Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome Ronan Murtagh, finance director in the Executive Office, and Paula Shearer, head of TEO's budgeting branch. Thank you very much for coming back to the Committee and for providing your papers in advance of the meeting. I invite you to make some opening remarks.

Mr Ronan Murtagh (The Executive Office): I will make some brief opening remarks in order to allow for questions. Many thanks for the opportunity to provide the Committee with an update on the Department's financial position and, in particular, June monitoring. We provided a written briefing to members, and I hope that it has been helpful. I am happy to discuss the detail that is outlined in the paper. As usual, if there are any questions about operational delivery that are linked to any of the issues in the paper and on which the Committee wishes to receive more detail, I will be happy to follow that up with a written briefing and responses.

The briefing paper provides an update on Budget 2025-26 outcomes since our last attendance on 26 March. In addition to the draft Budget position, which we discussed last time, TEO is being provided with a further allocation of £1·1 million towards pay pressures. There have been no changes to the earmarked resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) funding allocation or to the capital DEL funding allocation. As previously explained, we started the year with a shortfall of £10·1 million against our initially registered resource DEL bids and £2 million against our capital DEL bids. We have taken the opportunity in June monitoring to revisit our needs and spending plans. The briefing paper outlines the bids that our Ministers have approved for submission.

In reassessing the spending plans, the resource DEL bids that were submitted totalled £9·275 million, as outlined in the paper. Emphasis continues to be on delivery: on front-line services and funding, for example, to grassroots projects and groups for ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG); to additional good relations projects; to Communities in Transition (CIT) with a view to expanding service provision; to the north-west development fund to contribute to the joint initiative between the Executive and the Irish Government to deliver benefits to the cross-border north-west region; and to meet our obligations in respect of the new language bodies.

On capital DEL, our Ministers agreed to the submission of bids to fund leases in respect of truth recovery and the language bodies, both of which are statutory obligations. In addition, a bid for £0·7 million has been submitted for ending violence against women and girls in order to address the gap in funding for the challenge fund, which was previously provided through the small business research initiative.

I am happy to take any questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, thank you. Do you have anything to add at this stage, Paula?

Ms Paula Shearer (The Executive Office): No.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, thank you very much.

This time last year, we were supplied with copies of the bids that went to the Department of Finance. I remember being critical of the fact that the justifications for why extra money was needed were very scant. We were promised that, when we received them this year, they would contain more information on why there were such pressures for the additional money. Why did we not get copies of the bids?

Mr Murtagh: Given recent discussions, we have sought to make the presentation of the information as readily available as possible and to set that out clearly in the paper. A paper came from the Committee about bid forms, and there was a discussion with the Committee Clerk about whether we needed to provide those as well as the paper. We were conscious that we did not want to overload information, because the same information would be in both documents. There was a technical issue when we submitted Excel versions of documents last time, and these are Excel documents.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have a new Committee Clerk who would not have been privy to that complaint last year. We were told, for example, that there were good reports about Communities in Transition's work and that we needed to continue it. My question was, "Who is marking whose homework here?". I was concerned at the time about the justification of the need for the additional money and where the pressures were. As I said, the person who responded — I remember who it was — said, "We will make sure that the bids are more populated and that you will get them in a timely manner next year". That has not happened. I can take that offline, but I want to let you know why I am concerned about that. I will move on.

There are pressures in the ending violence against women and girls work — I hear really good reports of the process that is under way in Belfast City Council; obviously, that is my council area — because demand far outstrips the number of applications. How will you respond to and meet that demand now and in the future?

Mr Murtagh: Through the June monitoring process. As we have said previously, we can flex, and it is all scalable. Should more money from the centre be forthcoming, we would be in a position to put that out through the mechanisms that are in place for delivery of ending violence against women and girls. We work closely with partners through the strategic oversight and programme delivery boards, so we can feed any opportunities from additional funding through that mechanism to enable delivery on the ground. That has driven the request. We came to our refreshed request through June monitoring very much by looking at what works and where the need is and continues to be. Rightly, you highlight the Programme for Government (PFG) priority.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Let us say that you are given an extra £1 million or you are bidding for that. Would that money be allocated per capita to councils, or are you more intimately aware of which councils are under greater pressure?

Mr Murtagh: Money allocated to councils has so far been on a per capita basis.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Mr Murtagh: I am not across the detail of —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): If you got additional money, would it —?

Mr Murtagh: I assume so, but I would have to liaise with colleagues in the business area to firm that up. The bid last time, when we initially looked for an additional £4 million — it was there or thereabouts — was for £1 million in sectoral support for more groups through the regional change fund and £3 million for projects on the ground through the local change fund. I imagine that it would be reassessed and, if appropriate, allocated in that way.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I have two more questions. You mentioned expanding provision — I think that you used those words — under Communities in Transition. There is a gap of £1·4 million. What is your involvement in assessing the need and justification for additional money? Some members are a bit concerned about the output, impact and outcome from the expenditure of that money. What is your role in assessing how provision is expanded?

Mr Murtagh: The business area that brought forward the bid assessed delivery so far in line with the business case. It looked at the areas and regions — the same eight regions, as you said — and the supporting evidence for their being the most in need. There are alternative regions and opportunities to expand, but it would all be driven by the funding, and we do not know how much, if any, will be available. The priorities in the business case would need to be brought back to the business area and Ministers to determine whether the funding would allow expansion into other areas or expansion of existing provision. I am not directly involved in that decision, which is taken at an operational level in the business area.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That speaks to my opening remarks: we would like to see what is in the bids so that we can see how you assess the pressures.

This is my last question. The capital DEL sits at £16·3 million: £14 million has been allocated, and there is a shortfall of £2 million. That is down to the statutory obligation to provide accommodation for our commissioners and arm's-length bodies (ALBs). What work is under way to cut the cost to the public purse by trying to get them to cohabit — share a building and perhaps take offices on different floors — because quite a percentage of the TEO budget is spent on capital?

Mr Murtagh: Capital in its totality will cover capital grant through Urban Villages and Ebrington, so capital is not just about accommodation leases. It is far wider than that. The figure for project delivery for Urban Villages is, I think, £78 million; that is capital.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am referring to the wording that you used in your submission. It mentions £1·5 million for truth recovery.

Mr Murtagh: That is purely the bid. The only bit that we are bidding for is £2 million, which is primarily for the leases. Those are the only bits that are left. We did not get them in the initial allocations at the start of the year. That is purely to do with the developments in the creation of the new language bodies and the leases for truth recovery.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): My question is really about how you will cut accommodation costs.

Mr Murtagh: Everything involved in the creation of the language bodies will be scrutinised for efficiencies of scale. If there are opportunities to co-locate or make the most efficient use of space, we will look at the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) estate property to see what is the most pragmatic and optimum way to provide value for money.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Can the Committee see the options that are being looked at to assure itself of the veracity of the processes?

Ms Shearer: The business cases that are being prepared will look at the various options for relocation, and the best value-for-money option will be chosen. Those are still in progress at the minute.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do we get to see those? Do they come before the Committee, or are they just for Ministers?

Mr Murtagh: I am not aware of whether business cases come to the Committee. Apologies. I will need to take that away.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Mr Dickson: Thank you for the information that you have brought to us. I have a couple of perhaps more broad-ranging questions, but they have similar themes to those raised by the Chair.

On the overall budget and the value for money that it presents, how are individual programmes assessed and monitored against the business case, and how are the outcomes measured against the business case that was delivered in the first place? Is that done on a programme-by-programme basis?

I have a concern. The Executive Office needs to look across all the areas and projects that it funds, or those that it has a financial interest in, to ensure that, across the totality of its budget, it gets value for money for the work that it does.

Mr Murtagh: In the business case, each programme will apply best practice on governance and the arrangements for its establishments and make the case to deliver the programme in the first place.

Mr Dickson: Whose best practice: its best practice or Civil Service-wide best practice?

Mr Murtagh: Civil Service-wide. Essentially, on outcomes and delivery, the Department has key performance indicators (KPIs) on the priorities and objectives in its business plan that it will set out and agree with Ministers and align to the Programme for Government. The outcomes of those will be assessed through gateway reviews and feedback. The outcomes that have been delivered by those programmes will be benchmarked against the KPIs to assess whether they have been effective. Along with the governance arrangements and the business case process, post-project evaluations are conducted. There are ongoing reviews of all cases to assess the delivery of programmes and how they are doing.

On strategic planning, yes, the Department always seeks to find optimum and better ways of doing things. We will work not only within the Department but with other Departments through the test-and-learn initiative to find areas of mutual delivery or opportunities for synergies with both Departments and communities in order to deliver best value.

Mr Dickson: How is the programme and the Executive-wide value-for-money use of the Executive Office's budget assessed, and who is that ultimately presented to? This point is a bit like the question that the Chair asked: I see no reason at all why we should not see the business cases from a public-sector body. We also need to see the out-turns of those business cases to assess whether they have done what they said it would do on the tin when the people came to you and made their pitches.

Mr Murtagh: On assessing value for money, to add to the governance piece, we are subject to internal audits and external audits, and not only financial audits but value-for-money reviews, so there is external scrutiny of how we engage delivery.

Mr Dickson: It will be a rolling programme, so presumably reports are written mid-project, as bids come in for additional funds, and at the end of a particular project or financial year. Where can we see that information?

Mr Murtagh: That goes into the strategic planning side — the business planning. Colleagues in corporate services handle that side of it, mapping and tracking delivery against the corporate and business plans.

Mr Dickson: Can we see that?

Mr Murtagh: Yes.

Mr Dickson: Where can we see it?

Mr Murtagh: Those are reported. Are those reports not available online? As far as I was aware, they were published online.

Mr Dickson: You think that they are available.

Mr Murtagh: I can check that.

Mr Dickson: OK. It would be useful to know whether they are available online. I go back to the Chair's point that it is difficult for the Committee to assess how the Department is performing or, indeed, how it is performing under its various areas of responsibility if we cannot see those business cases too.

Ms Shearer: Business areas have all carried out evaluations of the programmes that have been delivered and have used lessons learned from those programmes to see where best to put the money that they bid for in the next monitoring round in the next year. They do use the outcomes from previous programmes.

Mr Dickson: At that stage, it is too late: the money has already been spent if you have got it wrong, it has not presented value for money, or it has not done what it was intended to do.

Ms Shearer: If that is the case, they will look to put the money in a different place that presents better value for money. It is not as though they keep putting the money in the same area if it is not delivering better or good outcomes. That forces them to look to see where best they could put the money.

Mr Dickson: The Committee's concern — or, at least, the concern of some members — is that that is exactly the situation. We have concerns that there is not best value for money and that the best outcomes are not being delivered through your various programmes. Unless we can look underneath that, all that we can do — and this is unfair on you — is sit back at the end of a project and criticise. We would far rather be engaged and ask how, what, when, where and why things have happened along the way.

Mr Murtagh: I would just interject at that point and say that it is done annually in the annual reports and accounts, which are published documents. We are just in the throes of producing a report. It will include a transparent and open narrative of what has been delivered in the past year.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I share the Deputy Chair's frustration about the number of times that we have asked when an evaluation report for such-and-such a programme was last out and have been told, "Well, we are in the middle of reviewing that. It will form part of the new strategy". I mean, it would take just 10 minutes to look down the AQWs to see how frustrating it is for us to try to get those evaluation reports that you have spoken about. They probably do happen, but, when you ask for them, you can never quite get a response from the Minister in their signing off on those AQWs.

Mr Dickson: Chair, thank you.

That has been a useful interchange. Hopefully, you will take some of that message back. It would be useful to us that you did not just take it back, discuss it and digest it internally but looked at better ways in which to report that information to us.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you for being at the Committee today. For months now, I have been asking about the cost of Strategic Investment Board (SIB) staff support for the ending violence against women and girls strategy. I got an AQW answered. From 2021 to 2025, it has cost £811,367. That is just on SIB staff. The response did say that that would be reduced for 2025-26. I would like to see what the figures are now with the June monitoring round for 2025-26. Given the struggles that groups in the community and voluntary sector have had, that amount of money is quite disgraceful. I want to put that on record.

Your paper states that £1·95 million was spent on good relations. What was that spent on exactly?

Ms Shearer: I will take your point on SIB and EVAWG. EVAWG is now moving into the implementation stage. It has moved on from the delivery stage, and the team is taking the opportunity to review its staffing structure and support arrangements that are needed to effectively deliver the work. There will be less reliance on SIB from 2025-26 onwards.

Mr Murtagh: I think that we have provided the detail, and hopefully that is with —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I know, but there was an unjust approach to this, because the community and voluntary sector experts were used to help to develop the strategy at a fraction of the cost. They struggled to pay wages and worked very closely with SIB. When you compare the salaries of the people who helped SIB with the strategy with the salaries of those who work in SIB, you will see that they are grossly unequal. I am not making the point for the sake of it. I am saying that, when it comes to value for money, that will never be challenged unless there is mutual respect and appreciation for expertise in the community and voluntary sector. I am not talking about doing work on the cheap — far from it — but there is an ethos and a value that needs to be placed on that work, because when it comes to the money that has been spent until now, given that relationship, there is a lot of inequality there. We need to look at that going forward.

In terms of the £1·95 million —.

Mr Murtagh: Good relations £1·95 million.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Break that down for me, please.

Mr Murtagh: The £1·95 million is not spend to date; that is the bid that we have put in.

Ms Ní Chuilín: To do what?

Mr Murtagh: Essentially, it will be allocated across the central and district good relations funds. When it comes to the central good relations fund, it will allow more money to be put out to the voluntary and community groups.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Is that for the Community Relations Council?

Mr Murtagh: No, not specifically. It is for individual projects that have applied to the central good relations fund. There are 220 applications seeking funding of £7·1 million, so it is very much oversubscribed. There is a list of projects that are —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I do not want to seem as though I am trying to fancy-foot here. I want to know the money that is being spent in the good relations council/Community Relations Council, and I want a breakdown of the money that is going to the central good relations fund. I assume that that goes to councils as well.

Mr Murtagh: There will be an equal amount going to councils. There is the central good relations fund and the district good relations fund.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Who administers the central good relations fund?

Mr Murtagh: The central good relations fund is essentially the money that goes directly out to the projects.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That goes from TEO to the projects?

Mr Murtagh: Yes. The district good relations fund is funding activity in the councils.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That goes from TEO to the councils?

Mr Murtagh: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Can you give me the figure for the good relations council? I am beginning to wonder what it is doing.

Ms Shearer: It is £975,000 as well. It is £975,000 for the central good relations fund and £975,000 for the district good relations fund.

Mr Murtagh: They are the bids. It is 50:50.

Ms Ní Chuilín: But this is for the Community Relations Council.

Ms Shearer: That is different.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Exactly. You can come back on that.

Ms Shearer: There is no bid in for that one in June monitoring.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK, but there is an annual —.

Ms Shearer: Yes. It gets a budget line.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Is it part of a non-departmental public body (NDPB)?

Ms Shearer: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. How many ALBs/NDPBs is the Department funding annually?

Ms Shearer: Eight.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Eight. Could we get a breakdown for each of those as well, please? It just says "NDPBS".

Mr Murtagh: Do you mean breaking down the June monitoring bid into how much for each?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Both. It is the annual funding that they get, and then what they are getting on top of that in June monitoring, because, due to the budget situation, all the NDPBs and ALBs did not get their full allocation the last time.

Ms Shearer: We were able to put an extra £1 million in.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I saw that.

Ms Shearer: Everyone got their opening baseline, but we were able to put an extra £1 million in across all eight NDPBs to cover pay pressures.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I saw that. Does that cover them all? It is just for pay pressures?

Ms Shearer: Mostly pay pressures.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK.

Ms Shearer: We understand that there will be further funding through National Insurance contributions. DOF has advised that we are getting £300,000 towards National Insurance contributions, and we will share that between the Department and the NDPBs.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will go back to the money that is going to district councils for ending violence against women and girls. You said that that was done on a pro rata basis, was it?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Per capita.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Sorry, per capita. Thanks, Paula.

Mr Murtagh: Per capita for council areas, yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I ask that because the population in Belfast is greater than elsewhere. Is it receiving the same amount of money as, for example, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council would receive?

Ms Shearer: It would receive more.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It would receive more. OK. The ending violence against women and girls is a stand-alone programme, is it not? It is not contingent on good relations or anything else.

Mr Murtagh: No.

Ms Ní Chuilín: My last question is about the north-west development fund. Your paper states that a bid for £0·42 million has been brought forward to contribute to the joint initiative between the Executive and the Irish Government. Where is that sitting?

Mr Murtagh: The bid has been reviewed, and Ministers have agreed a bid for £150,000.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK.

Mr Murtagh: It was revised to that amount because the Ministers' preference was to shift to more of a focus on coordinating strategic interventions in the programme using existing mechanisms.

Ms Ní Chuilín: What was the Irish Government's contribution?

Ms Shearer: I do not think that we know the current funding for this year. I know that previously —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: They may have just put down a flat amount of money.

Mr Murtagh: In December 2024, they provided a commitment to provide — current year included — €122,000.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Have they done that?

Mr Murtagh: That was specifically to support the continuation of the secretariat structures for 18 months. I assume that that was done in December.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Ronan and Paula. Your paper indicates that the Department of Finance has already made commitments of allocations from the June monitoring round. Will the outcome of all the other bids be known at one time, or will it become a rolling programme? Will there be a definitive outcome on a certain date?

Mr Murtagh: The items that are known through June monitoring are the ones coming directly from the Treasury that DOF is aware of. It will be the likes of the National Insurance contribution that was received.

Ms Shearer: The original money for CIT and for the Windsor framework will be allocated through June monitoring. Therefore, we know that we are definitely getting those three allocations. What we do not know is the outcome of the bids for the £9·2 million that we have put forward and the capital bids.

Mr Murtagh: That process is ongoing, and we do not know the outcome of that as yet. I imagine that there will be very large demands on the block.

Mr Kingston: Is there no indicative date for the outcome of June monitoring?

Mr Murtagh: We should know that shortly. I believe that a paper is with the Finance Minister, but we do not have an indication of a date as yet.

Mr Kingston: It should be all announced at once, rather than its coming like a rolling programme of allocations.

Ms Shearer: Yes.

Mr Murtagh: I would have thought that the Finance Minister would bring a paper to the Executive, and, if that is pre summer recess, that would need to be before the end of next week.

Mr Kingston: The non-departmental public bodies had what are called "pay and inflationary" pressures, and in the Budget process approximately only half of their needs were met. How much does the Department monitor the outworking of that if not all the pay pressures were met? Of course, every need is a valid need, but, if not all the pay pressures are met, can those bodies make allocations? Can the impact be felt on their programmes? How much influence and scrutiny does the Department have on the financial decisions made by the non-departmental public bodies?

Mr Murtagh: The Department works closely with all its NDPBs. We have partnership agreements with them, and there are partnership teams in the Department that are responsible for working closely with each body. They work with them on the management of their budgets. Each NDPB has its own accounting officer, who ultimately has responsibility for its budget. However, if there were proposals for how they were, perhaps, going to seek to vary or veer between lines or move the budget or manage that position, the Department will work closely with them on that.

Ultimately, it is fair to say that, for the Department, NDPBs and all other Departments, the Budget position involves tough decisions. Vacancies are not being filled, and there is an impact on what can be done and when.

Mr Kingston: My concern is that decisions might be made that would radically change the outputs and outcomes from the work just to satisfy one particular pressure and cut programme costs. Is the Department monitoring the consequences of outputs and outcomes?

Mr Murtagh: Yes, absolutely, and that is very much based on that very thing, which is the statutory obligations of the bodies and the required outputs and outcomes.

Mr Kingston: One other question, Chair, is on good relations funding. There is a substantial unmet need in that. Given recent events and in the context of increased immigration and populations not being felt evenly across society, some areas feel those pressures more than others. I have argued that there needs to be a greater focus on community cohesion, listening to communities' concerns and addressing needs and supporting community cohesion in areas that are most impacted by increased immigration. Is there an element of that? I know that this is a financial report, but are you aware of that being a priority in the allocations to good relations?

Mr Murtagh: In the management of good relations and oversight, colleagues who are responsible for that area would be able to speak better to the detail of the geographical allocations, the pinpointing of need and the direction of resources. We will take what the requirement is at June monitoring level and departmental level as opposed to getting into the specifics. That would be a matter for them. I apologise. We could come back to you with more detail if that would be helpful.

Mr Kingston: No, I appreciate that I am asking about the programme, but our Northern Ireland circumstances mean that we have had a traditional view of good relations, but those community cohesion issues involving immigrant communities, newcomer communities and indigenous communities are not even across society. In some areas, there is little impact. In others, particularly those with lower-value private housing, where you get more private rentals, there is a greater impact. I will continue to raise the point that the funding needs to be applied to those areas.

Mr Murtagh: It certainly forms part of good relations. The review of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy and the refugee integration strategy all come together in the changing landscape — yes, absolutely. It is perhaps no longer the historical good relations of the two traditional communities; it is far wider than that now. It is about being a more diverse society and the relationship amongst all the people in the area.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you, Chair.

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

Mr Gaston: I suppose an easy one to start off with is National Insurance contributions. Your paper talks about a pressure of £1 million, and it says:

My understanding is that £146 million was given to the Executive to offset the National Insurance contributions. Yes, there was a shortfall. I think that it was pressures of approximately £207 million, but if you look at what was given, you see that over 70% of National Insurance contributions were provided to the Executive. You say in your paper that there is potentially £700,000 of a shortfall, yet you bid for £300,000.

Mr Murtagh: We registered a need across our Department and the ALBs for £1 million, and we are being allocated £300,000. There is a £700,000 shortfall, so we have bid for that amount again in June monitoring.

Mr Gaston: Is there not a case to be made that Westminster has essentially already provided over £700,000 of that allocation for TEO?

Mr Murtagh: That is a matter for allocations that are beyond the Department. It is not in our gift to reach out to the total, I suppose.

Mr Gaston: I find it bizarre that, when that money has been given for that purpose, you have to go to a June monitoring round to try to make up a £700,000 shortfall. I have been saying for a long time that the money coming from Westminster to the Executive should go towards that purpose. It is creating a pressure and a shortfall in the Department, and everybody needs their wages to be paid. Surely, that should have been a priority. That concerns me.

Mr Murtagh: It is about whether the money is hypothecated or unhypothecated when it comes across from the Treasury. Apologies; I do not have the detail with me that was in the Executive papers about the allocation that were issued at the time.

Mr Gaston: The non-earmarked resource for salaries is £1·1 million, and £1 million of that has been met. There is £700,000 from the June monitoring round. What sort of salaries have a shortfall?

Mr Murtagh: The shortfall is the employers' National Insurance contribution.

Mr Gaston: That is what the figure is for.

Mr Murtagh: It is £100,000.

Mr Gaston: I find it absolutely bizarre that, when the Department gets money from Westminster for something as basic as people's pay, it has to be absorbed as a potential pressure while there is money for photographs and everything else. Wages should come first, because that will not change. Essentially, people need to be paid to do their job.

There is £150 million ring-fenced for the HIA. Do we have any idea yet whether money will come from the religious orders or organisations?

Mr Murtagh: The HIA will be part of the £150 million. The £150 million is—.

Mr Gaston: The truth recovery and victims.

Mr Murtagh: Yes. Absolutely. The negotiations for the contributions to the HIA are continuing with the institutions.

Mr Gaston: We were told that the negotiations were coming to an end, maybe, eight months ago. Is there no word of the process being completed? When the money comes in, will it come to TEO or will it go into the Executive's pot?

Mr Murtagh: The money will come to TEO. The agreement with the Department of Finance is that we will retain the money and it is offset in the pool against the overall pressure. The reason is because the Executive made sure that victims would not be disadvantaged in any way and would not have to wait for any money coming in from elsewhere. The victims have been paid the money. When the money comes in, it will be allocated to the pool.

Mr Gaston: Is the pool in TEO?

Mr Murtagh: Yes.

Mr Gaston: Essentially, once we receive money from the religious orders because of the appalling way that this has played out, we have no money up front, so we have to absorb that as pressure. Meanwhile, the money could be used for ending violence against women and girls, Communities in Transition, the salaries or other projects that are deemed appropriate in TEO. Would that be a fair comment?

Mr Murtagh: The money will be earmarked when it comes in. Using the fiscal rules and from a budgeting perspective, the allocations and, equally, those contributions are earmarked and cannot be used for any other purpose.

Mr Gaston: Some £150 million has been provided for the HIA victims and truth recovery. When the contributions come in, which will offset some of the money that was earmarked for that purpose, surely the money can be used for other things in TEO.

Mr Murtagh: No, we cannot do that. We cannot use any easements that are in the earmarked pool and divert them towards non-earmarked areas. If we had an underspend on the earmarked pool, we could not take that money and put it towards EVAWG, for example.

Mr Gaston: Where does that money go if there is an underspend?

Mr Murtagh: It goes back to the centre to the Department of Finance. Presumably, the Executive will consider the money along with any other underspends in order to cover departmental pressures across the service.

Mr Gaston: Surely, there is an incentive to go after the money for the bigger Budget. Is that a fair comment?

Mr Murtagh: The negotiations to seek the contribution for the victims and public funds are ongoing.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Before you go on, Timothy, let me say that we will take that as an action point and write to the Department for an update on the independent facilitator's work. It has been quite a while since we heard about that.

Mr Gaston: Under the Windsor framework, there is Treasury earmarked funding for £2·17 million. Over the past number of weeks and months, a number of witnesses have been in front of the Committee who have downplayed the divergence and other issues, yet we see that £2·17 million is coming to TEO. What is that money being spent on?

Ms Shearer: We bid for £2·17 million, but we have been advised that we have got £1·5 million in resource and £0·15 million in capital. Nearly £200,000 of the resource amount goes towards the EU legislation information tracking system (EULITS) and the team to support it. EULITS is on the NICS intranet to aid Departments in monitoring EU legislation that falls within the scope of the Windsor framework. Some of the funding goes to that. We have had funding for it for the past few years. In fact, we have just been told that its funding will continue for the next three years, because we have been advised of our funding for the Windsor framework for the next three years.

Mr Gaston: Is that money to pay staff?

Ms Shearer: No, £140,000 of it is for the EULITS system, and £40,000 is for staff.

Mr Gaston: That is nowhere near £2 million.

Ms Shearer: There is £1·1 million for the dedicated mechanism. We also have another nearly £200,000 for staff in the Department who look after article 2 of the Windsor framework.

Mr Gaston: It is clear that you have come to today with additional information in order to respond to questions. Surely, some of that stuff is basic and should have been provided upfront as part of the briefing paper. The paper has a figure of £2·17 million for the Windsor framework. You have broken it down into what we are getting this way and that way. Surely that breakdown of costs could have been in the papers, no?

Ms Shearer: We did not provide that information because we did not bid for it through June monitoring. It comes through a different monitoring exercise. It was not part of the official June monitoring.

Mr Murtagh: If you want more detail in the paper, we could have a catch-up with the Clerk and go through the information that you will seek in presentations. We can look at that.

Mr Gaston: Communities in Transition will get £1·4 million. That is a real bugbear of mine and of a number of Committee members. We have been told that we are coming into phase 3. To rehearse old ground, phases 1 and 2 were based on 2016 data. Yes, I think that there was a shortfall in the 2025-26 budget. We depend on getting additional money to move the programme to new areas while it is based on 2016 figures and prioritises the old areas, even though we have new figures that show that it should move. Is that a fair comment?

Mr Murtagh: The Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) peer review, which was refreshed in September 2024, highlighted those same areas as still being the most impacted. It is not that it said that there should not be investment or activity in those areas.

Mr Gaston: We have pumped millions into communities. The strapline is this: when does a community in transition become transitioned? You have just told me that our figures show that, in 2024, the programme made no difference. The same areas still need the money to transition.

Mr Murtagh: I am not in possession of the analysis, so I could not possibly agree that it makes no difference, but —.

Mr Gaston: You said that the 2024 figures show that —.

Mr Murtagh: There is a distinction between saying that those are still priority areas and that the programme made no difference. Those are two different statements.

Mr Gaston: After pouring millions into communities, you are saying that those are still the priority areas, but if you want to dance on the head of a pin, by all means, go ahead, but that is my interpretation from this side. There was phase 1 and phase 2. We were told that we have new data that should look at new areas, but you have just told me that, when it comes to phase 3, the data from eight years after —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It is nine years now.

Mr Gaston: The data from nine years later tells us that we should still concentrate on the same areas. I have tabled a question for written answer asking who has been getting that money. Basically, time and time again, the same people have been getting money to deliver projects in the same areas. That blows my mind.

The paramilitary crime task force has been very active in North Antrim over this last number of years dealing with drugs, feuds and different offences. My community is crying out for interventions for community mobilisation, essentially, to form community groups and move past what it has had and been subject to for years. Where does that come into the equation?

Mr Murtagh: All that I can say is that the next phase, as we were saying, has been subject to a business case and to evidence that was brought forward in that review. When you get beyond that, you are probably into the more detailed delivery area.

Mr Gaston: I will move on, but that blows my mind. You are telling me that 2024 data shows that we still have to target the same areas. There is something fundamentally wrong with our approach there.

Mr Murtagh: No. It highlights those areas but not just those areas.

Mr Gaston: If there is —.

Mr Murtagh: Hence we need more money. That is the point.

Mr Gaston: It will continue to fund the paramilitary groups in those areas that have been getting money from us in phase 1 and phase 2. I am lost for words, but we will move on to ending violence against women and girls.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I do not think that the money is going to paramilitaries.

Mr Gaston: Well, some—.

Mr Murtagh: It is money towards delivery on the ground.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I think that you need to be careful in saying that.

Mr Murtagh: Yes.

Mr Gaston: Some groups are doing good work, yes, but some have applied time and again. There is no incentive to change or transition and to move on and go past what we have had for years if you are going to continue to fund the same areas.

I will move to ending violence against women and girls. We have heard that, if we get additional money, more will go to councils. I have serious concerns about how TEO operates, whether that be in good relations or ending violence against women and girls. Instead of us running the programmes, we continually ship a lot of that work out and subcontract it to local councils. It seems to be a given that, if we get money in June monitoring, that is where it is destined to go. Can you tell us today where all the money that was given to councils in the first tranche has gone? As a Committee, we have written to all the councils. A number have come back and told us what the money has been spent on, but a number of replies are still outstanding. One of them, which is in my area, wrote back but did not give any details of how it has awarded the money. There are a lot of great organisations. I am not taking away from or diminishing that, but I cannot see how we can say that this is a great use of money when we do not know where all the money has been spent. Correspondence last week from Fermanagh and Omagh District Council said:

There we have a council that has not spent all its money and is in discussion with TEO about the best use of that money, yet you are telling us today that, when this money comes in, more will be shipped out to councils.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I do not think that that was the answer that you gave me; rather, it was that there would be engagement to see where there are pressures, because, as I said, Belfast is heavily oversubscribed.

Mr Murtagh: In governance, we work closely with not only the councils but other parties that are involved, such as other Departments and the PSNI etc. The governance arrangements include oversight by the Ministers, the junior Ministers, the strategic board and then the programme oversight board. All that involves constant engagement and scrutiny in partnership with the councils and Departments to determine the best use and delivery for the programme.

Mr Gaston: Have clear themes and criteria been set out for councils?

Mr Murtagh: I do not have that detail with me as part of June monitoring.

Mr Gaston: It is certainly not something that has come through in the feedback from councils. If there are clear themes and criteria, I would love to see them. Those are the themes that the Executive Office has set out in the ending violence against women and girls strategy. This is the criteria for those being awarded. This is the different pay bands. That is certainly something that has not come through.

I am leading up to this: I would like to make a plea that, if money comes in the June monitoring round, TEO consider using that for a pilot. In Ballymena, we have experienced an increase in sexual assaults over the past number of months. A lot of violence has poured on to our streets as an outworking of that. Last week, I met a group of ladies who would love to run a pilot project for 12 weeks to try to do something that would make a massive difference on the ground in Ballymena to end violence against women and girls. The strategy to end violence against women and girls is an element of that, but the bigger piece, which seems to be missing from it, is how we integrate those who have come into the town from other countries. There is a massive opportunity for the Executive Office to take a slight step back instead of pushing the money straight out to councils and saying, "There you go. We have ticked the box. We have spent the money to deliver our flagship strategy". There needs to be a different approach —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: How ironic. Ending violence against women and girls by burning them out. How ironic. That is what you did in Ballymena.

Mr Gaston: Hold on here a minute. Violence is wrong. You have heard me talk about that time and again.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I know that you have, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: I have said time and time again that violence is wrong.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, you have.

Mr Gaston: There was nothing racist about those ladies or the people who were protesting that night in the car park to raise concerns that exist in my area. They were raising legitimate concerns. Downplaying that is part of the problem, Carál. You are just labelling everybody who was in the car park.

Ms Ní Chuilín: No. I have no doubt that those women did not burn people out.

Mr Gaston: Then why would you introduce that into the conversation?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Because I think that it is ironic —.

Mr Gaston: There were two separate things. The violence was wrong.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It is worth having this conversation. Carál, finish your point, and then, Timothy, I will let you back in.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is ironic that you are questioning the money that is going towards ending violence against women and girls but are not addressing what happened in your town. It is not an either/or situation; it has to be both.

Mr Gaston: I have said numerous times in the Committee that violence is wrong. My party can say that. That has always been our position. My party takes a zero-violence attitude. Can your party say the same? There has always been an alternative to the violence that we have seen in this country. There is an alternative to the violence in Ballymena —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Guys, we are getting way off —.

Mr Gaston: — and there was an alternative —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Guys, guys.

Mr Gaston: — to the violence in Northern Ireland 50 years ago. Unfortunately, your party —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Hold on, please.

Mr Gaston: — cannot say the same.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Please. I am speaking. I will bring you in in a second, Deputy Chair. I am very conscious of the fact that we have two departmental officials here and that we have gone way off-topic, given that they came to talk to us today about finances.

Do you have any further questions on finance?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. I am trying to encourage the Department to meet people on the ground in Ballymena, including some of those who have been to the protests. I encourage TEO to consider running a pilot project that will make a difference in the town.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have a suggestion. When we come back in September after summer recess, that will be 12 months since the launch of the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls. When we are agreeing our forward work programme, we can maybe ask the departmental officials who will have the answers about its delivery and evaluation etc to come back.

Deputy Chair, do you want to say something at this stage?

Mr Dickson: I just have a general comment to make, but it has financial backing to it. It is ironic that Mid and East Antrim Borough Council refused to accept £100,000 of funding that, if it had been used properly, sensitively and effectively on the ground in Ballymena, could have funded the groups that the member is talking about. However, when he was a member of that local authority, he voted against taking the money.

Mr Gaston: That was for resettling, Stewart. Be clear about what you are talking about.

Mr Dickson: You were mixing up the two subjects in your previous sentence.

Mr Gaston: No, no.

Mr Dickson: Yes, you were. You mixed up the two issues in your last sentence. The issue is that, when it comes to money, TEO has a clear responsibility for not only all the funds that it delivers but the funds that it delivers on behalf of central government and others to ensure that it is used on the ground. That goes back to my point about how such projects are evaluated. If a local authority decides not to take the money, you need to step in and deliver those programmes over its head.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We may have run out of road with the questions that relate to the June monitoring round, so I will end the session — sorry, go ahead, please, Áine. You have not spoken yet.

Ms Murphy: I have a quick question on the back of Timothy's query about money being allocated to councils for EVAWG. Will that unspent allocation be reprofiled? I am speaking particularly about Fermanagh and Omagh District Council. How were the funding tiers designed? I see that there are three tiers. Was each of those tiers capped?

Mr Murtagh: Do you mean for the grants that were available?

Ms Murphy: Yes, for organisations or ALBs to apply.

Mr Murtagh: I would need to come back to you with the detail on the application of the scheme. The additional funding that we received for ending violence against women and girls was earmarked. We will seek to see whether any unspent earmarked funding could be reused in the programme. We certainly want to make the best use for our programmes of the scarce resources that we receive and that are earmarked.

Ms Murphy: Chair, if you will indulge me, I have a question on the north-west development fund. There has been a shift to focus now on more strategic interventions. Have there been discussions on what some of those interventions might be?

Mr Murtagh: No, I do not have any detail on that. We can come back to you on that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Carál, I think that you wanted to come in with a supplementary, and then I will bring you in, Sinéad.

Ms Ní Chuilín: There is £1·5 million for Homes for Ukraine. Is that scheme still going on?

Ms Shearer: Yes, that is proceeding. We get money from Westminster for that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Is it just for Ukrainian people?

Ms Shearer: Homes for Ukraine is, yes, but there are other dispersal schemes, such as the Syrian scheme and the Afghan scheme. We got money from Westminster in January for that scheme.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Is that for private landlords?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I think that some host families receive money.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Is that just host families?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We might need clarification, but I know that some host families —.

Mr Dickson: I know host families that are continuing with it.

Ms McLaughlin: Most of my questions have been answered and gone through thoroughly. It is unfair of us to put the officers in the position that we are putting them in and asking them about the strategic direction for some of the funding. Obviously, Ronan and Paula are not able to tell us exactly what those are, but it is legitimate for Committee members to be concerned when monitoring funds are made available and we do not know what the strategic thinking is behind those allocations, where they are going and why. Sometimes, we are unclear about the outcomes of those fundings. We probably need others from the Department to come to the Committee to answer those questions. We are doing everything in our budgeting almost retrospectively, which is completely inadequate. That is not proper scrutiny at all. We are going through a process, ticking a box and hoping for the best. That is really inadequate, and it always makes me feel very uncomfortable.

Ronan, I know that you cannot answer the question, but the resourcing of the north-west development fund has been problematic from the very beginning. The Republic of Ireland has always stepped up and paid the money up front and waited and waited for the Executive Office to backfill. Once again, we see that the Irish Government have paid just to maintain the ongoing work, and now we are paying less than a third of it. Furthermore, we are told that, following discussions with the Irish Government and local councils, it has been proposed that that funding now be sliced down as well. They are looking at other ways to better align the wider investment. I find it incredible that our councils will be saying, "Don't give us any money". Obviously, the money has been cut, and we are waiting for other moneys to come through — I do not know whether those will come through the Executive Office — but there are no bids for other money at this point. We need to write and get underneath the skin of what is happening. The north-west has had a funding cut, so let us be clear about that.

Mr Murtagh: Ministers have agreed that the focus of the fund should be on the delivery of transformational change using the structures that are in place. There has been engagement on a cross-border basis and engagement with the relevant Departments, councils and Governments. That is about looking strategically at using what is in place through the mechanisms that are already there in the engagement of those structures.

Ms McLaughlin: With the greatest respect, Ronan, I do not have a clue what you are talking about. I do not know what they are, because you have not been able to come to the Committee to tell us. That is not your fault; you are here to tell us about the Budget and June monitoring, but there is a programme here for which no money is coming forward at this moment in time, and I do not see any more coming. Essentially, what was there is getting a bit of funding, but it is back-funding for work that has already been done. I have no idea about this new strategic alignment with existing programmes. I do not know what that is and, obviously, neither do you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Are there any final comments?

Ms Murphy: No.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much again. There are a number of items that we will request that you send to us, but thank you for now.