Official Report: Monday 17 February 2025

Mr Speaker: I have received confirmation that the First Minister is unable to be in the Chamber today, and that the deputy First Minister will respond to questions on behalf of the Executive Office at Question Time.

Mr Kearney: A recent report from Ulster University's Economic Policy Centre suggests that the North will need between 5,000 and 8,000 additional workers every year for the next 10 years in order to grow the regional economy. Failure to address any of the barriers to work or job training that are cited in the report will threaten the forecast potential economic growth. Long-term economic inactivity and retaining highly trained students and skilled workers are just some of the challenges that we will face in the coming years. The solution must be based on a well-compensated, well-trained and secure workforce, with strong workers' rights and protections built into law.

The 'good jobs' employment rights Bill that will progress through the Assembly in the coming months is an opportunity to shape our workforce in relation to the high-growth scenario that is forecast by the university. A good jobs programme will be integral to a productive, fair and competitive economy. There needs to be a regional economic base that ensures that workers are paid fair wages and are guaranteed secure employment that provides workers and their families with a good standard of living. The 'good jobs' Bill will be the most progressive employment legislation ever introduced in the North. With cross-party support, it can help to build a strong and productive workforce for the future, with workers' rights, union recognition and collective bargaining at its core. That is the best foundation for growth and productivity in the all-island and global economies. Crucially, it will also reward workers and families, trade unions and employers, and local businesses.

Mrs Dodds: This afternoon, I will highlight Cancer Research UK's cancer screening awareness campaign, which is launching today. Over the next six weeks, Members are likely to see the campaign on television, buses, billboards and in cinemas, providing the essential message that, if you are invited for screening, you should not ignore the letter. Whilst I recognise that some issues about past screening performance have been highlighted over recent months, they should not detract from the importance of attending appointments to get checked out. The Public Health Agency (PHA) has helped to co-produce the campaign so that the right messages are reaching the right people, and GPs have taken time to help inform the campaign.

We know that screening is an important way to help prevent cancer and find it at an early stage when treatment is more likely to be successful. In Northern Ireland, more than 60% of cancers that have been diagnosed through a screening route were caught at stage 1, which suggests that screening is a positive and effective route to finding cancers at an earlier stage. However, we also know that screening uptake could be improved in Northern Ireland, especially for bowel screening, where only 58% of people who are invited for screening take the test. I was delighted to hear the Minister say at the Health Committee last week that he intends to extend the bowel screening campaign. Only two thirds of women who are invited for cervical screening respond, and a quarter of those who are invited for breast screening do not take the opportunity.

One of the ways that we can improve uptake is by addressing key barriers to participation, such as a lack of awareness that screening is for people without symptoms, feelings of embarrassment and concerns about pain and discomfort. The Cancer Research UK campaign seeks to increase informed participation in screening by addressing those misconceptions. It is an incredibly important campaign, and I hope that we will all be able to publicise it and use it as part of our duty to inform the public about this important service.

Ms K Armstrong: I rise to make an urgent call for greater support for over 300,000 people who are living in Northern Ireland's private rented sector. While many private renters have a good experience, that is far from universal. For some of them, life is, sadly, defined by a mixture of unaffordable rent hikes, long delays to have basic repairs carried out and the threat of being evicted and ending up homeless. Those challenges are not new, but the Communities Minister has been in post for over a year and, like his predecessors, has done little to tackle them. All the while, we have some private renters who cannot afford to eat, who are getting sick from the damp and mould in their homes and who do not know whether they will have a place to live in 12 months' time. That is why we in Alliance have published our plan for a new deal for private renters. We want legal mechanisms to end the inflation-busting rent rises and save tenants from living in poverty; mandatory time frames for landlords to inspect and carry out essential repairs so that people are not forced to live in homes that are unfit for inhabitation; open-ended tenancies and a ban on no-fault evictions to give tenants security in their homes; and new measures to boost the supply of affordable rental accommodation in every council area. It is only through delivering that new deal for private renters that we will end the misery that so many tenants across Northern Ireland experience. I hope that the Communities Minister will heed those calls and deliver a desperately needed new deal for private renters.

Mr Nesbitt: I am sure that Members will have noticed the absence of one of our colleagues in recent days. I refer to the Ulster Unionist Party Member for East Belfast, Andy Allen MBE MLA. He has not been idle. He has been in Whistler, Canada, participating in the Invictus Games. He entered four events and achieved a medal in all four: a full suite of gold, silver and bronze. He won a bronze in the Nordic cross-country sit skiing; two silvers, one as a member of the UK wheelchair rugby team and another in his own right for the one-minute sprint rowing event; and a gold medal, again in rowing, for the four-minute endurance. He is a sprinter and an endurance athlete. Those are remarkable achievements for a man who suffered such life-threatening injuries while serving Queen and country in Afghanistan in 2008. At 20 years of age, he lost both his legs to above-knee amputations, and his sight was severely impaired, as a result of being caught up in a Taliban IED in the Helmand province.

As party leader, I was delighted, some years ago, to co-opt Andy into the Chamber to replace his predecessor, Michael Copeland, who retired due to ill health. Andy has gone on to become a four-time MLA, having been elected in his own right in 2016, 2017 and 2022. He has also been a great public servant not only in this place but for veterans. Andy Allen's veteran service support group was set up to help veterans and their families, and he did so well that he received an MBE in 2019. His family, including his wife, Natalie, and his three children, will be very proud of his achievements in Whistler. It is a matter of pride for them, for veterans, for this party and for the Assembly.

In all the years that I have known Andy, there has been not a scintilla of self-pity but endless determination. If I may, Mr Speaker, I suggest that it would be entirely appropriate were you to host a reception to welcome back the four-time medallist, Andy Allen.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Hunter: The urgent need to address respite care shortages in the North is a significant concern, which is shared by many families in my community and across the North. Recent reports from the 'Belfast Telegraph’ and 'The Irish News' painted a distressing picture of waiting times for respite care that have increased by as much as 50% over the past year, with some families facing delays of up to 12 months for a much-needed break. Cancellations ruin plans and the much-awaited rest and recuperation for our unpaid carers. Respite services allow our unpaid carers to, essentially, have a day or two away and have some time to themselves. In particular, I think of the case of Woodlawn House in Dungannon, where things get cancelled at short notice due to lack of space. That needs to be urgently addressed.

Unpaid carers across the North save our health service and economy £5·8 billion in care costs each year. Local charities, which have long been the backbone of support, are now overwhelmed because the number of those who are waiting for respite services has, effectively doubled. Those figures are not mere statistics; they are real people. They represent burnt-out mothers, fathers, siblings and carers who are stretched to breaking point. Carers play a vital role in our society. Their contribution must be recognised, and, of course, their needs must be met.

In my constituency and in our communities, where care responsibilities are already heavy, I have spoken with many for whom the lack of timely respite services has profound mental health consequences. We hear stories of carers who have been forced to cancel work, endure severe stress and, in some heartbreaking cases, compromise the quality of the care that they can offer their loved ones and their own mental health and overall well-being. It is not only a question of health and well-being. It is a matter of dignity and the basic right to support for those who care for our most vulnerable citizens.

The crisis in respite care reflects a broader systemic challenge that requires urgent and decisive government action. For the countless parents who have children with complex needs, I ask that the Health Minister and his Department provide an immediate review of the current services that are available. It is imperative that we secure additional funding, enhance staffing levels and ensure fair and equitable distribution of those vital services across the region. The well-being of our communities and, indeed, the long-term sustainability of our health services depend on it. We in the SDLP, standing in opposition, are committed to working constructively with the Executive and the Department of Health to deliver that. We must ensure that families are not left without the support that they so desperately need. I urge the Department to act swiftly to ensure that that is not the case.

Ms Ferguson: Investment in legal aid yields substantial benefits not only for individuals but for their families, our communities and our public services. I thank the Law Society and Rocket Science for their report on the social value of legal aid, which I urge everyone to read and consider. Using a social return on investment methodology, the report highlighted a significant return. For every £1 that was invested in legal aid, £8.32 of social value was created.

Amongst many key findings, the report revealed that legal aid plays a crucial role in reducing strain on our public services and alleviating congestion in the legal system. Legal aid assists clients in retaining employment, avoiding severe debt and homelessness, managing stress, averting family breakdown and improving their longer-term opportunities. Our legal profession, which is at the heart of delivering access to justice, including through legal aid services, continues to face significant challenges. Legal practitioners have dealt with stagnant fees for decades, coupled with delays in payment, which has undermined and reduced the viability of this essential service and undermined public trust and confidence in the legal system.

We know the challenges posed by continued underfunding, including solicitor shortages as firms struggle to recruit and retain staff or keep their legal aid workload, case backlogs and ever-increasing strain on the profession. Legal aid is not just a publicly funded service; it is a lifeline. The report is a powerful testament to the role that legal aid plays in ensuring justice and equality, particularly for some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Any reduced availability of legal professionals and access to legal aid threatens to diminish equal access to justice for all. Legal aid should be viewed not as a cost to society but as an essential investment in fairness, equity and access to justice. We need immediate action to ensure the long-term sustainability of the system; it is fundamental. The report on legal aid provides compelling evidence for a more strategic view of, and an increased investment in, legal aid. The reality that we all must recognise is that we are facing an urgent access to justice crisis that demands immediate attention, and we must ensure the urgent delivery of sustained funding for that vital service. Legal aid is not merely a support mechanism for people in crisis; it is a fundamental pillar of our justice system and should be protected and supported accordingly.

Mr Martin: This morning, I will talk about the Northern Ireland Women's Rights Network, which is a UK organisation committed to defending and bringing clarity to the discourse around sex- and gender-based rights. Its work has been all the more critical in recent years as moves have been made by Governments to alter equality legislation. Some initiatives to promote self-ID in equality law have had an alarming effect on respect for women's spaces and have provoked a backlash across the political spectrum.

Last week, the Women's Rights Network attended the Executive Office Committee, but its evidence was highly criticised by three of the political parties present. The Alliance Member for East Antrim said that its remarks would be traumatising for trans people. That is, however, from a party that said that it would:

and its Justice Minister is not sure how many genders there are.

Sinn Féin branded the arguments and support for single-sex spaces as disgraceful. The SDLP stated that not everyone fits neatly into male and female and said that it did not agree with the evidence presented. What could be so controversial and contentious that these comments were made in the aftermath by Committee members? I will quote directly from their oral evidence:

I apologise for the unparliamentary and highly provocative language in this next statement. The Women's Rights Network stated that "there are only two sexes" — male and female. People can define themselves how they like, but the logic of demanding that rights follow is precarious. In 2022, an able-bodied trans woman from Norway announced that she had felt disabled since birth. She now defines herself as disabled and spends every day in a wheelchair, even though she does not need one. After that was reported in the press, disabled rights groups in Norway went apoplectic. Yesterday, the 'Scottish Express' was reported to the police for referring to a transgender woman, Dr Beth Upton, as a man during the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal. The largely discredited Stonewall is still funded by the Minister of Finance in a Northern Ireland Assembly. In this party, we know what a woman is, we know how many sexes there are and, seemingly, unlike most other parties in the Chamber, we are wholly committed to protecting women and girls' spaces.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Dr Aiken: It is sometimes difficult for us, collectively, to rise above the very legitimate concerns that we have in Northern Ireland. We are not insulated, however, from the tectonic shifts in geopolitics that wash around us all. It is often forgotten that Russia invaded the Ukraine in February 2014, which was an event that should have been a wake-up call for everybody across Europe about Vladimir Putin's intent. Since the annexation of the Crimea, the conflict between the Russian state and the Ukraine, and, increasingly, in hybrid forms against us, has descended into all-out war on our continent. There have been attacks that are reminiscent of everything from the horrors of the First World War trenches to the first use of AI and robotics: war that previously was talked about only in science fiction.

Last week, however, something previously inconceivable happened. The United States, the former guarantor of our Western democracy, signalled clearly that the days when it would:

were over.

Europe, having freeloaded in varying ways under the US security umbrella, has been put on notice that our collective security now rests with us. It is no longer a certainty that the United States will come to our rescue. Today, European leaders, including the Prime Minister, will meet in Paris to work out how to respond. That response matters to us all. We are not a periphery by being on a poorly defended, if at all, set of islands on the periphery of Europe any more. Those who complain and moan about military spending will soon realise that the only thing that is more expensive than investing 3·5% of our GDP on deterrents is paying billions more to repair the damage to our nations that war, like the one in the Ukraine, will bring.

Finally, we have a unique challenge on this island. Our Southern neighbour, by any measure, is completely defenceless. That matters to us, because its absolute vulnerability is our vulnerability. It is well beyond time for the Irish to wake up. Rather than pontificating in Munich and Brussels, the Taoiseach needs to commit to real defence and to collective European security. Anything else is unacceptable. The time has come for Europe to step up. Much closer and integrated European military capability is needed. If one aspires to European democracy and freedom, one needs to be prepared to fight for it. Poland and the Baltic States know what the stakes are. It is time that we too woke up and paid the price and took on the burden.

Ms Reilly: The weekend was nothing short of monumental for local artists, and, once again, West Belfast was at the very heart of it all. I begin by offering my congratulations to two exceptional actors, Lola Petticrew and Anto Boyle, both of whom won prestigious awards at the Irish Film and Television Academy (IFTA) awards last week. Their talent and dedication continue to set new standards in the world of performance.

Just last night, Kneecap added a BAFTA to its growing list of accolades. Liam Óg, Naoise and JJ have revolutionised the Irish language, showcasing and putting an Ghaeilge to the forefront on the global stage. Their work has helped make the language relevant to a new and growing generation, ensuring that it is not just preserved but celebrated. Through their art, they have opened doors to a worldwide audience, delivering a powerful message about language, identity and culture. They have shown us how creativity can be a vehicle for preserving the language. As the director of 'Kneecap', Rich Peppiatt, rightly said in his acceptance speech, everyone should have their language, their culture and their homeland respected. That success is a testament to the power of art to promote cultural identity and to build awareness of political and social causes, not just here at home but internationally. That includes the struggle for freedom in Palestine.

Last night's victory marks another significant step in the ongoing resurgence of the Irish language, which continues to grow in strength, influence and pride. Maith sibh, a Lola, Anto agus Kneecap

on an incredible weekend and career. You make us all incredibly proud in West Belfast and across the island. Keep pushing the boundaries, raising the bar and showing the world the incredible power of creativity, culture and identity to deliver positive change across society.

Mr Brett: In November 2024, the House rightly debated the issue of unadopted private developments. Members from across the Chamber spoke about concerns in their constituencies over waste water infrastructure, unfinished roads and the inability to have streets gritted.

After Members put their concerns on record, the Minister responded by telling the House that he would put new enforcement guidelines in place by the end of 2024 and that that would combat the issue that has been impacting on countless constituents in Loughshore Manor and Willowbrook, to name a few. Residents rightly took reassurances from the Minister's words that work would be done to ensure that their developments were, finally, brought up to adoptable standards.

We are now in February 2025, and the promised guidelines for residents across Northern Ireland are nowhere to be seen. Even more concerning is that, in response to my question for written answer, the former Minister for Infrastructure, Mr O'Dowd, stated that the new regulations would not apply retrospectively to any developments already in place. The Minister did not make that comment in the House when addressing Members' rightful concerns. After months of being led down a garden path that enforcement action would be available through the Department, it is now clear that that is not the Minister's intention.

We now have new leadership in the Department for Infrastructure. I have written to the new Minister asking her to look again at the decision of her predecessor. As we try to rebuild confidence in these institutions, the public rightly expect Ministers to follow through on the claims that they make. They rightly expect them to deliver on the promises that they make. The Infrastructure Minister clearly made a promise to people living in unadopted estates throughout Northern Ireland that those enforcement powers would be able to be used retrospectively. Today, I put it on the record — I am sure that other Members will agree — that the Minister needs to live up to the commitment that was made in November, and I hope that the new Minister will have more sense than the previous one.

Mr Carroll: In recent weeks, unfortunately, we have seen an upsurge in racist graffiti in parts of the North. My constituency has not been immune to that. We have seen the emergence of graffiti in Beechmount and Lenadoon stating, "Locals only". Of course, such graffiti is not misguided or simply ignorant; it is intended to cause fear and intimidation among people who are not classed as "locals" but who live in communities and contribute so much. The message sent is that, if you are a migrant or an asylum seeker or even if you are racialised as "other" or somebody who is non-white, you are not classed as "local" or welcome in communities. Not only are such ideas deplorable and reactionary, letting the real culprits who are to blame for society's ills off the hook, but they are not reflective of Beechmount, Lenadoon or others areas of West Belfast or across the North. Last week, the people of Beechmount came out in their droves — hundreds of them — to condemn racism and to welcome their neighbours, and I commend them for that.

It is worth repeating that racism does not emerge organically but comes out of the swamp of the lies about and degradation of asylum seekers and migrants created by many politicians and media outlets over many years. It is not at all surprising that people who are angry, are alienated or have been failed by the system pick up on those awful ideas.

Whilst the racists and the far right are certainly in the ascendant on the global stage, it is not the case that they have it their own way, at least in Belfast and the North. I commend the Beechmount Residents Collective, the residents of the area and people such as Sean Doherty who, despite facing threats and intimidation, are sticking their heads above the parapet to call out racism and to welcome their neighbours. I commend the activists in the Casement Park area of Andersonstown who, a week or so ago, responded quickly to racist graffiti and painted it out. Events are happening locally in the coming days and weeks to celebrate diversity and welcome our migrant and asylum-seeker brothers and sisters. I commend the people who are organising those events. I encourage people who are watching to attend them and play their part in standing up against racism, which has no place in West Belfast or anywhere else on this island.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the comments of Vice President J D Vance at the Munich security conference. His reminder that some of our most fundamental values are being disregarded should act as a wake-up call to those in power. It is outrageous that Adam Smith-Connor was convicted for silently praying outside an abortion clinic.

Closer to home, we have seen a similar situation, with Claire Brennan, from my constituency, fined for protesting outside Causeway Hospital. It is deeply troubling that Vice President J D Vance needed to use that opportunity to raise freedom of speech and religion in the context of so-called safe access zones.

Had the vice president viewed the Executive Office Committee meeting last Wednesday, he would have been alarmed. We had the Christian Institute speaking about the need to protect the fundamental freedoms of the Churches to maintain their beliefs when engaging volunteer workers. I have no doubt that J D Vance would have recognised the attitudes of the majority of members on the Committee as another example of what he called the "basic liberties of religious Britons" in particular being under threat.

I welcome the fact that, for the first time, on Wednesday, a Committee of this House heard from a group prepared to challenge the fairy tale that a man can become a woman. It also highlighted the very real dangers that accompany that fiction. I commend the Women's Rights Network for its courage, and I look forward to its feeding into the work of other Departments. Its input would be particularly welcome at the Education Committee, given that the Minister of Education is intent on adopting a "Hear no evil, see no evil" approach to the menace of transgender ideology in our schools.

Whilst welcoming the fact that the Women's Rights Network appeared before the Committee, I observed that, as was the case with the Christian Institute, there was little sympathy for the sensible views that it articulated. I put the House on notice that the direction of travel of the Executive Office Committee on a single equality Bill is deeply troubling and is one that may well be positively regressive in its proposals.

Vice President Vance, when drawing his remarks in Munich to a close, observed:

The House and its Committees would do well to remember that that includes women, girls and, yes, even Christians.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. That concludes Members' statements.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Clarke: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call Trevor Clarke to open the debate.

Mr Clarke: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, the Assembly Commission welcomes the debate on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill. It is an opportunity to present more detail on the Bill to the House and to clarify points that have been made since the Bill was introduced two weeks ago.

The Assembly Commission recognises that there is no good time to deal with issues relating to Members' salaries and pensions. Understandably, there will be a range of views, including negative ones, amongst the public whom we serve, and there is undoubtedly an opportunity to play politics with the issue. Therefore, while we are here to debate the Bill's general principles, it is important to make a distinction from the outset between process and outcome. The House is debating a largely technical Bill that deals with the process of how Members' salaries and pensions are determined. We are not debating or deciding what the level of Members' salaries and pensions will or should be. If the Bill is passed, only the independent remuneration board will decide that.

I turn briefly to the history of the issue. As the House will know, in 2011, the Assembly passed the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which created an independent body, the independent financial review panel (IFRP). The IFRP's function was to determine the salaries and pensions payable to Members and the expenditure that Members can reclaim to rent constituency offices, appoint staff, travel in their constituencies and so on. In 2016, the IFRP made a determination that governed Members' salaries and office cost expenditure and a determination that governed Members' pensions. The IFRP's decisions on salaries and pensions are still in place and continue to govern Members' salaries and pensions.

In 2015, even before the panel issued the determinations, the Assembly Commission began to review options for reforming the system for providing financial support to Members. The term of office for the then IFRP came to an end in 2016. The Assembly Commission deferred taking a decision to proceed with appointing a new panel pending further consideration of the options for reform. Political developments soon afterwards meant that the Assembly Commission did not want to return to the matter while the Assembly was not sitting. However, it quickly became clear that the system for staffing and office cost expenses set up by the IFRP in 2016 did not adequately provide for the pressures that Members and their employees face in representing their constituents. Consequently, on 30 June 2020, a few months after the Assembly returned on 11 January 2020 and after much detailed consideration by the Assembly Commission, the Assembly agreed to change the way in which allowances for the costs of Members' offices were determined. At that time, the Assembly passed a resolution that the Assembly Commission be given the power to make determinations on Members' allowances and that decisions on salaries and pensions should continue to be made by an independent body. That has been the Assembly's settled position for some five years.

The resolution in June 2020 gave the Assembly Commission legal authority to determine allowances, but it recognised that further legislative change would be needed to resolve the overlapping issues. That was because, technically, the IFRP retained the power to make determinations on allowances for Members' offices under the 2011 Act. Should the IFRP or a similar successor body be appointed without the necessary legislative change, two separate bodies would have the power to make determinations on staffing and office cost expenditure that can be reclaimed by Members at the same time. That is undesirable and could lead to a legal uncertainty. The Bill will remove that uncertainty by reflecting in law the position that the Assembly has already resolved twice, in June 2020 and this month, and by providing the independent body to deal alone with salaries and pensions.

After the Assembly passed the resolution in June 2020, the Assembly Commission introduced the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill in December 2020. However, as it soon became clear that the pandemic had not ended as soon as we would all have liked it to, the Assembly Commission decided not to take the Bill forward, when a heavy burden of legislation was coming before the Assembly. Since then, the Assembly Commission has continued to consider the Bill. It is only now, a year after the Assembly's return but before the heavy legislative workload towards the end of the mandate begins, that the Assembly Commission has come back to the House to introduce the Bill.

In summary, the House is debating a Bill that is largely technical and that deals with the process by which Members' salaries and pensions are determined. If the Bill is passed, only the independent remuneration board will decide the levels of Members' salaries and former Members' pensions for. The word "independent" is key. Neither the Assembly Commission nor Members will be involved in the decisions on Members' salaries. On behalf of the Commission, I thank all Assembly Commission officials for the detailed work that they have done on the Bill and on related issues over those many years.

Given the context that I set out, the Assembly Commission can hardly be accused of rushing to bring the Bill forward, and the Commission has not hidden the fact that it is bringing the Bill forward, as some have implied. In June 2020, the Assembly resolved to give authority to the Commission to determine allowances. The Assembly Commission made it clear that it intended to introduce the Bill and change the remit and scope of the IFRP. Not only was the Bill brought before the House in December 2020 but the Assembly Commission has been clear since then, even at the most recent debate on the Assembly Commission's Budget and the most recent Assembly Commission Question Time, that it was considering the introduction of the Bill.

I will return to the substantive provisions in the Bill. Clause 1 will rename the IFRP "the Remuneration Board". That name reflects the focus that the new independent body will have on salaries and pensions. Clause 2 will amend the 2011 Act to give it legal consistency with the Assembly's resolutions of June 2020 and this month so that the board does not have the power to determine the staffing and cost allowance expenditures that Members claim or the allowances that are payable to Members who have resigned or lost their seats. Since the Assembly voted by resolution in June 2020 to give the Assembly the function of determining the allowances for staffing and office cost expenditure that Members reclaim, the Assembly Commission has published two determinations enabling it to address a range of issues that are either insufficiently addressed or not at all addressed by the determinations that the IFRP made. Those include a range of issues relating to salaries and terms and conditions for Members' staff, including holiday, sickness and maternity pay; the level of staffing support that is made available; Members' ability to put their telephone numbers on office signage; the provision of maternity leave support for Members; and, as was just recently added, the specific provision for Members to put security measures in place at their constituency offices and their homes. The Assembly Commission thanks the Assembly Commission officials who provided advice on those matters and gave the benefit of their experience on the difficulties with the previous provisions.

Clause 3 will insert a new section 2A into the 2011 Act making it a requirement for the board, when making a determination under section 2(1) of the 2011 Act, to "have regard to" salaries that are payable to Members of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, the House of Representatives of Ireland and the Senate of Ireland. It is not unusual in public- and private-sector organisations for benchmarking exercises to be used as part of an evaluation process to ensure that relevant, comparable roles are taken into consideration when examining appropriate levels of remuneration. The purpose of the Bill is to establish an independent board to determine the salaries and pensions of those who serve as legislators. As there is only one legislature in Northern Ireland, it is obvious that benchmarking comparisons will be made with other legislatures on these islands, the Members of which conduct similar roles to Members here. The requirement for the remuneration board to give due regard to the position in other legislatures simply provides that benchmarking take place; it does not in any way limit the remuneration board from considering other factors that it considers to be relevant. It is expected that that will be just one element that the new remuneration board will take into account. Ultimately, as the remuneration board will be independent, it will be for it to decide the range of factors that it wishes to consider, the weight that it gives to benchmarking against other places and the view that it takes on appropriate salary levels.

Clause 4 will insert a new section 6A into the 2011 Act to permit the appointment of a temporary chair and temporary members of the board, pending the usual process of five-year fixed-term appointments under section 4 of the 2011 Act. The temporary appointments lapse after 12 months but may be renewed, ensuring continuity in the functioning of the board. Other provisions of the Bill provide for the board to approach the dates of publication of determinations in a structured way. The absence of membership of the board would be undesirable.

Clause 4 will also provide the Assembly Commission with an order-making power to allow it to make further provision about temporary appointments. Any order would have to be approved in draft by the Assembly before it could take effect.

Clause 5 removes the bar on former Assembly Members being members of the remuneration board, therefore putting former Assembly Members on the same footing as former Members of other Parliaments and councillors, for example. However, it ensures that no more than one former Assembly Member may serve on the board at any one time. For the avoidance of doubt, that is not the same as saying that a former Member will be on the remuneration board. There will be an open recruitment process for the board, and that will be independently overseen by the Clerk/Chief Executive of the Assembly, who will form a panel of internal and external people of appropriate experience. The recruitment panel will not involve members of the Assembly Commission or Members or former Members of the Assembly.

Members from across the House will recognise that there was a perception that a number of decisions made by the IFRP did not reflect the realities of the role of Assembly Members on the ground. The Assembly Commission considers that allowing for the insight of a former Assembly Member's first-hand experience could add value to the remuneration board's work while retaining a balance of perspective on the board by allowing only one former Member to serve on the board at a time.

Some have called on the Assembly Commission to follow the example of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in the arrangements that we put in place. I can confirm that it is an example of how the Assembly Commission has done that: IPSA is legally required to appoint a former MP to its board.

Clause 6 amends section 11 of the 2011 Act to provide a more clearly structured process around making determinations. First, it provides that the board must, so far as is reasonably practical, make a determination at least six months before the date of the poll for the next Assembly election so that those considering standing for election have notice of the remuneration that they would receive if elected. Secondly, it provides for the publication of the determinations in draft and a consultation on the drafts before a determination is made. Finally, it provides that, if the board intends to form an opinion but, due to exceptional circumstances, should make more than one determination in respect of each Assembly, the board must consult the Assembly Commission. Consultation would also be required if the board were considering making a determination ahead of an election that occurs within a year of a previous election. That allows the Assembly to achieve a balance between making determinations in response to necessary circumstances and ensuring value for money, on the basis that members of the remuneration board will be paid for the number of days that the work requires.

Clause 7 makes minor and consequential amendments, including amendments throughout the 2011 Act to reflect the change of the name from "Panel" to "Board".

Clause 8 provides that the determinations made under sections 47 and 48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or under the 2011 Act will continue to have effect until superseded. That ensures continuity of the law.

Finally, clauses 9, 10 and 11 respectively define the terms of the Bill, provide for its commencement and set out its short title.

I have addressed the history and the contents of the Bill, and as I conclude, I will briefly address the point made in relation to the report that the Assembly Commission presented to the Audit Committee last year. The Assembly Commission laid its document in the Business Office to ensure that Members had the information for the debate on the Assembly Commission's budget 2025-26 on 9 December 2024. Some have tried to portray that the Assembly Commission took a position in that briefing document on what the level of salaries for Members should be: that is clearly not true. It was a briefing document provided by the Assembly Commission's officials before they appeared before the Audit Committee as part of the normal budget-setting process for the Assembly Commission. The purpose of the document was to outline the Assembly Commission's budget requirements for 2025-26 and the budgetary pressures that it might face in the future.

The report makes it clear that the Assembly Commission in the 2025-26 budget required does not include any budget amount should there be a review of the Members' salaries and does not attempt to predict how a future remuneration board may deal with the issue. The report pointed out that, if a future remuneration board were to increase the salary payable to Members, that would be notified to the Department of Finance in order to secure the necessary funding at the appropriate time. In that specific context, the report noted that, given salaries elsewhere, there is the potential for the remuneration board to recommend an increase in salaries, and the Assembly Commission would therefore have to notify the Department of Finance of that budgetary pressure. The level of salaries elsewhere is only a matter of fact. For the record, at no point has the Assembly Commission discussed, let alone taken a view on, what the salary of a Member should be. Members of the House and those on the outside will undoubtedly have a range of views on that question. However, the Assembly Commission is abundantly clear that it is a matter to be determined entirely independently by an independent remuneration board and that independent body alone.

As I outlined, if the Bill is passed, it will be for the Clerk/Chief Executive of the Assembly to form a panel of independent individuals to conduct a recruitment competition to appoint members to that board. Once appointed, the members of the board will undertake a process to decide a range of factors that it wants to take into account in determining what level of salary and pension a Member should receive. It will then publish a draft determination of its findings and consult on that before publishing a final determination for implementation. Therefore, if the Bill is passed, there will be plenty of opportunity for further engagement on the level of Members' salary and pension, and the Assembly Commission is agreed that it is for the independent remuneration board alone to lead and decide on that process.

For the avoidance of doubt for those inside or outside the Assembly, let me re-state that the passage of the Bill does not change the salary level of Members by one penny. However, the House needs to be clear that, if the Bill does not pass, the Assembly will not have regularised the legal position following the resolutions that have been already agreed. It will also mean that the Assembly has not put arrangements in place for the salaries and pensions of Members to continue to be determined independently, consistent with decisions that have already been made.

I look forward to Members' contributions. On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Ms Bradshaw: I support the Bill. It is effectively an amending Bill that ties in with two motions passed by the Assembly: one in June 2024 and the other two weeks ago. As Trevor Clarke has outlined, those motions made a technical addition to the Assembly Commission's functions in line with decisions previously agreed by the Assembly. As Members will recall, it means that the Assembly Commission will determine the allowances paid to Members, but an independent body, named the "remuneration board" to clarify its purpose, will determine salaries and pensions. That is consistent with decisions previously made by the Assembly, and I will briefly set out some background for the benefit of Members.

For absolute clarity, a fortnight ago, we heard that, on 30 June 2024, the Assembly passed a resolution to confer on the Assembly Commission the power to make determinations on Member's allowances. The resolution was passed in accordance with section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, no resolution had conferred functions on the Assembly Commission in relation to section 48 of the 1998 Act, which provides for payments to be made to former Members. Two weeks ago, we provided the authority for the Commission to determine allowances to former Members, most notably winding-up and resettlement allowances, securing that through a motion that delivers consistency for the Assembly Commission to make determinations for a full range of allowances payable to Members both current and former. The motion introduces no changes to the allowances of Members or former Members, nor do allowances paid to former Members make up a significant share of the Commission's budget.

That motion was intentionally scheduled to coincide with the introduction of this Bill. The Bill is a formal mechanism under which the power to determine allowances is separated from the power to determine salaries and pensions, even though, in practice, that is already the case and has been since 2020. It is worth re-emphasising that the Bill ensures that the salaries and pensions of Members will continue to be determined by an independent body. Therefore, the Bill will provide for coherent arrangements for the salaries, pensions and allowances payable to Members and former Members.

There has been some public commentary that seems to derive from the point that the Bill will allow former MLAs to sit on the remuneration board and requires the board to have regard to the salaries payable in other legislatures. On the first point, it seems wise to have people who know the job assessing how those carrying it out should be compensated; indeed, it was arguably that lack of knowledge that led to the provision made in respect of MLAs' offices that caused such practical difficulties in the past. On the second point, it may simply bring us into line with Scotland and Wales, where salaries are determined as a share of an MP's salary. There is no requirement for that share to be the same in any particular jurisdiction, as the precise nature of the role of a legislator varies somewhat in each institution, and that will be something for the remuneration board to consider, as Mr Clarke has already outlined.

It is worth reinforcing why the 2016 determination led to such difficulties. It reduced maternity and sick pay, reduced annual leave for employees to the minimum statutory level, made the terms of employment unattractive and, bizarrely, allowed an office address to be displayed on an office sign but not an email address or a telephone number. There were further curiosities, some of which have already been rehearsed, such as the bar on holding surgeries elsewhere in the constituency other than in the constituency office, although they were largely resolved by the 2020 amendment to the 2016 determination. I reinforce that there will be a call for evidence by the Ad Hoc Committee on which we may seek an extension and that there will be a public consultation on any draft determination. The recent public commentary that there will be no opportunities for public input is therefore simply wrong.

I commend the Bill's progress to its next stage.

Mr Gaston: I begin by commenting on how the Bill got to this stage. It is right and necessary to do so, because the process that it went through before appearing in the Order Paper was most irregular. Executive Office guidance on consultation is clear. It sets the standard for consultation at 12 weeks. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the explanatory and financial memorandum deal with what passed for a consultation on the Bill, and it simply does not meet that standard. By my reckoning, it lasted for 11 weeks, two of which were the Christmas holidays.

The Assembly Commission decided to consult only the parties that have representation on the Commission and never dared to let the public or, indeed, parties that are not on the Commission see the proposals, much less have their say. When we read the Bill, it is obvious why that was. I ask the House to note that the names on the front of the Bill represent all the parties on the Commission. It was the intention of Sinn Féin, the DUP, the UUP, Alliance and the SDLP to award themselves a massive pay rise. Members from all those parties have affixed their name to the cover of the Bill. Regardless of what some may say or seek to do by way of amendment in the aftermath of the spotlight being shone on what they were up to, their intention was clear. I see that, immediately after this debate, the Assembly will appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Bill. Once again, the parties on the Commission are set to carve up the positions among themselves and keep off it those of us who, by our actions so far on the matter, really are committed to derailing the gravy train from its intended destination.

Some provisions in the Bill are sensible. Parties on all sides of the House will be able to cite examples of where the independent financial review panel got it wrong. We had, for example, the ridiculous rule about not having a phone number or an email address on the office sign, which has been referred to. I do not have a great deal of issue with removing some of those powers from the remuneration board, as is proposed in the Bill's opening clauses.

It is when we get to the provisions that stipulate that the remuneration board must look at MLAs' salaries in the context of salaries payable to MPs, MSPs in Scotland, Members of the Welsh Parliament and Members of both Houses in the Republic that I have a real problem. When the Commission brought a motion to the House that paved the way for the Bill, Mr Carroll and I exposed the plan to award MLAs a massive pay hike. Mr Butler claimed that the allegations about the pay rise were absolutely baseless. The truth was that, as the parties represented on the Commission already knew, the dice had been loaded in favour of MLAs getting a bumper pay deal. If, as clause 3 stipulates, the remuneration board:

in other legislatures, where Members earn more than MLAs currently, the parties who introduced the Bill did so thinking that the money was already in the bank.

There is no other guidance on what they must consider when it comes to pay. The only thing that may stop it is the embarrassment that this corner of the House will cause you all.

That is not the only ruse being pulled in the Bill. Clause 5 opens the door for a former Member of the Assembly to sit on the remuneration board. That represents a clear conflict of interest on two fronts. First, one would assume that a former Member will have maintained some sort of relationship with Members, who would stand to benefit financially from the decisions of the board. Secondly, as a former Member, he or she would benefit from pension determinations. Such a situation cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. There were good reasons why former MLAs were excluded from the original panel. Those reasons remain valid. It is noteworthy that the previous independent financial review panel had just three members. If, as the Bill anticipates, one of those members is a former MLA, that is a sizeable chunk of its membership.

Finally, I will directly address a point made by Mr Clarke when we last discussed this issue. In fairness, Mr Clarke did not seek to deny the fact that the Commission was on manoeuvres to award itself a pay rise, so I will credit him with his honesty there. However, addressing this corner of the House, he said:

Mr Clarke, let me answer that question. First, as the motion proposed by the Member for West Belfast reminded us last week, there are people who are expected to get by on just a little more than what you receive, on top of your Member's salary, for sitting on the Commission. You have your MLA salary, and you get an additional salary for being on the Commission. Not many people who are on carer's allowance will have much time for sob stories about MLAs struggling to raise their families on the £52,500 before tax that every MLA gets, let alone the £64,500 that Chairs of Committees are paid, the £90,500 that Ministers get or the £124,500 paid to the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

An important additional point needs to be made in response to Mr Clarke's point. Members of this Assembly do not deserve a pay rise to put them in line with Members of other Parliaments and assemblies because, uniquely, this Assembly has decided that there are vast areas of law and policy that it does not want to have any say over. In picking up his point from earlier, I say to the Member that the only legislative provision on pay in the Bill is for consideration of other legislatures' salaries, all of which are higher. If the Assembly is so pompous as to believe that it is just as important and competent as the legislatures listed in clause 3 of the Bill, why did the majority of Members vote to give away lawmaking powers to Brussels, where no one from Northern Ireland has any say in the laws that govern something like two thirds of our economy? Unless or until Members of this House have the self-respect to reclaim those laws, we should not be treated like any other legislature.

For those reasons, I will oppose the Bill. Shame on those who introduced it: I am glad that there has been a public outcry to call you out on it.

Mr Butler: Legislatively, this Bill is long overdue. It has been the settled will of the Assembly since 2020 that salaries and pensions should be determined independently — a word that I will return to shortly — and free from political interference. That the Assembly Commission has delayed its progression, first due to the pandemic and then due to the pressures of the heavy legislative programme of the previous session, is a credit to the Commission members with whom I served.

Let us be honest: the delay was a deliberate choice. There really is no good reason to ensure that, going forward, independence is not part and parcel of how this place determines Members' salaries. However, we need to be clear about what the Bill does, not add to the misinformation that has been spread in the Chamber, the media and on social media. It does not set the salaries for Members. It simply ensures that pay and pensions are set independently, while allowances remain under the Assembly Commission's remit. This is a matter of process. It is not an outcome. It is not predetermined, and it was never mentioned that it would be predetermined. Anybody who implies that that was ever my intention or the intention of any other former member of the Commission is absolutely wrong, and I reject that outright — absolutely outright.

Every party in the Chamber has criticised past decisions of the independent financial review panel. However, complaints alone solve nothing. The Bill will ensure that MLAs' salaries and pensions are managed independently, while allowances will benefit from the practical expertise of Assembly officials who understand the day-to-day challenges of running an office and serving constituents.

Since 2020, as has been said, the Assembly Commission has improved conditions for members of staff, including the introduction of maternity leave support, better employment protections and enhanced security measures. Crucially, every claim is subject to robust scrutiny, with 25% of claims audited externally. This is about transparency, good governance and public confidence.

The last couple of debates caused me to reflect on the last discussions that we had in the House. It is interesting to note that the amendment that the TUV tabled when we last debated the matter sought the granting of powers to the Commission to influence the independent panel, which would have removed every essence of independence. It will be interesting to see whether the TUV will continue to adopt that new policy position today.

These are difficult things to talk about, but rigorous independence in determining MLAs' salaries is absolutely what this should be about. I hope that the TUV will not table the amendment that it sought to have made in 2020. Perhaps the Member would like to speak to that, if he gets a chance.

Mr Carroll: Two weeks ago, I voted against a motion that noted a 2020 resolution about an independent body for MLA pay. At the time, I said that that was the first step towards establishing an independent remuneration board. I also said that it was laying the groundwork for a potential £20,000 pay increase for MLAs. I was told by the proposer of today's motion, that nothing had been decided, yet, here we are, just two weeks on, at Second Stage of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill, which explicitly states:

— I emphasise the word "must" —

to politicians in the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. Those salaries are a whopping £72,000. The Bill also mandates the board to consider salaries payable in the Dáil and Seanad, as well as Westminster, where salaries are even higher. Those at Westminster are, I believe, set to go up again. It is absolutely laughable that Members continue to feign ignorance about where this is headed. It is clear-cut to me, especially when it is obvious to the public and those whom MLAs claim to represent.

Members have said that talk about a massive pay increase is jumping the gun. They tell us that an extortionate pay rise is not guaranteed. I hope that they are right. I hope that, when the remuneration board is established, it decides that no pay increase is warranted. In fact, I hope that it takes into account the performance of this and previous Executives since the previous pay body disbanded in 2016, as well as the sorry state of our public services, with widespread poverty and destitution, and decides that an MLA pay cut may be the way to go. It should perhaps go for the average wage of the constituents whom MLAs represent. However, I do not think that that will happen.

I think that the independent remuneration board, which will have representation, as has been said, from former Stormont politicians, will recommend a completely unjustified and out-of-touch pay increase for MLAs. There has been much talk about independence, but my guess — I am happy to be proven wrong again — is that it will be stacked with a predetermined outcome.

There are plenty of other objectionable things in the Bill, aside from the issue of MLA pay. It makes provision for former MLAs to join the board that sets MLAs' salaries and pensions. I agree with the Member for North Antrim: that is a clear conflict of interest. It completely undermines any semblance of independence. The Bill also removes the power for the board to determine the allowances of MLAs and former MLAs and transfers it to the Assembly Commission. A few weeks ago, I highlighted the Executive's track record, and that of previous Members, of misusing public money, including through expenses. I will not repeat that today.

The way in which the Bill has come into existence is completely underhand. There has been zero public consultation — none — on the Bill, which flies in the face of the guidance. It is more than a technical Bill, as the mover of the motion seemed to suggest. Think about this: those of us, myself included, who sponsor private Member's Bills have to consult, as is right, for 12 weeks on those Bills, but there was no 12-week consultation with the public on this Bill. That should have been done; it is only right and fair. It is obvious why there has been no consultation or engagement with the public on these proposals. Ordinary people think that it is abhorrent that MLAs look set to get a £20,000 pay increase, or something similar to that, while those people struggle to heat their homes, pay their rent or mortgages, get access to healthcare and put food on the table. They are right to think that that is abhorrent.

I should also mention the costs associated with the Bill. It will cost £20,000 to set up the board, and it will cost a further £115,000 over two years — the last two years of the mandate. That is a massive waste of public money. The Ad Hoc Committee that will be set up today will exclude the small parties and the voices who oppose this inevitable pay increase, as well as any independent MLAs.

I will leave Members with some questions to reflect on before the vote. Is an MLA worth two teachers? Is an MLA worth three retail workers? Would any other worker who had an attendance rate of 60% over the past number of years be rewarded with a 38% pay increase? The obvious answer to all those questions is no. That is why I will not be pocketing any increase. That is why I will vote against the Bill, and I hope that I will be able to cast my vote today.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Sinéad Ennis to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Ms Ennis: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate.

It is some nine years since the members of the IFRP left office. Since then, during a time when the Assembly has faced a range of significant challenges, the Assembly Commission has worked through the detail of this matter. Contrary to what some Members have asserted, it is no secret and is a matter of public record that the Assembly Commission was preparing to introduce the Bill, as demonstrated by the fact that the Assembly Commission previously introduced a Bill in December 2020. It has been discussed in the House, and, indeed, only a few months ago, the Assembly Commission received media queries about why it had not yet brought forward plans to replace the IFRP.

At the start of the debate, my Assembly Commission colleague Trevor Clarke set out the detail of the Bill. He made it clear that the Bill follows on from Assembly resolutions that Members' salaries and pensions should be determined by an independent body, while the allowances for staffing and office cost expenditure that can be reclaimed by Members and the allowances payable to former Members who have resigned or who have lost their seats should be determined by the Assembly Commission. He made the point that it is important to regularise the legal position following those resolutions, which granted functions to the Assembly Commission.

The Assembly Commission understands that the issue of Members' salaries and pensions will attract a high level of interest and a wide-ranging debate. That was the case before the Bill was introduced, and it has been the case since then. There will, understandably, be widely differing views on the role of Members and the Assembly. Those views will be influenced by a range of wider factors, depending on whether they are from those who recognise the importance of the Assembly functioning; those who have ideological views on the issues of salaries in the public and private sectors; or those who oppose the existence of the Assembly at all. However, as was said at the start of the debate, we are not considering those issues today. Rather, we are considering a technical Bill that deals with the process of salaries and pensions being determined by an independent remuneration board. There will be plenty of opportunities to express views on the appropriate salary for Members once a remuneration board commences its work, publishes and consults on its draft determination and publishes a final determination. The Assembly Commission and, indeed, the Assembly itself have been clear that only an independent body should make the decisions on the level of salaries and pensions that are payable to Members, and I hope that all Members are at least able to agree on that.

I will pick up on just a few points that Members raised. The consultation that the Assembly Commission undertook was mentioned. The consultation with parties that are represented on the Assembly Commission was undertaken to seek an approach by those parties that could be agreed by consensus by the Assembly Commission. The Bill, if passed, will require the remuneration board to publish a draft determination and to consult all MLAs and others on that draft.

On the question of why the Bill requires the remuneration board to only "have regard" to salaries elsewhere, it is not unusual in public- and private-sector organisations for benchmarking exercises to be used as part of the evaluation process to ensure that relevant and comparable roles are taken into consideration when examining appropriate levels of remuneration. As my colleague stated at the outset, as there is only one legislature in Northern Ireland, it is reasonable for comparisons to be made with other legislatures on these islands where Members conduct similar roles. A benchmarking exercise is an obvious move that will allow the remuneration board to explore comparable rates of pay in other places. However, while the remuneration board is required to "have regard" to the position in other legislatures, it is not prevented from taking other factors into account. As the remuneration board will be independent, it will be for it to ultimately decide on the range of factors that it wishes to consider, the weight that it gives to benchmarking against other places and, ultimately, the view that it takes on the appropriate salary levels.

As for former Members being appointed to the remuneration board and having a conflict of interest, the Bill does not require that a former Member has to sit on the remuneration board; it simply removes the prohibition on that happening. There will be a fair and open competition, and the best-qualified candidates will be appointed. If a former Member is appointed, they will be only one voice on a three-person board. The pension of a former Member who has left the Assembly at a given time will not be subject retrospectively to decisions on pension arrangements. It is also important to say that any pension determination is likely to be largely based on the advice of pension experts, such as actuaries, rather than on the view of a single member of the board. There is, of course, precedent for former Members being involved in such decisions. IPSA sets MPs' pay, and, under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, its board must include one member who is a former MP.

As for public consultation, the Assembly Commission has a very specific remit and therefore the circumstances in which it can bring forward legislation are very limited. Assembly Commission Bills are not subject to the same guidance as Executive Bills or Members' Bills. As this is a technical Bill that deals with matters of process, the Assembly Commission agreed that a public consultation was not required on this occasion. However, as the Bill progresses through the legislative process, it will be scrutinised by an Ad Hoc Committee that will consider the level of consultation that it wishes to carry out. If the Bill is passed and an independent remuneration board is established, it will be for the remuneration board to determine how widely it wishes to consult.

The Bill deals with the processes for how Members' salaries and pensions will be decided. As other Members stated, the Bill does not set the level of salaries or pensions; that will be the responsibility of an independent remuneration board. It will be for the remuneration board to consider salaries elsewhere and any other factors that it thinks are relevant to make an independent decision on appropriate levels of remuneration for Members. Neither the Assembly nor the Assembly Commission will have the power to direct the new body on salaries or pensions. That will be a decision entirely for an independent body. At no point has the Assembly Commission discussed or taken a view on what a Member's salary should be.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ennis: I will.

Mr Carroll: Has there been any discussion in the Commission about who should be on the board? Have any names been proposed or suggested?

Ms Ennis: No, because that is not the role of the Assembly Commission. That will be for the Ad Hoc Committee to decide. That is outside the remit of the Assembly Commission, and it has not been discussed by the members.

If I have not dealt with any specific points today, there will be further opportunity for the detail of the Bill to be scrutinised in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and the further stages of the legislative process in the House. The Assembly Commission looks forward to engaging with Members as the Bill progresses and is open to considering points that Members make throughout the legislative process. All five members of the Assembly Commission will attend the Ad Hoc Committee to provide evidence on the Bill. I again make it clear that the Bill deals with process; it will not decide what salaries Members should receive. Members need to be clear that, if the Bill does not pass, the Assembly will not have regularised the legal position following the resolutions that it has already agreed and it will not have put arrangements in place for Members' salaries and pensions to continue to be determined independently.

On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As there are Ayes from all sides of the House, with the exception of Gerry Carroll and Timothy Gaston, I think that the Ayes have it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: This motion will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There are Ayes from all sides of the House, with the exception of Gerry Carroll and Timothy Gaston. The Ayes have it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Carroll: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There seem to be Ayes from all sides of the House, with the exception of Gerry Carroll, who has indicated his opposition, so the Ayes have it. I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next three items of business are motions on the Supply resolution for the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates, Vote on Account and Excess Votes. There will be a single debate on all three motions. I will call the Minister to move the first motion. The Minister will then commence the debate on the motions as listed in the Order Paper. When all those who wish to speak have done so, or when the time allocated for the debate has expired, I shall put the Question on the first motion. I will then call the Minister to move the second motion. The Question will then be put on the motion, and the same process will be followed for the third motion. If that is clear — hopefully, it is —.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am not finished. I will bring you in afterwards, Matthew.

If that is clear, we will proceed.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate your granting me the opportunity to raise a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I ask the Speaker's Office again to look at the anomaly of the situation that the Opposition and I are in for timed debates in particular, but which will also arise tomorrow. I, as Chair of the Finance Committee, have the capacity to speak, but I am also obliged to give the first response as leader of the Opposition. I understand that that position has arisen because it did not perhaps occur to people, but we need a resolution for the official Opposition. It is something for the Speaker's Office to look at.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate your point of order, Matthew. I am going to refer it to the Speaker's Office; I cannot make a decision on it today.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours and 30 minutes for the debate. The Minister will have one hour allocated to him to use at his discretion between proposing and making a winding-up speech. A representative of the Opposition will have 10 minutes to speak, as will a spokesperson for the Finance Committee. All other Members who are called to speak will have seven minutes. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

As you have set out, the debate covers the three Supply resolutions for the spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs) 2024-25, which cover the current financial year, the Vote on Account for 2025-26 and a Statement of Excesses for 2023-24, all of which are associated with the Budget Bill that will be introduced later today. As Members will be aware, Budgets, which set the Executive's spending plans, do not, in themselves, give Departments the legal authority to draw down cash or use resources. That is done through the Assembly approval of Estimates and the associated Budget Bills. The Main Estimates for the 2024-25 financial year were presented to the Assembly and approved on 1 July 2024. Supplementary Estimates seek the approval of funds for changes required since the Main Estimates were agreed for the same financial year. The Supply resolutions for the 2024-25 spring Supplementary Estimates presented before the House relate to the final planned position that was agreed by the Executive on 16 January 2025. I am therefore seeking the Assembly's approval for Departments and other public bodies' changes as described in the spring Supplementary Estimates 2024-25 document that was laid in the Assembly on 10 February 2025.

Following Executive agreement, my predecessor, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, provided a written ministerial statement notifying the Assembly of the outcome of the Executive's January monitoring exercise, which was the final monitoring round of the 2024-25 financial year. Demand for allocations once again significantly outstripped the funding available. Bids for day-to-day resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) funding outstripped the funding available almost six times over, and there was three times as much in capital bids as there was funding available. In normal circumstances, the spring Supplementary Estimates and the associated Budget Act would be written to the outcome of the Executive's in-year monitoring rounds during 2024-25, but, in agreeing January monitoring allocations, the Executive agreed that Departments could be provided with headroom where required, should further underspends emerge in the final months of the financial year. I have asked Ministers, if they have reduced requirements, or if any are identified, to notify my Department as early as possible so that potential reallocation may be considered. In addition, Treasury later advised that following an in-depth analysis of the programme level changes in the Westminster Supplementary Estimates, the Executive could receive additional resource DEL in 2024-25. Headroom was also required to take account of that further late change. Table 5 of the spring Supplementary Estimates shows the remaining headroom beyond the Executive's 2024-25 final plan included in both the Estimates and the associated Budget Act. A total of £183 million headroom has been incorporated into the Estimates. That headroom was calculated based on a variety of pressures, including unmet bids following January monitoring and pressures following storm Éowyn. It should be noted that the headroom in the Estimates gives the Executive the ability to spend any funding yet to be allocated on priority areas to ensure that no resources are lost to the block. Departments are, of course, still constrained by their Budget allocation until further Executive approval has been obtained.

The spring Supplementary Estimates also incorporate areas of expenditure or income relying on the sole authority of the Budget Act. That is where the authority of statutory powers has not yet been obtained through legislation. Managing public money guidance provides for that as an interim measure, enabling expenditure until such powers are in place. My Department currently monitors reliance on sole authority by seeking quarterly updates, and I am pleased to announce that progress has been made, with enabling legislation planned for 2025 in many areas.

In addition to the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2024-25, a Vote on Account 2025-26 document has been prepared. The Vote on Account provides Departments with the authority to utilise resources and access the cash necessary to continue to deliver services until work on the 2025-26 Main Estimates and associated Budget (No. 2) Bill has been completed. The Vote on Account for 2025-26, which was laid on 10 February 2025, is routine and equates to approximately 45% of the 2024-25 provision.

I have also provided a Statement of Excesses for the 2023-24 year, also laid on 10 February 2025, which implements recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The PAC's report on Excess Votes for 2023-24, published on 14 November 2024, provides more detail on its findings. The Excesses included in the Statement of Excesses document provided arose as a result of breaches of budget control limits or cash limits for the 2023-24 financial year. That expenditure now needs to be regularised by the Assembly.

I am keen to finalise spending plans for 2024-25 and put them on a legal footing. I therefore request Members' support for the resolutions on the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2024-25, the Vote on Account for 2025-26 and the Statement of Excesses for 2023-24. I look forward to the Supply resolution debate, following which I will introduce the Budget Bill later today. As Members are aware, the Bill will be debated tomorrow, 18 February. The Bill provides legislative cover for all three Supply resolutions. Should the Bill proceed as planned, it is anticipated that it will receive Royal Assent by late March 2025, which will ensure that services continue to be funded for the remainder of the financial year.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole to speak on behalf of the Opposition. Matthew, you have 10 minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I have 10 minutes, although I may not use them all. Thank you for taking my point of order on the anomaly that relates to my two roles. It is important that it be resolved.

Today and tomorrow, we will have a significant opportunity to debate the Budget process in the Assembly. As always, it is important to point out that the Budget Bill and the Estimates process are not quite the same thing as the Budget statement, which sets specific allocations. They are, however, inextricably linked, because this is the legal process by which spending becomes legal, either on a forward-looking basis through the Vote on the Account that we will do for the beginning of the financial year or by looking back and regularising spending that has already happened. For many of the public, a lot of this is fairly incomprehensible. To be honest, I am fairly convinced that, for many MLAs, a lot of what we will debate today will be relatively incomprehensible. That, I am afraid, is an indictment of the standard of debate in the Chamber, but it is slowly but surely getting better.

I will draw attention to a few things. Today's is a timed debate, but we will have a little more time tomorrow to go through the issues. I will briefly comment on the spring Supplementary Estimates. During the 2024-25 budgetary year, an unprecedented amount of additional resource came into the Executive's coffers. It is important to say that, yes, it came after a decade and a half of austerity from successive UK Governments, but it is also true to say that political dysfunction and repeated collapse here have made things worse. It is important to put that on the record, because, if we were to listen to certain Ministers — indeed, probably most Ministers — we would not think that unprecedented funding had gone to the Northern Ireland Executive. Is it enough? Certainly not. The official Opposition and I will always support more resources going into local Ministries to support public services here, but it is important to say that the 2024-25 financial year that we are about to leave saw an unprecedentedly large financial settlement at the start of the year, as well as in-year from Barnett consequentials from the UK Government. By the way, those are not my words. It was not me who said that but the most senior Budget official in the Minister of Finance's Department.

The corollary to that should have been a strategic plan to deal with the crisis in our public services and a multi-year Budget matched to clear outcomes and targets in a Programme for Government (PFG). We have not got that. If anybody from the Executive parties or anybody else in the Chamber wants to intervene and explain to me where either of those things is or where I should look for them, I will give way. We should have seen them by now.

Mr O'Dowd: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to give way to the Finance Minister.

Mr O'Dowd: I am sure that, as Chair of the Finance Committee and leader of the Opposition, the Member is aware that the Executive cannot set a multi-year Budget in the absence of a multi-year spending review by Westminster.

Mr O'Toole: I am grateful and glad that the Minister has offered an intervention, and I look forward to debating with him on that stuff in the Chamber in the days, weeks and months ahead. He is right to say that he, as Finance Minister, cannot place before the Assembly a legally binding multi-year Budget for Departments in the absence of one from the Treasury. However, there is nothing stopping him or his predecessor producing a multi-year indicative Budget, which is not legally binding in the same way, matched alongside the Programme for Government headings. I am glad that, in answer to my question for written answer, he has already indicated that his Department and other Departments are looking at five-year plans. I encourage him on that. His written answers may be somewhat ahead of his oral contributions in the debate. I am glad that the Department is looking at that because it is exactly where we need to go.

I want to say a couple of things about the specifics of what we are debating today. We have had a record level of in-year additional Barnett and reallocations. We should have done much better in matching those to strategic priorities, whether that is on a four- or five-year indicative basis or even in the short term. Bluntly, I do not think that the public are at all clear on what the priorities are for the Executive.

With regard to the expenditure resting on the sole authority of the Budget Act, which the Minister talked about, the figure is £24·5 million at table 6 in the spring Supplementary Estimates. As the Minister said, that relates to spending that has no legislative basis. It has to happen not quite on the q.t. but through this process. It needs to be regularised by a financial provisions Bill. The Minister said that it would be dealt with legislatively largely through a financial provisions Act that is due in 2025. It was due in 2024, because it was in the legislative programme. We were supposed to have passed into law a financial provisions Bill by now. A financial provisions Bill is not hugely complex or politically difficult, I presume, for the Executive parties. It is technical stuff. Officials could have been writing it all through the collapse of the institutions. It should have been written and prepared for. We should have debated it and had it on the statute book already, but we still have £24·5 million of black-box spending that was not dealt with through the specific provision.

Half a million pounds is spent every year on the Fiscal Council. The Fiscal Council is a critical and welcome improvement in how we do fiscal monitoring and Budget-making here, but it still has no legislative basis. Going on for five years, we have had the Fiscal Council with no statutory underpinnings. The Fiscal Council Bill, like the financial provisions Bill, should have been relatively technical legislation that gave us clarity and oversight. The Fiscal Council already gives clarity and oversight, but it would have had a legal basis for its budget and its status. It is, frankly, ridiculous that we have not had that spending thus far.

Those are the specific bits about the spring Supplementary Estimates that I wanted to raise. There is significant movement in-year, and a significant part of what is moving in-year is the fact that a record level of additional spending has come to the Executive — a record level. The least that the public could have expected was, if not a record level of strategic direction and purpose, something better than we have had over most of the past decade. They have not got it yet. They have not got that clarity. We are still muddling through monitoring round by monitoring round.

I would like to raise a couple of other points. The Minister mentioned that there was a further monitoring round on Thursday a week ago, which came after the January monitoring round. He allocated £17 million, which was largely to deal with Storm Éowyn. While a lot of that spending will be welcome, I would like to know a couple of bits of information. Were specific bids put in? I know that bids were put in for Storm Éowyn and there were some specific areas. Will the Minister provide a little more detail on how that bidding process was run? It clearly was not via a conventional monitoring round process. Did his Department go out and ask for bids? How did that happen? What specifically gave rise to that Barnett consequential coming from London? Part of it, he said, came from the Westminster Estimates process, but it would be helpful to know.

There is another outstanding question on which his predecessor did not give us clarity and, in fact, created more confusion: the position that we are in with the unwelcome additional costs for employer National Insurance, which are creating burdens for businesses but also different parts of the public sector, including councils. All councils across the North, I think, have now struck their district rate. In some cases, they are punishing ratepayers with above-inflation rises in the district rate. It would be helpful to know whether the Minister has plans to offer those councils any support.

It would also be helpful to know when exactly the Executive agreed the regional rate rise for 2025-26, because it is clear — it was indicated in the draft Budget before Christmas — that an indicative rate rise would be about 5-odd % for householders and about 3% in the non-domestic rate for businesses. That is a significantly above-inflation rate rise for ordinary families and workers in Northern Ireland. The Executive have not been straight about that thus far. I found out about it only because it was given to me in a response to a question for written answer last week. No clear oral or written statement was given to the Assembly that the Executive parties had agreed that rate rise. The public out there face extra costs. The least that they could have expected was some clarity from the Finance Minister and the Executive more broadly about the rate rise that was being foisted on them.

Furthermore, I go back to my initial point that the general trade-off for the public when it comes to Budget-making is what they get out of it: how their money is spent to improve public services, to deal with the crisis in the NHS, to invest in waste water infrastructure and to deal with all the other priorities that, we know, exist, even if they are not particularly well articulated in the Programme for Government. The public, if they are even aware that their regional rate is going up, do not know yet how those rate receipts will be spent to deal with those crises, because the Executive have not fronted up and told them or produced a coherent plan with which to go to the public.

When we have a coherent plan, we will be better able to judge the Budget-making process. I am afraid that what we have had thus far is improvisation and spending that limps from monitoring round to monitoring round. I will look forward to debating those matters further tomorrow and in the weeks ahead. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated.

I call Diane Forsythe in her capacity as Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee. Diane, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will speak on behalf of the Finance Committee, allowing the Chair to focus on his role as leader of the Opposition.

The Committee received a briefing from officials on the 2024-25 spring Supplementary Estimates, the 2025-26 Vote on Account and the 2023-24 Statement of Excesses at its meeting on 12 February. On behalf of the members, I would like to thank officials for that. As Members will be aware, the Budget process is complex and littered with technical language that is often difficult to understand. The Finance Committee is working hard to support the other statutory Committees in their Budget scrutiny. We will continue to seek to break down the information that is available into more digestible chunks, accompanied by a clearer narrative. The Committee is also aware that not every Committee receives the information and engagement that it should from its Department. That is not acceptable. Committees must be given the appropriate information and time to do their scrutiny job.

The 2024-25 spring Supplementary Estimates are aligned with the latest agreed budget position across Departments. The January monitoring position was agreed by the Executive on 16 January 2025. The SSEs document sets out the provision included in the spring Supplementary Estimates beyond the outcome of the Executive's 2024-25 final plan. Unlike this time last year, we find ourselves in more normal circumstances with regard to the 2024-25 SSEs. As the tables showing the changes between the Main and spring Supplementary Estimates illustrate, this has been an exceptional year for Barnett consequentials. Those have combined with additional funding through the Executive's restoration package settlement and the fiscal floor of 124%, applied through the interim fiscal framework, to provide significant additional funding for the Executive.

Finance officials have been clear with the Committee that, although many of those gains were baselined for 2025-26 — we are delighted by that — there will not be the same levels of consequentials bolstering our budgets in the coming financial year. I encourage statutory Committees to monitor closely overcommitments made by Departments in the coming year, as it is unlikely that consequentials can be relied on to fill the gaps.

Departments need to become better at living within their means, as officials have clearly stated to the Finance Committee. Scrutiny of Departments' budgets should be easier going forward with the prospect of multi-annual Budgets, linkage between Budgets and the Programme for Government and the production of five-year budget plans by Departments accompanied by a rough baseline budget. Those are all aspects of the Budget sustainability plan and the Budget improvement road map that derive from conditions set by the Executive restoration package settlement. That is the UK Government's way of encouraging the Executive to live within their means and to budget with much greater transparency and clarity.

The Executive have factored a certain amount of headroom into the SSEs in case funds become available late in the current financial year.

We have already seen a recent allocation of consequentials disbursed by the Finance Minister, which was unexpected after the January monitoring round. A total of £183·289 million in headroom was incorporated into the Estimates, comprising £113·8 million in capital DEL and £69·5 million in resource DEL. That has been added to address a variety of pressures, including unmet bids following January monitoring and pressures following storm Éowyn. As we saw in the recent written ministerial statement, further funds have been allocated for those purposes. Whilst headroom gives Departments flexibility to spend additional allocations that they may receive, they are also constrained by their Budget allocation. Budgets must, by law, be balanced by the end of the financial year. There are, of course, some flexibilities, such as the Budget exchange scheme, but the Treasury is not known for its willingness to tolerate poor budgeting.

While the Finance Committee keeps a close eye on the use of sole authority in the Budget Bill, I will not comment on that, as the Committee Chair will deal with it when he speaks for the Committee in tomorrow's Budget Bill debate. I will also let him deal with the request that was made to the Committee for accelerated passage for the Budget Bill.

I now turn briefly to the Department of Finance's Estimates. The Department is not a programme-heavy Department and, as a result, it does not have a significant budget. What it lacks in budget, however, it makes up for in strategic importance, not least in its role in overarching budget management across the Departments and its ownership of rating policy — the Executive's single key fiscal lever. The Committee has monitored the Department's budget carefully throughout this financial cycle, with regular briefings following monitoring rounds. The funding inflows to the Department have tended to be for strategically important systems such as Integr8 and NOVA, which will have wide-ranging impacts and benefits. The Committee, however, remains concerned by the unquantifiable contingent liabilities that the Department continues to carry. Those are highlighted in the Estimates memorandum and a briefing on them has been scheduled for early March.

I now turn to the Vote on Account. Members will have noticed that at 45%, the rate is more than that applied in the past. Members will recall that the Vote on Account last year was an unusual 65%, which allowed a longer period to get the next financial year's Budget in place. It is anticipated that the length of time required to get the 2025-26 Budget in place through the Budget (No. 2) Bill will be shorter. Members are aware that the Vote on Account does not set the 2025-26 Budget; it is merely an agreement that 45% of the current year's Budget can be drawn down in the early part of the 2025-26 financial year before the Budget has been legislated for.

As Members know, the Statement of Excesses sets out the amount of resources and cash that we are being asked to grant in an Excess Vote. The vote is required when expenditure exceeds the amounts or falls outside the categories of expenditure — the ambit — that we approved in the Main and Supplementary Estimates and authorised in the related Budget Acts. Prior to a vote being sought, the resource accounts for each Estimate are prepared by the relevant Department or body and are examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before the Assembly. A report by the C&AG is made on any such accounts where categories exceed the amounts or fall outside the categories of expenditure that are authorised by the Assembly.

Where sufficient savings or surplus income are available to be used to offset the excess expenditure, the Excess Vote is for only a token sum of £1,000. A Statement of Excesses is normally presented to the Assembly following a report by the Public Accounts Committee, confirming that it recommends the sums necessary being provided by Excess Votes. The authorisation of additional resources and issues from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in respect of Excess Votes is given legislative authority in the corresponding Budget Act. The Statement of Excesses that has been put forward by the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Department for Communities and the Utility Regulator is clearly documented and the PAC has indicated that it is content with that.

As Members are aware, this debate is a largely technical exercise, and the Committee has applied an appropriate degree of scrutiny on that basis. While the timing and timescales are not ideal, the Committee will support today's Supply resolution motions.

I will now speak briefly as the DUP's finance spokesperson. We are in an improved position compared with this time last year. The DUP led the charge for the new needs-based funding model for Northern Ireland. The Government have been able to accept a new definition of need, and it is welcome that we look to the forthcoming 2025-26 financial year to have a Budget and a Programme for Government that align, which has not been the case for some time. Although we still lack the certainty and stability of a multi-year settlement, creating synergies between expenditure and the Executive's agreed priorities, even in the short term, is constructive and will enable Committees to engage in more informed scrutiny of spending.

It remains unacceptable, however, that the Minister of Finance has not yet published an informed estimate of the additional money that is required for the next financial year to offset the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions for major public-sector employers, contracted providers such as GPs and dentists, and the voluntary and community sector organisations, all of which are integral to the delivery of vital services. Providing that clarity is critical. A reference to a general figure of over £200 million is not good enough. We need specifics. The outcome of any negotiation on that with Treasury will have a bearing on the viability of some voluntary organisations and the sustainability of services. The extent to which that deficit is bridged will also determine the scale of ambition that individual Departments show towards reform and transformation agendas. We need urgently to see evidence that the Minister of Finance is leaving no stone unturned in making the case for that funding in full from Treasury.

There is a concern that the 45% of last year's approved expenditure that is being brought forward as part of a Vote on Account may not go as far when taking into account the huge hole that is left by the National Insurance contribution hike. We need to see commitment to address preventable waste in the system, and we will look at that in detail when we move to the Budget debate tomorrow. We support the Supply resolutions today.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I will speak on the three motions, none of which is just a number in a ledger but a decision that will shape the daily life of people across the North. The funding that we discuss today and tomorrow will determine whether families have safe homes, support exists for the unemployed and communities can access the services that they depend on. It is about more than budgets; it is about dignity, opportunity and fairness.

The Department for Communities is the largest Department and is responsible for vital services, including housing, social security, employment support, local government and arts and culture. In recent months and weeks, the Committee for Communities has engaged extensively with senior departmental officials, including the permanent secretary and deputy secretaries, to examine the financial and operational challenges that face the Department. The briefings consistently reinforced the fact that there is immense pressure on services and areas of work that the Department has been unable to take forward. It has been made very clear that, as demand continues to rise, available resources remain constrained.

The spring Supplementary Estimates adjust the Budget for the remainder of the 2024-25 financial year, ensuring that resources are directed at priority areas as new pressures emerge. For the Department for Communities, the spring Supplementary Estimates enable the redirection of funding to areas of constraint. For the Department, that means an additional £414·9 million in resource funding and £97·9 million in capital funding; £24·8 million to sustain universal credit and employment support; £9·6 million to ease pressures on social housing and homelessness services; and £6·5 million for the arts, culture and sport, which breathe life into communities. Despite those increases, financial strain remains severe. The funding shortfall in resource spending is £115·8 million, and the capital shortfall is £167·3 million.

We must acknowledge the reliance on headroom funding. A total of £183·3 million has been allocated as a contingency measure. Whilst that has provided flexibility, it also signals an element of instability in the existing financial planning model. Our communities deserve more than a last-minute approach to critical services. For the Department for Communities, £3·3 million in resource DEL and £1·5 million in capital DEL has been allocated to support the councils, housing associations and community services that were affected by storm Éowyn. The Committee welcomes that support. The Committee remains concerned that a short-term, reactive approach that is forced upon us by British Treasury policy undermines the ability to develop long-term strategies in key areas such as social housing, employment support programmes, tenant participation strategies, community regeneration and preserving the historical environment.

The Vote on Account authorises interim funding for the first months of the 2025-26 financial year, ensuring that services continue while the full Budget is developed. For the Department for Communities, that includes £414·2 million in resource DEL, sustaining welfare, employment and community support, and £104·6 million in capital DEL, supporting housing and regeneration. The allocation is based on 45% of last year's Budget, which is standard practice. However, as with the current year, there is a real risk that that will not be sufficient to maintain all existing services. Financial pressures continue to mount, particularly in housing and welfare mitigation, and the lack of certainty in future funding makes it difficult for essential community and voluntary sector service providers to plan effectively. The organisations in those sectors provide essential support on the ground to the most vulnerable but struggle to retain and attract workers. The Committee is concerned that even fewer in-year resources will be available, further tightening the squeeze.

I will move on to Excess Votes. The motion seeks retroactive approval for £2·78 million in additional spending, with the majority of that overspend, £2·284 million, coming from the Department for Communities. We understand that the DFC overspend was largely due to higher-than-anticipated universal credit advances, supporting more claimants who were experiencing hardship due to the five-week waiting period. The Public Accounts Committee, on which I also sit, recommended that the Assembly approve the Excess Votes but also raised concern about the Department's financial forecasting. The PAC called for better forecasting models, stronger contingency planning and improved financial oversight to reduce the risk of funding gaps in welfare support. The Committee for Communities supports those recommendations.

The motion provides for essential funding, but we cannot ignore the profound challenges in financial planning and budgetary sustainability. The Department for Communities must continue to play a vital role in tackling poverty, supporting families and providing housing, yet it continues to operate under severe financial constraints. To ensure that communities receive the support that they need, we must prioritise a fairer, needs-based funding model, greater financial certainty for community organisations and service providers and a longer-term solution for welfare mitigation funding, thus reducing reliance on emergency mechanisms. The Committee for Communities will continue to scrutinise spending and advocate a funding system that is sustainable, strategic and fair. Those who rely on it — the most vulnerable — cannot afford another year of instability.

I will now make some remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson. The spring Supplementary Estimates Vote on Account that we are debating, despite all the challenges already outlined, is a welcome step and will bring at least some certainty in the time ahead. While the past year has been challenging for our public finances, it is important to recognise the significant progress that has been made in a range of areas. The interim fiscal framework that was negotiated by former Finance Minister Caoimhe Archibald was a significant step forward and brought in additional funding of £430 million to the Executive. However, there should be no doubt that we remain in a difficult financial situation. Difficult decisions will have to be made if we are to live within budgets.

We need to see a step change from the British Government in the level of funding that they provide in the North. Years of underfunding have left our public services in a much weakened state, and only a significant investment from the British Government can bring our public services back to an acceptable level. Time and again, we have seen successive British Governments enact policies that inflict pain on the most vulnerable in our society, such as the two-child limit or the removal of the winter fuel allowance.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That was great timing, Colm. Thank you very much. As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to speak will be Eóin Tennyson.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): The Executive Office is committed to ensuring that the information and services that it provides are fully accessible to all parts of the community. That includes its communication on social media. The Executive information service (EIS) has provided accessibility training for its communications staff to enable them to understand the specific challenges of some users and the communication formats that are best suited to those users' needs. In addition, EIS has established a social media working group, a key objective of which is to share expertise, best practice and learning on accessibility. The practical steps that have been taken to support the accessibility of social media content across all platforms include: using alt text and descriptive captions for all images; adding subtitles to every video published on the Department’s social media platforms; ensuring that low contrast images are not used; using clear language on posts; and including only links that make it clear where the user is being directed to.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. Does the deputy First Minister agree that it is important to make social media content accessible to people with visual impairments and that functions such as alt text image descriptions aid understanding and make social media more inclusive?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Indeed. That is why the Department has led the way in doing that and has done so for a considerable time. We try to focus on the accessibility aspect of all our social media posts. As I indicated, that includes that, where we use videos, we try to subtitle them. We also make things as clear as possible and use the plainest language possible.

Ms Flynn: Will the deputy First Minister further detail how the Executive Office ensures equality of opportunity for all?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The Member is aware that the Department is under the equality duty set out in section 75, as all Departments and public bodies are. We take that duty seriously. It is important to us that we are able to communicate our strategies and other information, including on the things that we do day in, day out, to the maximum number of people in the clearest possible way. That is why training of our comms people has taken place to ensure that they are fully aware of the range of tools that they have by which to make that communication clearer and fulfil our equality obligations.

Ms Forsythe: How important does the deputy First Minister think that the role of social media was in recent communications about storm Éowyn?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. We are all aware that the way in which we communicate has changed. It is no longer through just radio, TV programmes and news channels; a huge number of people now get their information from social media. People choose more and more to get their news and information from those sources. It is therefore incredibly important that we maximise the use of those sources. That is what I endeavoured to do during the storm.

Everyone in the Chamber will be conscious that we do not have social media managers in our capacity as MLAs but rather that we do an awful lot of that ourselves, on top of all the other activities that we participate in. I have no doubt that all of us, individually, could get better at that, and I think that we are trying to improve. However, an important part of our job is to communicate on a regular basis, and that was exactly what I endeavoured to do during the storm in order to get that communication out.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The appointments of the language commissioners and the director and members of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression are essential to the implementation of the provisions of the Identity and Language Act, for which TEO is responsible. We are committed to establishing the three bodies, and preparations are now at an advanced stage. We hope to be in a position to formally launch the competitions shortly.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra.

Will the Minister outline specifically what the Executive Office has been doing to progress the establishment of the bodies and the appointment of the commissioners, and within what time frame?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that these are new appointment processes and that there are a number of posts: not just the two commissioners but the staff in the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, which will go out to public appointment. Departmental officials have therefore carried out a significant amount of work, which includes the business case process for all three offices; the paper that came to the First Minister and me on the establishment and broad direction of the posts, in line with the statutory responsibilities in the legislation; and work on the whole process for making public appointments. The appointments will be made in line with the public appointments guidance. That means that there is a process to be followed. Preparatory work has taken place, including looking at the criteria, the spec and the advertisements. We are currently considering a very detailed submission, and we hope to advertise the posts very shortly.

Mr Dickson: When does the deputy First Minister expect all those processes to be completed, and will there be an opportunity for her Department to bring that information to the Executive Office Committee?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I understand that the appointments will be based on the legislation on which the Committee was already consulted. Indeed, that legislation is now in place, so the appointments will be fully in line with the statutory responsibilities in that legislation and will not require consultation with the Committee or others again. They are public appointments that will be publicly advertised so that people can express an interest. A public appointments process will then be undertaken in line with the public appointments guidance. We are therefore satisfied that a lot of the work has already been completed. A significant amount of work was involved, and the First Minister and I are currently looking at the final steps required and hope to advertise the posts very shortly.

Ms Hunter: Does the deputy First Minister agree that there has been a total failure on the part of the Executive to fund Foras na Gaeilge? Will she please update the House on the last time that she and the First Minister spoke about the Irish Language Commissioner post?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question, but I do not agree at all that there has been a total failure. In fact, there has been significant investment in the Irish language and, indeed, in Ulster Scots over not just the past number of years but the past 18 years, from restoration back in 2007. That has led to a significant growth in the number of funded groups, funded schools and different mechanisms being introduced, as well as to the legislation that was passed at Westminster. I speak to the First Minister regularly about all those issues.

The Member is aware that the fiscal environment right across government is very difficult. People are sitting on waiting lists crying out for additional investment, which we are striving to find. Our core public services need that investment and need transformation. We want to ensure that we can invest in the maximum possible number of things while trying to improve our public services at the same time, so I do not agree with the premise of the Member's question. We will continue to discuss those important issues, however.

Mr Carroll: The deputy First Minister will be aware of the news that broke over the past week or so about the Irish language group's concerns about losing funding . My understanding is that, at the North/South Ministerial Council last year, a new framework was discussed for funded bodies such as Foras na Gaeilge and others. Will the deputy First Minister commit to publishing the new framework?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I am not aware that it was discussed. If I am incorrect, I will certainly write to the Member.

I understand that the financial issues pertaining to that body are to do with some pension contributions or other aspects. Those issues are entirely separate from the funding that we provide. We have not reduced our funding contribution, as far as I am aware, from the 25% that Northern Ireland makes. There are some issues, but, as I understand it, those issues pertain to the Irish Government and not to the Northern Ireland Executive.

The funding model proposed, as has been referenced in the House previously, was much broader indeed. I put on record that the paper from the Finance Minister did not reference that body whatsoever, nor did it refer to the issue of the Irish language or to any funding strain that the Irish language body was under. Rather, it was about changing the way in which North/South bodies are funded from what had previously been agreed, which has been in place since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. That is the context in which the paper and the proposal were looked at.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The St Patrick's Day period offers an opportunity to deepen our connections with the US. This year, there are around a dozen events being organised. Currently, however, no invitations have been issued from the White House to Ministers. Once we have confirmation of the full range of events in Washington DC, the First Minister and I will consider our plans for engagement. It is important that Northern Ireland be represented, but we need to balance that against value for money and commitment to leadership here at home.

Mr Brooks: I know that the deputy First Minister has been involved for many years in engagement with the US on Northern Ireland's behalf. Given the change in Administration, does she agree that engagement in DC, in particular, is crucial to build those relations? The Finance Minister outlined just last week Northern Ireland's £1 billion worth of exports. There is a need to lobby for a special economic envoy. Does the Minister hope to undertake that engagement?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. We should always endeavour to build those positive relationships. There is an opportunity because, as outlined, there are Scots-Irish and Ulster-Scots links, particularly through the vice president, who has spoken about those connections before. There is an opportunity to have those soft diplomatic links, not just for investment and trade, which have always been a key focus, but given our cultural identity and shared history.

It is important to remember that we should cherish the opportunities that we get to engage with the US president and Administration. Many other places do not get the access that we do. When we engage with the United States president and Administration, we engage with the office of the president. I went to the US last year. There are many things that I do not agree with former President Biden on, but I went because I was engaging with the office of the president. It is not about engaging with the person; it is about engaging with the office for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. We have had significant success with foreign direct investment and growing links with the US, and we must continue that.

Mr Gildernew: Does the deputy First Minister share my concern about the potential loss of funding to the International Fund for Ireland, which is in doubt as part of a review of overseas funding directed by the new US Administration?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With every change of Administration, there is a change of tone, direction and views. There is no doubt that we will see that in the new presidential term. We will always do everything that we can to fight and push for the best deal for Northern Ireland. We have had many contributions to Northern Ireland from those types of funds over many decades, which have always been appreciated. We have raised the issue. We want to see the funding continue. We will do everything that we can to continue that engagement to ensure that it does.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Minister please outline when the international relations strategy will be updated to take account of the change of Administration in the US, which, in recent weeks, has been aggressive towards its neighbours and others?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Many key areas of the international relations strategy are not devolved, but we have engagements to attract inward investment, in which we have had some success, and to build relationships and networks in the US and beyond. As indicated, we should continue to endeavour to do that. It was right and proper that revision of the international relations strategy was delayed until we saw the outcome of the presidential election. We are working through some of the implications of that. It is clear that President Trump will take a strong America-first policy. That may well have impact on, for example, the levels of foreign direct investment coming from the US, given the tariff regimes that may be entered into. We will consider all those things in due course and make sure that our international relations strategy is fit for purpose so that we can influence as much as possible where it is practical to do so.

Mr Gaston: Deputy First Minister, on 12 September last year, I tabled a priority question for written answer asking how much your Department spent on your last trip to Washington. You still have not answered. When did your officials provide you with a draft answer to that question? More importantly, why does your Department so often flout its obligations, under the Standing Orders of the House, to answer straightforward questions?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Executive Office — the office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister — is different from other Departments in that we have to agree on an answer to go out. Sometimes that is easier than at other times, but we endeavour to turn answers around as quickly as possible. It is not as simple as a Minister looking at a question, signing it off and out it goes. We have a process whereby we try to get both sides of the office to agree on the response. There is also the issue of making sure that the details in the answers are accurate. I will write to the Member with the details of his specific question.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As an Executive, we are making progress in relation to climate change adaptation measures. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs recently published a report on our most recent adaptation programme that showed that, of over 130 individual actions contained in the programme, significant progress had been made in around 120. Furthermore, the Climate Change Committee has highlighted the fact that, while adaptation planning here is at a relatively early stage, our programmes to date have been focused on the key elements needed for positive adaptation. So, while positive progress has been made, we know that we can and will do more. Indeed, our draft Programme for Government has also recognised that by including the need to undertake a series of further adaptation measures, such as improved flood protection schemes in certain areas. Work on the next climate change adaptation programme is ongoing and is due to be brought before the Assembly in the coming months.

Mr Crawford: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Deputy First Minister, do you believe that there is adequate collaboration amongst Departments to tackle climate change effectively?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Collaboration is always to the benefit of anything that we are trying to do. It is not just about collaboration across Departments and agencies here but about collaboration across the UK and, indeed, these isles. I am pleased to say that those issues have been discussed at a number of bodies, including the British-Irish Council and others that are designed to help that collaboration and cooperation. The challenges that we face are the same throughout, so we can learn from our neighbours about the solutions to be found and the interventions that we want to carry out. If that accelerates and supports better policymaking and better interventions, that is certainly to the good of Northern Ireland.

Mr Harvey: I am sure that the deputy First Minister will agree that the measures to address climate change must be balanced and affordable, particularly in regard to our agrisector. How are balance and affordability being ensured?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As outlined before in this place, our farmers do an incredible job. They are such an essential part of our economy in Northern Ireland. They are essential to the supply of nutritious, good, locally produced food. They need our support; they do not need additional burdens placed on them that are not proportionate. That is key. The theme of the most recent British-Irish Council meeting was a just transition. Often, we bandy about those words, but it is important that that is what it is in reality and that any transition from one type of economy towards a greener economy is done justly and fairly. That must mean that it is not disproportionate and unfair to our farmers or to our businesses. We must move forward with the maximum consensus and in a just way.

Mr McGlone: Minister, we had a sample of climate change recently with storm Éowyn. How or in what way are the Executive Office or, indeed, the Executive collaborating with utilities such as NIE, NI Water and others, especially the likes of the providers of fibre networks? We saw at one fell swoop how virtually the entire region, especially rural areas, was left without any means of communication, heating or power.

Mr Speaker: I think that we get the gist, Mr McGlone.

Mr McGlone: Will you give an indication, please, of what has been done at an Executive level?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. I spoke to many families who were very much in that situation. It was not just a single issue of having no electricity but two, three or more issues, in that multiple key aspects were down from their mobile phone signal to internet and broadband to water. We simply must take that into account in our civil contingencies planning. I have already spoken to our civil contingencies team and, indeed, to the First Minister a number of times about those issues.

There are mitigations that we can put in place and contingencies that we need to put in place. That is the whole purpose of civil contingencies planning. It includes simple things such as access to generators and supporting NI Water to ensure that water is not off for the length of time that it was off this time. It includes looking at battery packs or backup for phone masts. It is simply unacceptable that, if this were to occur again, there could be people in homes without electricity and water who are unable to phone emergency services or others for the help and support that is needed.

Absolutely, we have asked the civil contingencies team to take into account those specific points and make sure that the emergency arrangements are such that we can move quickly to stop that happening again.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Since our statement last May on the initial legislative programme for the 2024-25 Assembly session, seven Bills have been introduced, with the introduction of a school uniforms Bill expected shortly. We recognise that there has been some slippage. However, that reflects the complexities involved in turning policy into legislation, rather than any lack of effort or ambition by the Executive. We have recently consulted Ministers on the progress of their Bills and on their legislative intentions for the remainder of the session and intend to make a statement to the Assembly on the full 2024-25 legislative programme in the near future. Without pre-empting that statement, we expect the majority of the Bills to be introduced by the summer recess. Information is also being gathered in preparation for the 2025-26 Assembly session.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, an ordinary, reasonable person out there who looked at a target for 2024 that is just about half met in 2025 would think that that is pathetic. The Executive promised a modest list of Bills that they are not even halfway through. When will the 2024 legislative programme be complete? Furthermore, when will we have a final Programme for Government?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am not sure whether I can choose which question to answer, but I thank the Member for his supplementary questions.

First, from a standing start, we were keen for the legislative programme to have ambition. When we came in just a year ago, Ministers were required to go into their Departments and assess what was likely to progress, but it is important that legislation also reflects the views of Ministers and Committees. Some of that legislation has gone forward.

I ask the Member to look at the example of Wales, which introduced six pieces of legislation in 2024 to our seven. There are comparable statistics. I also say to the Member that we should not always look to legislation first. There are many different ways of bringing about change, including reform; transformation of the way in which we do things; bringing forward policy and policy statements; and tackling the big issues in Departments. It is not always about new legislation.

That said, we are taking measures to work with Departments to ensure that the ambition set out by Ministers to introduce legislation can be realised and that that legislation can hit the House for proper scrutiny in a timely way.

Mr McGuigan: Alongside the progress on the legislative programme, will the deputy First Minister outline the top-line achievements by the Executive over the past year?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. It has been a busy first 12 months, and, of course, we make it clear that that is not the totality of our ambition. We are finalising the Programme for Government, and we hope to come forward with that very shortly. It will set the high-level prioritisation. Of course, the challenge for any new Administration is not the number of priorities and trying to get everything in but to cut that back to a small number to focus on in order to make a real difference.

I am pleased that we have made significant progress throughout all the Departments: bringing forward initial actions on affordable childcare; the ongoing work towards an affordable childcare strategy; tackling infrastructure issues, with the announcements on the A5 and the Enniskillen bypass; the Communities Minister's opening of the football funding scheme; and work on other important issues such as the housing supply strategy. That is in the context of discussing all the issues around our budgets, putting the draft Programme for Government out for consultation and other key moves forward. We are in the process of an ambitious drive in Departments towards transformation and delivery, and, within the next 12 months, we hope to stand in the Chamber and demonstrate that delivery in a meaningful way.

Mr Kingston: Does the deputy First Minister agree that Ministers across all Departments have been getting on with decision-making and have made several key decisions during her past year in office?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. We are in a four-party coalition. There will be many different aspirations in all four parties, but we are determined to make a tangible difference to people's lives on the issues that matter to them. We listened to what people said in the draft Programme for Government process, and we heard that they need to see reductions in health waiting lists; an affordable childcare strategy being rolled out that makes a positive impact on families' lives; and ambitious infrastructure investment in our water and schools and on our roads. We are determined, working with colleagues across the Executive, to drive those forward and to demonstrate the tangible difference and value that the Executive make by the end of this term.

Mrs Guy: What role will the deputy First Minister play, along with the First Minister, to ensure prompt scrutiny of legislation through Committees to enable the programme to be completed in this mandate?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is important to remember that, when we ask Ministers for Bills that will be included in the legislative programme, we do not see the substance of that legislation. As it comes up for consideration to the Executive, there may well be large parts of it that not everyone agrees with. We are always conscious of that risk. However, it is also important that that legislation gets to Committees, because they play such an important role in scrutinising it. They can call witnesses and stakeholders and examine provisions, and they have an important role to play in potentially proposing amendments. Ministers can do that by supporting the process whereby legislation gets to the Committee, but the Committees have those statutory powers. It is important that Committees take the time that they need to do their scrutiny job in the way that it needs to be done.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The interdepartmental working group was established in 2021 to bring forward advice on the options for an infrastructure commission. A draft paper was produced in early 2022 that set out an initial assessment of options for consideration and as a precursor to more detailed analysis and development of a business case.

Officials are reviewing the draft paper to take account of developments, including the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) follow-up report on major capital programmes and the subsequent Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearing and the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) report on root causes of delay and progress on the investment strategy.

We are considering the report of the recent SIB review. The recommendations of that review will also inform the revision of the draft paper. Decisions on the way forward will be a matter for the Executive in due course.

Mr Durkan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Given the lamentable track record of the Executive in the delivery of major projects — they take far too much time and cost far too much money, which is not just a recent phenomenon — does the deputy First Minister agree that doing nothing is not an option and that, if we do not change how we do things, we will not change how things are done?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Absolutely: doing nothing is not an option. We want to improve the processes that we have to make sure that more of our capital projects come in on time and on budget.

Unfortunately, the public sector does not do large infrastructure projects well. There are all kinds of reasons for that, not least because the business case stage is very much about the projection of costs. We do not know those costs until we go out to the private sector and get bids in on that. There is always a lot of movement around this. We have tasked SIB, particularly in the context of the development of the investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI), to look at the issues that cause delay. That includes everything from the length of the business case process and how long it takes to go out to procurement to what goes wrong in the roll-out of capital projects.

The concept of an infrastructure commission is interesting. Importantly, in all this, no matter what we decide is the way forward, it must improve the way that we do capital infrastructure roll-out. That is the absolute test that we will apply to any steps forward.

Mr Boylan: Does the deputy First Minister agree that investing in infrastructure is the key to growing a thriving and prosperous economy and that any investment must be fair and balanced?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I want all parts of Northern Ireland to thrive and succeed. As I have always said, it is simple: if we can bring those infrastructure projects in on time and on budget, we can do more with the capital allocation that we have; if those projects take longer and cost more, we can do less with it. It is that simple. That is why there is a huge incentive across government for us to do better when it comes to big infrastructure roll-out and deliver for the people of Northern Ireland on those important projects.

Mr Clarke: I am glad that the deputy First Minister did not indulge us on the lack of progress that the former Minister made when he was in office. However, that said, Minister, could you indicate when the investment strategy will be published?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The draft ISNI is under active consideration. Part of the challenge around the investment strategy will be the capital budget that we have available. We are currently in a one-year Budget, and that is frustrating. However, that should not hold back progress on that. It is important to say that that document will be scalable. We will endeavour to do everything that we can to maximise the capital funding going into our budget to enable us to do more and to do so strategically.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, you said earlier that you and the First Minister were driving delivery: I would hate to see the instructor who passed you both in the test. I suggest that you need to revisit some of that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Unfortunately, unlike the SDLP, we are not in the spirit of turning down invitations that we have not yet received and may never receive. We will wait to see what comes through about that week. I notice that the Irish Government have just released information about their attendance in DC on St Patrick's week and their activities to promote their issues. I am strongly of the view that we should take every opportunity to stand up for and promote this place, and that includes, if the opportunity is given to us, engaging at the highest possible levels in the US to make our case and to promote Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, deputy First Minister. My party has always believed in engaging in the US and not just with the Administration. She and I were interns many years ago in Washington, I believe, and engaged with people there.

In recent weeks, people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere will have seen the new president suggest ethnic cleansing in Gaza, suspend aid to the world's poorest and, now, appear to sacrifice the Ukrainian people to the depredations of Vladimir Putin. Is there nothing that the Trump Administration could do that would make you think twice about a photo op in the Oval Office?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will be absolutely clear: we will engage with the US Administration and the president of the United States of America for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. That includes in relation to trade, because that trading relationship is hugely important. I gently remind the Member that one has to engage with many political leaders with whom one does not agree. Last year, when I went to DC, I engaged with President Biden even though I fundamentally disagree with him politically on a wide range of issues. That is the case in many other areas as well. What I am prepared to do is step away from my own small politics and, rather, to step up for the people of Northern Ireland and engage for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland with the office of the president of the United States and with the Administration in the United States.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. It is absolutely key that we move forward in this place with that sense of fairness and equity. That must be based on the best person for the job, not on discriminatory practices. That is fundamental if this place is going to move forward. I want to encourage as many people as possible from across all backgrounds in Northern Ireland to step up and join the PSNI and to play a role in the PSNI. It is a positive thing for people to come forward from all sides of the community. We want to see that. However, discrimination is always wrong. The appointments should always be on the basis of merit and merit alone.

Mr Brett: Does the deputy First Minister further agree that, rather than the nonsense written on the pages of the 'Belfast Telegraph', one of the greatest barriers to some people applying to join the police is when they see their political leaders continue to celebrate terrorists who murdered police officers? Does she also agree that there should be leadership and that they should stop celebrating terrorism? Perhaps then we would see more people apply to join the PSNI.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I absolutely agree with the Member. The people in the PSNI do an incredible and, at times, difficult job. We should take the opportunity to say, "Thank you" to them and pay tribute to all that they do. Likewise, we should pay tribute to the legacy of those who served also in the RUC in defence of so many across this place in the most difficult and darkest of days. We have always said clearly that we will never allow the memory of what they did and the service that they gave to the people of Northern Ireland to be besmirched and twisted into something that it was not. Indeed, the best thing that we, as political leaders, can do is stand shoulder to shoulder in order to encourage all from across all communities to apply and to make it clear to all from across all communities that, if you do so, you will not be discriminated against, you will be considered in a fair and open way, and you will be appointed on merit.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I welcome the Member to her place and thank her for the topical question.

Absolutely: there are serious concerns in the farming community. All of us around this place have listened to the concerns articulated by our hard-working farmers and farming families. We have a strong and honourable tradition of family farming throughout and across this place. We want to protect that and recognise the hard work that they do. You cannot farm if you do not have a farm. Farms are part and parcel of what our farmers need in order to produce the agri-food, the goods and the necessary products that we so want them to continue to provide.

A farm is not a luxury to be taxed to such an extent that it could, unfortunately, leave the family. We have raised this key issue with the Chancellor and directly with the Prime Minister. The UK Government need to change tack on the issue and stand up for and protect our farmers. We will not be silent in continuing to stand up for them.

Ms Finnegan: Will the deputy First Minister commit again today to working alongside the First Minister and the entire Executive to press for the proposals to be scrapped?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. As indicated, the UK Government need to scrap the tax. It is a farm tax on farming families. Instead of taxing our farmers even further, the Government need to stand up for them and make sure that they can continue to do the hard and great job that they do to support every one of us across Northern Ireland.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. We are considering the proposals at the moment, and we hope to go out with the advertisement for the role very shortly.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you. How has the extended vacancy in that position impacted on the public opinion of politics and public appointments?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is incredibly important not only that our public appointments are independent and based on merit but that there is a strong perception that they are; indeed, we have to have those discussions about whether the process for public appointments is fit for purpose. It takes a hugely long time for public appointments to be put in place to the point of readiness to go out for advertisement, and sometimes that does not match up with the expectations or desire of Ministers or others. It is fine if you have a lead-in time and the advertisement goes out maybe 18 months to 12 months before the end of a term, but, if that does not happen, you can end up in the situation that we are in with no commissioner in place. I promise the House that we will look at all those processes to make sure that the prospect of no appointment being made for a period of time is eliminated or reduced significantly.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. He will be aware that work is ongoing in that area. I pay huge tribute to all those who have worked so hard to get it to this point. I know that, for some, it is a point of frustration, but, of course, there are many different elements that were recommended in the original proposals and that we are going forward with.

We will hopefully go out to consultation on the legislation very shortly. We are currently considering some of the policy issues. We have just finished drawing up the consultation. There are some big policy areas to be agreed on, but the legislation will represent a positive step forward.

Mr Delargy: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Does she agree that it is important to ensure that experiences are heard and lessons learned?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. The Member will be aware that we have supported the call for evidence so that people can come forward and tell their personal story. It is an opportunity for people to tell of their lived experience. I have no doubt that it will be very difficult for some people to go through the process, but it is such an important part of what we are trying to do, which is to get to the truth of what happened. I therefore encourage as many people as possible to come forward and share their story and lived experience.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. As the First Minister and I have indicated since we took up our respective posts just over a year ago, it is an area of key importance for us. We want to deliver not just the strategy but the framework, because that is where the action is. I am really pleased that the change funds are available region-wide and through local councils. I think that the funds are now open in most council areas. There is a call for applications from local groups that work in those areas, particularly in the area of prevention. Their work is incredibly important. We also know that groups on the ground do such valuable work. They see the challenges and know the issues, and they are in the best position to come forward with projects and initiatives, the first of which we expect will be able to be rolled from about 1 April.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Does she agree that, although the strategy is most definitely a positive first step, we must continue to make ending violence against women and girls a top priority?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am pleased that the issue has been prioritised in the Programme for Government. We want to make it clear that it is a priority for us. Every single act of violence towards a woman or a girl, and every death of a woman or a girl as a result of that violence, is wrong and needs to stop. We want to do everything that we can not just to reduce it but eliminate it. That will involve a combination of factors, including political leadership, which we have shown throughout the House thus far. The actions taken on prevention are key. Ending violence against women and girls will not be done tomorrow, next week or next month, but we need to invest now in order to see the results further down the line. That will involve working with primary schools, post-primary schools, community groups and, importantly, families. It is about calling out and challenging the issues that give rise to violence against women and girls.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As we have said clearly in this place before, we must all stand united against the scourge of paramilitarism. There was never any justification for terrorism or paramilitarism. There is no role for it today, in 2025, just as there was no role for it here at any time over the past number of decades.

The billboard campaign was designed to push the agenda of removing any last traces of paramilitarism in communities. It is, however, important that we do not stigmatise communities. Some incredibly good work is happening in them. I have always said that some problems in areas are caused by a minority of people. There are great organisations in those communities doing fantastic work. Individuals, families and communities are doing so much volunteering, and they are really changing their communities from within.

The key message today is that we are here to support those who are doing good — those who want to move on. We will not leave anybody behind; we will work with people to move them on. However, when it comes to those who are engaged in criminal or paramilitary activity, it needs to stop, it needs to be stamped out and it needs a criminal justice response.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): The previous time that the Executive were in a position to set a multi-year Budget was for the 2011-15 Budget. The Executive can only set a Budget to reflect the period covered by the spending review announced by the Treasury. That is why there are single-year Budgets for 2024-25 and 2025-26. The next phase of the Treasury spending review is expected to be announced in June 2025. It will set the Executive's funding envelope for day-to-day expenditure, which is known as the resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL), from 2026-27 to 2028-29. There will be an additional year for capital DEL, which funds investment in assets. That brings it up to 2029-2030. Given that the Treasury's spending review will provide the Executive with funding for a three-year period — 2026-27 to 2028-29 — for resource DEL, and four years for capital DEL, I intend to set multi-year Budgets to reflect that time frame.

Mr Chambers: Does the Minister agree that the task of producing a multi-year Budget is made more difficult by the absence of a costed Programme for Government and that such a cycle of multi-year Budgets would assist in the delivery of long-term strategies, particularly in Health?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that the Programme for Government will be set by the Executive. I look forward to the publication of that important document. However, that process does not prevent, and has never prevented, the Executive from publishing a multi-year Budget. We have to align with the Treasury spend. If Treasury sets a spending review for one year, I am legally obliged to bring forward a Budget to the House for one year. Thankfully, all indications are that the spending review is going to be multi-year. I think that that is going to be a game changer for the Executive, all our Departments and the delivery of public services. I hope that we see increased spending as a result of the spending review, and not further cuts to public spending. The quicker that that announcement is made, the quicker we will be allowed to set a positive pathway for our public services.

Mr Blair: Does the Minister agree that repeated cycles of collapse of the Government have also prevented Northern Ireland from having multi-year Budgets?

Mr O'Dowd: Instability in politics certainly does not help in delivering our public services or any cause. We should all be focused on honouring and delivering the agreements that we have signed up to and which created this place. That will give us the best course for stability.

Miss Hargey: How much additional funding has the interim fiscal framework secured for public services here?

Mr O'Dowd: Members will be aware that, as a result of the work of my predecessor and others, the Executive have spending at the 124% needs-based factor, which is applied to the Barnett consequentials. The application of the 124% needs-based factor in the interim fiscal framework has resulted in an additional £431·4 million of funding through the Barnett formula for the Executive. That alone has provided an additional £184 million to Executive funds this year, so it has been significant. On next year's spend, at this stage, it has provided £247·6 million for the 2025-26 Budget.

Mr O'Dowd: Public consultation is one of the fundamental steps in ensuring that any proposed measures are fair and equitable. My Department is engaging in a process of consultation on domestic policy proposals, building upon last year’s work. That launched on 29 January and is accompanied by associated impact-screening work. The proposals aim to make the domestic system fairer and more progressive. My Department is working on a strategic roadmap for rating. In 2025-26, that work will focus on the non-domestic side of the tax and how that system can also be made fairer. Other revenue-raising measures in government, outside the remit of the Department of Finance, are the responsibility of individual Departments. It is, however, my expectation that Departments will take appropriate impact assessments as part of their scoping analysis.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Corporate profits are at record levels. What discussions have taken place in your new Department or at the Executive to move ahead with devolving corporation tax in order to raise it to take account of those record corporate profits?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware of the work of the Fiscal Commission. It is continuing its work to gather evidence on Barnett consequentials and how this place should be funded. I would like one of that body's next phases of work to be looking at how we devolve further taxation powers to the Executive. In doing so, we will have to examine the implications of those taxation powers and how we use them. As with most of the limited taxation powers that we have, such as rates, all those matters will eventually go through the Assembly for a vote.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister tell us what support is available for domestic ratepayers?

Mr O'Dowd: The support for domestic ratepayers is wide-ranging. It includes housing benefit for non-working-age citizens; low-income rate relief for non-working-age citizens; lone pensioner allowance for those over the age of 70; farmhouse allowance; the exemption for a clergyperson; early payment discounts; landlords' allowance; and empty property rates, to name just a few. I am happy to supply the Member with a complete list of all the support that is available for domestic ratepayers.

Mr Buckley: When considering revenue raising, perhaps the Minister could look at wasteful spend in his Department. It has been revealed that the radical, discredited Stonewall charity is still being funded through the Department of Finance. That charity has been associated with radical gender policies for younger-age children and had its funding removed by all Whitehall Departments. Will the Minister be the man to step up, remove that funding and adopt a policy of "spend less and tax less"?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not sure, but the funding is currently around £2,500, I think. I can supply the correct figure to the Member, but it is somewhere in that region. That money is given to Stonewall each year for services and advice to the Department. As with all advice, the Department does not have to take it on board, but we are a fair employer and an inclusive Department. We want to see a workforce that has all its rights and entitlements in place. We take advice from a number of sources. As I said, we do not always have to take the advice on board, but it is important that we reach out to a wide range of organisations for it.

Mr Stewart: Minister, as councils start to strike their rates, local businesses, particularly independent retailers, in city and town centres are seeing their rates go up and up. If we are truly serious about town centre, village and city centre regeneration, can we look at a package that rebalances commercial rates and takes the focus away from our independent and small retailers?

Mr O'Dowd: My predecessor, Dr Archibald, commissioned Ulster University to look at the cost of doing business. I look forward to receiving the report and examining the evidence base in it. It is important that, as my predecessor did, we gather evidence and move forward on that basis. We have to collect data and be data-driven. Evidence-based and data-driven decisions will continue in my Department.

Mr Durkan: In the Minister's previous role, he often and correctly championed public transport and spoke of the need to incentivise its use by reducing fares etc. Given that a key component of his predecessor's Budget sustainability plan includes increasing Translink fares, has the Minister had a chance to reconsider that?

Mr O'Dowd: I feel as though I have gone back in time. I am now the Minister of Finance; that is for the Minister for Infrastructure. Those are decisions for the Department for Infrastructure. As an Executive, where we can, we want to see revenue raising form a part of each of our Departments in a fair and equitable manner that helps to drive forward the economy. Individual decisions for Ministers are individual decisions for Ministers.

Mr O'Dowd: The Executive agreed to allocate £17·4 million to help Departments deal with the impact of storm Éowyn. The Department for Communities will receive £1·4 million towards a range of pressures, including the emergency financial assistance scheme. The Department of Education will receive £3 million for school building repairs. The Department of Health will receive £4 million towards repairs to physical damage to the health and social care estate and the public safety estate. The Department for Infrastructure will receive £8 million towards a range of pressures, including those from the cost of repairs, remedial action, lost income and the provision of alternative water supplies. The Department of Justice will receive £1 million for additional policing costs as a result of the police assisting other emergency service partners in the repair of damage to infrastructure across the region. Although the assessments of the true cost of the storm are yet to be fully quantified, given the unprecedented scale of storm Éowyn, the available funding was allocated quickly to Departments to help them respond to its impact.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for his answer and the detail in it. Given the unprecedented damage caused by storm Éowyn, does the Minister intend to ask the Treasury for further support for costs incurred due to the storm?

Mr O'Dowd: In the immediate aftermath of the storm, my predecessor had discussions with the Secretary of State. I will continue to have discussions with both the Treasury and the Secretary of State, and, as the true costs of the storm emerge, I will assess whether it is appropriate to make a reserve claim to the Treasury for those costs. At this stage, I do not have all the figures because Departments are still involved in the clean-up. Once those figures become available, I will assess whether it is the right thing to do or whether we can cover those costs with any underspend that there is in Departments as we head towards the end of the financial year.

Mr Dickson: Minister, in respect of the money that you have allocated to the Department for Communities, what discussions have you had with that Minister to determine whether he can enter into a compensation scheme for those who lost electricity for a long time, particularly for the loss of food from freezers etc?

Mr O'Dowd: I have had no discussions with the Minister for Communities on that matter. Funding was allocated on the basis of a call that went out to Departments. In fairness to all Departments, there had to be a very quick turnaround because the money came to us at very short notice from the Treasury. However, it will be for Departments to allocate that money where they feel that there is the most need.

Mr McGlone: Minister, on that point specifically, you will know that rural areas suffered very badly as a result of storm Éowyn. Will you advise on what direction has been given to those various Departments on how they might prioritise those rural areas? What practical assistance will they be giving to services and other aspects of those rural areas?

Mr O'Dowd: Again, those are matters for individual Ministers. Just before I came into post, my predecessor received notification from the Treasury that some funding was available. It was moved on very quickly. A letter was issued to Departments to respond. They did respond and funding was allocated on that basis. It is up to each Department to decide how to allocate that funding and what services it will support with it.

Ms D Armstrong: I am aware of some householders in Fermanagh and South Tyrone who are still without telecommunications. My question is similar to Mr McGuigan's supplementary: what, if any, extra moneys will be made available in subsequent rounds for further damage that becomes apparent during the slow restoration of services by utility companies?

Mr O'Dowd: There are at least two aspects to the issue. The first is about support for public bodies and government agencies, for which I am directly responsible along with my Executive colleagues. In our initial response to storm Éowyn, we were able to allocate £17 million or thereabouts. The second is about responsibility for other matters, such as utilities. Setting aside NI Water, which is a publicly owned company, responsibility rests with the utility companies. Whether it is electricity, broadband, internet connections etc, there is a huge onus on those companies to ensure that they look after their customers in the wake of the storm and ensure that they are properly compensated for their loss.

Mr O'Dowd: The pace of technological change is rapid. It is crucial that we understand the transformative power of AI and how it can be harnessed to benefit our society but in a responsible and controlled manner. AI presents many opportunities for the public sector to automate routine tasks, streamline processes and improve the management of public resources. My Department has been taking forward a number of small-scale proof-of-value projects to examine the use of AI in a measured way in order to understand how the technology can deliver value in the public sector. I am aware that other Departments are utilising AI to assist with the delivery of their services and that others are beginning to pilot and test the value of AI adoption. My Department has established an AI working group that is made up of digital leaders from across Departments to share emerging findings and take on board learnings, including those from other jurisdictions.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Minister. World-leading work on artificial intelligence is happening in my constituency of South Belfast, with Kainos, Queen's University Belfast and the business sector ready to go. Does the Minister agree that, given its potential to boost economic growth and productivity and the opportunities that lie therein, the Assembly needs to be really intentional and urgent in its action? Are you satisfied that a working group is sufficient to drive forward the work that needs to be progressed?

Mr O'Dowd: I can imagine the headlines in some of tomorrow's newspapers as they report that the Assembly has discussed artificial intelligence, and what the suggestions might be.

A working group is a sufficient and effective response to where we are at this stage. As I said, technology is rapidly changing. Developments in AI can and will help to deliver public services, but we have to do that in an ethical way. We have to ensure that data and human dignity, for instance, are protected and that all service users are comfortable interacting with the AI if it is a front-facing service or a service that we use behind the scenes for reading and interrogating documents. I have already discussed the matter with officials. At this stage, I am satisfied that we are on the right path. However, it is an area that deserves careful monitoring by me, which it will have.

Ms Ferguson: What measures have been implemented to ensure the ethical use of artificial intelligence?

Mr O'Dowd: As I say, we have started a number of pilots in my Department. I know that other Departments and government agencies are using AI. We have set up a working group to take an initial view of it and to learn from other state providers and states that are at a much more advanced stage than we are. As I said to the previous questioner, the most important things are to protect people's personal data, ensure that everyone who interfaces with the system, if it is public-facing, feels comfortable doing so, and do not simply replace staff with AI because it is cost-efficient. You cannot simply measure the contribution of staff on the basis of pounds, shillings and pence. Greater measures have to be taken into account rather than simply using a mathematical equation. It cannot be a mathematical equation. There are too many elements to understand before decisions are made.

Mr McNulty: It is reassuring to hear your position on that, Minister. Given the concerns that there are in the Civil Service, what safeguards and guarantees will you put in place to ensure that any AI that is adopted in the Civil Service will be used to support employees and not replace them?

Mr O'Dowd: I have given my commitment to the House that I will take careful, personal consideration and oversight of the matter as that area of technological advancement increases and increases rapidly. We have all witnessed significant technological advancement in our own lifetime, which has, in many ways, provided and improved public services, making them more efficient and ensuring that we are able to deliver them to as many people as possible in constrained budgetary times. However, as I said, it is not simply a case of pounds, shillings and pence. You cannot carry out that equation on the basis of simple costs alone. Many elements have to be taken on board. I assure the Member that the fullest examination of that will be taken forward before any radical decisions are made.

Mr O'Dowd: I raised that issue in my introductory call with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 5 February. I will also use the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee (F:ISC) meeting, which is due to take place later this month, to highlight the issue again with the Chief Secretary in person.

In advance of that meeting, I attended a trilateral meeting with my counterparts in the Welsh and Scottish Governments, both of whom expressed similar concerns about the financial effect of that change in policy in their jurisdictions. That follows my predecessor's writing to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury three times to raise concerns in relation to the potential cost impact of the planned changes to employers' National Insurance contributions on central and local government here and to ask Treasury to meet the full cost of that impact.

The issue is fluid and evolving, but what is clear is that it is a policy change, introduced by Westminster, which is going to have a financial impact on the public sector here, on the voluntary and community sectors and on others that deliver public services. In my view, therefore, it is only right and proper that the British Government meet the full cost of the change. Otherwise, it is going to have a negative effect on the delivery of public services here and on those who depend on them.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his answer. He has somewhat answered my supplementary question. As part of ongoing engagement, will the Department be working with counterparts in other devolved regions to lobby the Treasury on that issue?

Mr O'Dowd: The F:ISC will meet in Cardiff on, I think, 27 February, and, as I said, I have already had a meeting with my Scottish and Welsh counterparts on that matter. I will raise the matter directly, as will they, I am sure, with Treasury officials at the upcoming meeting.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you have a well-earned reputation for plain speaking, but I am afraid that you are not living up to that reputation today. I am still absolutely none the wiser as to how much this is going to cost the Executive. You must know; if you do not, then you are not doing your job. I welcome you to your new job; I am sure that you have had a baptism of fire. However, your officials should be able to tell you, at the click of a button on a spreadsheet, how much this is going to cost the Executive and the wider public sector. Your predecessor had various accounts of it. Please, can you tell us now how much this is going to cost the Northern Ireland Executive and the wider public sector?

Mr O'Dowd: Your level of wisdom or lack of it does not fall within my remit. I can assure the Member that my predecessor and I have pressed this issue home. First, we need to understand exactly how the British Government are going to respond to their commitment to support the public sector with Barnett consequentials as a result of their decision to increase National Insurance contributions. When I have that information confirmed to me, I will inform my Executive colleagues, the Finance Committee and the House. As my predecessor rightly said, I suspect that we are going to face a significant financial challenge as a result of that decision. However we end up here, it is not going to be good news. I accept that certainty is better than uncertainty, and I will continue to press for that certainty.

Ms Forsythe: Following on from the previous question, when the Government made the announcement back in October, charities and businesses in my constituency were able to tell me that it would cost them £11,400 or £42,150. Within days, people knew exactly how much it was going to cost them. We are still looking at responses in the ballpark of over £200 million. How much is it going to cost Northern Ireland public services for this increase?

Mr O'Dowd: The figure is around £200 million in increased costs for the public sector, councils and the community and voluntary sector. The missing part of the equation is that I do not know how much the Treasury is going to give the Executive as a result of the Barnett consequentials that it plans to make available in Whitehall. Some of the estimates that we have received, even from our own Departments, from the community and voluntary sector or from councils, are fluid in the sense of changing workforce numbers etc, but the figure is around £200 million. How much is coming from the Treasury? Nothing has been confirmed to us yet.

Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 15 together.

My Department has repeatedly highlighted to the Treasury the challenges facing our hospitality industry, particularly the high VAT rates faced by business here relative to the South. Unfortunately, the British Government, who are responsible for setting VAT rates, have so far been unwilling to address the issue. My Department continues to support the local hospitality sector through, for example, significant rate support, with 65% of the sector in receipt of support via the small business rate relief scheme. My Department has commissioned an independent study of the cost of doing business here, which will consider the impact of North/South VAT differentials. I will continue to make the case for a reduction in VAT to enable our hospitality sector to compete on a level playing field in the all-island economy. That is an issue that I will raise with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the next Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee meeting, which is to be held later this month.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, what plans do you have specifically to support businesses in Northern Ireland, especially in the hospitality industry?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, significant support is given to small and medium-size businesses through the rate relief scheme that we operate, which I think gives welcome support to local businesses. The Member will be aware that neither I, the Executive nor the House has any powers to reduce or, for that matter, increase VAT. Therefore, it is outside my and our remit to offer support in that regard. However, the report on the cost of doing business that was commissioned by my predecessor will be invaluable to us in approaching the Treasury and others in our support of those businesses. It is quite evident that we need an evidence base to approach the Treasury. The Fiscal Council report proved to be very beneficial and persuasive in our argument. We also need the data to back up our argument, so data-driven and evidence-based is the way forward.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his answers. Minister, I am confident of the offering of the Northern Ireland hospitality sector and what it provides, but it needs your support and that of the Executive. Will you commit to meeting representative bodies, such as Hospitality Ulster, to listen to their ideas about how they can be supported to improve the hospitality industry in Northern Ireland?

Mr O'Dowd: I am always willing to meet key stakeholders to discuss these matters and listen to their ideas and proposals. I have already met representatives of a number of sectors and will continue to do so. I am offering a round table to the broader business community, and I have no doubt that this subject will arise there. However, I am always happy to meet the sectors.

Mr McGrath: Towns such as Warrenpoint and Rostrevor in my constituency will be impacted on by this as consumers choose where to eat, drink and stay. Further, given that your colleagues voted for a motion in the House last week, will you continue to do everything that you can to impress upon British Ministers the need for change here, given that the other regions do not share a land border with somewhere that has a different VAT rate?

Mr O'Dowd: I assure the Member that that is my intention. Going equipped with evidence and the data is the best way to advance that argument.

Mr O'Dowd: I will provide an update on the proposed changes to domestic rating policy. On 29 January, my Department launched a 12-week consultation on two domestic rating measures. The consultation builds on work undertaken by my Department last year, and I encourage people to respond. The first proposal is to elevate the maximum capital value used for rates bills from £400,000 to £485,000. The second proposal is to reduce the early payment discount from its current 4% to 2%. The consultation closes off year 1 of a planned 10-year strategic review cycle of rates supports being progressed by my Department. The work for year 2 — 2025-26 — will move on to the non-domestic side of rating. It will start by reviewing the small business rate relief scheme and non-domestic vacant rating exclusions — two key policy areas highlighted by stakeholders since the restoration of the Executive last year.

That work will also build on research being undertaken by Ulster University into the cost of doing business. It is a piece of work that was commissioned, as I have said, by my predecessor and will allow us to approach Treasury and others with an informed, evidence-based argument.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. In light of the current economic climate for small to medium-sized businesses in the hospitality and retail sectors, why is he consulting on small business rate relief in year 2 of the strategic review rather than in year 1, given its urgency for some of our town centres?

Mr O'Dowd: The work programme has been set out in such a way as to be able to respond to the issues. If, however, a decision is made in Whitehall that does not particularly fit into our programme of work, it is sometimes difficult for us to reprioritise our work streams. The Department is also working with limited resources. We do not have an infinite supply of staff and other resources with which to carry out such work.

Domestic rating policy is important, and it is important that we continue that work. I assure the Member that we will move as quickly as possible on the small business rate relief scheme and the other scheme.

Mr Speaker: It is time to move on to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that all parties stand on their manifesto. If appointed to the Executive, Members have to work in a power-sharing Executive with Executive colleagues and agree a work programme. That is what we have done since we came back.

On that specific issue, in reply to an earlier question, I said that the Fiscal Council had done great work on the funding model of 124%. It is doing further work on a needs-based assessment. When it completes that work, one of the programmes of work that I want it to take forward is to look at greater devolution of fiscal authority and powers to the Assembly. I have therefore planned that programme of work, and I want to see it completed as soon as possible.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister. In fact, you mentioned the Fiscal Commission earlier, but the Fiscal Commission does not exist any more. It reported three years ago. So far, there has been virtually no progress made on delivering on any of its findings.

You mentioned the rating review cycle earlier. Your predecessor said that that would take 10 years. The Fiscal Commission reported, and nothing has happened for three years. A rating review may take 10 years to deliver any outcomes in a cycle. Is it not the case that you and, I am afraid, your party — you have had the two previous Finance Ministers — talk a great game on fiscal devolution but do absolutely nothing to deliver it?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member has proven himself wiser than I thought he was about commissions and councils. I thank him very much for that.

I am here not to respond about any matters in the Sinn Féin manifesto but as a member of a power-sharing Executive who have to work collaboratively to deliver the public services that people want and need. I am more than happy to have a debate with the Member about the Sinn Féin manifesto at any time, but, as I said, I have a planned work programme to do the very work that he is keen for me to carry out. I have no doubt that he will be supportive of that work when it commences.

Mr O'Dowd: I have heard some of the public discourse on the issue. It is wrong and a huge mistake to blame the Civil Service for it. We are all responsible for the delivery of capital projects. It is worth noting — I say this advisedly — that, although the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) does excellent work, every report that it publishes calling for further layers of bureaucracy on top of the layers of bureaucracy that are already in place for the delivery of projects causes further delays because those layers of bureaucracy have to be delivered to get over the other layers of bureaucracy that are required to build the thing that you want to build. From a ministerial point of view and from the Committee's point of view, I urge caution on the matter. Sometimes you do not need new governance; you need to ensure that the governance that is already in place is properly implemented and delivered. The priority is to get the project delivered as far within budget as possible and as quickly as possible.

Other factors relating to increased budget costs over the past few years have been COVID, the Ukraine war, significant inflation in construction costs causing the cost of projects to rapidly increase and the fact that a number of our projects face significant legal challenges. Yes, there is a role for the Civil Service and a role for politicians — there is a role for all of us — but I caution Members against pointing the finger of blame solely at our Civil Service.

Ms Brownlee: I do not think that anybody is placing the blame solely on the Civil Service. However, it has been acknowledged that the cost is £2·45 billion. That is not small change. It was recognised in the report that your Department has established a commercial delivery group. Are you aware of that? What has been done?

Mr O'Dowd: I am aware of the report and the comments in it. The usual way of responding to such reports is that the PAC forwards the report to the sponsor Department and my Department for a formal response. That is how the report will be dealt with: through the formal processes.

I am not in any way underestimating or undervaluing the overcommitment of £2·45 billion — it is huge — but let us understand all the aspects of how we got there. When we understand all the aspects of how we got there, we will find that the answer and solution are more readily available, rather than a headline blaming civil servants.

Mr O'Dowd: It has to be said that, since coming back in February last year, the Executive have made significant strides in childcare. Working together, we have seen significant investment in childcare. For instance, the 2025-26 draft Budget increases the allocations for short-term supportive measures to £50 million. That is the biggest ever spend on childcare costs by any Executive.

I accept the Member's point about costs in the sector continuing to rise and costs for parents therefore also continuing to rise. That relates to the conversation that we had earlier in Question Time about knowing fully the consequences of the Chancellor's decision on National Insurance contributions. Once I know those consequences, I will be in a better position to inform the Executive and the Assembly — this body — and then decisions will have to be made collectively by the Executive on where the limited support that we will be able to deliver will go.

Mrs Guy: Thank you for that answer, Minister. Will you, please, make representations to the UK Government on getting an increase in tax-free childcare allowance?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, I am more than happy to do that. Any measures that we can take to support parents with childcare needs and the childcare sector are important not only for the families but for the broader economy.

Mr O'Dowd: At this stage, I am not aware of that work, but I am more than happy to respond to the Member in writing.

Mr Honeyford: That is no problem, thank you. I appreciate that the Minister is not long in office. I recently met officials from his Department to feed back some information from my constituency of Lagan Valley, where constituents have no voice on the matter and some of whom cannot sell houses. If the Minister can give his commitment to look at this, the work that, I hope, is already happening in the Department can perhaps be implemented within this mandate.

Mr O'Dowd: I am more than happy to do so. We have common cause to support those who face challenges in the housing market. Where my Department can assist, it will.

Mr O'Dowd: As I outlined earlier to a colleague, we have made significant investments on behalf of the Executive, providing money to the majority of Departments that made bids for funding and support. The Member will also be aware that the significant damage in and around the Stormont estate has had an impact on the Department of Finance. Around 200 trees have been felled. Some of them dated back many years and had seen much of the history of this Building and the land around it. Significant damage was done, and investment will be required to clear up. The scale of that damage and how much it will cost in total to repair are still being assessed. From the point of view of supporting other Departments, I have outlined the funding that we have provided and the damage caused, in particular, to the Stormont estate.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

I appreciate the Minister's giving the detail. However, given the concerns around climate change and the probability that extreme weather events, such as the storm that we witnessed, will become more frequent, could the Minister detail any forward-looking work that is being undertaken? I appreciate that he is still dealing with storm Éowyn.

Mr O'Dowd: I am actively working in collaboration with the AERA Minister in particular on such issues as the green growth strategy and climate change activities etc. It will continue to be a challenge over the next number of years. Given the budgetary constraints that the Executive face, it is very difficult to set aside a financial pot for emergencies. In many ways, we have been relatively lucky in the last number of storms. We have been able to respond with teams of dedicated staff out on the ground. We have been able to respond financially to the storms, and we await the full costings of that response.

Moving forward, I would like to be in a position to set aside an emergency pot of funding to ensure that we can respond to the emergencies as they arise, but, given the constrained nature of our Budget at this time, it is very difficult to do so.

Mr O'Dowd: The revised public procurement note on scoring social value is effective from 24 February 2025. Related to the previous question, one of the main revisions of the policy note is in connection with climate change. The revised policy expands on delivering climate action and includes more indicators, more focus on climate adaptation etc and a greater understanding of the benefit of delivering social value through public procurement exercises and how that benefits local communities and the economy.

Mr McAleer: Minister, you referenced climate change in response to my question and, indeed, in response to the previous question. How can social value help to mitigate the impact of climate change?

Mr O'Dowd: Given the significant expenditure of our Departments, we have to ensure that that investment does not create further adverse impacts on the climate and that we take measures that support the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2022 and the strategies that have been brought forward by various Departments, particularly the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

We have a huge opportunity here, through our procurement, to act in the public good, particularly in carrying out measures that support our climate change objectives and create opportunities for change.

Mr O'Dowd: I am far from an expert on the matter, but it is one of those policies that, when it works, it works. However, if you are an individual who believes that you have not been treated with dignity at work, it has not worked for you. There are always lessons to be learned in any policy, and the real-life experiences of staff are the most important barometer by which to measure any of those things.

Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): An investigation was instigated on Friday 14 February at premises near Dungannon, County Tyrone, after a number of mortalities in a commercial poultry flock. Preliminary results have indicated the presence of the highly pathogenic avian influenza, H5N1. The unit is a family run farm, so my thoughts are with the family concerned at this time.

Temporary disease control zones have been imposed around the premises to limit the spread of disease. The movement of poultry and captive birds, carcasses, eggs, used poultry litter and manure is restricted and licenses are required for them to be moved into or out of the zones. My Department is taking swift action to prevent further incursions by progressing the necessary measures following the establishment of control zones, including licensing requirements and surveillance activities. The humane culling of the birds is also under way at the premises. I thank all the officials who have been involved in the response to date.

I decided to introduce an avian influenza prevention zone across Northern Ireland from Saturday 18 January. The avian influenza prevention zone includes mandatory stringent biosecurity measures. The avian influenza prevention zone will remain in place until the risk reduces. I also introduced a housing order, which came into force today, as part of the current avian influenza prevention zone. That decision aligned with the introduction of a housing order in the Republic of Ireland. Earlier, the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) commented that the housing order that is now in place is the right choice. In addition, a ban on gatherings of poultry has been introduced in conjunction with the housing order.

DAERA officials met with key industry stakeholders over the weekend and will continue to liaise closely with them, and colleagues in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, as the situation develops. The need for continuous excellent biosecurity to prevent further incursions will continue to be highlighted by my Department as a crucial way of protecting the national flock.

Mr Buckley: It is fair to say that the issue has caused significant concern and distress to many poultry farmers across Northern Ireland. The poultry industry is worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the Northern Ireland economy. It is regrettable, Minister, that you are here talking about the issue via a question for urgent oral answer. Given the seriousness of the issue, a ministerial statement is the very least that the House, and, indeed, the wider agrisector, expected.

At a recent Committee meeting, your officials suggested that no budget had been set aside for avian flu. Will the Minister provide clarity on the financial situation that farmers are facing regarding this particular issue? Will he also respond to the direct criticism by the Ulster Farmers' Union that the closure order came too late?

Mr Muir: First, I thank the officials in my Department, who were working all weekend on site until late last night to deal with the issue. I spoke to the Chief Veterinary Officer late last night, and he outlined the efforts that are being undertaken to deal with the issue. I prioritised being on site to deal with the issue, and I am happy to come to the Chamber to answer questions. I have also engaged with the media. I thank the officials for their work, and I am happy to come here to engage with Members on the issue. I also thank farmers across Northern Ireland, particularly those in the poultry industry who are working in close partnership with us on the issue. I am very grateful to them for that. I spoke to the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union last night, and we agreed that the most important thing is to emphasise the message about biosecurity and how key it is.

My Department will pay the compensation for the birds that are culled as a result of the outbreak. It is important to support the poultry industry, and I will work within my Department's budget to cover the compensation, because it is important that we give that assistance to the farming community in Northern Ireland. That is what I am committed to doing.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for liaising with the Chair of the Committee and I last night on the matter. Minister, I understand that a closed flock of birds was involved. Have you any assessment at this stage of how the contamination came in in the first place?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr McAleer, for your question. The contamination highlights the highly pathogenic nature of avian influenza. The poultry farm in question is a really excellent operation, and, as I understand as a result of initial investigations, the flock was housed. That highlights the importance of biosecurity here in Northern Ireland and of doing all that we can to protect the national flock. Biosecurity can have a 44-fold impact on dealing with the outbreak, and that is why I moved very quickly to put a zone across the whole of Northern Ireland, mandating those biosecurity measures. In addition, I have moved on housing. There are many stories from across England and Scotland of farms having been really badly affected as a result of avian influenza, and we have worked really hard in conjunction with the poultry industry to keep it out of Northern Ireland. Sadly, it has arrived, and we are working to address it. There is one example of late in England of avian influenza coming on board a farm and over one million birds, unfortunately, had to be culled. That highlights the importance of us all working together on the issue and of giving that biosecurity message to everyone.

Mr Blair: Will the Minister give us some more information on what poultry farmers can do to protect their farms from an outbreak of avian influenza?

Mr Muir: The most important thing is biosecurity on the farm. That is critical. Those measures are mandatory as a result of the order that I made last month, and there are many aspects to it. They are available on the DAERA website, which outlines the requirements. It is about ensuring that you follow good practice. We are ensuring disinfection. We are managing, for example, effective vermin control. We are ensuring correct record-keeping and that there is no direct contact with poultry and other captive birds in neighbouring premises. There are many actions that we can take, and the details are on the DAERA website.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for engaging late yesterday evening on the matter. I am looking at the dates around the outbreak. The housing order was issued on Wednesday 12 February, I believe, with measures being put in place at the farm on 14 February. What confidence can poultry farmers have that the Department is responding in time when it gets the information?

Mr Muir: The Department is responding very swiftly. This winter, avian influenza arrived in England last year on 5 November. Then we had an issue with three wild birds that were found in Northern Ireland on 16 and 17 January. Immediately upon that occurring, I declared an avian influenza prevention zone across the whole of Northern Ireland on Saturday 18 January. Note that I implemented that for the whole of Northern Ireland. Then there was an avian influenza outbreak at a nature reserve near Magherafelt on 7 February. A zone was immediately introduced as a result of that. Very quickly thereafter, I engaged with my counterpart in the South, and we announced that a housing order would be introduced. We announced that on 12 February. I note that, when I announced that housing order, people criticised me for it, but I proceeded because I thought that it was important to introduce it. I know that it is inconvenient for people, but I proceeded with it, and it is in place from today.

Again, I emphasise that biosecurity is the most effective measure that we can take to manage avian influenza. It reduces the risk 44-fold. As Mr McAleer outlined, the flock was housed, so it is really important that we come together on the issue and give that very strong message about biosecurity in Northern Ireland. It is important that we all emphasise its importance on all farms. I commend the farms across Northern Ireland and the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union for his leadership on the issue. Collectively, we can emphasise the point about biosecurity.

Mr McGlone: Minister, what potential sources of funding have you been seeking or sourcing for loss of income, particularly for some of the farmers involved? It is a devastating blow for any farm of any type to have such an outbreak inflicted upon it, so could you advise us about that. Secondly, with the Speaker's forbearance, will you give us more detail on your collaboration with the Minister in the rest of the island?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr McGlone. We will cover compensation for the birds culled. I am in a difficult budgetary position, but I will prioritise that because it is important that we prioritise farmers in Northern Ireland, and that is what I am doing. I am working within the legislative framework and the position that was adopted during previous incursions by previous Ministers. My approach to compensation is the same as that of GB and Ireland. It is important for me to give the reassurance that we will cover compensation for the birds that have been culled.

Ireland is a single epidemiological area, and North/South cooperation is important. I have been in constant engagement with the relevant Minister down South, Martin Heydon, as I was with his predecessor, Charlie McConalogue. I spoke to Martin when we had a meeting on this last Tuesday. I also engaged with him yesterday. We work in close cooperation, which is why there is a housing order in place across the island of Ireland. I have also engaged with the Secretary of State today.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his acknowledgement of the family in my constituency who are at the centre of this. When it comes to wider human impact, Minister, can you assure us that the way in which it will be managed will not be detrimental to human health?

Mr Muir: It is really important that I emphasise that my thoughts are with the farmers who have been affected. They provide a great example of good practice, and my heart goes out to them over what has happened with avian influenza. That is why, as politicians and as a farming community, we need to come together.

The current advice from the Public Health Agency is that avian influenza is primarily a disease of birds and that the risk to the general public's health is very low. The Food Standards Agency advice notes that avian influenza poses a very low food safety risk for UK consumers and that properly cooked poultry and poultry products, including eggs, are safe to eat.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, I come back to the point that my colleague from Mid Ulster made about compensation. You touched on lost birds. What about litter removal? The houses will obviously need to be disinfected, which will involve a massive cost because the litter is, technically, contaminated. How far beyond the cost of the birds will the compensation go? There is a big clean-up cost just to leave the houses ready for restocking. Then there is egg production. The loss of 64,000 birds — we can all calculate this based on approximately one egg a day — means a massive amount of income lost to the farming sector and that farm business.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Buchanan, for your question. I totally get the concern about this. It is important that we support our farming industry. The poultry industry is worth a significant amount to the economy in Northern Ireland. As I said, we will cover compensation for the birds culled. I am working within the legislative framework that previous Ministers used in past incursions, and I am taking the same approach that has been adopted by GB and Ireland. I know that officials are on-site at the farm, supporting the operation. We are continuing to engage in that. I work within the vires that I have as Minister, and I will continue to support the farming industry in the time ahead.

Mr McMurray: What conversations about avian influenza has the Minister had with the Ulster Farmers' Union?

Mr Muir: I regularly engage with the Ulster Farmers' Union. I spoke to its president last night about avian influenza. We were collectively of the strong opinion that it is a highly pathogenic disease that can, unfortunately, affect farms across Northern Ireland — it does not discriminate — and our thoughts are with the farmer who has been affected. It is really important that the Chamber, the agriculture industry and the Ulster Farmers' Union come together, as we are doing, to emphasise the importance of biosecurity and of taking the measures that we can to manage the risk of this highly pathogenic outbreak.

Mr Crawford: Minister, what steps is your Department taking to inform domestic flock keepers about how to comply with the advice and guidance issued by your Department?

Mr Muir: We continue to encourage flock keepers to register with the Department because, if they do so, we can give out communications. We have extensive information on our website, which I encourage people to visit. Communication is key, and I encourage anyone who has not registered to do so.

Mr McNulty: With the arrival of this highly pathogenic avian disease in County Tyrone and the devastating impact that it has had, the Minister said that his heart goes out to the farmers involved. Will he please outline the extent of his interactions with the farmers involved and with the Chief Veterinary Officer, Brian Dooher?

Mr Muir: I have already addressed a number of those questions and I am happy to go over them. I have been in regular engagement with the Chief Veterinary Officer. I have spoken to him a number of times today, as well as yesterday, late last night and throughout the outbreak. I am in constant contact with him. It is important that I put on record my thanks to the veterinary service staff in my Department, who have worked night and day on this issue. They were on site until late last night dealing with it. I am very thankful for the service that they have given. The primary contact with the farmer is through the veterinary service staff, who have been engaging with the individual. It is important that I state that.

As I said, I spoke to the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union last night, and I continue to engage with people on the issue. I am sorry to keep emphasising this, but it is important. It is really important that we communicate and share the biosecurity measures that can be implemented on farms so that people are aware of the actions that they can take to keep the disease out.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister outline whether any financial support will be made available to proactively increase biosecurity measures at entrances to poultry farms and related businesses to prevent the disease spreading and reduce the likelihood of future cross-contamination?

Mr Muir: The biosecurity measures that need to apply to farms are mandatory, and have been since Saturday 18 January. To be honest, we should not be in a situation where we are discussing putting them in place now. They should already be in place. Those minimum biosecurity measures apply to all keepers. The poultry industry has been excellent in stepping forward to implement the measures. That is not where my concern is: it is to ensure that we are aware of the precautions that we can take. They are outlined on my departmental website. The actions that people can take are precautions to avoid the transfer of virus contamination between premises, including the cleansing and disinfection of equipment. It is also important to ensure that feed, water and bedding are stored to minimise the risk of virus contamination; effective vermin control; ensuring that only essential movements take place; ensuring that records are kept, including of poultry, captive birds and egg movements; ensuring that buildings that house birds are maintained; and ensuring that there is no direct contact with poultry or other captive birds on neighbouring premises. Ducks and geese should not be kept in the same pen or building as other poultry species. There are further, enhanced measures for premises with over 500 poultry. Those are mandatory measures that have been in place since 18 January, and they reduce the risk 44-fold. It is important that we implement them. The housing order will reduce the risk twofold. It was really important that I moved on that, and it is in place from today. The biosecurity measures are absolutely key.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Thank you, Members.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to correct the record in relation to the debate on the Second Stage of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill that was held earlier this afternoon.

Mr Carroll made an intervention to ask me whether the Assembly Commission had discussed the names of who might serve on the remuneration board. I correctly said that it had not had such a discussion, as that would not be a matter for the Assembly Commission. However, I then misspoke when I said that it would be a matter for the Ad Hoc Committee. What I meant to say was that the appointment of members to the remuneration board is a matter for the Clerk/Chief Executive, not for the Ad Hoc Committee. The Clerk/Chief Executive will oversee the process for appointing the remuneration board, and I am happy to again confirm that Assembly Commission members will have no role in that.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Ms Ennis.

Mr Tennyson: I support the Supply resolutions for the spring Supplementary Estimates, the Vote on Account and the Excess Vote. I intend to speak relatively briefly, as we will have an opportunity to rehearse many of these issues and themes again during the passage of the Budget Bill.

At the outset, I welcome the return to the semblance of some normality when it comes to the Budget process in the Assembly. Last year, we debated a Budget Bill in advance of the spring Supplementary Estimates, while, this year, we are able to return to the usual 45% figure in relation to the Vote on Account.

It goes without saying that the 2024-25 financial year has been yet another incredibly challenging one, with demands from Departments far outweighing the resources available at every stage of the process. Prolonged austerity, the damage from Brexit and an increasing cost of living, with cumulative inflation pushing close to 19% in the past three years, have placed enormous pressure on household budgets and on the Executive's finances. In the face of those challenges, most parties in the Chamber — I emphasise "most" — have been working together constructively in a genuine attempt to support people and services where it matters most.

Those pressures have been felt right across the UK. In September, the Scottish Government announced £500 million in emergency saving measures in order to balance their Budget mid-year. Of course, in Northern Ireland, the pain has been compounded further by a funding formula that has not kept pace with need and by a cycle of stop-start government that has come at a cost through, in the past, depriving us of key opportunities to transform our broken public services. Since the Executive have returned, however, an additional £1·3 billion has been allocated to Health and Social Care when compared with the figure in the previous Budget from the Secretary of State in 2023-24. Some £45 million has been allocated to offset the worst of welfare reform, including the bedroom tax, while £17 million has been allocated to assist with mitigating Labour's decision to end the winter fuel payment. Meanwhile, the interim fiscal framework has generated an additional £431 million of investment for public services.

It is no secret that the UK Government hold the bulk of the fiscal levers and therefore exert the greatest influence over the Budget ultimately available to the Executive. When the new UK Government came into office, they laid bare the failures of the previous Administration, rightly highlighting the £22 billion funding gap that they had inherited and departmental spending plans that never fully reflected the impact of inflation and, as a consequence, were at least £15 billion lower in real terms when compared with 2021 spending review levels. All that has had direct implications for our ability to spend and invest here.

When we debated the Main Estimates last year, there were calls from some in the Chamber for additional spend in a number of areas. It was notable, however, that Members were less forthcoming about identifying from where that additional investment would come. No one argues that the allocations throughout 2024-25 have been sufficient. The question for the Executive and the Assembly at every stage of the Budget cycle and during every monitoring round has not been whether the allocations are sufficient but rather whether they represent a fair attempt at distributing what are clearly insufficient resources. Alliance has consistently made the case, and will continue to make the case, to the UK Government for a fair funding settlement that properly reflects Northern Ireland's unique circumstances and relative need. Any permanent fiscal framework must reflect the impact of political dysfunction and historical underfunding on our public services, but, in making that case to the UK Government, we cannot simply ignore our responsibilities as an Executive and an Assembly to drive transformation.

I am pleased that, this year, the Department of Justice has taken forward significant areas of work on speeding up justice and on access to justice reform. It must be said, however, that that same desire to deliver public service transformation has not been evident in some of our other large-spending Departments. The Department of Health's hospital reconfiguration plan lacked any concrete proposals for transformation. Similarly, the Department of Health has not demonstrated any desire to confront the cost of division.

If we are to make the case for increased investment, we also have to provide assurances that the public money that we are spending is being spent wisely. There are myriad examples, as we look back on 2024-25, of where that has not been the case, be it the £600 million spent on social care without any proper procurement process or value-for-money checks having been done, the £250,000 spent on magnetic wallets or the capital funding allocations about which there has been insufficient openness and transparency. I agree with Mr O'Toole, who made this point. The role of the Fiscal Council is critical to bringing additional scrutiny to the Budget processes before us, so it is essential that, as we look towards next year's Budget cycle, those provisions be placed on a statutory footing.

I will mention a number of points that have other Members have made. A number of Members have highlighted the fact that record levels of Barnett consequentials have flown through the process this year. Some Members have argued that we need to be more strategic about how we spend that money, but I argue that Barnett consequentials are the exact antithesis of strategic spending. It is far better that we have a clear indication through a multi-year spending review from Westminster of the money that will be available for investment. Indeed, many Barnett consequentials have arisen after 14 years of austerity and underinvestment. Those consequentials, far from allowing any ability for us to make meaningful long-term investment or, indeed, to prioritise transformation, have simply been swallowed up by in-year departmental pressures. If we are to see the changes in our public services and public finances that we aspire to, we must reform how we approach those issues.

This Budget is the tenth single-year Budget in a row; next year will see the eleventh such Budget. After that, we will have an opportunity, finally, to return to multi-year budgeting. It is essential that that happen, that future Budgets be underpinned by a Programme for Government — this one is not — and that that stable Budget process be underpinned by stable political institutions so that, never again, can these processes be upended by political chaos and dysfunction. I will have much more to say on that in the debates on the Budget Bill that lie ahead.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. By way of introduction, it is good that, at least for the 2024-25 spring Supplementary Estimates, we find ourselves in a somewhat more normal budgetary circumstance. The SSE Supply resolution offers us all the opportunity to debate the changes that have been made to the departmental and ALB budgets in 2024-25 following the June, October and January monitoring rounds and any other exceptional transfers.

In the case of DAERA, without those monitoring rounds, many farmers and those involved in the agricultural and, indeed, environmental sectors would have desperately wondered where the vital funds would come from. On farmers in particular, I think of the bovine TB compensation piece that the Minister often has to speak to. We know that, even with in-year funding, those funds have not been wholly secured. Today, with the onset of avian flu, there are further fiscal pressures on the Minister's Department. As he said today, there are limitations to what he can do with the limited funds that he has available. It is good to note that the Department of Finance is continuing to work to set an improved fiscal floor through a more permanent fiscal framework for Northern Ireland.

The Committee considered DAERA's allocations through the monitoring rounds over the year, receiving briefings from officials in June and December 2024 and in February 2025. We were pleased to consider the revised out-turn and forecast out-turn document that was forwarded to us from the Finance Committee. That allowed us to monitor any budget overcommitments and how dependent DAERA was on monitoring rounds.

In June, the Committee heard that DAERA, like many other Departments, started the Budget year in a difficult opening position, with no additional funding to take forward new work and with statutory obligations and contractual pressures not covered. In financial terms, bids for £95·8 million in resource DEL and £155·2 million in capital DEL led to allocations of only £15·2 million in resource DEL and £95 million in capital DEL.

The Committee then heard from the Minister about his priorities for 2024-25, which included tackling climate change together; protecting our natural environment; supporting sustainable, resilient and productive agri-food and fishing sectors; and building strong, sustainable and diverse rural communities, which is an absolute priority for my Committee. It came as no surprise, therefore, when he had to agree to difficult reductions in some divisions in order to fund additional work in other areas, such as the Lough Neagh project. It immediately became clear to the Committee that the monitoring rounds would be needed for essential purposes, not for development purposes beyond the statutory functions. The Committee has had consistent concerns over the cuts to discretionary spend, because those areas are often where a big impact on public well-being is lost, such as public angling, access to nature and rural support initiatives.

When it came to June monitoring, the bids were clearly based on the unmet elements of the Budget bids. In addition, there were specific bids for the statutory obligation of bovine TB compensation, as there were insufficient funds to cover what it was projected to cost by Brian Dooher, the Chief Veterinary Officer, and his team. DAERA, however, is not unique in having to rely on in-year allocations to meet even the statutory aspects of its work, of which bovine TB is one.

At our meeting on 6 February, we had a briefing from officials on the main drivers of spending changes since the 2024-25 Main Estimates and on the 2025-26 Budget. I will save the Committee's comments on the 2025-26 Budget for the appropriate debate in the near future.

Regarding the SSEs, we heard that, during the 2024-25 Budget year, an additional £15·7 million resource DEL was allocated, including £4 million for bovine TB programme delivery; £1·5 million for the environmental improvement plan, including Lough Neagh; £3·6 million for departmental overcommitments; and £6·6 million for depreciation. His Majesty's Treasury (HMT) funding of £46·6 million was also allocated in-year in relation to administering the Windsor framework. During the year, an additional £1·6 million of capital DEL was allocated to take forward work on Lough Neagh, and £2 million was allocated for the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) programme. HMT funding of £2·8 million was also allocated in-year in relation to the cost of administering the Windsor framework. In addition, the Department reclassified £1·6 million resource DEL to capital DEL for the environmental farming scheme, the common market organisation regulation and the farm carbon footprinting project.

The Committee was pleased to hear that DAERA continues to provide capital support to farm businesses through significant capital expenditure in the farm business improvement scheme and the environmental farming scheme. In 2024-25, a total of £5·7 million capital DEL was allocated to the TRPSI programme to fund the rural business development grant scheme and the rural micro capital grant scheme .

The Committee has devoted considerable time to rural affairs and took its meeting on 21 November to Loughry college in Cookstown to take evidence from rural partnership groups and rural support groups. We heard about the historical underinvestment in rural women and how, when budgets are tightened, rural transport is often lost, and networks and women's projects, sadly, come under threat. There was a request to put the TRPSI programme on a statutory footing to ensure funding. The general point was that those groups just do not have enough money to deliver their services. I think that it is agreed across the board that all of the rural support networks have to look for funding elsewhere to enable them to carry out their vital work in rural community development. The organisations have branched out into different things, such as healthy living networks, which are supported by lottery funds. They have had to avail themselves of the different iterations of Peace funds and various funding pots, as departmental funding is uncertain and inconsistent. Chasing those funds takes vital energy and time away from their on-the-ground delivery.

The budgetary challenges of the past year that have come to the Committee's attention are fairly similar to those from the year before. Bovine TB remains — I have said this more than once — one of the most challenging issues facing cattle farmers, with high herd incidence remaining and the spend on the programme and on compensation increasing year-on-year. However, the overall compensation still does not cover the full income lost, as it takes time to rebuild a herd, never mind the emotional distress.

The Committee is aware from its evidence sessions that rural support is under significant pressure, and the Committee requests that it remain a focus for the Agriculture Minister. The Minister highlighted to us his view that investing in addressing climate change is an opportunity to pursue the green growth agenda, so the Committee expects to see the continued prioritisation of funding in that regard. We know that the Minister shares our interest in supporting the agriculture sector to play its part in climate actions by, for example, delivering finance to ensure that there is research to improve technologies —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Butler, your time is up.

Mr Butler: — and to invest in a truly just transition. I will conclude there.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Health Committee on the motions and specifically to outline the Committee's consideration of the Department of Health's budget and allocations over the 2024-25 Budget period.

The Committee recognises the significant budgetary constraints and pressures that the Department of Health is under; indeed, that goes for the wider Executive, with all Departments under significant pressure. However, the repercussions of the financial constraints on Health are stark. Over 500,000 people, which is more than a quarter of our population, are on a waiting list to have their first consultation with a specialist. That figure is alarmingly higher than those in other parts of these islands, where comparable waiting times are significantly shorter. More than one fifth of patients now face 12-hour waits to be treated in, admitted to, discharged from or transferred from emergency departments. At the start of January, we saw reports of patients having to be treated in unused tea rooms, with corridor care becoming normalised.

The inability to offer competitive pay has led to low staff morale and challenges in retaining healthcare professionals. Many are considering opportunities elsewhere, exacerbating the existing workforce shortages. In the past year, the Committee has heard from many organisations and representative bodies, including GPs, surgeons and nurses, about how the current system is close to collapse. If there is not significant transformation in our services and structures, the consequences are not something that we will want to dwell on. That is why it is important that we, as a Committee, undertake detailed scrutiny of the departmental spending plans and priorities.

When the Budget allocations were announced last April, the Department was provided with a resource allocation of £7·759 billion and a capital allocation of £416 million. At that point, the Committee was advised that the Department's estimate of the shortfall in its allocation was approximately £500 million. The Committee received a letter from the previous Minister outlining his disappointment at the allocation that his Department had received. In that letter, he advised of the possible consequences of the Budget, including a halt to waiting list initiatives; no pay settlements; restrictions on the use of new drugs; the suspension of some vaccination programmes; a reduction in domiciliary care of 1·1 million hours; a reduction of 500 independent sector care home beds; and a reduction of 140 acute hospital beds. Thankfully, I am glad to say, the Minister did not have to resort to those consequences, due to the in-year allocations received from the Executive. Throughout the monitoring rounds, the Department was provided with the bulk of the additional funding available, getting £122 million in June, £350 million in October monitoring and an additional £7 million in January monitoring. In addition to those allocations, the trusts made significant savings over that period.

It is concerning that we are in a position in which the Department has to rely on in-year allocations just to maintain service delivery. The Committee has been frustrated that we have not seen any money invested in waiting lists and other much-needed services. The Fiscal Council has highlighted that the level of in-year transfers to Departments underscores the underfunding that the North faces from Westminster, reinforcing the need for the fiscal floor to be further adjusted.

The Committee remains committed to working with the Minister and the Department to ensure that additional funding is provided to the Department of Health. As Chairperson, I am happy to support the Minister and the Executive in discussions with the British Government on additional funding for our health service. We must understand that there is little scope for the transfer of funding from other Departments, and we must make the case to the British Government to support our health service and health service workers before it is too late.

I will make a few brief comments in my capacity as an MLA and the Sinn Féin health spokesperson. Nowhere is the decimation of our public services by successive British Governments starker and more visible than in our health service. In the remarks that I have just made as Chair of the Health Committee, I referenced a number of pressure points within the Department of Health, such as waiting lists, emergency departments and staff morale and retention. However, there are, of course, many others, including access to GP services and the impacts on our community pharmacies, dental services, cancer screening and treatment, mental health services, domiciliary care services and much, much more. All of that has a detrimental impact on the quality of life and health of our citizens. I will talk in more detail on that in tomorrow's Budget debate.

I recognise the importance of the three motions before us, which seek to provide legal certainty on the funding of services up to this point and for the remainder of the financial year. We have all heard and spoken about the challenges presented by the constrained short-term Budgets that are a feature here and by our limited fiscal levers. We are all aware of the pressures that that brings to the day-to-day functioning of Departments and the impact that they have on our ability, as a collective, to transform public services and improve the lives of the people whom we are here to represent in a real and meaningful way. As I said, nowhere is that felt more than in the health service.

That said, I recognise the significant achievement of the previous Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, in securing the interim fiscal framework, which not only recognises that the North is funded below need but includes the commitment to address that going forward. I also know that, within the constrained budget available, funding for the Department of Health was a priority for the previous Finance Minister. I am certain that it will be a priority for the current Finance Minister, as, I am certain, it is for all Ministers. Despite the fact that we have nine Departments, the Finance Minister has allocated over 50% of the available 2024-25 Budget to Health. We must see that substantial investment being used to transform our health service, ensuring better care and outcomes for all citizens.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): My initial remarks will be made as Chair of the Economy Committee, and then I will make some remarks as the DUP spokesperson on the issue. This is my first opportunity to engage with the Minister since he took up his post, so I wish him well in his new role.

I advise the House that officials from the Department recently provided written and oral evidence to the Committee on the anticipated 2024-25 spending out-turn. That included a spring Supplementary Estimates memorandum that explained the changes between the opening and closing positions for the different kinds of spending and included three-year spending trend lines. It is hoped that, in future, following the publication of five-year business plans by all Departments, the memorandum will also include a forward look at key budget lines for at least three years. In respect of the 2024-25 Budget, the Department for the Economy's opening balance for non-ring-fenced DEL was £766·5 million, including earmarked funds. The last-minute allocations that were made a few weeks ago brought the figure for the closing position to £825 million, which represents a significant increase on the opening position.

The Committee awaits some responses from the Department, but it appears that the increased demand for skills places and apprenticeships has been largely met, despite the loss of external funding. If correct, that is an extremely welcome outcome and is indicative of the Barnett consequentials that other Members have mentioned. The Department's capital DEL opening balance position for 2024-25 was given as £222 million. The out-turn may be around £244 million based on £188 million of core funding and £56 million of earmarked funding, much of which is for city deal projects. A further £10 million of capital headroom was available and may still be used by the Department.

I cannot leave city and growth deals without recording the Committee's thanks to the Assembly, the Minister and all Executive colleagues for their collective efforts in getting the city deals unpaused in all parts of Northern Ireland. Those deals will be vital to the economic future of our constituents, whom we are all privileged to represent, and they are an example of how there can be positive outcomes when all parties work together.

The opening balance for financial transactions capital (FTC) was around £3·8 million. However, the out-turn appears to be around only £1 million. Like most Departments, the Department appears to have struggled to get FTC money spent. When the Minister responds, perhaps he could comment on initiatives that his Department is engaging in to ensure that all Departments make full use of FTC. I also ask him to provide further clarity on the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) and any engagement that he has had with the UK Government on that and on the promised enhanced investment zone arrangements that the Committee has continually raised.

The House has seen some welcome public-sector pay settlements, not least those for further education lecturers. The Committee noted that other settlements for the Civil Service, the potential settlements for teachers and the new National Insurance contributions will add more pressure to the departmental budget. Earlier this year, the Committee also noted the Department for the Economy's transformation proposals for post-19 special educational needs (SEN) provision and two business cases relating to support for the City of Derry Airport and the public service obligation (PSO) route.

At this stage, I will make my comments as economy spokesperson for the DUP. The first is about the city deals. My party is extremely proud of the role that we played during our confidence-and-supply agreement, through which we secured the first two city deals for Northern Ireland: one for Belfast and one for the north-west. The Labour Government's decision in September to pause those two city deals and the subsequent Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West growth deals was disgraceful. As I noted in my remarks as Chair, the combined efforts of all parties in the House resulted in the right decision being taken, but my party will continue to champion the vital role that the city and growth deals can play.

On that, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement today about reinstating £2·2 million for my constituency of North Belfast for the Shore Road skill centre. That project should never have been paused. It aims to tackle economic disadvantage and educational underachievement in one of the most deprived wards in the entirety of Northern Ireland. I am delighted that, as a result of the work that the club and I undertook, the funding has been released today.

FTC is something that the leader of the Opposition and I agree on wholeheartedly. There needs to be a more coordinated approach, led by the Department of Finance, for all Ministers to be much more proactive in drawing down that funding and ensuring that we have viable private-sector partners. In the House, we often hear Ministers, rightly, make the case for more financial support and the ability to spend. However, if we are returning tens of millions of pounds in unspent FTC funding each year, it makes our argument with Treasury slightly more difficult.

On unspent funding in the Department for the Economy, I also want to highlight the £2 million that was allocated for the childcare support package scheme. That was to develop a support scheme for our providers across Northern Ireland, with research being provided by Invest NI. To date, that funding has not been drawn down, and, right across Northern Ireland, as childcare bills continue to increase as a result of the pressures placed on our providers, it is difficult for us to justify not spending that £2 million.

The enhanced economic zone is another £150 million funding stream. Last week, I outlined to the Minister for the Economy my disappointment at the lack of progress, in my view, that has been made in getting terms of reference and being able to draw down that vital funding. There is no doubt that the financial picture next year will be more difficult and will be placed under more pressure by the National Insurance increases. I hope that the Minister, in the debate today or tomorrow, will provide us with the figures for what that means, because, to date, we have no idea.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I rise, first, in my capacity as Chairperson of the Education Committee to address the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account. I am advised that the Department has had no Excess Votes in the relevant period, so I will not be addressing that.

The Committee is, of course, aware that this is a largely retrospective debate today and that, aside from securing the authority for spending to the end of the financial year and the early part of the next, significant changes to departmental budgets are now highly unlikely. That said, the Committee would have liked to have had an up-to-date budget briefing from the Department and is still awaiting a long-anticipated capital budget briefing from the Department, which we have been seeking since around November last year. Those have yet to be brought forward.

The Committee did, however, receive a written January monitoring briefing that highlighted the in-year fluctuations since the October monitoring round. Back in October, the Department of Education's inescapable pressures were assessed at £189·4 million, against which it received £170 million in resource DEL via October monitoring. Those pressures were largely covering the EA block grant for special educational needs (SEN) and non-SEN, the aggregated schools budget, departmental staffing costs and moneys for the 2024 teacher pay award. At the January monitoring round, pressures of around £20 million were still in place, but, at that time, a resource allocation of £1·5 million was all that was secured. That means that pressures, largely in the space of SEN services in education, remain acute.

In the October monitoring round, the Department bid for £88·78 million to cover capital DEL pressures but, by the conclusion of the January monitoring round, only £12·5 million in capital funding had been reallocated to the Department. It is therefore clear that significant resource and capital pressures remain. Officials were at pains to emphasise to the Committee that those pressures of £189 million were only those that could be described as inescapable and that many, many more were putting the regular delivery of education services under severe pressure.

The Committee is keen to know more, particularly in the capital space, about the resourcing of major and minor capital works, how those are identified and prioritised, and about the resourcing of vital SEN transformation work. The Committee has expressed concern that, as a key Executive priority, SEN transformation seems to have a reliance on transformation funding and on monitoring rounds to deliver what should be core spend, but it is indicative of the level of pressure that is being felt to deliver even statutory functions. The Committee will therefore continue to explore in detail how SEN transformation can be more effectively resourced and delivered.

The Committee is clear, and agrees with the independent review of education panel, that education here is not funded sustainably and that that undoubtedly has an impact on the day-to-day education of our children and young people and places huge strain on the education workforce. The Committee is committed, across the parties, to work to tackle that underfunding of education and to make the case, for education and all our public services, that we need that additional investment from Westminster.

That concludes my remarks as Chair of the Committee. I will now make some remarks in my capacity as Alliance MLA and education spokesperson.

Members will be aware that the Education Department's budget and decisions by the Education Minister have been in sharp focus in recent days. In particular, concerns have been highlighted about the level of scrutiny that has been applied to minor capital works funding over the past financial year. Those have been aired in the Chamber, and rightly so. In the context of a hugely pressured budgetary position, and with unavoidable pressures in the region of £200 million having been highlighted and other pressures taking that figure much higher, it is my view and that of my party that openness, transparency and accountability in public finances are absolutely essential. It has therefore been concerning that, when concerns around minor capital works funding in particular have been raised, the Minister has not joined other Members and agreed that how those allocations are made should be reviewed. He has not supported that but instead seems content to delegate that to the EA. I reiterate that call. If we are to have confidence in how the budget is being spent this year, there must be full openness and transparency in that regard.

Mr Brett: I thank the Member for giving way. Is it just one project that he is looking for clarity on, or will he provide a list to the House of all the projects and schools that he wants to go through with regard to the money that has been spent in the past financial year?

Mr Mathison: To be very clear: the Committee has asked for a review of the system for allocating minor works capital funding, so that will clearly take in more than one school.

I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge facing the Education Minister. He has set out many times the financial pressures that his Department faces. We all agree in the Chamber that our public services are underfunded, as many contributors have mentioned. All will continue to make that case. However, given the pressures that arise from underfunding, the Education Minister must be rigorous in his approach to his budget. Questions need to be asked about some decisions. My colleague Eóin Tennyson highlighted the £250,000 spend on mobile phone pouches when school buildings are crumbling, a blanket capital spend announcement on outdoor play equipment and IT when we have schools saying that that may not necessarily reflect their individual needs, and clearly accepting, in public statements, that the funding of our schools may not be fair and equitable but not, as yet, as far as I am aware, taking forward any review of the funding formula that delivers that. We need to see a commitment from the Minister to delivering genuine transformation in education.

There are no quick fixes or easy answers in this space. I will always commend the Minister if he makes steps in the right direction, as he has done with childcare investment, although it is only a start. I have no doubt that we will be here in another year's time debating those pressures in Education if we do not start the difficult, long-tem work of delivering meaningful system-level transformation. The Committee is certainly up for that work. Certainly, in my role as Alliance's education spokesperson, I am. I hope that the Minister is as well.

Mrs Dodds: I rise as the DUP's health spokesperson to make a few remarks on the 2024-25 budget for Health.

The Health budget of 2024-25 saw huge pressures in Health but also significant in-year allocations. That allowed the Minister to meet the pay requirements for HSC staff. We should say that and congratulate the Minister when he has done a good job. It was an important outcome. As I have said often, the staff whom we have working in Health and Social Care are the glue that holds together a very broken system. It has to be said, however, that the announcement of the pay award was made on the same day that the Minister announced the appointment of a new permanent secretary on an eye-watering salary. Only time will tell whether he is worth that salary. I presume that the Minister of Finance had to OK such a breach of salary rules. We will need to see significant reform and transformation of healthcare if we are to avoid a continuation of what we have now.

Northern Ireland still has the most expensive health service per head of population in the United Kingdom, yet it has the worst outcomes. Almost half a million people are waiting for a first appointment with a consultant. The most recent figures for breast cancer referrals show that, for women who had discovered a lump in their breast and were waiting for that first consultation, only one in 10 appointments in the Southern Trust met the 14-day target. The corresponding figure was much lower in the Northern Trust and South Eastern Trust. That is not an acceptable place for our health service to be in, so we need to get on with the reform that will drive better outcomes for people.

The Minister of Health achieved a balanced budget despite his predecessor's dire predictions. The previous Minister engaged in a strange calculation of the figures in the 2024-25 Budget. Guess what? The incumbent Minister is doing that all over again with the 2025-26 Budget. The draft Budget equality impact assessment that the Department published indicates that it is in line to receive only a 2·6% increase on the 2024-25 end-of-year position, but that is not comparing like with like. Compared with the starting position of £7·76 billion in 2024-25, the proposed £8·4 billion allocation to the Department of Health represents an increase of more than 8% on that position. If the anticipated sums —.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: No. I want to make some progress, because I have quite a lot to get through. If the anticipated sums for the immigration health surcharge and National Insurance contributions of employed staff are included, that increases to 11%. We all want to see as much as possible in the Department of Health budget, but, in a time of constrained budgets, we have to be realistic about being able to deliver the best possible outcomes.

Some of my colleagues talked about looking after the money that we have in the system. There is a lot of money in the health system, yet it has some very poor outcomes. In September 2024, I asked about the amount of PPE that the Business Services Organisation (BSO) was holding on the Department of Health's behalf, and the answer that came back was quite startling. It seems that about £97 million worth of PPE stock will expire by 2027, yet the Department of Health was seeking more money for additional PPE. It would be interesting to know the reasons for that.

We need to be really clear and transparent with the money that we have in the system. Last Thursday at the Health Committee, I quizzed the Minister and the permanent secretary about the current estimated cost of the new children's hospital. The Committee has visited the new maternity hospital, which is an absolutely amazing building, but we were told during that visit that the cost of the contract for the children's hospital had now risen to £670 million. I would be interested in hearing the Finance Minister's view on that. The investment strategy delivery tracking system report, which is provided to the Committee every month, indicates that the value of the children's hospital contract will be greater than £1 billion. We would like to know the nature of the discrepancy between the figure of £670 million, which is the cost of the contract that was signed, and the figure in the investment strategy delivery tracking system report.

We need clarity and transparency on the Department of Health's capital investment. The maternity hospital issues have still not been resolved. It is an amazing building that will make a huge difference to mothers and babies and to families with the most vulnerable children in our society, but we still do not know the cost of making it safe for those babies. That is something that we need to know as well.

I also draw the Minister's attention to the energy scheme for the Belfast Trust. A total of £9·5 million was spent on an energy project that the Department of Health, in a recent letter to me, stated is red-flagged and cannot be delivered.

The challenge is to get better outcomes for people, but it is also about managing money better, which is really important. I hope that the Minister will look at some of those figures and ensure that we are more efficient in what we do and more realistic in how the Department spends money.

Mr Stewart (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I welcome the Minister to his place, thank him for his service and engagement as Infrastructure Minister previously, and wish him all the best.

I want to speak, first, in my role as Deputy Chair of the Committee, and, if time allows, to make some remarks of my own. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Committee for Infrastructure's approach in seeking to understand and consider the Department's financial position over the 2024-25 financial year and its future requirements. That has involved ongoing engagement with DFI's business areas and, of course, through the in-year monitoring process.

It is fitting that the newly appointed Minister of Finance is acutely aware of the financial position of the Department for Infrastructure and how fundamental the Department is as a backbone in supporting our daily lives. We all take for granted many aspects of the functions for which the Department is responsible: the water for our morning tea or hot shower, the infrastructure for our daily commute, to name but a couple. The reach of the Department goes much wider by supporting our economy, the delivery of homes, hospitals and schools and making roads safer.

It is essential to ensure that there are sufficient resources to maintain existing infrastructure or initiate projects to develop it. The financial position faced by the Executive is at a point where demand far outstrips available resources. On the resumption of business last year, the Committee engaged extensively with the Department to identify the specific pressures faced, and noted that, due to a lower opening baseline position, it intended to submit bids through the in-year monitoring round process to secure additional funding.

The Committee received oral evidence from departmental officials at each juncture of the in-year monitoring process to assess the Department's pressures and how it would prioritise any remaining resources in the event of submitted bids not being enough. Given the scalability of the bids for road maintenance, the Department can prioritise its programme of works based on the allocations from monitoring rounds. Delaying lower-priority maintenance or repairs, however, can quickly degrade road surfaces, particularly during cold spells.

Whilst the Committee welcomes the additional funding allocations received in this financial year, the funding for 2024-25 was, like other Departments', still well below the resource and capital requirements. In-year allocations enabled the delivery of road maintenance schemes, structural works and the provision of a winter roads service. In addition, the allocations enabled the Department to provide further resources to Translink and Northern Ireland Water. Given the scale of resources required, however, those allocations were not sufficient to address fully the significant shortfalls in funding that all Departments faced.

At its meeting on 5 February, the Committee received oral evidence from DFI officials on the spring Supplementary Estimates, which, as outlined, will reconcile all the changes arising in the 2024-25 financial year, including those from the in-year monitoring rounds. In the course of the evidence, the Committee noted that the Department received additional in-year allocations of £38·9 million in resource plus £20·2 million in ring-fenced resource for depreciation and impairments, and £69·8 million in capital. Having asked officials whether the Department anticipated that its forecast resource and capital would be fully utilised, it was confirmed that it was not anticipated to be subject to any underspends. However, subsequent to the Minister of Finance's written ministerial statement on 6 February in response to storm Éowyn and the resulting pressures, the Committee noted that the Department had identified further pressures amounting to £9·2 million and £8·8 million on the capital side. The statement confirmed that DFI received a resource-only allocation of £8 million, which, whilst welcome, leaves what appears to be an unfunded pressure of £1·2 million resource and £8 million capital. Therefore, the Committee, at its meeting last week, agreed to write to the Department to seek further detail on how that allocation will be used and how the Department will manage the unfunded pressures within existing limits.

I turn to the Vote on Account. The Committee has engaged actively with the Department and Translink on their assessment of Translink's needs for the incoming financial year and will receive further evidence from Northern Ireland Water at its meeting this Wednesday. We recognise that the motions and the Budget Bill's introduction later will reconcile this year's expenditure and provide resource to allow Departments to continue to incur expenditure in the first few months of the next financial year, but, from the evidence received thus far, it is clear that the Department's allocation in the draft Budget for next year, which is being consulted on, is far below its assessment of what is needed. The Committee will work collaboratively with the Department to advocate on its funding requirements whilst seeking through its scrutiny to maximise the scarce resources available by ensuring efficiency in the system.

On behalf of the Committee for Infrastructure, I am content to support the motions.

Ms Egan: I congratulate the Minister on his new role and wish him well in it. I will make a few short remarks on the Supply resolutions in my capacity as the Alliance Party's spokesperson on justice.

From the beginning, this financial year was marked as challenging — a time for tough decisions, stringent, sustainable spending and leadership to attempt the impossible task of balancing our books. When the institutions came back a little over a year ago, last February, Executive parties stood together and pledged that we would show the public that we could be responsible, sustainable and responsive with our moneys to facilitate and deliver successful public services for the constituents whom we serve. After stop-start government, a tumultuous austerity agenda based in Westminster and costs that fell victim to inflation, leadership needed to be shown: leadership that was not about the most popular decisions but about doing what we could, thinking ahead and delivering to meet our people's core needs. I am proud that Alliance has not shied away from that task in our Departments. I will confine my remarks to the justice portfolio, as my colleague Eóin Tennyson picked up on issues relating to DAERA.

In preparation for the votes on these motions, the Committee of Justice received a timely update via the 2024-25 spring Supplementary Estimates memorandum detailing the Department of Justice's mission and the main components of spending throughout the financial year, alongside comparisons with the 2024-25 Main Estimates and the final out-turn from 2023-24. Additionally, departmental officials came before the Committee to speak to those matters and to the draft Budget for 2025-26. The Department's mission is:

A key aspect that I will focus on is "partnership", as so much of what the Department of Justice does is part of a multi-agency and cross-departmental response to create sustainable operations in public service. Justice picks up the pieces and fills in the gaps where other Departments fall behind. It is one of the highest-spending Departments in resource terms for a reason: the responsibilities that it holds.

Justice's spring Supplementary Estimates memorandum underlined the key drivers of spending changes since the 2024-25 Main Estimates. I draw out for attention the outstanding exceptional pressures in the region of £227 million that the Department faces, which relate mainly to the PSNI data breach, the McCloud pensions remedy and the settlement of holiday pay claims. It is unclear when those will crystallise, but it is clear that they cannot be absorbed into the Department's general Budget allocation. A solution must be found in collaboration with the Finance Minister.

During a year in which the Executive looked to renegotiate our financial package from Westminster, Alliance's Justice Minister, Naomi Long, leaned into the mission at hand and ensured sustainable and responsible spending by a Department that has been historically underfunded. The Department of Justice funds access to justice, building safer communities, our Prison Service, reducing offending rates, support for our Courts and Tribunals Service and the PSNI. It deals with prevention, protection and the aftermath of much of what we deal with as a society. That is all vital work.

Much of the work in the Department of Justice is demand-led, whether that is from the growing prison population or legal aid allocations. We accept that, and the Justice funding must reflect that. We in the Chamber often warn against duplication and advocate for cross-departmental working and multi-agency approaches that are victim-centred and trauma-informed. Justice is central to the solutions, acting where others will not: it comes into contact with the most vulnerable in our society and works to protect them. I hope that everyone in the Chamber will recognise two things: the essential work of the Department and the fact that its services are stretched. To see that, all you need to do is look at the backlog in the courts system or the ongoing pressures on policing.

My party and I will vote in favour of the motions. I look forward to engaging in Budget debates in the future — a future in which Justice must be prioritised so that we can continue to protect and support the people whom we are here to serve.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the opportunity to speak as a DUP member of the Infrastructure Committee on the important issue of the spring Supplementary Estimates. There is no doubt that infrastructure is a vital economic driver and social enabler across our country. It is the foundation that underpins the economic and social fabric of our communities and the key to unlocking a more prosperous, more productive and healthier society. We in the DUP are firmly committed to building world-class infrastructure that ensures that this is an attractive place in which to do business, maximising the opportunities that flow from our place in the Union and ending regional disparities.

I welcome the Minister to his new post. It is ironic that our new Finance Minister is poacher turned gamekeeper. I would like to think that he recognises the scale of the challenges and pressures in the Infrastructure Department. Over the past year, the Committee has listened to and engaged extensively with officials from the Department and Translink and more widely with stakeholders from across the Department's remit. They have all clearly spelled out the fiscal challenges that they face. Investment in our public services is crucial, but so, too, is ensuring that projects are delivered on time and within budget. We hear some other parties call relentlessly for the devolution of further fiscal powers, but perhaps there should also be a focus on tackling some of the preventable waste across the system.

The Department for Infrastructure forecasts that it will spend its resource and capital budgets in full. It is vital to ensure that it remains on track, so that moneys are not returned needlessly. The SSEs reflect earmarked capital allocations for the A5, the A6 and the Belfast transport hub. It is important that those projects continue to advance. Throughout the year, there have been welcome additional funding allocations in resource and capital, which has included funding being delivered for NI Water and Translink. As is the case across all the Departments, however, that additional funding does not meet the requirements. The in-year allocations have allowed the transport and road asset management (TRAM) group to be agile and deliver much-needed resurfacing and maintenance schemes that were shovel ready, subject to funds becoming available. Such agility in our Departments is key so that, if and when money becomes available, they are ready to capitalise on the opportunity.

There continue to be huge challenges in our waste water infrastructure. The current untenable situation is curtailing economic investment and access to fair and affordable housing, with housing waiting lists growing weekly in every corner of Northern Ireland. Everyone in the House should recognise that challenge. I know that the Minister has done work on that over the past year, and I trust that that work will continue. The new Infrastructure Minister has an opportunity to demonstrate that she is serious about delivering the positive change for all in the delivery of water and waste water infrastructure that she referred to last week following meetings with stakeholders. We acknowledge that the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill will look at the feasibility of developers making additional funding contributions. Those solutions and some creativity are welcome. NI Water also has a key role in tackling that problem, as it knows best what needs to be done. It needs to look at best practice across the globe and at all possible measures to try to turn the tide on a major issue that is crippling our economy and impacting on our daily lives. We need to balance extra investment with new, innovative and sustainable technological solutions.

The Department for Infrastructure has said that budgetary pressures have led to routine road maintenance activities being reduced to a limited service. That has been in place for a number of years. However, the startling statistics that show that over £30 million was spent on vehicle and personal injury claims on our roads between 2018 and 2023 indicate that the Department seems to have adopted a penny wise and pound foolish approach to maintaining our road network.

There also needs to be a focus on promoting a more efficient planning process centrally and across our 11 councils, where we have 11 different models with 11 different stages of local development plans impacting on our councils. There is a need for variation across the country, but there also needs to be uniformity in many key aspects. We need to see action on delivering more efficient statutory consultee response times and promote good practice to make our planning system more efficient, effective and fit for purpose so that we can deliver for all our communities and ensure that we are attractive for investment that can grow our economy.

We in the DUP will continue to focus on an infrastructure that supports active travel and improves structured working between local and central government to improve our active travel infrastructure and address the regional imbalance that exists, particularly in our public transport network and infrastructure.

Road safety is another important issue that needs to be addressed, along with many more. There were 68 fatalities last year and 71 in 2023, and those are a stark and tragic reminder of the devastating consequences of the dangers on our roads.

In recent weeks and months, we have seen the impact of winter weather — storm Éowyn was mentioned — and the value of the Department for Infrastructure staff must be recognised, alongside that of NIE, working together with NI Water, to get our country reconnected and kept safe in such difficult circumstances.

The National Insurance issue, as has been mentioned across the House, is another key challenge from which the Department for Infrastructure does not escape. It leads to recruitment and retention challenges in the Department, and I know that the Minister is aware of that. The National Insurance issue adds even more complications. The changes by the Labour Government will, obviously, create a further significant challenge in the upcoming financial year and beyond. We need to see more clarity from the Minister. He has been in place now for a number of weeks. He is a very experienced Minister, and he knows the issues, so we hope to see more clarity from the Minister on their impact.

There are many more issues, and I know that they will be covered in more detail in the House tomorrow. I am sure that we all look forward to that.

Mr McGrath: I wish the Minister well in his new role in the Department of Finance and with the challenges that he will undoubtedly have in the time ahead.

Finances have long been the subject of scrutiny for those who debate the ability or the long-term viability of this place and how we spend our money. If we want this place to be effective and to make a tangible and positive impact on people's lives, it must do so with responsibility and accountability at its core. We can do that not just with simple Budget management but with a Budget that is underpinned by a strategic and forward-looking Programme for Government.

Regrettably, we are once again in the position where, while the votes on Finance are progressing, the Executive have yet to publish an agreed Programme for Government. That only leads to confusion over what the Executive's financial priorities are and how they align with the Programme for Government. Only the Executive can answer that. I mention that only because it has a bearing on the perception of how we handle money. Are the Executive making allocations based on priority or strategic vision, or is it simply the news headline of the day?

As for the first Supply resolution for the year ending, there has been a record number of in-year reallocations, with little sign of prioritisation or multi-year spending. I fear that lessons from that have not been learned, and that is not a good indication for the upcoming year.

As the SDLP Opposition health spokesperson, I will focus a little on the health side of the House. When we consider the year that has just passed, we see that the Health budget at the beginning of the year was deficient. Although it has never been higher in terms of the amount that was given to the Department, it simply was not enough to allow the Department to do the work that it had to do to simply stand still. Through the in-year monitoring, the finance was found to make an allocation for pay increases, and there was some for waiting lists and other pressures, but the Minister still needed more money to simply do the work that had been done before. The trusts were expected to make hundreds of millions of pounds of savings, and you can call them "efficiencies", "cuts" or whatever the Minister likes, but a cut is a cut whatever way you slice it. Did we hear our health trusts crying that it was unreasonable in the media? No. They got on with the job, regardless of how difficult and upsetting it must have been.

At the Health Committee, the Health Minister gave a health warning that, for the year ahead, things will look even worse. The Department faces a huge gap of £400 million, and the trusts have been asked again to find new savings of £200 million.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes. Of course.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member agree that, when it comes to what are often called "difficult decisions" — cuts, if you prefer — the trade-off for the public and, indeed, the people working in those services is supposed to be that the Minister and the Executive produce a plan that will lead to, as Diane Dodds mentioned, shorter waiting times for consultant referrals? The Executive have not provided that. They have made what they call the "difficult decisions" — the cuts — but not the trade-off.

Mr McGrath: Absolutely. I could not agree more. If there is one thing that the Executive absolutely can plan for, it is the fact that they will not have a coherent plan to deal with all the issues that need to be addressed. Of course, they are an Executive who do not want to take any difficult decisions. They simply want to trundle through and see whether they can avoid upsetting anybody by making a decision that will strategically enable services to be better delivered, for example, in Health. I cannot countenance how those trusts will find another £200 million of cuts in the year ahead. It is an unenviable position, but it is the position that the Executive have put our trusts in.

The Department of Health is, as other speakers have referenced, missing most of its targets in addressing the health needs of our population. Our Budgets and Supplementary Estimates are not helping to address that gap. Where else in the world would you have a Department of Health that comes with a health warning? The unassailable fact is that the Executive expect our public services to, once again, do more with less and with no vision of when things will get better. That is not normal government.

If we want to see improvements in our broken health system, if we want to avoid pay disputes and strike action, if we want to avoid devastating and cruel cuts to the service, we need the Executive to work smarter. If we want to see transformation across our health service and other public services, we need to see the Executive work smarter. Again I remind anybody who has not heard about it that the transformation of health services does not have to mean the centralisation of health services. Transformation means simply working smarter.

It is time to knuckle down. It is time to do the hard work of government, address the financial needs of our public sector and deliver transformation, including a three-year finance cycle to improve the lives of people here.

Mr Kingston: I speak as a DUP member of the Committee for Communities and the Committee for the Executive Office. I take the opportunity to welcome the Finance Minister to his new post.

The three Supply resolution motions before us today relate to the finances for the last financial year, this financial year and the next financial year. For 2023-24, of the £2·78 million that we have been asked to retrospectively approve, £2·284 million is overspend by the Department for Communities due to the higher-than-expected demand for universal credit advances. As the Chair of the Committee said, that is due to the five-week waiting period for first payments. The Public Accounts Committee has recommended better forecasting models, stronger contingency planning and improved financial oversight to prevent such a shortfall in the future.

Regarding the current financial year, 2024-25, the Supply resolution motion combines all financial allocations this year, those being the initial allocation and all subsequent allocations through monitoring rounds. That makes the point that departmental allocations have increased during the year. When comparing Budgets year to year, it is disingenuous to directly compare the end-of-year figure with the start-of-year from the next year, as some have tried to do. When comparing Budgets, we must make sure that we compare like with like. That said, it should be our goal to have greater certainty of Budgets and spending plans at the start of each year and reduce dependency on monitoring rounds. This year, the Communities Minister was able to increase funding for new social homes in Northern Ireland as the year progressed from a low initial figure of just 400 up to a final figure of over 1,500 new social homes. I also acknowledge that the Communities Minister increased funding for the Supporting People programme, supporting vulnerable and homeless people through statutory and voluntary support services. As an example of the need to respond to unplanned events, the Communities Minister provided £4·8 million of resource and capital in response to storm Éowyn allocated to councils, housing associations and community services affected by the storm.

Regarding the next financial year, 2025-26, through that Supply resolution we allocate 45% of the Budget from last year, as has become the practice at this stage each year. Obviously, that restricts long-term financial planning. Many community and voluntary sector groups face great uncertainty at this time of year with staff on protective notice and awaiting letters of offer of funding that are likely to be for just one year or even only part of the year. We should set ourselves the challenge of increasing financial certainty for Departments and reliant groups to enable proper planning and effectiveness of delivery.

Whilst we continue to campaign for funding from Westminster that matches our level of need in Northern Ireland, we must also focus on efficiency in our public services. Where are the efficiency savings being made by each Department from year to year? Are we measuring, quantifying and reporting them? What are the transformation changes that we are making now and are preparing for when we receive the necessary additional investment? Where and how are we tackling error and fraud in our public finances, as the Communities Minister set out last week regarding welfare? As guardians of the public purse, our guiding light should be efficiency and effectiveness in our public services and ensuring that every Budget is properly scrutinised so that it delivers the best value for money and positive outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister of Finance for tabling the Supply resolutions for the spring Supplementary Estimates, the Vote on Account and the 2023-24 Excesses. I congratulate him on his new ministerial post and on sitting through what will be one of many boring Budget debates.

I thank the Department of Finance and all the Departments for the provision of the Estimates memoranda. I know that there are some in the House who may not have come across this before, but this is the first time that we have received such a document. It is extremely useful, as it explains in simpler terms what the key issues and the expenditure trends are for each Department. Now, as the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, Diane Forsythe, said, it would have been better if this document had been provided to Committees much earlier. For example, in the June monitoring round, the Department for Communities received a general allocation of £10 million and, in October, a general allocation of over £11 million. It is only in the memorandum that I have the detail of how that has been spent. That information should be provided to Committees at a much earlier stage to enable us to complete our scrutiny role. Minister, can you do something to encourage Departments to bring this forward much earlier in future?

As I said, I am on the Committee for Communities, so my comments will focus on the Department for Communities' Estimate. I see that the Assembly is once again being asked to authorise expenditure on welfare mitigations for people on universal credit on the sole authority of the Budget Bill. What assurances have you received from the Minister for Communities that he will have new legislation in place by 1 April 2025 — only six weeks away — to put welfare mitigations on a statutory footing so that we stop relying on the sole authority of the Budget Bill. My understanding is that sole authority is used for smaller amounts and for a short period. The Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, has been in post now for over a year, but that issue has still not been sorted out, and we are coming very close to the end of the financial year.

Minister, in this year's figures, the Department for Communities has headroom included of £3·3 million in revenue and £1·5 million in capital. Will you confirm whether that includes the money that was allocated for storm Éowyn or whether that is in a separate headroom account? That information would be appreciated.

On net capital DEL spending trends, capital spend seems to be finally turning a corner after a period of falling investment. The draft Budget that the Executive are consulting on suggests an increase in DFC's capital that, I very much hope, will be used to achieve the housing strategy objectives and to deliver new social homes. Minister, given the ongoing issues with waste water and planning delays, are you confident that increased investment in social housing can be delivered? I would rather that that money be used to provide the housing that so many people desperately need than it end up being handed back as a reduced requirement.

Dr Aiken: As the UUP spokesperson on finance, I will speak about the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account. Despite the many continuing reservations that I and other Members from our party will speak to, the Ulster Unionist Party will support the motions before us today and the Budget Bill at Second Stage.

There is no doubt that the 2024-25 closing position, as stipulated in the spring Supplementary Estimates, is much more favourable than the opening statements that the previous Finance Minister gave in the Assembly. The commentary on what was available in the Budget before what would be on the table from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was known, coupled with that on the additional moneys that could be expected, as well as the impact of the various monitoring rounds, demonstrated why we as a party could not support the Budget that was then proposed. The discussions that I and other Members from our party had at Hillsborough Castle with all parties, including the now Opposition, resulted in agreement that the Department of Health was the priority. We all know that some political promises have limited validity, but Sinn Féin, DUP and Alliance Ministers resiled from that priority with more than undue haste. I am sorry that Mrs Dodds is not here to hear that.

It is perhaps fortunate that the financial settlement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid out in the autumn Budget statement was, in some respects, generous to us. Otherwise, our fragile health service would be in an even more perilous state, especially as we face in upcoming years the very real challenges of endeavouring to transform the Department of Health and of effecting the much-needed reform of other Departments, on which we await some detail, unlike in the Department of Health, where we have provided the details of the changes that we wish to make. We have not had any detail from the Department of Justice. We have not had any from the Department of Agriculture. Indeed, we have not had detail from any of them.

As we look at the closing position of the 2024-25 Budget and at the 2025-26 Vote on Account, we can say that our principled stand gained resources for the Department of Health that other parties had sought to deny the citizens of Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we can now move forward collectively as an Executive.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Not at the moment, but I will in a minute. I am just getting to an interesting bit. It is all interesting, of course.

A Member: Unlike [Inaudible.]

Dr Aiken: Steady.

While we continue to fight over the prioritisation of our allocated finance in the Budget, it is on Westminster that we must continue to apply pressure. That is far from the sponging that the Secretary of State's remarks at Ulster University implied. His Government have managed to drain, lettuce-style, our public services while emasculating our growth prospects through the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions and the general demoralisation of our economy. That has put a large dent in our growth prospects.

Over to you, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. I go back to his earlier remarks. On the prioritisation of Health and the state of the health service, we, as the Opposition, have always said that the Executive's priority needs to be to give Health not just a budget but a budget next to a clear plan to get waiting lists down. That is what the public care about. They do not so much care about the volume of money that goes to Health; they care about the outcome. When will the Health Minister produce a clearly communicable plan to the public for when waiting lists will come down? That would be really helpful.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I refer my learned friend across the Assembly to what the Minister has been saying. Compare that with what other Ministers have said and with the Programme for Government, if it ever appears.

I return to my remarks. Add to that the real and growing costs of the Irish Sea border and the radical damage being done to our agribusiness sector by the discriminatory, anti-farmers inheritance tax, and you have a perfect, self-induced, Labour-inspired economic storm. There is definitely something about removing the plank from one's own eye before criticising the mote in somebody else's.

I commend the Minister and Department for reverting to the common custom and practice of budgeting. Members will recall that, about this time last year, the then Finance Minister tried to state that some Departments, including Health, had received a substantial rise in funding, using a rather bizarre and, frankly, unconvincing argument in which she compared the Health budget with the opening position, rather than the closing position, in the previous year's Budget. It is good to see that the new Minister and the permanent sec have learned that lesson. It was not just the Fiscal Council that raised a quizzical eye at the DOF's reasoning. We, as a party, are glad to see that we have reverted to normal conventions.

I move to some of the detail laid out in the Minister's statements, complemented by the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates 2024-25. The Budget for Northern Ireland is significant. The table at page 16 lays out the revised figure of £26·536 billion, with £18 billion-plus in DEL, £12 billion-plus in AME, and the additional moneys coming from non-budgetary expenditure. That equates to around £14,000 per citizen in Northern Ireland. It reflects the increased statement of need of slightly above 1·24 that the Northern Ireland Executive have argued for successfully since Hillsborough. We, as a party, were very much a part of that.

Much of the specifics will be covered later, but I will make few high-level comments that, I hope, are worthy of note. First, it is unfortunate that all Members have not been furnished with a hard copy of the spring Supplementary Estimates. I will follow the guidance of the Speaker and not hold up the copy that I have, but it is good to see that some of us — the Finance Committee, at least — have received a copy at long last. It took long enough. [Interruption.]

It took far too long. We should at least be thankful that the Department of Finance was able to furnish five copies to the Finance Committee last week when we met. I wonder whether the new Finance Minister will take the need for effective scrutiny by all MLAs seriously and strongly encourage his Department to sort out the printing and provision of copies of the Estimates to all elected Members. I am looking at you across there, John: I know that you are just as frustrated about that as we are; thank you for that in advance.

There are some real nuggets of information within the document. My previous learned friend from the Finance Committee, Mr Jim Allister KC, always paid particular attention to the sole authority parts of the Budget Act. At one stage, it was in excess of £1 billion, when the guidance on public finances given to accounting officers — who, hopefully, have now all completed the accounting officer course — was that it should not exceed £1 million. Members will be glad to see that the total has been brought down to £24 million. While that is still 24 times the level that it should be, it is a lot better than £1 billion. Well done, Department of Finance, for that.

Some of that £24 million can be identified as dealing with welfare reform mitigation. Half a million pounds is for the Fiscal Council, and maybe the Minister can update us on the delayed legislation to put that body on a statutory footing. Could he also comment on TEO's black box amount? It seems to be out of proportion. I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to hold TEO to account on that issue, because it seems that TEO's share of the black box — over half of it — is disproportionate.

That brings me to eight minutes, so I will gladly sit down.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated. I call Alan Chambers. Alan is not here. OK, I call Timothy Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Members, I begin by drawing the House's attention to table 1 on the page marked with Roman numeral vii in the book that I have here. You will notice that the heading on the table tells us that the money that we are debating today is not in thousands but in the millions. Therefore, that leads one to the conclusion that, today, we are, remarkably, voting on spending £31 trillion of resource and capital and £26 trillion in cash. That is going by the book, which must have been rushed out the door. If only it were so, Principal Deputy Speaker. Mind you, given the Bill that was debated earlier in the House — the one on MLA pay — one would be forgiven for thinking that some in this Building do not regard that as a typo. My goodness, if His Majesty's Treasury is to be that generous to Northern Ireland, perhaps we, even at a stretch, could manage to pay for that once-coveted bridge over to Scotland.

I will move on to a more serious issue. I note tables 5 and 6 in section 1. Table 5 is headroom that the Executive have decided to build in. The resource headroom across Departments is almost £69·5 million, while the capital is almost £114 million. In fact, every Department, with the exception of Agriculture, has headroom built in. I take the point that the Treasury allocates moneys late, as noted below table 5, but nowhere can I find the amount of that allocation, nor which of the headroom figures allocated to Departments in table 5 results from that funding. I also make the point that, while Departments are very keen on getting headroom, as it obviously reduces their likelihood of an overspend at the end of the year, it does not encourage prudence when it comes to public finances. Allowing for such significant sums positively encourages bad financial management. Perhaps the truth is that the Executive do not care about good financial management.

Table 6 is on the pages marked with Roman numerals xx and xxi. That table is interesting because, as the heading states, it relates to:

That means that everything listed in the table has been set up by the Executive and is being delivered without any specific legislation or authority from the Assembly. Today, for example, could be the only occasion on which we vote on the Homes for Ukraine scheme and the strategic migration partnership with Ukraine, which have been allocated over £2 million. It is the same story with the full dispersal asylum seekers scheme, the refugee integration proposal, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocation and assistance policy, but, more significantly, we are today approving Estimates of £12 million in welfare reform mitigations. The Estimates promise that legislation will be in place by 1 April 2025. As we sit here today, there is no sign of a Bill.

I draw Members' attention to a document — this one, as Mr Aiken referred to — on the Department of Finance's website, which is titled 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland'. Paragraph 2.5 of that document deals with "Securing adequate legal authority" and states:

arm's-length bodies

However, here we are today voting on giving over £24 million to Departments without any bespoke legislation in place.

The document produced by the Department of Finance says that the authority of the Budget Act should be relied upon only in "certain limited circumstances" and normally for:

We are here today voting on throwing that guidance out the window and approving expenditure, through the Budget Act, of, in one instance, eight times that amount.

I will make a few comments on specific Departments. On page 29, I find the spend for the Department for Communities. There is £2·416 million in resource and £375,000 in capital for support for other languages in addition to the spend on the North/South Language Body. I would like the Minister to explain to the House what all that is going towards.

On page 54, we have details of the allocations to the Department for the Economy. I discover that the resource spend allocated to InterTradeIreland is £6·429 million. I challenge any Member to find a penny that is earmarked for a body that, the DUP told us, would help address the issues associated with the protocol, namely Intertrade UK. There is nothing going to it from the House. You will not find it anywhere in the Estimates.

On page 200, we find that the Estimates provide for over £1 million in capital spend on the Maze. I cannot imagine that victims will be too happy about that.

Just across the page from that figure, I see that £816,000 in resource and £700,000 in capital will go to the North/South Ministerial Council. I recently wrote to the North/South Ministerial Council. My questions revolved around a mysterious group called the "EU senior officials group". I requested information relating to the formation of the group, details of any changes to its remit since its formation, the current and past membership of the group and copies of the agendas and minutes of its meetings. I cited the Freedom of Information Act 2000. What was its response to an MLA? I got a nice one-page letter answering none of those questions and telling me that the North/South Ministerial Council is not subject to FOI legislation. The House has no business allocating —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — well over £1 million to a body —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — that is not answerable to us through the straightforward questions that I have outlined.

Mr Carroll: It is concerning that most Committees have not had the time to properly scrutinise the SSEs. As I understand it, only the Finance and Infrastructure Committees have heard evidence from departmental officials on the SSEs, which is pretty telling.

For DAERA, it is stated that there is:

It is worth mentioning that that is 14 months late and provides no clear pathway for tackling our existing climate, biodiversity and pollution crisis. A total of £1·5 million to take forward work on Lough Neagh is a paltry sum, given the issues there.

For DFC, there is £17 million for the pension age fuel support payment. At the same time, there is a reduced requirement of £30 million as a result of the cut to the winter fuel payment. There is an additional £50 million for the social housing development programme (SHDP). That raises a question about how many social homes will be built and how many have been built in the financial year that is coming to an end.

There is £6·7 million for homelessness and NIHE internal running costs, while £34·4 million was spent on temporary accommodation in 2023-24. Those tens of millions would be better spent on homelessness prevention than on firefighting and fuelling profiteering landlords and private companies.

On DFC capital DEL, the spring Supplementary Estimates note a decrease in spend by the Department for Communities on disabled adaptations:

Again, how many new build social homes were started last year? How can there be a reduction in spend on adaptations when so many people's homes in my constituency and across the North are in much need of those adaptations?

The document goes on to state that DFC has:

That is a really pressing issue. I press the Communities Minister to fill those posts.

There has been an £8·9 million allocation from the UK's Shared Prosperity Fund to DFE, including Invest NI. It has been raised in recent days that Invest NI has given £20 million to three companies that allegedly produce F-35 war planes, so not only is public money not being spent well but that connection to the war machine in Israel is really concerning. I urge Ministers to address that urgently.

There has been an increase in DE's resource DEL for the National Joint Council (NJC) pay award, the EA pay and grading review and the early learning and childcare strategy, but SEN pressures have not been fully tackled and remain, as does the ageing school estate.

There has been a DEL increase for the Health Department for the pay award, and a reduced capital DEL requirement for the maternity and children's hospital. Resource AME decreased by £175 million, mainly due to the recent update on a potential legal case that could have had a significant impact on HSC bodies.

There has been an increase in requirements for NI Water subsidy, which I broadly welcome. We need to maintain NI Water as a public body. I hope that the Minister, given his previous role, commits to maintaining that in his current role.

I note that £2·75 million was allocated to DOJ for "policing summer disorder". What was that spent on? There are serious questions about how the police responded to racial riots in south Belfast and other areas in the summer. There is an allocation of £5·2 million for legal aid. Clearly, that is too little, too late. Criminal barristers who are engaged in legally aided Crown Court cases voted to extend their strike action, so £5·2 million does not seem to address that adequately.

There is an allocation of £6·3 million to TEO for the net refugee and asylum support and integration scheme. I note that, last week, Members from various parties met to discuss supporting Palestinians across the city and the North. There should be a Palestinian support scheme to fast-track Palestinians who have family members living in Ireland. There is also £2 million for the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework.

On the broader point, how can the Executive make decisions about how to invest money when there is no Programme for Government setting out their strategic priorities? Last year, in a colonial-type diktat, the Tory Government told Stormont that it needed to raise £113 million to invest in public services. However, rather than revenue raising through raising corporation tax and scrapping rates relief for hugely wealthy corporations, the Executive are increasing the regional domestic rate by 5%. That is yet another financial burden that has been placed on working-class communities. It seems that the Executive parties are hell-bent on continuing to punish the public and are unwilling to challenge the UK Government on the terms of the rotten restoration deal. Treasury economics are a disaster for communities across the North.

Other indicative Budget allocations are simply too little, too late. An allocation of £50 million for the childcare strategy represents just 12·5% of the £400 million needed to fully fund commitments. An allocation of £20 million to prevent the further deterioration of the school estate pales in comparison with the £450 million that is needed to address the maintenance backlog. An allocation of £100 million for social housing does not even scratch the surface. An allocation of £105 million for investment in NI Water falls far short of what is needed to fix the crumbling waste water infrastructure and to protect our waterways from devastating pollution.

Ultimately, the Budget does little to heal the extensive damage done to public services over 15 years of austerity cuts. Ordinary people should not be punished for the political and economic failures of the ruling elites.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak is the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, who will conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. Minister, you have up to 53 minutes.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle

. I will leave you in anticipation about whether I will use the 53 minutes.

It has been an interesting debate. I thank Members for their kind wishes for my new role. I have sat through many such debates in various positions, as both a member and a non-member of the Executive. The debates are a useful reminder not only of the challenges that the Executive face but of the opportunities and of the ongoing delivery of public services every day of the week by hard-working, dedicated public servants.

While, of course, we should focus on the challenges, what is not happening and what should be happening, it is also, sometimes, worth pausing and looking at what is happening. We spend billions upon billions of pounds on the delivery of front-line public services. We are maintaining services; we are creating services; we are maintaining jobs; we are creating jobs; and we are investing significantly in our local economy through our budgetary practices in the Assembly and the Executive. Yes, let us discuss the challenges and obstacles in front of us, but let us also discuss and champion what we are doing. Collectively, we can work our way round the obstacles in front of us.

As I said, Members discussed a wide range of issues. It was useful to listen to those. Questions were posed to me on the papers and resolutions in front of us. I will go through them as best I can, and my officials will follow up in writing to Members on anything that I miss. I am sure that we will return to some of those subjects at the Budget Bill's Second Stage tomorrow.

Many Members rightly focused on their Committee responsibilities; others had a broader perspective on all matters. We may come to this tomorrow — apologies, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle

, if I stray from the subject — but there is a responsibility on colleagues: if you are championing one cause in opposition to another, you need to come forward with alternatives for Budget funding. The days of saying, "You're wrong; I'm right" are grand, but, if we are wrong and you are right, you need to come forward with the alternative. You need to present a viable alternative to the propositions that are in front of you, and then let us debate, discuss and thrash them out.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in a second, yes.

I am not claiming for one second that I, as Finance Minister, have all the answers. I am genuinely interested in listening to others around the Executive table, obviously, and to Committees and Members in the Chamber for alternatives to the proposals that are in front of us and alternatives that we may use in the future, but they have to be realistic. While some may challenge the Executive or Committee by saying, "We do not have enough information in front of us", the bottom line is that you know the figures, and you know the services that are being delivered — there is a wealth of experience in the Chamber — and you know how we raise revenue, so come forward with an alternative. I can assure you that, as Finance Minister, I will engage with and listen to you.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister giving way, and I genuinely welcome the fact that he is up for debate on this. That is to his credit. He talks about coming forward with an alternative: I agree with him. That is why, as an Opposition, we have asked for money to be prioritised. We have tried to come up with alternatives. Does that also go for him and other Executive Ministers? He is right to say that he wants more money from London and that austerity has been terrible over the past 15 years: we agree with that as the Opposition. However, is it not the case that there is a limit to what the Treasury — he and I want a different constitutional future — will do and how much it will listen? Is part of the alternative more fiscal devolution, as I talked to him about earlier, and producing plans for how we can raise more revenue here, take more powers here and, ultimately, take more of the power away from London?

Mr O'Dowd: We can do things better for ourselves. Representatives around the Chamber know their communities better than anyone; they know the challenges and the opportunities that they face. Challenging as the stability of this place may be, having more fiscal powers would make us greater stakeholders in our present and in our future and would mean that we would have to work together to deliver the genuine changes that everyone wants. I favour fiscal devolution. Others in the Chamber may not favour it, but we have to convince them of its benefits. Obviously, I favour constitutional change, because I believe that our ability to make the proper decisions for the people we serve are constrained by the current constitutional arrangements. That discussion and debate will continue as we move forward.

I turn to some of the questions that were raised and some of the points that were made. The proposed regional rate was not "hidden away". It is part of the draft Budget. It is part of the calculations upon which our draft Budget is based. It was set at 5% for domestic properties and 3% for non-domestic properties, in recognition of the current challenges that our business sector faces, though that is not to ignore the challenges that homes, families, communities and workers face. Most people will recognise that you have to raise revenue to deliver public services. Quite understandably, there is a discussion about the scale of that revenue. It is also important to debate how we deliver an effective and efficient public service. A regional rates order will be brought to the Assembly, hopefully by the start of March, subject to the Business Office process. An Assembly debate will be held in the same manner as last year, and it will require a cross-community vote because it is a tax measure. The Executive have agreed the poundage, which has already been announced. Therefore, a decision has been made based on the draft Budget.

Indicative multi-year budgets were touched on at the start of the debate. That issue has been raised by a number of Members during the debate. At this stage, everybody should be acutely aware that we cannot set a multi-year budget without Treasury setting a spending review over a corresponding period. Work is ongoing in my Department to assist Departments in looking at their budgets over the next five years etc, but that will only be indicative, and, as we have seen over the past year, things can change quite suddenly, both for the better and for the worse. I am looking forward to the spending review from the Treasury in June with trepidation and with hope. I am hopeful that we will get a three-year resource Budget and a four-year capital Budget, but I am concerned that the spending review might also involve spending cuts. It will bring opportunity, but it may also bring severe challenges to us. I assure Members that, if there is a three-year and four-year Budget as a result of the spending review, I will bring proposals to the Executive for a corresponding Budget based on that review.

A number of Members mentioned the financial provisions Bill. It has taken longer than I or, indeed, my predecessor, would have hoped. We are sponsoring the Bill on behalf of a number of Departments that are bringing through different clauses in relation to finances, a number of which relate to the black boxes. A number of Members have referred to the fact that it has taken a while to draft the Bill, but I hope to introduce it to the House in the near future, and then Members can start scrutinising and discussing that Bill. Likewise, the Fiscal Council Bill is important legislation that will put the Fiscal Council on a legislative basis.

During Question Time, I touched on how allocations relating to storm Éowyn were delivered, but I will do so again for the fullness of debate. My predecessor wrote to Departments after Westminster made allocations available as a result of its Supplementary Estimates. Departments were asked to return bids as quickly as possible. A number of Departments did that and were successful, as has been outlined in a written ministerial statement to the House, in further discussions at Question Time and in the media. It was a very useful exercise, and I welcome the fact that the Departments were able to respond to that in quite a speedy fashion to allow that money to go straight out to public services as quickly as possible.

I will move on to some of the other questions that Members raised. Mr Brett raised the Shared Prosperity Fund. The Government announced in their autumn Budget that they will extend the SPF for one year across each jurisdiction for 2025-26 at a reduced allocation of £900 million. Our allocation is £45 million. As the Member will know, that falls far short of the average £65 million per annum that we would have received from the EU funds that the Shared Prosperity Fund was intended to replace. The 2025-26 transition year is intended to allow work to commence on a longer-term plan to move the funding back under devolved control from April 2026, as outlined in the Labour manifesto. It will also ensure the continued flow of much-needed funding for the community and voluntary sector. While there will be no decision-making role for the Executive in relation to the fund in 2025-26, the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government at Whitehall will consult Departments here to ensure that what is delivered in the transition year aligns with departmental priorities. Officials will continue to provide technical advice and guidance in order to maximise that funding's impact here.

In every monitoring round and Budget exercise, I encourage my Executive colleagues to consider making more use of FTC, and I reiterate that today. Regular and ongoing engagement also takes place between my officials and officials in other Departments on exploring opportunities for making use of FTC, and those conversations will continue. As part of the wider Budget sustainability work, I plan to examine how Departments can make greater use of the available FTC. My officials have already started to look at that, and engagement with the Strategic Investment Board is planned for the coming days.

Mr Butler, as Chair of the AERA Committee, said that bovine TB incidence rates here remain high and that an eradication scheme is required in order to tackle the issue. I appreciate that further funding is required, but, as Members will be aware, departmental pressures far outweigh the funding that is available. An additional £4 million was allocated to DAERA in the June monitoring round for tackling bovine TB, and I am open to considering providing additional in-year funding in line with the Executive's other priorities for 2025-26.

Members covered a range of issues. Department of Education minor works are a matter solely for the EA and the Department of Education. The level of spend involved did not require my Department to have to scrutinise any of it.

Kellie Armstrong asked a number of questions. I may not have a response to them all, but I can assure the Member that we will respond to her in due course. She mentioned welfare mitigations and the spend on them. Mr Gaston also touched on the issue when he spoke about the black box as it relates to the spring Supplementary Estimates. My Department has been working closely with other Departments to ensure that we regularise that spend. That does not mean that it is illegal, illicit or underhand, however. All the spend in black box areas is going to front-line services.

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in a second. We have to properly manage the spend and ensure that it is fully accounted for and that Committees have all the information that they require about it. I will give way.

Dr Aiken: Minister, there was no implication that the spend was in any way underhand. It is just that if we look at the history of how the black box has been used, for me, who has been a member of the Finance Committee for a long time, it raises concern. As I said, it is good that the figure has come down from a billion pounds, but the rules state that it should be no more than a million pounds, and it is at £24 million. If it is an accounting irregularity, a very close eye needs to be kept on it.

Mr O'Dowd: I agree with the Member, as I do with all Members who raised the issue. We have to continue to try to bring down the figure. There is a responsibility on individual Departments that have spend within the black box to produce corresponding legislation or to work with my Department to ensure that the provisions in the upcoming financial provisions Bill are improved.

A number of Members mentioned capital for social housing and the investment in the number of social homes, which, at the start of the year would have been 400. It is now 1,500, which shows that the Executive are working together and directing funding to where it is most needed.

Ms Armstrong raised concerns about the building of social homes being held back by a constraint on the NI Water's spend. There is always the potential for that, but I point Members to an allocation of £19 million that the Executive made in the October monitoring round to NI Water. That released 2,500 homes. Although, in itself, £19 million is a significant amount of money, when we talk about NI Water, we often talk in hundreds of millions of pounds or in billions of pounds. That funding shows that, where there is strategic investment, social housing can be released. I have no doubt that the new Minister for Infrastructure will continue to look for opportunities, such as working alongside NI Water. On the other points that you raised, Kellie, I will ask officials to respond to you directly.

I am just checking my list to see whether I have not responded to anyone.

There will be individual issues that relate to Members' Department of interest. Whether they are a Chair, a Deputy Chair or a party spokesperson, they have rightly raised their concerns and outlined the opportunities that exist. In fairness, many of their questions relate directly to the relevant Minister or Committee.

I assure Members that I will work with fellow Ministers to ensure that you receive timely financial information and that Committees are allowed to do their work to scrutinise the budgetary process. I assume, however, that Members will agree that it is not a one-off event. Scrutinising departmental budgets does not rely on the spring Supplementary Estimates, the Vote on Account or any period of the entire Budget process: it should be an ongoing role of Committees. I have no doubt that that is the case and that you carry out that work in your Committees.

I assure Mr Gaston that we are dealing in billions, rather than trillions — unfortunately. I have not had an opportunity to check the relevant passage in the book. I will have it checked. If there is an error, it will be corrected for the public record. I assure the Member that we are dealing in billions, not trillions.

Members will note that there has been a delay in the book's being received. I know that some Members like hard copies of papers. However, we have to question whether it is value for money or sustainable to deliver that document in hard copy to all Members. I will work with the Business Office, the Speaker's Office and others to see whether we can deliver it in an alternative format, because, in my opinion, it is unsustainable to continue to deliver that document in hard copy.

Mr Carroll raised a number of points about Invest NI and claims of funding Israeli war planes. I have seen no evidence to support that. The Minister for the Economy has reiterated Invest NI's position on that and, indeed, has asked Invest NI to go back and double-check. As with any claim, unless there is evidence to support that claim, we should be hesitant in making it.

I assure Mr Carroll that my Department continues to roll out recruitment to fill job vacancies. We are keen to continue to employ people in the Civil Service. There is no freeze on recruitment. However, we have to be strategic in what posts we fill. I am always conscious that the spending review is around the corner. It may bring good news about multi-year budgets, but it may also bring further challenging news for us, as an Executive.

I apologise if I have not covered any Member's individual point. I have tried to cover as broad a range of points as possible. I assure Members who claim that the Executive are not working to a plan that we are working to a plan — we are working to the draft Programme for Government. While I look forward to seeing the final document published, the draft sets out the principles for how we move forward. After the public consultation, there are always opportunities for change to the Programme for Government, but the draft sets out the broad principles of the Executive's direction of travel.

I urge Members to pass the various motions that are before them. Since we have come back into the Assembly and the Executive, we have had two priorities: first, to stabilise politics, and, secondly, to stabilise our budgetary processes. I think that we have been generally successful in both. We need to continue to stabilise our budgetary processes. As MLAs, you will all, through your Committees, continue to challenge your Ministers on the performance and work of their Departments and areas of responsibility. As I said at the start of my contribution, yes, we have challenges — undoubtedly, we have challenges — but we also have opportunities. Let us look for the opportunities as well as the challenges.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As in previous debates, opposition from Gerry Carroll and Timothy Gaston is noted. I am hearing Ayes from all sides of the House. The motion is agreed.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am hearing opposition from Mr Carroll and Mr Gaston. There are Ayes from all sides of the House, so the motion is passed.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The opposition of Mr Carroll and Mr Gaston is noted. I am hearing Ayes from all sides of the House. The motion is carried.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to introduce the Budget Bill [NIA 11/22-27], which is a Bill to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources for the years ending 31 March 2025 and 2026 (including, for the year ending 31 March 2025, income); to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of those years; to authorise the use of those sums for specified purposes; to authorise the Department of Finance to borrow on the credit of those sums; to authorise the use for the public service of excess resources for the year ending 31 March 2024; to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of a sum for the service of the year ending 31 March 2024; and to authorise the use of that sum for specified purposes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Copies of the Bill are available for Members. I inform Members that the Speaker has received a letter from the Committee for Finance advising that, following a briefing from departmental officials, the Committee is satisfied that the consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill has been appropriate, as required under Standing Order 42(2), and that the Bill can therefore proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.