Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I welcome to the meeting, from the Department for Communities, Emer Morelli, interim permanent secretary; John McCord, director of central policy division; and Cherrie Arnold, interim deputy secretary of the work and health group. We are joined in the Chamber by Stuart Stevenson, Treasury Officer of Accounts (TOA). Of course, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) and the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) team are also present.

Emer, you are very welcome back to the Public Accounts Committee. Thank you for agreeing to attend the Committee today along with your officials. It is important to congratulate you on your appointment to the post of permanent secretary. We wish you well and every success in the important job that you have ahead of you. Thank you, and best wishes.

We will get down to business. The Public Accounts Committee has recalled all of you today because members felt that the update provided in the memorandum of reply (MOR) on the PAC's 'Report on Child Poverty in Northern Ireland' was wholly inadequate and did not demonstrate the urgency that the issue demands. Our report made 11 very clear recommendations, yet, after more than a year, only two have been completed. The other nine remain ongoing, with actions that are vague, lack defined timelines and lack substance. We are frustrated and believe that that is not acceptable. Child poverty affects around 110,000 children and families in Northern Ireland, and they cannot afford further delays from internal processes or excuses from the Department that is supposed to be leading on it. We expect clarity and clear answers to the questions that Committee members have for each of you. We do not want broad assurances; we need concrete commitments on these important matters and timescales for them.

I turn to the witnesses for any brief opening remarks. Each member will then pose a number of questions on specific areas that relate to the MOR and the recommendations. Emer, I invite you to open the session and give us a brief introduction. Thank you.

Ms Emer Morelli (Department for Communities): Good afternoon, Chair. Thank you for inviting us to return today in order to provide the Committee with an update on progress. With your permission, Chair, I will make a short opening statement. I begin by acknowledging the Committee's observations on our response to the recent update on progress against the recommendations. I recognise members' serious concerns about the pace of progress. It is my intention to respond openly, fully and directly on the progress made against all the Committee's recommendations, with particular reference to governance, engagement, delivery of immediate actions and key milestones.

The Executive's anti-poverty strategy is a key priority for the Minister for Communities. It must be underpinned by a solid evidence base and be objective and realistic. It needs full buy-in across all Departments and commitments from all delivery partners across government and the sectors that we serve. Most importantly, it must reflect, in a meaningful way, the views of people with specialist expertise, including those with lived experience, those with experience of service delivery to families and, of course, those engaged in setting policy direction here and in other jurisdictions. I assure the Committee that we have listened to all who have engaged with us. Their views have informed the progress that has been made since we last appeared before the Committee. We now have a draft anti-poverty strategy that will, subject to the Executive's final approval, deliver, for the first time, an agreed Executive-wide, holistic framework that addresses poverty across all ages and societal groups in Northern Ireland.

Poverty is complex. It does not exist in isolation. The strategy reflects the interconnected issues that must be tackled collectively if we are to drive change of real importance. The strategy will set out clear outcomes and tightly focused measures and will strengthen accountability. The strategy will be chaired by the head of the Civil Service (HOCS), supported by departmental leads who will be responsible for delivery across the strategic pillars.

Evidence on the everyday reality for people living with poverty is at the centre of the strategic approach. The strategy sets an agenda for deeper collaboration with sectoral partners to ensure that those with lived experience are at the centre of the strategy. Engagement has been a strong feature. Most recently, there was an extensive 14-week consultation period. The Department is very grateful for the input from the wide range of individuals who contributed a consultation response. I highlight the fact that the Minister actively engaged with sectoral representatives before and after the consultation as part of his commitment to listen and respond. We will shortly publish a summary of the 118 written responses, which amount to over 1,300 pages of material, and 85 online responses. Those responses, along with feedback from all Departments, will inform and strengthen the final strategy. We plan to provide an updated anti-poverty strategy to the Minister and, subsequently, to the Executive before the end of the first quarter of 2026-27.

With your agreement, Chair, I will turn to each of the recommendations and give a short update over and above what we have provided.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK.

Ms Morelli: Recommendation 1 is complete. Recommendation 2 — to have an action plan with clear measures, milestones and indicators — is being taken forward as part of the strategy development work. The intention is that the action plan will be published alongside the strategy to address the concerns that the strategy was not fully formed. That work remains subject to Executive approval, so I cannot be prescriptive or definitive about what may be included in the final version. I can say that your views and those of others on targets has been heard and given consideration, and advice will be provided to the Executive on the inclusion of targets in the strategy.

Recommendation 3 has been actioned under the "Minimising Risks" pillar of the strategy, which focuses on prevention informed by evidence-based risk factors. Relevant initiatives include the extended schools programme; RAISE; an NI debt respite scheme; a local delivery plan for the UK financial well-being strategy; and a refreshed Healthy Child, Healthy Future programme. I also highlight the Department's work on the disability strategy and the disability employment strategy.

Recommendation 4 will be addressed as the strategic action plan is progressed towards Executive approval. We are working with all Departments to identify what actions require additional funding. That will support active consideration of funding requirements as the Budget process moves forward. We are very mindful of the timelines for the Budget-setting process and the strategy work. Given the pressures on the block grant as a whole, tough decisions and robust prioritisation will be essential. Funding must be targeted at the right things: those that will make the biggest difference. In the Department for Communities, we are also looking closely at innovative funding approaches, over and above the block grant, for the actions that we are responsible for. I can talk further about that if it is of interest to the Committee.

As previously highlighted, the new cross-departmental strategic governance model addresses recommendations 5 and 6. Again, we can provide more detail of that in the course of the session. Similarly, monitoring and scrutiny mechanisms, as referenced in recommendations 7 and 8, are identified in the draft strategy. Those include a stipulation for a midpoint review of the anti-poverty strategy, along with a commitment to publish findings. You requested the inclusion of independent scrutiny arrangements. I can assure the Committee that those are being considered as part of the development work on the strategy and will be presented to the Executive within the six-month timescale recommended by the Committee.

In respect of recommendation 9, the Department of Finance published its 'Removing Barriers to the Children's Services Co-operation Act' report in December. As set out in that report's recommendations, strengthened cross-departmental governance, clear guidance and improved data-sharing will remove the long-standing barriers to cooperation under the Act. We believe that the anti-poverty strategy is a key vehicle for showing how the Children's Services Co-operation Act can drive real change. Greater flexibility to enable pooling and sharing of budgets is key to improving the effectiveness and reach of the anti-poverty strategy.

Recommendations 10 and 11 focus on engagement with the voluntary and community sector. That has been and will continue to be a valued and core part of the strategy. The Department is grateful for the open and honest insights and advice that our partners provide, and also for their support, as we move through the strategy development. A full engagement plan to support delivery of the strategy is under development, in line the Committee's recommended timescale of six months after the launch of the final strategy.

I appreciate that a key concern of the Committee is the pace of change. We all want to see delivery, and I assure members that the Minister and the Department are fully committed to delivery of the strategy at the earliest point. Significant work has been undertaken over the past 18 months to bring us to the point where, today, we have a clear way ahead. Given the level of needs of family and children, there has been no delay in taking forward the actions that can be delivered. An example of that is the commitment to seek the removal of the universal two-child limit. The Minister did not wait: he took the right action at the right time, raising the issue with UK Government (UKG) officials and helping to secure the ending of that policy. Other relevant developments include adoption of the new housing supply strategy; extension of the welfare mitigation payments; the draft Budget bid for an additional £9·4 million to secure changes to the benefit cap as a result of the removal of the two-child limit; delivery of the warm, healthy homes strategy; legislation to reduce the cost of school uniforms; the £23 million subsidy for working parents' childcare costs; the one-off pension-age fuel support payment; delivery of the new RAISE programme to reduce educational disadvantage; and continued engagement with UKG to maintain the triple lock on pensions.

Chair, there is still much to do. We are here to provide as fulsome responses to your questions as we can. I thank the Committee for its ongoing consideration of this key issue, and for the challenge that you have provided to us and our partners in making sure that we can deliver the strategy in a timely manner.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you, Emer, for a very concise but very detailed update. After listening to what you have said, I just have this one question: why was all that information not provided to the Committee in the MOR?

Ms Morelli: I apologise for that oversight. We should have provided more detail in our response at the time.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Yes. I am glad of the detail that you have provided today, but it is disappointing that we had to bring officials back to the Committee to seek clarification on a number of points that could, and should, have been provided in that MOR. I have said continually, to a number of Departments, that, if we are not satisfied with the quality of the reply that we receive, we will bring officials back in. That is not in the interests of your Department, or of the Committee, given that we are all extremely busy. I put on record my deep frustration and annoyance about the very weak reply that we received. Had we got some of the detail that you have provided to the Committee today, we may not have needed this follow-up. I would like that to be a lesson to the Department: when we seek updates, we expect them to be detailed and clear.

Members will still ask a number of questions, because this is an extremely important issue that affects so many people whom we represent. You will recall, Emer, that you accompanied the then permanent secretary to the Committee during the inquiry, when there was a great amount of heat and frustration from members because of the lack of progress on these important matters. If we look back on the period since the inquiry, we see that there has not been much change. The MOR confirmed our concerns in that regard. I know that you have apologised and explained, and that you have provided an update, but it was important to put that on the public record.

I will ask some questions, after which we will go round other members. The Committee requires clarity on the timeline for Executive agreement to ensure that progress can be made on the recommendations in its report and the strategy can be implemented within the current mandate. When do you expect the strategy to receive Executive approval?

Ms Morelli: We can give an assurance about when we will bring the strategy to our Minister in order for him to bring it to the Executive. I am not in a position to say when the Executive will agree that, but our intention is that the final draft strategy will be brought to the Minister for consideration in the first quarter of 2026-27.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): What is the reason for the delay?

Ms Morelli: The consultation process, which was an extended process given that it was over the summer period, ended at the end of September 2025. We have been working through that quite detailed consultation process to produce a consultation report, which we will publish shortly. We have not been sitting back; we have been engaged in sequential actions across Departments to understand and share the findings of that report with them in order to understand how actions can now be developed and brought forward. We have been particularly mindful of the pressures of the multi-year Budget process. We appreciate that the draft Budget has been out for consultation. We have been working with stakeholder groups and our partners across government to develop the action plans that will underpin the strategy in order to provide clear advice that our Minister can bring to the Executive and, so that, when the strategy gets to the Executive table, it is feasible and pragmatic and can be agreed by them.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. Emer, what is the expected timeline for it to be brought before the Executive?

Ms Morelli: We expect it to be with our Minister for his consideration in order for it to be brought to the Executive by June this year at the latest.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. Is there any reason why that timescale may slip?

Ms Morelli: We want to bring forward a strategy that works and will deliver. The main challenge that all Departments face are the budgetary constraints. We are doing all that we can to secure short-, medium- and longer-term actions that, as I said, are feasible and will be delivered. From the report and the Committee's recommendations on the Child Poverty Act, we have learned to not bring forward lists of actions that are not interlinked, do not work together and do not work to turn the curve. We can bring forward a strategy as early as possible, but it needs to have substance and it needs to work. To answer your question, the main barriers are probably budget and other Departments' ability to prioritise the actions that we need them to deliver.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): We are saying June, then, as an indicative time frame. I ask that the Committee be updated in June on whether or not the strategy has been passed on. We would appreciate an update, at that point, on what stage it is at.

Ms Morelli: Yes, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you. There is not even a year of the mandate left. Can the strategy be implemented effectively in the short time left in this mandate?

Ms Morelli: There is still much to do on implementation, including in respect of the engagement plan and delivery with our stakeholders, but, yes, a year should be sufficient to start implementation of the strategy. The strategy will, of course, potentially span 10 years, so we want to make sure that we get the momentum that we need at the start of it. That speaks to the point of taking time now to make sure that the strategy is feasible and that, when it is brought to the Executive, it can be agreed as early as possible for implementation.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. Across other inquiries, the Committee has repeatedly seen delays in converting commitments into actions. What assurances, Emer, can you provide that implementation of the anti-poverty strategy will not suffer from the same slow pace once it is approved? What mechanisms will trigger timely corrective action if progress falls behind?

Ms Morelli: If the Executive are content to agree the strategy, the governance structure will make individual departmental leads responsible for delivery. That individual responsibility to deliver a collective strategy is the main change. People will be reporting and monitoring. We will, hopefully, have our dashboard of data available as well. We probably have more data now than we have ever had in order to understand how actions are moving or not moving and how they are helping to reduce poverty. It is that collective responsibility, as well as the individual responsibility, in the model that, hopefully, will drive the change that we need.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. You touched on governance. Will you outline the specific implementation structures that will oversee delivery of the strategy and how often we will see an update on progress?

Ms Morelli: The draft strategy included a proposed governance model. We received a number of responses about that model, and we are working through those. The broad structure will comprise an advisory or oversight board, chaired by the head of the Civil Service; the three-pillar approach — preventing people from falling into poverty, minimising the impact of poverty, and the exit out of poverty — where each Department has a unique responsibility to lead on a pillar; and a regular reporting cycle to the Executive, the public, the PAC and, obviously, the wider Assembly through a dashboard mechanism, published details and reports. We suggested a formal mid-year evaluation. We had feedback on that, and, in our final advice to the Executive, we will look and see whether that is sufficient. As I flagged in my opening comments, advice on whether there is any need for an independent scrutiny role will be provided to the Executive in line with the consultation responses that we have received.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): OK. Thank you.

Mr Boylan: Emer, thank you for your commentary and responses so far. I have a couple of opening remarks. First, I am disappointed, because we, as a Committee, sat down, looked at the MOR and developed questions, and, all of a sudden, you come here today and answer some of those questions. That is not to say that I will not ask the questions that I have here, but I agree with the Chair: this could have been avoided if that information had been provided.

Secondly, I know that it is a cross-departmental strategy and that it will go to the Executive, but, clearly, your Department is the lead Department. We have done a number of reports and inquiries. For years, I have heard about nothing but Departments working in silos and isolation. This strategy needs cooperation and communication. Like I say, I appreciate that you have answered some of the stuff.

I want to pick up on recommendation 2, which is about targets, because that is the main one. Targets are used to measure success: whether or not we are doing well. Clear, measurable and time-bound targets are essential for accountability and performance monitoring. Why were no targets included in the draft strategy? How will Departments be held accountable without them?

Ms Morelli: The consultation responses also focused heavily on the lack of targets in the draft strategy. We have considered that further, and we will bring advice to the Executive on the inclusion of targets in the final strategy. As you say, targets have many benefits. They can drive the delivery and change that we need. Targets make it clear how to hold someone to account on their responsibility for driving something. However, we want to make sure that we do not set targets that, by their nature, drive all activity towards meeting the target and fail to address key issues that are essential for smaller groups of people who may be in deeper poverty. We have listened to the point about targets, and we will bring advice to the Executive on the inclusion of targets.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that, but I will say this, and maybe it is because I have been around the Assembly for a long time: we have always used specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) targets, and we should still use those. Have targets been drafted? Will each Department be responsible for producing its targets?

Ms Morelli: The cross-departmental groups will come together and set the targets. Ultimately, we will provide advice on the targets.

Mr John McCord (Department for Communities): In the draft public consultation document, we have population-level measures under each of the pillars. That is the first form of target in the strategy. The more detailed targets that you are asking about will be in the action plan. Each Department will bring forward a range of actions that it wants to pursue in order to deliver its strategic commitments. Each Department will be responsible for putting those together, and they will be agreed at the interdepartmental working group and the anti-poverty strategy board. Despite the fact that individual Departments will set their targets, because they will be about their programmes — a target might be under Healthy Child, Healthy Future or another programme such as RAISE or what have you — through the collaborative work at the interdepartmental working group, we, as the other Departments, will all get to challenge and ask, "Are those the right targets? Are they contributing to reducing poverty? How do they tie in to the wider outcome measure?". It is about trying to link the various levels in order to make sure that the individual targets for the actions contribute in some way to the delivery of overall population outcomes, such as reducing health inequalities, improving educational attainment and reducing the overall poverty level.

Mr Boylan: I do not disagree. The targets have to be measurable, but they have to be achievable as well. We have to be realistic. As I said, if you tie everything down and Departments are open, responsible and transparent, we will get somewhere. That is what I am trying to get at. Somebody has to lead on it, and you are the lead Department.

Ms Morelli: That is why the period that we are in now is so important. We are having that engagement, both bilaterally and across Departments. As I said, we have listened to the consultation responses, particularly those on targets.

Mr Boylan: OK. This is my final question. Across several PAC inquiries, particularly in this mandate, the Committee has repeatedly found a reluctance in Departments to set clear, time-bound and measurable targets. What has been done to shift the culture so that Departments view outcomes, not processes, as being essential to delivery? That links partly to the question that I asked previously. It is important.

Ms Morelli: As we face into the Budget, Departments have to become public service-led. Our front-line service delivery has to be number one, and that is driving very detailed work on targets. We have a Programme for Government (PFG) that is very clear in what it requires of the Government and of Departments. Having that framework, and the impetus behind it, is driving the change across the system. We are looking at making a system change, and Departments no longer have the luxury, if I can call it that, of silo working. When budgets are so tight, and given that we are all serving people — that has to be our number-one priority — we have to work together to maximise the impact of every pound that we invest for people. That is driving — hopefully, you will see this as well — the changes that we are trying to deliver. There are cross-departmental strategies and legislative requirements. We have a legislative requirement, and having a cross-departmental strategy also helps as we deliver.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that, Emer. For me, it is about respecting the autonomy of each Department, because all Departments have responsibilities, but they need to be smarter and work together. I have seen, especially this time around, through PAC inquiries, that Departments are starting to work together a wee bit, but there is a lot more to be done.

To be honest with you, I was really disappointed, because this is a big issue. Many of the issues that come before the PAC are big issues, but in this case the Committee found the MOR very disappointing. Thank you very much for your responses.

Mr Burrows: Thanks, Emer. I am also very disappointed. A common theme with all the Departments that have come in front of the Committee is an aversion to setting clear targets that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound: things that can be seen and measured. We have all used SMART targets in different professions. When, however, I see the same things happening consistently across Departments, it seems to me that it is a cultural issue. The MOR is serious. We are talking about child poverty. When I hear the same words being used time and time again by senior civil servants — "silos", "challenges", "barriers", "obstacles" — it seems to me that it is almost a case of managerial mumbo jumbo being used to explain why things are not being done. What do you say to that?

Ms Morelli: We hope that we are demonstrating today that we are listening. We had the draft child poverty strategy, and it attracted the criticisms that you have very clearly set out. We have taken the time to engage across the piece and to focus on the action plans that will underpin the strategy. In focusing on those action plans, we are giving clear responsibility to Departments, because, if we do not do that, they cannot be held to account, which they have to be. That is being done under the pillar approach, through which all the actions will ultimately feed back through to deliver what we need to deliver.

Sorry, I have probably not explained that clearly enough. We can have 10 actions coming from the Department of Education to help children with school uniforms, to keep children in school and to address special educational needs, for example, but they all must have a clearly linked milestone and an indicator that feeds back into the targets to reduce child poverty.

That is therefore the piece of work that we are doing now. It is taking time and is complex, because we are trying to work in a different way. We are trying to deliver a model in which the governance itself is collaborative and in which the process will be collaborative. We are in no way trying to say that the Department for Communities is not the lead Department for doing that work, but we are trying to work in a different way. Poverty is an issue for all Departments to address. It does not sit with just the Department for Communities.

Mr Burrows: I always say this, which is —.

Ms Morelli: I am not disagreeing with you.

Mr Burrows: — that human beings landed on the moon in 1969. Doing that required lots of different departments, agencies and individuals to work together, but they got it done. It seems to me that this great cross-departmental thing is being used as an excuse by the Civil Service and by Ministers for why things are not done. In every walk of life, however, things are cross-departmental. People in the private sector have to work with different agencies all the time, yet they still get things done. If they are being let down by a partner, someone will take responsibility and say, "Why is this not being done?". Does a permanent secretary ever say to another permanent secretary, "What on earth is going on? Why can't you get that back to me?". Is there an impetus to do that? It seems to me that we have started to get detail only when you have been brought back before the PAC. The MOR itself was pathetic.

Ms Morelli: Yes, those conversations happen, and they happen very regularly. We do work —.

Mr Burrows: Where does it break down? Who is at fault? Who is responsible? There is a culture of things slipping between the cracks. Who is holding you back?

Ms Morelli: There are some structural barriers. Those have been well rehearsed, and that is fine. Through the anti-poverty strategy, we are taking a new approach. The draft strategy went out to consultation and rightly so. We have listened to the consultation responses, which mirror many of your concerns. We are now taking the time to make sure that we do not fall into that trap again. We had a child poverty strategy that was a list of actions that Departments were committed to taking. All delivered on their actions, but they did not impact on child poverty, because Departments were not all focused on the same levers or the same drivers for change. We are really trying now, through the new model, to work differently and to work together. We also now have responsibility sitting where it should sit, because Departments have to be accountable for their own budget and their own spend. The Department for Communities is taking on the precise role that you mentioned. We are responsible for making sure that everybody moves at the same pace and that we are delivering against the targets that we have set and that the Assembly and the Executive have set for us.

Hopefully, as we move to producing the final strategy and getting Executive agreement on that, you will see a new approach and a new way of working.

Mr Burrows: The buck stops with the Minister and the senior civil servant in the Department.

Ms Morelli: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you, Jon. There were some very good points in there. Thanks, Emer, for taking that question.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for your presentation and the detail that you have provided today. You have addressed a number of the points about the financial challenges, of which we are all aware. They exist across all Departments. Fundamentally, strategies depend on funding. Strategies that are labelled as being subject to funding commitments often fail to deliver. That is why we need financial clarity, now and into the future. Has the strategy been fully costed? Does it contain firm funding commitments? I know that you touched on that in your opening remarks.

Ms Cherrie Arnold (Department for Communities): I am happy to take that question. All the responses were analysed, and a comprehensive summary report was issued to all Departments in December 2025. It included the stakeholders' view, which was also summarised under key themes. Aligned with that, we have sought from Departments their high-level costs so that we can prepare a costed action plan, and that will include what we can deliver within budget. There is a challenge there, given the significant uncertainties that the Executive are facing as a result of a constrained Budget and how that will impact on departmental allocations over the next three years. Alongside that, we are asking Departments to tell us what additional funding they need in order to deliver new or expanded measures. That will allow us to prepare an action plan.

As I said, we hope that the final Budget is set for the start of the new financial year in the coming weeks, as that would allow us to finalise the action plan and provide us with clarity on where we can make immediate progress and where strategic investment decisions will be required. That structure is intended to support decision-making and to ensure transparency about the strategy's financial implications.

Mr Dunne: OK. Which actions can be delivered within existing budgets and which require new funding? How will they be prioritised, or are you waiting for the action plan that you mentioned?

Ms Morelli: Going back to Mr Boylan's point, it is important to point out that the strategy will be delivered over a period of years. The first three years are coming to us now. We need to maintain momentum and take the immediate actions that are affordable and can be delivered now. As Cherrie said, we are not stepping back and saying that we are not making strategic investment decisions to cover the next period's actions, the medium-term actions and the longer-term actions. We are also working very closely with our partners in other jurisdictions, particularly those in the Department for Work and Pensions to get the wider UK position, those in Scotland and those in the South, to understand what measures are happening there and to determine the other contexts with which we are dealing.

As I said, poverty is a very complex issue. We are in a constantly changing environment at the moment. It is therefore about prioritisation. How do we make sure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected? How do we ensure that the journey of those who are children now does not include poverty in their lives? How do we prevent them from falling into poverty? Alternatively, how do we help people who are in deep poverty? If they want to exit poverty, are there clear routes for them to do so? How do we work with partners to make sure that we can do that?

The strategy has adopted the pillar approach so that we can prioritise and flex. The Chair mentioned our previous session with the Committee. A key lesson that I took away from that was not to set actions in stone, as the strategy has to be agile and responsive. Should we get the strategy agreed in June or July, we cannot sit back and say that we have delivered a strategy. That is not what we are here to do. The purpose of the strategy is to address poverty. If the strategy does not work, if the actions are not right or if the priority is not right, monitoring and decision-making will come back into play in a very active way.

Mr Dunne: Are you confident that the Department has ultimately sought to prioritise that funding to maximise the impact, given that resources are challenging? It is ever more important to prioritise funding in order to make the most impactful difference for those most in need. Are you confident that you have achieved that at this stage?

Ms Morelli: As I sit here, I cannot say that I am confident that I have achieved that. We are working very closely across Departments as part of the Budget process to try to secure as much funding as we can.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you for being with us today to take questions from the Committee. I will probably go over ground that has already been covered, but that will do no harm. Rather, it will inform the Committee about exactly where things sit.

Effective implementation requires clear governance, leadership roles and accountability mechanisms. What has been done to agree lead Departments and roles in preparation for the finalisation of the strategy?

Ms Morelli: We are having those discussions as we speak. I will let John, who is in the middle of it all, speak a bit more about that. We have identified potential Departments for each pillar, based on the types of interventions that are required and where policy remits sit. We will look to colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department of Education to work alongside us to try to prevent people from falling into poverty. Minimising the risk of poverty will involve the Department for Communities' welfare support schemes and everything else within our control. As well as having overarching responsibility, we will take responsibility for the Supporting People aspect. When it comes to moving people away from poverty, addressing economic inactivity and helping people, we are working very closely with partners in the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy. Cherrie outlined the severe budget constraints within which we are operating. We are looking at other opportunities for securing funding through the transformation fund and other such areas to help fund new ways in which to address the deep-rooted issues in Northern Ireland. John, do you want to talk about where we are at with the discussions?

Mr McCord: We have had a number of bilateral meetings throughout with our partners in other Departments, and we continue to have them. As we were developing, building and gathering strategic commitments, we had discussions with a number of them about taking that pillar responsibility. Those are not always easy discussions to have, and they are by no means complete, because, at times, people will take a step back and say, "We don't really think it's ours to lead on. We think it's somebody else's responsibility". That will then be for the overarching anti-poverty strategy board to determine. The head of the Civil Service has a strong view, from initial discussions with Emer and others, on how she will take the lead to identify lead Departments if we cannot get collegiate agreement. I am not saying that we will not be able to, but if we cannot get collegiate agreement, the anti-poverty strategy board will make the decision and appoint the permanent secretary/accounting officer from the relevant Department as the individual lead. We hope that we do not have to go down the route of the HOCS having to say, "You're the one". We hope to reach agreement instead.

Ms Morelli: It is important to stress that engagement is positive at the moment. We are in that period of discussion, but I would not want to assign a lead Department here before the advice is formalised.

Mr T Buchanan: When do you think that that work will be completed?

Ms Morelli: The intention at the moment is to have all Departments come together for a final symposium to have a general discussion about agreeing the final strategy for presentation to the Minister for Communities, and then to the Executive, for agreement. That final agreement has to be in place in April or May. As I said in my opening remarks, our expectation is that we will bring the strategy to the Minister for Communities for his consideration before June, having agreed it cross-departmentally at official level, after which we will seek the Executive's view.

Mr Burrows: The Committee has seen that, where delivery involves multiple Departments, accountability often becomes blurred and oversight breaks down. Is there a culture of buck-passing in the Civil Service when delivery is cross-departmental? If so, how do we ensure that that does not undermine delivery of the child poverty outcomes?

Ms Morelli: I would say, from my perspective, that there is not a culture of buck-passing. We need to be very clear, however, about where responsibility will be assigned, as part of the strategy, to individual Departments. With that responsibility comes accountability for the spend associated with the actions brought forward. Overarching responsibility for the strategy sits with the Department for Communities, and I, or the next permanent secretary, who will be in post shortly, will be in front of PAC to give a read-out and address what has happened in the interim.

The new model that we are looking at goes to the heart of roles and responsibilities in the Civil Service. There is individual responsibility, but there is collective responsibility for delivery. The structures are there, and we work within them, but we can no longer be impeded by them. We need to work collectively. I believe that there is a new approach being taken and a new way of working. It may well be that the anti-poverty strategy will be one of the first tests of that, and it will be a real test. That is where it has been very helpful to have had the recommendations from the PAC to drive some of the behaviours that we are trying to introduce and put into the strategy.

Viewed through that outside lens, people need the strategy to work. We have waited long enough for it. It has to be feasible, pragmatic and ambitious: all the good things that a strategy should be over its lifetime. It has to be delivered, however, and that delivery comes only through people taking individual responsibility. I am probably talking a little in circles again, but regarding your criticism, I do not think that people are buck-passing. Departments want to address the issue, and they have to address it.

The poverty piece is cross-departmental because poverty affects every Department's policies, its delivery and what it does. If we get it right, that can only help all Departments. It is not that there is a penalty —.

Mr Burrows: Someone once said:

You said yourself that it took the PAC to start asking questions —

Ms Morelli: I said that that was helpful, and it has been.

Mr Burrows: — before things started getting done.

Ms Morelli: I think that that is unfair. We appeared before the PAC for the first time last June.

Mr Burrows: Do you think that the MOR was acceptable?

Ms Morelli: No, and I have apologised for the MOR. More detail should have been provided at that time.

Mr Burrows: Why was it not? That is the question. If you had not been brought here today, would we have the detail? Is it therefore down to culture? If the detail was there but was not provided to the Committee, is that because of an inability to do an MOR or an unwillingness to do it? Is it a capacity or capability issue, or is it just a case of shrugging your shoulders and saying, "That is enough"? Why has the MOR come back to us with more detail?

Ms Morelli: It is fair to say that some of the detail that I have provided today has been secured since we issued the MOR. I know that it seems slow, but we have been working quite quickly since receiving the consultation responses in order to deliver the final draft of the strategy. The MOR should have contained more of the detail that was available to us at the time, and that should have been provided to you. That is something that we will take back with us. I know that other Departments will be watching this today and learn the lesson to put in as much detail as possible in at the time the request.

Mr Burrows: A cross-departmental commonality is the quality of MORs. I have raised that issue before.

Ms Morelli: I do not know.

Mr Burrows: Someone said, "We now need to look at training in writing MORs". That is where I come back to.

I have a question, and it is linked to general Civil Service performance. I appreciate that it deviates slightly from the issue being discussed. Recently, some answers to Assembly questions revealed that there are a high number of people on temporary contracts in the Civil Service. The number has risen by, I think, 76%. Does the fact that there is less corporate knowledge as a result of employee churn, with a lot of people on temporary contracts as opposed to permanent contracts, have an impact on the ability of the Civil Service to deliver things such as MORs?

Ms Morelli: In my view, no. A person is in a temporary position because they have the capability and capacity to deliver. They are tested before they are put into a temporary position.

Mr Burrows: I am talking about agency workers.

Ms Morelli: Do you mean agency staff across the entire Civil Service? I cannot comment, sorry. I am not quite sure of the question.

Mr Burrows: There has been an increase in the number of agency staff. Numbers have gone up by 76%. Is that linked to an inability to do things such as MORs correctly, or does it not have an effect on performance?

Ms Morelli: It is quite a leap to connect an increase in the number of agency workers with the capability of the Civil Service and its ability to do MORs. I will say that, thankfully, this is a relatively rare thing for a civil servant to do. We do not want to be in front of the Public Accounts Committee answering for what we have done. The teams that are involved in the MOR process will know what they are doing. They will have corporate knowledge. I disagree with the blanket statement that agency workers are affecting the quality of performance.

Mr Burrows: I do not blame individuals, because they are entitled to get a job and do a good job. I just wonder what the issue is. That is helpful. Thank you.

Miss Dolan: Thank you for coming here to present to us. You have advised the Committee that implementation and delivery of the strategy will be overseen by an anti-poverty strategy board. Has that board been established?

Ms Morelli: That was the proposal in the draft consultation document. We have received consultation responses on that. A board will not be ratified until the Executive are content. We also received responses that commented on other governance mechanisms that we are working through to provide advice to the Executive, and it will be for the Executive to decide the ultimate shape of that governance. The proposal that we have put forward is that one responds to a collective leadership requirement for senior civil servants across the Civil Service. It assigns responsibility across the board. It does not reduce accountability for delivery. As I said, we are not here in an attempt to dilute that in any way, but it does speak to a new way of working across Departments on an issue such as anti-poverty.

Miss Dolan: OK. Thank you. When it comes to the structure of the board and how often it will meet, is that up to you or the Executive to decide?

Ms Morelli: That, again, will be for the Executive to decide.

Miss Dolan: It is all for the Executive. When it comes to delivery against the strategy, how will Departments be held to account?

Ms Morelli: Again, that will be through the clear actions that will be set in the action plans underneath each pillar. They will be SMART, if that gives any comfort to the Committee. We will be looking very closely at that delivery, but, more importantly — this is the added layer — we need to make sure that those actions are the right actions to tackle the wider issue of poverty. We are trying to not fall back into a series of actions that are all delivered but do not change the position for people who are in poverty or the rates of poverty. That is where the complication arises, but, in my view, we now have sufficient data to have a more sophisticated modelling system. As I say, we have the ability, under an agile strategy, to flex up and down as we need to and to respond to other challenges, including environmental challenges, that we are facing. It is difficult. We are not working in isolation; we are working across the board to try to get the best model. It may not be the best model on day 1; it may have to be the best model six months or a year later.

Miss Dolan: OK. That is fair enough. What consideration has the Department given to mechanisms for independent monitoring?

Ms Morelli: Again, that was raised in the consultation responses. We are looking across other jurisdictions to try to identify best practice and understand the best advice that we can give to the Executive on the benefits and also any further barriers that could potentially emerge through independent monitoring. To speak to Mr Burrows's point, we have listened to the Committee. We do not want to have an over-bureaucratic model whereby we all go into process and process across the Civil Service to set up an independent body that we then serve as well. We need to make sure that whatever mechanism we have is agile and does not impede pace, unintentionally or not. We are providing advice to the Executive on the back of the consultation responses.

Miss Dolan: Are you committed to the establishment of an independent monitoring mechanism?

Ms Morelli: We are working through that at the moment, so I cannot say either way today. Again, it will be the Executive's decision.

Miss Dolan: Grand. Thank you very much.

Mr Wilson: Prior to my joining, this Committee welcomed the Department of Finance report on removing barriers to the Act, but, as we can see, concerns remain around outcomes and deadlines. What work is under way to address the findings of that report in the absence of clear outcomes and timelines?

Ms Morelli: The report on the Children’s Services Co-operation Act? Work is under way in respect of that Act. The general view is that a lot more could be done. We think that the anti-poverty strategy is a key vehicle to test the Act. The Department for Communities is responsible for the People and Place strategy, and, as part of that work, we have a test-and-learn pilot under way, which relies on the Children’s Services Co-operation Act at a local level to ensure that the transfer of moneys and the pooling of budgets can be practically demonstrated. That is a pilot at the moment, but, if it is deemed to be successful, it can be further extrapolated. I will turn to John, who provided evidence to our own committee this morning on this issue.

Mr McCord: Yes, on the Children’s Services Co-operation Act. Everybody will admit that, although the Act has been in place for over 10 years, the DOF report and the Committee's recommendation showed how little it has been used, but we believe that, as Emer said, the anti-poverty strategy and the People and Place strategy provide us with a unique opportunity to actually, albeit 10 years down the line, do practical tests on how it will work. The People and Place strategy sees itself as a main delivery mechanism for the anti-poverty strategy. It is about our neighbourhood renewal work. Teams have been sitting in local communities, working with councils and the other Departments on educational attainment, health issues and poverty issues, and trying to deliver local solutions.

As you will have seen in the report from DOF, phase 3 is really going to take off in April 2026. As Emer said, that is the practical test of pooling resources and seeing how effective that could be. Part of our monitoring mechanism in the anti-poverty strategy is about learning those lessons and extrapolating them out to a regional level. The anti-poverty strategy is a regional strategic framework, so it should take the best lessons that we can. We are pushing at an open door with the People and Place strategy, because that area of policy, programme and project delivery has been going for a number of years, so relationships with the other Departments are well built. That is how we hope to demonstrate that that strategy, which sits with our Department, and the overarching anti-poverty strategy will work.

Mr Wilson: Thanks for that. I welcome your mention of local councils. I am not long out of 20 years of local government, having been there before I moved up to the Assembly. It was good to hear you referring to local councils, because they are a vital part of community life.

Around the whole coexistence piece of the strategy, Jemma talked about the strategy's reactiveness. We look forward to its implementation. How reactive and responsive do you see it being? Worldwide, there is quite a lot of turmoil and disturbance, and there are forces that are outside the control of the average five-eighth. Families are having to be very reactive in their own circumstances. Tying together local councils and our Executive, how do you see future programmes and schemes — necessities will inevitably come up and have to be responded to across local and regional government. How will your strategy cope, how reactive will it be and, ultimately, who will assess its success?

Ms Morelli: The key opportunity that we have with the strategy is data. We have more data available to us now than we have ever had before. The expectation is that a lot more will become available to us. It is about using that to make sure that the right actions are prioritised under the strategy.

I fully take your point about the need for flexibility. People in poverty are the most vulnerable in society; they must be first in the line for protection. It is about how government, working with all our partners, does that. It is about strengthening relationships with councils and our community and voluntary sector partners on the ground. We have learned a lot through the COVID response. We were just saying outside that it has been six years since that response. We now have ways of working together and really strong relationships across the piece. The active dashboards, which will show where delivery is happening, what is happening and what is not working, will, I hope, allow for a more flexible turning off of things that are not working and a diverting to things that are. The emergency need will always be in front of us too. We are not, as I said, bringing forward a strategy in 2026 that we think will not change for another 10 years; it will have to change, because, by its nature, given the issues that it is dealing with, it has to be responsive.

Mr Wilson: Are you confident that it will be?

Ms Morelli: I am. The work that we are doing now to put as much detail and thinking into those very issues before we bring the strategy for final Executive agreement should pay dividends. As I said, if I am wrong, or if the strategy needs to be adjusted, we will take those actions.

Mr Wilson: I am doing a disservice to the colleagues whom I left behind a few months ago. How do you feel that councils will respond to it, particularly given the opportunities that could arise? How well do you feel they will be brought along?

Mr McCord: I think that they will react very positively. I say that because, during the public consultation exercise, we did a couple of sessions with Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) members, local councils and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). We got great feedback, and a lot of good information came in to us. Also, it opened up further for us those conversations to engage them in the process and bring them on board. Colleagues from SOLACE were before the Committee for Communities last week to discuss the anti-poverty strategy and how we make those links.

We are very clear. We are developing a regional strategic framework within the anti-poverty strategy. That is effectively what the strategy does, but we know that solving poverty is more often best delivered at a very local level. There are different issues across localities, and one size does not fit all. At the heart of the conversations during the consultation exercises with NILGA, SOLACE and others was how to link the regional with the local strategies, policies and programmes that they do. That is already being fed into our structures and how we will take this forward.

I think that they will respond very positively. As you know, coming from local government is always a challenge. Sometimes, there is a little bit of friction between local and central government. We think that it is a strong opportunity. There are other areas where we are already doing it. The community planning partnerships are a strong vehicle that we can use. There are the People and Place initiatives, where we are already working closely with councils on neighbourhood renewal. It is about building on all that to make sure that all those strands link and that we are delivering at all levels.

Mr Honeyford: I will say at the outset that I am not buying it. I am really concerned that we are not serious about a child poverty strategy and actually tackling the issue. This is the first quarter of 2026. You are talking about the first quarter of 2027. That is exactly a year from now, without slippage. There is no more pressing issue than this. The recent rise in fuel prices is going to add to this. It is the cost of fuel for heating your home, the cost of food, it is everything. One of the starkest things I remember during the evidence session was a four-year-old child who was 25% behind in development. That was a year of their life. We are creating a barrier before they have even got started. I have come from the Economy brief, and we are creating barriers here.

I have genuinely listened to you. You said that you learned a lot from COVID-19. I am going to walk through what was said before and what was said now. You said that you have strong relationships and an active dashboard and are working at the heart of local agencies. In the original evidence session, the voluntary and community sector said that there was no co-design. That was blunt for us. We were told that there was a massive breakdown in relationships. I asked why, and the answer was, "We know that we need to fix it". Has it been fixed?

Ms Morelli: To answer the first point, it is in June this year that the strategy will be brought.

Mr Honeyford: Yes, but you said that it was January in the first quarter of 2027.

Ms Morelli: Sorry, no. It is the first quarter of 2026-27, sorry, so it is in June this year.

Mr Honeyford: OK.

Ms Morelli: Apologies, I should have been clearer.

We extended the consultation process to 14 weeks. We went out to meet as many people as we could. We still have difficulties. The draft strategy did cause a lot of concern, and we are the first to acknowledge that concern. The consultation responses were very detailed. We have taken the time to work through them and deliver them. We know that we have a lot of relationship-mending to do, and we are still on that journey. To be frank, until the final strategy is available for review, we may still receive a lot of criticism. We are working to build a strategy in a time of severe financial constraint, and we will not be able to meet all the demands placed on the strategy and all the questions asked of it. I assure you that we are taking the time between the consultation closing —. If we can get the strategy before June, we will do it before June, but we are working to have a strategy that people can recognise and understand is useful and will do something. We are also trying to work through the budget process to secure as much as we can through that period, but I cannot say today that all stakeholders —

Mr Honeyford: I am talking about relationships.

Ms Morelli: — are happy and that the relationships are all there.

Mr Honeyford: Money is not in this. There is no money whatsoever involved in building relationships. You said a minute ago that you have learnt a lot and that there are really strong relationships. The co-design group developed its own recommendation paper completely independently from the Department. Before that was released, the group said they had not had any engagement with the Communities Minister or Department officials. No engagement. When you were sitting in front of us last year, you said that that would be fixed as a priority.

Ms Morelli: The Minister met representatives of the co-design group before the consultation launched and after we had given our evidence.

Mr Honeyford: Before the group's consultation launched? Are you telling me that what they told us is not accurate?

Ms Morelli: Our consultation?

Mr Honeyford: No. Their consultation was in September 2025. They released it in September 2025, and the quote from them was that they did not have any engagement with the Communities Minister or the Department.

Ms Morelli: We met them, and the Minister met them, before our consultation.

Mr Honeyford: When was your consultation?

Ms Morelli: Our consultation launched in June.

Ms Arnold: It was 17 June.

Mr Honeyford: OK. Well, the information that has been sent to us suggests that they did not have any engagement with the Communities Minister or departmental officials.

Mr McCord: I will refute that on the basis that, prior to consultation, representatives of the former co-design group met the Minister. We will confirm the dates for you.

Mr Honeyford: I do not care about the dates; I care that the engagement is happening.

Mr McCord: As we were starting the public consultation process, we met a range of subgroups made up of members of the co-design group.

Mr Honeyford: The group say that they had some engagement after they released their —.

Ms Morelli: I was at the meeting with the Minister and the co-design groups before the consultation launched. As John said, we will get the details of that meeting.

Mr Honeyford: The last time you were here, I also talked about the voice of the child. We were talking about child poverty, and nobody had thought to ask the children their opinion. I was told that improvements would be made to the process that would mean that there is better direct engagement. Talk us through the improvements that have made the children —.

Mr McCord: This is an overarching anti-poverty strategy; it is not solely focused on child poverty. In advance of and during the consultation, we talked to Children in Northern Ireland and the Children's Policy Forum about how we take that forward. As we have said, when it comes to the response around this, as we move forward, recommendation 10 or 11 is about how we engage the lived experience. Children will be included in that, and we are still working through how we will do that.

Mr Honeyford: What you are telling me is that nothing has happened.

Mr McCord: No, we did not say that nothing has happened. What has happened between us being with you then and now is that we have issued the paper to the Executive; we did that last March. We went out to consultation, and we have done the summary of responses to the public consultation. Some of the other actions that we need to take, based on your recommendations, were not going to be undertaken as part of this process; they will be undertaken in line with that. As I said, in response to recommendation 10 or 11 — whichever it is; sorry, I do not have a comprehensive list — when it comes to proactively engaging with organisations and those with lived experience, in line with the PAC recommendation, the engagement strategy will be completed within six months of the launch of the anti-poverty strategy. We need to hear the voices of children and those who are in poverty.

Ms Morelli: Can I give you some assurance? We have had public engagement sessions with Barnardo's, Children in Northern Ireland, Voice of Young People in Care and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People. We also attended the Children's Policy Forum as part of the consultation process and provided a briefing to the young people there. We are engaged across the other jurisdictions, including with colleagues in DWP, who are working on how vulnerable people and the voice of the user can be more built into its systems. We are learning lessons there. We are learning lessons from Scotland, which is recognised as a European leader in engagement with people who are living in poverty and the people to whom we need to reach out. We are not rushing either. I give this assurance: the Committee gave us six months to develop this, and we are taking that time to get it right. We will be engaged. I am not saying today that we have solved all our relationships across our stakeholder groups. We have not; it is an ongoing piece of work. However, we have put energy into it, we are engaged and we will do all that we can to drive this forward, but I cannot say, as I walk out of here today, that everyone is happy and content with the Department. They are not.

Mr Honeyford: I get that, but you are asking another part of the Civil Service. You are not talking to the people on the ground, and that is the point. I quote again what was said back, "People will see that we are reaching out and we want general engagement. The relationships will be repaired." That has not happened.

Ms Morelli: If the Committee is content, we are happy to bring the engagement strategy back so that members can see what steps we are taking.

Mr Honeyford: That would be helpful. From the papers that I have seen, you have attended events. That is not the same thing as going out and talking to people.

Ms Morelli: We appreciate that, and that is why we are trying to get the best models and learn across. We are taking the time to do that.

Mr Honeyford: This is urgent. Taking time? Every answer so far has been: "What to", "How we can", "If we can". It is always in the future tense: you might do some time, once upon a time.

Ms Morelli: We have given you a clear timeline today.

Mr Honeyford: It is literally like 'Jackanory'. I am telling you. This is not what has happened. The change has not happened. We have kids in poverty, and they are not getting the help and support that they need.

Ms Morelli: We have given a timescale today. We are aiming for the June deadline to bring the advice to our Minister, as fully informed as it can be by all the work that we have done, the consultation process and our engagement with stakeholders. The test will then be as to whether it is sufficient and fit for purpose and the Executive as a whole are content to agree it. We are trying to balance pragmatism, delivery and making sure that we are focused on the right things to help turn the curve.

Mr Honeyford: The completion and the list of organisations that actually deliver the service that have not been communicated with in any way: is that part of that process? Will we see who you are engaging with?

Ms Morelli: That will be part of the engagement plan.

Mr Honeyford: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you, David and Emer. Cathal, you were looking in.

Mr Boylan: Yes, Chair. I think that the question has been answered, but I will ask it anyway. We welcome the former councillor, now the new MLA, onto the Committee. He is fighting hard for the council. He and I were on the council together. Councils play a big role. I say that in the context that we all have council colleagues, and it is good to see that. There are a lot of other stakeholders and organisations involved, but I know that you mentioned SOLACE and NILGA, Mr McCord. I hope that those are positive steps, because they do a lot of work that is sometimes not appreciated. I like the idea of the new approach and the new way of working. I have taken a note of that, Emer. Gareth mentioned it, but I agree with the comments on the role of councils.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Cathal, we appreciate that very much. Emer, is there anything else that you would like to add?

Ms Morelli: I thank Committee members for their time this afternoon. We will take the points made and the very clear advice from the Committee and make good on our commitments in respect of the actions that we have set out today.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you. Stuart, is there anything that you would like to add?

Mr Stuart Stevenson (Department of Finance): I have a brief comment, or rather an observation. This is an unusual set of circumstances for me, certainly, in my eight years as TOA, I do not think that this Committee has followed up on a 12-month update on an MOR before. It is particularly helpful. It has focused attention on the importance of getting more detail and clarity in those responses. I think that Ms Morelli used those words today. It is a takeaway for me in terms if guidance for other Departments so that when they provide their annual update to this Committee, we get more detail to demonstrate the steps that have been taken and more clarity around timescales for the future. That is important.

I am thinking about Mr Burrows's comment about passing the buck. Once the formal MOR is laid eight weeks after a report is published, our focus in the Department of Finance in some ways pivots to the internal processes in Departments. It is maybe timely to remind the Committee that we maintain a database — we call it the "accountability grids" — with quarterly updates from each Department on all outstanding recommendations internally. Once a year, we ask accounting officers to sign off on those updates. That information is also shared annually with NIAO. It is important to remember that that process takes place. My observation from the discussions and exchanges today is that it is helpful for all accounting officers and Departments to know that there is an expectation from the Public Accounts Committee that progress will be made in a timely manner and to the standards that we expect coming out of the recommendations. That is particularly helpful. We will certainly look to weave that into our general accountability and governance guidance that goes out to accounting officers.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you for that, Stuart. That is very reassuring. It is appreciated by the Committee. Thanks for sharing that with us.

I thank everyone for their evidence today. As a Committee, we look forward to continued engagement with the Department as work progresses. The Committee's position is very clear. It is very evident from today that we have great concern about this. The scale of child poverty in Northern Ireland demands immediate, measurable action, not general intentions or prolonged delays. That message has been well made at this point. We expect the gaps highlighted today on targets, governance, costings and engagement to be addressed without further drift. The Committee will monitor progress closely. We will not hesitate to recall officials if we do not see timely or concrete movement on the issues. That having been said, we appreciate your time with us today. We know that things are challenging for the Department, but this is an area of deep concern for us, as elected representatives and members of this Committee.

Emer, I thank you in particular for the work that you have been doing. I was very happy to hear of your appointment as incoming permanent secretary for DFI. From the engagement that we have had with you during my time as Chair, and from even my time with the Committee for Communities, I have always been very impressed. I wish you well. I am looking forward to engaging with you when you take up your post in the Department for Infrastructure. We look forward to working with you. Please fix the potholes on the A5. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: Chair, is this a Tyrone thing, or what is going on? [Laughter.]

We are way outside the remit of the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): It is not even about the A5; just fix the potholes. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: God almighty.

Ms Morelli: I will do my best.

Mr Boylan: Is it DFC or DFI? Come on, Jon; jump in and give us a hand.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thanks very much, Emer, and I thank your colleagues as well. I sincerely wish you well in your new post. I am very excited about some of the new appointments to those very senior roles across Departments. We are looking forward to engaging with you in the time ahead. I thank all of you for being with us today.