Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Today we have David Malcolm, who is the interim permanent secretary; Gareth Johnston, who is the deputy secretary, grade 3, good relations and inclusion; Claire Archbold, who is the deputy secretary, grade 3, finance, people and planning; and Brenda Henderson, who is the deputy secretary, grade 3, Executive services and international relations. Thank you all for coming. Welcome back to the Committee. We have received a copy of your business plan. Thank you for sending that in advance. I invite you to make some opening remarks.

Mr David Malcolm (The Executive Office): Chair, thank you very much. I know that you have had a busy afternoon, so you will be glad to hear that I will not need 45 minutes to make my remarks. First, I apologise because you should have had the business plan from us for your packs on Friday. It was our oversight that that did not happen. I believe that you only got it yesterday, so I apologise to you and all members for any inconvenience that that caused you. You will see on page 4 of the business plan that I talk about a restructure. You will recognise Gareth and Claire. Brenda Henderson is new to the Department. She is four weeks in, and I will ask Brenda, Gareth and Claire to outline what their new responsibilities are in the Department. We will then be open to questions from you.

Ms Brenda Henderson (The Executive Office): Good afternoon. I joined the Executive Office on 1 May. I will be responsible for the head of the Civil Service (HOCS) office, the Executive information service, the First Minister and deputy First Minister's private offices, the Programme for Government and the Executive and central advisory unit, which provides secretariat support to the Executive and leads on the British-Irish Council (BIC). I have responsibility for the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and for the international relations team in Belfast. That is really leading on the inward visits, in partnership with Invest NI and Tourism NI. I also have responsibility for the three overseas bureaux in Washington, Beijing and Brussels, which, I know, provided a briefing to you on 21 May.

Mr Gareth Johnston (The Executive Office): I am the deputy secretary for good relations and inclusion. I have probably been the least affected by the changes. My responsibility for finance and corporate services has moved across to Claire, and I have taken on responsibility for the ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) programme. Good relations and inclusion sums up the directorate. It has been an opportunity to bring together all of, if you like, the social policy responsibilities that the Department has. Those cover good relations, including the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy, our programmes, such as Urban Villages, Communities in Transition (CIT) and ending violence against women and girls, and victims' issues, whether for victims of the conflict and the Troubles, victims of historical abuse or victims and survivors from mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. I am responsible for race relations and refugees, equality and human rights, including the free distribution of period products, and the Department's infrastructure projects in Ebrington and in Maze/Long Kesh.

Ms Claire Archbold (The Executive Office): I have moved across to, as Gareth said, take on the finance and corporate services brief. The directorate is called finance, people and planning. That includes, obviously, finance and governance. It includes the business planning and risk management that comes to the board. It also includes looking after our people through workforce planning, training and development and implementing the Northern Ireland Civil Service's (NICS) people strategy at a departmental level. It also includes the COVID inquiry response for the Department and the civil contingencies team, which is an important piece of the Department's work. I also look after the economists.

Mr Malcolm: Chair, again, with apologies for the slight delay in getting the business plan to you, we are happy to take questions on our business plan for the year ahead.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much. You are all very welcome. To cut to the chase on a lot of this, I remain quite frustrated that there are delays in some key pieces of work coming forward. It is as basic as going down to Assembly questions for written answer. They are delayed, and sometimes you cannot quite believe what was sent through because it is maybe three or four words. Sometimes it can feel like a bit of a brush-off. As you said, we get our papers late — sometimes, if at all. We have had to cancel sessions. You are a year in now: what are you doing to improve the ways in which you can support us to hold you to account for the people whom we represent?

Mr Malcolm: That is a fair point, Chair. I knew that the question was going to come up. When I saw that we did not meet the deadline on Friday, I thought that it was a tremendous own goal. I am aware that you wrote to us some months ago about that. I looked at that correspondence when it came in. There is no single reason why we do not meet our deadlines. First, we are all — Ministers, their offices or officials included — committed to doing the best that we can to meet the targets that are required of us. There is no slight on anybody in trying to do the best that they can.

It is a challenging environment, however. As you know, we operate a joint office. It is about the bandwidth of the office and the areas for which we have responsibility. In the past year, our Ministers chaired 39 Executive meetings, answered nearly 800 Assembly questions and attended 20 oral question sessions. They have been to two BIC meetings and two NSMC plenary meetings and they have a range of intergovernmental responsibilities. Many of you will be thinking, "You are just making excuses, David". There is also the challenge that all of that presents for officials. We have to provide support and briefings for all of that.

We have a range of challenges. Our Ministers' diaries can accommodate only so much. It is a joint office, and both Ministers have been quite open that, at times, they have to work towards a political solution to some of the issues that they face. Of course, we also deal with some of the really sensitive and difficult issues across society. If I could put my finger on a single thing and fix it, I would have done that by now. The reality is that there is no single thing. There are pressures on officials and on Ministers' diaries and there is the nature of the office. I have worked in a Department with one Minister, but that is totally different from TEO, which is unique. I am sure that you guys appreciate that anyway.

We do deliver quite often, but when we do not meet deadlines, we cannot point to one thing and say that that is always the problem. There will often be a range of issues at any given time. Again, however, I can assure you that Ministers, officials and I are constantly looking to see how we can do better. We are absolutely keen to do better, but I am not going to sit here and say where we will do so, because that statement will be a hostage to fortune, which, if I am here in a year's time, you could throw back at me.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. I appreciate that it will be difficult with four Ministers and — God knows, is it eight special advisers?

Mr Malcolm: There are six — well, five at the moment, but the potential for six.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. I am very conscious that some programmes have been running year-on-year, including good relations, the North Belfast strategic partnership programme and Communities in Transition. I think, Gareth, that you presented the bids that went into last year's June monitoring round, and we had a presentation earlier this year. Are you still convinced that those programmes represent the best use of public money? Are you getting the outcomes that we need in society, or are we going to continue to fund organisations? I came from the community and voluntary sector, so I am very supportive of it. Do those programmes represent the best use of public money, and are we getting the best results?

If we are working off figures from 2016, for example, for Communities in Transition, how are you convinced that you are delivering when we still have community workers by day and paramilitaries by night? We still have intimidation in our communities and people being put out of their houses etc. When I ask about evaluation, I am told, "Oh, that is all part of the review of T:BUC". I never get a straight answer from you as to how you are assured. That does not assure me that you are using public money to best effect.

Mr Malcolm: I will ask Gareth to give you details, but I can give you assurances about Communities in Transition. We carried out an evaluation recently of what we had been doing before, in order to inform the current tranche. We have just gone to procurement, and we have made an announcement about a number of organisations that will deliver programmes going forward. That was informed by the evaluation of what went before. I assure you that we are not just doing the same old cut and paste every year. We do carry out evaluations, and we look at the lessons learned, and we refresh. That can, sometimes, lead to groups that were funded in the past not being funded. I am sure that the Committee is aware of that. You will have been lobbied about that. Whilst that is not good for organisations that are unsuccessful the second time around, it should at least give you an assurance that, with every fresh round, there is an opportunity to review and evaluate. Gareth can put some meat on the work on CIT for me.

Mr Johnston: CIT started with a wide range of programmes. We looked at health and well-being in areas; how to strengthen people against paramilitary moneylending; and some mental health issues. There was an evaluation of that as we moved into phase 3, as a result of which we saw which of the various things that we did worked best. We also saw that communities have changed, and the need changed with that. As a result, in phase 3 of Communities in Transition, we have put a tighter focus on the projects that we are procuring. The focus is on exploitation, be that sexual, to do with children and crime or to do with money; mental health and addictions, which can make people vulnerable to paramilitary influence; the lack of aspiration amongst young people, with the same result; and the impact of paramilitarism on the physical landscape. One example of where we have tried to keep pace with the evidence and local need —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have raised this point a number of times: where is the evidence that you are still aiming the programme at the communities that need it the most? For example, there is not one in South Belfast, which I represent, and in which we still see a huge concentration of paramilitary activity.

Mr Johnston: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You are still working off figures from years ago.

Mr Johnston: No, we have the latest figures. We are still working in eight areas. We did not feel that the initial allocation of £2·9 million for Communities in Transition for the current year immediately let us move into new areas, because you have to make sure that you provide the right support in the areas in which we are already active. However —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, I do not buy that. Last autumn, I asked the deputy First Minister what was happening with phase 3. I was advised that you were possibly looking at research, but, when you came back, you said, "Oh, no, I don't think we're doing research". If you have information that you are working off now, why has the Committee not been supplied with it, given that you know that that is an issue for us?

Mr Johnston: I am not sure that we have received a direct request for that, but, if there is a desire from the Committee to see it, we can certainly share with you the results of the research. There is —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Gareth, please. I am going to move on, because we have raised that continually.

Mr Johnston: Can I say something —?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Finish your point, and then we will move on.

Mr Johnston: Can I say something specifically about South Belfast? There is a real desire to expand what we are doing in Communities in Transition. A bid is going into June monitoring, and there is a list of other areas that we would very much want to move into if the funding were to become available. We are also looking in parallel at where Urban Villages is working. The work that it is currently doing, and could do, in South Belfast is very much front and centre of that consideration.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I did not want to make it about South Belfast; I wanted to make it about transparency and the rationale for how public money is being allocated and whether it is being put to best use. I am going to move on. I am conscious that we have lots of other members waiting to get in.

Brenda, you have probably picked up on my concern about the value for money of the Beijing office. We had the representative here, I think, two weeks ago. We have asked you whether you feel that it is value for money. About a quarter of a million pounds of public money is being spent on it every year. We, as a Committee, have very little sense of what is happening with that. You are just new in your role. What are you going to do to improve the transparency around how that is spent and make it more impactful in how people from Northern Ireland will benefit from that spend every year?

Ms Henderson: I know that you have written about that, Chair. There will be a response in due course. I watched the session from 21 May. I know about the frustration around the transparency and how we account for what we do. One of the things that I want to do is to get that coherency across all three bureaux and, with the international relations team in Belfast, to make sure that we have a clear narrative and that our communications plan lets you and our Ministers see exactly who we are meeting, what the outcome is and what that means — the "so what?" question — for the Programme for Government. The team has already discussed with you what they are working on around the comms plan, the narrative, how it links back to you, and the difference that it makes in Northern Ireland. We are going to look at that, and work is already under way.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): At what point do you say, "This is not value for money. We could be doing other things with that money, whether it is good relations, race relations or support for victims and survivors"? After 11 or 12 years, when do you say, "What are we getting?".

Ms Henderson: There are different ways to measure value for money. One of the things that the overseas offices do is build relationships. You have to build those relationships before you can utilise them. There are things about companies, investment and increased student places that they may bring. What we need to do is to be more transparent about that, be clear about the metrics and what we can and do measure, and that we stand in front of those. That is what I would ask to have some time to do, and, obviously, we would be happy to come back to the Committee and test that with you as well.

Mr Malcolm: I was immensely frustrated when watching that session because I can see behind the curtain, and I know what our Beijing office is doing, but the fact that we cannot communicate that to you leads to a genuine question about whether there is value for money. The day before that Committee session, the Vice Minister of Education in China visited Northern Ireland. He signed an agreement with the Confucius Institute in Belfast and the Department for the Economy for a £34 million programme over the next 10 years. It has increased its funding here. I know that Stewart has concerns about Confucius. In GB, there are problems with Confucius, but Northern Ireland is entirely different. The Ulster University model that it is running involves hundreds of schools and about 50-odd teachers working in our schools, and, every year in City Hall, the Lord Mayor hosts hundreds of children who have benefited through it. In Beijing, on St Patrick's Day, there were two community organisations, led by Chris Hazzard, out there as a result of that. Young people, who had never left Ireland before, were, all of a sudden, getting that experience and opportunity. Significant work is being done.

We are also talking to the Chinese consul about hosting a mini conference here. We have talked about the Bank of China in Beijing coming here. It operates a one-stop shop for organisations that want to invest and set up there. A tremendous amount is going on. The Chinese have agreed to fund three placements in Beijing, through the Arts Council, to give people the opportunity to break into the Chinese market. We are doing a tremendous amount, but we did not sell that to you; I accept that. That is Brenda's challenge, coming in.

It is not just Beijing. In Washington, we punch miles above our weight in the representation that we get, and, indeed, it is the same in Brussels. I get what you are saying, but just because we have failed to tell you about it, do not assume that that means that it is not value for money. We need to be better at telling you the story.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, I have one last comment. When that lady was before us, when she had just taken up the post, we said, "There are no press statements, no tweets, nothing". That was 10 months ago, and there is still nothing. It is almost as if the Committee meeting did not take place. If you come back in a year, honest to goodness, please do not come back holding your hands up and saying, "Sorry, we still have not got around to sorting the comms out".

I will move on.

Mr Dickson: Thank you for joining us today. The first paragraph of your business plan states that your aim is to ensure:

It is clear, from your opening statement, that it is not working effectively because you do not even correspond in a timely or effective manner at all with the Committee that holds you to account. How on earth are you achieving government working effectively?

Mr Malcolm: Do not assume that because we are not meeting our deadlines to you, we are not working effectively. The Ministers have been very clear about what the Executive have achieved. For example, we have a Programme for Government for the first time in 14 years and a Budget twice agreed. Since the Executive came in, they have launched an ending violence against women and girls strategy, agreed on a refugee and asylum seeker strategy, the legislative programme has been agreed, a victims and survivors strategy has been agreed, and there has been a lot of work on childcare.

The Executive have delivered significantly, and our team behind the scenes support the work of the Executive and the Ministers in achieving that. The machinery of government is much more than our interaction with you. I absolutely get that our interaction with you has not been where we would want it to be. However, it would be wrong to assume that Ministers and the machinery of government are not delivering just because we are not engaging with you in the timely way in which we would like to.

Mr Dickson: There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. This is the Committee that holds the Executive Office to account. You are accountable to the Committee and, through the Committee, to the Assembly for all those programmes that you have referenced and all that work that you have claimed that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have been doing. We either have to drag the information out of you or plead with you to bring Bills forward. None of it happens in a timely way or — to quote your own word — "effectively". That is the reality for the Committee. There is a general public criticism — one could be quite cynical about this — that all that the First Minister and deputy First Minister seem to do is kiss babies and get photo opportunities.

What were civil servants doing up until the return of the Assembly? I could be highly critical about the fact that there was no Assembly for two years — do not get me wrong on that front. What were civil servants doing during that two-year period? Why was there not a day-1 brief that said, "Here are the top 10 priorities for you coming into office. You need to not only deliver those but deliver them in consultation with the 90 people who are sitting in that Chamber through the Committee"? Why was none of that happening?

Mr Malcolm: You are making an assumption there, because I would say that it was happening.

Mr Dickson: Nobody knew.

Mr Malcolm: With all due respect, I was in the Department for the Economy at the time, and I can assure you that we had a first-day brief ready for a Minister coming in. I am certain that every Department did. I am sure that Ministers in Justice, Agriculture and the Executive Office all had briefs presented to them. Equally, that was simply civil servants bringing to them the litany of issues that had built up that we could not address. During that period when the Assembly was not sitting, the Civil Service was very limited in what it could do. The Secretary of State gave us very limited powers, but we were not Ministers, and we neither wanted nor pretended to be.

We presented to Ministers. I would challenge your assumption that we did not: we did. However, Ministers needed time to get back into their brief. They needed time to pick up and get back in and have those conversations. We have delivered. The Ministers will be here in a few weeks. They will absolutely refute the allegation that they have not delivered. You will have heard them in the Assembly. They will point to the Programme for Government and all those things that have been delivered, which could only have been delivered with the groundwork that they had done that was based on what their civil servants had been doing for them.

Mr Dickson: Perhaps one message that you could take back to them is that it would be very helpful if they would appear in front of the Committee and talk to us about those issues in a regular and timely fashion. Maybe that would open up the two-way street of communication that we really need.

I will turn briefly to the point that you raised, Chair, about international relations. It is not just about communications, which are and were woeful — they remain so, because nothing seems to have changed — but is, in reality, about outcomes. We see no evidence of outcomes from China. I continue to harbour serious concerns about the Confucius Institute. It seems to me that the love-in that you have with the institute is due to this being the only part of the United Kingdom that is prepared to have that love-in with it.

Mr Malcolm: Well, I would argue that it is not our love-in with the institute but is one that schools have with it. Dozens and dozens of schools and hundreds and hundreds of children and parents are benefiting from and enjoying what the Confucius Institute at Ulster University is delivering. One of my challenges to it is that it needs to get onto the front foot and start to explain that. I can see what it is doing and the engagement that it has with schools. Teams went over to Beijing and experienced leaving Ireland, North or South, for the first time ever. I can see the benefits that that had for those individuals and for them collectively as organisations. It is not a love-in. There are real benefits. I have talked to you about the fact that we have now increased that funding from, I think, £2·6 million a year to £3·4 million, which has been committed for the next 10 years. That is a direct consequence of work that was being done through our Beijing office. There are outcomes.

Equally, Invest NI and Tourism Ireland meet every month with Kerry Curran in Beijing to review what is happening there. Kerry talked about having a Seamus Heaney poetry event. That is not just to teach the Chinese about poetry. The Chinese people who will come to such an event tend to be high-worth individuals who have businesses or organisations or an interest in travel. That is where we, when we bring them into events like that, need to connect them to Invest NI and Tourism Ireland so that we present a united, one-team approach. That is what we are working on. That is happening. Again, I get your frustration that we are not communicating that to you, but it is happening. I can see behind the curtain. I need to find a way to pull the curtain back so that you can see that equally and be slightly more reassured about some of our work.

Mr Dickson: Invest Northern Ireland is already there. It would claim that it already does the same or similar work.

I will turn specifically to Gareth's work on Communities in Transition. How many years is it since the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement? Realistically and seriously, how much longer can you sit there and say that that is not a programme of failure? When will a community transition? Has any community transitioned? What is the outcome and where is the achievement in all that?

The Chair commented on other communities that could benefit from some of that work or some of the learning models from it, but the cynic in me might say that you cannot move on to other communities while the very people with whom you are working keep dragging you back in by suggesting that they cannot transition unless you keep feeding them money. Is it fair to suggest that? That is a serious concern for me.

You said that a lot of the current tranche will concentrate on health and well-being. Why is that money not simply given to the Department of Health to deliver those programmes?

Mr Johnston: Communities in Transition will never solve the problem of paramilitarism on its own. In certain localities, for example in south-east Antrim, Larne and Carrick, we work closely with the PSNI and can complement its work. The PSNI does disruptive work, and we come in and seek to build up the community. Our purpose in CIT is to strengthen communities to resist paramilitary control.

I have sat with a group of ladies in the Rathgill estate and have heard from them about their work on alternatives to illegal moneylending and what they can do as peer educators to share that information. In north Belfast, I have seen a social supermarket help people to get out of the cycle of reliance on illegal moneylenders, who, we know, are controlled by paramilitaries, and to put money into the credit union instead of paying off those debts. I have also seen individuals with complex lives who, through the projects that CIT funds, have been helped to navigate to a situation where they have accommodation, a job and childcare, and the kinds of risk factors that were there for them that paramilitaries could exploit have been much reduced. I see those impacts. I am not pretending that we will solve the whole thing, but at least, in our corner, even if it is a small corner, we can do the best that we can.

Mr Dickson: Many of those programmes exist in different forms across the whole of Northern Ireland through councils and other government projects and programmes. Why is there no end point to Communities in Transition? Why is there no research to say that we have transitioned to the point at which we can hand over the work to others and put the money into the mainstream pots to support social supermarkets, anti-money laundering and debt advice?

Mr Johnston: There have been areas where that has happened. For example, at the start of Communities in Transition, we funded health fairs. We are not doing that any more; others are active in that way.

We see situations where the other services that are available are not able to meet the need in a timely way. We see risks for communities in the paramilitary influence that that leads to, and we try to address those. It is clearly really important that we do that in a joined-up way with the other services that are working locally.

I could point to various communities where we have been getting alongside the community, working with it to build capacity and to identify a plan and then to deliver that plan. There is now a degree of collaboration in all that across Departments; for example, in the RAISE programme that the Department of Education runs. I sit on the programme board for that, and my staff have been working very closely with RAISE staff in the areas where we are active so that we complement rather than duplicate. There is absolutely a coordination that needs to happen. Anywhere where we seek to meet need, it is because there is a need there.

Mr Dickson: Just finally, does that mean that we can see that, by building capacity in mainstream organisations, the real transition will be from CIT to the broad base of community organisations that deliver all those programmes?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Very briefly, please.

Mr Johnston: Absolutely, and you can see that across all my programmes. A factor in good relations will be how we mainstream some of that work. In ending violence against women and girls, there is a huge emphasis on getting EVAWG work into other people's strategies.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you. Sorry, I am just conscious of the time.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your attendance. Before I go on to my main question, I will talk about the Northern Ireland Bureau in Beijing. I have more awareness of the work that that bureau is doing. Its budget is around half that of our office in Brussels and around a quarter of that for the office in North America. In working with China, it is important to build a relationship over time. You do not just land in there and expect things to happen. We have the Queen’s University China Medical College in Shenyang. There is the Bombardier factory, as it was then, also in Shenyang. I presume that it is now a Spirit factory. A large number of Chinese students come here and study at our institutions, and there is the work of the Confucius Institute. I know that some members have concerns about China; partly, that is political, I believe. It is right that we scrutinise what benefit comes from the money, and we look forward to getting more information on that. However, it is an important relationship with one of the most populous countries in the world.

I will ask about the role of the Executive Office. Having coalition government is not easy: there are four parties in the Government and two in one Department. That is understood. People sometimes look to the Executive Office. At one level, it is another Department — it is one of the nine — but it also has a coordinating role, or it should have. We try to avoid the silo mentality of just dividing up powers politically between Ministers and Departments. There must be a working together. Will you talk about that? Sometimes people write to the Committee or approach the Department with concerns that they have about the Executive as a whole. How do you take on that responsibility for ensuring the good functioning of the Executive as a whole? I think in particular of the delivery unit and the transformation board. How are you increasing that coordinating role?

Mr Malcolm: You are absolutely right when you say that the role of the Executive Office and the Government here is not easy. That is a massive understatement. However, our Ministers are delivering. The Executive Office is like a Prime Minister's Office, a Foreign Office and a Cabinet Office, and the Ministers have policy responsibility for areas. It is a large responsibility, and it takes a lot of the Ministers' time. However, the Programme for Government is all about trying to break free from silos. Our constitutional arrangements have individual Ministers and individual accounting officers. You know that and the reasons for that. However, that does not mean to say that we cannot break away from that and work better across Departments. That is what we have to do. The Programme for Government is a really good start in that, because it identifies nine priorities that are not owned individually by one Minister. We all have to play our role in those. The Ministers are really keen on delivery: it has been their buzzword for the 12 months that I have been here, and they are absolutely intent on making sure that the Programme for Government is delivering as far as it possibly can.

They have established the delivery unit, and further details about that will come shortly. They want to put a laser focus on certain areas in the Programme for Government. They have attempted to put some budget into the Programme for Government. We all know that there are problems with the Budget and that it will never be enough, but at least we have a Programme for Government and now a Budget that attempts to put some money into that. Under reform and transformation, the delivery unit will attempt to put a further laser focus on some of the PFG outcomes that Ministers agree collectively need a firmer push. In TEO, that is what [Inaudible.]

The Ministers have said that reform and transformation will be a key part of government, and that is what TEO is trying to do now.

Mr Kingston: Are you getting cooperation from the Departments and the Ministers with the collaborative approach? When will the first report on the Programme for Government happen?

Mr Malcolm: The Ministers agreed to a Programme for Government, and every Minister around the Executive table signed up to the Programme for Government and then the Budget. That is a good outworking. It was only agreed in March, so the first delivery report will be a year after that and may drift slightly to cover a full financial year.

The Departments are absolutely working together, because, in a time of constrained financial resources, we need to work smarter. A number of the Executive's strategies can be delivered only with a number of Departments working together. I know that it has been a source of frustration for the Public Accounts Committee that Departments work in silos. As accounting officers, we are attempting to work together. The head of the Civil Service is keen for the permanent secretaries group to work more horizontally and corporately. The work of the NICS board, which has been enhanced to include three subcommittees, is attempting to break away from the narrow silo mentality.

Rome was not built in a day. I will not sit here and tell you that it is easy; it is not. If it was easy, we would have done it by now, but we have made a significant start. There is Executive support for it, and the Ministers have signed up to a Programme for Government and the Budget behind it. That is a powerful sign to their Departments and civil servants that they want to see it working better, and we will take our inspiration from that.

Mr Kingston: OK. We hope so, and we will judge that as we see progress.

On page 5 of your report, there is a list of around a dozen arm's-length bodies (ALBs). What is the purpose and advantage of delivering services through arm's-length bodies as opposed to directly in-house by Departments?

Mr Malcolm: In the Department, there are 12 arm's-length bodies, and they account for just over a third of our budget. They are important. I was at the session that Neil Gibson, the permanent secretary for the Department of Finance, gave yesterday. He had given a presentation to the Executive about the Budget and the unsustainability of public finances here. The Executive asked him to deliver the presentation to our largest ALBs — not TEO's; those in other Departments — because they spend so much of the money in Northern Ireland.

The ALBs are delivery agents and are usually set up because they are more agile, closer to the ground and can deliver better than central government. We have to make sure that the ALBs are free to deliver and that we do not tie them with constraints. Work is going on to make sure that the partnership arrangements between Departments and the arm's-length bodies give the arm's-length bodies enough autonomy to do what they were set up to do. However, equally, Ministers still have responsibility for them; they are still accountable and are spending significant amounts of public money. It is always a tension to find the balance. We do not always get it right; sometimes it tips one way or the other.

The arm's-length bodies are vital if we are to deliver the Programme for Government. Some 80%, if not more, of the investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI) capital projects are being delivered by ALBs. They are a major part of what happens here. We need to connect better with the arm's-length bodies and get them ready and able to deliver better, as we are trying to do within government.

Mr Kingston: A concern that I have is that it makes government seem more complex to the public. If there is an issue, who do they go to? Where does the responsibility lie? You mentioned accountability: it is important that the arm's-length bodies are accountable. Sometimes, when MLAs ask a Minister a question, we are told that the issue is under the responsibility of an arm's-length body, and we cannot get the answer. How do we ensure that the arm's-length bodies understand entirely that, ultimately, they are accountable to their sponsoring Department, the Assembly and the public through MLAs?

Mr Malcolm: We have an arm's-length body forum twice a year, when their chief executives and chairs meet me and the senior team. We have open conversations about what is happening and what is expected. Our arm's-length bodies are not spending the massive amounts of money that some others are. However, they have important roles, particularly in delivering on some of the victims and survivors stuff, so it is important that we keep tight to them.

Our Ministers will approve many of their business and corporate plans. Our arm's-length bodies understand fully who they are accountable to. They are accountable to our Ministers, who are clear about that. Through the mechanisms that we have, I make sure that the arm's-length bodies realise that. It is a partnership. It is not a parent/child relationship, and maybe we did not get that right in the past. We need to give them the autonomy to be free and deliver, but they need to understand that they are spending public money and that, ultimately, they operate under the control and direction of their Minister. That is a tension that we manage, and I think that we are getting better at that.

Mr Kingston: The post of the Commissioner for Public Appointments has been vacant for a number of years. How close is it to being filled?

Mr Malcolm: The post has been vacant for a number of years for different reasons. We have just completed the interviewing process, and papers are going to Ministers, who are an important part of the final stage of the process. I would not suggest that it is imminent, but I would like to think that, if everything lands where it needs to land, Ministers would be in a position in the coming months to make an announcement.

Mr Kingston: OK; thank you.

Mr Gaston: I have a number of topics to get through, so I ask you to keep the answers as short as possible. Would you say that the office prudently uses its money, or does a culture of waste exist?

Mr Malcolm: Would I say —? Sorry, I did not hear the middle part of your question.

Mr Gaston: Does the Department use money prudently, or does a culture of waste exist?

Mr Malcolm: I have just signed off our annual report and accounts. As the accounting officer, I am required to underline our internal controls, not just through our audit and risk committee but through the Northern Ireland Audit Office. I am certainly not aware of any culture of waste in any shape or form.

Mr Gaston: In the booklet that you provided to us, the budget position remains very challenging. I want to look at some figures. In 2021, the cost of the office of the head of the Civil Service was £487,000. The cost has skyrocketed to £848,000 today, an increase of £360,000 or 74%. Why has there been that increase over four years? Why is so much money now being put into that office?

Mr Malcolm: That is a better way of asking rather than suggesting that it is wasteful because the office costs have gone up. The responsibilities of that office have increased. For example, the Northern Ireland Civil Service board has been reconstituted with three new subcommittees out of it. That office deals with honours for the whole of Northern Ireland. The head of the Civil Service is chief executive for 24,000 civil servants. They are secretary to the Executive, so they are chief policy adviser not just for the First Minister and deputy First Minister but for each Executive Office junior Minister. The head of the Civil Service recently took on the role of chair of the interim transformation board.

Whenever you see office costs going up, it is usually because the work of and demands on that office have gone up, whether it is the head of the Civil Service or any of our own teams. We have processes that manage that. People do not just decide, "We're going to do this or do that". There are processes. We have a people committee. We look at a business case, and funding decisions are based on what the work is directing. Generally, when the demands go up, the resources need to keep pace to meet those demands.

Mr Gaston: On the trip to Washington, the head of the Civil Service had their own private car, when Ministers used Uber, shared lifts, took a bus and walked. Was that an efficient use of public money?

Mr Malcolm: When Ministers or senior officials go to Washington, the Northern Ireland Bureau will look after the arrangements. We have had a number of Assembly questions and media queries, and we will work through all those. However, the idea that there has been waste or extravagance, because transport was made available for a senior official, is not accurate. I was not in Washington, but my understanding is that the transport was provided through the Northern Ireland Bureau and accommodated other officials who travelled with the head of the Civil Service. They go between different venues. I do not know what the travel arrangements for other Ministers were, so I cannot say that it was appropriate for them to simply get a taxi or whatever. I do know that, when the programme was put together and sent to our team in Washington, it made the arrangements, as it would normally do. Suggestions that it is wasteful because they have put those arrangements in place is not a fair assessment. We have policies and processes that govern travel, be that for Ministers or senior officials. Policies have to be adhered to, no matter who you are. We adhere to those at all times.

Mr Gaston: On this trip, in particular, Minister Lyons and Minister Nesbitt chose to use public transport, to walk between locations or to get an Uber, but the head of the Civil Service was getting chauffeured about in a private car in America.

Mr Malcolm: I do not know what Minister Lyons or Minister Nesbitt's programme was. They could have been going from one building to the next, of course, or travelling greater distances. Every case has to be looked at on its own merit. It is not unusual. When Ministers and senior officials travel on business to Washington, the Northern Ireland Bureau will use the existing approval processes to put in place whatever arrangements are necessary. That will happen every year; it is normal. The idea that there was a private car for only one individual is not the fact of this case, as I understand it. We will work through the answers to that.

Mr Gaston: Since the Executive returned, foreign travel has cost £126,000. I am looking down through the list: Washington, we had two officials; Brussels, one official; St Patrick's Day in Washington, last year, the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and 10 officials; St Patrick's Day in Brussels, last year, two junior Ministers and six officials. There is a catalogue of excessive travel and travel with a number of officials. One sticks out: in August 2024, under "Assembly Recall", is First Minister £920 and an official £542. Will you tell me more about that?

Mr Malcolm: What was the first one? I did not hear.

Mr Gaston: It is under "Assembly Recall" for August 2024. There is a figure of £920 for the First Minister and £542 for an official.

Mr Malcolm: Assembly recall.

Ms Ní Chuilín: We had to come off our holidays.

Mr Malcolm: Sorry. We were in recess, people were on holiday, and, all of a sudden, a situation developed back home. The Executive and Assembly were being recalled and security briefings were required. If you are saying to me that it is unreasonable to pay for somebody to come back to lead all that —.

Mr Gaston: It is obviously paying for an official to go out and come back. Why is there an expense for an official?

Mr Malcolm: When a Minister or official goes on holiday, they are not taking their work or laptop with them. This issue developed, and significant security issues arose and briefings were needed. The First Minister was coming back to chair a meeting of the Executive the next morning and was meeting the Chief Constable, and the Assembly was being recalled. It would have been impossible for her to come back cold into any of that. All public money is public money, but, in the circumstances, considering that we were heavily eating into somebody's private holiday, any suggestion that that was excessive or wasteful is a subjective opinion that I do not agree with.

Mr Gaston: Climate change sits below that. We are the first region in the UK to get our own Climate Commissioner in place. How will they feel about the amount of foreign travel that is undertaken? We are all talking about climate change and cutting down on our carbon emissions. It seems that the Executive Office and, indeed, the entire Executive are happy to jet across the world to attend events and to take officials with them. Is that something that that person will be tasked with looking at — to cut down on the amount of foreign travel?

Mr Malcolm: I suspect that they will have so many things within their role that this will not be one of the highest. We need to understand that the Executive Office has three overseas offices. We have those for a reason. You cannot have a Programme for Government commitment to grow a sustainable economy if you are going to sit in Northern Ireland and wait for people to come to you. Ministers and officials —.

Mr Gaston: Those three offices do not tell people in Northern Ireland what they do.

Mr Malcolm: They are obviously successful at doing something, because we receive significant FDI into Belfast from American companies, and we have done for some considerable time.

Mr Gaston: Through Invest NI or through the office?

Mr Malcolm: Sorry?

Mr Gaston: Does that FDI come through Invest NI or through the bureau?

Mr Malcolm: They work as one team. Whenever Ministers go out there, they represent Northern Ireland and make connections. Businesses want to talk to Ministers, and it is great that they talk. I would love to think that they wanted to talk to civil servants, but businesses want to talk to the policymakers and decision makers: the Ministers. The Ministers open doors so that the officials can do deals. That is what we do.

Whilst there has been a lot of talk about the cost of overseas travel, I do not know how it would help us to grow the economy or create jobs here if we were all to sit in Northern Ireland, close our doors and not go anywhere. Ministers need to travel to represent their constituencies and bring jobs back here. That is what they do. Officials go in off the back of that to cement those relationships. That is what happens in any country, and we punch well above our weight. Looking at what the office in Washington costs and the representational value that we have got and continue to get through the White House, it is clear that money cannot buy that sort of access or what it gives you later on. I hear what you say, but I do not necessarily agree.

Mr Gaston: I have a bugbear when it comes to Communities in Transition, which has been well rehearsed, today and previously. We are looking at eight areas. The eight areas in phase 2 are the same as those in phase 1. This question has been asked: when does a community become transitioned? You talk about there being other areas that need money but say that they will not get that money until more money becomes available. Surely, once a community goes through phase 1 or phases 1 and 2, you would then move to new areas.

Mr Malcolm: New calls are put out all the time, whether that is for CIT or good relations funding.

Mr Gaston: But, when it comes to Communities in Transition, it is for the same areas.

Mr Malcolm: It is not always the same areas. The fact that a number of areas —.

Mr Gaston: The Committee has been told previously that there were eight areas in phase 1, eight areas in phase 2, and, I believe, that it is the same eight areas in phase 3.

Mr Johnston: That was to —.

Mr Gaston: We have asked — I asked this of the deputy First Minister in the Chamber — whether they would look at new areas. The answer was, "Oh yes, of course we will". Are there new areas in phase 3, or are they the same areas?

Mr Johnston: We have looked at new areas. As part of phase 3, we would like to move into new areas, but the resources that were immediately available at the start of the year did not let us do that.

Mr Gaston: If there are to be six phases to Communities in Transition, will you still be funding the same areas that you did years ago?

Mr Johnston: No.

Mr Gaston: Is it after three phases that you will move on to new areas?

Mr Johnston: We base it on the evidence, and we —.

Mr Gaston: That is 2016 data.

Mr Johnston: We had a piece of work done that looked at the level of need. It looked at all the indicators and the level of need across all of this place, and those areas were still flagged as being where there was particular need and where Communities in Transition could make a difference. They were flagged alongside other areas. I would be very keen, if we can gather some additional resource, to move into other areas where we can have an impact.

We are doing the same kind of review for Urban Villages. There are areas in which Urban Villages has made a great impact. We want the opportunity, having learnt the lessons, to bring that kind of impact to other areas.

Mr Gaston: I will move on, Chair. Page 10 of your brochure includes the delivery principle:

Going back to what was previously discussed about frustration with tabled questions, I want to look at FOI requests. Why did it take TEO six months and a decision notice from the commissioner to release information relating to an FOI that I put in? You refused to release the information. Why did it take a decision notice for that to be released?

Mr Malcolm: So, we —.

Mr Gaston: You did not release all the information that I requested, so I will have to appeal.

Mr Malcolm: We get approximately 200 requests a year for data: FOIs and other business-as-usual data. Between 80% and 90% of those requests are responded to on time. If yours is one of the 10% or 20% that was not answered on time, you will be unhappy; I get that.

Let us not assume that all our FOIs are not being answered. FOIs have their own appeals process and internal mechanisms. They have their own independent challenge. When we make a decision for honest and right reasons that we believe in, it is absolutely right that there would be independent scrutiny that holds us to account for those decisions.

The fact that somebody had a different opinion is not necessarily a bad thing; it shows that the system works. You asked us for information, and our judgement was that it could not be released for various reasons. An independent scrutiny —.

Mr Gaston: Was that political?

Mr Malcolm: The independent commissioner determined that it would be released. I think that that is an example of the system working. As I said, we answer over 80% of our FOI and information requests on time. I get it that if you —.

Mr Gaston: The system works only when you are told to release the information.

Mr Malcolm: I get that you will not be happy if you are one of the 20%. We are getting our FOI requests and our data requests answered. Naturally, the Department's work is complex. Very sensitive issues are being dealt with. It is a joint office. You know that; therefore, we should not be surprised that there will occasionally be FOI requests on which we make a judgement and on which somebody else, in the cold light of day, will make a different judgement. That is how this organisation and system work. That is what the FOI mechanism was set up to deal with.

Mr Gaston: It is to frustrate people.

Mr Malcolm: It is working.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, I am conscious of the fact that Áine has now put her name on the list for a question. You may have one more question, and then we are moving on.

Mr Gaston: Last week, we had officials in talking about the Windsor framework, and I raised issues and concerns regarding the trade deal with America. The official basically made out that all was good and that, yes, businesses can apply to get money back. In the Chamber this week, I used the example of the owner of the Wooden Floor Company in Belfast, Richard Snape, who outlined that he has businesses in GB and one in Northern Ireland. He has businesses in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and he can no longer move goods between GB and Northern Ireland or he will get a 49% anti-dumping tariff on wooden flooring imposed on his business. Yes, he can claim it back through the duty reimbursement scheme, but we are not being treated as an equal part of the United Kingdom if that business has to pay a substantial amount of money and has to go through a process to claim it back. He said:

From the evidence session last week, it seemed almost as though everything was good. You apply to the scheme and get the money back straightaway, whereas here you have somebody giving the real-world impact of the protocol. TEO has responsibility for the Windsor framework, and it is about time that you woke up to the problems that are out there and were honest with the Committee and with the people out there. Significant challenges are being imposed because of the Windsor framework. Divergence is real, and turning around to say that there is no divergence between GB and NI is false.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Can we get the answer and then move on?

Mr Malcolm: I am not sure that there is much that I can answer. I think that, by and large, you are trying to take me into a political arena. You know that, in the Department, our Ministers will have a slightly different view on much of what you said. I disagree that officials came here last week to be disingenuous in what they said to you. If there is a specific issue on that particular case about which you want to write to us, I am more than happy to look into it, but you are trying to take me into territory that is just not possible for me to go into.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Planned interventions around good relations were mentioned. From working with groups in North Belfast, I know that some of them are going to lose money. They did not get all their award. Is that the case, Gareth?

Mr Johnston: I would need a bit more information about what group —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Can you get back to me? It is about some of the intervention money for the summer. I know that there is a reduction in the Engage programme in the Department of Education for tackling paramilitaries. Awards were made, but there was certainly a reduction in the amount that was available and in the number of awards that were made to groups that are out doing intervention work with young people.

Mr Johnston: If you could get me the specifics —

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will do that.

Mr Johnston: — of the groups that are involved, we can certainly provide more detail. At a general level, a number of those schemes, such as the central good relations fund, are application-based. They are very competitive. The central good relations fund is an example. We received applications worth £7 million against a budget of over £2 million.

Ms Ní Chuilín: May I interrupt, Gareth?

Mr Johnston: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Given the number of applications that come in from areas that are doing diversionary work on interfaces, I do not think that they would appreciate that. You gave the sum total of the number of applications that you received, but it is those small areas that face the biggest difficulties. I will write to you with details to get a response.

Mr Johnston: You raise a real issue — the T:BUC review will look at these matters — which is the extent to which we should look at application-based programmes in which we open a broad invitation to people to apply and the extent to which we should look at more targeted requests, as in CIT, where we have said, "We want this particular thing to happen in this area. Can you come with proposals for that?"?

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. I will ask about another aspect of costs. I tabled a question for written answer on 28 November 2024, which was answered on 3 March 2025, on the role of SIB in the development of the ending violence against women and girls strategy. In the Committee, I have asked about the cost of SIB's involvement in that, whether it is still part of the programme and, if so, what it costs. I would appreciate having that in writing. This is the third time that I have asked for that in Committee. I am not objecting to SIB's involvement, but it needs to be cut off, particularly as the funding of groups that were involved in the really good work of developing the strategy is being cut. That is an equality issue that needs a response.

Mr Johnston: It is significant that we have moved on from a time when we were seeking to develop the framework and looking at all the evidence to develop something that would make a difference here. We know that, in the past —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: You are over the team. Is anybody from SIB still working on the strategy?

Mr Johnston: Yes —

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. So —

Mr Johnston: — but that involvement has reduced significantly, and —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. They are on SIB rates rather than NICS rates.

Mr Johnston: We have done a comparison, and, given that you — there were specialist skills that we did not have.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will say that those specialist skills are in the community. I am not at all saying, "Get the specialist skills on the cheap", but — we talked about the imbalance in the relationships with ALBs and, indeed, in what people earn and their involvement — at times, the community sector is being used. There is recognition of experience in developing important strategies, and that is fine, but remuneration is not the same across the board. My issue is that, almost two years on, people from SIB are involved in a programme that the community and voluntary sector helped to develop, and the people from the community and voluntary sector are being paid probably a third of what the SIB people are being paid. I will leave that there.

Mr Johnston: I want to emphasise the point that, through the initial delivery plan, we are putting £3·2 million into —

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is great.

Mr Johnston: — community organisations —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Gareth, that is great news.

Mr Johnston: — and, if there is anything more that I can do to reduce central costs so that we can put more out, I will do it. I am hopeful that we will be able to do that this year, but those schemes —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Gareth, can I just interrupt?

Mr Johnston: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I do not want to be rude, but I do not want you to run down the clock on me. I have a couple of other questions, so we will leave it there. OK.

The Committee had Martin and his officials come in to talk about the truth recovery and redress Bill that we expect to be introduced. The support that the witnesses will need will cost money for the Committee. You are aware, Gareth, through your previous work on historical institutional abuse (HIA) and other inquiries, that they will need specialised support to go through the process.

When will we see the Bill?

Mr Johnston: The Bill will be introduced before the summer recess.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The last Monday before the summer recess is 30 June.

Mr Johnston: There have been communications with the Speaker's Office about the Bill's introduction. The Bill will come before the summer recess.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. My last question is on the language commissioners and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. When will the commissioners be in place?

Mr Johnston: The interviews are happening through this month. The last of them will happen by the end of June. We are making preparations so that we can turn advice around to Ministers about appointments very quickly after that. Good progress is being made on the process.

You talked about victims and survivors. We already have a very comprehensive support service in place with the Victims and Survivors Service for survivors of mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. We recognise that that will need to develop to support people who want to give evidence, just as we have sought to support the 175 people who have given accounts of their experience to the truth recovery independent panel. By the time that the panel has completed its work, the number will be over 200. We have sought to make sure that the support is there.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate that update, Gareth.

There was an aptitude test for the commissioners. Was it just the Irish Language Commissioner who had to go through an aptitude test?

Mr Johnston: Yes. The post is for a commissioner for the Irish language, so there was an Irish language proficiency test. The same was not applied to the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition, because the responsibilities in that post are for a wider range of cultural issues.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Not language.

Mr Johnston: On that basis, it was not felt that a language test was needed.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Fair enough. I just wanted to ask.

Ms Murphy: I will not go into a long preamble. Brian mentioned the transformation board and the new delivery unit. How will the transformation board's work aid the delivery unit?

Mr Malcolm: There are vast symmetries between what the transformation board has done and the projects that we have identified. Only half the funding has been allocated. Another tranche will be announced and rolled out, and that will bring a whole new approach.

Across the NICS, there was a real challenge to bring forward really transformative projects; in other words, those would not be projects that would just add to the business that you have, short of a budget fall. It was a challenge for the Civil Service to identify really transformative projects. We have to be honest about that. However, we have some really good-quality projects coming forward, and those will now be externally reviewed. One of the committees of the Northern Ireland Civil Service board will focus on the delivery not just of the delivery unit but of what it is delivering for the transformation board to make sure that it does what it says on the tin.

Ms Murphy: OK. Officials were in previously to brief us on the PFG. To wrap up, how will the delivery unit's work oversee that of other Departments, even though, obviously, Ministers have total jurisdiction over their Department's policy remit?

Mr Malcolm: That is exactly what we are working through. The First Minister and deputy First Minister will speak to their Executive colleagues. That might involve producing an Executive paper to get the Executive to buy into it. Ultimately, it is part of the PFG. It was in the PFG that a delivery unit would be set up "at the heart" of government. The Executive signed off on that. We are stepping through their plans for the delivery unit so that it can get into other Departments, their Ministers are relaxed about that and officials can engage. That will go through the Executive and will therefore get the buy-in from Ministers that will make it easier for engagement at official level.

Ms Murphy: The next question is a wee bit different, but I will finish on this. In the event that the delivery unit opens lines of communication with Ministers and Departments and there is pushback from a Minister — I am not saying that there will be, but I am playing devil's advocate — what will happen in the delivery unit?

Mr Malcolm: As I said, our constitutional arrangements mean that, as accounting officers, we all work in certain autonomous areas for Ministers, but the Programme for Government brings in the whole Executive. All the Ministers have already signed up to the delivery unit. The First Minister and deputy First Minister will bring the work of the delivery unit to the Executive to get their agreement. That should avoid what you describe happening. If there were a problem downstream, the Executive would not agree to that up front. The Executive have bought into the Programme for Government and will now be asked to buy into the how the delivery unit will work, so what you describe should not happen because all the Ministers have bought into the process. We will start small. The delivery unit will not have a scattergun approach; we will focus on one, two or three small areas in which we can make an immediate impact and can learn, test and upskill. Getting Executive agreement through the PFG will be key to avoiding the scenario that you are suggesting.

Ms Murphy: Thank you, David. My final question is for Gareth. I am looking for a quick update on where T:BUC is at the minute. A strategy review was going on. Where are we at with that?

Mr Johnston: A strategy review has been ongoing. We are looking very shortly to have a timeline and to put some proposals for engagement with stakeholders on the development of a framework for the future. Some of the things that are coming out of the review have been about that mainstreaming point that we discussed, such as the importance of mainstreaming good relations work and the linkages with wider work in other Departments. There are still very substantial issues, such as sectarianism, that the strategy needs to grapple with. We are working alongside a more diverse community than was the case in the past. It is important that T:BUC continues to recognise that.

We will bring forward proposals for a short design stage for the strategy. It is important that stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute to that. In the meantime, all the current T:BUC actions are continuing. We have had another round of programmes, and we are also getting funding out to Departments for the important work that is being done on the headline actions, such as shared housing.

Ms Murphy: This is a really short question. In thinking about a timeline, how far away are we from going out to stakeholders and engaging with them?

Mr Johnston: We are pretty close to that. We just want to agree the exact mechanism with the Ministers, but we are not too far away.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): There is one question that I did not get to ask you, but where is the review of the Race Relations Order? I think that the Committee expects to see that in this financial year. When will that come before the Committee?

Mr Johnston: I cannot give you an exact date. However, if the Committee would welcome a briefing on the detail of what has come back from the consultation, I would be very happy to give that. We undertook consultation and had a very good level of engagement on the kinds of areas that the order needs to cover. Our desire is to have best-in-class legislation and protections for people here. We have been doing a lot of work with the Departmental Solicitor's Office on all the detail that you have to look at in a piece of legislation. We are also engaging with the Office of the Legislative Counsel. If we can give anything by way of a further briefing, we would be happy to do that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Gareth, do you know whether T:BUC funding was used for shared housing in the lower Oldpark area?

Mr Johnston: I would have to check the specific area. The shared housing programme as a whole has been probably one of the most successful pieces of T:BUC.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Really?

Mr Johnston: The original targets have been significantly exceeded.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am not making any politics points out of this, but I have heard that, in areas where there will be shared housing, consultation with communities does not happen. Very vulnerable people are then put into houses, and, once their religion becomes apparent, we see situations such as that which happened recently, or flags are put up all around those houses. That is why I said, "Really?".

Mr Johnston: There are issues there that are the responsibility of the Department for Communities and the housing associations that provide housing. If we can help with getting some more information on that, we will.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Could you, please? It is important that people know what the process is. Everybody is for living in integration. There is no problem with that until something like that happens and people feel very vulnerable. I was told that the area involved is part of a T:BUC housing scheme. That is the first that I had heard of it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, do you have a very short question?

Mr Gaston: Yes. Page 6 of your business plan states:

How much is the budget for the language bodies' bids, and how much are you short?

Mr Johnston: I would have to check the exact budget. However, at the moment, the budget has enabled us to complete the design phase for the appointments and do a lot of preparatory work for the staff that those bodies will need, so we have been developing job descriptions, getting those assessed and going through the various processes that you have to go through. The funding that we have at the minute will let us complete that appointments process, but that is all that the funding that we have at the minute will let us do.

When it comes to starting to build up those bodies and to appoint staff and so on, we will need and have sought additional funding through monitoring. We have flagged all the way along that, while we can do the preparatory stages and want to move those along as swiftly as possible, there will be a need for additional funding for the set-up and development of the bodies.

Mr Gaston: How much is that?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): No, we are going to move on. Are you going to come back and give us some information on the bids for June monitoring, as you did last year?

Mr Johnston: Yes, that is the normal practice.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. It would be good to have that as soon as possible.

I am conscious that it is 5.00 pm and that we still have some business to get on with. Thank you. I hope that you have a sense that we would like you to come before our Committee more regularly. There was quite a lot for us to get through today, and I am sure that we all have a number of other issues that we would have liked to raise, but thank you for now.

Mr Johnston: Thank you very much.