Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome Ronan Murtagh, grade 5, finance, and Paula Shearer, grade 7, financial management and budgeting. I understand you are going to use your opening remarks to cover some of the queries that we submitted during the week. The Committee is keen to hear your answers, so please be as thorough as you would like.

Mr Ronan Murtagh (The Executive Office): Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to attend the Committee today in order to provide some further detail on the briefing for Budget 2025-26. The Committee has been provided with a briefing paper, which gave an overview of our approach and outlines the bids that were submitted. I do not propose to go into that paper in detail, but I will give you a very high-level overview as a reminder. It touches on the allocations for the proposals for 2025-26 in response to those bids. We received your follow-up questions and we hope to address those today.

We continue to be mindful of the challenges that all Departments are facing and the environment in which we continue to operate. In response to non-earmarked resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) bids of £14·7 million, we were allocated £4·6 million, £2 million of which has been provided on an earmarked basis, specifically for ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG). For earmarked resource DEL bids of £168·9 million in respect of victims' payments, historical institutional abuse and truth recovery, we have been provided with an allocation of £150 million.

We have been allocated an earmarked £2·5 million in respect of PEACE PLUS. That was informed by the Department of Finance and the Special EU Programmes Body, so it did not form part of our bids but it has been allocated to us. For capital DEL, we have been allocated £14 million in response to bids totalling £16·3 million. The Ministers have approved decisions on initial spending plans in respect of those allocations, and we have sought to maintain front-line services, delivery levels and commitments as far as possible. We will, however, continue to address shortfalls during the year through in-year monitoring and careful management.

As previously mentioned, the Department also expects to receive allocations in respect of Communities in Transition (CIT), the Windsor framework and refugees and asylum seekers' integration and support during the year. Those matters are separate from the Budget 2025-26 opening allocations.

I hope that the written briefing that was provided to members has been helpful. I am happy to address the matters that were mentioned in the Committee's letter, so I will work through those.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am sorry; I forgot to ask whether members are content that this session is recorded by Hansard.

Mr Murtagh: The Committee's first question related to capital spend of £14 million, which included health and safety works at Maze/Long Kesh (MLK). The Committee requested further details on the cost of the works on the site. The £1 million bid from MLK for health and safety works can be broken down as follows: £550,000 was allocated for essential health and safety capital works to the World War II hangar rear doors and £100,000 was allocated for hangar asbestos removal and rooms restoration. The purpose of the health and safety works was to bring the space into meaningful use by the Ulster Aviation Society (UAS). That was required in advance of the next phase of the works to the hangar's roof trusses and columns. The UAS hangars are in active use by the charity, which attracts in the order of 10,000 visitors per annum. So, a focus on health and safety for public access is an important issue.

An allocation of £100,000 was made to cover health and safety works to scheduled monuments, blast shelters and pillboxes and associated lands. That was required in respect of MLK's statutory duty to protect scheduled monuments, so it is a legislative requirement. There were site-wide health and safety minor capital works totalling £250,000. That was a planned programme of works in reaction to health and safety issues and to support public access to site occupiers.

I am happy to take any questions on that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK?

Mr Gaston: I am happy enough. One thing that I would like to say, and it might be timely, is that, obviously the site is under the remit of this Committee. We were at Ebrington previously. Is there any possibility, at some stage in the future, to go and visit the Maze site?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I think that the Committee for the Economy is going.

Mr Gaston: It has been.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, OK. I will put that on the forward work programme. Go ahead, please.

Mr Murtagh: The next question centred on communities in transition. It was the bid of £1·4 million, which was not successful in the opening allocations. The bid seeks to support organisations helping to deliver objectives, including the strategy to end violence against women and girls. A list of the successful applicants was requested and detail on the selection process, including what steps were taken to ensure regional balance.

First of all, to be very clear, I feel that I should point out that CIT and EVAWG are very separate programmes in respect of their wording, although there is an important read-across, in that exploitation of children by paramilitaries is an issue in a number of CIT areas. There is no duplication of funding.

We are in the process of awarding CIT contracts, so we cannot give a list of organisations at this stage. However, I can confirm that the contracts will cover the CIT areas, so, by way of regional balance, it is worth reminding the Committee that: north Down covers Kilcooley and Rathgill; west Belfast covers lower Falls, Twinbrook, Poleglass, Upper Springfield, Turf Lodge and Ballymurphy; east Belfast covers the Mount and Ballymacarrett; Shankill; Derry/Londonderry covers Brandywell and Creggan; Carrickfergus and Larne covers Antiville and Kilwaughter in Larne, and Northland and Castlemara in Carrickfergus; north Belfast covers the New Lodge and Ardoyne; and Lurgan covers Drumgask and Kilwilkie.

Just for completeness, I point out that EVAWG covers all the council areas. I am aware that the Committee is receiving evidence from colleagues specifically on CIT later today.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Brian, do you have a question?

Mr Kingston: No, I will raise my questions later, but will you clarify whether you said that the EVAWG strategy bid was not successful?

Mr Murtagh: No, the CIT bid. The reference —

Mr Kingston: Is it the Communities in Transition bid and the strategy on ending violence against women and girls?

Mr Murtagh: No. It is a separate programme. There was reference in the briefing about the delivery of both programmes, but this is a separate and distinct funding issue. This is purely talking about Communities in Transition.

Mr Kingston: OK. The way that it is worded here made me think that the Communities in Transition team had made a bid for funding.

Mr Murtagh: No. Apologies.

Mr Kingston: The other question that I have, which I will raise later, is around whether a review of the Communities in Transition areas is taking place. In North Belfast, large parts of the community have been left out.

Mr Murtagh: Reviews around location will be subject to funding, but I will defer to colleagues in the next session.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, do you want in on this one?

Mr Gaston: It is probably a question for later, but, last year, in response to a question for written answer, I was told that contracts totalling £3·78 million were handed out. Is it the same figure this year? When will those contracts be in place?

Obviously, we are a number of days away from the end of the financial year. Is it an expectation that those who have secured contracts will be preparing to hit the ground running at the start of the financial year, or will the process take a number of weeks or months to bottom out?

Mr Murtagh: On the finance, I should clarify that the £1·4 million additional bid was not successful for CIT. It is the money coming from the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, and that is £2·9 million. On the contract awarding process, again, I will defer to colleagues in the next session.

Mr Gaston: That is £2·9 million for contracts this year. That is £1 million less than the sum given out last year.

Ms McLaughlin: May I ask a question about the north-west development fund allocation and the failure to match-fund the Irish Government. Can you give me any background to that? You said that it is under consideration.

Mr Murtagh: The Executive Office remains committed to supporting the north-west region and the north-west strategic growth partnership structures. Officials have engaged with Irish Government counterparts to investigate how best to support the region.

Going forward, we want to focus on transformational change, which is required in the region, and how best to utilise the structures that are in place, such as the north-west strategic growth partnership, to support that change. We are considering next steps. At the moment, there is no allocation, but we will bring forward bids through monitoring in-year when there is further clarity on that.

Ms McLaughlin: OK. Have you no idea of the timescale?

Mr Murtagh: No, at present, I do not.

Ms McLaughlin: Right. The timescale is critical because the resources are now complete.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. We will proceed.

Mr Murtagh: I move on to point 3, which is about the additional good relations allocation of £0·75 million. The Committee's question was whether that allocation was for TEO to lead on projects or whether the funds were for councils to deliver projects in their area. The £0·75 million allocation is in addition to the baseline and is intended to be split equally across central good relations and district good relations, so it will be split between the projects delivered by TEO and those delivered by the councils.

Mr Murtagh: Question 4, on good relations again, centred on the bid, which was £2·7 million — not all of it was met, obviously — and comprised central good relations and district good relations. The question was whether there were plans for further phases. The £2·7 million is split across central and district, and, ultimately, whether there are further phases will depend on funding. That would inform any additional bids during the year. At the moment, we have the opening baseline plus the £0·75 million that was referenced in the earlier question. That would form part of any additional bids to be brought forward during monitoring, but they would be subject to funding considerations.

Mr Gaston: The £0·75 million is being split between central government and local government, so half of it will go to councils. Have councils lobbied or bid for what they would need to carry out the projects, or has TEO decided that, in saying, "We will put in a bid of two-point-something million, and what we get we will split with councils". From my time in local government, I know that it was always reactionary: "We have got this money from Stormont. What are we going to spend it on?".

Mr Murtagh: That question is probably more for colleagues in good relations to answer. I will say that the bid for £2·7 million was made with a view to restoring allocations to the level that they were at before the 2023-24 reductions. The £0·75 million is essentially to maintain the funding as it stands. The basis of it is to make sure that we do not reduce good relations. Whether there have been detailed discussions with delivery partners is a matter for good relations colleagues; to check, I would need to discuss that with them.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Mr Murtagh: Question 5 was on whether any bids for funding for Intertrade UK were submitted to TEO. The short answer to that is no. TEO does not hold responsibility for Intertrade UK's funding, so no bids would be brought to TEO. Intertrade UK is a non-departmental public body (NDPB), so its funding is the responsibility of its sponsor Department. That was initially the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and is now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The funding would come from there.

Mr Gaston: I get your point, but, given the staffing in TEO that relates to the EU, surely the best fit for Intertrade UK would be the Executive Office because of its other functions. The AERA Minister has checks at the port, but, when it comes to some of the Windsor framework, staffing sits in TEO. If a bid for funding for Intertrade UK were to be submitted, there is an argument that it should come from there.

Mr Murtagh: From our perspective, we probably see Intertrade UK as more of an economic organisation, but I can certainly bring that back to the Department.

Mr Gaston: With the cross-cutting nature of it, you could make the argument that it sits under TEO. Go ahead Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: That is one of the economic drivers for all-island trade, and, to be honest, you would be better off with the paper that you are talking about sitting in the Department for the Economy.

Mr Kingston: It is not all-island; it is primarily across the UK.

Ms McLaughlin: He is comparing it to InterTradeIreland. I am saying that it is clearly in the Department for the Economy —

Mr Gaston: It has no interest —

Ms McLaughlin: — and not within the remit of TEO.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have a lot to get through.

Mr Gaston: — in bidding for it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Quiet. Please.

Please go ahead, thank you. We got our answer, thank you.

Mr Murtagh: Question 6 was about the non-departmental public bodies, which are being allocated a total of £0·65 million. We highlighted the fact that limited funding was available and that it was possible only to partially meet the needs for pay and inflationary pressures over and above the baselines that were brought forward by our NDPBs. The Committee asked for a list of the NDPBs that that refers to and a list of the arm's-length bodies (ALBs) that have registered pressures in respect of costs that cannot be managed within the baseline allocation, and it asked whether the pressures in respect of those costs relate to the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. Several of our NDPBs registered pressures that are challenging to manage within the baseline. I could probably list all of them.

The Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse (COSICA) is funded from the earmarked fund and is therefore treated separately and funded from the earmarked funding. It would be challenging for any of the other arm's-length bodies to manage within the baseline, and they have registered that fact.

We have been in a position to allocate £0·65 million towards the NDPBs' bids. That is towards paying other bids as well as paying inflationary pressures, but it does not cover all the bids that they brought forward simply because of affordability issues. The Department is in the same position. I think that all other Departments are in the same position, in that nobody got the funding that they were hoping for in the budget settlements and efficiencies therefore being required.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Before you go on, Ronan, do you — the finance department of the Executive Office — have a role to provide those arm's-length bodies and non-departmental public bodies with some sort of support as they experience those financial pressures? For example, with the changes in employers' National Insurance contributions and other pressures from rent and rates, do you have any responsibility to support them to find ways to make their budgets meet the requirements?

Mr Murtagh: We work closely with our arm's-length bodies; we consider them to be delivery partners. They have their own finance functions and accounting officers, so they have the remit to make their own decisions within the guidelines and to centre their budgetary needs as their allocations best fit towards delivery. We work closely with them to give them advice and support, but we do not have an obligation to ensure that they live within their budgets; that is a matter for their accounting officers.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): If they have statutory responsibilities that they have to deliver — for example, the Equality Commission's monitoring responsibilities are clearly set out in law — and the cloth keeps getting cut, how do they meet those statutory requirements? Is that —?

Mr Murtagh: That is part of the delivery partnership and oversight role; it is not specifically the finance department. The finance department is part of it, but it is part of the wider delivery. We have a close working relationship with the NDPBs. We are mindful of that position. The matter of how close that position comes is raised frequently.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you.

Mr Murtagh: The pressures outlined do not include the impact of the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. We are working separately with the Department of Finance on that. Discussions with Treasury are ongoing, but, at the moment, we have no idea whether any of that funding is forthcoming. That is over and above the figures produced for the paper. We flagged that in the paper. Essentially, until we knew that there was going to be an issue, we didn't factor it in as a pressure. We will keep the Committee updated on that. A note was received yesterday in terms of that ongoing communication. If more information is supplied to the Department of Finance, we will keep the Committee sighted on it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Does anybody have any questions before we go on? No? OK. Thank you.

Mr Murtagh: Question 7 was about the staff costs, and that is a pressure of £1·18 million. The Committee's question was whether the assumptions, which the Department of Finance advised were progression plus 3% uplift, included a salary increment. The assumptions that were applied in the calculations covered a 3% progression, which would cover the increase in the scales. A further illustrative 1% was incorporated for the aspect by which staff are entitled to an annual increment. I believe that that was the Committee's question. There is a 3% uplift, but, overall, we impacted 4% in the calculation to allow for that.
The Committee's question on financial transaction capital (FTC) centred on £7·6 million of FTC loan repayment, more detail on the spend and what it included. The £7·6 million figure relates to the receipts. The loans in the Department's budgets centre on the lead Departments, which are the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy. They are the loans administered to the Northern Ireland Investment Fund and the universities. There is no new loan funding factored into that. That would be a policy decision and advised by those Departments in-year.

We have factored in the interest required in our calculations. The cost element of the FTC requirement is £9·9 million, and that centres on the interest running on the loans. The £7·6 million is the money coming back in, so there is a net figure of £2·3 million, which is our FTC bid. The Committee's letter asked separately whether we had bid for any of the money that was available at the centre. In essence, that is the money we are bidding for now. We hope that that will be allocated at the start of the year.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I have a question about the FTC. Are the FTC loans for universities? I did not hear the last part of your answer, where else are the loans for?

Mr Murtagh: The Northern Ireland Investment Fund.

Ms Ní Chuilín: How much gap is left? You are bidding for over £2 million.

Mr Murtagh: It is £2·3 million net.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The £2·3 million is to maintain the loans. What does that mean?

Mr Murtagh: Interest is added to the loan annually, based on the terms and conditions set in the contracts between the lead Departments and the borrowers. Therefore, DFE will have loan agreements with each of the universities, and the Department of Finance has led a contract to CBRE, which administers the Northern Ireland Investment Fund.

Ms Ní Chuilín: How much is spent on the body that administers the investment fund?

Mr Murtagh: The figure is in the contract. If I understand the question correctly, CBRE administers the investment fund. The loans are administered out from Government via the Strategic Investment Board (SIB). TEO will pass the funding to SIB and make the payments based on instructions from DFE and DOF. I take it that you want the running costs for CBRE? I do not have that level of detail with me.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am still confused about why the DFE loans and the investment fund is calculated through TEO. I do not understand that.

Mr Murtagh: If I could take a moment. The Committee asked for a high-level overview.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I do not mean to interrupt, but I want to finish my question.

Mr Murtagh: Apologies.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It strikes me that we have two bodies, SIB and CBRE, that are almost the in-between bodies. How much does their involvement cost to administer the funds?

Mr Murtagh: I do not have the specific running costs for CBRE. CBRE operates under a contract let directly by the Department of Finance. The Department has let a contract for the administration of FTC, via Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD). It might be helpful for the Committee to note, that the Department of Finance's permanent secretary recently gave an update to the Finance Committee on FTC generally and specifically on the Northern Ireland Investment Fund, which might be helpful.

FTC was introduced in 2012-13 to boost investment, and it is intended to be used to stimulate private sector investment in infrastructure projects that benefit the region over and above the capital DEL that would be allocated by the Executive. The funding is ring-fenced by the Treasury, and funds can only be used to provide a loan to or take an equity investment in a private sector entity. The entity then uses the money to invest in infrastructure. In that context, DOF has let the contract to CBRE, and it is managing the money on behalf of the Department of Finance.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Sorry, Chair. If anyone is listening to the Committee, all they will hear is SIB, CPD, CBRE and FTC. I appreciate that it might cause a bit of head scratching for people, but I am trying to ascertain if TEO is responsible for SIB. Is that right?

Mr Murtagh: Yes. Running costs, that is, if you like, incidental in the administration —

Ms Ní Chuilín: No. Sorry. Is TEO responsible for SIB?

Mr Murtagh: For SIB, yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: To be clear, I would like to know what the running costs are for the Strategic Investment Board. That is one thing. I have asked for that before, by the way. Maybe, as a Committee, we can ask a question of the Finance Committee, about the role of CBRE and CPD in administering these loans, because, at the end of the day, it is still public money. We need to know how much the loans are and the costs of administering those loans.

Chair, that finishes my questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, Carál. Brian?

Mr Kingston: Carál probably covered it in more detail than I was planning to. However, I would be interested in a proper briefing on financial transaction capital. I have asked for that before. I would like to understand it better. I wondered, as Carál did, why funding to the universities ends up coming through the Executive Office budget.

Mr Murtagh: That is part of the overview that I was going to give. At the start, when these loans were being put in place, the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy did not have the legal authority to administer the loans themselves. Advice from the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) clarified that SIB has a sufficiently wide remit to administer the loans. The temporary agreement in the meantime has been that the funding is administered to the private sector via SIB, because it possesses the legal vires to do that. At the moment, for example, a financial provisions bill is being progressed by the Department of Finance. That will put the legislation in place to give those powers to the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy, so that the loans will transfer to those Departments at that point. Therefore, this will move away. It is a temporary arrangement to allow delivery of the FTC, because it needs to be provided at arm's-length to a private-sector body. It cannot be spent by public-sector bodies. That is part of the conditions and terms of the Treasury stipulation around the loan funding.

Ms McLaughlin: Can I —?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, I have two questions before you. Timothy first: go ahead.

Mr Gaston: Have you finished your answer, Ronan? If there is more —. My question is more general.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): In that case, no. I will bring in Carál and then Sinéad. Go ahead Carál, please?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I have asked before about the Strategic Investment Board's costs in its involvement in the ending violence against women and girls strategy. I have not received those costings. I also asked how many of the employees involved in that strategy are with SIB, rather than the various grades in the Civil Service in TEO. When we are looking for jobs clarification and figures, if that could be produced, please, I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

Ms McLaughlin: My question seeks clarity again, Ronan, on FTC. My understanding is that we could spend more FTC in order to drive some of the bigger projects that we might have here, only we do not have the frameworks within which FTC can work. Therefore, money is being sent back regularly. We have a lack of money in the system, and yet FTC is not being used adequately.

Mr Murtagh: As I mentioned earlier, FTC is very different from the normal capital DEL. It can be deployed only in specific circumstances. Because of those restrictions, with the exception of a couple of Departments, DOF has indicated that it has been a challenge. Other Departments that are at the forefront in using FTC at the moment, for example, are Communities, for co-ownership, and also Invest NI, as well as the loans administered through TEO. Detail on the operation of those loans, rests with those Departments. I could not provide any detail on co-ownership etc. DOF is very clear that it will be looking to Departments — and constantly discusses in monitoring rounds — to seek opportunities for investment and using FTC. It certainly forms part of how DOF encourages Departments to look to the future for the needs for the block in funding capital projects.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Do you want to proceed?

Mr Murtagh: On ending violence against women and girls, the Committee asked what the Department had done to ensure that there was involvement of grassroots groups to encourage applications for the grant scheme. As you know, planned funding for the 2024-26 EVAWG strategy grant schemes is delivered in partnership with councils. They aim to take advantage of on-the-ground knowledge and community need, because violence against women and girls can happen anywhere and to tackle it requires a whole-of-society response.

A total of £1·2 million has been allocated for a regional change fund to allow community and voluntary sector groups with expertise in ending violence against women and girls to deliver prevention-based programming to people in all communities across society. In 2024-25, £655,000 of momentum funding was given to councils to raise awareness of violence against women and girls, and to build the capacity of grassroots groups in order for them to be able to apply to the local change fund. Actions that are being taken forward by councils under that momentum funding include awareness-raising events and toolkits to enable community groups and relevant front-line professionals to engage with the work of prevention, including grassroots groups applying for the local change fund. A total of £2 million has been allocated to the local change fund to allow groups in each council area to apply for small grants — tiered at £5,000, £15,000 and £25,000 — to support prevention work in partnership with councils. Awareness-raising momentum activity has been encouraged to ensure that grassroots groups are able to apply to the fund.

Mr Gaston: My question relates to both ending violence against women and girls and good relations. I have raised before at the Committee that there seems to be a need within TEO whereby, if money becomes available, it is given to councils. How do we know that that money is getting to the right people? Yes, you may be ticking a box to show that it is going to 11 geographic areas in Northern Ireland, but, once we hand that money over, how do we know that we are getting the outcomes that the strategy demands and the change that is expected?

Mr Murtagh: The answer is that everything in the delivery was developed through a co-design process. The delivery partners have been part of the process. The Department works closely with the partners, not only the councils but those in wider society, on all aspects of delivery of initiatives on ending violence against women and girls.

Mr Gaston: Do councils approve the grants or does TEO approve the grants?

Mr Murtagh: I would need to check the detail of the process for approvals.

Mr Gaston: I have a real concern that, once again, TEO washes its hands. TEO has the money for this strategy, and it says to councils, "You deliver what we want", without exercising any day-to-day oversight. Take Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, for example: is the money spread evenly across Ballymena, Carrickfergus and Larne? I am not on the council any more, so I do not understand how it is being spent in the community. Violence against women and girls is more of a problem in certain areas of Northern Ireland, where more high-profile cases have taken place. Are councils getting the same award of money, or are we targeting areas where the problem is more widely known to be an issue? I would like a more in-depth understanding. We have the money to tackle that huge problem. How do we know that we are getting the societal change that we really want?

Mr Murtagh: For colleagues in the Department, it is not a case of just passing over the money. They are constantly and closely involved in the delivery. The detail that you are looking for, though, would need to come from colleagues who are involved in that delivery.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We can maybe look at getting an update.

Mr Gaston: I would be keen to see a geographical spread of the spending, even within the councils, to ensure that the areas that need to be targeted are targeted. Community groups are coming forward, and I am not disputing the great work that community groups do on the ground, but is that the best way to target the problem?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We will maybe ask the directorate to come back and give us an update on the funds and delivery under the strategic framework. Is that OK?

Mr Gaston: That is all right.

Mr Murtagh: The Committee asked about the capital DEL earmarked funds in respect of truth recovery. There was an accommodation cost figure of £1·5 million in the bid. That bid has not been met, but the Committee asked for a breakdown of the figure. That is the capital element for the lease. The leases cover a period of time, but, because of accounting and budgeting rules, it all needs to be scored in year 1. No contractual relationships have been entered into as yet, and they would be subject to a separate business case process.

The bid includes of £600,000 for accommodation capital costs for a public inquiry, but that covers a period of up to four years. We hope that it would not be required for that length of time, but we have factored in a marker bid so that we have the funding to stand up the requirements as and when the legislation is through and decisions are made. All of that will be subject to legislation and decisions by Ministers. It would be based on the annual rent and service charge over that period. The public inquiry accommodation would not be normal office accommodation; very specific requirements would be needed for such an inquiry, such as audiovisual facilities, confidential rooms, etc, which stands to reason.

The capital cost for the redress service that has been factored into that bid is £750,000, which is for 10 years. We hope that it will be less than that, but that is a marker bid; we have requested the resources to stand ready to deal with the requirements of victims and survivors.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You might not be able to answer this today, but, in the context of our financial constraints in Northern Ireland, is it your responsibility to evaluate options in the Departments' estate that could accommodate a public inquiry — I appreciate that there are technical requirements — or does it have to be —?

Mr Murtagh: Any requirements that are brought forward by Departments would need to go to the Department of Finance in the first instance, with a view to seeing whether there are options in the estate that could be accommodated.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, so that happens.

Mr Murtagh: Absolutely. It is part of the business case and approvals process. It is not all accommodation leases; that figure includes £170,000 for website and portal costs. That is all wrapped up in that one figure; it is not purely accommodation.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Mr Murtagh: On the earmarked resource DEL funds, there is a figure for truth recovery of £51·6 million, and the Committee requested a breakdown. Again, that is all subject to decisions by Ministers. It is a marker bid to make sure that we are ready to meet the needs of victims. There is up to £43·4 million for estimated standardised payments and scheme costs; up to £3·2 million for initial costs of the establishment and implementation of a public inquiry, including Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) costs; up to £2·1 million for core staff — programme and inquiry secretariat — costs; and £2·7 million for support services for the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS). Again, that is all a marker bid, subject to decisions that are yet to be made. Just to recap: the bid across all the earmarked victims areas came to £168·8 million, and we received £150 million. That was within the higher figure. It is not that it was a bid that was met; no contracts have been signed. It is to be ready to meet the needs during the year.

On rights, language and identity, there was a question about the £340,000 that was allocated for 2024-25 — the current year costs — for the appointment process of the commissioners for the three bodies. The question from the Committee was whether the Department would require that full amount this year, and, if so, what is the breakdown. As I said, it was the costs of the recruitment process. Ministers were pleased to announce the competitions that launched in March. The other initial costs in respect of the three bodies relate to the fact that we anticipate there being up to eight posts. That was the basis of the allocation. The competitions launched in March, and £52,000 has been forecast in the current year for advertising costs. The remainder of the recruitment costs will fall into 2025-26.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): There was concern, again, around the accommodation for the new office and the two commissioners. Have you a role in advising on that?

Mr Murtagh: Similarly, that would be bid for in-year and subject to business case and scrutiny. As I referred to earlier, any leases or accommodation issues would be brought to the Department of Finance, in the first instance, to ensure best use of the estate.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Is there an option for transparency in that decision-making, or is it just internal and a case of Departments talking to each other?

Mr Murtagh: I would need to check the detail on that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Some £52,000 has been spent so far, so there is about £290,000 left. Will that be carried over and included in the 2025-26 figure?

Mr Murtagh: We do not have an automatic option to carry forward budgets, but we are discussing with the Department of Finance what the requirement is for next year.

Ms Paula Shearer (The Executive Office): It will be in its opening baseline for next year, so it will have a baseline budget of £340,000 for next year.

Mr Gaston: Eight posts: is that four staff for each commissioner?

Mr Murtagh: I do not have the detailed breakdown with me. I just have the total figure.

Mr Gaston: Is it four full-time staff or four full-time equivalent (FTE)? I would like to know that. If there are eight staff, will it be four for each commissioner plus the commissioners? The bid for language, for next year, was £1·56 million. That is not all that TEO spends on languages, or is it?

Mr Murtagh: That was the bid, but the bid was not met. There is a baseline allocation for the opening position, and bids will be brought forward during the year as the process of recruitment progresses and the requirements become better shaped.

Mr Gaston: If the bid is not met, is there a thought process in the Department about whether you are spending equal amounts on the two commissioner posts? Is an equal amount being allocated for the Irish language and —?

Mr Murtagh: I do not have the bid broken down by body.

Mr Gaston: Could we get that information?

Ms Shearer: We will try to get that for you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We will make a list of questions at the end.

Mr Murtagh: On capital bids, the Committee asked what the bid of £580,000 for civil contingencies included and whether it was for an emergency fund or specific programmes. It was for specific programmes; it was not for an emergency fund.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much for all that.

Reflecting on some of the evidence that we have taken this year, there have been questions around the three international offices, with particular reference to Beijing. I see that there was a bid of £140,000 for new office costs. The Committee has been concerned at the lack of transparency around that work: where the offices are; what they are doing; and how much money they are allocated each year. Will you give me a breakdown of how much each of the three offices is set to receive, or how much is budgeted for them?

Mr Murtagh: I do not have that detail. It would probably be easier to set all that out in a written brief rather than to go through numbers now.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Does anyone else have questions further to the updates that have been received today or anything in the papers?

Mr Gaston: I want to go back to ending violence against women and girls. Is all of the money that has been allocated for that going solely to TEO, or is there money in the strategy for Justice? I know that it sits with TEO. Is any of the money that the Department gets split to focus on something else? I am thinking primarily of policing resources to bolster —

Mr Murtagh: That would be a matter for the DOJ budget, primarily. We do not transfer any of our allocation to DOJ, for example, if that is what you mean.

Mr Gaston: So any money that is spent on ending violence against women and girls is spent by TEO. Does DOJ spend any money on targeting initiatives in that area?

Mr Murtagh: I am not familiar with the detail of the DOJ budget. In due course, ending violence against women and girls should be part of all Departments' spends and embedded in all delivery. I appreciate that the question is about Justice, but I do not have that detail.

Mr Gaston: I have one more question, which is on staffing costs. You explained what the money was sought for. Were any bids made for additional staff in the Executive Office to answer questions?

Mr Murtagh: No, not that I am aware of.

Mr Gaston: I am looking at that, because it took a year to produce the figures for last year's Washington trip. The response to that tabled question was released only this week. I would certainly like more detail on that. I have previously raised the concern at Committee about how slow TEO is at releasing answers to questions. I want to get to the bottom of whether that is due to a resourcing issue in the Department, to officials sitting on answers or to the Ministers doing so. The question revealed that £54,000 was spent in four days. Some of the figures that you are bringing before us are high-level. For example, there is £38,000 for travel: I would like know what sort of pot we have for Ministers' travel that means that £54,000 can be spent on a four-day junket to America.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Maybe we can write with those queries.

Mr Gaston: It can go on the list of questions that we will put together at the end of the session. I understand that you do not have the details in front of you, but I wanted to air my concerns about TEO's failings in relation to staffing and getting information out of the Department.

Mr Murtagh: The Department takes its obligations under FOI seriously and makes every effort to answer questions. We make all efforts to answer Assembly questions as efficiently as possible.

Mr Gaston: There, you have highlighted the problem. To get the answer, a journalist had to go through the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), although the question had been tabled for months. I raised it in the Chamber with the First Minister. I could not understand why the information was not being provided.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, that is not Ronan's fault.

Mr Gaston: When the ICO told TEO to release the information, it came. MLAs should not have to go through the Information Commissioner to get answers.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Mr Gaston: I appreciate that that is not for you, but this is an opportunity to raise the issue.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You have made your point.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I assume that the formula for the money that goes to local government for the ending violence against women and girls strategy is worked out on a population basis rather than as a geographical cut. I just want to be precise about the question. I attended a few excellent events in north Belfast organised by Belfast City Council. They were truly grassroots. Vulnerable young women were involved, and there was an event for older women. I do not know whose question this was originally — it may have been Timothy's — but it struck me: does the money go to local government as a cut? It would be really helpful if you could get that detail for us.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. I want to raise a concern about how the information is presented to us. We are getting really high-level block figures against the different directorates, for example. Can we get more detail? Timothy is right: we need to know how much of the budget is spent within the Department, how much goes out to organisations, how much is spent on accommodation, etc. For our scrutiny role, it is important that the information that we are given —

Mr Murtagh: We are certainly willing to look at that. Perhaps we can engage with the Clerk to make sure that we present the information as helpfully as possible for the Committee.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am not saying that you are providing it unhelpfully on purpose, but a lot of us are probably focused on understanding how much of it is reaching victims and survivors or community organisations. We will work with the Clerk.

Ms McLaughlin: Is the budget position that you have outlined today aligned to the Programme for Government priorities?

Mr Murtagh: Part of what all Departments have to do with the allocations for next year, now that the Programme for Government is in place, is align their budget to those priorities. There are nine priorities, but EVAWG is the standout one. A lot of our budget falls into other areas and does not have a headline because of the nature of the construct of the programme.

Ms Shearer: That is similar for most Departments.

Ms McLaughlin: That means that the budget for ending violence against women and girls is not big at all in the context of the Department. It might be a standout project and a priority that is talked about a lot, but it is not where the money is being spent.

Mr Murtagh: Victims would, as we constantly raise —

Ms McLaughlin: Will we be able to deliver on the Programme for Government and the targets that have been set with the budget allocations that have been made? We do not want to get to the end of this or halfway through it and be saying, "We could not deliver it because we did not have the budget". We are starting the process now, and the budget has been aligned. Can we deliver on our targets with the allocations in the budget?

Mr Murtagh: The largest part of the money that has been allocated to the Department is for victims. The Department feels that, whilst it is not the full amount that was requested, it is certainly a good starting point. In the current year, we should be in a position to meet the needs of victims and survivors. It is demand-led, and there is a statutory entitlement for all victims, so I emphasise that the budget allocation does not take away from the legislative entitlement for those victims. We will bring any additional requirements during the year to the Department of Finance, if they become available.

The earmarked money that has been made available to the Department for ending violence against women and girls aligns with the strategy that has been published by Ministers. We are working with councils and grassroots groups to deliver that. In that regard, that is sufficient to meet the needs.

Ms McLaughlin: So if we do not deliver, it is not because of money.

Mr Murtagh: We could always do more; I am sure that every Department would say the same. We could scale up if more money were available.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do you believe that there is enough money in the budget to meet the statutory requirements of the Executive Office? How much more, over and above that, do you have — not discretionary spend — to allow for other programmes?

Mr Murtagh: The Department's budget is challenging. It is not that there is headroom and spare capacity. In fact, in respect of the pressures facing Departments, such as employers' National Insurance contributions, that remains to be seen. That could present itself as an additional pressure. I cannot sit in front of you today and say, "We have enough money to do everything", because it is likely that additional pressures will come at us.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I have a question about the equality impact assessments, Chair. We asked last week, Ronan, about the statutory obligations of the Department. You gave an answer in response to the Chair's question about statutory obligations. It says in the papers that an:

Was it a screening, or was it a full equality impact assessment?

Mr Murtagh: A screening has been done and will be published. There is a quarterly publication of all screening in the Department. That is published on the website, so it will be available there, but we can provide that to the Committee.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you, Ronan.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I think that we have exhausted this for today, but I really appreciate all your work and all your answers, Ronan and Paula. Thank you.