Official Report: Monday 23 September 2024

Mr Speaker: The usual rules apply.

Mr Martin: I would like to highlight the amazing work of the Donaghadee Heritage Preservation Company in conserving and then building on the legacy of the Donaghadee lifeboat, Sir Samuel Kelly. In 1953, the Sir Samuel Kelly performed a historic rescue when, under extreme weather conditions, it saved 33 of the 44 survivors from the wreck of the Stranraer ferry, MV Princess Victoria. On its retirement in 1980, the lifeboat was acquired by the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, but the museum lacked the resources to care for the boat. Volunteers transported it back to its home in Donaghadee, where it is now looked after by the Donaghadee Heritage Preservation Company. This new company had the objective of not just conserving the boat but building a heritage and visitor centre in Donaghadee, of which the Sir Samuel Kelly could be a focal point.

A shelter over the lifeboat was put in place in 2019, paid for entirely by local subscriptions. The boat has since been repainted, but it remains in a temporary shelter. Last year, the company received a grant of £90,000 for two years from the National Lottery to build an exhibition room outside the boat and employ an outreach worker to bring the project to the attention of local schools and the local community.

The Donaghadee Heritage Preservation Company is focused on its objective of finding a permanent home for the lifeboat. Ards and North Down Borough Council's master plan for the town included a visitors' centre, and the company is now pressing the council, which owns the boat, to come to a decision about where that centre should be. Increasing numbers of visitors, including schoolchildren and older people, mean that it is imperative that the Kelly site be provided with appropriate infrastructure. The company has only four years left on its lease, so there is, naturally, a time imperative.

The project has enormous social, cultural and economic potential. It has a strong management board, which has been ably demonstrated by how it has raised financial support, and a team of amazing volunteers who staff the centre, act as tour guides and do minor restorations to the boat. I commend the project to colleagues, and I hope that the relevant Departments, which are Communities from the heritage perspective and Economy from the view of tourism and economic development, will lend their active support. I would welcome discussions with both Ministers.

Ms Flynn: I am not sure if Members tuned in to the boxing fights that took place on Saturday night, but I am so proud to stand in the Chamber today to congratulate the boxing world champion, Anthony Cacace. Anthony and I grew up in the same part of Andersonstown in west Belfast. We went to the same youth club at St Agnes's just beside Holy Child Primary School, and little did we all know then, when we were growing up alongside each other, that we were growing up alongside a world champion. Anto, on behalf of Sinn Féin and West Belfast, I say that you are an absolute credit to our community. We are so proud of you.

Only a few short months ago, in May, the "Andytown Apache" pulled off a stunning world title win when he defeated his opponent and won the International Boxing Federation (IBF) superfeatherweight title. On Saturday night, our world champion again defeated Josh Warrington in Wembley Arena, successfully holding on to his world title. I have no doubt that friends, neighbours and supporters will again gather in their hundreds tonight at Anthony's parents' home in Andytown to give him the hero's homecoming that he deserves as the undefeated and unbeaten boxing champion of the world.

Anto is a humble, down-to-earth person and a hard worker who is dedicated to his sport. He is now rightly a hero to the people of Andytown and particularly to our young people. Maith thú, a Anto.

Your hard work, passion and perseverance have made you a hero in the eyes of the children from our area and from across the island. In an interview following his win at the weekend, Anto said that he is doing everyone in Belfast — north, south, east and west — proud. He is doing everyone in Ireland proud and everyone in Italy, where his father is from. That means the world to him.

To Mickey Hawkins and all the team who have helped Anto and who help so many other young people in our community, you are all amazing. What you do with our young people does not go unnoticed. I hope that everyone enjoys the celebrations and that Anto gets some well-deserved rest before his next big fight. We are all very proud of you, Anto. Maith thú

to the "Andytown Apache".

Mr McMurray: I rise to speak about the vandalism that was visited on the carriages and property of the Downpatrick and County Down Railway museum. On Friday afternoon, a group of individuals broke into the grounds and began vandalising a number of carriages. That is particularly galling to me, as I park in the shadow of those carriages at the museum when I am in the town, and I missed those individuals by a matter of moments.

It is also an unbelievably depressing setback for the museum, which is run by a group of volunteers that is just getting on top of things after the floods last year, which also caused significant damage. When you read about and hear and see the dedication that the volunteers put in to restore the carriages to allow them to take to the tracks, it makes the vandalism all the more difficult to fathom. Varnishing, paintwork, metalwork, mechanic work, engineering, groundworks and gardening are some of the long jobs that go in to preparing the site, but they were undone in a matter of mindless minutes. A carriage from 1955 that had only recently been restored came in for particular attention from the vandals.

The quick response from the PSNI in dealing with the matter was also mentioned to me, and I pass on my thanks to local officers for dealing with the incident. However, it appears that there needs to be some clarification of the trespass laws in relation to railways in order to ensure that the PSNI can be more confident in acting on them.

The group was grateful for a visit from Minister O'Dowd over the summer. If any action or correspondence can be made on the matter, they would be most grateful.

I want to finish with some positives. The members of the group have been so uplifted by the community response since the actions became public. Messages of support and donations have been incoming constantly. Only last week, the group celebrated the 20th anniversary of the line being open between Downpatrick and Inch Abbey. While the vandalism is difficult to get your head around, I do not doubt the motivation and dedication that the volunteers will show to repair the damage.

Dr Aiken: The vile, endemic nature of anti-Semitism has been further demonstrated across the island in the past week. While the public support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah on bridges in Dublin is bad enough, two other incidents are perhaps equally troubling. First, on 20 September, 'The Irish Times' published a cartoon that members of our Jewish community rightly called a "malevolent trope", redolent of the hideous use of the Jewish caricature that has been part of the anti-Semitic imagery for centuries and Nazi propaganda — not my words but those of the Jewish community. Furthermore, 'The Irish Times', which calls itself a "paper of record", would not publish a letter of complaint from Holocaust Awareness Ireland against the cartoonist's anti-Semitic bile. We then had the bizarre example of the Irish president, first, writing to the new Iranian president congratulating him on his election without even mentioning the malign influence that Iran has in the Middle East and Sudan or, indeed, in its support for Russia. Then, he complained in New York that a secret letter had been leaked by the Israeli embassy, blaming Israel for the letter he wrote and somehow implying that it had been stolen from his office. That was despite the fact that it was welcomed and published online by the Iranian embassy in Dublin.

All racism is bad, but anti-Semitism is the oldest and vilest form of hate. That it is aided and abetted by cartoon tropes redolent of 1930s Germany and a president who falsely maligns Israel just shows how deeply rooted the scourge of anti-Semitism has become on this island. It is well beyond time that that racist behaviour is stopped, and, rest assured, all the anti-Semites on this island, you will not win. Washington, Brussels and other capitals around the world have now taken note of how prevalent such hate speech has become on this island.

Mr McGrath: Saturday past marked International Day of Peace, and, while we are mindful of the conflicts happening around the world today, it is an opportunity for us to reflect on our conflict and journey towards peace and a prosperous society, which has yet to be realised. Our peace process stands as a testament to what can be achieved when communities choose unity over conflict. While much has changed and been achieved in Northern Ireland since 1998, sadly, deep-rooted division, violence and mistrust continue.

The riots in Belfast over the summer made it clear that there is still a way to travel to deliver a peaceful and integrated society. We must ensure that all voices are heard and no community is left behind in a truly reconciled and peaceful society. The benefits and dividends of peace must deliver for everyone. We welcome the inclusion of peace in the Programme for Government as a positive development, but the true test will be how the Executive work to achieve it.

The Peace Summit Partners, including the John and Pat Hume Foundation, YouthAction NI, Holywell Trust, Ulster University, Integrated Education Fund and the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation, have a clear and urgent message. Their work, through conversations and events with communities and stakeholder organisations over the last two years, has revealed the extent to which issues caused by the conflict still sadly affect our society and, in particular, our young people.

That is why the Peace Summit Partners are issuing a call to action, asking all of us to join them in that work and asking Departments to embed peace and reconciliation at the heart of Executive policy. We must all work together to tackle the lingering effects of the past while striving to build an inclusive, safe, reconciled and prosperous society.

Mr K Buchanan: During the past weeks, we have heard much about culture. This week, 21 to 28 September, marks Orange Heritage Week. The timing of Orange Heritage Week has historical and cultural relevance, commencing on the anniversary of the formation of the institution in 1795 and finishing on Ulster Day, 28 September, the anniversary of the signing in 1912 of the Ulster covenant by unionists in opposition to home rule.

It is important to have an understanding of your heritage and culture, and this week gives people the opportunity to delve deeper into the culture and heritage of the Orange Order. I am proud of my heritage and culture and to be a member of the Orange Order. I ask others to respect my culture in the same way as they ask me to respect theirs and as everyone should respect the culture of minority groups in Northern Ireland.

Various events will take place this week, in person and virtually, and people will have the opportunity to learn about the origins of the Orange Order and how it has developed. It is about more than just wearing a sash or collarette on 12 July and walking to the field. It is about community, friendship and upholding morals and the right of religious freedom for all. This week is an opportunity to create a greater understanding and increased acceptance of the institution, serving to nurture better community relations.

Mr McHugh: Éirím inniu a labhairt ar an ghéarchéim leanúnach sa chóras cúraim práinne agus éigeandála.

Táthar ag cur crua ar an fhoireann, agus tá sábháilteacht na n-othar agus na foirne á cur i mbaol in Otharlann Alt Mhic Dhuibhleacháin gach lá dá dtagann.

Bhí duine ó mo thoghcheantar féin i dteagmháil liom ar na mallaibh faoina mháthair, bean atá i gceann a ceithre scór bliain d'aois. Chaith sí 38 uair an chloig ar chathaoir san aonad éigeandála ag fanacht le dochtúir a fheiceáil. Chuaigh an bhean seo faoi scian ar na mallaibh, agus bhí sí i bpian de dheasca aicíd a chuaigh i bhfeadánacht inti. Ar an drochuair di, i ndiaidh í a bheith ag fanacht le 38 uair an chloig, bheartaigh a clann gurbh fhearr í a thabhairt chun an bhaile, nó ba léir go raibh scíste de dhíth uirthi agus ba léir nach raibh sí ag dul a fheiceáil dochtúra.

Bhí an scéal céanna agam ó dhuine eile an tseachtain seo caite. Scéal coitianta atá anois ann sna hotharlanna againn. Níor chóir gur gnáthrud é fuireachas fada a bheith ar dhaoine atá anonn in aois agus atá ag fulaingt, agus níor chóir glacadh leis sin in am ar bith.

Tá foireann dhíograiseach, dhícheallach, fhriothálach sa chóras sláinte agus cúraim shóisialta againn, ach, ar an drochuair, tá siad á gcur taobh thall dá gcumas ag na héilimh atá ar an tseirbhís.

Tá gá le hinfheistíocht sa chóras sláinte. Tá na seirbhísí poiblí againn ar an dé deiridh. Níl ach dóigh amháin a ndéanfar cistiú ceart i seirbhís na sláinte, mar atá, Rialtas na Breataine maoiniú a thabhairt faoi dheireadh thiar thall do bhuiséad an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin ar bhonn leibhéal an riachtanais.

Iarraim ar an Aire Sláinte a bheith ag obair i gcomhar lena chomhghleacaithe ar an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin lena chur ina luí ar Rialtas na Breataine go bhfuil cistiú ceart de dhíth.

Mrs Dodds: As vice chair of the all-party group on childcare and early education, I am delighted to say that almost 12,000 children in Northern Ireland are now registered with, and their families benefiting from, the childcare subsidy scheme. That includes 880 children from my Upper Bann constituency, and I am delighted that, after Lagan Valley and South Belfast, Upper Bann has the highest take-up across the Province, accounting for 8% of all those who registered.

In our election manifesto, we promised help for hard-pressed families. Childcare and the cost of childcare has been identified as an area that we need to tackle if we are to help families and improve our economic prosperity. Families' receipt of a 15% reduction in monthly childcare bills has been a significant help to them, and the Minister has worked quickly and efficiently to get this scheme out. The number of people who are signing up for the childcare scheme reinforces how important an issue this is, not just in Upper Bann but right across Northern Ireland. I look forward to Executive colleagues supporting the provision of more funding so that the scheme can be extended and we can fulfil our early education promise of 22·5 hours for every child right across Northern Ireland.

The scheme has been helped by the work and assistance of 1,300 childcare providers, including day care, childminders and playgroups, that have signed up and made it accessible to parents so quickly. They should be congratulated on their work and help and the effort that they have put in. I look forward to a more extensive affordable childcare scheme. I am glad that we have got this far. The Minister and the Department are to be congratulated for doing this. We now need to ensure that we extend the scheme to others.

Ms Mulholland: I rise to talk about an issue that has impacted over 185,000 people in Northern Ireland to date: the five-week wait for the initial universal credit (UC) payment. As I have highlighted before in the Chamber, that five-week wait is not an inadvertent issue; it is an explicit feature of the universal credit system that is forcing people into poverty, into hunger and to live in cold homes. Hopelessness is around every corner in Northern Ireland. We have known about this issue for years. We have had countless reviews, research papers and column inches highlighting the devastating impact of the five-week wait on some of our most vulnerable families, yet successive Communities Ministers in Northern Ireland have made negligible progress on fixing it. Universal credit claimants have no more time to wait.

Today, my party has published our own solutions to address the problem. Our paper sets out a detailed series of proposals to mitigate the worst impacts of the five-week wait in the short term and to eradicate it as far as we possibly can for new claimants in the long term. We call for an increased budget for the Universal Credit Contingency Fund and steps to extend the eligibility criteria for that fund to ensure that people who need help are aware of how they can apply to get it. We call for a longer repayment term on the universal credit advance payments and a minimum floor on deductions, so that those monthly deductions do not leave local claimants struggling to put food on the table or stuck in a cycle of debt from the beginning of their universal credit journey.

We want to see a two-week run-on of child tax credit for people migrating to universal credit, as exists with other legacy benefits. Over half of universal credit claimants in Northern Ireland are parents. It makes no sense that the system of run-on support would explicitly exclude support for children. Finally, we want to see a system backdating the payments introduced for new universal credit claimants' first assessment period, so that those who are eligible can receive much quicker, sometimes even immediate, payments when they first apply for universal credit — rather than being forced to wait five weeks with no payment and, potentially, little or no alternative sources of income.

Our proposals could finally address the five-week wait and deliver the responsive benefit system that UC claimants here deserve. I urge the Minister to consider our ideas and to work with DWP in Westminster to deliver them.

Miss McIlveen: In the Climate Change Act, which came into effect on 6 June 2022, there is, among other targets, a requirement that at least 70% of waste is to be recycled. The recycling rate between January and March 2024 was 46·4%. The AERA Minister wants us to reach 74% through the proposals set out in his consultation.

While there are various types of reusable nappies on the market, disposable nappies are still the most attractive option for parents. At present, the only bin that can take those disposable nappies is the grey bin, so they go straight into landfill. It has been estimated that nappy waste equates to around 3% to 4% of the residual waste going to our landfills: nearly 40,000 tons per year. Wales is the only country in the UK to have reached the 50% household recycling target.

In fact, Wales has achieved a 59% recycling rate, with Pembrokeshire County Council being the best-performing local authority, reaching an amazing 73·2%. Interestingly, Wales operates an opt-in nappy collection service through its local authorities that extends beyond nappies to other absorbent hygiene products.

Nappies contain recyclable materials, such as cellulose fibres and plastics, that are being thrown away in Northern Ireland. Members may be aware of a trial in Wales a couple of years ago, where nappy fibres were added to the bitumen on asphalt roads, and those roads were shown to last twice as long as other roads. Carmarthenshire County Council now resurfaces its roads with that product, hailing it as a prime example of the local circular economy in action.

Nappies have been collected in Wales since 2009. They are recycled in Japan, the Netherlands and Canada. How disappointing was it, then, to find that there was no mention of nappy recycling when the Minister consulted on his waste strategy to align with the targets under the Climate Change Act? When I raised the issue of nappy collection and recycling services with the Minister in questions for written answer, it seemed to be something that might be of interest to him, which pleased me, as I want to see the issue taken forward. The Minister's response, however, was that he would be reactive if local authorities were to raise the issue, yet is something that he as Minister should be driving from the centre. The recycling of nappy fibres presents the Minister for Infrastructure with an opportunity to access longer-lasting and more cost-effective road surfacing at a time when there is continued chronic underinvestment in our roads. It is also an opportunity for the AERA Minister to take a massive step towards diverting tens of thousands of tons of recyclable waste away from landfill sites. We need both Ministers to be innovative, not just managers of budgets.

Mr Butler: I echo the frustrations felt by the many disabled people, including my colleague Andy Allen MLA, who bravely continue to speak out against the inequalities that persist in our society. It is outrageous that, in 2024, basic rights and access that most of us take for granted are still denied to disabled individuals. It is a stain on those who profit from their activities whilst neglecting their responsibilities to all their customers.

Take airlines, for example. Time and time again, we see them make headlines for that very reason. It is unacceptable that, despite adequate notice of the need for assistance, my colleague Andy was told that he could not fly from Birmingham to Belfast yesterday, that his luggage would be removed from the flight and that the plane would take off without him. That is simply not good enough. He has had to spend time away from his family and the Chamber. The fact that such situations occur even when clear communication has been made shows how deeply flawed airlines' systems are.

Disabled people deserve to be treated with the same respect, dignity and consideration as everyone else. Andy's experience should challenge each of us to demand better, not just from airlines but from every service provider and institution. I commend Andy for raising the issue publicly, and I hope that his doing so encourages other disabled people to do the same, but, as legislators, we must do more. We cannot allow those inequalities to persist. I look forward to the disability strategy, which, I hope, will be introduced during the mandate, being a crucial step towards addressing the barriers and injustices that disabled people still face today. The time for change is long overdue, Let us ensure that it finally happens.

Mr Brett: I am delighted to congratulate Midland Boxing Club in my constituency, which marked the 50th anniversary of its operation this year. Midland Boxing Club will be known to many right across Belfast and Northern Ireland. It was formed by the legendary Billy McKee MBE, 50 years ago.

Billy formed the club with no money and no premises. His wife and family did not particularly welcome the establishment of the club at the time, but he devoted over 40 years to improving the lives and outcomes of people right across North Belfast. Billy is well known for producing some of the greatest boxers that Northern Ireland has ever seen. Carl Frampton and Paddy Barnes both credit their career and achievements to Billy's work.

For many years, Billy rightly campaigned for a new boxing club in the heart of Tiger's Bay. It was with deep sadness that, in February 2021, Billy passed away before he saw his dream of a new fit-for-purpose boxing club for the people of North Belfast delivered.

I am delighted that, just two months ago, that new £1 million boxing club — named, rightly, after Billy McKee — was opened by his wife. It will provide opportunities to the next generation of boxers from all classes, creeds and backgrounds to ensure that they can continue to have the best outcomes imaginable in life. I pay tribute to Sam Cochrane, Mr Craig Frampton and Cooper McClure for working with our party to make that dream a reality. Let it be Billy's epitaph in this fiftieth year that any boy or girl anywhere in Belfast can achieve their dreams, representing their country at the highest level.

Ms Forsythe: In the past year, sickness leave in the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) has cost £44 million in direct salary costs. That is an increase of £5 million on the previous year, 2023, when it cost £39 million. Previously, in 2022, it cost £38·6 million. That is a cost of over £121 million in the past three years. It is a huge, recurring and increasing cost to our Northern Ireland Budget. We have a serious issue that needs to be given serious attention and scrutiny. That reported cost does not include wider arm's-length bodies and other bodies in the public sector, and it does not include the cost of agency staff, consultants or staff on temporary promotions to cover the absences, so the real full cost is much more.

There is a problem here. As elected representatives, we owe it to the taxpayers to investigate what is going on, and we owe it to the civil servants to investigate the root cause of the issues. Many civil servants have highlighted specific pressures in the Civil Service to me and expressed frustration at their not being investigated. I genuinely believe that there are multiple factors at play, but the issue needs to be addressed immediately.

The Finance Minister is responsible for HR in the Civil Service. When I asked what she had done to address this year's reported increase in sick pay, she referred to the overarching NICS health and well-being framework and stated that reducing sickness absence is a priority for the Civil Service. Whilst welcome, that is not enough. Immediate action is needed.

We face a crisis in our Civil Service. High levels of sickness absence, alongside over 3,200 vacant posts reported, is putting the delivery of our public services under immense pressure. At a time of extreme Budget pressures, we cannot afford to sit back as a recurring, increasing cost — now reaching £44 million per year — hits our public purse. We hear public sector transformation and Civil Service reform discussed regularly as a big strategic objective, but let us get serious and take action in delivering some of that transformation. We need a reform of how our Civil Service operates at every level. Our civil servants should not be left short-staffed or reporting high levels of sickness. That is an indicator of serious problems, and it needs to be addressed now. The cost is too high. We need to see action.

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee agreed that the motion should be treated as a business motion with no debate. I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Dr Archibald: Today's Final Stage concludes the financial legislative process for the Budget (No. 2) Bill in the Assembly. The debate at the Second Stage of the Bill on 2 July was valuable, and I thank all Members for the contributions that they have brought to the process.

As Members may recall, a 65% Vote on Account for 2024-25 was agreed by the Assembly on 9 April. That Vote on Account provided finance to allow existing services to continue in 2024-25, pending consideration of appropriate legislation to meet the full expenditure for 2024-25 — the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Main Estimates for 2024-25 relate to the supply of cash and use of resources for the current year and are based on the departmental spending plans as set out in the Executive's 2024-25 Budget, which was agreed on 25 April. As Members may recall, demand for allocations far outstripped the funding available for 2024-25, and we did not have the Budget to do everything that we would have wanted to do in order to provide the public services that people deserve.

The 2024-25 Budget was agreed by the Assembly on 24 May following extensive debate. I will not repeat the same detail now, as today's focus is to complete the passage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Main Estimates for 2024-25 were laid in the Assembly on 19 June alongside the Statement of Excesses, and both were debated and agreed by the Assembly on 1 July. The Budget (No. 2) Bill reflects the same position. The Bill provides the vital legislative authority for expenditure by Departments and other bodies, as set out in the agreed Estimates, and authorises the use of resources and sums issued from the Consolidated Fund for previous years, as detailed in the Statement of Excesses.

While the debate is on the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill and relates to the Main Estimates as laid in June, I will talk briefly about the in-year position. I have spoken previously about the difficult budgetary position that the Executive find themselves in at this point, and Members will be well aware of the challenges that we face. The response to the urgent information-gathering exercise that I commissioned from Departments identified a reported £767 million of unfunded pressures. I have said that I am willing to allocate £500 million to Departments to help them to manage those pressures. That £500 million represents the anticipated level of additional Barnett consequentials to the Executive for the rest of the year, a figure that was arrived at through proactive engagement with Treasury on the likely direction of travel on Barnett. Clearly, that will not meet the full level of pressures that are being forecast, but I believe that it is important to give Departments as much certainty as I can as early as I can to enable them to take the decisions to live within their Budget allocations.

The consequences of not living within our Budget are well understood, and I will not repeat them all here, except to say that they include the potential to jeopardise many of the gains made by parties in the financial package that accompanied the return of the Executive, as well as the interim fiscal framework that I agreed with Treasury. The Executive's funding envelope for 2025-26 will not be known until the end of October, but I anticipate that it will be challenging, and any overspend this year will make a bad situation considerably worse. I intend shortly to bring a paper to the Executive with proposals for allocating the £500 million, and I hope to get Executive agreement. It is vital that each Department take the necessary action to live within their budget once those allocations are agreed.

My Department has also developed a Budget sustainability plan that will be presented to Executive colleagues shortly. The plan will be a first step in a more ambitious programme of work that will help to set public services on a more sustainable footing. The interim fiscal framework agreed that the 24% needs-based adjustment factor would apply from the date of restoration. That will have resulted in an additional £160 million for the Executive by year end based on the assumed level of £500 million of Barnett consequentials that I referred to.

I am determined to continue to press the British Government to ensure that public services are sustainably funded. I have begun the exercise of gathering information from Departments to inform decisions around the upcoming Budget for 2025-26. Today, however, is about concluding the Final Stage of our legislative process for the 2024-25 Budget. Members will be aware of the importance of bringing the Budget (No. 2) Bill into law in giving Departments the statutory authority for the total amounts of resource, capital and cash in the Main Estimates. If passed, the legislation will then require Royal Assent, and there are a number of steps to go through before it reaches that stage.

While I do not expect any unnecessary delay until Royal Assent is achieved, Departments will continue to rely on the 65% Vote on Account agreed by the Assembly. Some Departments have already indicated that they are approaching the limit of their available Vote on Account, with DAERA having already received a cash advance from the Consolidated Fund to cover payments being made this month.

As the year progresses, the Executive may make further decisions on the allocation of resources, and I will bring those back to the Assembly, through the spring Supplementary Estimates and a subsequent Budget Bill, at the end of the financial year.

I express my gratitude, once again, to the Finance Committee for agreeing to accelerated passage. I also thank all the Committees and their members for the level of scrutiny that they have brought to the process.

This is the Final Stage of the legislative process for the Bill. I look forward to hearing any final thoughts that Members have on this important piece of legislation.

Mr McGrath: The first thing for us to welcome today — yes, we welcome it — is that we are actually at the Final Stage of a Budget Bill. Unfortunately, it is not a three-year strategic Budget that will be aligned to the priorities in a Programme for Government. However, it would be unfair to land all the blame for that at the door of the Minister. What we have instead is our tenth single-year sticky tape Budget in a row. We need to recognise that this is not the way to deliver proper or sound fiscal policy, and we really need to overcome that.

We appreciate that this is a tight Budget. It would be foolish to think, or even try to portray, that the amount of money that has been given to us to deliver public services is at the level that we would like to see it at. The amount that we have in our Budget is not enough. That is a fact. However, one has to wonder how long it can be credible for the Executive to have a policy of high-level spending aspirations that are not met by the level of their Budget and simply bemoan that we do not have enough money. While it is accepted that the levels coming from London have not been enough in the past, and may not be enough in the future, I cannot help but wonder whether the Executive and Finance Minister are preparing the inevitable plan B that needs to run alongside such a reality. You need to be honest with the public. Are you prepared to revenue-raise or cut budgets? In the face of insufficient funds from London, one or other of those will have to happen.

I repeat that we cannot lay all the blame at the door of the Finance Minister, but the Budget required accelerated passage, which is not a good form of government. However, the collapse and chaos of the Executive's stability, delivered by Sinn Féin and the DUP, have resulted in stop-start government. That has had an inevitable impact on the finance-planning process and the delivery of Budget Bills over the past decade.

An important process and part of any budgetary cycle is the delivery of the in-year monitoring rounds. Members will be aware that that means that the little cash pot that accrues is divided among Departments at various points during the year to help them with their work. That often brings relief to Departments' very tight budgets, and it enables the delivery of public services that might not otherwise have been delivered. It is well recognised that that is popular with the public because things that may not have happened suddenly do happen. I reiterate the Opposition's perspective: it was shameful that the Executive delivered a monitoring round in the week of an election. That could have been perceived as an abuse of the process of these institutions to win favour with the electorate at election time. It is right and proper that the process for that decision-making, as part of our financial cycle, is fully examined by independent eyes to determine whether it could have been done differently.

The Budget is not what we want it to be. It is not the right amount of money. It is not set against strategic outcomes. It does not look to the long term, and it is wanting in many places. However, the Opposition recognise the specific circumstances that exist. It could have been different. The Executive will deliver stability and be able to set priorities properly with their spending plans. We expect to see the deficiencies in this year's process addressed from next year's Budget onwards.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward again.

I do not want to rehash previous debates, but we are in a position that, as a result of Tory austerity, is undoubtedly very difficult, and we see, with the current British Government, that the situation is not looking positive now either. However, it is important to remember that we have to make sure that we work with the financial envelope that we have, particularly from a health perspective, which is the area that I am party spokesperson for and am dealing with through the Committee. We need to see plans, and we need to ensure that the financial envelope that we have is put to the best use so that we can deliver for patients and staff across the North in the short term.

Last week, we had a debate about the transformation of our health service, and that will undoubtedly be hugely challenging in the financial climate. However, there are lots of things that we can do, and one of the key focuses is workforce, because without a workforce — I mean a stable workforce — we will have no services. We see the implications of that every day across our social work services and in nursing, where we see staff shortages and their consequences for services and for delivery to patients and service users. Whilst we appreciate that the Budget is difficult, that the Finance Minister has done an incredible amount of work and that the Health Department has the largest amount from the Budget, we have to ensure that we maximise that to achieve the greatest potential for all our citizens. I will end on that.

Ms Forsythe: We are all well versed in the Budget circumstances. We know that Northern Ireland has long been underfunded, and our DUP leader, Gavin Robinson MP, has been leading the campaign for an improved funding package for Northern Ireland for some time. Whilst the stabilisation package that the Government have offered is welcome, it does not provide the space or financial firepower to take forward the public services transformation agenda meaningfully. The Fiscal Council has said that that extra funding will largely be consumed by recurring public-sector pay pressures and provides little additional spending power for the Executive in the short term. That is why, last December, the DUP insisted that the funding did not go far enough when others were claiming that we should not look a gift horse in the mouth. I am confident in our DUP leader's commitment to continue to fight for a fair and sustainable long-term funding package for Northern Ireland, and we will support him in any way that we can in the Assembly.

That is the longer-term financial objective. We are dealing today with a Budget Bill that has been brought to us in circumstances that are by no means ideal. Given the extreme financial pressures, the Budget Bill does the best that it can in the circumstances. Every Department bid for significantly more than has been allocated in the Budget. Every Minister is disappointed with the allocations, but the Executive and we in the Assembly have a responsibility to ensure that our Departments keep running and keep delivering essential public services to the best of their ability, and, in order to do that, they need the Budget Bill to be approved.

In the absence of an agreed Programme for Government, we know that the Budget was not brought forward in perfect circumstances. The draft consultation on the Programme for Government has now been published, and the Executive priorities have been laid out. However, again, we need to note that, under the extreme financial pressures that we find ourselves in, the Budget is extremely difficult. We also face the backdrop of uncertainty. With the haphazard, unpredictable actions of the Labour Government in recent weeks, our priority is approving an operational Budget in Northern Ireland to keep our public services operating. The Budget Bill contains no big decisions or anything new. It simply brings forward the governance structures to enable our Civil Service Departments to operate and spend money to the limits that have been applied without having to repeatedly request advances from the Consolidated Fund, which increases administration.

We in the DUP have been consistent in our calls for an improved, sustainable financial package for Northern Ireland, and we will continue to be so. In order to make Northern Ireland the best that it can be, it needs to be fairly funded. We need to see delivery for Northern Ireland from the Labour Government. However, in order to allow us function in the current financial year, we will support the Bill today.

Mr Tennyson: The Alliance Party has consistently warned about the scale of the financial challenges facing the Executive. At every opportunity, we have challenged Westminster austerity, championed fair funding for Northern Ireland and called for proper investment in public services. As I said at Second Stage, the Budget process for 2024-25, like so many before it, has been upended by the stop-go nature of the Assembly. The seemingly endless merry-go-round of crisis and collapse over the past decade has meant that this is our tenth single-year Budget in a row. The timing of the Assembly's return meant that the Bill commenced Second Stage without proper consultation and in the absence of a Programme for Government.

Notwithstanding the obvious impact on our public finances, on our public services and on public confidence and in spite of warm words about the need for stability and delivery, neither Sinn Féin nor the DUP has shown any willingness to surrender its veto or commit not to wield it during the remainder of the mandate. There is no reason for either party to cling to its sectarian veto, unless it is an intention to use it or the threat of it to block progress. Without action, that inherent instability will continue to cast a long shadow over the Executive and our finances and will stymie our ability to deliver meaningful long-term transformation. That is why Alliance remains consistent and unequivocal in our calls for reform, with proposals that uphold power-sharing and the principles of the Good Friday Agreement but seek to address the fundamental structural flaws and inequalities that have held us back and damaged our services and finances.

Since agreeing to the Budget for 2024-25, we have all become familiar with Ministers coming to the Chamber to outline the enormous challenges facing their respective Departments. We now know that Departments are reporting £767 million in pressures. The Minister has outlined her intention to allocate £500 million in anticipated Barnett consequentials, which I support, but it is clear that even that will fall short of the funding required.

In one sense, it is no surprise that the biggest pressures face the biggest-spending Departments: Health, Education and Justice. A significant portion of the pressures arises from pay review body recommendations in England, and, of course, we all want to see our public-sector workers properly supported. What is surprising, however, is that some Ministers seem to treat their overcommitments more seriously than others. Despite the enormous overspend facing the Department of Education, the Minister saw fit to approve further discretionary spend, including £250,000 for magnetic pouches for just 10 schools, on top of ignoring the recommendations of the independent review of education and the Audit Office and, seemingly, indicating that he wishes to see more duplication in our system in management bodies, rather than less. In my view, those are all bizarre priorities, given the enormous pressures facing that Department and the Executive as a whole.

Compare and contrast that with the Department of Justice's approach. The funding challenges facing Justice have been well rehearsed, and there are specific and historical challenges relating to the underfunding of policing and justice, yet the projected overcommitment in the Department is significantly less. There are clear plans to transform the Department through the speeding up justice programme, and, on the basis of previous debates, I hope that, as bids come through the system, there will be unanimous support for the recovery plan for the PSNI, which will address those overspends.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will, indeed.

Mr Brett: I congratulate the Member for defending his ministerial colleagues. He does a good job of it. On the Department of Justice, which, he says, is staying within its budget, will he say how the £14 million commitment to build a new prison canteen sits with the great words that he has articulated about Minister Long managing her budget?

Mr Tennyson: That is a hobby horse of Members and has been raised in a number of Finance debates, but I think that we all agree that, in a residential setting such as a prison, where we have prisoners in our care, it is appropriate to have fit-for-purpose canteen facilities. No one in the Chamber would argue that that expenditure is not essential or unavoidable where the current provision is not fit for purpose. The Member made an admirable attempt to draw a comparison with the Department of Education's spending decisions, but it does not stand up to any scrutiny.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry. I remind Members to talk about the Budget (No. 2) Bill, if they do not mind. Thanks.

Mr Tennyson: I will do, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but, in fairness, that speaks to why we have deviated from the Main Estimates that were legislated for in the Budget (No. 2) Bill. It is important that we touch on those overcommitments, because that is the legislative authority that the Assembly has given to Ministers, and it is wrong for them to disregard it in a cavalier fashion.

There is no doubt that navigating the enormous challenges that face every Department will require leadership from every Minister. Failure to grapple with the challenges before us will carry potentially grave consequences. The Minister outlined that fact when she spoke of the potential for Treasury to recall the £559 million that had been written off. That could upend our ability to deliver a meaningful fiscal framework for Northern Ireland and disrupt our discussions on the Executive's sustainability plan that provide us with an opportunity to chart a pathway to sustainable finances and to make our case for that revised fiscal framework. The Alliance Party remains of the view that it wants to see the cost of division properly addressed as part of that plan.

There are other areas where significant progress is needed. The Executive have already made strides on revenue raising. I appreciate that the Finance Minister announced today that she intends to bring further proposals for revenue raising to the Executive. Our test remains that any revenue raising must be progressive and fair and must ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. We will judge the Minister's proposals on that basis.

The truth remains that no amount of transformation of public services or revenue raising by the Executive will ever counteract the underfunding of public services by Westminster. We are committed to speaking with one voice, together with the Finance Minister and other parties, to deliver the fair funding that is required. If we are to make that case, we have to be willing to show responsibility and leadership in the Chamber. That is why the Alliance Party will support the Budget (No. 2) Bill. It is not a question of whether we believe that the Budget is sufficient, as, clearly, it is not; it is a question of whether we believe that the allocations proposed by the Finance Minister in the Budget that we are legislating for are a fair attempt to allocate insufficient resources, and we believe that they are.

Dr Aiken: Consistent with the Ulster Unionist Party's approach so far, we will vote against the Final Stage of the Bill. As a party, we have consistently pointed out that the Budget provisions are insufficient to cover the critical requirements of our health service. It is only nine months since the all-party talks that many of us sat through and at which all parties agreed that Health was the priority, but the subsequent provisions have not only gone against that priority but, when they were originally presented, made a real-terms cut to health resources. While we welcome the additional funding that came in the June/July monitoring round, it is far short of what is required to deal with the critical challenges that we face, and it came before the draft PFG was published. We are aware of the negotiations between Departments and the Finance Minister, but there is no acknowledgement of the level of need or the requirement to prioritise Health and other hard-pressed services such as the PSNI.

The Finance Minister wrote to Ministers and informed the Finance Committee that she was proceeding with spending allocations based on discussion with His Majesty's Treasury, acknowledging that it was at risk and based on likely allocations from the Supplementary Estimates following Rachel Reeves's Budget next month. That additional funding is hoped to be in the region of £0·5 billion, at least £250 million of which we reasonably expect to come to Health. As finance spokesperson and through questions put by party representatives, we have repeatedly queried the confidence that the Minister has in assurances from the Treasury. I wish to make it clear that I am in no way — I mean this — calling into question the Minister's belief or her integrity in reporting her exchanges. However, as MLAs, we must all call into question the assurances from the Government.

Three weeks ago, I attended the British-Irish Association conference in Oxford and heard the Secretary of State wax lyrical about the benefits of major projects in Northern Ireland powered by the city deals, amongst other things. Alongside the Tánaiste, we heard the famous reset being emphasised. Less than a week later, the city deal was paused. Then, parts of it were reinstated. When the issue was raised by the Finance Minister, she was told to discuss it with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I understand that that discussion is yet to happen. That worries our party, as it should worry others. A Budget assuming an additional £0·5 billion on the basis of assurances from a Treasury that will not engage on city deals must, I am afraid, be suspect.

Where are we today? First, even with the current Budget allocations, we do not have the resources for what, nine months ago, was our number-one priority: Health. Secondly, even if we get that additional £0·5 billion and it is hypothecated, the challenges will remain.

However, based on the city deals debacle, what real confidence can there be that that additional funding will be received, especially given that the Government are quite happy to remove the winter fuel allowance while their members cloth themselves in freebie suits? I was going to make a joke about glasses, but I am wearing a pair. I paid for mine, by the way.

Thirdly — I say this specifically to other parties in the Executive — the Chief Constable had to write to the Prime Minister because the PSNI has been starved of resources, and he has raised very serious concerns about his ability to maintain public safety. That, coupled with the very real concerns that we have already expressed about maintaining the health of our constituents, must show that we cannot accept the unacceptable.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Steve, can I remind you that the debate is on the Budget (No. 2) Bill?

Dr Aiken: You can indeed, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am just coming to the end.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: So it would be helpful if you could mention it.

Dr Aiken: Yes, yes.

Rather than writing letters of censure, we should all join together to reject the Budget, which does not and cannot deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

Miss Brogan: As the Budget Bill makes its way through the legislative process, which is now at Final Stage, we are reminded of the intense pressures that the Finance Minister and her Department faced while drafting it. In delivering the Budget, Minister Archibald has done a commendable job in very challenging circumstances, ensuring that vital public services will continue to be delivered and that many worthy community and social projects will continue to be supported. Unfortunately, the cruel reality of British Government austerity and the understanding that their priorities lie elsewhere mean that not all bids could be met. However, the Minister has worked hard to deliver a fair Budget that supports our public services and offers stability.

The Minister has, once again, prioritised Health in the Budget, with more than 50% of the available funding going to health services. That underlines the point that Health is a priority, even with such limited resources. The Minister has also managed to deliver on key priorities for the Executive. Those priorities have been outlined in the draft Programme for Government; for example, the £25 million allocated for childcare and the £47 million for transformation. Today, we have heard how around 12,000 children in the North have been registered for the new childcare subsidy scheme, which has helped many families to reduce the cost of their childcare. There is still work to do on the childcare strategy. We must ensure that all families and childcare providers are offered support. However, those are very welcome first steps.

As my party's spokesperson on the environment and climate, I thank the Minister for her continued commitment to protecting our environment and, in particular, for the funding that has been made available to rescue and restore Lough Neagh.

It has been widely acknowledged, even by the British Government, that the North has been chronically underfunded for decades. Repairing the damage and healing the wounds caused by that will take time. If we are to address those issues, such decisions must be made here, and we need real fiscal devolution. In the meantime, the Minister has sought to deliver a Budget that provides stability and security. I thank her and her officials for their efforts in these challenging times. I support the Bill.

Miss McAllister: Like everyone else, I recognise the financial situation that we are experiencing. It is not a financial situation that we, as political parties, wish to find ourselves in, but, as a party of the Executive, we recognise, alongside the Finance Minister and the majority of other Ministers, that, where there is a Budget, we must abide by it.

Like many others, I recognise the fact that Tory austerity over the years has cost us a lot in respect of not just our Budget but the health and well-being of all our citizens. Given the Chancellor's speech this morning, hopefully, austerity is not back and will not be back, and we will see the Labour Party puts its money where its mouth is and look after the citizens of the entirety of the United Kingdom. I will continue to play my part in our party, alongside the Finance Minister, in putting pressure on the UK Government to ensure that we receive the funding that we are rightly due.

The key issue for me, as one of Alliance's health spokespeople, is our health service. The fact that over 50% of the entirety of the Budget has been allocated to Health is of enormous significance. We cannot underestimate the fact, however, that, although the Health budget has continued to grow year-on-year, our people are getting sicker and waiting longer.

Something is simply not right, so something needs to change.

We must also recognise the lack of responsibility that the Health Minister's party has taken for the Budget. I will reflect on some of the points that Members have made. In numerous debates in the Chamber and at the Budget (No. 2) Bill's Second Stage, we asked the Health Minister what he wanted. Was it 75%, 80% or perhaps 100% of the current Budget allocation? There would then be even less for policing, for which the UUP Member who spoke previously claims to be an advocate. That is not realistic. We must all live within the current Budget. An all-or-nothing approach to healthcare does not need to be taken. There is no reason that all Ministers cannot prioritise implementation in line with their available budget, but it appears that the Health Minister has no intention of doing so.

I ask that you indulge me for just a moment, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As a member of my party's health team and a member of the Health Committee, I have, many times, brought to the attention of Department of Health officials where there has been a serious lack of spend in line with the budget and where they have taken their eye off the ball. For example, I brought to the attention of the previous Health Minister the fact that payments had been made to third-party providers for respite care but that that respite care had not been provided for well over a year. If Members from the Health Minister's party intend to ensure that we abide by the Budget or even attempt to do so, they must look at their own Minister's Department.

That leads me on to my next point. As Executive parties, we must all work —.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does she agree that, if the money in Health were invested properly, we would not have the pressures that there are on some other Departments? For example, we know that many people in mental health crisis end up in a police station or even in prison because their mental health issues have not been addressed. Health needs to take its role under the "Right care, right person" (RCRP) model seriously.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: To be consistent, I will remind everybody that we are debating the Budget (No. 2) Bill, Nuala. [Laughter.]

Other Members were trying to point out inconsistencies, but I am not looking at them.

Miss McAllister: I absolutely agree with the Member. To be serious about the Budget, we — every party in the Executive — need to work as a collective to hold Departments to account. Indeed, the Opposition also have a role to play. Where an individual Department has a budget, it does not mean that that Department should act alone on matters.

The Member mentioned policing and mental health in particular. Another issue is speech and language development. Young people do not just appear in the criminal justice system with speech and language difficulties; those difficulties have been there from an early stage in their life. Therein lies the argument that the Department of Health and the Department of Education have a role to play. I agree that every Department must play its role in working together.

Another example of working together is for us to ensure that we impress on the Executive and all parties the need for multi-year Budgets. We all agree that multi-year budgets would be the right approach, but we need to ensure that, when we get them, we prioritise our departmental budgets. For example, when it comes to the Department of Health, notable organisations such as the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) welcomed the inclusion in the draft PFG of the priority to cut waiting lists but noted that it would require multi-year Budgets in order to achieve that. While we are living with the Budget that we have before us now, we all recognise that it is not the Budget that we aspire to and that we can and absolutely shall do better. We must do that by working as a collective.

As Members from the Alliance Party and the Opposition have said, one of the most crucial elements in ensuring that we have a stable Budget in upcoming years is not to have the continuing cycle of collapse of the institutions, because that affects how each Department runs its budget. One example of that for Health is that Ray Jones's report on the review of children's social care specifically mentions that such collapses cause "considerable difficulties in sustaining services" in children's social care. I could go on to name many other elements across every Department. I am sure that many others will agree that, while they might not sign up to reform, reform is the best way in which to ensure that we have sustainability.

The Executive were close to agreeing a three-year Budget for 2022-25. Again, however, collapse meant that that opportunity was missed. Our health service cannot afford another missed opportunity. Stable, recurrent funding is urgently needed for transformation, which is why urgent reform of the institutions is crucial. Hopefully, next year, we will not see again what we have before us today in the Budget (No. 2) Bill and can move forward and aspire to much better so that we can deliver for all across Northern Ireland.

Mr Gaston: The first thing that I observe about the Bill is clause 1(2):

I have not been here long, but I have been here long enough to know that one of the things that Members excel at in the House is complaining about the lack of money that comes from Westminster. The reality is that, without tax-raising powers, all that we can do is divide up the cake that we have been given. Whatever way in which you seek to divide it, the truth remains that £28,772,794,000 is a pretty big cake. That figure is much more generous than what we would have if we were part of the Irish Republic that all those to my left in the Chamber fantasise over. We need to remind ourselves that people in the Republic do not have a health service free at the point of need. People can be charged for calling out the fire service, and they do not have a personal allowance. Thankfully, we do. That is because we are part of the United Kingdom.

That having been said, there is a case to be made that Northern Ireland should be funded even more generously. Shamefully, unionists returned to this place having sold a false bill of goods to the people in terms of what the 'Safeguarding the Union' —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — Command Paper delivered regarding the protocol.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, I remind you that this is the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Mr Gaston: Yes. I have the Bill in front of me.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I see what is in your hand, but I cannot hear any comment about the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Mr Gaston: If you give me time to expand, I will mention the Budget (No. 2) Bill —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, thank you. That would be helpful.

Mr Gaston: — like the rest of the Members who have spoken.

That was a fundamental betrayal of the mandate secured by the DUP at the most recent Assembly and council elections. We also had the nonsense peddled that a financial package had been secured. Let me be clear: I do not believe for one moment that unionists should have betrayed their word to those who trusted them, regardless of how many pieces of silver were on offer. Nor should the public be blind to the reality that, generous as the block grant from Westminster is, it could and should be even more generous.

On two occasions already in the House, I have highlighted the fact that, in 2007, the Welsh Government appointed Professor Gerry Holtham to examine funding from Westminster to the devolved regions. Professor Holtham found that, in order for people in Wales to enjoy the same level of public services as people in England, the Government, because of the higher need in Wales, needed to spend £115 per head for every £100 spent in England. In Scotland, the figure was £105 per head, and, in Northern Ireland, it was £121 per head. Since 2012, Westminster has accepted that block grant funding to Wales should not fall below the Holtham definition of need. Why have the Executive parties not been pushing for the same principle to apply to Northern Ireland's funding?

I have quoted those figures before, but I remind the House that the funding of Northern Ireland was £3 per head below the UK definition of need in 2022-23 and 2023-24. Generously funded as Northern Ireland undoubtedly is, especially when one considers the alternative of an all Ireland in which one would have to pay to visit a GP, pay for a stay in hospital and even pay to get the fire brigade out, we could and should be funded even more generously. It is an indictment of the establishment parties in the Chamber that, in all the crisis talks that they have had with the Government over the years about money, they have failed to make that simple and basic argument. You cannot come here week after week to debate pointless motions complaining about the lack of money for this or that when you have not made the argument for a sustainable, long-term funding solution from which another devolved region already benefits.

Two weeks ago, the Communities Minister challenged MLAs about what we would do differently in order to save the winter fuel payment. I laid out some changes that I would make to how we spend money. This place is prepared to spend £9 million annually for an Irish language Act that will only increase division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: In the Budget (No. 2) Bill —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, please take your seat. I remind you and any Member who follows you that contributions need to be directly related to the Budget (No. 2) Bill. It is not a free-for-all. If you or anyone who comes after you continues in that vein, I will stop you from speaking. Respectfully, I ask you to make sure that the remainder of your speech relates to the Budget (No. 2) Bill, please. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: I was mentioning the Budget (No. 2) Bill, one line of which says that this place spends £1·6 million annually to maintain prison buildings at the Maze, which, it seems obvious to me, will become a shrine to terror. In the Budget (No. 2) Bill, the Assembly will spend between £35 million and £45 million a year on useless North/South bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council, which operates as normal while border posts are built at Larne, as the noose of the protocol tightens day by day.

When I highlighted those proposed savings, Minister Lyons dismissed them with a smirk, claiming that the redundancies involved would cost us money. Laying off staff who are employed by virtue of money from the Budget (No. 2) Bill in an organisation like Safefood would have a long-term benefit for Northern Ireland, because not one of them is employed on this side of the border.

Minister Lyons even made the bizarre claim that, if we lost the North/South bodies, we would have no one to promote Northern Ireland as a tourism destination. The truth is that, shamefully, no one promotes Northern Ireland as a tourist destination on the international stage. Tourism Ireland promotes the island as a single destination, and it does not make a very good job of promoting the unique tourism experiences of places such as my constituency, which boasts both of Northern Ireland's World Heritage Sites alongside world-class hotels and golf courses. Minister Lyons may be pleased with the crumbs —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, you are holding the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Mr Gaston: Yes, I am.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is really good, but the stuff that you are reciting is not in the Bill. Respectfully —.

Mr Gaston: It is all part of the money —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, it is not. What I am saying to you is this: the things that are listed in the Budget (No. 2) Bill need to be part of your and everyone else's speech. I have given everybody a lot of latitude, but you are starting to rip it. Please make sure that your contribution relates to the objects that are laid out in the Bill. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: I will finish the point that I was making before I move on to my next point about the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Minister Lyons may be pleased with the crumbs from Tourism Ireland, but I want to see Northern Ireland being promoted in its own right. In 2016, a former head of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board made the argument that we needed our own tourism strategy and that we were getting a raw deal from Tourism Ireland for the money that we invest. Almost a decade on, nothing has changed and nothing has been done to change that sad fact.

When it comes to the achievements of the Executive on financial issues, the reality is very different. This morning, on the radio, the DUP leader and the Education Minister claimed as a great victory the funding package for childcare in the Budget (No. 2) Bill. When we strip back the spin, however, the reality is very different. Last week, in response to my question for oral answer, the Finance Minister had to admit that the Executive received £57·2 million of Barnett consequentials for 2024-25, following the announcement in the spring Budget of the expansion of the 30 free hours of childcare scheme in England. However, Stormont's 2024-25 Budget provides just £25 million to support the development of a childcare strategy. That means that more than £32 million of our share of money that should have gone to childcare has not been committed to that issue. Far from connecting with the priorities of ordinary people when it comes to childcare, Stormont is selling the people short to the tune of £32 million, which it is spending on other things. That is not an achievement; it certainly is a disgrace.

If I may change direction slightly, I will focus a wee bit on local government. When the review of public administration (RPA) finally happened in 2015, we were told that we would see savings. In some cases, three councils merged into one. I argue that, instead of seeing savings, Stormont created bloated organisations without providing any real scrutiny to ensure that our councils provide value for money. Take Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, to which I was first elected in 2014. After the election in May 2023, we were called to a crisis meeting where we were told about the financial turmoil that the council had got itself into and that external expertise was required to sort out the mess. After spending upwards of half a million on external consultants, we were told that the deficit was of the order of £7·2 million and that an additional £1·4 million was required from the 2024-25 rates to complete all the recommendations.

As time passed, my concerns grew. By using the narrative of a £7·2 million deficit in February 2024, the majority of councillors inflicted the worst rates rise in the council's history on householders and businesses, with a rise of 9·78% and 11·8% respectively. In England, such a rise would have incurred a local referendum, whereas in Northern Ireland that increase was agreed after 22 councillors voted in favour of it and 14 voted against it, without any oversight or input from Stormont. Furthermore, it now transpires that the £7·2 million deficit turned into a healthy £1·4 million surplus. With some imaginative counting, the unaudited accounts that the council submitted show that break-even was reached after the reserves were bolstered and a new members' fund had been set up to keep councillors sweet.

I have further concerns about directors being recruited through long-term agency contracts rather than being directly employed, which would make savings for the ratepayer. We have the bizarre position where two directors are engaged through an agency to which ratepayers are paying a daily finder's fee for the privilege. That is insulting. No local authority should be paying in the region of £1,060 and £960 plus expenses per day to any agency worker. Having directors earn more than the chief executive is not a sustainable model for running any business, never mind a council. Where is the oversight from Stormont? Where is the value for money for the ratepayer?

I will vote against the Budget (No. 2) Bill. I ask the other unionists in the Chamber to think about why they will find themselves voting in the same Lobby as Sinn Féin. Why is it that, instead of passing a Budget, you are not all locked in crisis talks with the Government over winter fuel payments? Sinn Féin was prepared to bring this place down over the bedroom tax. Why has it meekly rolled over and accepted the Westminster decision to cut at this time? I will tell you why. Sinn Féin has unionism exactly where it wants it. It has its eye on the bigger goal. We heard at the weekend all this chat about unionist unity and reaching out to other unionist parties, but you need to bear in mind that not having the threat —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, that is it.

Mr Gaston: I am still going on to the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. No.

Mr Gaston: I quoted it a lot more than other Members did. You gave them latitude, but you have not given me the same latitude.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have reminded you that it is not just a case of throwing in "Budget (No. 2) Bill".

Mr Gaston: At least I did that more than other people.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are in danger of challenging the Chair. If you do not mind, take your seat as we go through this. First of all, you cannot use a Budget Bill to attack other parties. Secondly, your remarks have to be related to what is laid out in the Bill. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: They have not been, for the best part. I ask you, respectfully, to conclude your remarks on what is laid out in the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Thank you very much.

Mr Gaston: To bring my remarks on the Budget (No. 2) Bill to a close, I will just say this: once the Bill passes today, those who support it can no longer chime and complain about the Labour Government and what they have done. This is your Budget. You now own it. Any decisions that flow from it are on the heads of those Executive parties that vote the Bill through today. I, for one, will not support it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr Gaston.

Mr Carroll: I will speak briefly about the Budget Bill. It is clear that this Budget Bill, alongside the wider process of Budgets, does not meet the desires and needs of working-class communities across this society. The housing crisis is completely out of control and there is no appropriate funding allocated to tackle that problem in this Budget Bill. Health is continually underfunded, with a rocketing crisis ripping through all of society. There is no appropriate funding for Health. All the while, people cling to the Bengoa scheme, which is designed to cut, dice and reduce our important health service. No thank you. Lough Neagh continues to be strangled and to die, but there is no appropriate funding in this Budget Bill for it.

That just scratches the surface of what this Bill will not do. It is even worse when you see what meagre tax increases on the rich would bring in. I raised that in the Finance Committee in the past two weeks, and it is worth repeating on the Floor. A 1% tax increase on the wealthiest 1% would bring in £25 billion of extra funding for public services, and the black hole would be completely gone. The €13 billion that Apple owed in taxes would transform public services right across the island. Where is the Executive's strategy to tackle those issues, to highlight them and to fight them? They do not have any plan to do so. It cannot be business as usual while corporate profits are out of control. The Budget Bill is definitely business as usual, and, for that reason, I will vote against it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. I call the Minister of Finance to wind and conclude on the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank all those Members who expressed their views in the debate, and I thank those who contributed to earlier debates on the Bill and the associated Supply resolutions. I have listened to those contributions, and, while I may not agree with all the arguments that were presented, it is always useful to hear Members' views. I will respond to some of the issues that were raised in the debate before winding up fully.

Mr McGrath raised a couple of points about the Budget Bill's not being aligned with the Programme for Government. I am sure that he will concede that the Budget Bill was introduced before the PFG was published, and I laid out in the Chamber previously that the Executive had a number of priorities that they tried to align funding towards, with Health being one, childcare being another and Lough Neagh another. Those are also now reflected in the Programme for Government, but, obviously, we would like to be in a place where we are setting a Budget that aligns with and funds the priorities that are in a Programme for Government.

Mr McGrath and Miss McAllister discussed multi-year Budgets, and, again, that is the place where we want to be. You will be aware that we are able to allocate funding only on the cycle of years that we have in front of us. We are in the final year of a spending review, so we were able to do only a one-year Budget this year. We understand, and she has been very clear about this, that the Chancellor intends to set a one-year Budget in October and then, come early spring, will set a Budget for the following two years. It is my intention to align with that, and, in planning for it, we have asked Departments for their projections for three years.

Liz Kimmins, Nuala McAllister and Steve Aiken mentioned Health, and, clearly, Health is a priority, with over half our Budget going to that Department. We have sought to prioritise it in the allocations that have been made. Mr Aiken made his point again about the outturn versus the opening of the Budget. I am sure that, come the end of the year, the picture will be very different, but we will wait and see.

Mr Aiken made other comments about the allocations that we are expecting. Obviously, you have a degree of scepticism about some of the actions that we have seen over recent days and weeks. You are right to be cautious. The figures that we are talking about, which are in the region of £500 million, have been arrived at on the basis of discussions that my officials had with Treasury officials. Similarly, we had discussions with officials in advance of June monitoring, and it transpired that that is where we ended up on the numbers that we were expecting. However, it is also fair to say that there are Departments in England that are facing considerable pressures as well and that, therefore, money will likely have to be allocated to them. Also, they have committed to funding the pay review body recommendations, so I think —.

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way?

Dr Archibald: Yes, go ahead.

Dr Aiken: This is not definitely not a criticism of you, but we have picked up, particularly from across in England and from our friends in Wales and Scotland, similar sorts of concerns about things that have been promised but are not being seen. I think that that should be a general concern, and, if you have the opportunity, you should talk to the Welsh and the Scottish about it to emphasise it, because that is not right.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his remarks. I will be and have been engaging with my Scottish and Welsh counterparts, and I will meet them, along with the British Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in early October as part of our regular Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee (FISC) engagements.

I accept the point that there is a level of caution to be had. Obviously, there will be a degree of risk attached to those allocations, but it is on the basis of the intelligence that we have as to what we can expect. From my perspective, it is a degree of risk that I am comfortable with to make the allocations on the basis that we want to give Departments as much certainty as we can to help them to be able to plan to live within the budget envelopes that they have.

That brings me on to Mr Tennyson's comments. He spoke about the enormous challenges that budgets are facing. I agree with him that we need to see Ministers taking actions to live within those budgets, because the consequences of not living within them are, from my perspective, pretty dire for next year. I will bring a paper to the Executive in the near future, with proposals around allocating the £500 million.

I also agree with him about the need for Departments to get on with transformation. That is something that we all agree on. Some funding goes towards transformation specifically, but it is quite a small pot of funding, and it will not do everything that we need it to do, so we need to see more wide-ranging actions on that.

There is also an important point to be made, and Diane made it in her contribution, about the financial package not having secured as much as is necessary to deliver public services. That is very clear. We still have more negotiation to do in relation to post 2026-27. In the interim fiscal framework, which is a document that I will perhaps share with Mr Gaston, we had a commitment that we could plan on the assumption that we will be funded at or above the level of 124% in future years. We need to secure that and ensure that that is part of our budget baseline going forward, so that we have our fair share of funding going towards public services.

Nicola Brogan spoke about the need to secure further fiscal powers. That will also be part of those future negotiations on our final fiscal framework.

I think that I have covered most of the remarks that I wanted to highlight. I will bring my remarks to a close. I have tried to respond to as many of the issues that Members have raised in today's debate and in previous debates as I could.

The Budget (No. 2) Bill, as I have laid out, is a crucial piece of legislation that provides Departments with the power to continue to deliver vital front-line services to all our citizens during the 2024-25 financial year. I commend the Budget (No. 2) Bill to the Assembly, and I ask that Members agree its Final Stage. It is vital that the legislation completes it passage through the Assembly as it enables us to keep delivering public services and prevent Departments running out of money during the 2024-25 financial year.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I advise Members that, as this is the Final Stage of the Budget Bill, the motion requires cross-community support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members may take their ease while we change the top Table for the next item.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Lyons: The rule that we are considering today introduces measures to support trustees in sponsoring employees of defined benefit occupational pension schemes to plan and manage their schemes' funding over the longer term. Most defined benefit schemes are closed to either new members or new accruals. That means that they have an increasing number of members who are retired or close to retirement and either a decreasing number of members or no members who will make contributions to the scheme. That is referred to as "maturing" and will change the funding requirements of the scheme. The regulations build on the current funding regime for defined benefit schemes, embed good practice and provide clear funding standards. That is to ensure that all defined benefit members have the best possible prospect of getting the benefits paid in full when they are due. The aim is to provide clear standards for both open and maturing schemes, ensuring flexibility and promoting better collaboration between sponsors and trustees. That includes an investment approach that reflects the schemes' circumstances. The regulations are principle-based and set out the detailed requirements for the funding and investment strategy. As part of the strategy, all defined benefit schemes are required to set out their plans for how pension benefits will be paid over the longer term.

The regulations introduce key principles for assessing the strength of the employer covenant. That is an assessment of the financial ability of the employer in relation to its legal requirements to support the scheme. The regulations require schemes to have a clear plan along their path to maturity and low dependency so as not to need further employer support by the time they are significantly mature. They are required to reach low employer dependency in reasonably foreseeable circumstances. The regulations make it clear that, where appropriate, recovery plans are to be put in place as soon as the employer can reasonably afford to do so. The regulations require the funding and investment strategy to be reviewed and, if necessary, revised alongside each scheme valuation, which is usually every three years. Depending on circumstances, the Pensions Regulator has the flexibility to ask for less detailed information from schemes to improve long-term planning and avoid unnecessary burdens. The regulations make it clear that schemes have significant flexibility to choose investments while meeting the low-dependency principle. That will help support trustees in reacting to changing circumstances, while investing in the best interests of their members. The regulations increase the scope for scheme-specific flexibility, allowing open schemes to take account of new entrants and future accrual when determining when the scheme will reach significant maturity, for example. The regulations require schemes to have a funding and investment strategy within 15 months of the effective date of the first actuarial valuation obtained on or after 22 September 2024.

In summary, the regulations support schemes and employers to make long-term plans and enable the Pensions Regulator to take effective action when needed. That will help to ensure that scheme members get the retirement that they have contributed towards and rightly expect.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. I have one Member indicating that he wishes to speak. I will be guided by Colm Gildernew, Chair of the Communities Committee, on whether he has time to do it now. I caution him that I may have to interrupt him to start Question Time.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle as sin.

I rise as Chairperson of the Committee for Communities to support the introduction of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2024. The Committee considered the rule at its meeting on 11 April and recommended that it be approved by the Assembly. We understand that the objectives of the regulations are to support defined benefit scheme trustees and employers to manage risk effectively and to enable the Pensions Regulator to intervene more effectively to protect members' benefits, as needed.

Members understand that there are key aspects of the regulations relating to funding investment strategies and statement of strategies for defined benefit schemes. First, in respect of the funding and investment strategies that will be required by the regulations, trustees or managers of defined benefit schemes will have to regularly prepare a funding and investment strategy with the aim of ensuring that pensions and other scheme benefits can be provided over the long term. The strategy must specify the funding level and the investments that trustees or managers intend the scheme to have at a relevant date. The funding strategy must set out a journey plan to that funding level.

Secondly, in relation to the statement of strategy for defined benefit schemes required by the regulations, trustees or managers will be required to send a written statement of strategy to the Pensions Regulator, as well as setting out the funding and investment strategy that I have just described. The statement of strategy to be provided to the Pensions Regulator must also cover the opinion of the trustees or managers on the extent to which the funding and investment strategy is being successfully implemented, and, for cases when it is not being successfully implemented, the steps they propose to take to remedy the position must be outlined. That statement of strategy must also cover the main risks faced by the scheme in implementing the funding and investment strategy and how the trustees or managers intend to mitigate or manage those. The reflections of the trustees or managers on any significant decisions taken by them in the past must also be covered by the statement of strategy.

The final requirement of the statement is a summary of the actuarial valuation and, where appropriate, the recovery plan. The Pensions Regulator has discretion as to the level of detail required for that information, ensuring that explanations and supporting evidence are provided only where needed in order to avoid an unnecessary administrative burden.

The Committee recognises the importance of robust pension schemes where benefits for members are as secure as possible, especially in the context of an ageing population. The Committee acknowledges that the occupational pension scheme regulations represent a positive change to support scheme trustees and employers to manage risk effectively. Therefore, I am content to recommend that the Assembly approve the regulations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Communities to conclude and make his winding-up speech on the debate.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased with the cross-community consensus that we have throughout the Chamber. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease until Question Time commences at 2.00 pm.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): I note that question 1 has been withdrawn. I know that this was mentioned earlier in the House, but the Member who was due to ask that question was stranded last night at an airport in England due to it not having accessible services for him. I am sure that everybody will want to send their best wishes to our colleague and say that airlines, and every other service, need to do better to support people with additional needs.

Turning to question 2, we are very pleased to say that, following Executive approval of the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework and the first delivery plan earlier this month, the launch of that important framework took place on Monday 16 September. There is a two-year delivery plan during which we will develop campaigns and collaborate with many parts of government and society to drive transformative change. Vitally, we will support grassroots groups and community and voluntary sector organisations through a change fund to do more, build capacity and be better equipped to address this significant issue in their areas. Preparations continue at pace to bring forward the change fund, and we are pleased to say that work is ongoing to deliver a number of the actions in the delivery plan.

Ms Kimmins: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin.

What preventative actions will be taken as a result of the framework and delivery plan to help end violence against women and girls?

Mrs O'Neill: One of the four outcomes — the main focus — of the framework is, crucially, about prevention. We are aiming to get to a position where we have created a society that is absolutely free from violence against women and girls, gender-based violence and abuse and harm. Addressing that underlying cause is crucial if we are going to be successful with our strategy. We have to stop the abuse before it starts.

We want everyone to understand violence against women and girls, be able to recognise it very clearly when they see it and know how to take action to prevent it. Our ambition certainly goes beyond the near future. Our focus is, as I said, on longer-term prevention and transforming society for the better to end violence against women and girls for future generations.

Ms Egan: It was good to see everybody welcoming the strategic framework for ending violence against women and girls that was published last week. Will the £3 million figure that was cited in it go solely to the change fund or will it also be needed for the research and campaigns that were included in the delivery plan?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you. We are going to say a lot more about the change fund in the coming weeks when we have settled on the final application process etc. We will certainly talk to the Committee about that. You are right: £3 million has been earmarked over the first two years of the plan. We intend to target that funding keenly towards the change fund itself.

We have launched the small business research initiative (SBRI) challenge fund. That is to help local businesses be innovative about creating solutions. The figure for that — I cannot remember the right figure — might be £500,000 but I will confirm the actual figure for the Member in writing. That is going to be for two challenges for small businesses to develop tools to improve the safety of women and girls at home, work or school. That is one area. The second area will be on having innovative methods to increase and improve the physical and psychological safety of women and girls in all settings and equipping people to identify and respond to potential violence. The funding will be very much targeted at that first two-year plan, but we want to achieve more funding, and we said that this is just the start. I will give you the breakdown of the actual figures for the three areas of funding in writing.

Mr Beattie: Sometimes you have to look close to home in order to deal with some of those issues. Is the First Minister willing to speak to the Finance Minister to have her look at the Northern Ireland Civil Service staff handbook to make sure that it is changed to reflect the six outcomes that you want from the ending violence against women and girls strategy?

Mrs O'Neill: We are very much focused on that whole-of-society approach, which does start close to home. If areas in the Civil Service require improvement, we should do our own homework there. I do not know what is lacking, but I am certainly happy to pick it up with the Finance Minister to make sure that we have the most effective handbook for the Civil Service that we possibly can.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, what monitoring and oversight mechanisms will you put in place in order to ensure delivery at pace?

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member knows, when we launched the plan last week, we talked about how we will have an oversight board in place. That oversight board has already been established, and it will oversee the full development and implementation of the strategy. That is a mark of the seriousness with which we treat the subject. It is a collective Executive strategy, and we are all focused on working together on it. The oversight board will be chaired at ministerial level, and the board will be cross-sectoral, with inclusive representation from across government, including local government, and from the community and voluntary sector and independent experts. We also have governance in place and will monitor the impact of all our actions. That has been designed into the framework, so we will be able to measure our success as we go. We will be able to do more of what is better and maybe do less of the things that are not as effective. I am pretty content that we have quite robust oversight and governance mechanisms in place that will allow us to have the best possible strategy that we can have.

Mr Gaston: A few years ago, the now self-styled First Minister told BBC Radio Ulster, in reference to the Máiría Cahill case:

Does she believe her now, or is she the champion for cases that involve women only when republicans are not at fault?

Mrs O'Neill: The initial question was about our strategy to end violence against women and girls. All women, all girls and everyone out there deserves to live in a place that is free from gender-based harm. That is the case whether you look backwards or forwards. The strategy is about how we can design a better society and have prevention at the heart of it, and I am determined to work with all Executive colleagues to make sure that the strategy is delivered in its fullest.

Mrs O'Neill: First, I would like to mention the other listed buildings that are on the Maze/Long Kesh site, namely, the World War II hangars, which the Ulster Aviation Society occupies. The Ulster Aviation Society participated in the European Heritage Open Days on 14 and 15 September and attracted 7,000 visitors to its collection. The Ulster Aviation Society collection is a fantastic example of how listed buildings can be preserved and brought back into use.

We had the opportunity to meet the board of the MLK Development Corporation in July to hear its thinking on a road map for the future. We will discuss next steps with officials in due course. The future use of the listed and retained buildings will form part of that wider discussion, and we have been very clear that we must build on the common ground that we all share so that we can realise the potential of the site for the benefit of all. We are absolutely committed to working with the corporation in order to achieve what we think is the site's huge potential.

Lord Elliott: I thank the First Minister for that update. Is there any time frame for progress or for when the site might be further developed, particularly when making the controversial aspects of the previous plan not controversial?

Mrs O'Neill: When we had a debate on the issue previously in the Assembly, I think that we collectively joined up and said that we want to maximise the potential of the site so that it can be a huge catalyst for economic development and growth, and that is very much aligned to our Programme for Government targets on economic growth.

We can do all of the above. We can find a way to unleash the site's potential, being sensitive to the listed buildings and making sure that we develop the site as best we can. We have had the initial meeting with the board, and we intend to continue that engagement. We are also talking to our officials.

On the time frame, given that the infrastructure is quite large and that it is a large project, we will not turn it round overnight, but there is certainly a political will to work together to develop the site. In the Executive Office, we are collectively committed to ensuring that we do so.

Mr Boylan: Given Ministers' intention to make progress on the commitment to build on the common ground and realise the site's full potential, will the First Minister outline next steps?

Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Member for the question. Earlier this year, the deputy First Minister, the junior Ministers and I visited the Balmoral show. We were back on-site in July and had a full tour of the site again. As I said, we met the corporation. It was a good opportunity for us to take stock and reflect the feeling, from the Assembly's recent debate, that we were committed to trying to unleash the site's potential. We wanted to talk to the board about its thoughts on a road map for the site's development. Its potential is clear for us all to see. The immense benefit that it would bring to our local community and local economy is not lost on anybody. The scale of the investment will be huge, but the cost of doing nothing would be much greater. We must tap into that. It is a huge, albeit challenging, opportunity for us, and I am committed to working with the deputy First Minister, Executive colleagues and, indeed, all parties in the Chamber to deliver on the potential of the site.

Mr Honeyford: Has the First Minister had any discussions with National Museums NI on the former prison buildings? If so, will she give us an update?

Mrs O'Neill: The MLK Development Corporation seeks, as far as possible, to make sure that it is ready for future development. That includes continuing to consider possible approaches to the regeneration of the site and a road map for the future. In that context, the corporation has held discussions with National Museums, as recorded in its board minutes. Those became public some time ago. We understand that it is about how National Museums might be able to contribute on the basis of its experience of working with historic and listed buildings. No firm proposals have been put to National Museums for consideration yet, so no decisions have been made, but it is fair to say that the corporation seeks, through due diligence, to maintain its readiness so that, when we have a way forward, at least it has advanced some of the work.

Mr Clarke: First Minister, in your answers to other Members, you talked about the work that you and the deputy First Minister are doing and about looking at options. Have you any firm options on the table, about which you can tell the House? Indeed, will you ensure that all the options include considering the whole community?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. When we reflect on the site, we are talking about how we can benefit everybody and how everybody in our local economy can benefit from what could be a catalyst for investment, economic growth, job creation and everything that the whole site could open up. We need to have a political agreement on how we progress that. Obviously, the board will develop the plans and will work its way through all the areas. It set out for us its broader thinking on where it is heading, but we do not have a t's-crossed-and-i's-dotted plan at this stage. Suffice to say that there is a political will and a commitment to find a way to realise the site's full potential and benefit everybody.

Mrs O'Neill: The public consultation opened on 9 September and will run for eight weeks. An equality consultation opened on the same day and will run for 12 weeks. Surveys are available on the Executive website, enabling people to provide feedback on the draft Programme for Government, as are its accompanying impact assessments. In-person and online events have been scheduled to enable people to find out more about the process. Further details of the events are available on the Executive website. In addition, we will continue to explore opportunities to engage with sectoral partners in order to gauge their thoughts on the document.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her response and for attending the prize-giving in Dean Maguirc College, Carrickmore, on Thursday evening. Does the Minister agree that regional balance is a core component of the Programme for Government?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you to the school and you for the invite for Thursday night. The prize-giving put a big premium on investing in our young people and was a positive event. It was great to be there and to be part of the awards ceremony for all those amazing young people.

I 100% agree with what you said about regional balance. The new Executive have very much focused on regional balance. The previous question was about how the Maze/Long Kesh (MLK) site can benefit everybody: that is crucial. We must share prosperity and the benefit that can be found from investment. The strengthening of our local economy, support for our local businesses and investment in infrastructure have to be felt fairly across the North. Delivering regional balance is core to the intent, vision and ambition underpinning the Programme for Government, and that means targeting resources and locating services where there are clear deficits but also better connecting people to their public services and to employment and educational opportunities.

To deliver those objectives, we need to make the right investments in the right place and at the right time. Of course, that will be challenging, but we are dealing with a legacy of historical underfunding of public services; we know that. However, I am convinced that, when we work together, we can overcome those challenges and ensure that there is a fair spread across the piece, with everybody feeling that they are being invested in and that the Executive is committed to regional balance.

Mr McReynolds: Will the First Minister outline what focus the Department intends to give to the work on flags, identity, culture and tradition in relation to the Programme for Government?

Mrs O'Neill: That area of work is separate from the Programme for Government in so far as it has already been completed. The Member will know that there was consensus on some areas and not on others. Now, however, we are looking for the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report to be wrapped up in the wider review of Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC). It is important that we find a way to drive forward on the areas on which we agree and wrap that up with T:BUC, for example, and that we look at what that might look like. The Member knows that there may be areas on which there will not be political agreement. There may be a role for the Assembly in relation to how some of those areas are taken forward.

Mr McGlone: Minister, I was glad to hear you refer to prosperity. Can you advise whether you have engaged with anti-poverty campaigners yet as part of your consultation? The lack of a mention of the anti-poverty strategy came as a blow to many in that sector but, more importantly, to many who suffer from poverty.

Mrs O'Neill: Of course. In my answer to the previous question, I said that it is important that everybody feels prosperity and feels that they are invested in. I absolutely concur with the Member that we need to see the anti-poverty strategy published and put into action. I commend the Department for Communities for its work to take that forward and to get it published so that we can see that action.

People are struggling. The cost of living has been so challenging. The decision taken in London on the winter fuel payment compounds that problem for a lot of older people. We need to see the publication of the strategies. The Programme for Government includes reference to the inclusion strategies, but we need to see them published. I am committed to that and share the Member's desire for the strategies to be published.

Mrs O'Neill: TEO funded the extension and refurbishment of the Gasyard Centre, directly impacting the centre's ability to meet community needs. It now employs 19 staff directly and approximately 50 staff indirectly to ensure that the community has access to support services in the local area, with an array of projects on offer throughout the calendar year. The Peacemakers Museum hosted in the centre was funded solely through the Heritage Lottery Fund. An internal review was carried out under the raising concerns policy. The outcome of the internal review was independently reviewed by group internal audit and fraud investigation services. The conclusion of both reviews was that there was no breach of the capital process regarding Gasyard Development Trust’s proposal.

Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire.

Does the First Minister agree that the use of John Hume's name and image to promote a project despite his wife, Pat, and the Hume family expressing their opposition to it was and is wrong? What lessons have been learned by the Executive Office over the matter?

Mrs O'Neill: I assure the Member that I am absolutely delighted that our Department was involved in funding and supporting the extension and refurbishment of the Gasyard Centre. I just referred to the employment that that created, what it means to the area and the fact that the community has access to support services in the area. That is fabulous. We stand over and are proud of that.

TEO provides no direct funding for the Peacemakers Museum. Therefore, that issue is between the family and the museum.

Mr Middleton: Minister, there is no doubt that the Peacemakers Museum has proven to be divisive, not least among the nationalist community. There is no doubt as well that lessons need to be learnt by the Department about how such projects are handled. What lessons, does the Minister think, can be learnt as a result of what happened in the case of the Peacemakers Museum?

Mrs O'Neill: I remind the Member that TEO was not involved in funding the museum. Obviously, the Gasyard is different, and we are proud of that investment. There has been a lot of public commentary on the museum. Whilst we are not responsible for the content, TEO contracted Ulster University to provide additional assurance on the information that was shared in the content steering group and the development of the museum narrative. Ulster University and the National Lottery Heritage Fund confirmed that they were content that that had been met prior to construction works commencing. Like with all these things, it is much better to try to resolve them in a conversation as opposed to megaphone diplomacy.

Mrs Guy: Will the First Minister detail what steps are planned for the remainder of the mandate to recognise those who have made a contribution to peace in Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: That is not exactly related to the question. However, a number of events will happen. The deputy First Minister and I have been invited to events to celebrate 26 years of the Good Friday Agreement. We will have a number of events. Perhaps it would be better if I wrote to the Member to note what those are.

We should be proud of the people who stepped forward and created peace and the conditions for peace. We should, as we did for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, reflect on what was achieved, the fact that those people stepped forward and got us to the point where we had the Good Friday Agreement and how grateful we are for that. Our job, as the political leaders of today, is to keep building for the future and towards the next 25 years. We need to look at how we can lift everybody in society up and how we can have an inclusive society, because we live in an ever-changing and much more diverse place. I want us to live in a fair, welcoming and inclusive society, and I know that everybody in the Chamber is elected to do that work too.

Mrs O'Neill: The appointment of a new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors is essential to inform the development of policies and to help ensure that the longer-term needs of victims and survivors are represented by a strong, independent voice. We are keen that a new commissioner is appointed as soon as possible and are pleased to inform the Chamber that we have instructed our officials in the Executive Office to formally proceed with the appointment process. Officials are now at an advanced stage with the preparations required for the recruitment competition, and we anticipate that it will be formally launched in the autumn. We remind Members that the appointment process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is estimated that the process may take a number of months.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the First Minister for that response and for the movement on the appointment process for a new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. In recognising the key role that commissioners play here in our model of government, can the First Minister say what stage the recruitment competitions to appoint commissioners under the Identity and Language Act 2022 are at?

Mrs O'Neill: I can say that we have made initial decisions in respect of the appointments process. We have been able to make some progress there. Officials are working to provide further advice to Ministers, including information documents for each of the competitions as well as details of selection panels. The development of that competition documentation is at an advanced stage. Officials are also finalising the selection panels for the competitions. Once those are agreed, a competition initiation meeting needs to be conducted for each of the competitions. That will allow officials to provide finalised paperwork for Ministers. Subject to that agreement, the competition process can then be launched. I hope that that will happen in the immediate period ahead.

Mr Dunne: Securing help for victims and survivors in a timely and sensitive manner is a priority, and it is right that it should be. Will the First Minister outline the measures that are being taken to ensure that that is the case? Does she agree that all families should be treated equally and be entitled to the same access to justice, rather than there being a hierarchy of victims, which many people feel that there has been in recent weeks?

Mrs O'Neill: The Victims' Payments Board (VPB) is working closely with victims' groups to keep the scheme under review and to look for ways in which to improve throughput of cases. I know that a number of Members have been raising concerns about the fact that some individuals have been in the system for so long. It is quite a distressing time for anybody who is going through the process. I assure that Member that, to try to speed up the process, we are looking at all areas, including at having a review of operational effectiveness and performance. We are exploring improvements to the overall victim journey through the assessment process. We are doing workshops with victims' groups on improving the process. We are also working with NIJAC to bring the board up to full complement.

More generally, it is important that we support all families to get access to truth and justice. As we can see from the court ruling on Friday, the Labour Government's intention to go down the route of retaining the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), which does not command the support of the victims and survivors' community or human rights organisations, has now been found to be completely and fundamentally flawed. We need to find a way for all families to get access to truth and justice. We need to find a way in which to help people heal. That is different for different families. We once had that with the Stormont House Agreement, and we need to get back to that point.

I think that the Member was referencing the decision on the Finucane case. I commend the Finucane family, who have been campaigning for over three decades to get access to truth and justice. They were due that public inquiry but had been let down at every turn by successive British Governments. I commend Geraldine Finucane for her bravery and courage in keeping going for all these years. What I want for the Finucane family, I want for every family.

Mrs O'Neill: Since assuming responsibility for the coordination and engagement functions of the previous Strategic Migration Partnership, the Executive Office has worked in conjunction with partners to support asylum seekers and refugees and their integration into the community. That involves officials engaging with the relevant agencies to consider often challenging asylum and resettlement policies and to represent local interests to the Home Office on policy plans and implementation, such as room-sharing policies in asylum accommodation.

Following the recent unrest, officials set up cross-sectoral meetings with statutory bodies, voluntary partners and the Home Office, thus ensuring that key information was shared. A further element of our Strategic Migration Partnership work has focused on building a picture of community cohesion and service availability in a number of local locations. Phase 1 has been completed, and the Home Office is using that work to inform asylum dispersal here. In a similar vein, officials led a multi-agency working group to address move-on pressures and to help facilitate the transition for those who are gaining immigration status to live here. We will continue to work closely with our cross-sectoral partners to build on those successes and to strengthen engagement and communication in that area further.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the First Minister for her answer. I recently learned that children in contingency accommodation will no longer be able to go to school until they are in permanent accommodation. Some of the children with whom I am working have been in hotels for up to two years. I am very worried that, at some stage, there will be an inquiry into the treatment of those children, some of whom are malnourished and have poor mental health. It is deeply concerning that they will now be unable to go to school. What assurances can you give me that your Department will do everything that it can to ensure the well-being of some of the most vulnerable children in our society?

Mrs O'Neill: I can give the Member an assurance that we will do everything that we can. Where any particular issues arise, we will always want to know about them so that we can respond appropriately.

On the question of access to school places for asylum-seeking children, the Education Authority (EA) will no longer intervene to support them to secure a school place in the initial four-week period, owing to a fear of their moving on and children being moved from school to school. There is perhaps a challenge there. It is therefore important that we be sensitive to all those things and that we get this right. If the Member has any particular areas of concern to raise or would like to talk to me, I am more than happy to hear from her, because the EA has advised us that housing them in that type of accommodation for a short period will cause unnecessary disruption to families. We just have to be careful and work our way through the situation as best we can. If there are any particular cases that the Member would like to raise with me, I am more than happy to hear about them.

Mr Kearney: Lena chois sin,

on 8 August, the Assembly was recalled, and we issued a very strong message that we stood firmly against racist violence, intimidation and threat. Does the First Minister agree that we need a political and legislative zero tolerance of all forms of hate crime?

Mr Speaker: You have less than a minute.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that.

I absolutely concur. The racism, violence and intimidation that we have seen on our streets in recent months is a challenge to each and every one of us who wants to build a shared society here, with equality and respect at its heart, and a better future. As an elected body, we also need to have that approach to promoting and upholding that. I do not think that we will ever lose sight of the damaging and lasting impact that the crimes that we witnessed have had on victims, their families and our communities. It was harrowing to watch, and it is not acceptable. The zero-tolerance message that we sent out over the summer is vital. We need to keep driving home the fact that we are not going to accept that behaviour in this place that we call home. We say no to intolerance and hatred. We have to do everything that we can to ensure that we celebrate the richness of the diversity of the people who have made here their home, and those who were born here. We very much want to have it in our community.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: I have always been clear that I am here because I want to be. I am here because I want to govern. I am leading the Executive, developing a Programme for Government and bringing forward strategies to try to make people's lives better. I am fully committed to making the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement work, including the Executive and the Assembly.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. I was looking for a yes answer only. You have previously said that you are up for reforming these institutions. Are you aware of any of the work that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is doing on that issue, or is it just all oral fudge?

Mrs O'Neill: Perhaps the Member is not sure, but the job of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is to look at the functioning of these institutions and how they work and whether we can improve things, do better and reform. My team is there, participating with all the other parties to bring forward ideas and trying to progress areas in which we strengthen how we do business. We have always been up for that, and we will continue to be in the Committee.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I believe that we received an invitation towards the end of last week. When we met the Chancellor last week, that was one of the areas that we discussed. We think that we have a unique selling point. Now we need to make sure that we maximise that. If we are to grow our economy, we have to take every avenue and opportunity that is open to us. I think that the organisers are just trying to settle on a date for when that might be.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you very much for that answer. Does the First Minister agree that Northern Ireland has a number of key sectors in which we punch well above our weight, not least the aerospace industry, which is a significant employer in my constituency? What will the key message be to investors about why they should choose this part of the United Kingdom to invest in?

Mrs O'Neill: It is a very simple message, and it is one that we have delivered since we have come into office: we are open for business. That message resonates with people. It is important that we give that message of political stability, that we have a plan to grow our economy, and that we have plans to really showcase the strengths that we have here. We have a lot of strengths and things to be proud of, including the aerospace industry, manufacturing and advanced manufacturing. We are so strong in quite a number of areas, so our message will certainly be that we are very much open for business and that we have access to both markets, which we must now exploit to the benefit of all the people whom we collectively represent.

Mrs O'Neill: I am not sure that that has come to my desk. I will check it out and let the Member know.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, First Minister. In previous answers, you noted that the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation was developing options for Ministers to approve. For such a long-standing project, we need timelines and next steps. Will you outline when those proposals will be with you and what the next steps are?

Mrs O'Neill: It is very much for the board to develop the plans. That is its remit. It has come together as a corporation. Previously, it had plans, but, given the political nature of the site, those have not progressed. Let us hope that we are in a different space and in a spot where we can advance those plans. We have had the initial conversation with the board. Its members talked at a very high level around some of the areas in which there is, they think, potential. A lot more work has to be done on the detailed plans for, for example, the road into the site. We have to have political agreement in the first instance in order to get the site opened up, but I want us to achieve that. I want to find a way that lets us all maximise the site for the good of everybody and that protects the listed buildings. I want to find a way to get political agreement that allows that huge opportunity to be opened up. The prize for doing so will be job creation, money in people's pockets and economic growth. Those are all things that we all strive towards.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do. The Friday before last, when the British Government made a number of announcements that were not in the interests of people here, it was a poor start to any kind of reset that the new Government wanted to have with us. They need to do better. Casement Park must be built. It is a flagship Executive project to which the British and Irish Governments have committed. We know the quantum of funding that is available from the Irish Government and what the Executive have set aside. We now need to see the British Government fulfilling their commitment to get Casement built, if they want to be a partner in that, as I hope that they will be. This is about the economic potential that will come from investing in the site and what the stadium facilities will mean for Gaelic games, the local economy and job creation, so we need to push forward and get it done. It has gone on for far too long. The time is now. The Euros, unfortunately, have passed us by because of inaction. We are now in a scenario where we must move forward and get Casement built.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin.

Ar an ábhar céanna,

does she concur that the building of Casement Park will not only be hugely beneficial for the provision of other sporting events that could, once it is developed, be hosted there but act as a spur for significant investment in the North and in a generation that greatly needs good, solid, well-paid employment?

Mrs O'Neill: Absolutely. The economic benefits speak for themselves. We need to get on and get the stadium built now. The construction of Casement Park will be a huge benefit for west Belfast and the local economy, but the benefits will also be felt more widely. It has significant meaning for Gaels, for job creation and for growing our economy. We must now move on and get it done. I am determined to make sure that that is the case.

Mrs O'Neill: We have just been given an exploratory date. The British Government are trying to pull it together, but nothing has been confirmed yet. They seem to be proceeding with setting it up.

Mr Clarke: Given that they have set an exploratory date, I presume that you will welcome it with open arms. Do you know what work the council of the nations and regions will do, what format it will take, what interests it will have or what will be on the table for discussion?

Mrs O'Neill: No, we do not have any kind of in-depth detail, but, of course, I participate in all the bodies and groups. There are quite a lot of them right now, but I continue to participate in them where I believe that doing so will be to the betterment of the people here. We know, on a high brow, what has been suggested, but we do not have the detail of what an agenda would look like, where we would participate or how we would do so. Certainly, we will attend when the date has been settled.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, it is good news for the teaching and support staff that an agreement has been reached on a fair wage. That comes down to the old adage that we get more done when we work together. I commend the Finance Minister and Education Minister for the work they did together to constructively find a resolution to the matter. The industrial action had been going on for a long time, and all credit to the support staff in our schools and to the teachers who worked together to achieve what they did in the end. I commend them for that, because they deserve fair pay and good working conditions. I commend the approach of the two Ministers who worked together and that of the education and support staff.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, given that the Magee task force report has now been published, do you agree that the expansion of the Magee campus is vital for the north-west in terms of increasing student numbers and boosting the economy?

Mrs O'Neill: I very much welcome the publication of the task force report last week. The task force, spearheaded by Stephen Kelly, was one of the first things that our Economy Minister, Conor Murphy, established when he took up office. The delivery of 10,000 students at Magee is an Executive priority, and it is one that we are all determined to deliver on as part of our work to promote regional balance. It is a strong sign of intent, and it demonstrates that progress is being made. It is a really exciting opportunity to further establish the north-west as a vibrant place to live and study. If we work together with all partners, we will deliver a first-class university in the region.

Mrs O'Neill: Sorry, I am not aware of the ins and outs of that. All those who work in local communities, particularly those who work in interface areas, need to work together to ensure that, where our young people are being distracted in such ways, we can take them on a different path. I definitely commend a lot of the good work that is done by community groups and people on the ground who work with young people daily. I hope that that does not become a constant feature and that there is a way to find a resolution to what is happening.

Mr Kingston: Given that yesterday was the fourth day, as the First Minister said, it cannot be left as a matter for the police: elected representatives, youth workers, interface workers, residents and community workers all have a role to play in ending it.

Mrs O'Neill: If anything in TEO can be done to assist, we are more than happy to do it. However, the general point about all of us in political leadership trying to use our influence on things like this is very important. Usually, a better solution is found when it comes organically from the ground.

Mrs O'Neill: It was a fantastic event last week, and it was great to be there and be part of the signing of the growth deal, particularly given the negative publicity around the growth deals in the days prior to that. I was delighted and did not want the event to be overshadowed by the negativity, because we have work to do collectively to fight for the Mid South West and the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deals.

No doubt, the £290 million investment for the Derry City and Strabane District Council growth deal marks another huge milestone for the north-west. It will be transformative in terms of job creation, infrastructure, education, tourism projects and investment in our communities, and I believe that the potential of every city, town and community across the area that it covers will mean that such huge opportunities for the north-west in general will be created. When you combine it with the work that is being done in the Magee task force and on regional imbalance, you can see that the deal is a game changer in the collective effort to ensure that there is proper regional balance in the north-west.

Mr C Murphy (The Minister for the Economy): Enterprise NI is a vital part of our entrepreneurial ecosystem. We are primarily a small business economy, and the work that Enterprise NI does to support small and microbusinesses, including by delivering Go Succeed, is hugely important. Early in my tenure as Economy Minister, I met the chief executive of Enterprise NI, Michael McQuillan, and the chief executive of Mallusk Enterprise Park, Emma Garrett. I have also appointed Conor Patterson, chief executive of Newry and Mourne Co-operative and Enterprise Agency, as one of my expert advisers. My officials and I continue to engage with Enterprise NI and the local enterprise agency network about opportunities for entrepreneurs and small businesses across the North.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his answer and declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group on micro and small business.

You rightly point out, Minister, the great work that not only Enterprise NI but our local enterprise agencies across the country do to help new and existing entrepreneurs to further their business. Sadly, time and time again, local enterprise agencies tell me that they just do not have the funding to meet the work that they want to do. What more can your Department and local government do to support them to continue the great work that they do?

Mr C Murphy: First, we have to recognise, as you did, the quality of the work of those agencies. That work is vital in supporting start-ups and our small and microbusinesses to grow. As part of the regional plan that I will announce next week, Invest NI will have targets for start-ups, growth and FDI. I think that that will shift the balance somewhat. I see Enterprise NI playing an increasing role as we drive growth in that area by ensuring that the local regional partnerships are very focused on the businesses in their area and on finding the support for them to grow in the time ahead.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, given the large number of small and microbusinesses in the North, which you outlined, and, without being parochial, given the entrepreneurial spirit in areas such as mine — mid-Ulster — will you outline the role that such organisations can play in addressing regional inequalities?

Mr C Murphy: Areas such as mid-Ulster have a strong and well-organised manufacturing base and have seen the power that, collectively, they can yield. They are examples to other areas where we can get a sector together and create a cluster. We encourage the creation of clusters not just here but across the island. It gives smaller and more medium-sized businesses more economic clout and more clout in ensuring that skills pipelines are met and that they work with the skills providers to make sure that they meet the big challenge that we have for all our businesses, which is getting sufficient people with sufficient skills. The more areas are organised in that way, the more they can enhance what they already do. It is remarkable in many cases, given the size of the region and of our economy, that we have so many world leaders across different sectors. That leads to more regional balance, because it means that people come together in their area and recognise their strength. I hope that the work that we are doing on regional balance and local regional partnerships will enhance that approach.

Ms Nicholl: What learning has been applied across the local enterprise agencies, particularly those in the same council areas?

Mr C Murphy: As I said, it is a matter of trying to support the enterprise agencies to do the work that they do well. There is a range of them across the region. We have had the opportunity to meet them individually and collectively. In the time ahead, I think, the balance will shift in what Invest NI, as the primary delivery arm for the Department, does on setting targets on growth and start-ups. Those focuses perhaps did not get the attention that they deserved over many years, so I see that work as changing the balance and then changing the picture. If you ally that to the local regional partnerships that we intend to set up, that puts a much greater emphasis across all the council areas. Some council areas are strong on economic development, and some are not so strong. We want to lift everybody up to a level where they articulate their needs and have support and resources to do that. That is intended to be the approach. I intend to launch a statement on that next week, and I will be happy to give more detail in that regard then.

Mr C Murphy: With regard to sustainable jobs, I have identified the creation of good jobs as one of my four priorities. To that end, we are focused on growing sectors that have the greatest potential to provide decent and secure employment for workers and their families. My Department is also consulting on an employment Bill that aims to improve the quality of jobs across the board.

On skills development, I announced a new skills fund of £11·5 million in July. Community-based providers, as well as the regional network of further education (FE) colleges and our higher education (HE) institutions, are key to ensuring access and inclusion for everyone.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his answer. SKILL UP is a fantastic programme that is delivered throughout Northern Ireland. How is his Department assessing it to ensure that a broad balance of people from different economic and social backgrounds is being represented and is benefiting from the programme?

Mr C Murphy: We have a broad level of support for getting people into employment and trying to ensure that we have job opportunities across the board for all areas and all sectors of people. We have a good network of people who do first-level provision in the community. They work closely with all the regional colleges — we have a strong regional college presence across the North — and, in turn, they are linking with higher-level education institutions.

The Department needs to ensure that we work at all levels with people. The £11·5 million that we announced in July was to go across a range of initiatives, all of which are aimed at trying to draw people who are economically inactive into the workforce. They generally find that people with caring responsibilities or people who have other education or health issues need most support in order to find jobs.

We have to ensure that we are consistent in that approach, that those are the areas that we target and that those are the types of people that we target. We work with the community and voluntary sector and the regional colleges, which have a strong regional presence, to make sure that we are effective in what we do.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his focus on economic disadvantage and not strictly economic inactivity. Given the importance of supporting people with significant barriers to employment and the cross-cutting nature of that work, will the Minister outline what his Department is doing collaboratively with other Departments and how that fits into his economic vision?

Mr C Murphy: We are working with other Departments on a number of issues. We are working with the Department of Education to make sure that careers advice for young people is consistent across schools. We are working with other Departments to ensure that people who have special educational needs (SEN) post 19 have access to training and employment. Policy needs to be set in that regard, as there is an inequality there. We are working with the Department for Communities and the Department of Finance in relation to community wealth building, with two pilots projects in Larne and in Derry.

It is about making sure that there is collaboration across Departments, and I have to say that good cross-departmental work is happening under the Executive. We are trying to ensure that the limited resources that we have stretch as far as we can stretch them and that we make sure that we are doing actions that complement each other and do not contradict each other.

Ms Armstrong: The Minister mentioned the community and voluntary sector, further education colleges and Departments. Belfast City Council has been engaged in important, successful work to upskill and bring people into the workforce through its employment academy interventions. What engagement has the Minister had with Belfast City Council and other councils on that programme? Are there any plans to expand that model to other areas?

Mr C Murphy: I met all the group leaders, the chief executive and a number of officials from Belfast City Council the other week. We talked about skills, access to work and a range of areas. Belfast City Council is good at what it does in that regard. There is a model there for other councils that perhaps do not have the same resource and have not had that opportunity to develop their economic side of council policy in the way that Belfast has done.

There are good examples that we can all work from and that other councils can work from.

We want to ensure, partly through the regional balance posts — the regional partnerships that we will bring about — that Invest NI not only supports those but supports councils and council officials to make sure that they are up to the level that we find in some councils. Some councils are not just as engaged as others, but we want to make sure that all councils are acting on the economic policy levers that they have and are very proactive in areas that they think need support. Some of that, undoubtedly, is around skills and our skills academies and making sure that we direct people towards certain sectors where employment is available for them.

Mr McNulty: Minister, raising the skills profile is essential to combat poverty. What proportion of the new skills fund will be directed towards areas of higher deprivation?

Mr C Murphy: You tend to find that the areas with the most economic inactivity and that we need to target most are the areas of highest deprivation. It can go from 25% overall economic inactivity up to 35% or 36% economic inactivity in the north-west and areas like that. That is, of course, where the focus has to be. We are in a position where a lot of the skills money that the Department for the Economy traditionally relied on was European funding, which has not been replaced. We have had to identify sources of funding to try to ensure that we provide money for skills and training support, which I did in July with £11·5 million of support.

We also have to ensure that we work closely with regional colleges, the community and voluntary sectors and with groups such as the Clanrye Group, which the Member will be familiar with in our area. It works to identify and support people who are economically inactive to try to bring them back to the workforce. We also need to make sure that such groups, the colleges and the universities are working collaboratively to try to make the best possible impact. That will apply most in the areas where those people reside, which tend to be areas of deprivation.

Mr Speaker: Questions 3 and 4 have been withdrawn.

Mr C Murphy: My Department provides a range of support for students with learning difficulties or disabilities to transition to and participate in further education. However, I am aware that the current provision is not meeting the needs of all our young people. Therefore, I have commissioned from officials a review of the existing skills and training provision for young people with special educational needs, including legislative protections, with a view to providing advice and recommendations.

The team has participated in DE-led parent/carer stakeholder sessions, has met representative organisations, has met Alma White — who, as many of you will know, I met in June, as part of her campaign for her son Caleb — and is due to brief the all-party group on learning disability. This work will contribute to the Executive’s commitment to supporting young people with special educational needs, as set out in the draft Programme for Government, and it will, hopefully, be underpinned by our transformation bid.

Mr Speaker: Danny Baker. Sorry, Nick Mathison.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. There is much to welcome there. Will the Minister give a view on whether he feels that there is a gap in the legislative protection for young people with special educational needs who are moving out of the school system? We seem to be lagging behind neighbouring jurisdictions in that regard.

Mr C Murphy: Yes, I accept that, and it is why I have tasked officials with a piece of work on the issue. It is something that, as a constituency representative, I have lobbied for over the years. It is not acceptable that, although we have a responsibility to young people going through further and higher education and to provide support, people with special educational needs are effectively abandoned at the age of 19. Through that piece of work, my officials will make recommendations on whether legislative processes are required or whether we can make improvements through other processes. We have also bid for transformation funding to support it. This mandate is short, but I am hopeful that we can make some progress in this area before the end of it. Certainly, we want to get very quickly to a situation where we can provide practical support for young people in those circumstances and make sure that that injustice is addressed.

Mr Baker: Will the Minister elaborate on the bid to the transformation fund for improved special educational needs support?

Mr C Murphy: There is a process going on at the moment around the transformation fund that the Department of Finance is running.

We have bid for support. We presented a bid to the interim transformation board panel last week and answered its detailed questions. I understand that it will have a final feedback call with the Department of Finance tomorrow. That will include an indication of next steps. We are reassured that the panel recognises the significance of the issues on which we are committed to doing what we can to improve the lives and opportunities of young people with special educational needs and their families.

Mr C Murphy: I launched the consultation on the good jobs employment rights Bill on 1 July 2024. My officials and I have engaged with stakeholders before and during the consultation. I welcome the constructive engagement to date. The consultation covers four key aspects of a good job: terms of employment; pay and benefits; voice and representation; and work-life balance. Stakeholder responses to the consultation will help to inform the content of my Bill. I encourage everyone with an interest in that important issue to respond to the consultation before it closes on 30 September 2024. I am especially keen to hear from workers and employers with personal experience of and views on how to address the issues covered by the document.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. As I am sure you know, the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 provides for the making of gender pay gap regulations and requires the publication of a gender pay strategy and action plan within 18 months. Will you commit to working with colleagues to consider making those regulations alongside the good jobs Bill?

Mr C Murphy: We are certainly open to considering what is needed. The consultation is open-ended and without predetermination, so, if people feel that there are issues that the Department has not adequately addressed, on which legislation or strengthening of the process is needed, we are very happy to hear about them and, if possible, to take action where that is required. The consultation officially closes on 30 September, but we have spoken to people before and during the consultation, and we will speak to people afterwards in order to chart an approach in the time ahead. The intention is to introduce legislation by the end of next year, but, if there are particular issues that the Member wishes to raise, we are very happy to hear about them and see how they can be addressed.

Mr Kearney: Minister, you touched on the conclusion of the review, scheduled for 30 September. To what extent have workers, businesses and the trade union movement been engaged with to maximise their participation? Can you give us a sense of the quality of the responses that have been received?

Mr C Murphy: As I said, the consultation began, in effect, before the document was issued. This is the most substantial piece of employment legislation since the Good Friday Agreement. It is playing catch-up in a lot of areas, such as protection for workers, so there has been a lot of proactive engagement to make sure that we have on the table all the issues that we need to address. We have directly met trade unions and representatives of employers and businesses from a variety of sectors. We have met various stakeholders to hear their views on the consultation in a mixture of one-to-one meetings and large events attended by multiple stakeholders. Most recently, on Friday, the Department hosted a conference with Dr Lisa Wilson and other experts in the field of employment relations from across Ireland and Britain.

The engagement has been constructive. People come from different perspectives on some of the issues, of course, and that will be discussed with them, but I have been encouraged by the quality and the constructive nature of the conversation to date. Trade union representatives and business organisations have been in the same room discussing the issues. That will be beneficial in the longer term, when we enter the legislative process and bring the Bill through the Assembly.

Mr McGlone: Employees and workers in the agriculture sector face different sets of challenges in their work, not only cyclically through the seasons but daily. Has your Department engaged with workers from that sector on the special challenges that they face and how they, too, can be accommodated in the Bill?

Mr C Murphy: At the heart of the Bill is provision for a minimum threshold for protection of workers and workers' rights. That will apply to all workers whatever their sector. There has been engagement with trade unions representing a broad range of workers.

If the Member feels that there is a gap in a particular sector, I can check with the Department to see whether there was specific engagement with agriculture workers. If he senses that there is a gap, I am happy for departmental officials to engage with him to see what particular issues those workers are dealing with. At its core, however, the Bill is about providing a minimum standard of protection for workers in jobs to make sure that terms and conditions apply to people and that their rights are protected, regardless of the sector from which they come.

Mr C Murphy: Maximising the opportunities associated with dual market access is key to growing our prosperity. Invest NI promotes the dual market access proposition through its network of overseas offices in Europe and beyond. It has developed a European programme that will showcase the North as an investment destination. The programme includes a comprehensive online marketing campaign and a series of in-person events, the first of which I will attend in Germany in October. Further events are planned for the Netherlands and Belgium.

Locally, I want to see our businesses take advantage of dual market access. Accordingly, my officials have initiated a forum with business representatives to co-design support and guidance for navigating the new regulatory environment and maximising our unique trading opportunities. Research has been published that identifies the particular sectors that stand to gain most from access to both markets.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Northern Ireland's relatively strong economic performance has been predominantly in the services sector, although the manufacturing sector should benefit from dual market access. Can the Minister give a more specific update on what work has been done by Invest NI to sell the benefits of dual market access, including to potential investors in North America?

Mr C Murphy: As the Member may know, I have just returned from North America, having been there all last week. It was a frequent topic of discussion. The Invest NI team out there has been presenting similar evidence of what dual market access looks like and will mean. There is an interest there in what it means for companies.

I suppose that it is on three levels. Geographically, we are looking at North America and Europe, but we are also looking at our indigenous businesses so that they fully understand what the propositions are. That is why that research was done. As the Member says, the services sector is strong, but it may not necessarily benefit so much from dual market access. We will, however, need to ensure that the sectors that stand a chance of benefiting most understand what the rules and regulations are and how they will benefit. Bear in mind that dual market access was finally agreed only at around this time last year. It will be under implementation until 2025. Some of this is still evolving.

There is a significant interest in North America. As I said, when we met people last week, it was a frequent topic of conversation. We had officials there who were able to give advice and guidance to people who are considering investing here. That is the proposition that we will bring to Europe next month. I intend to go to a number of European destinations to make sure that people fully understand that, because, as the Member will understand as much as anybody, there continue to be unwelcome challenges from Brexit, and there will continue to be challenges for our businesses as a consequence of Brexit. Where there is an advantage to be gained, we have to make sure that we are in a position to act on it.

Mr McGuigan: Following on from answers that the Minister has already given, I ask whether the recent HMRC trade data suggests that manufacturing exports are benefiting from dual market access?

Mr C Murphy: Yes, a number of companies have been saying that they have benefited specifically from that. From the existing data, it is difficult to measure the exact impact across manufacturing. There is no data available on specific companies that are selling to both Britain and the EU to identify exactly how companies are benefiting. We certainly have had testimony from individuals indicating that they have seen great benefits. We have seen a small increase in goods from the North being exported to the EU over the past year, despite a challenging business environment and the cost-of-living crisis. Goods exports from GB to the EU fell by 9% over the same period, so that indicates that there are benefits to be had. We need to ensure that our local, indigenous businesses are fully aware of how to take advantage of those benefits.

Mr Brett: I welcome the Minister back from his trade visit and hope that those representing North Belfast did not cause him too much difficulty while he was out there.

Data published last week shows that manufacturing output is down by 1·1% and that dual market access has, to date, not brought any benefit to the Northern Ireland economy. The service sector, which shows 33% growth, is, of course, not covered by the protocol.

Can the Minister assure the House that he will continue to focus on building not only the European market but the UK internal market, which continues to be the biggest investment market for companies and exports from Northern Ireland?

Mr C Murphy: Yes. Access to both markets is the key to the dual market access benefit that will flow to us. We will ensure that companies have as few barriers to trade as possible, east-west, North/South and into Europe. Our manufacturing companies, like the wider economy, face challenges. There is historically high inflation in raw materials, and there are rising wage and energy bills, but the figures published on 12 September show an easing in the contraction of the production output rate, with an improvement in the second quarter estimated at 3·5% from a figure of 4·3% in quarter one.

The Ulster Bank purchasing managers index reported that the manufacturing sector had the highest level of growth, activity and new orders and the strongest level of optimism of any sector. It points to an improving picture for the manufacturing sectors, but I agree with the Member that we want to ensure that our companies can grow, export and trade as seamlessly as possible, both east-west and North/South.

Mr Durkan: Can the Minister provide an update on the publication of the Magee task force's report?

Mr C Murphy: I am not sure what that has to do with dual market access, but, nonetheless, the report was published last week. The matter may arise in further questions, but the interim report was published last week. It identifies challenges that need to be met in order to realise the ambition. I am sure we will get down to meeting those challenges in the near future.

Mr C Murphy: InterTradeIreland's budget reflects its operating needs, in line with its annual business plan. For 2024, InterTradeIreland's budget is £15·4 million. The split is on a one third/two thirds basis between my Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (DETE). My Department's contribution is £5·2 million, and DETE's contribution is £10·2 million. It is worth noting that InterTradeIreland can access additional funding, including from the Shared Island Fund, where it leads on women's entrepreneurship and clustering in partnership with Invest NI and Enterprise Ireland.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his answer. Is the Minister satisfied that the budget is sufficient to match the uplift in pay elsewhere in the public sector, while enabling InterTradeIreland to carry on and, indeed, enhance existing projects?

Mr C Murphy: The consequence of the additional funding that we put in has been to raise the headcount in InterTradeIreland from 47 to 65, and it is recruiting for those posts. It obviously covers the anticipated staff costs, and the request for staff is to meet the challenges. InterTradeIreland will be a key component in ensuring, in relation to the last question, that the advantages of dual market access are properly understood and advanced by businesses across the island. It has other important programmes on clustering and women's entrepreneurship that were funded through the Shared Island Fund, but we wanted to make sure it had the complement of staff needed to deliver on the challenges and the work it will have in the time ahead.

I expect that, when further business plans are developed, there may well be a request for additional resources to grow the staff, but certainly it was under-resourced for some time. InterTradeIreland is now at a point where it has sufficient staff to face the immediate challenges, and I will now look to future plans and discuss them at the North/South level with my counterpart in the South.

Mr Gaston: Last week, we had the announcement about appointments to Intertrade UK. Can the Minister confirm that no money from his Department is currently going to that body, meaning that it is a de facto window-dressing exercise to spare the blushes of his government partners in the DUP when they sold out on the Union?

Mr C Murphy: I attended the first meeting of the East-West Council, and there is no request for any resource. The body will be located in Whitehall and resourced from there. There is no request for resources from my Department, so no question around that arises. Of course, we want to see trade being as seamless as possible from east to west, North to South, into Europe and into the rest of the world. That is why we are being proactive in marketing dual market access to make sure that people understand it. That will be of benefit to all of our businesses. Of course, Brexit will continue to present challenges — unwanted challenges — to us, but that decision was taken in Britain, and we will continue to try to meet those challenges as best we can.

Mr Boylan: Will the Department for the Economy continue to fund InterTradeIreland at its level of need?

Mr C Murphy: We have moved to fund it at its level of need. It had not been funded to that level for some time, and we have already moved to do that. I anticipate that, as the level of business associated with the area in which it is working grows, there might be a requirement to re-examine that funding over the coming years. I am committed to and know that my counterpart in Dublin is committed to making sure that InterTradeIreland has the resource that it needs to do the vital job that we want it to do.

Mr Speaker: We move now to topical questions.

Mr C Murphy: The Member will be aware that that was a report on performance a number of years back. After the Assembly came back, one of the first things that we did when we secured additional funding in the Department was put the entirety of that — £11·5 million — into skills. We hope to release a skills strategy in the coming weeks. It is a big area of challenge, as she will, I am sure, understand. The common challenge of any of the businesses that we meet, however large or small and regardless of the sector, is getting more people with more skills. That is why we are working closely with the first-stage providers — the colleges, universities and community and voluntary organisations — to make sure that we get the best skills packages possible into where they are needed most.

Yes, there will, of course, be lessons from that report. I want to make sure that the Department examines the report and adopts whatever lessons need to be learned from that. That will assist us in trying to do the best that we can for skills and the way forward.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he assure the Chamber that the recommendations will be not only reviewed by his Department, as he mentioned, but acted on within this mandate? There are real issues in relation to the IT system not working effectively, and the gathering of data and measurements is a bit askew. Those issues are fundamental to knowing the direction of travel for skills.

Mr C Murphy: As I said, there will be lessons to be learned from the report, and, if gaps are identified in how the Department calibrates its response to the skills challenge, we will certainly look at those. We have been examining this since I came into post, and we have been proactive on it. We have secured more money for it, we are working with all of the groups involved in the provision of skills, education and training, and we want to make sure that we deliver as well as we can with the limited resources that we have. My intention is to make sure that any lessons from the report are learned and that any gaps that it identified are addressed.

Mr C Murphy: Anyone whom we have met in Derry has identified the expansion of Magee as the largest catalyst for economic growth. The area needs economic growth — there is absolutely no doubt about that — and the expansion of Magee is seen as the catalyst for delivering that. That is why I set up a task force. What was previously a statement in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA) about a commitment to 10,000 places has become a commitment in the Programme for Government, supported by all Executive parties, to 10,000 places at Magee.

We need to turn that statement of intent into a plan. The first report published by the task force, which I thank for its work, has identified a range of challenges that need to be addressed to get to that place. We will respond to that, as will other Departments and agencies, North and South, and, hopefully, we will be in a position by the end of the year to release a much more detailed report, which will outline the steps that will be required. Of course, we will then want to deliver the 10,000 places that we have all committed to.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the need for significant capital investment, will the Magee expansion be reflected in the investment strategy?

Mr C Murphy: Yes, I expect the proposition to be reflected in the investment strategy. The investment strategy will be released soon, and we will certainly be making sure that the anticipated requirements for the Magee expansion, given that it is an Executive project as well as a commitment under a political agreement, will be met within it.

Mr C Murphy: It was a very successful visit. We took 12 companies from across the North, from all sectors and of all sizes. Between them, over the course of the week, they had about 100 engagements. My team and the Invest NI team also met businesses. Some of those are considering investing here and some have already invested here, and we encouraged them to do so and to expand and grow their businesses here respectively.

We had very warm receptions, and we had an opportunity to engage with tour operators and people in the tourism sector in Chicago and Toronto to encourage more visitors. The visitors who come from the United States and Canada tend to be high spending: they stay for longer and spend more money, particularly those on golf tours. We were encouraging growth in that area. We also had very useful engagements with the broad diaspora in Chicago and Toronto and received a lot of enthusiastic support for growing our economy and being able to create a more prosperous and equal society here.

All in all, we had a very successful outcome. The businesses will be following up on the contacts that they made in due course to make sure that they are turned into additional business for them.

Mrs Mason: Thanks for that answer, Minister. Was regional balance reflected in the businesses that made up the trade mission?

Mr C Murphy: Yes. As I said, we had businesses from various sectors, of various sizes — small businesses and larger ones — and from across the region. Every one of them reported very positive and optimistic outcomes from their engagements. I had the opportunity to chat to them a number of times over the course of the week and they were all very positive. They were very upbeat about the opportunity that they had for doing more business on the other side of the Atlantic.

Mr C Murphy: We intend to do that by having a more strategic focus in a number of areas, which I have outlined from the start in terms of good jobs and productivity. We have had stubbornly low productivity here, which is inhibiting our businesses. We want to encourage more businesses into export, because those involved in export tend to be more productive and more innovative. We want to create good jobs. We are not simply about attracting jobs in for jobs' sake: we want to grow and improve the quality and skills of our workforce and have better jobs and better-paying jobs.

We have focused on seven areas that we think would be the most productive in supporting the ambition to have a more globally competitive economy. Those include fintech, advanced manufacturing and green tech. It is about recognising that we have very limited resources, and it is about prioritising those and ensuring that we work closely with business to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Mr Dickson: Minister, when measuring success, we need to understand how that measurement will be done. How will you measure the success, by the end of this mandate, of that globally competitive economy for Northern Ireland?

Mr C Murphy: I am conscious of the fact that the economy does not change overnight. Low-paid jobs and low productivity have been stubbornly with us for many, many years, and that will not change overnight. However, my Department, in discussion with Invest NI and with many business organisations, large and small, wants to create priorities for the economy and to set it in the right strategic direction and the right growth trajectory, and that is what we intend to do.

There are measurements, which I referred to in previous answers, for business and manufacturing growth. Certainly, business optimism has been strong over this year, and that augurs well for orders and manufacturing. Others chart day-to-day measurements. We hope to see an improving picture, because that, in turn, will encourage more confidence, and more confidence encourages more investment. By the end of the mandate, I want to have the economy on the correct trajectory and to make sure that we are all pulling in the same direction on economic growth.

Mr C Murphy: As I said in response to previous questions, we are very conscious of the skills challenge. From all sectors of our economy, from large to very small businesses, everybody mentions the same issue, which is getting people and skills. When you go abroad, you find that the biggest attractions for people who come to invest here are people and skills. Those are our biggest assets, but we need to do more and to assist. There will be potential for economic growth to stagnate if we cannot get more people. Post-Brexit, we do not have access to foreign workers in the same way that we had prior to Brexit. In any case, we had an obligation to meet the challenge of having a large number of economically inactive people and get them back into the workforce.

Some of that will be done through the childcare scheme, which will allow more people more affordable childcare and to access employment, training or education opportunities. We need to continue to press that. We do not have the resources that used to be in the Department for the Economy for that, but we allocated significant resources to it at the start of the summer. All the additional money that we got we put into skills, because it is the most crucial area, and we need others to work with us on that. We need to make sure that colleges and other skills providers are working as efficiently as they can across the sector and that businesses are contributing. They are the ones who are asking us to create pools of workers who are available for employment, and they need to work with us on that.

There are, undoubtedly, challenges, and if we had more resources we could do an awful lot more, but we are working hard with all the actors that are in that sector to try to make sure that we get the best possible outcome.

Mr Speaker: I call Deborah Erskine.

Mrs Erskine: For a supplementary?

Mr Speaker: Right. I call Nick Mathison. [Laughter.]

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You do not want me to get my supplementary questions in today at all.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he detail how he will ensure that vacancies will be filled in the seven sectors that he has identified as priority sectors for the Northern Ireland economy?

Mr C Murphy: We just have to continue to improve on what we are doing in order to make sure that we understand those sectors' needs. That is why larger companies can come forward with programmes. We have done skills academies for many of them. They have been very successful in getting people a guaranteed interview and a high proportion into jobs. We are a small and medium-sized enterprise economy so we are encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises to come together in clusters so that we can provide skills academies for them in order to try to make sure that they have a pool of people from which they can interview and, hopefully, engage.

We can take a range of measures. As I said, we want to try to fill the gaps that were identified in that report and where we think that there are deficiencies in our approach. There is always challenge, because we do not have the resource. If we had much more resource, we could do much more in that area. However, we will work closely with everyone we can to achieve that outcome.

Mr C Murphy: We are doing more in the area of further and higher education so that we can provide more childcare support in certain circumstances to people who wish to take up educational opportunities. We want to provide support for them in that arena. Of course, Invest NI is working with the Department of Education on that scheme, because Invest NI has business expertise that the Department does not necessarily have. They are working on how that will roll out through supporting childcare businesses and others in providing a more subsidised form of childcare.

All the Departments are working closely — this is an Executive priority — to try to get the childcare scheme developed. Where we have individual responsibility in our Department, in areas such as further and higher education or other skills provision, in offering assistance to people who want to come into that for the childcare opportunities, we will provide resource and money to make sure that people who want to come into education or skills provision have an opportunity to access more affordable childcare or, at least, support for childcare provision.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Mr Durkan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is about Executive Office Question Time. Is it in order for a Minister to wash their hands of or to try to remove their Department's fingerprints from a project that would not or could not have proceeded without that Department's support? It is bizarre that the First Minister told us earlier that the Peacemakers Museum had nothing to do with the Executive Office given that the former permanent secretary of that Department had previously conceded that TEO:

to TEO and even said that TEO officials would welcome the opportunity to apologise for and address that with the Hume family. It appears that the First Minister has no issue with the rewriting of history.

Mr Speaker: It is never in order to mislead the House, and I say this to all Ministers: you must come to the House with the truth. That is absolutely critical to the integrity of the Assembly. I will do some background work on that and come back with a further ruling on the matter, Mr Durkan, given that what you have raised is quite serious.

Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The next item of business is a motion to approve a statutory rule.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This rule primarily makes two technical amendments to the principal regulations — the Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 — to clarify certain provisions and to ensure that the regulations meet the original policy intention. The principal regulations provide for an authorisation and supervision regime for collective money purchase schemes, which are commonly known as collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes.

I turn to the first amendment. The rule amends the principal regulations to clarify provision relating to the annual actuarial valuation and benefit adjustment processes for CDC schemes. Each year, benefits are renewed and adjusted where required so that the value of scheme assets held is in balance with the projected cost of benefits. A balance needs to be maintained between the value of the available assets of the scheme and the amount needed to provide the target benefits to members on an ongoing basis.

The intention is to provide that, where a cut to benefits must be made due to an economic downturn, the CDC scheme's trustees can smooth the impact of the benefits cuts on members over three years. That is called a multi-annual reduction. The mechanism helps to reduce volatility and ensure that the current and future benefits remain relatively stable. If that were not done, the benefits of the recovery would likely go to future pensioners, which would not be in line with the principle that, as far as possible, all members — current pensioners, those who are currently accruing benefits and those who are not contributing but have rights to a future pension from the scheme — should share in the upsides and downsides at the same time. The rule also ensures that information about any multi-annual reduction and subsequent offsetting must be reported to the Pensions Regulator in the actuarial valuation in order to ensure proper oversight.

The second amendment ensures that, where a scheme winds up, beneficiaries' accrued rights are transferred to suitable pension schemes or alternative pension arrangements. A key element of the winding-up process is the calculation of the share of the fund for each person who is a beneficiary at that time. The scheme rules may provide that that person be a member but could include a spouse, a child or a person financially dependent on a deceased beneficiary. The intention has always been that, if a beneficiary dies during the winding-up period, the pot allocated to them will not be extinguished but will be reallocated among their successors where a scheme's rules provide for that.

In conclusion, the rule provides clarity for CDC schemes moving forward by more accurately reflecting the policy intention, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I rise to express the Committee's support for the motion that the Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 be approved.

The Committee first considered the regulations on Thursday 29 February and was content for the Department to proceed with making the rule. The Committee later approved the statutory rule at its final meeting before the summer recess, on Thursday 27 June 2024.

To refresh Members' memories and inform anybody who may not be familiar with the regulations, they make a number of technical amendments to occupational pension schemes. The purpose of the changes is to ensure that collective money purchase schemes function as intended. The schemes provide retirement benefits based on collective contributions, and the changes in the regulations aim to strengthen their governance and protect their members' interests.

Allow me to summarise the key provisions. First, they will ensure that increases to benefits are made to offset any planned multi-annual reductions so that members' benefits are safeguarded during adjustment periods, as the Minister outlined. Secondly, they specify details that must be included in actuarial valuations, which is important for assessing the financial health of the schemes. Thirdly, they specify additional types of funds to which benefits can be transferred and offer alternative ways for schemes to discharge their liabilities to members if a scheme is being wound up. That is an important safeguard for members' financial security in such circumstances.

In essence, the amendments are technical but key to ensuring that collective money purchase schemes operate smoothly, are governed responsibly and continue to serve the best interests of their members.

As I outlined, after consideration and scrutiny, the Committee is content with the proposed changes and believes that they will enhance the stability and transparency of such schemes. I am therefore pleased to recommend that the Assembly approve the Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2024.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There being no other Members listed to speak, I call the Minister for Communities to conclude and wind up the debate.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that everyone will agree that that was a fascinating debate. I know that we all look forward to watching our contributions when they lead the evening news later.

On a serious note, I sincerely thank the Committee for its work. The CDC schemes will be an important addition to the UK pensions landscape, and the rule provides clarification to more accurately reflect the policy intention. I am grateful to the Committee for its work and for the consensus across the Chamber.