Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome the Minister to the meeting. He is joined by John Greer, deputy secretary, corporate services group; Emer Morelli, deputy secretary, engaged communities group; and Paddy Rooney, deputy secretary for work and health.

The Committee has agreed to take a thematic approach to questions to the Minister in the following categories: a range of social strategies; sports; housing; and other items that might come up that do not fit into any of those categories. The final theme is a bit of a wrap-up for members.

To ensure that all members get an opportunity to ask a question, please indicate at the beginning of each theme or category if you wish to ask a question, as I will allocate time to the members who have indicated.

You are welcome, Minister. Do you want to make any opening remarks?

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): No, I am happy to go straight to questions. In the past, we have allocated an hour, and I have been generous and gone beyond that, but, unfortunately, I have a cut-off at 11.15 am today. As you will be aware, it is Book Week, and I am going to read to some primary-school children. You may be interested to know that the story that I will be reading is 'The Incredible Book Eating Boy'. If we have time, I will be more than happy to read that to the Committee at the end. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I suspect that time will not allow for that, but it is a generous offer.

Mr Lyons: You are welcome.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Given that we are starting off with social inclusion strategies and timelines, I am sure that you are aware that there is growing concern that time is running out in the mandate and some of the strategies may not be completed by the end of it. I understand that the disability strategy is at an advanced stage: can you give an update on when it will go out for public consultation?

Mr Lyons: I am pleased to inform the Committee that I received Executive approval last week for the disability strategy to go out to consultation. We are finalising that, and it is still our expectation that that will go out to consultation in early November. There is no indication at this time that we will not be able to complete that by the end of the mandate.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We will move to members' questions. Pam, Maolíosa and Nicola have indicated that they wish to speak at this point.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Minister, for your attendance today. It is a first for me to have you in front of me, so you are welcome.

One in every six people in Northern Ireland is aged 65 or older, and I am not declaring an interest at this point, as I am only coming 54. By 2043, nearly a quarter of the population will be over 65, which is a huge number. As you and the Committee will know, the active ageing strategy is one of the five departmental social inclusion strategies. I welcome the fact that you have progressed with a new, refreshed action plan under the strategy, and I am sure that you will take the opportunity to work alongside the Commissioner for Older People. However, given that stark statistic, do you feel that enough is being done? Have the Committee and the Assembly — I ask as a new member of the Committee — given sufficient attention and focus to that strategy, given those stark statistics?

Mr Lyons: We have not given it enough attention in recent years, but I am determined to change that. As you outlined, we have a growing over-65 population, and it is important that those policies are in place, because older people face particular challenges. It is also one of our manifesto commitments to make sure that we progress the issue. As you rightly outlined, a refreshed action plan is being created to build on the existing strategic framework. That will be updated with new priorities and targeted actions to address some of the gaps that have been identified in the evaluation.

Departments are being asked to nominate age-friendly leads to ensure that there is coordinated delivery and stronger visibility of actions across Departments. We will take insights from the innovation labs and pilot engagement sessions with older people to ensure that lived experience informs policy development as it has informed other strategies. We will need additional staff to carry that out, and I will make sure that they are in place.

It is an important strategy but one that has often been forgotten. We talk a lot about the social inclusion strategies, but that has not always included the age strategy, which you are right to highlight.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Minister. I am content for now. I have another question on housing.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We will come to housing.

Mr McHugh: Tá fáilte romhat, a Aire, agus tá fáilte roimh d’fhoireann fosta.

Minister, will you give a brief update on the progress of the Irish language, gender equality and sexual orientation strategies?

Mr Lyons: The language strategy is being taken forward as we previously outlined, and we are largely in step with the timelines that I set out. It is with the cross-departmental working group. Departments individually are looking at the work that had previously been produced, and we expect that work to come back to us — what is the rough timeline for that, Emer?

Ms Emer Morelli (Department for Communities): Roughly six to seven months.

Mr Lyons: Six to seven months. We are nearing the end of that process. We expect that —.

Ms Morelli: We expect that within this mandate.

Mr McHugh: Did you say six or seven weeks or months?

Ms Morelli: The cross-departmental working group has been re-established — all Departments have nominated senior officials — and is working through the process; it is now part of the way through it. That will come to the Minister for his final review, but, before that, all Ministers have to sign off on their specific actions. We allowed six to seven months of working time for the cross-departmental group. It has been established, and we are halfway through the process, as the Minister said. We expect that work to come through either at the end of this —.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I thought that the group had been established in January.

Mr Lyons: I got Executive approval for that only in late May.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Given that, are we not now at the point of six or seven months?

Ms Morelli: We will probably reach our target date by the end of this financial year, but that work will have to go through the various Ministers, our Minister and ultimately the Executive.

Mr McHugh: What about the other strategies on gender equality and sexual orientation?

Mr Lyons: I am considering options for taking those forward. The first priorities are the anti-poverty strategy and the disability strategy. We had probably one of the best meetings of my time in office last week or maybe the week before that with representatives of the LGBT organisations. It was one of the best meetings because it was frank and open. We really got into the issues, and there was real freedom to discuss the positions that they held and where I was coming from on them. There are a lot of issues on which we — those in the organisations and I — will not agree. We have seen the work that came forward from the co-design group, and I have a serious problem with some of its proposals on, for example, so-called gender-affirming healthcare, whether that involves hormone replacement therapy (HRT), puberty blockers, surgery or psychological and other medical interventions. There are controversial issues with relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in schools, and there are other issues that are not unique to people simply because of their sexual orientation or identity, such as the provision of housing. We had a good discussion. I asked the group to engage further with officials in order to really tie down its asks and say, "This is what we need for our community". I believe that that work will happen very soon. We will then consider the way forward and whether there is something that can be taken forward to the Executive.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, Minister and officials, for attending today. The Irish language strategy co-design group presented to the Committee last week. It was clear that it is frustrated at the lack of delivery. It has been waiting since 2006 — since the St Andrews Agreement — for the Irish language strategy to be delivered. It has since issued and won two judicial reviews (JRs) that basically said that the Executive have not met their legal obligations; in fact, I think that a third is being heard this week. As I said, the group feels as though it has not been engaged with throughout the process. It is extremely frustrated, as are other sectors, including the LGBTQ+ sector, when it comes to the strategies that Maolíosa mentioned. The Irish language community feels as though you are dealing with it in a hostile way. What are you, as Minister of languages, doing to change that perception and to instil some confidence in that community that you will deliver for people who want to see the Irish language flourish and are working hard in their own capacity to do that?

Mr Lyons: Let me be clear: I do not object at all to anyone learning, speaking or celebrating the Irish language. I know that there are a lot of cultural issues that come with that and that people are proud of that. I do not stand in the way of that in any way. I want to make sure that what we do is proportional and affordable and is not seen as an imposition on other people. We have had debates in this place recently, and we will not rehearse them again today. However, there is concern about how the Irish language has been weaponised. We need to step away from all of the actions that could cause further alienation.

I cannot help what people's perceptions are. Some people come in with their own perceptions. I have treated everyone equally when it comes to those issues, whether it is the Ulster-Scots language, culture and heritage strategy or the Irish language strategy. Those have gone through the exact same process as the anti-poverty strategy and the sexual orientation strategy. It has been made more complex by the fact that a JR is taking place. I will not get into the details of that, other than to say that it does not help to progress anything. The process is in place. We will see how that all goes. In the meantime, the work continues in Departments for them to bring forward their proposals. It is not a DFC strategy; it is an Executive one.

Miss Brogan: Minister, with all due respect, the Irish language strategy has been agreed and approved since 2006. The Irish language community has been waiting for it for almost 20 years. There is something that you, as Minister for Communities, should be doing to deliver that. It might be something that concerns the whole Executive, but you are the Minister responsible for it. Surely you understand that the Irish language community feels that it is being disrespected and disadvantaged because of that.

Mr Lyons: First, an Irish language strategy was not agreed in 2006; it was agreed that there would be one. There was not a strategy that was agreed at that time. That is why you have to create it. That is why there have been so many difficulties, not only with the language strategies; the anti-poverty strategy has been in the exact same position for the same amount of time because there has not been agreement in the past. If you are saying that blame should fall at my door for the lack of progression on that, I have no doubt that you will have the same words for my Sinn Féin predecessors in the Department. I have set out the action that is taking place, and I assure you that I will make sure that what we bring forward is fair.

Let us face it: we do not have fairness when it comes to language right now in Northern Ireland. We have not taken the right approach. Look at what Belfast City Council in particular has done, where the majority can be cast aside because of what a minority —

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK, Minister —.

Mr Lyons: — wants, so —

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We do not have time. Listen —.

Mr Lyons: — you know where I am coming from on that. We want something that works.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Unfortunately, I do know where you are coming from, and I am extremely concerned on the basis of what you have said. You have told us that, basically, you are tolerant of people learning the Irish language. You have referred to it as an imposition. You are the Minister with responsibility for developing a strategy to promote the Irish language.

You have removed it from your Department's letterhead and logos on the basis that it was cost-saving. We have correspondence to say that you do not even know what any savings might be, so I do not know how you made that decision. I am extremely worried now, Minister, that what you are really doing is setting your face against bringing forward an Irish language strategy. That appears to be the case.

Mr Lyons: No: that is how you want it to appear so that you can use it to attack me.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Not at all.

Mr Lyons: That is exactly what you are doing. I have just set out exactly what I am doing and the process that I am going through. I did not say that language was an imposition; I said that some people have used it to impose on others. Some people have used it as a weapon of cultural dominance. In the past, that is exactly what people in your party said. You can understand why some people are a bit sceptical of some of the approaches that have been taken by a party —

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Do you understand why the sector is sceptical?

Mr Lyons: — such as yours. You can ask me why the sector is sceptical: should it have been sceptical during Sinn Féin's time in office when there was no progression? Was an Irish language strategy brought forward during that time?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Minister, you are responsible for developing it now. The mood music that you are setting out here would not give the sector any encouragement.

Miss Brogan: Chair, can I come in?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Briefly, because I have other members to bring in.

Miss Brogan: Previous Ministers met the relevant stakeholders of the Irish language strategy. One of the concerns that were raised last week was your reluctance to meet the heads of those groups. That is one of the major factors.

Mr Lyons: There was an agreement to meet, and then they decided to go down the route of JR. Again, you may want to congratulate my Sinn Féin predecessors for having met them. Regardless, it is going through a process. We will see where that leads.

Ms Mulholland: As someone who does not belong to the party of a former Minister for Communities and has no skin in that game but educates her children through the Irish language and sees their literacy skills enhanced, their cognitive development, which was and is my primary concern, and the value of that, when I hear the words "weapon of cultural dominance", it concerns me. I am not someone who looks for cultural dominance, but I see the value of the language without it being political. For me, the weaponisation has happened on both sides. That has to be addressed. It has to be acknowledged that it is not just about previous Ministers. I want to point that out. It struck a wee chord with me, Minister, when you referred to cultural dominance.

Mr Lyons: I was not referring specifically to you, Sian, but it has happened in the past, and it is an issue.

Ms Mulholland: I know that, but that genuinely worries me. As I said in the Chamber, my children singing "Baa, baa, a chaora dhubh" — "Baa, baa, black sheep" — is no weapon for anybody. That talk about cultural dominance hits to the heart of it. The Irish language is exceptional and beautiful. To hear it being politicised —.

Mr Lyons: By the way, I do not believe that it should be politicised. I wish that it —

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Through the Chair, please.

Mr Lyons: — did not have the connotations that it has, Mr Chairman.

Ms Mulholland: It is quite emotive for me when I hear language such as that.

I want to see the strategy brought forward and the nearing of the end. Once we get the cross-departmental working group feedback, where will that sit in the Department's budget? Where are the allocations for that? Is any resource being set aside for what comes out of the Irish language strategy?

Mr Lyons: Obviously, that will be an Executive strategy, so Ministers, in the first instance, will need to bring forward their proposals. There would be an expectation that they would have an understanding of how that would be budgeted for in terms of the strategies. If there are additional measures that need to be looked at, it would either be up to individual Departments to ensure that they could find that funding from within their baselines or there would need to be an agreement from the Executive that more finance would be given. That is why it is right that Departments take the time to consider that. It is the exact same approach as has been taken with all the strategies. We cannot just plop something down and say, "OK. We will all agree to that. We do not know what the costings are, and we do not know whether it is possible for us to do it". It is the exact same with the anti-poverty strategy.

I am taking this one stage at a time. Let us see what comes back from Departments. Let us see what, they think, is realistic, what is appropriate for a Department to get involved in, what is credible and whether it meets the tests that others will want to see met. We expect that back, and then we will take that forward.

Ms Mulholland: OK. Another concern that I have —

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Briefly, please.

Ms Mulholland: — about the strategies is about intersectionality, if they are being taken forward individually. We know that gender and disability play a huge part in poverty. If we are looking at those strategies in isolation, in a sense, how will the Department address that intersectionality for people who experience multiple forms of exclusion?

Mr Lyons: I do not see it in that way, because they are all connected. None of them is in isolation, just as the anti-poverty strategy looks at poverty not in isolation but in the round. The way in which Departments interconnect has been important. I see them all working together in that way; I do not see them standing in isolation. We already have an example of that in the housing supply strategy. You might think that it is heavily DFC, but it includes and requires the work of other Departments together. You are already seeing how they are working together across issues.

We often have it thrown up that we are working in silos. I have been a member of a number of Committees in my time here. There has been better, genuine cross-departmental working than I have seen before. I know that that is not a popular thing to say, because we like to pretend that we are siloed, but there has been better working together.

Ms Mulholland: I see it as a positive.

I have one more quick question.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Briefly, Sian.

Ms Mulholland: Where are we with the anti-poverty strategy? Is it changing?

Mr Lyons: The anti-poverty strategy was out in draft form for consultation. The consultation has closed, and the analysis is ongoing. I look forward to getting information out there about the responses that were made. We will consider those and then go before the Executive. I have always said that there will be things that we might want to add or take away, as will be the case over the lifetime of the strategy. I know that you will want to see more things in it. We need to know how to fund those. I will make sure that, if we put something on the table, we have the funding in place for it and deliver, because the last things that people need are empty promises.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): When do you expect to be back to the Executive with the next stage of the anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: We will have to analyse the responses and then go back to Departments. Do you have a time frame in mind, Emer?

Ms Morelli: The Minister gave a commitment that the consultation would be a real consultation and that we would listen to views and listen to stakeholders. Once we have that analysis, that process has to happen. While we will always aim to be with the Executive as early as we can, it has to be a coherent product that we bring to the Executive, as the Minister said. I do not want to give a sense of a long delay, but time will have to be taken to work through the consultation and see what it means and to engage with the key stakeholders who have made their views known through the process.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Will it be within this year? Is that realistic?

Ms Morelli: Depending on how we work through it, it could be this financial year, but we could be looking early into the next financial year.

Mr Lyons: I assure you that I want this to be done as quickly as possible, and I will do that within the parameters that exist. There will be no dragging on our part.

Ms Morelli: I will address some of the points. A dedicated team of staff, which is centred in the Department, has been engaged through all the strategies. That team has engaged in the development of all the strategies and is aware of the intersectionality, and it brings things together as best it can to inform and advise the Minister. It is important to say that both language strategies are going through the same process and working to the same timetable. There is no dilution of that in the Department.

Mr Durkan: Emer mentioned the dedicated team that is working across the strategies. Minister, I do not doubt the dedication of the team, but is it adequately resourced, given the volume and import of the strategies that we are talking about?

Mr Lyons: I believe so, yes; that is my understanding. I have asked them to make sure that they have been properly resourced, and I am not getting any alternative view. It would be embarrassing if the officials were to tell me now that they need more funding.

Ms Morelli: Not at all.

Mr Lyons: Make your pitch if you want, Emer.

Ms Morelli: We are adequately funded and resourced with the teams. The Minister has provided additional resource, particularly on the active ageing strategy. We have been given additional resource across the whole area through the appointment of a senior civil servant who is leading the work. The Minister has prioritised the work.

Mr Durkan: It has been prioritised, and this is the pace. That is worrying, because they are more than political commitments; they are legal obligations.

Will the analysis of the responses to the consultation on the draft anti-poverty strategy be published?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely.

Mr Bradley: My question is about benefit fraud and error. Is it OK to ask it now, Chair, or do you want to wait until later?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We will wait until we get to the other section, Maurice, where it will fit into that section. I will come back to you at that point. Thank you.

Mr Allen: There has been a commonality across the co-design groups that have engaged with us, and that is frustration with the process. I do not doubt that it has been challenging, given the wide range of views across the strategies, but is the Department doing work to better understand those frustrations and to build that into future processes? The frustrations of the co-design groups have been made loudly and clearly to us, and some have questioned how the process has worked.

Mr Lyons: I understand those frustrations, and we picked up on them early on. The decision was taken on the basis of advice that, because of the stage that we were at when the co-design groups had largely completed their work on nearly all the strategies, meeting them would have taken considerable ministerial time because there were multiple groups. Individual groups and collectives wanted to meet, so you are talking about tens and tens of groups with different interests. We said, "We've got the information. What we are doing right now anyway is just sending it out to the Departments to ask them for their feedback and input on what is possible." We would then have a further consultation, if necessary, for them to express their views. We felt that that was the right process.

We appreciate that there are frustrations, but in no way were their views not made known or heard because of the work that they had already done, the correspondence that they had sent to us and the public commentary that others made. I can understand the frustration of not getting a face-to-face meeting, but that does not mean that we were not very aware of their concerns.

Mr Allen: My point is not so much about you not meeting them. I get what you say about the vast array of groups and the difficulty that that would have presented. It is more about their understanding of what the Department conveyed to them at the outset and what they then saw coming out the other end and having a better understanding of that. I appreciate that the team is focused on getting the strategies out, but work needs to be done, if it has not already been done, to better understand where the pressure points were and whether those groups fully believe that the co-design process as it was originally set out has worked as it should. I do not feel that they do.

Mr Lyons: That is right, and we will take learning from that. There was a change of approach and Ministers during that time, and there was also the break and the work that took place at that stage. I value the work that was done, but, ultimately, the co-design process gets to its limit because it goes from people's aspirations to what the Government can actually deliver and what we can agree on. You have to get into that stage at some time, and that is where the frustration has come from, because maybe we have a difference in view of what co-design looks like. However, there has to be a point in the process when we say, "Right, what can we agree on, what can be done and what is affordable?". I think that that is where some of the frustrations come from, and I understand that.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Minister, we move now to sporting issues. Did you meet the Casement Park project board on Friday, or have you met them recently?

Mr Lyons: No. The First Minister said publicly last week that I was going to meet them, but that was not the case. There was no agreement for me to meet them. The Department met some of those involved, and that took place on Friday.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): What was the outcome of that meeting, and what are the next steps in that process?

Mr Lyons: I was not at the meeting, so maybe Emer can give a brief outline. This is mostly about strategic need, capacity issues with proposed stadia and next steps.

Ms Morelli: The meeting on Friday was part of the overall project management structures that we have set up in the Department. I am the senior responsible owner (SRO) for the project.

The purpose of the meeting was to revisit and restate the strategic need for the project and to understand the overarching vision for it in advance of a project board meeting that will be held in early November. It was held to make sure that we have everyone engaged on the same process and the same piece. It is a partnership approach that we are undertaking with the Ulster Council of the GAA. A key part of that work is the commitment to the final strategic need and the regional piece around Casement Park and our shared understanding of what that means. The Ulster Council has finalised its vision and its strategic need position in order to allow the project board to have that discussion in November.

Miss Brogan: Minister, I will ask about the NI Football Fund (NIFF). Lots of soccer clubs were, naturally, frustrated at being left out of the fund and are now asking, alongside us, for total transparency about the process. You indicated in the Chamber that you would publish as much information as possible, and that included publishing the options paper that you received from your officials, advice from your officials, the report from the external moderator and the scores that each club received. When will you publish that information?

Mr Lyons: You will now be aware that the Department has received pre-action protocol correspondence about the selection process for the prioritised cohort for the performance programme in the football fund. Information and documentation that relate to the selection process, including the options presented, is therefore being withheld, because we do not want to prejudice in any way the ongoing legal process. I am, however, content that the external moderator's report be provided to the Committee, although I ask that that document be treated as confidential and not for publication, as it contains information about scoring that may be commercially sensitive for clubs wishing to make funding applications. I am also happy to confirm, in answer to one of the questions that I was previously asked, that the external moderator did not require or recommend any changes to be made to the scores or the merit order as determined by the internal scoring process.

I have been very open about this. I went to the Chamber to make a statement, and I have been on the media extensively to talk about the process. I hope that you will understand that, because of the ongoing legal action, I cannot go into too much further detail now. I want to be as transparent as I can, but that legal action has prevented us from going a bit further.

Miss Brogan: As far as I am aware, that action is not active yet. There has been no date set for it. Maybe the Committee can seek some legal advice on what information we can request and receive at this stage.

I appreciate that answer, Minister. It will be good to get that report from the external moderator.

Mr Lyons: We have received pre-action protocol correspondence.

Miss Brogan: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): You have received other specific questions from the Committee. Do you have any indication of when answers to them will be provided?

Mr Lyons: A number of other queries were raised. I will go through some of them. You asked for evidence of any ministerial engagement undertaken with the aim of securing alternative sources of funding. I am happy to provide that information, with the dates and times of meetings that I had.

There was also a question about why the subregional economic plan was disregarded when it came to criteria and decisions for the programme. I contend that it was not disregarded. The plan recommends that Executive budgets should be targeted regionally but also recognises that funding must be allocated on the basis of need. It is concerned with departmental budgets and alignment with priorities at a local level, and it does not mandate region-based budget sharing.

You also asked what liaison is happening with the Department of Finance about budgets for the fund and what assurances, if any, were given about the budget and the extent of over-planning associated with the fund. I can confirm that I met the Minister of Finance recently, on 29 September, to discuss sports funding budgets and pressures.

I think that those are the questions that were asked, but we will check again and see what information can or cannot be provided in answer to them.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): If you have that information, we expect to receive a detailed written response.

Ms Mulholland: I would like to get a bit of an understanding of how the Department sets its priorities for sport and whether it prioritises certain sports. Is there, for want of a better phrase, a hierarchy of sports that starts with those that the Department is most willing to support, and funding then trickles down? In what way do you filter your priorities?

Mr Lyons: There is not a hierarchy. I am not involved in any of the decisions, with a couple of exceptions. We have taken on the commitments that were made in 2011. We have already talked about Casement Park and the football fund. Largely, however, we make an allocation to Sport NI, and it is up to it to determine the budgets. It is not for me, as Minister, to pick out my favourite sports and say that money should go here, there or wherever else.

Again, it is not for me to decide which sports benefit from it, but I have exercised some control over the Olympic legacy fund. It came about as a result of a meeting that I had in Paris last year with Hannah Scott, who told me some of her concerns about the funding of grassroots sport in Northern Ireland. That led, first, to the Olympic medallist fund, through which those who were successful at the Olympics were able to give money to some of the local clubs that had supported them well. I have also developed the Olympic legacy fund, which is about trying to get more money into grassroots sport. That is a £1 million fund. As to whether there is a hierarchy or a ministerial allocation of funding for sports, that does not happen.

Ms Mulholland: OK.

Mr Allen: I have two points. I appreciate that funding is distributed through the governing bodies, but, further to Sian's point, has the Department done any analysis — I declare an interest as someone who is involved in disability sport — of the distribution of that funding to make sure that under-represented sports get a fair opportunity. I engage with a lot of people who feel that, in the disability sphere, some sports do not receive the same support and funding and, thus far, have not had the same opportunity.

Mr Lyons: I am really passionate about that as well, Andy. That is one of the reasons that I brought forward the disability strategy, in which sport plays an important role. I do not have the figures to hand, but we will write to you with any information that we have. I know that Sport NI takes the issue seriously as well. As I said, I am not aware of the exact figures. We will probably be able to break them down to a degree. One of the great things is that, as well as there being disability-specific clubs and disability-specific sports, many of our sports clubs provide opportunities overall for people with disabilities. I assure you that I am passionate about that, because everybody should have an opportunity to take part in sport and to share in the physical and mental health benefits that come from doing so. I am more than happy to provide that information in writing. I am sorry that I do not have a breakdown of the figures with me today.

Mr Allen: Thanks, Minister. I look forward to getting that and analysing it.

I will pivot back to the Northern Ireland Football Fund. Given the over-provision piece in the first phase of it, which is worth around £36 million, will the next phases — grassroots football, the women's game and the other cohorts — be entirely contingent on your receiving additional funding? If so, when are we likely to see that funding coming forward?

Mr Lyons: That just goes to show the huge need that there is in sport more generally and in football specifically. We have a ring-fenced budget of £36·2 million, and no decisions have been taken on ring-fencing it for specific sectors. Some of it is down to the profiling of time and when it can be spent. There are opportunities to look at other sources of funding, particularly for the national football centre. We do not have those specific strands yet. As I said in the Chamber, that is why I will look at my budget, at alternative sources of finance — private and public — and at borrowing.

Mr Allen: Surely the Department has some idea of the amount that it will allocate to the planning piece for the scheme's performance phase. I know that there is over-provision, but surely the Department must know roughly what it will allocate to the performance strand.

Mr Lyons: We have not made any allocations at this stage. Emer, you are involved with the over-planning issues and the figures. Do you want to add anything?

Ms Morelli: As the SRO for the Northern Ireland Football Fund programme, I took advice on what level of over-planning could be tolerated. That has resulted in the number of schemes that we have been able to take through. As the Minister said, we are now in the due diligence stage of the project. The grassroots and football training centre strands will also be taken forward, so we are not just taking forward the performance strand and leaving the others at a standstill, but no expenditure decision has been taken yet. The process has opened, and we will provide advice to the Minister in due course on how we take forward the grassroots and the training centre strands, but the work is in development.

Mr Allen: How long is "in due course"?

Ms Morelli: We hope to be able to provide advice to the Minister very soon. I chaired the project board meeting for that yesterday, and the board should be bringing forward proposals and recommendations soon.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. A valiant effort, Andy, but "in due course" appears to mean "very soon". I do not think that you will get anything more than that at present.

Mr Bradley: I have a question on the football fund.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK, Maurice. I also have Mark now looking to come in rather late, so please be brief.

Mr Bradley: I will be brief.

Minister, given the impending legal action about the football fund, is the fund halted until such time as that action starts or is concluded?

Mr Lyons: It does not mean that it is halted. There is still work that we can do, but it will have to be kept under review.

Mr Bradley: I am keen to understand the methodology for funding grassroots football. When the Minister's team has an opportunity to explain that to us, I will be keen to hear it.

Mr Lyons: I am happy for that to happen.

Mr Durkan: Chair, I am renowned for coming in late on the football field: I have now come in late on the football fund.

Minister, you said that there were answers that cannot be given and information that cannot be disclosed owing to commercial sensitivities. Can you expand on that? I do not expect you to give me the details, but can you at least give me details on the nature of what exactly is commercially sensitive and how it is so?

Mr Lyons: I am prepared to give that to you, Mark. I am just asking that you treat it confidentially, because it is commercially sensitive information. In the application forms, clubs will have provided information about their plans that fall into that category. I am therefore taking a bit of a chance by saying that I am prepared to give that information to the Committee. I hope that it will be treated confidentially. I do not know whether I am asking too much of you there, but I want to provide you with whatever information I can.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Members, we will now move on to housing issues. Minister, we all know that there are severe financial pressures on the Executive and those pressures are impacting on the social housing development programme. One of the potential solutions is to give the Housing Executive the ability to borrow. Can you share any updates on where that discussion is?

Mr Lyons: It is fair to say that that is one of my biggest frustrations so far in my time in office. We have consistently given the Department of Finance and the UK Government all the information that they need to allow us to proceed with the changes that are necessary, but I seem to come up against a brick wall continually. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he has shown a willingness to engage, but, ultimately, I want us to get to the stage at which we can all sit down around a table and thrash out the difficulties.

To me and my team and to the Housing Executive, the issues are clear and straightforward. We need simple confirmation that what we plan to do is allowed under Treasury rules, which, we believe, it is. Others, particularly those in the Treasury, say that it is more complex than that, but we have not been able to get to the bottom of it. I want to get us all on the same page so that we can sit down and see how the programme can be taken forward. It is an issue that, everyone around this table agrees, is urgent. It is important that we get that done quickly so that we can build new homes and, even more pressing, do the necessary work of retrofitting and improving existing homes. It goes back to poverty and many of the other issues that we have discussed.

I am unrelenting in bringing the matter to the attention of Ministers and everybody else. The Finance Minister is on board and is trying to be helpful. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister are behind it as well, as is the Committee. I welcome the fact that it is your job to advise and assist me in my role, so I would very much appreciate your assistance in making as much noise about this as possible. We need to get it sorted out.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): To what extent would the revitalisation of the Housing Executive be a game changer in that space?

Mr Lyons: It would be a huge game changer, in that we require access to funding for retrofitting and, in the longer term, so that we can build more homes. It is a no-brainer. I do not particularly like the phrase "game changer"; it is so often overused or misused or else people using it do not understand what it means. This could be a game changer, however. It would not solve all our problems, but it would make a huge difference.

With so many of the issues that we face, especially fuel poverty, it comes back to the quality of our homes. Nothing is more important for people than giving them the stability of a safe, secure, warm home. Giving the Housing Executive the ability to borrow would help massively in that regard.

I am happy to say publicly that I really hope that the Treasury, the Government and the Northern Ireland Office are listening. This is the change that we need. There has been unnecessary hold-up. We must get on with it, so help us get this done. We are not holding out our hand asking for an injection of capital. We are not being irresponsible in any way. We are simply saying, "Let us be treated in the way in which other people are being treated".

Chair, I hope that we can genuinely work together to find a way in which to keep the pressure on. Any assistance that your Committee can give will be appreciated.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Minister.

Mr Allen: May I come in on the Housing Executive piece quickly, if you do not mind, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Briefly, Andy.

Mr Allen: Minister, you said that there is unnecessary hold-up, but what do you understand to be the issue?

Mr Lyons: There is a concern among some in Treasury that it would add to the debt figures of the UK and that there might be impacts on the other devolved legislatures.

Mr Allen: I assume that the Executive have provided information to the contrary to push back on that view.

Mr Lyons: This is why I feel that we are going round in circles. We continually provide the information, and I am getting impatient. We need to get everybody around a table.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I ask for maximum brevity from members, please.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Minister. My question is on the same topic. You will be more than aware of what people are living and dealing with not just as a Minister but as an MLA in your own right with constituents of your own. Some of my constituents live in appalling conditions, with damp, mould and even rodent infestation. It is not acceptable. It is not a state of living that any of us would put up with. We can add to that fuel poverty and the need to inject energy efficiency measures into homes, in particular the Housing Executive stock, to bring down the cost of heating homes. When will the action plan for the Housing Executive revitalisation programme be in place? Will it make a difference to those living in unacceptable conditions?

Mr Lyons: You are right: this is really important. During my first mandate in the Assembly, I tabled a motion about how we can make sure that our homes are fit for purpose. The frustrating thing about the question that you ask is that we are ready to go. The Housing Executive has not been sitting around waiting for the change to come in before it decides what to do. It has a plan in place and knows what it can do immediately and the decisions that it can take immediately, so that adds to the frustration overall.

There are plans in place that can start to make a difference. It is what all our constituents deserve.

Ms Mulholland: The Chair and I were at a round-table event with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation at which it was discussed that right to buy has been ruled out in other nations, as it greatly impacted on the availability of social housing. Is there any movement on that here? Is the Department engaging in any evidence-gathering on how right to buy impacts on social housing numbers?

Mr Lyons: Yes. I have stated my position, which is that right to buy should remain in place, although, as I said on one of the previous times that I was before the Committee, I want to look at the criteria. Officials have done some work to see whether there are any changes that we can make. That work will come to me soon, and the impact that it can make around the edges might be important. Ultimately, however, we need to have homes for people. Whether people are buying their home or are in a social home, I want to see more homes being built across Northern Ireland.

Ms Mulholland: Have any conversations been had with the Housing Executive on changing the priority need rules for refugees and asylum seekers?

Mr Lyons: I will have to come back to you on that. I am not sure what conversations have taken place. We have had some discussions on that issue in some of our meetings, but I want to answer your question accurately, so I will make a note to come back to you with an answer.

Ms Mulholland: OK. There are concerns in the sector that conversations are being had and that the priority need rules are being changed.

Mr Lyons: Yes, I think that questions for written answer have been tabled on that. It is not flagging immediately with me what those were about, but I am happy to provide that information to you afterwards.

Ms Mulholland: I have a final question. It is on housing and your statement to the Assembly on houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). Can you give the Committee the justification for or reasoning behind why asylum seekers were pointed out in that statement, when there are multiple issues with HMOs among other cohorts of renters?

Mr Lyons: The statement was taken out of context. I do not know whether that was done deliberately. There was a section in the statement on immigration and asylum, but I also mentioned issues with students. My statement was portrayed as an attack on people, but it was not; it was about trying to deal with landlords who misuse the situation. I make no apology for that. We should adhere to and obey the law, and those who fall foul of the law need to be dealt with appropriately. I thought that the debate on the statement got out of hand, with even my personal faith being called into question in some of the comments. That happens again and again. The fact that I believe that the law should be enforced is not a commentary on any other issue. That is up to others to answer.

Ms Mulholland: I do not disagree with you on the point about the law; in fact, I wholeheartedly agree. Hearing what you have said here, however, I do not think that the statement came across in the way in which you may have wanted it to, because there was definitely more emphasis placed on asylum seekers and immigration than there was on landlords.

Mr Lyons: That was because Mears was mentioned. There were questions asked about it.

Ms Mulholland: There were whole paragraphs on asylum seekers and immigration, Minister. That is why there was concern.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We will have to move on.

Mr McHugh: Minister, I am sure that you, along with every MLA and councillor, appreciate the difficulty that families experience with the current strict succession policy, particularly when young family members who have lived in the family home for many years have to leave it because of it. In light of that, do you have plans to review the succession policy?

Mr Lyons: I will always keep that policy under review. I fully appreciate the difficulties that it causes for people, but there is a balance to be struck. We have a huge need for certain types of homes, but we also want to ensure that people can stay in their home, if they have been living there and have family ties to it. We will never get that balance right all the time. There will always be examples, because of the way in which the rules are written, of people thinking that the policy is unfair. Will we keep it under review? Absolutely. We need to have that balance, however. You have raised that issue with me this week, but, the next time I am here, you could ask me about the lack of accommodation with the necessary adaptations for people with x, y and z conditions.

Mr Durkan: I was going to ask about right to buy, but Sian beat me to it. I still will, but my question will perhaps be more pointed. It is important that research be carried out. A lot of research was carried out in advance of the previous Minister doing away with right to buy for housing association tenants. I know that the Minister's political leaning is to support right to buy, but, given the dire situation in which targets are not ambitious enough in the first place — I am sure that you agree — and we are getting nowhere near meeting them and given that you are selling off perhaps a quarter of what you are managing to build in social housing stock, will you consider a moratorium on right to buy until we can ramp up the social housing development programme?

Mr Lyons: That is not where I am right now. Again, I will look at the options and at the evidence, but, to be frank, Mark, my focus is on finding innovative solutions in order to build more social homes. I will, however, look at what comes through, and we can have discussions about that. I am happy to chat to you about that issue again.

Mr Durkan: The two are not mutually exclusive. You can focus on building more homes and stop selling off the ones that we have. An important part of the research will be to look at how many former social homes that have been sold are now in the private rental market and where rent is being paid by housing benefit.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Members, we will now move to any other issues that did not fall under the categories previously discussed. I appreciate that members stuck to the agreement.

Mr Bradley: My question is about benefit fraud.

Minister, figures suggest that, in 2023, fraud and error cost us almost £250 million. That is a significant burden on the public purse, especially in the time of austerity in which we live. Can you give us an update on the Department's efforts to tackle that issue and to recover losses resulting from fraudulent claims?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Minister, in order to let you away on time, we have only about 12 minutes, so you could give that update by way of writing. You can give Maurice brief headlines now and further detail later. I say that just to allow more members to get to ask questions.

Mr Lyons: It was £240 million in 2023, and it has got a lot worse since then. We can provide you with the exact figure. We need to do something about it. There has been reticence from some in the Chamber about the issue, but £10 billion is paid out every year in benefits, and the fraud figures are not as low as they should be, so we need to do something about that, Maurice. I have submitted a paper to the Executive. Unfortunately, it has not got on to the agenda. I know that the deputy First Minister is in favour of it, and I hope that the First Minister will get on board.

I often come to the Committee and say how much I am in need of more money, but addressing fraud can raise revenue. We are trying to get an agreement with the Government to allow us to keep some of the savings that come from the money that we invest in tackling welfare fraud. We can get tens of millions of pounds back every year by putting in a little extra. For every £1 that we spend, we get £8 back. If we can split that between us and the Treasury, which the Treasury is open to, that will be good news for everybody. It will be bad news only for those who are fiddling the system. We are talking not about a few hundred pounds or few thousand pounds every year but about tens of millions of pounds. I want to see that issue dealt with, Mr Chairman, and I hope that I can have the Committee's support for doing so.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Minister.

Miss Brogan: First, I will ask about the serious financial concerns in the community and voluntary sector at the minute. A motion was debated in the Chamber this week about replacing the Shared Prosperity Fund with a new local growth fund, and Minister O'Dowd has been liaising with the British Treasury about that. In recent weeks, we sadly saw the doors of Parenting Focus close after 46 years, and NICVA is warning that, if funding is not increased, more such services will close. As Minister for Communities, what are you doing to help the community and voluntary sector?

Mr Lyons: I share those concerns. You will be aware of the rules that apply, which are that the Department of Finance leads on such issues directly with the Treasury, but I fully support what you say. I have made my views known to the sector and to the Executive. The Executive need to be united on that, and I think that we are. Critical work is being done, and there will be serious consequences if that work cannot continue.

Miss Brogan: I have one final question, Minister. Oireachtas na Samhna is being held in Belfast next week for the first time in 30 years.

Mr Lyons: What is it?

Miss Brogan: Oireachtas na Samhna. It is a Halloween celebration —

Mr Lyons: Oh, right, OK.

Miss Brogan: — of Irish language, arts and culture and all that type of thing. It is running from next Wednesday over the Halloween weekend and you have received an invite to it. Do you plan to attend?

Mr Lyons: I would have no issue attending, but I am out of the country next week for personal reasons. I did not know about it. I hope that everyone has a good time, but I will not be around for it.

Miss Brogan: OK. Will you and your Department help to promote the event?

Mr Lyons: Of course, yes.

Ms Mulholland: I have a quick question about an issue that has been brought up at the Committee on a couple of occasions and been the subject of questions. Do you agree that a band that is found to be linked, either by the display of symbols or flags or its attendance at a specific event, to a proscribed organisation, is in breach of a good relations code of conduct?

Mr Lyons: I am aware of some of the media coverage today, so let me be unequivocally clear. I have no time whatever for paramilitary activity or the glorification of terrorism or anything that promotes or defends what took place. I am crystal clear on that. I do not care where it comes from, republican or loyalist. Wherever it comes from, I am against it. I have had a consistent position on that, and that is something that I will maintain.

I set the policy direction for the Department and its arm's-length bodies (ALBs). The Arts Council has the responsibility in this instance. I have said and will continue to say that good relations is part of that policy direction. It is really important that the good relations criteria are met and maintained. It will be up to the Arts Council to take that up. You probably want me to get involved in individual matters, but my policy position is clear: that stuff should not happen, and it is inappropriate and wrong if it does. Those links should not exist and there should not be any such commemorations. It will be for the Arts Council to make the determination. I have given a clear direction.

Ms Mulholland: OK, thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I have one question before I come to Mark. I hope that we will get to Mark in time. I ask this general question on the Committee's behalf.

We have drawn up a list and are asking the Department to come back to us on announcements of public funds for various items. I do not have time to go through each of the subsections of section 1.5 of the ministerial code of conduct but, taken together, subsections (i) to (v) establish a statutory duty of openness, accountability and proper stewardship of public money. They create, in essence, the basis for Committee scrutiny. A Minister who fails to provide information to the Committee or to allocate funding without transparency risks breaching the code. In light of the information that we have requested, Minister, what are your thoughts on that? Do you recognise that the Committee has a right to scrutinise allocations of public funding?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. You need to look at section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides the basis on which the Committee operates. It refers to the Belfast Agreement —

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I have done that, Minister, but I am referring to a section in the ministerial code of conduct.

Mr Lyons: — and the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I am more than open to scrutiny, probably more than any Minister, and I have made myself available to the Committee and, in particular, in the Chamber. I bring oral statements to the House on nearly every one of my initiatives and give you the opportunity to ask me questions. I have never knowingly withheld any information from the Committee. I have never, in any way, refused to give you information other than what is there. Tell me what you are getting at, because I am not sure what you are implying.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): What I am saying is clear. Oral statements in the Chamber do not equate to Committee scrutiny, the Committee having a view of those things before they are announced or any input as part of our advisory role, which you mentioned. In the interest of time, however, I ask you this: will you commit to looking in detail at the issues that we have asked you to look at?

Mr Lyons: I am still not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you should have a role whereby you sign off on decisions before I make them?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): No. Did I mention signing off?

Mr Lyons: No. I am not sure. I am saying that we give you information —.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Minister, the word that I mentioned is "scrutiny".

Mr Lyons: You have to let me answer the question, Mr Chairman. What is it that you want? Help me to help you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We have written to you in detail with what we want. I am asking you to respond to that letter in detail.

Mr Lyons: Right. I can respond to a letter, but I will push back against any accusation that I am not being open or transparent in the decisions that I have taken. Every decision that I have made lines up with the principles in 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' and the requirements of the ministerial code.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. Thank you, Minister.

Mark Durkan, very briefly.

Mr Durkan: Minister, we have a paper and correspondence about the review of the rates support grant, the formulae and how the pie is cut. The size of the pie has reduced massively from 2018-19, when it was over £7 million, to last year, when it was just over £3 million. Obviously, that impacts negatively on less-well-off councils. Given the Executive's pledges on regional balance, have you made any representation to the Finance Minister or the Executive to get more money for that pot?

Mr Lyons: I could tell you exactly what the Finance Minister would say if I were to do that, which is that it is up to me to determine my budget. I have worked within my budget, and I know that it has been difficult for councils. In my first year, one of the first meetings that I had was about the £155 million shortfall and the savings that needed to be made. I am now in a position to live within my budget, but, ultimately, I have to focus on my statutory duties first. The rates support grant does not require me to fund it to a certain level. The funding that is available is being divided fairly, but I was not able to maintain the grant at the level that it was five or 10 years ago.

Mr Durkan: I had and lost that argument with former Finance Minister, Simon Hamilton. There is an argument that your Department is a postbox for the money that goes from the Department of Finance to the councils. There is a statutory protection for the derating grant of which all councils avail.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK, Mark.

Mr Durkan: I will pick that up with you again, Minister.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Minister, thank you for appearing today. I also thank your top team.

Emer, I have observed before your heavy workload, and you have been under the spotlight quite a bit today.

Ms Mulholland: We did not even hear from Paddy Rooney at his last meeting.

Mr Paddy Rooney (Department for Communities): This could be my last time at the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Paddy, I wish you well, as it is your last meeting. Thank you for all the support and assistance that you have given the Committee, including the useful informal sessions.

Mr Rooney: Thank you for your support.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Minister, thank you.