Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome the Minister for Communities, along with the following officials: John Greer, acting permanent secretary; Paul Price, deputy secretary, housing sustainability group; Cherrie Arnold, deputy secretary, work and health group; and Iain Greenway, director of the culture and engaged communities group. To ensure that all members get an opportunity to ask a question of the Minister, I will allocate six or seven minutes per member. I am keen that members to stick to their allocated time. Please be as succinct as possible in order to allow members to move through the many issues that the Committee and the Department deal with constantly.

Minister, you are welcome to the meeting. I want to start with the findings of the Commissioner for Standards' report. They come alongside a range of failures, including on the anti-poverty and language strategies, and a number of ongoing court cases on issues pertaining to the Department. The Committee has taken a vote that we have no confidence in your work, and the Standards Commissioner, not for the first but the second time, has found you to be in breach of the standards that are required of you. Minister, it would appear that, in Trumpian fashion, you have decided that, rather than engage with the substance of the report, you will seek to deflect and distract. I would like to know this: do you simply not care whether the public has confidence in you to discharge your duties in your role of Minister?

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Mr Chairman, I have an opening statement that I was going to make, in which I will focus on the past two years during which I have had the honour to serve in this Department. I hope that I can come back to making the points that I was going to make in that statement, but you have jumped in on this issue, and it is your hour. You have an hour with me, and, if you want to go down that route, I am happy to. I have nothing to hide. I am more than happy to set out my position again. We had the debate in the Assembly: there was a question for urgent oral answer. We can go over this time and time again, but your statement highlights, yet again, just how often you get it wrong. You say that I have not engaged with the content of the report, but of course I have. Clearly, you have not read the report or my response to it, because, if you had, you would recognise that I have engaged with all the points. I went through the report, point by point, with the commissioner — everything that she claimed, everything that she said. If it makes you feel better —.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): For all that, Minister, you have failed to address the central points, which are: a failure of leadership; a failure to show empathy, which is part of leadership; and a failure to stand with victims in their time of need. You are right that this is our hour, and I am hoping to get to many other things, but I will say this, Minister: it is certainly not your finest hour.

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to stand by what I have done in the Department — the actions that I have taken. We can go through the report. We can go through my response, point by point —.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): No, Minister —.

Mr Lyons: Oh, so you do not want to now.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): No. I and many colleagues will want to raise issues relating to that, and other issues. As you say, this is the hour that the Committee has in which to go through a range of issues, and there are huge issues. The anti-poverty strategy is still not in place, and a language strategy is still not in place. Those issues need to be addressed. However —.

Mr Lyons: You criticise me for not going through the report point by point and addressing them, and then, when I offer to do that, you say, "Oh, no, let's move on", and use your silly language about "Trumpian" tactics. I have to say that that sums up your time on the Committee. You are having a go at me for how I have conducted myself in this office, yet there is no reflection whatsoever on what you have done in your time in your office.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Bear in mind, Minister, that the Committee and I are far from being the only people who have expressed those concerns. That is the real issue.

Mr Lyons: Yes, but you are saying that you want to talk about my performance as Minister. That is a bit rich coming from you —

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I want to ask you a question. I have asked you a question.

Mr Lyons: — because of what you have done as Chair of the Committee, and your failure in that role. This has not been a proper scrutiny Committee under your leadership.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): That is deflection again, Minister. I simply asked you a question, and you have not addressed it. Do you worry about the public perception of your management and leadership of the Department?

Mr Lyons: No. I am happy to stand by what I have been able to achieve, with the help of some exceptional people. We have progressed things that had been held up for a long time. Look at the anti-poverty strategy: we have got that to a sensible place, and it is out for consultation. We are hearing views on that and will be able to move it forward. The Northern Ireland Football Fund (NIFF) was held up by your colleagues for years, and I am now delivering on that.

Let us look at some of the other things in the Department. When there was —.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Go back to the anti-poverty strategy. When will we see the anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: The draft strategy has been published. It has been out for consultation, so you will have seen it, Mr Chairman. It is incredible that you do not even know that it has been out for consultation.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): That is further deflection. That can be taken for granted: we know quite well that that is the case. We engaged with you on it. We expressed strongly, as the sector did —

Mr Lyons: Reflect that in your comments then.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): — our disappointment that it was not more substantial. When will the more substantial redraft come out, Minister?

Mr Lyons: The consultation has closed. I will release the results soon. We will then go back to Departments for additional comments. The Committee or you, as Chairman, have not come forward with the alternative things that you want to see in the strategy. Certainly, the Sinn Féin Finance Minister —.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I have been very clear, Minister, and the Committee has been very clear.

Mr Lyons: Tell me what you would like to see in it.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We want to see targets, we want to see more robust governance and we want to see new initiatives.

Mr Lyons: We have said that those will be in it.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Those are the things that we have said, and it is your role to bring it forward.

Mr Lyons: We have said, time and again, that those will be in the action plan.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): When can we see that?

Mr Lyons: It has to go back to the Executive first. We need to get agreement around the Executive table. Importantly, we need to get funding for any new measures that may or not be it. I highlight the fact that the Finance Minister has not allocated anything extra for the anti-poverty strategy in his Budget. If you want to come forward and say what your specific asks are and how much they will cost, I would be happy to hear from you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): The second question from me is on vacancies in the Department. Some time ago, in one example, 1,000 jobs came in from DWP. I have raised that with you before, Minister. None of those jobs went to the counties of Tyrone, Armagh or Fermanagh, and the reason cited for that was that there was a lack of facilities for staff to work in. What have you done in the time since then to ensure that people in those three counties can not only play a role in filling those vacancies, which are so crucial, but can work for your Department and other Departments, where they live? What have you done, since then, to improve the facilities that allow people to work for the Department for Communities?

Mr Lyons: We have not received any more jobs from DWP, although that is something that I would be happy with. When we do, as I said in my statement at the time, we will ensure that we get as much of a regional spread as we can.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Has anything been done, specifically in Tyrone, Armagh or Fermanagh, to improve the facilities that the Department has for staff?

Mr Lyons: We do not have those jobs right now. I do not have specific information about our estate and where jobs can or cannot be, but I will always look for opportunities to make sure that we get a regional spread.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you.

Mrs Mason: Before I start my line of questioning, I want to give the Minister the opportunity to clarify something. When you mentioned the commissioner, you again referred to the commissioner as "she" and "her". Who is "she" — the cat's mother? Or, are you talking about Dr Melissa McCullough, the Commissioner for Standards?

Mr Lyons: Are we getting into a pronouns debate?

Mrs Mason: No. I am asking whether you are going to recognise that she is the Commissioner for Standards, Dr Melissa McCullough.

Mr Lyons: She is not. She is the former Commissioner for Standards.

Mrs Mason: So, you recognise that that is who we are talking about?

Mr Lyons: Yes.

Mrs Mason: OK. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify that.

Mr Lyons: Is that really your question?

Mrs Mason: Minister, it is very clear that you do not like being scrutinised. We see it time and again in the Chamber.

Mr Lyons: I am up for it. Bring it. Come ahead.

Mrs Mason: You say, "Bring it", but, every time we try to scrutinise you, we get bluster and deflection, as we have now. We have made it clear that there is no confidence in you, and let us clear that up: it is not just us who do not have confidence in you — there is a swathe of communities that do not. You are the Communities Minister, yet the community does not have confidence in you.

The ruling is just the latest in a long line of failures on issues including LGBTQI, poverty, sport and community, housing associations and the Irish language. I will focus on the Irish language community. You are embroiled in a number of court cases. You have removed bilingual signage from your Department in a clear attempt to try to make the Irish language invisible. There is consistent funding for bands and for the Ulster-Scots Agency for US250. Those are vanity projects, in my eyes. You are blatantly blocking new funding for the Irish language going to the likes of Foras na Gaeilge. You have failed to publish the Irish language strategy. Maybe that is your strategy. Minister, at what point do those things stop being a coincidence and start being sectarian?

Mr Lyons: First, I am more than happy to have scrutiny and for people to ask me questions and provide assistance to me in the Committee by doing that. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I do not think that this is an effective scrutiny Committee; it is a letter-writing —.

Mrs Mason: OK, Minister. On that point —.

Mr Lyons: I will come to it.

Mrs Mason: Let me clarify that point. You talk about scrutiny. You consistently talk about the Committee's scrutiny role, yet, when we try to scrutinise, we get what we can see in these papers: pages and pages of redactions.

Mr Lyons: I am so glad that you brought that up, because it highlights exactly what I am talking about. Why are there redactions in those papers? It is because you asked for information — I assume that this is what you were holding up — on the decision to include the English-only logo. You asked for the minutes of the meeting.

Mrs Mason: It is about the removal of the Ulster Scots and Irish language —.

Mr Lyons: No, they are still there as part of the design guide.

Mrs Mason: OK.

Mr Lyons: The things that are redacted from those papers have nothing to do with that. It was a key issues meeting about everything else.

Mrs Mason: How could we know that? It is all — pages of it; reams of it — redacted.

Mr Lyons: Yes, because I gave you what you asked for, yet you ran off to the newspapers, saying, "He's hiding information from us". No. I gave you the information that you asked for, and you created a story out of it. That is the height of your —.

Mrs Mason: Again, Minister, your only line of defence is attack. You are not answering any of the questions; you are just going on the attack.

Mr Lyons: Sorry —.

Mrs Mason: My view is that only a Minister who does not have confidence in his actions would go on the attack.

Mr Lyons: You asked me a specific question about redactions, and I gave you the answer.

Mrs Mason: I gave you an example of the Committee trying to scrutinise —

Mr Lyons: I gave you the answer to that.

Mrs Mason: — and your not allowing us to do that.

Mr Lyons: I take issue with the factuality of your saying that you are trying to scrutinise. I wish that we had effective scrutiny, but this is not a proper scrutiny Committee; it is a letter-writing Committee. At the end of its previous meeting, under the chairmanship of Colm Gildernew, but really led by others —

Mrs Mason: More attacks.

Mr Lyons: — 25 letters were sent. I did some checking with other Committees. Normally, they would send one, two or maybe three letters. You constantly ask for information. I have a first-class private office — a brilliant team — but that office and my officials are being snowed under by requests. That is not proper scrutiny; it is a scattergun approach that does not get us to where we need to be. If that is what you want to do, that is fine.

I am happy to answer your questions on the issues. I set out clearly my direction of travel on the LGBTQIA strategy. I have a limited workforce, and there are pressures on the Department. I believe that the anti-poverty strategy needed to be taken forward first because of the length of time that the legislative requirements were taking. I got that done; I have progressed it. I have said that I will consider other strategies. I had a good meeting with members of the LGBT community to look at what exactly might go into that strategy. The Irish language strategy is being progressed: it is in the courts.

I am happy for her to tell me — the Committee is here to assist — what the top three things are that she would like to see in the LGBT strategy, for example. What are they?

Mrs Mason: Sorry, Minister: I am here to ask the questions, not you. This is —

Mr Lyons: You are here to assist me.

Mrs Mason: — scrutiny.

Mr Lyons: You are here to assist me as well.

Mrs Mason: I am here to ask the questions. You are here to answer the questions, not ask me questions.

Mr Lyons: You are here to assist me. Do you not want the role —

Mrs Mason: Let us go back to the Irish language.

Mr Lyons: — of assisting?

Mrs Mason: Let us go back to the Irish language. Why does the Irish language community feel the way that it does, under you in your role as the Minister —

Mr Lyons: I cannot —.

Mrs Mason: — who is supposed to promote the language?

Mr Lyons: I cannot speak to why people feel a certain way. All that I can say is, "This has been taken forward". You have made clear your concern about funding for Ulster Scots and, potentially, your opposition to funding —.

Mrs Mason: No, my concern is the lack of funding for other communities. It needs to be balanced.

Mr Lyons: There has not been a lack of funding.

Mrs Mason: That is the issue here.

Mr Lyons: In fact, you have been outrageously offensive by speaking about US250 projects and the Ulster-Scots Agency as "vanity projects".

Mrs Mason: By asking questions about them?

Mr Lyons: No, you called them "vanity projects". They are not vanity projects; they are to help raise the profile —.

Mrs Mason: Where is the balance in US250?

Mr Lyons: There is balance because it is about everybody, is it not? It is about all those that —.

Mrs Mason: Is it delivered exclusively through the Ulster-Scots Agency?

Mr Lyons: Yes.

Mrs Mason: Where is the balance there?

Mr Lyons: Tell me about the balance that you would like to see.

Mrs Mason: Again, Minister, I am asking the questions, not you.

Mr Lyons: You come here and think that you are part of a scrutiny Committee, but you ask questions about things for which you never bring alternatives.

Mrs Mason: That is more attack and deflection.

Mr Lyons: It is part of your job, actually, Deputy Chairperson —

Mrs Mason: More attack and more deflections. I will finish up now.

Mr Lyons: — to bring forward recommendations, not just to ask questions. You do not have them. You have just shown your disdain for Ulster Scots.

Mrs Mason: Minister, all that I have heard today is excuses, more attacking and deflection, and no questions answered. My view is that you are a Minister who does not do GAA, does not do housing, does not do Irish language and does not do LGBTQ equality.

Mr Lyons: I do not do housing? Are you for real?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I am going to move on. I think that there has been reluctance to take scrutiny, Minister. The Committee has faced repeated deferrals of briefings, including on today's agenda, last week and Tuesday. We have written repeatedly on many issues, to which we have received either no answer or an answer that answers different questions than those that we asked. I can assure you, Minister, that we will keep writing and seeking answers to the questions that we want answers to, so —.

Mr Lyons: We give you the answers; it is just that you do not accept those answers.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I will give you some examples of outstanding queries. On 15 December, we asked for options re the percentage change to housing allowance funding support, and we still have not received an answer. In October and November 2025, we sent three letters about changes to the DFC logo. All that we have received in response is pages of redactions. On 12 December, we wrote in respect of local assessment impacts in relation to all forthcoming legislative changes to welfare and universal credit; the answer has still not been received, and a legislative consent motion (LCM) is now with us. That is why we repeatedly write letters, Minister. It is because, as a scrutiny Committee, we do not get answers to the questions that we ask. You may be uncomfortable with that —

Mr Lyons: You are getting the answers. You are not getting the answers that you want.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): — but we will keep asking.

Mr Lyons: They are answers, but they are not the answers that you want.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. I will move on to Mark.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Chair. I share some of the concerns that have been raised, Minister, particularly with regard to your approach to the Irish language and the other social inclusion strategies. I declare an interest as a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I have read the commissioner's report. Minister, you, of course, have the right to defend yourself, but it seems that, as always, you see attack as the best form of defence. A wee bit of humility would not go amiss.

As for scrutiny, let us talk about the local growth fund. I realise that you are not the Minister who is holding the reins on that, but, given that you have responsibility for and a key role when it comes to the community and voluntary sector and charities, I welcome the Executive statement on that. As the Opposition, the SDLP fully supports any efforts that the Executive make, and we will make our own, as we have with the UK Government. What is plan B? Is there a plan B? What conversations are ongoing in that regard?

Mr Lyons: Thanks, Mark, and thanks for your question. It should be of huge concern to everyone. We recognise the impact that the voluntary and community sector has and the huge amount of work that those who are part of it do that might otherwise fall to Departments. We need, first, to recognise that, and we need to recognise the critical situation in which they find themselves and in which, by extension, we find ourselves. You will be aware of the work that the Executive have taken forward, collectively, on that. We fully support the efforts of the Finance Minister to make sure that we get a satisfactory resolution. There is concern, in particular, about the profile of the funding. I have been a very strong advocate for making sure that we get it resolved. Ultimately, however, DOF is leading on that, with the support of the Executive.

On your specific question about what our plan B is and whether something can or cannot be put in place, I am supportive of making sure that, if it does not get to where we need it to be, we get to the stage where we can find support to keep those critical functions going. We are still trying to get information on that, Mark. We do not have all the answers on that yet, but it has been a priority for me, and for the Executive as a whole. I know that that does not provide the answers that people want, which is why it is so important that we continue to make the case.

Mr Durkan: Rates have been in the news quite a bit this week, Minister. You have responsibility for licensing, and the hospitality industry has been badly hit by the issues with rates. That is not what I am going to ask you about; I am going to ask you about the rate support grant. I am conscious that, in its bids to the multi-year Budget, your Department was looking for over £12 million per year for the next three years for the rate support grant. This year, it is, I think, just over £3 million. I appreciate that the draft Budget has not been approved by the Executive, but what scope does it give you to reach that level of funding for those councils that desperately need it, and to ensure fairness?

Mr Lyons: It is going to be so difficult for me. If I were to end up getting the Finance Minister's allocation — if that Budget becomes final — the idea that we could do something about the rate support grant would go completely out the window, because, with the proposals that would be coming our way from the Finance Minister, we would not be able to add to anything that we are doing in the Department. Everything else would go out the window. We would be looking at pulling back on Job Start and employment programmes, and discretionary support could be decimated. There are so many other things that we would need to pull back on. I cannot overestimate just how damaging that Budget would be for the Department.

Mr Durkan: Have you made any specific arguments, at Executive level, for earmarking or ring-fencing that money for the rate support grant at Executive level?

Mr Lyons: I have a meeting with the Finance Minister following this meeting. I want to be in a position where I can support our councils as much as possible. Ultimately, however, it will come down to the Executive. The Executive, as a whole, need to look at prioritisation, and the rate support grant would need to be put on the table along with everything else.

Mr Durkan: Housing is one of your biggest responsibilities and one of the biggest challenges that we, as a society, face. Will you update the Committee on the discussions around the Housing Executive's bid to get borrowing powers?

Mr Lyons: Yes. There has been progress on that, which should be welcomed. For the first time, we are in a position where the Treasury has, it is fair to say, recognised the situation that we find ourselves in. There is a commitment from Treasury that that will be looked at. Over the past year, in particular, we have had considerable engagement and have gotten to a much better place on that. We have received a commitment that that will be looked at. The information is still being provided. I am hopeful that we can make progress on it, but we need to be united in making the case for those powers. Just in recent days, I wrote to the Finance Minister with additional suggestions for how that case can be made with regard to the requirements that are often on us and the Housing Executive, and the responsibilities that are placed on the Housing Executive, for which funding does not always follow. Progress is slow, Mark, but we are making progress.

Mr Durkan: Should that bear fruit —

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Briefly, Mark.

Mr Durkan: — would that give the Housing Executive the ability to build new homes and increase housing supply — there is a bit of ambiguity in some of the statements and documents that I have read — or just to invest in its current stock?

Mr Lyons: It will be both.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. Andy wanted to check a point on that, briefly, and then we will go to Maolíosa.

Mr Allen: It was about the local growth fund, Chair, if we can pivot back to that. If you want to go to Maolíosa, I am happy to wait.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I will go to Maolíosa and then come back to you, Andy. A Mhaolíosa, lean ar aghaidh le do cheist féin.

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

I remember complimenting you, a number of months back, Minister, after you spoke about the Bill that will provide for the deaf community. I complimented you on having an understanding of the importance of language as a means of communication as well as of the culture that is associated with languages. I also said at that time, and it remains the case, that I was disappointed that that understanding does not seem to transcend from sign language to other languages, whether they be Ulster Scots or Irish.

In particular, I have seen your lack of ability to grasp the importance and understanding of Irish to the language community in the North of Ireland.

That disappointment is felt throughout, not just in the Committee. I have heard it from many other people, particularly the GAA community. We are talking about a community of over 200,000 members in the North of Ireland. It transcends all aspects of life within this constituency. They are very disappointed in you, Minister.

I am providing you with a blank sheet and asking you this question: what are you going to do to restore the confidence of the wider community? I am not talking about any particular section — religious, political or otherwise. What are you going to do to restore the confidence of the wider community that you, as Minister, will fulfil your duties to all the people in the North of Ireland?

Mr Lyons: You are talking about the wider community, but I can tell you that I have received a lot of support for things that we have been able to progress, with housing, for example. Cathy Mason says that I do not do housing. That will come as a surprise to my officials and others in the Department who know how much time I spend on it. Progress has been made on issues that matter to people. You can look at that across the Department.

You talked about sport as an example and raised the GAA issues. I have met many members of the GAA; I have had good engagement with them. You are probably referring specifically to Casement. There is a desire among people in your party to say that it is being held up and that it is because of unionists that it has not progressed. You know the background and history.

On sport, I am doing what I can, where I am, with what I have. You can see how we are taking forward the Olympic legacy fund. There have been achievements throughout the Department that, I believe, show that we are taking seriously the issues that matter to people.

You mentioned the Irish language. That frustration has been expressed, but, ultimately, we are going through the right and proper process in relation to that. The draft has been out with Departments, and Departments are coming back with the next steps that they will be able to take. However, as is the case in all these things, everything is subject to budget. It is important that we make sure that we can fund any action that we take. I will leave it to others to talk about confidence that people may or may not have, but if people look at the delivery of the Department, they will see that we are moving forward where we can.

Mr McHugh: Minister, you said that we view it as unionists who are blocking. No, Minister, it is you who is seen as actively blocking. You alluded to Irish language funding. There is a block on moneys that were available from the Republic of Ireland for Foras na Gaeilge and so on, and, again, you have an input to that. What are you going to do in the remainder of the mandate to restore, in the people of the North of Ireland, confidence in your ability to provide for all of us?

Mr Lyons: I do not accept the premise of your question that there is a lack of confidence. Maybe there is in the people whom you speak to, but I cannot keep all the people happy all the time. I am focused on delivery and getting things done. That is why I am in office. I am not here to manage or to keep things going as they always have been going. I am here to do things differently and to make a difference to people's lives with the tools available to me. I am more than happy for people to look at the breadth of the things that I have achieved. People can come to their own judgement on that. I do not have time to worry about whether I have confidence from others. I need to focus on getting things done. That is my job.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I am coming to Maurice, and then I have Kellie, Sian, Pam and Andy, in that order.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Minister, for attending today. At the outset, I will say that the motion of no confidence is not unanimous in the Committee. You have support in the Committee. Minister, one thing that affects everybody, especially in my constituency, is the lack of social housing to meet the need. How has your social housing strategy progressed through the budget allocated by the Finance Minister to take it forward for the benefit of everyone, and not any specific section of the community?

Mr Lyons: Thank you for your comments and your question. Housing is one of the most important issues; it is fundamental because it affects everybody in Northern Ireland, regardless of the tenure of their housing. We have a shortage of social housing, and that has consequences for all the other tenures. I am committed to doing something about that. I have asked for more money. I have not always been given that money, but that is why I am looking at alternatives. In the coming days, a paper will go to the Executive on how we can use land to create a different subsidy. I am working on that, and that is what I want to do.

I have done something else, because I know that the Committee cares about social housing and making sure that we have the funding that we need. I have put a paper to the Executive asking them to ring-fence funding specifically for the social housing development programme. I need the Executive to live up to their commitments. They agreed to a housing supply strategy and the Programme for Government with those targets. I am now asking the Executive to put their money where their mouth is and to ring-fence the money so that we can build homes. I hope that the Committee will support me, and I would welcome and appreciate it if the Committee could write to the Executive in support of the idea.

Mr Bradley: Minister, you mentioned prioritising the Budget. When you meet the Finance Minister, will you put pressure on him to prioritise the Budget for the important things that mean a lot to the whole community and are not specific to one section of it? It is important that the Executive are seen to be frugal and responsible about spending money where it is needed.

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. We need to make sure that we put the money towards the things that people want to see happen and that will make a difference. One of the best ways to spend money is on social housing, because it has many benefits. It helps people across Northern Ireland to get the homes that they need, but it will bring in additional private finance and create jobs. Is the Committee prepared to get behind me and ensure that the Executive ring-fence the budget? I would love to see a show of hands. Put your hand up if you would like to see the money ring-fenced.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): No. Minister, we will not. Minister, you may want to play silly games.

Mr Lyons: It is not a game. I want your help.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I am chairing the Committee. If we go to a vote, I will put it to the Committee.

Mr Lyons: Chairman, can I have your support on that measure?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): The Committee is keen to see houses built, and we are keen to see you develop many other things that we have touched on, including housing.

Mr Lyons: You are not committing to it today.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Of course the Committee is committed.

Mr Lyons: To a ring-fence of the budget? Can I please get your support?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I am not responding to that, Minister. The Committee is here to scrutinise you, Minister; you are not here to scrutinise the Committee.

Mr Lyons: You are not answering the question, and that speaks for itself.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): The Committee will take its view.

Mr Lyons: That is the problem, folks. Is that—.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): The Committee will take its view. Minister, the Committee will take its view in due course.

Mr Lyons: The problem is that you people talk a good talk, but you are not prepared to do what is necessary, and that is clear for people to see today.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): More deflection, Minister.

Mr Lyons: From you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Maurice, have you anything further?

Mr Bradley: No. Thank you.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you for coming along today, Minister. Minister, you have just talked about the Budget and how difficult it is for your Department. We do not know whether we will get the three-year Budget. Your colleague the Education Minister has said that he would need a significant increase to meet his costs if he is to agree the Budget. Is your Department looking at where cutbacks could be made? Has your Department done any work to identify income-raising measures?

Mr Lyons: Yes. Work has gone on. We do not have much scope for generating revenue in many areas, but, as I have said before, one of our proposals is to recoup money from fraud and error. That is a concern for us, because if we do not take action, there is the possibility that we will be fined. That has been made very clear in the past. If we are not prepared to take action on fraud and error, we will be fined. However, I would need the Committee's support. As the Committee knows, and as we have set out previously, I take a very different view from Sinn Féin and others on this, because I think that we need not just to tackle fraud and error head-on but to put money into tackling them. We can recoup savings of 5:1.

That is one thing that we can look at, but we have done other things as well, Kellie. Temporary accommodation costs are going through the roof. Using Housing Executive reserves, 600 homes will save £75 million over the next seven years. We are taking action where we can. I would love the assistance of the Committee in finding other ways of generating revenue or making savings. I am up for that discussion. I come here genuinely wanting to hear from you and to get advice. Scrutiny? Absolutely. Go ahead. Maybe this is your next question, but do you have anywhere in mind where you think we should be doing that?

Ms K Armstrong: I was going to ask you about the change to housing associations' funding. I have heard from them that there will be winners and losers — more losers than winners. Have you met them since the funding change was agreed? I know that they were considering it and writing papers on it. Have you met them about that? Putting people into homes reduces the costs of temporary accommodation, but the housing associations seem to be indicating that that may be a problem for some of them, and that worries me.

Mr Lyons: I have not met them directly. I have met some individuals but not the housing associations collectively. However, officials have been working on this and, in particular, on the design guide. Housing associations were asking for that. Uniformly, they were saying, "We believe that we are doing things and building houses at a cost that they do not need to be built at". I am a great believer in reducing costs where you can instead of always asking for more money. There is a bit of give and take, Kellie. We are asking more of them, but, at the same time, we are trying to make things simpler for them.

Ms K Armstrong: I am worried because the Department for the Economy — rightly so, to be honest — has come out with a consultation on the removal of fossil fuels. That will have an impact on the design and delivery of housing. Are you chatting to housing associations about that?

Mr Lyons: Paul can come in on that one.

Mr Paul Price (Department for Communities): Yes, we were aware of that, and it will be taken into account. The Minister is right: there are now structures in place for those two reviews that provide for methodical engagement with housing associations on the grant and the design standards. At the heart of that will be a level of information sharing between them, us and the Housing Executive that we have not had in place before. Those views will produce a clear sight on the best value-for-money grant rate, supported by sensible design standards, that we need right now.

Ms K Armstrong: Is that an expectation? The Treasury is to come back with a clear decision on the Housing Executive and its future. If the Housing Executive is to build like housing associations, will the grant level that it receives be on a par with that of the housing associations?

Mr Price: That question came up when I was at the Committee before. I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which the Department would grant support to one organisation at a different rate from another. The Minister is right: Housing Executive borrowing will support investment in existing stock and the development of new stock. It is likely that that will be the sequence. There will be a focus on the investment requirement and the gradual ramping-up of a contribution from the Housing Executive to the new-build programme.

Ms K Armstrong: OK. Thank you. When we are talking about —.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Briefly, please, Kellie.

Ms K Armstrong: Since we are talking about the Housing Executive, you will know, Minister, that the language used regarding the severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) in January has raised concern amongst those who provide much needed emergency places. There is concern coming directly from on-the-ground workers about how SWEP is communicated and implemented. It does not take account of all the churches and organisations that could help if, for instance, SWEP providers cannot. Can anything be done to review that with the Housing Executive to make sure that, where appropriate, those who can step in do so?

Mr Lyons: First, I was a little confused by your question in the Chamber on Monday about language.

Ms K Armstrong: It was a follow-up to the radio conversation that the Housing Executive had. The sector took it that it was being blamed.

Mr Lyons: I am sure that that was not the intention, and that is not my view at all. We value the essential work of those partners, and there has been a significant increase in the funding for that work. It is in everybody's interests to make sure that it is as effective as possible. If it needs to be renewed, we can look at it and see how it can be improved. That is not a statutory requirement on us, but we are doing it because it is the right thing to do. However, even with the best intentions of all involved, we are dealing with people who often have complex, difficult problems. You can do your best to help people, but they need to be willing to accept your help. That is not to shift the blame in any way; it is simply the reality. If anything needs to be reviewed, we will be more than happy to look at it.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you. You talked about us people and scrutiny. To be honest, that calls my professionalism into disrepute. I do ask for a lot of information. I want to take you back to 'Guidance for Ministers in the Exercise of their Official Responsibilities', published by the Executive in 2020, which states:

I hope that, in the spirit of how they are asked, you understand that when we ask questions, and when I am following up on questions, it is done as part of that scrutiny role and as part of my professional role on the Committee.

Mr Lyons: We will provide the information where we can. I am more than happy that we fulfil that role. However, I want you to understand that staff are under huge pressure because of the number of letters coming through. Compared with other Committees, it does seem excessive. I recognise how wide the remit is, but I have a request from a week or two ago asking for information, and one of the members states:

That shows that it is not just that you are asking for information that we have. Publicly available information is being asked for, and I am just asking that you consider that as well.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, this is a Statutory Committee. RHI recommendation 38 states that Committees have to improve their scrutiny.

Mr Lyons: I agree.

Ms K Armstrong: I will continue to ask questions —

Mr Lyons: Yes.

Ms K Armstrong: — because that is my role. That is my legal role on a Statutory Committee.

Mr Lyons: My point is that that needs to be done in a way that is professional and coherent, and that has been lacking. In particular —

Ms K Armstrong: If you could provide instances of where that has been lacking, I would appreciate it. If you wish to make a complaint about me, about my work on this Committee, or about this Committee, it would be better to have the evidence.

Mr Lyons: I do not have a —

Ms K Armstrong: Earlier you asked us to support you in approaching the Executive. Provide us with a business case, and we will scrutinise it and come to a decision, I am sure, as a Committee.

Mr Lyons: That is fine, and I hope that I can also get the message across that my officials are here to answer questions. They will do that honestly, and they deserve to be treated with respect because that has not always been the case. They have been accused of being misogynistic. My officials were told that they were talking nonsense, and that is not appropriate either. I hope, Kellie, that everyone on the Committee would show respect to officials. I do not mind —

Ms K Armstrong: Respect us by providing us with answers to written questions as requested, Minister.

Mr Lyons: We do.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I want to move on. Minister, we have provided you repeatedly with lists of questions that have not been answered. I would appreciate it if the Department would take as great a consideration to those specific scrutiny questions that have not been answered as listening to every blow-by-blow account.

Mr Lyons: We will take that —

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): If you are listening closely, I expect the answers coming back to be a bit more comprehensive.

Mr Lyons: We will take that back. We have tried to provide you with information. I offered off-the-record, behind-the-scenes briefings as well to try to make sure that you have everything that you need, because sometimes it is not appropriate to discuss things in front of the camera. We have no problem whatsoever with scrutiny, but it needs to be done in a coherent way, which I do not believe has always been the case.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We have taken you up on those briefings, Minister. The one that was scheduled for last week, you cancelled at the last minute.

Mr Lyons: Which one was that?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): It was on Committee scrutiny and the new procedure for SL1s. I am going to move on.

Mr Lyons: I will come back to you on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): That is the reality.

Ms Mulholland: First, Cherrie, welcome to your new role. You have big shoes to fill, but I am sure that you are more than able.

Minister, it will not surprise you that my first question is about the anti-poverty strategy. You spoke about an updated timeline. At the minute, we are waiting for Executive agreement on the responses. Is that correct? Nothing has been budgeted for in the new Budget. Can you tell us specifically what you have asked Finance for to support any new programmes or initiatives on the anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: You will be aware of the things that come under my control, Sian. Some are for other Departments to add in and say, "This is what we want to see". We have made bids for employability programmes and Job Start. Those are the main ones. We need to ensure that we look, as a whole, at the consultation responses that have come back and the other things that the Departments want to bring in.

Ms Mulholland: What about the action plans? Are they under way? What is their status? You said that the action plans for the disability strategy are pretty much done. Is that where we are with the anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: No, because the disability issues were more straightforward and there was more collective agreement on what that looks like. We need the Departments to come back and finalise what they are doing. I want to make sure that the Budget is aligned with that. Then we will go from there.

The simplest, most straightforward and easiest thing for me to do would have been to say, "Do you see what the design group said? Let's throw all that in and then push it over to the Executive and say, 'It's time for you to fund that'". I did not think that that was appropriate. I want Departments to come forward and say, "Here's what we can do", or "Here's what we will bid for". That is more appropriate than saying, "Let's just put it all in". That is leadership. It is about being responsible and making sure that we have something credible.

Ms Mulholland: Gender equality intersects massively with the anti-poverty strategy. We know that women, whether they have a family or are single, are disproportionately impacted on by property. You said that you have prioritised gender equality where it intersects with the anti-poverty strategy. The whole point was that they were to go in tandem, because they intersect so much. Has any work been done at all on the gender equality strategy that will feed into the anti-poverty strategy? That is my concern. Where those two issues intersect is where the real pressure points are.

Mr Lyons: I had a meeting with officials in the past couple of weeks about how we take that forward. Some of the work has gone out of it, such as ending violence against women and girls, because it is being taken forward by the Executive Office. Some issues around pay gap reporting have gone into other pieces of legislation that are being taken forward. We need to make sure that what we put in the strategy is achievable and realistic. I hope to have a submission on that very soon. Is there anything specific that you think needs to be in or tied to the strategy?

Ms Mulholland: A lot more work has to be done on employability and childcare, as although that is not necessarily in your Department's remit, it feeds so much into the poverty scope. I am not seeing enough happening there to tackle that intersection. That concerns me slightly, because if we do not bring in and up women and caregivers in particular, I do not think that we will properly get to the root causes of poverty. That is my concern.

Mr Lyons: I agree. If it is any consolation, I do not believe that the lack of a gender equality strategy at this stage will hold back the work being done on it through the anti-poverty strategy. It will complement it again at a later stage, but it will not hold it back.

Ms Mulholland: There was a question about the LGBTQIA community. I jotted down a brief list. I know that you asked for three areas. For me, it is about healthcare, conversion practices, funding for sectoral support, relationships and sexuality education (RSE) and bullying. There is a whole ream of things.

Mr Lyons: That is helpful.

Ms Mulholland: A lot of it came from the expert panel and even just engagement with the LGBT sector. Homelessness is one area that really intersects with your Department's remit. Homelessness among the LGBTQIA+ community is massive, particularly among those who are ostracised from their communities and families. That is the one bit that really intersects.

Mr Lyons: That is why it is useful to hear what it is that you want looked at. You have not done that —.

Ms Mulholland: From engagements —. Sorry.

Mr Lyons: On that —.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Briefly, please, Minister.

Mr Lyons: We have done a lot of work on conversion therapy. That work is not easy, and it has not been easy anywhere else. I have continually asked a question of Eóin Tennyson and others. Those who would be sympathetic to some of the measures have not been able to come back with a clear answer about what it is that they are trying to prevent that is not currently illegal and whether they are trying to prevent things that should be legal. It is a complex issue. It is not one that is being kicked down the road. We will find a way forward and make an announcement in due course.

Ms Mulholland: It is a complex issue that is causing a lot of hurt.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Sian, you are out of time. You have used your time in the way in which you chose.

Mr Lyons: I am happy to speak to you afterwards.

Ms Mulholland: My two other points were to do with welfare mitigations and the arts.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Sian, I am moving on to Pam.

Mr Lyons: I am happy to give the Committee an extra couple of minutes, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): In that case, I will bring Sian back in later.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you for attending the Committee, Minister. You will not be surprised to hear that I do not have a lack of confidence in you.

Mr Lyons: Thank you.

Mrs Cameron: You and your departmental officials do an incredibly good job in excruciatingly difficult circumstances and under huge financial pressure. The Department for Communities is also a massive Department, and that places many demands on your time and energy. Thank you for the work that you continue to do. I am certainly not hearing criticism of your work from my constituents in South Antrim. I know you very well as a friend, and I have done for a very long time. I know the good person whom you are and that your empathy levels are right up there. I place that on the record.

Mr Lyons: Thanks.

Mrs Cameron: My main questions are about housing and the fraud and error piece. We are all aware of the pressures on housing, and the anti-poverty strategy is incredibly important. There is nothing better that people can be given than a safe, affordable and comfortable roof over their head. It is a basic need, and that is why getting on top of the housing issue has to be an absolute priority for you and your Department. The pressures on the rental sector and on those who are trying to get on the property ladder are phenomenal. I have family and friends who have struggled to become tenants in the private rented sector. Moreover, there is so much competition to get a mortgage that people struggle to get on the property ladder. There are also bidding wars. The situation is therefore pretty horrendous. I understand that the way in which to solve the problem is to create more housing availability. What are you doing to address the huge pressures on the entire housing sector? Will you outline the key pressures? Are you getting the support that you require from your Executive colleagues to deliver on housing?

Mr Lyons: No, I do not feel that I am getting the support that I require. If you look at the Sinn Féin Finance Minister's Budget, you will see that it will not help us build more homes. I hoped to have built 2,600 homes in the first year of the Budget, but, Paul, are we now talking about building 300 or 400 homes.

Mr Price: It could be that few, yes.

Mr Lyons: That represents a significant shortfall in the number that we need to see built. A problem is that, as an Assembly and an Executive, we are not prepared to say, "This is a priority. We are therefore funding it". Everything becomes a priority, meaning that nothing gets sorted out. I have been clear about what I want to see happen, despite the fact that Cathy Mason said that I do not do housing. Housing is an absolute focus for me, and I want to make sure that we deliver. We therefore need to have funding in place, and we need the support. If they cannot give me all the cash that I want, I will be bringing a paper about land use to the Executive to be agreed by DOF.

We have done other things. We have made increased use of financial transactions capital (FTC). We are now in a position in which the intermediate rent scheme is going ahead. Temporary accommodation will be provided. There is the loan to acquire move-on accommodation fund, which deals with other issues that have an effect on supply, such as antisocial behaviour and intimidation points.

We are targeting all those areas. We are doing what we can with what we have. I had hoped that the current Executive would have focused more on housing. That has not happened, but I will continue to do everything that I can to make the case for more housing. I hope that I will get the Committee's support for doing so.

Mrs Cameron: Housing is a Programme for Government priority, so you would have expected to have received backing from Executive colleagues.

I would like to take you up on your offer of making a proposal. I am happy to propose that we write to the Executive to ask them to back your plans to ensure that you are able to deliver, on behalf of the entire Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly, the housing that people need. We certainly need to see those plans put in place. It is distressing to learn that you are not getting Executive backing and that the backing is not there for you to budget for the future, as per the draft Budget, which has not been agreed at this time. It is vital that the Committee support your call and ensure that you get the support to deliver what we are asking you to deliver. You cannot do that without funding. It is up to the Committee to support you in that call so that you get what you need in order to deliver for us all.

Mr Lyons: I really appreciate your support. Thank you.

Mrs Cameron: I am more than happy to make that proposal to the Chair at some stage.

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

Mrs Cameron: Correspondence about fraud and error has been going back and forth. There has been talk of a potential benefit of £45 million over five years. Where are we at with that? I understand that the Finance Minister also has a big piece of work to do on that. He has to get clarity from the Treasury. What potential is there for penalties? Do we have an estimate of the amount of money about which we are talking? It is a bit frightening, although it is positive to see that there is potential for us to get money back into the coffers, because we need more.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Briefly, please, Pam. You are coming towards the end of your allotted time. Do you have a question?

Mrs Cameron: May I have some clarity on that, please?

Mr Lyons: It is a concern for us. We had estimated, I think, £45 million from the fraud and error bill proportionally.

Ms Cherrie Arnold (Department for Communities): Yes. It is £200 million over five years. There will be no savings in the first year, as there is an initial investment for lead time, but, over the remaining four years, we are hoping to get over £200 million back. We are seeking a 50% share of that.

Mr Lyons: That is what we could recoup as a result of fraud and error. If we do not do that, however, there will be significant penalties for us as a result of the savings that we do not accrue. It makes sense to invest in order to get the money back, because if we do not get the money back, we will be penalised. It is therefore straightforward. There has, however, been a reluctance to deal with that issue around the Executive table, unfortunately. I hope that that changes.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Sorry, Cherrie. What did you say the actual figure is? Is there a confirmed figure?

Ms Arnold: No, there is no confirmed figure yet. We have done a business case. There will be investment of roughly £9 million. In years 2, 3, 4 and 5, that will bring in £45 million a year in funding. The total is in the region of £200 million over those four years.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): What is your sense of the quantum that may be returned to us? We have been trying to get an answer for quite a while.

Ms Arnold: That has not been agreed yet. In line with the Fresh Start Agreement, however, 50% has been sought.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): At this stage, have we any firm figures for any potential fine or potential deficit?

Ms Arnold: No. That is for the Department of Finance to discuss with Treasury.

Mrs Cameron: That is useful to know.

Mr Lyons: Three per cent is a good figure to look at, based on the savings that Treasury would make if we do not accrue any, but there could be a straightforward fine.

Mrs Cameron: Regardless of the percentage, you are talking about huge amounts of money. A lot of that money could very easily be eaten up through building houses.

Mr Lyons: If we were to get that back into the Department, £25 million a year would help address a lot of the issues that members are raising.

Mr Allen: Minister, I do not want to use up all my allocated time on this, but, given that it was a significant theme of the discussion, I will touch on it. I must say, and I have no difficulty stating this publicly, that, although I may not always agree with your approach or with the eventual outcome that you achieve on various matters, on any issue that I have brought to you, be that in person or through correspondence, you have always engaged with me and been willing to listen, and you have always done so empathetically, which I appreciate. I am happy to state that for the record.

I will now pivot to my questions. Minister, will you provide the Committee with an update on the fuel poverty strategy? I assume that, as with all the other strategies, much of the detail will appear in the action plan. I know that the consultation response has not been published yet.

Mr Lyons: First, I thank you for the constructive way in which you engage with me. I believe that, like me, you are genuine in wanting to deliver for people and that you care about doing so. There has not been any grandstanding from you, and I will continue to work with you in that vein.

Significant progress has been made on the fuel poverty strategy, and I look forward to being in a position to make an announcement in the coming days. A focus of the strategy is on working collaboratively with others to ensure that we give consumers what they need in order for them to make decisions and on investing significantly in properties across all tenures. That will make a real difference to people's lives. It is a good use of money, because that money will be invested in such a way as to have long-term impacts. It will not be support that people are given for one year. Rather, that support needs to be ongoing. What I therefore want to see happen is significant investment be made. I have worked very closely with UK Government colleagues, and you will be aware of their plan for this year. The fuel poverty strategy will be a considerable focus for me, because it has the ability to make a real difference to people's lives.

Mr Allen: One of the biggest concerns that I hear raised, Minister, is, I am sure, one that you and other colleagues also hear raised, and it is to do with how unaffordable heating, be it electricity, gas or whatever, is. From your conversations with the Finance Minister, do you have confidence that the appropriate amount of funding will be attached to the final strategy in order to deliver the whole-home solutions that will drive down people's energy costs?

Mr Lyons: It needs to be. We talk a lot about doing things that will make a difference, so we need to look at where we spend our capital funding. I am convinced that this is a way of doing so that will give us an excellent return, while making a difference to people's lives. I have been in the home of people who have seen improvements made to it, which they say has changed their life. Money is no longer coming out of their pocket, and there are also health benefits. It is really important that we bring homes up to standard and increase energy efficiency, and I am committed to making sure that progress is made.

Mr Allen: What level of funding is require in order for you to deliver the strategy over its lifetime?

Mr Lyons: I am sorry, Andy, but I am not going answer that at this time, because I will be making an announcement in the coming days. I congratulate you on your tenacity, but you are not getting that information out of me just yet.

Mr Allen: I appreciate that. I will now pivot to the disability strategy. There has been much conversation had about the success of strategies being underpinned by cross-departmental working. One of the big frustrations is that there seems to be a lack of cross-departmental working, although I am not having a pop at you. For example, we talk about the inconsiderate nature of obstructive pavement parking. The Infrastructure Minister has made various proposals that will have a massive impact on how the disabled community gets about in society. There does not, however, seem to have been wider engagement and dialogue about enforcement. Ultimately, Minister, you can introduce legislation, but if you do not enforce it, meaning that there is no deterrent, it will fall down. As the Minister for the lead Department on the disability strategy, and most of the other strategies, how will you ensure that cross-departmental working is effective and that, when measures are delivered, they are thought through and have consequences?

Mr Lyons: Politicians can often be great at seeing a problem and putting in place a legislative solution, only then to say, "Hands off. That's us. Job done". There needs to be constant review in order to make sure that what has been agreed is implemented, funded and then done in the right way. That is why I am setting up the disability forum, on which we will have people with day-to-day experience who will be able to hold us to account. It is not just my Department that will be held to account, although I welcome the fact that it will be. We will get to the point at which there is an effective group, not one for the sake of it, to tell us how we need to progress, how things can be fixed and how things can be improved. The disability forum will be really important, and that is why I am so keen for it to be included.

Mr Allen: We could spend the whole hour and more on each of the topics. Throughout your tenure as Minister for Communities, you have often talked about being an outcomes-based Minister and wanting to focus on solutions.

Previously, there was the access and inclusion fund, but, given your Department's budgetary constraints, it is not operating at the moment. Has any thought been given to creating, as part of the output of the disability strategy, a fund that, like the access and inclusion fund, is delivered through councils but with the wider remit of making society more accessible? I often hear from disabled people that society is not entirely accessible to them. They are rightly frustrated. If we could create a fund dedicated to making society more accessible to disabled people, that would have a massive impact.

Mr Lyons: The strategy will need to come with funding in order to be effective. That funding will be an investment if it can get disabled people to become more included in society and in the workplace. There are therefore economic benefits to be had from the strategy, and it should be treated as such. We will look at all the options. The consultation will close on 20 March. We will look at the responses and see where we need to be, where it is best to put our resource and whether that place is in a fund like the access and inclusion fund. Options for how we look at things over the next few years will come to me shortly.

It is also about how I spend my budget on the Department's areas of responsibility. For example, does more work need to be done on making state care monuments and other things that are under the control of the Department more accessible?

Mr Allen: I appreciate that. I —.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Andy, you will have to be very brief.

Mr Allen: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): You have had the same time as everybody else. You can double-check that if you wish. Briefly, please.

Mr Allen: I have a plethora of other questions, Minister. I am happy to engage with you on them afterwards in the same way in which we have done previously. I have read the Executive letter about the local growth fund. Do you feel that the UK Government are listening and that they understand the concerns of the wider sector about the funding imbalance between capital and resource?

Mr Lyons: If they had understood them, they would not have done what they have done. That is why we need to make an effective case that is not just about our needing more money or whatever else but that states, "Look at how this is profiled. Look at the impact that it's having". In government, we do not always do a good job of spending money in the right place at the right time, but my Department is key to making sure that we do. Spending by the Department for Communities can make savings for other Departments, such as Health, Education and Justice. I want to get that across to the UK Government to make sure that they know that spending that money in that way helps us all.

Mr Allen: I appreciate that the UK Government would not have done what they did if they had understood the concerns. That was not the premise of my question. Do you think that they have listened to and understood the concerns now? The co-design approach was not delivered on at the outset, but are they listening now?

Mr Lyons: That remains to be seen.

Mr Allen: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We will have a brief question from our Deputy Chair, Cathy Mason, after which I will bring in Sian again.

Mrs Mason: Thank you, Chair. Minister, you outlined really well the budgetary constraints that your Department faces — all Departments are under pressure — and you quoted them to me many times in your answers on housing. This is a genuine question on which I am looking for clarity. You recently announced a £50 million allocation for Cultra, with £40 million of that to come from the Department for Communities. That is a significant amount of funding. Is that not something about which you would usually come to the Committee and the Assembly so that we might scrutinise the decision and question you on how you came to prioritise the Ulster Folk Museum for funding?

Mr Lyons: No, it was within the remit of the Department to do that, and it was the right thing to do. That funding allocation was different from others in a number of ways. First, being under the control of National Museums NI, the Ulster Folk Museum is my own infrastructure, so it is not the same as giving a grant to another organisation. Rather, it is about maintaining and improving what we have. Secondly, it is an income stream for the Department. National Museums NI brings in millions of pounds every year. I want to increase that amount, which is why we have put the funding in place.

Thirdly, the project is open to receiving finance from elsewhere. Signing off on the £40 million therefore secured £10 million from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Moreover, £40 million was the maximum that the Department could contribute. Work is under way on looking at alternative financing. I visited the site of the new London Museum, which is a massive project, and had good engagement there. That museum received a considerable amount of funding from charities and other sources. I have previously said that the Executive need to do better when it comes to looking at securing alternative means of finance. The Reawakening project in Cultra is a fantastic example of that. We are putting up the security for it, if you like. That then brings in £10 million from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, and there will be additional sources of finance. It is our own infrastructure, generates income for us and opens doors to securing other means of finance, so it was the right thing to do.

Mrs Mason: It was a genuine question to find out why your decision had not come before the Committee for us to scrutinise it. Everybody here recognises the need for museums to showcase our culture and heritage. I agree with your earlier comment to Andy about the Department of Communities' spending crossing into areas within the remit of the Department of Health and the Department of Education. Forty million pounds is, however, a substantial amount of money, and it would have been nice to have had the chance to scrutinise your decision in the House and for the Committee to have been given prior sight of it.

Mr Lyons: I can provide that information. We spend tens of millions of pounds on public realm schemes and everything else, but I am happy to give you any information that you need.

Ms Mulholland: My question is on welfare mitigations and the removal of the two-child benefit cap. You said that discretionary support could be decimated. That panics me, Minister. What specifically has been accounted for so far? We have heard a few different figures for the benefit cap mitigations: 1,200 households, then 1,600 households and then 2,500 households. Different things are looked at, such as snapshots versus annual impacts, but where are the figures for welfare mitigations? Will we be giving with one hand and taking with the other?

Mr Lyons: Allocations have been made in the draft Budget that will cover the additional costs from the removal of the two-child benefit cap so that it can go ahead, and that will form part of a proper legislative proposal. I will respond to the Committee formally. Some concern was expressed about how the situation would be handled, but Westminster gave us a very tight time frame in which to get it done. The Assembly was in recess, so we could have missed out altogether. I will respond to you in writing to explain that. After Christmas, however, Stephen Timms told me that the time frame was not so tight, so there was time. That is why I came straight to the Committee with a legislative consent memorandum, which the Committee will scrutinise later in today's meeting.

With the Budget, everything is on the table. I hope to get changes made to it. I hope that we will not have to do some of the things that I may otherwise have to do, but no decisions have yet been made. Discretionary support is, however, discretionary, and I have a lot of statutory responsibilities. I need to look at everything in the round, but you are right to be concerned.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Minister, for coming to the Committee today. I appreciate that you took members' questions. I also thank your team, many of whom we see regularly.