live in Fermanagh of Alliance's commitment to ensuring that the South West Acute Hospital is an active asset to their community and to its becoming a hub for elective care for patients across Northern Ireland. I have also had the opportunity to meet local council members and businesses to hear their concerns about healthcare in the area. I visited the SWAH recently with the Health Committee, and it is clear that more services could be delivered in the hospital. It is an impressive and modern building, but more could be delivered there, and we will certainly work to achieve that. Politics must play no part in preventing us having a health service and hospital systems that work to deliver for everyone across Northern Ireland.

In healthcare, the focus must always be on better outcomes. Geography should never be a barrier to care. When we discuss cross-border healthcare, the debate should be grounded in practical experience and measurable results. There are clear examples on the island where structured cooperation has strengthened specialist services and delivered better outcomes for patients.

I will raise a couple of examples of cross-border healthcare already in operation. One of the most compelling examples is the all-island congenital heart disease network and the impact that it has had on children's heart surgery. Survival rates for children with congenital heart conditions in the Republic and in Northern Ireland are said to now match the best results globally. Figures covering 2023 to 2024 highlight increased survival rates and continued advancements in paediatric cardiac care, reaffirming the importance of delivering world-class healthcare for children across Ireland. The data shows that congenital heart disease procedures increased overall, with paediatric surgical procedures being up by 5% on the previous year, reflecting progress in service delivery. Crucially, survival rates remained among the best globally, with an overall three-year survival ratio of 98·6%, which exceeds predicted outcomes.

Another established example of cooperation in practice is the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin, which provides cancer care for more than half a million people in the western region of Northern Ireland and the adjoining areas in the South. The centre has been awarded the European Society for Medical Oncology's accreditation, having met 13 strict criteria based on the World Health Organization's recommendations on the provision of palliative care for patients with cancer. The accreditation recognises cancer centres that provide the highest standard of integrated oncology and palliative care services with the goal of improving research, education and clinical practice by setting clear standards for service development.

Academics have emphasised the importance of that type of cooperation. Professor Mark Lawler, associate pro-vice-chancellor at Queen's University, has said that sharing knowledge and funding could mean that Governments would fight cancer, which he described as being "the common enemy", rather than competing against one another. He argued that Governments should:

That is an important point. We should not overlook cross-border initiatives when designing a health service that works for people, particularly those in border regions who, too often, feel overlooked already. I know that the Minister is very open to cross-border co-operation on health issues.

The examples that I gave demonstrate that cross-border healthcare is neither experimental nor symbolic but is rooted in better outcomes. Aside from the notable exceptions that I mentioned, collaboration remains limited. To date, the approach has been minimalist and is often project specific. The Health Committee met the Committee on Health in the South to discuss opportunities for further cross-border collaboration on health. The North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association has met several times and had healthcare-related presentations on cross-border cancer care and perinatal mental health care. A mother-and-baby unit — something that is not available anywhere on this island — was raised as being a possible project on which to work together.

It has been suggested that key healthcare services, including ear, nose and throat surgery, orthopaedics, treatment of rare diseases, cancer care and acute mental health services are potential areas for future all-Ireland initiatives. The South West Acute Hospital presents substantial opportunities for innovation in cross-border service provision. It has clear potential: the question is whether we have the political will and strategic clarity to realise that potential in a way that strengthens services across Northern Ireland and delivers better outcomes for patients.

Mr McGrath: As in any discussion on a topic such as this, I will start by acknowledging the surprise in the room, which is that I am not from Fermanagh. That does not mean that, as an SDLP representative, I will not stand up for the people who are fighting this campaign. I live in the town of Downpatrick, which, in some ways, is not dissimilar to Enniskillen. One similarity that my constituency has to Fermanagh is that it is mostly rural. One consistency — I think that this is becoming a bit of a pattern — is that rural communities are being left behind in healthcare generally, but specifically in emergency healthcare treatments. It seems that emergency facilities, whether surgeries, emergency departments or other facilities, are becoming more urban based. That is fundamentally unfair to those of us who live in rural communities.

I welcome the opportunity to have a debate about rural provision in the SWAH. The SWAH covers communities across Fermanagh and Tyrone, as well, indeed, as in parts of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan. The fear for the debate is that we could lapse into talking about North/South or British/Irish issues.

We should not go there, because, when you are sick and need emergency treatment, you want to get to the nearest facility as quickly as possible. The fundamental point is that it is not good enough that people in Fermanagh have to travel to Altnagelvin for emergency surgery. A journey of two and a half hours for anything emergency is just ridiculous. It is counterproductive to say to somebody, "You can get emergency treatment, but it's two and a half hours away".

There is another concern for people who live in rural communities, especially those in Fermanagh. The journey can take two and a half hours once the ambulance arrives, but the ambulance has to get to them first. We know that, at the moment, through no fault of the dedicated paramedic staff or those in the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, the Ambulance Service is not able to respond to people in rural communities in a timely manner. I do not know what it must be like for some people who need emergency surgery and ring for an ambulance. They may think that it will take an hour to get to them, but it could take two and a half hours. Then, when they arrive at hospital, they have to be triaged. If they have gone via the SWAH, by the time that they get to Altnagelvin, they have to be triaged a second time, which adds more time to a service that is supposed to be an emergency service.

We invested in the hospital, and it was built, but we were then in a scenario in which the services were removed. I am sure that people feel that the trust is doing a good job in its own way, but it is using statistics to try to prove to people that the decisions that it wants to take are the right ones. I wonder whether they are. I reflect on figures from some of the experts, such as CHKS. We keep hearing about a risk-adjusted mortality index (RAMI), which is a measurement that we are supposed to just accept and say, "Well, the RAMI score's grand, so let's shut down the emergency surgery and forget about it". However, that independent organisation, which analyses the information, is not so sure: it says that it does not show a statistically significant change, and that it needs a longer period of time to assess the data. It talks about the average length of stay. There is no change in the average length of stay. When it comes down to it, it is about that old saying about pounds, shillings and pence. It is about simply putting everything into one centre because that makes the service easier to run. That is not fair on rural communities. Minister, we need somebody to stick up for rural communities. There are parallels in my constituency of South Down. People in rural communities are frightened that, at their moment of need, the health service will not be there for them.

We need to do all that we can collectively — north, south, east and west; across the Executive; and those of us in the Opposition — to serve the people whom we represent right across the constituencies, not just those in parts of them. Key to that are places such as the SWAH being able to deliver the services that they were built to deliver.

I hope that we will see the change that we need, and that we will keep the campaign going. I thank Helen, Jimmy and all the team for keeping it on our agenda.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Jemma Dolan for securing the Adjournment debate.

I will always embrace an opportunity to talk about the SWAH. It is a gem. It is a wonderful facility: a great building and very modern. However, I go back to my normal formula: in order to deliver health and social care, you need the buildings, the beds, the equipment and the medicines. However, those four things are nothing if you do not have a fifth thing — the workforce — right.

The workforce at the SWAH is magnificent. I was down there recently, as Diana Armstrong said, and got the same message that I got from Daisy Hill Hospital when I was last there: "Never mind praising us for what we are doing, give us the ability to do more". There is a great appetite amongst the workforce in the SWAH to do more, and I want to facilitate that if I can.

Let me be clear on this point: as far as I am concerned, the SWAH has a long and secure future ahead of it. I understand why much of the discussion has been about the temporary suspension of emergency general surgery, which has been in place, as we have remarked, since November 2022. I would prefer it if we had a little bit of balance there and perhaps talked up a lot of the stuff that the SWAH does, rather than the one service that it does not do at present. The SWAH supports a wide range of planned care activity, diagnostics, outpatient services and day-case procedures. It operates a busy emergency department, ensuring that patients can access care closer to home, where it is safe and appropriate to do so. You also have those two theatres that were not commissioned. Well, one has been commissioned. The independent sector is now delivering hips and knees, and over 70% of the patients who go in for a hip or knee replacement leave the same day. When Diana and I were down, we saw a man on crutches being taken along the corridors by the physio. He was just out of surgery. In fact, the reason that a lot of the 30% of patients who stay overnight do so is that they do not go through that procedure until mid- or late afternoon, so it is not safe to send them home.

The SWAH is a wonderful, wonderful hospital doing wonderful things, so I do not really get why there is a narrative that, slowly but surely, services are being stripped away and the hospital is being downgraded. That is simply not the case. Yes, the temporary suspension of EGS has caused huge concern, but let us focus on what it does do. It is 14 years old and it has never been busier. It has never been busier or more active than it is today delivering surgical procedures. Record numbers from across Fermanagh and Tyrone, and sometimes further afield, are treated in the SWAH.

On the issue of cross-border working more generally, the idea of North/South collaboration in health and social care is not new: we are already doing it. You know that I stand here as a unionist MLA with no political or ideological objection to cross-border cooperation in healthcare. In fact, quite the opposite, because, when you look at the border through the lens of health and social care, the last thing that it defines is "difference". People have the same needs and the same challenges in the border counties, whether they are northern or southern counties. I heard Jemma Dolan discuss North/South progress in healthcare, contextualised within her desire for a new Ireland, which means constitutional change. That is her right, but, as the Minister of Health, I will not bring party politics into my role.

In border regions, perhaps in particular, North/South collaboration makes absolute sense. We should look for opportunities to work together, but it is not just border areas, and Danny Donnelly referenced the fact that, when you get to things such as rare diseases and some clinical trials, the population of Northern Ireland is not big enough. In fact, for some clinical trials, the population of the Republic of Ireland is not big enough, so an all-island approach, to bring in seven million people, is the only way to do it. That is another example of where cross-border cooperation makes absolute sense.

There are a number of positive examples of cross-border cooperation in the Western Trust. For example, it has established mutual aid arrangements between the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the National Ambulance Service in Ireland. That allows for cross-border support in emergency situations. Ambulance crews regularly cross the border while undertaking routine transfer journeys and when responding to respective emergency calls. At the most-recent North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on health, Jennifer Carroll MacNeill and I tasked officials to go away and look at areas where qualifications are asymmetrical — in other words, where somebody delivering health and social care here cannot work on the other side of the border, and vice versa. For the next sectoral meeting, we want a list of all the qualifications that are not in tune, and we will then figure out a work programme to try to address that.

On the Western Trust and cross-border cooperation, there is participation in services delivered through the Cooperation and Working Together (CAWT) partnership, and I was delighted to go down to the Mellon Country Inn not that long ago to celebrate some of the EU PEACE PLUS money coming in. There is also access to all-island clinical networks in specialised areas of care such as congenital heart disease services and the cancer services in the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin Area Hospital.

In my time, I have had the honour of seeing first-hand examples of collaboration and how those benefit people here and across the border in the most profound way. They show that cross-border solutions can and do work, where there is a clear service need and clinical support and where appropriate governance arrangements are in place.

Of course, as we have seen on various occasions before, whilst cross-border working may appear to be straightforward in principle, the reality is often much more difficult. We have a range of practical considerations to work through, and I have mentioned the ones that Jennifer and I have agreed on. None of it is insurmountable, but it requires detailed engagement with clinicians, regulators, commissioners, system partners and stakeholders on both sides of the border. However, I give you a commitment that, after the debate, I will expect a further assurance from officials that the Department and the Western Trust are fully maximising the cross-border potential of the SWAH for the communities that it serves.

I also give you a commitment on a frustration that I share. In July, I asked the trust to pause the public consultation because I did not think that it was good. There was no consultation event in Omagh, and that was a mistake. The consultation event in Enniskillen was not on a good date; from memory, it was on 13 July. I am glad that the trust paused and then cancelled that consultation. I want the trust to produce the vision document, and it has had a significant number of months to do so. We cannot wait forever, because it should be the foundational document going forward.

Áine asked whether I had requested that the Western Health and Social Care Trust develop a fully costed business case for the establishment of a new EGS service at the South West Acute Hospital. That is wrong way round: it is up to the trust to decide what services it is going to provide. If the trust comes to me with a fully costed plan to reintroduce emergency general surgery, I will look at it within the time frames and procedures that we have. You have reversed the process. I will be honest with you: it is not possible to reinstate EGS in the SWAH in the interim. We do not have the additional funding to do that at the moment.

The reason for the temporary suspension must be read into the record again: the SWAH did not meet the standards identified through the review of general surgery, and it would require "fundamental change" in a number of areas to do so. The temporary suspension came into place because of safety issues. The trust experienced issues in securing sufficient substantive consultant general surgeons to reliably sustain an out-of-hours rota for emergency general surgery in the SWAH. There was no interventional radiology, and other issues were at play. Bringing in the temporary suspension was the right thing to do for patient safety. It is now up to the Western Trust to bring forward a plan — if that is its desire — to reinstate EGS, but, before that, the trust must give us its vision for the future of the SWAH, which is a wonderful hospital with a great future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Safe travels back to Fermanagh when you go home tonight. Take it easy down those roads. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much indeed.