Official Report: Tuesday 18 February 2025

Mr Kearney: Cuimhníonn an Lá Domhanda um Cheartas Sóisialta dúinn faoina thábhachtaí atá an tsíocháin dhomhanda, cearta an duine agus an dlí idirnáisiúnta. Ar an drochuair, tá na bunphrionsabail sin faoi ionsaí inniu ag fórsaí idirnáisiúnta atá sa tóir ar a leas impiriúil coilíneach féin. I ndomhan ilpholach an lae inniu, caithfidh tús áite a thabhairt don chómhaireachtáil shíochánta, don mheas ar an dlí idirnáisiúnta agus ar an taidhleoireacht. Tá traidisiún neodrachta agus neamh-chomhghuaillíochta ag Éirinn, rud a fhágann go bhfuil meas orainn go leitheadach as ról dearfach a imirt i ngnothaí domhanda. Tá iontaoibh ag daoine asainn agus sinn ag obair ar son neamh-iomadú núicléach, an iltaobhachais, agus chothú na síochána idirnáisiúnta. Caithfimid rún comhchoiteann a bheith againn domhan síochánta a chruthú, domhan atá bunaithe ar an cheartas shóisialta agus ar an chomhionnanas. Sin an fáth a gcaithfidh an neodracht fanacht mar bhunchloch de pholasaí eachtrach na hÉireann.

Ms Forsythe: Every life matters. From the moment that a baby is formed in its mother's womb, that is a life. From the moment that a woman finds out that she is pregnant, she has a baby. She knows her due date, what age the baby will be at its first Christmas and its first summer and when it will go to school. When that pregnancy ends in loss, it brings utter devastation. Across the Chamber, that was acknowledged in the cross-party support for the introduction of baby loss certificates in Northern Ireland. Every baby matters. Every life should be recognised and its loss mourned.

The latest abortion statistics for Northern Ireland therefore cause me deep concern. They show that there has been a 28·8% increase in the number of abortions carried out in the past year.

In 2023-24, 2,792 abortions were performed. That is 624 more than the previous year's total of 2,168. Those are not just statistics: each number represents a precious life lost — a child who will never have the chance to take their first breath and a mother who is left to bear the lifelong impact of the decision. For so many across Northern Ireland, it is a cause of profound grief and heartbreak to learn of the scale of abortion here.

It is my firm belief that we in Northern Ireland remain a majority pro-life people, as evidenced by the most recent Northern Ireland Office consultation, in which the voice of the people clearly rejected the imposition of Westminster's extreme abortion laws here. We continue to work with like-minded people to explore what more the Department of Health can do to repeal the legislation, which was forced on us by Westminster, and to introduce life-affirming laws and strategies. The battle to win hearts and minds for the sanctity of life must and will continue. We must ensure that women who face crisis pregnancies are met with real support and life-affirming choices rather than with a system that too often leads them down the path of abortion.

This month marks one year since the organisation Both Lives relaunched with a refreshed brand and a UK-wide presence. That organisation campaigns on the values of the life and health of women and unborn children and pursues the well-being of both. Every birthday is a celebration of the gift of life, yet, each year, across the UK, due to abortion, hundreds of thousands of women and babies will never experience a birthday. That reality drives us all forward with renewed purpose and commitment. We stand together with people from every background and of all faiths and none. We stand for a life-affirming culture and the recognition and protection of every human life. Every life matters.

Mr Blair: This month marks the 20th anniversary of the Hunting Act 2004 coming into force. The Act banned hunting with dogs in England and Wales and represented a significant step forward that was celebrated by many who believed that it would put an end to unnecessary cruelty being inflicted on animals. However, while we celebrate the milestone of that positive development, we must also address the concerns that have been raised since the introduction of the Act.

Loopholes such as the "Research and observation" exemption continue to be exploited by organised hunts. Additionally, the practice of so-called trail hunting, which involves hounds tracking a scent instead of chasing a live animal, exploits weaknesses in the law, allowing hunts to operate as they did before the ban. That exploitation undermines the very principles that the Hunting Act was designed to uphold. The statistics are troubling. According to the British Hound Sports Association and media reports, there have been more than 250,000 days of hunting over the past 20 years yet only 25 convictions involving hunts. That raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the legislation and whether it adequately protects our wildlife.

Since July, following a manifesto commitment, it has been the UK Government's policy to strengthen the Act by banning trail hunting. That marks a significant achievement in the effort to completely eliminate hunting with dogs in England and Wales. However, it is crucial that the Labour Government translate that commitment into legislation and action. Furthermore, in 2023, Scotland successfully strengthened its 2002 hunting legislation, enhancing regulation and successfully banning trail hunting. That has positioned Scotland as a leader in banning hunting with dogs.

Conversely, the situation in Northern Ireland is quite different from that in Scotland, England and Wales. There is no ban on hunting with dogs. As Members may be aware, I intend to change that through a private Member's Bill. My recent consultation on the proposed Bill revealed that 80% of respondents living in Northern Ireland believe that ending hunting with dogs is important to them. That statistic sends out a clear message.

While we take the opportunity to acknowledge the achievements of the Hunting Act after 20 years, we must recognise the ongoing work required to close the remaining gaps and ensure the welfare of our animals. We must ensure that all regions uphold the same standards of compassion and protection for our animals and wildlife, about which we claim to be so passionate.

Miss Brogan: Last week, I attended a hearing of the Omagh Bombing inquiry at the Strule Arts Centre in Omagh. I take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge the strength, courage and compassion of all those who have told their stories and shared their experiences of that awful day, 15 August 1998. It has been truly humbling to hear the heartbreaking stories from those who lost loved ones, those who were injured and those who witnessed such horror on the day of the bomb.

While the details have been horrific for many, and while people locally find it difficult to relive and remember the day of the bomb, it is striking how, in many ways, their testimonies represent the very best of humanity. We have heard of the heroism of paramedics and firefighters, who worked tirelessly to rescue people, and the huge efforts of medical staff, in Omagh Hospital and in the surrounding hospitals, who worked around the clock to help the huge influx of patients. I also pay tribute to the people who were there on the day who instinctively rushed to find people in the rubble or to bring the injured to safety despite the risk and, often, already having been injured themselves.

All the stories from that terrible day deserve to be heard and should serve as a stark reminder to us all of how precious peace is. As an Omagh woman, I have seen the town and its people recover and grow after that dreadful attack, looking to the future while never forgetting those who were hurt or lost. It is vital that the voices of victims and their families are heard, that justice is seen to be done and that the truth does not become yet another casualty of that dark day.

Ms Bunting: Once again, I will speak about the Kingsmills massacre, one of the most blatantly sectarian murders of the Troubles, in which 11 Protestant workmen were lined up against their van and mercilessly shot by the Provisional IRA in a military-style execution. There was a sole survivor.

Members have heard me previously describe, in much greater detail from the inquest notes, the full horrors of that cold, dark night, when young men, still in their teens, cried out for the comfort of their mothers' arms in their final moments, and where the groans of pain rang out into the night from the injured workmen before the gunmen callously walked through their bodies, which were strewn on the ground, to, in their words, "finish them off". Alan Black, through the pain of a body riddled with bullets, kept silent and pretended to be dead. That is what saved him from a final, fatal gunshot.

Members will also know that I work on behalf of Mr Black and the family of John McConville as they seek truth and justice, and that is my privilege. They may also remember that there is an ongoing campaign for the release of the Police Ombudsman's report into the investigation. I say "ongoing" because that investigation has been continuing for some 13 years, yet there is still no report forthcoming. Some of that time is understandable, as the coronial inquest was under way for 10 years, but there was nothing to preclude the ombudsman's investigator from continuing their work in parallel over that period.

Although the Office of the Police Ombudsman previously advised the families that the report was finished, that was retracted. The coroner told the families that they would receive the report on the conclusion of the inquest last April, but here we are, yet another month on — some 10 months in total — and no report, no timeline for its publication other than "in due course" and nothing but a flimsy assurance from the Police Ombudsman that her office is not seeking to run down the clock and that Kingsmills remains a priority. Right?

Talk is cheap. It is action that counts, yet another month has passed with nothing. I assure the families and the Office of the Police Ombudsman that I will keep airing the issue and exposing the ticking clock, which we are told is not being run down to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, because I believe that, for those families, 49 years of waiting is frankly ridiculous. It should be an utter embarrassment to our system and those engaged in it that those people have been toyed with. "The report is ready." "Oh, no, sorry, it is not." "You will get it after the inquest." The inquest ends: nothing. "When will it come?". "In due course.". "We are not running down the clock", and yet, everything points to the fact that they actually are.

When will it come? We are now at 10 months of obfuscation and deflection over a simple question: "When will you publish?". There is no answer, no timeline, no information and no report. This has become a disgraceful charade, and as they delay and the pressure builds, they should know that, as time passes, the expectation on them for a report to be of value, depth and insight increases. It is a sad day when the victims have to fight for a report and use their funeral money to pay for legal action to try to obtain the report to which they are entitled — not once, but twice so far. Those involved should hang their heads in shame at this despicable treatment of innocent victims and know that I will not rest until Mr Black has that report in his hands and his questions are answered.

Mr Speaker: Your time is up.

Ms Bunting: Once again, I remind the House that 10 months have passed since the inquest, and I urge the ombudsman's office to release the report immediately.

Ms Nicholl: Although infrastructure improvements are essential for economic growth, we must recognise the serious impact that they can have on local businesses. When vital roadworks disrupt trade, we need to act swiftly to support those who are affected. Several businesses have been in touch with me regarding the ongoing closure of Knockbracken Road in South Belfast. The closure is not just an inconvenience: it is harming their ability to operate. Delivery lorries are struggling to access the premises, causing delays and confusion for the suppliers. Customers faced with very long detours are choosing not to visit at all, and businesses are concerned that the sharp decline in footfall may lead to customers going elsewhere and never returning.

Those businesses are vital to our local economy. They provide jobs and essential services. I have recently learnt that the Knockbracken Road will not reopen until July 2025. I have written to the new Ministers for the Economy and Infrastructure to urge them to explore urgent solutions, such as accelerating the completion of the roadworks to reopen the Knockbracken Road more quickly; the implementation of better interim measures, such as improved signage and access routes to help navigate the disruption, which would be helpful; and financial relief options, such as a rate reduction or compensation. It is not just an inconvenience for those businesses and the people who rely on them, it is impacting on their lives. I am committed to ensuring that they get the support that they need now.

Mr Gildernew: Members may or may not know that Ann Street was a significant part of the heart of Dungannon town: a thriving, bustling street that contained a mix of businesses, including hardware stores and bars, and family homes. In the early 1980s, some 40 years ago, there was a proposal to regenerate Ann Street. The wrecking balls moved in and entirely demolished the street, but the redevelopment never came. Many South Tyrone representatives have worked on the issue and sought to deliver the much-needed regeneration and rebuilding of Ann Street. However, there have been several false dawns, including a number of years ago, when I became an MLA, when I met developers who had a plan for mixed use on the site, which did not come to fruition.

In recent times, however, an application has been made to the planning authorities for a retail and mixed community development on the site. I sincerely welcome that. It is long overdue that the blight on the centre of Dungannon town be addressed and investment be allocated to that site. I commit to the wider regeneration of Dungannon town, which also needs to be a focus for a range of Departments, and I will continue to work with the traders, the communities and the people, who live, work and shop in Dungannon town, to restore and repair the damage that was caused by the demolition of Ann Street.

Ms Brownlee: Fantastic work is being carried out by Mid and East Antrim Borough Council and Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council to support our veteran community. My constituency of East Antrim, and particularly Carrickfergus, has a long and proud military history, which brings great pride to the local community and to me as a representative. Our veterans have made immense sacrifices to protect our freedoms and way of life. It is our duty to ensure that they receive the support and recognition that they deserve. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council and Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council have been exemplary, demonstrating an unwavering commitment to our veterans.

Last night, the councillors of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council once again confirmed their commitment to our veteran community by voting to renew the council's commitment to the armed forces covenant. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council signed up to the armed forces covenant in 2016, and it has undertaken to support veterans with signposting, advice and veterans' roadshows, as well as the appointment of a veterans' champion. The council also organises and facilitates a range of events to commemorate key anniversaries, including services for Remembrance Sunday in November each year.

The formation of the Mid and East Antrim veteran support programme has been a key driver in supporting our armed forces community in the borough. It offers bus trips, walking tours, talks and health awareness events. I look forward to hosting the group in Parliament Buildings tomorrow with our party leader. I pay particular tribute to my party colleagues for their ongoing commitment to our armed forces and the veteran community. I reiterate my party's support for those who have and continue to put on the uniform and put themselves in harm's way to protect and preserve our freedoms.

Mr Gaston: I will focus today on the lack of transparency in the House and on the failure of Ministers to adhere to their responsibilities under Standing Orders to respond to questions for written answer. Standing Orders are very clear. Standing Order 20C(4) states:

I regret that, across several Departments, that rule is being disregarded on an ongoing basis. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for intervening and requiring Ministers to issue revised answers to questions that I have submitted. Those questions deal with the time lag between draft written answers being provided by officials and the written answer being provided to MLAs by the Minister. It is with the latter that the problem exists. Although it is far from being the only offender, the Executive Office is particularly bad. As I highlighted during Question Time yesterday, a question that I tabled in September 2024 about travel to Washington for St Patrick's Day 2024 remains unanswered, less than a month from St Patrick's Day 2025. That is simply not good enough. Standing Orders need to apply to all, including members of the Executive.

Mr Brett: Last September, I lamented in the Chamber the Labour Government's decision to pause vital funding for my constituency of North Belfast. Not content with picking the pockets of pensioners by removing the universal winter fuel allowance or with their proposals to destroy family farms, they went on to attack one of the most socially and economically deprived constituencies in the United Kingdom by removing funding from North Belfast. The Shore Road skills centre aims to transform the life opportunities of young people who call Shore Road and wider north Belfast home, providing them with lifelong learning and providing opportunities for future job creation. I made it clear in my remarks in September that I would leave no stone unturned to fight that disgraceful decision.

I put on record my thanks to my parliamentary colleagues who stood with me for the entirety of the campaign and to the people of Crusaders Football Club, who never gave up hope of securing the funding. The culmination of our campaign came yesterday when the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the only project in Northern Ireland to go ahead and receive the funding that it deserves will be the Shore Road skills centre. Some £2·25 million is to be invested in the heart of a community in North Belfast that, for many years, has been denied the resources that it has deserved. I express my gratitude to all those who supported our campaign. Although it is a great victory, the campaign to build back North Belfast will continue in earnest. I continue to put Ministers here on notice that we expect funding to be secured for the next phase of the development of the Shore Road, which is at the former Grove leisure centre site, as the Castle Community Trust rightly continues to campaign to deliver a dedicated resource centre in the heart of North Belfast. That campaign has my full support, and I look forward to helping secure the funding that it also richly deserves.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion Members' statements.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last year, your ruling on Ministers refusing to answer questions from Members was clear. That is why I was so surprised when I received a written answer from the Minister of Justice yesterday to my question about how much public money had been spent by the Police Ombudsman in her court case against the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association. The Justice Minister's response to me read:

That is public money that comes out of the Department of Justice's budget.

We are told day and daily by the Justice Minister that she does not have the funds that she needs, but she seems uninterested in how much public money has been wasted on that court case by the Police Ombudsman.

Mr Speaker, can you give me guidance on how I can get answers for my constituents and the people of Northern Ireland, who deserve to know how much money has been wasted by the Police Ombudsman?

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for his point of order. We will look into it and address it. You could go down the Freedom of Information Act route if the information is not forthcoming; however, in most instances, MLAs should not have to go down that route because they have access to questions to Ministers.

As a general principle, Ministers should recognise that they are answerable to Members of the House, who are answerable to the Northern Ireland public. If they sit on answers that they know that they have and withhold that information, they show disrespect to the community in Northern Ireland. This is not Castlereagh holding centre, where people say, "No comment, no comment, no comment". I suggest to Ministers that it is not a good look to withhold from Members information that they have. I will do my utmost, as Speaker, to ensure that Members get answers to questions and hold Ministers to account. The role of this body, in this Building, is to hold to account people who are making decisions on your behalf. There is no point in our having devolution if we cannot hold our Ministers and Executive to account. It is important that there be a two-way flow and that Ministers engage appropriately to ensure that Members, who act on behalf of the public, get responses.

We will look into it further and take note of what has been said by the Minister in that instance and at the independence of the body involved. That brings up the issue of who looks after the independent bodies and whom they are answerable to and the question, if a body is not carrying out its work appropriately, of who holds that body to account. Such bodies have a significant role in ensuring that other bodies are held to account. They therefore need to do their work scrupulously and impeccably, and we need openness from them. I thank the Member for raising the question.

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

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits to the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: The Second Stage debate follows the Assembly's approval yesterday of Department and other bodies' final expenditure plans as detailed in the spring Supplementary Estimates 2024-25. The Assembly also approved the Vote on Account for 2025-26, enabling Departments to utilise resources and access the cash necessary to continue the delivery of services until work has been completed on the 2025-26 Main Estimates and the associated Budget (No. 2) Bill. Members also approved the Statement of Excesses 2023-24, which regularised previous expenditure.

As Members will be aware, Departments are operating under the authority of the Budget (No. 2) Act 2024, which authorised the 2024-25 Main Estimates. Following the agreement of January monitoring allocations by the Executive on 16 January 2025, Departments and other bodies prepared their spring Supplementary Estimates based on that Budget position. As I said yesterday, additional headroom was included.

The Assembly's agreement of the Executive's final Budget for 2024-25 allows me to bring the Budget Bill to the Assembly to seek legislative authority for the expenditure of the Departments and other bodies for the remainder of the financial year. There is a short window between the January monitoring round position being agreed by the Executive, the Estimates being produced and the Budget Bill's completing the full legislative process. It is vital to secure Royal Assent to the Budget Bill by the end of March 2025 to ensure that Departments and other bodies can continue to access the cash and resources required to deliver services for the remainder of the 2024-25 financial year.

I am grateful to the Finance Committee for confirming that, in line with Standing Order 42, the Budget Bill can proceed under accelerated passage, and I thank the Committee for its support. It has been necessary to request that Standing Order 42(5) be suspended to allow the Budget Bill to complete all stages in less than 10 days. In addition, suspension of Standing Order 39(2) has been requested to facilitate the prompt passage of the Bill.

The Assembly's Standing Order 32 directs that the Second Stage debate:

and I shall endeavour to keep to that direction. The Bill will give effect to the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2024-25 and authorise the cash and use of resources on services to allow Departments and other public bodies to continue to operate for the remainder of the 2024-25 financial year. The Bill will also authorise a 45% Vote on Account for 2025-26 to enable departmental and public bodies to keep delivering public services in the 2025-26 financial year until the Main Estimates for the 2025-26 year and its associated Budget (No. 2) Bill have been prepared and authorised. In addition, the Bill will regularise expenditure on Excesses identified by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and will authorise cash for the use of resources for 2023-24, as described in its published report.

Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) have been made available to Members, and the spring Supplementary Estimates 2024-25, Vote on Account for 2025-26 and Statement of Excesses 2023-24 were laid in the Assembly on 10 February 2025.

The Bill will authorise the revised issue of £26,536,605,000 from the Consolidated Fund and the use of resources totalling £31,041,393,000 by the Departments and other bodies listed in schedule 1 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2025. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in schedule 1. Those amounts supersede the amounts that were previously authorised by the Budget (No. 2) Act 2024. The Bill also includes a Vote on Account for 2025-26, as detailed in schedule 2, to allow the Departments and bodies specified to deliver services into the early months of the incoming 2024-25 financial year. It is important to stress that that does not constitute setting a 2025-26 Budget.

As Members are aware, on 19 December 2024, the Executive agreed to consult on a draft Budget for 2025-26. The consultation period closes on 13 March 2025, and, once the Executive agree the 2025-26 Budget, it will be brought to the Assembly to consider within the 2025-26 Main Estimates and associated Budget (No. 2) Bill. In addition, the Budget Bill before Members today will authorise Excesses for the 2023-24 year as identified by the Public Accounts Committee for the purposes specified in schedule 3 to the Bill.

While the majority of expenditure by all Departments is on the authority of statutory powers provided through legislation passed by the Assembly, some functions may rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act until appropriate legislation is in place. There was some discussion and debate on that matter yesterday evening. Table 6 of the 'Spring Supplementary Estimates 2024-25' document sets out a summary of expenditure resting on the sole authority of the Budget Act. My Department has been proactive in liaising with Departments in order to reduce reliance on sole authority.

Before I conclude, I wish to correct the record from yesterday evening, if that is permissible. Mr Gaston raised an issue about a table on page 7 of the spring Supplementary Estimates. Mr Gaston was correct: the table set out the spends in millions instead of hundreds of thousands. I have asked for that to be corrected. A letter will be forwarded to the Finance Committee, and a correction of the record will be placed in the Library for Members. I apologise to the House for that error. I have asked my officials to examine how it came about.

I will write today to the Finance Committee and my Executive colleagues to set out the position, as best I know it, on the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions, Barnett consequentials and the pressure that might be placed on Departments, councils and the voluntary and community sector. That was, understandably, discussed at length yesterday, and, as I set out then, I will put in writing to Members the position, as best I know it. I cannot confirm the Treasury's position, but I assure Members that I will inform them once I am aware of it. I thought that it would be useful to forward the information at hand.

In conclusion, this crucial legislation is required to ensure that all day-to-day public services, which we all rely upon, can continue to be delivered to our citizens for the remainder of this financial year. On that note, I will conclude. I am happy to deal with any points on the Bill or other matters that arise during the debate.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will begin by speaking as Chair of the Finance Committee, and I will then give some views from my perspective as leader of the Opposition. It is worth pointing out, as I had to yesterday, that there is an issue with Opposition speaking rights and Chairperson speaking rights that either the Speaker's Office or the Procedures Committee need to examine. That procedural issue does not arise today because this is an untimed debate.

As I said, I will begin by speaking as Chair of the Finance Committee and reflect the Committee's viewpoint as broadly as possible. I thank the Deputy Chair, Diane Forsythe, for speaking on the Committee's behalf during the debate on the Supply resolutions yesterday. I think that all of us on the Committee would acknowledge that Diane's experience as an auditor has been professionally useful and has added to our scrutiny work. That demonstrates the importance of that kind of professional expertise. Frankly, at times, all parties will have political disagreements, but we also need that non-partisan ability to scrutinise.

I also acknowledge that Mr Gaston was quite right in pointing out the error in the document. I hope that it is a typographical error rather than a substantive error. It is our job to come here and scrutinise the documents in front of us, not simply wave them through.

I thank the Minister for his comments and use this opportunity to formally place on record the Committee's congratulations to him on his recent appointment as Finance Minister. I also thank his predecessor, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, for her work in the role and, indeed, for the assistance that she gave the Committee. She was open in her communications and constructive with the Committee. We wish her well in her new portfolio. I say to the new Minister that the Committee wants to conduct its relations with him in the spirit of trust, candour and positive engagement, as it did with Dr Archibald. Indeed, we will engage in robust debate, as we did yesterday. I am sure that we will engage in that again later today.

First, I turn to the request for the Committee's agreement that the Budget Bill 2025 receives accelerated passage. The Committee arrived at a consensus to agree that the Bill be granted accelerated passage. However, Members should not assume that that was a formality. There was considerable debate about the basis for that agreement, and while consensus was reached in support of accelerated passage, some Committee members did not support that. They will articulate their views when it is their turn to speak, as I will in my capacity as leader of the Opposition in a moment. I am sure that all Members will agree that, in principle, accelerated passage is not an ideal way to do business. However, it is worth saying that the nature of Budget processes means that any Budget Bill is unlikely to pass in requisite time without accelerated passage.

The Finance Committee received a briefing on the Bill, as well as on the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2024-25, the Vote on Account for 2025-26 and the Statement of Excesses for 2023-24, at its meeting on Wednesday 12 February. At that point, the Committee had had sight of the draft Bill. The Committee's agreement to accelerated passage is predicated on "appropriate consultation" as per Standing Order 42(2). Additionally, granting accelerated passage to the Bill will compromise paragraph 20 of strand one of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and paragraph 64(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

While every Budget Bill has been given accelerated passage, when there has been an Assembly to pass a Budget Bill, Members were uncomfortable with the phrase "appropriate consultation". Without a Committee Stage, the Committee is not in a position to provide input to the Bill. Members are supportive of the current wording of Standing Order 42(2) being reviewed to be more reflective of the reality of the situation. That said, Members are grateful to officials for their briefing.

Members will appreciate that, as a devolved legislature, we are subject to actions and timescales at Westminster for the allocation of our Budget and the Estimates processes to which it is subject. The Committee noted, following engagement with stakeholders, that our Budgets would be much more strategic and better applied were they linked to a Programme for Government (PFG). Additionally, multi-year Budgets would provide the security to invest and reform, and I am sure that that will come up in today's debate. The Committee has been briefed on work that the Department of Finance is doing that flows from the Budget sustainability plan and the Budget improvement road map, and that should take us towards Budgets that are linked to the PFG and multi-annual Budget plans. The Committee is monitoring that closely and will share the details that it receives with the other Statutory Committees, as per the Committee's role as Budget lead.

The Committee is acutely aware that this has been a bumper year for Barnett consequentials. With the Executive restoration package settlement, the interim fiscal framework and significant transfers from Westminster following both its Main and Supplementary Estimate processes, our 2024-25 Budget has seen additional allocations on an almost unprecedented scale. In other good news, the additional funding has been baselined for 2025-26. However, the Committee has been warned by officials that we are not likely to see such inflows going forward. The Committee urges Departments to apply all their efforts to living within their means and to move beyond the culture of overcommitting budgets in the hope that Westminster Estimates will come to the rescue and provide for the shortfall. I will elaborate on that in the remarks that I will make in a party capacity.

The Finance Committee has been commissioning much more detailed information on departmental spending that we have shared with the other Statutory Committees, including monthly returns. The Deputy Chair helped to drive forward that work in Committee. It has significantly enhanced our scrutiny work and, I hope, that of other Committees. It is our job to support other Committees in their scrutiny. We take that job seriously and will continue to invest time in it.

The Committee noted that the information provided on the SSEs, the Vote on Account and the Statement of Excesses has improved following the commencement of the Financial Reporting (Departments and Public Bodies) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. The implementation of the Act has resulted in changes to how financial information is presented in the Estimates and the associated Budget Bill. The most significant changes are the clear alignment of financial information between Budgets, Estimates and Accounts; the expenditure of arm's-length bodies (ALBs), which has always been included in Budgets, is now also consolidated into Estimates and Accounts so that financial information can be directly compared; capital expenditure is now voted directly; separate control limits are voted in the Budget Bill for departmental expenditure limits (DEL) for both current and capital; separate control totals are voted in the Budget Bill for annually managed expenditure (AME) for both current and capital; separate control totals are voted in the Budget Bill for non-Budget expenditure for both current and capital; cash requirements continue to be voted; and, finally, rather than the Department of Finance laying a minute to authorise accruing resources — that is, receipts — the Assembly now authorises the use of income directly in the Budget Bill. Those are relatively technical matters, but they have, in a technical sense, improved how the Budget process works. I will offer some broader conclusions in my political remarks.

During its consideration of the Bill — indeed, during all the evidence sessions on the Budget and related issues — the Committee reflected on the considerable complexity of the Budget process. That tends to be compounded by the liberal use of technical terms and accounting principles that are alien to most people. There is pressure on the Finance Committee to understand the processes and terminology, and I commend Committee members for their diligence in that regard. Even the most dedicated members of the Finance Committee will sometimes find themselves having to penetrate extremely technical terms and concepts. It is always important for us not only to understand the information but to try to unpack and explain it to the wider public and, indeed, our Assembly colleagues.

As Members are aware, Budget Bills provide the statutory means for the Assembly to authorise spending by Departments and issue cash to Departments to fund that expenditure. They also hold Departments accountable for managing and controlling that spending within the limits authorised for the financial year. As I indicated, Budget Bills are supported by the Estimates process, with the January monitoring position agreed by the Executive on 16 January. It is important to stress that Executive Budgets set just the Executive's spending plans. They do not give Departments the legal authority to draw down the use of cash or resources; that is done only through Budget Bills and the associated Supply resolutions. This Budget Bill signals that we are coming to the end of the 2024-25 financial year, with departmental accounts comparing their audited return against the limits voted by the Assembly.

The 2024-25 Budget began its life on 24 April 2024, following its agreement by the Executive. Following that, the Main Estimates 2024-25 were prepared, and the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2024 received Royal Assent on 18 October 2024, so giving Departments the authority to spend. The spring Supplementary Estimates were commissioned on 27 November 2024, and, following the completion of the January monitoring round process, the Executive agreed the final 2024-25 Budget position on 16 January 2025. That allowed the completion of SSE templates, which required the finalising of departmental expenditure plans, recording on accounting systems, preparing Estimates templates and receiving final internal approvals and clearance from Ministers. That process wrapped up on 23 January 2025. The departmental Supply team then compiled the 18 Estimates across Departments and public bodies, and those are contained in the SSE memorandum. The completion of the 2024-25 SSEs provides a reconciliation between the Main Estimates Budget position and the spring Supplementary Estimates Budget position. Headroom built into the spring Supplementary Estimates gives the Executive the ability to spend any funding yet to be allocated on priority areas and to ensure that no resources are lost to the block grant.

As Members will recall, the Vote on Account at this point last year was an exceptional 65%. That was due to the place in which we found ourselves, with the sudden restoration of the Executive. This year's figure of 45% is much more usual, providing, as it does, interim resources and funding for the first few months of the 2025-26 financial year until work on the 2025-26 Main Estimates and Budget (No. 2) Bill have been completed. The Vote on Account ensures that departmental business can continue before the Assembly considers the Budget at Main Estimates, prior to summer recess. The Committee has been led to expect that the Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill will be held next Monday, 24 February, with the Further Consideration Stage and the Final Stage both happening on 25 February. Beyond that, Royal Assent should be received by 24 March, before the end of the financial year.

I now turn to the favourite subject of many Members: the use of the sole authority of the Budget Act or, in the vernacular, the black box. As Members will, no doubt, be aware, any charge on public funds must be authorised by legislation. The majority of expenditure by Departments is supported by specific enabling legislation. If that legislation is not in place, expenditure must generally rely on the sole authority of the Budget Acts. The absence of an Executive and functioning Assembly meant that expenditure that falls into the sole authority category has built up. When the Main Estimates were produced, the total amount of sole authority sought was £28 million. Following updates, the current figure has reduced to £25 million.

The majority of Departments have indicated that legislation is expected in 2025. The Finance Committee has a specific interest in that, as members have been waiting for a financial provisions Bill that will legislate for some elements of the current black box. Additionally, the arrival of a Fiscal Council Bill will remove funding for that body from the black box. The Committee is increasingly frustrated that those Bills have not been introduced. I ask the Minister, on the Committee's behalf, to redouble his efforts to bring those Bills and other legislation that the Committee has been expecting to the Chamber. I gently point out that those Bills were included in the 2024 legislative programme — not the 2024-25 legislative programme, as has been stated in the Assembly — so they are already overdue for introduction by several months.

I look forward to Members' contributions during the debate. I will now say a few words in my capacity as leader of the Opposition.

I welcome the fact that we are here in the Assembly debating a Budget Bill. It feels as if we are obliged to say that all the time when we are here doing anything. Is it not great that we are here? Is it not great that we are debating a Budget Bill? Is it not great that there is an Executive? Is it not great that we have turned up and done our jobs? The truth is that it is not great. It is the bare minimum. It is what the public expected when they elected us. We need to do more than simply turn up.

The reason why the concept of simply turning up is relevant to the Budget Bill is that all the Budget Bill does is authorise spending; it authorises the updated totals and limits that are set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates. That is what Budget Bills do. They are effectively like contacting your bank and the bank saying, "We continue the authorisation of the use of your bank account and your overdraft for another few months". It is not a Budget. It is not a strategic statement of how resources will be allocated in order to deliver on the people's priorities. We know what the people's priorities are, roughly speaking, because they are pretty obvious: the crisis in our health service; the fact that we have the worst waiting lists and waiting times not just in these islands but, bluntly, in western Europe; the fact that we have a waste water infrastructure system that is crumbling and preventing basic economic development; the fact that, in other areas of our public services, we are crying out for reform in order to deliver the basics that, in a democracy, the public should expect. Those are clearly the priorities.

There is a Programme for Government — currently in draft form, not signed off and not finalised — with lots of vague descriptive text, but not clear targets. I do not know, so, perhaps, the Minister can update us in his winding-up remarks — maybe other Members from Executive parties can update us — on when the Programme for Government will be finalised. However, even when the Programme for Government is finalised, it should be backed by a coherent and, ideally, multi-year Budget. The Minister, no doubt, will say that a multi-year Budget is not legally possible until Westminster provides him with a multi-year spending review. That is true, but, as I have said and as we have discussed, that does not stop him providing an indicative pathway; indeed, he appears to be moving in that direction. The absence of a clear strategic plan means that this document — the Budget Bill — is only an authorisation of spending: it is not a Budget. I have to say this in my capacity as Chair of the Finance Committee, when I talk to some of my colleagues and even sometimes when I talk to constituents and the media: the Budget Bill is, of course, part of the Budget process, but it is not the Budget.

The Budget is the document that we have not yet debated. It was emailed to Members in a written statement just before Christmas. We then got further allocations a couple of weeks ago — again, on a non-sitting day. We have not had a fulsome debate yet in the Chamber on the 2025-26 Budget. The consultation period for the document closes in about three and a half weeks' time. After that, it still has to be agreed, on the basis of what the Minister said, by the Executive. It will then eventually come back to the Floor of the Assembly. By that stage, one assumes, the Budget Bill authorising 45% of spending for the new financial year will already have passed. Will we even be debating the final Budget for 2025-26 before the start of the new financial year? Will the public be able to understand what we are prioritising and how we are allocating resources in order to deal with their priorities? It appears increasingly unlikely.

That is part of a broader, systemic challenge with the Executive, which is, I am afraid, an apparent desire to simply get credit for turning up, keeping the wheels turning and, perhaps, keeping the lights on — marking time, the odd photo op, the odd summit with a nice photo op and some PR around it. There are no clear, decisive targets for improving public services and no clarity for the public on when we will have a plan —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, I have given you a lot of latitude, particularly in your role as spokesperson for the official Opposition. I am sure that you will appreciate that, but can I ask that you return to the Budget Bill, even in the broadest scope, rather than the lack of a Budget, if you do not mind?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to return to the Budget Bill, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Of course, I respect any guidance from the Chair. It is important to say that the Bill authorises literally every bit of spending by the Executive. In theory, everything is within the scope of the Budget Bill, because, if there were no Budget Bill, there would be nothing to talk about. I have understood your guidance, however, so I will come back to the —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, you are ripping it, frankly. [Laughter.]

I have —.

Mr O'Toole: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, but I have not finished. I have received legal advice about the scope of the Budget Bill. I have read the Bill and that legal advice. I have allowed Members to stretch the scope of the Bill, and I will facilitate them in doing that, because this is a democratic institution.

For the second time, I ask the Member, if he does not mind, to return to the debate on the Budget Bill without challenging the Chair. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

The Budget Bill lists the various areas in which the Executive are spending money, but it offers no prioritisation. A Budget Bill is simply a list of areas in which money is legally spent, but there is no opportunity for the public to know how much money is being spent on reducing waiting lists or how much money is being invested to help our waste water infrastructure recover. I could find the bit in the Budget Bill that mentions funding Northern Ireland Water, because that is in there. I could find the bit in the Budget Bill that mentions funding the health service, because that is all in there. There is, however, no clarity whatever in the Bill on how the Executive will go about prioritising the things that the public care about. That is not the Budget Bill's fault, as that is not what it is there to do. As I have said, the Budget Bill is there simply to authorise spending legally, but the public deserve more than that. They deserve more than our simply marking time, turning up and keeping the lights on and then expecting credit for it.

Before I conclude my remarks, I will turn briefly to a couple of specific points on which the Minister touched. He mentioned the use of the so-called black box and on the sole authority of the Budget Act. It is true that those amounts have come down significantly. It is also true that legislation is promised in some areas, specifically a financial provisions Bill and a Fiscal Council Bill. I want to know when those bits of legislation will be introduced in the Assembly. The suggestion yesterday was that they are hideously complex legislation that will take ages to produce and that officials need more time. To be fair, officials had years in which to produce them when this place was down. A financial provisions Bill and a Fiscal Council Bill are not politically controversial. I am at a loss as to why officials and drafters could not have been drafting those Bills while Ministers were not in office. Executive parties were having meetings about a Programme for Government. Activity was going on, so I presume that those people were still at work. I want to understand when exactly we will have those Bills before us.

I will touch on the question of scrutiny. Mr Gaston was right to point out a typographical error in the spring Supplementary Estimates document. It is our job to take seriously the scrutiny of such documents and, insofar as we are able to, to understand them. They are not that hideously complicated. One of my great frustrations is that individual Statutory Committees barely scrutinise the documents, because the truth is that they are in a better position than the Finance Committee to understand why money might have moved around in their Departments. Look at some of the changes. For example, when I read the information — I should have had it marked — about a significant adjustment to the Department of Health's capital budget for 2024-25, I find that I am not sure about it. I imagine that it might be connected to the children's hospital debacle, but I do not know, because I am not on the Committee for Health. It is the job of each Committee not simply to get the headlines but to scrutinise exactly what is happening in the relevant Department's finances. Our Finance Committee should provide strategic direction, and I hope that we will do more of that.

While the Budget Bill may not go to a Division, it will be hard for us to jump up and down in ecstatic support for a Bill that authorises spending in the absence of a clear, strategic plan to deal with the crisis in our public services and to get waiting lists down. It does not provide a clear plan for how the Executive will spend money to invest in our waste water infrastructure and rescue public services. Frankly, the public have waited long enough for a plan to see those services rescued and are beyond cynicism with the Executive and these institutions. They deserve better. They deserve a coherent multi-year Budget when one can be delivered. They deserve a strategic plan from the Executive. Therefore, while it is welcome that spending continues to be authorised — in the same way in which it is welcome that we are in the Chamber, the lights are on and we are all talking — it is not good enough and needs to get better. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated, Matthew.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Committee for Health.

As I mentioned in yesterday's debate, the financial landscape that we find ourselves in has presented significant challenges to all Departments. That has had a considerable impact on the provision of services in our communities. Those financial challenges are having a pronounced effect on those in our communities who require treatment in our health system and on the staff who work in the Health and Social Care (HSC) system. At the outset, I pay tribute to our Health and Social Care workers, some 70,000-odd staff, who go above and beyond to provide care and support to our sick and most vulnerable citizens, while battling against long waiting lists, longer waits in emergency departments and services that are stretched to breaking point.

The Health budget makes up over 50% of the block grant and has significant implications for the health and well-being of the people whom we in the Chamber represent. It is therefore crucial that we understand its impact and significance. Over the past year, the Committee has engaged with the Minister and departmental officials on the budget. Just last week, the Minister briefed the Committee on the budget for next year. The Minister explained that, with this year's budget allocation of £8·4 billion, there is still a shortfall of £400 million in the next financial year. During the briefing, members covered a number of areas with the Minister, including the National Insurance contributions increase. Members highlighted the significant impact that it will have on the health and social care sector, including GP surgeries, pharmacies and social care. Committee members were advised that the Minister has been in contact with the British Government Minister on that matter.

With regard to respite care for families, members raised the announcement of £2 million to be spent in the current financial year and £13 million in the following financial years on short-term respite care. The Committee welcomed that announcement at the time and is disappointed that only £1·377 million will be spent in the current financial year. The Committee has requested further information on the plans that are in place for the incoming financial year to ensure that families get the respite that they need and that that important service is utilised fully.

On access to GP services, members raised the issue of funding for indemnity for GPs and, generally, the pressure that there is on access to primary care. It has been disappointing to see over the past number of years GP practices being taken over by trusts and a number of GP surgeries in financial rescue plans. That clearly shows the need for significant investment in our primary services to improve access.

On the cancer strategy, the Committee heard that only £10·6 million was spent in the past financial year against a planned spend of £34·2 million. On the mental health strategy, only £5·9 million was spent against the target of £42 million. That is extremely disappointing. It illustrates the significant pressure that there is on the system. We need to see action plans detailing how money will be allocated in the future.

We are aware from briefings from the trusts and representative bodies that the significant bottleneck in the system relates to the provision of domiciliary care and the need for significant investment to provide sufficient service to allow the flow of patients through hospitals. We need to see plans for how the Department will address that important issue.

A member also raised the issue of, and cost to provide, free period products in our Health and Social Care buildings. When the Committee was briefed on the statutory rule in November, we were advised that the cost would be between £1 million and £1·5 million. However, in the equality impact assessment (EQIA) produced by the Department, the cost was put down as £5·7 million. That is significant change in the figures provided to the Committee. We have requested further information on that.

The Committee has also requested a detailed breakdown of the expenditure for 2025-26, but, so far, has been sent information only on how the Department has used the percentage split from the 2024-25 opening allocations to allocate the additional funding across the programmes of care for 2025-26. The Department will not be able to provide detailed information until many months into the new financial year. That highlights the real need for long-term planning in the Department of Health.

The Committee looks forward to further work being undertaken by the Executive to bring forward multi-year Budgets that will allow the Department of Health to plan for the long term and put in place planned interventions to address the waiting lists and the increasing health inequalities that we all see. The Committee is also keen to see how the Department and the Executive will link the Budget to the Programme for Government. The PFG outlines key priorities for Health in relation to reducing waiting lists and the reform and transformation of public services. It is important that we and the public see the links between the Programme for Government and the Budget, with clear and achievable targets that allow progress to be monitored and measured.

I also want to mention the Department's capital budget. Over the past number of years, we have seen significant capital projects in the health estate. As with other projects, however, they tend to run over time and budget. Indeed, last week, the Committee went to see the new maternity hospital at the Royal, which is a magnificent sight. There is no doubt that it will provide high-quality, safe care for many mothers and babies. However, there are significant delays in opening the hospital, and I encourage the Department and the trust to work together to get that hospital safely opened as soon as possible. I also encourage the trust and the Department to learn from that process and apply that learning to the build of the new children's hospital, which is to be commenced soon. I appreciate that that will require additional resources, and, as Committee Chairperson, I am keen to work with the Minister and the Department to make the argument for additional funding for our health service and provision of the necessary support for our Health and Social Care workers.

I will now speak for a few minutes to make a number of additional points in my capacity as an MLA and Sinn Féin's health spokesperson. As was mentioned, the Health Minister and the permanent secretary attended the Health Committee last week to brief us on the Budget, and I thank them both for doing so. I also record my appreciation for the current permanent secretary, Peter May, as he steps down from the role and to thank him for his many years of public service. I wish Peter well in whatever the future holds for him.

As part of that briefing, the Minister outlined the anticipated funding gap in Health. A significant proportion — over 50% — of the overall Executive Budget is allocated to Health. I know from the comments made yesterday throughout the Chamber and in previous debates that there is a clear recognition that we must use that substantial Health budget to do better. We must produce and implement plans and strategies that deliver better health outcomes for patients and create a better and safer working environment for staff.

Over 500,000 people — a quarter of the population of the North — are on a waiting list to have their first consultation with a specialist. That figure is unacceptable, and we need to see action in the year ahead to start turning the corner and reducing that number. That is especially needed for cancer waiting lists and services, where urgency is key to treatment, outcome and, indeed, saving lives. The Minister needs to utilise the budget that he has for the cancer strategy more efficiently to ensure that all available money is spent on screening, diagnosing and treating cancer patients. I welcome the comments that the Minister made at last week's Committee meeting about putting plans in place for a lung-screening programme and to expand bowel screening. I look forward to hearing more detail on that in the time ahead.

On numerous occasions in the Chamber we have debated what we can do about the growing mental health crisis in our society, so, again, it was disappointing to see that the Department had not spent all the available resources that it had in its 2024-25 budget. Over the last number of days, it has been further perplexing to receive emails from groups such as the Samaritans and others expressing their disappointment at missing out on funding for projects to tackle mental health. My colleague Órlaithí Flynn has written to the Minister on that, and I look forward to his explanation.

We must see action to reduce the pressures on our emergency departments. That means action in our hospitals but also action beyond the hospitals. We need investment in domiciliary care services and staff so that we can not only release the valve on hospital pressures and give the most appropriate care to our vulnerable citizens in the setting that is most suitable to their needs. Ambulance waiting times have increased, and the demand for emergency ambulance care, coupled with ongoing pressures on ambulance handover times, show an extremely worrying trend. Paramedics and ambulance staff work in some of the most difficult circumstances and are the first response to medical emergencies. Unfortunately, staff shortages and pressures on A&E departments are causing delays, with paramedics waiting with patients for hours. Urgent action to address the ongoing crisis needs to be taken by the Minister and his Department to improve patient safety.

The Minister has prioritised tackling health inequalities, and I welcome that focus and the Live Better pilot that he has introduced. Key to all of that, however, is developing and expanding on that and other initiatives.

With regard to the pay deal, Sinn Féin has consistently called for fair pay and conditions for all healthcare workers, and we welcome the fact that progress has been made on the issue. We recognise that some pay negotiations are still ongoing, and we will continue to stand in solidarity with workers to ensure that their contribution is acknowledged and valued. I urge the Minister to bring those talks to a speedy resolution.

As with every public service, we should look at how we can do better and work better on the island to improve outcomes for our citizens. That is just common sense. The North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin has provided patients in County Donegal with a vital resource and become an example of all-Ireland cooperation in healthcare having a tangible impact on people's lives. Likewise, the All-Island Congenital Heart Disease Network is an excellent joint initiative that has provided comprehensive high-quality support for children with congenital heart defects. Initiatives such as the €10 million provided in 2023 to fund 250 undergraduate nursing and midwifery places at Ulster University and Queen's University and the additional €9·5 million committed from 2024 to 2028 to support 161 extra places in various health and social care professions should be continued and strengthened. An improved all-island approach to healthcare would not only improve the quality of life for people on our island but make our health system more sustainable.

A Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle,

I am conscious, as you have outlined, that this is the Budget debate and not a debate on our health service, and that it is not the Health Minister but the Finance Minister in the Chamber. However, improving health goes beyond the responsibility of just the Health Minister and requires proper funding. As I said yesterday, the Executive have made health a priority, correctly so, and the Finance Minister has made over 50% of his available Budget to the Department of Health.

Yesterday, I also said that it was obvious that the Budget available to the Finance Minister and the Executive from Westminster was clearly not enough. Our public services have been decimated by years of underfunding in successive Westminster Budgets. That has all impacted negatively on what Ministers here can do, which, ultimately, impacts on the citizens whom we represent. It is important that we continue to speak on the matter with one voice and support the Finance Minister as he continues to negotiate for additional funding and seeks to achieve greater fiscal sustainability in the long term to help improve all of our public services.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I welcome the opportunity to speak as Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure at the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. I welcome the Minister to his new place and thank him for his work and assistance during his time as Infrastructure Minister. I know that he will miss every member of the Infrastructure Committee, including me. [Laughter.]

Over recent weeks, the Committee has, as part of its ongoing financial scrutiny, engaged with departmental officials and Translink to get a sense of their assessment of their needs over the next financial year. The Committee, at its meeting tomorrow, will receive oral evidence from Northern Ireland Water on its requirements for next year.

Due to the time constraints on the Assembly's consideration of the provisions of the Bill, it was critical that time was factored into the Committee's work programme to get a sense of the Department's requirements. That is in the context of having a draft Budget that is being consulted on, which means that the final allocations for the Department and for those that it provides resource to are not yet fully known.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, whilst I recognise that the Bill reconciles and gives authority for the use of resource for the 2024-25 spring Supplementary Estimates for the first few months of the next financial year, I would appreciate a little latitude so that I can convey to the House the Committee's approach. Over the past 12 months, the Department has faced a number of challenges on issues relating to our water infrastructure; addressing the backlog of MOTs; traffic congestion in and around Belfast; and the condition of our road network and its wider impact on road safety. As the Deputy Chairperson, John Stewart, indicated during yesterday's debate — I thank him for speaking on behalf of the Committee — the Committee noted that the impact of recent storms has resulted in departmental pressures due to the level of available resource for remedial works to restore or replace items that were damaged. Whilst the Committee has sought further detail from the Department to establish how those pressures will be managed, it is important that the remedial works be completed to ensure that our infrastructure meets the needs of our constituents across Northern Ireland.

As we have seen, the adverse weather left thousands of people without power, access to water and unable to go about their daily commute due to the blockage of roads from fallen trees and issues with other key parts of our infrastructure. Given the seemingly more regular frequency of those types of events, it is becoming increasingly important that the necessary resources are available to respond to them. The Committee will be interested to receive further details of the actual costs that were incurred, once the analysis becomes available.

Turning to road safety, the House will be aware that the upgrade of the A5 was announced. That upgrade aims to reduce the number of those who are killed or seriously injured on our roads. However, road safety is not limited to users of the A5 but covers users of the entire road network across Northern Ireland. As the Deputy Chairperson outlined in yesterday's debate, the Committee has engaged extensively with departmental officials throughout the year to identify where pressures are being faced and the proposed response to try to address them. The Committee knew from the outset the challenges that the Department faced when seeking to balance its budget allocation against managing its core functions. As a Committee and Members of the House, we all want to see more development in our infrastructure so that we can deliver more homes, maintain our roads, develop our public transport network and meet our future commitments under the Climate Change Act. However, for that to occur, we need the investment to provide the much-needed building blocks that will help to address the shortage of housing, maintain the condition and safety of our road network and develop our transport network to provide a meaningful alternative for road users, who are reliant on their vehicles.

With a high capital spend, the Department's need for a multi-year budget is a well-rehearsed discussion that requires a resolution to provide the certainty of funding for capital projects, which can take a number of years to complete. Only then can we start to make an impact on addressing our wider goals of delivery.

During an oral evidence session on 5 February, the Committee noted that, under the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI), borrowing of £105·7 million was earmarked for Northern Ireland Water. Theoretically, that should provide some additional funding to enable Northern Ireland Water to progress upgrades to our ageing network, but the extent of those upgrades will largely be impacted on by the overall allocation in the final Budget. Given the cost of borrowing, that will undoubtedly be an area of interest in the Committee's future work. Undoubtedly, it will explore that in more detail with Northern Ireland Water tomorrow to get a sense of the capital projects that it will progress from that funding. In addition, it will be important to gain an understanding of the specific benefits that will derive from that spend and how it might be used to alleviate the historical underfunding of our water network.

On roads, over recent years, the constraints on our public finances have meant that the Department has been able to deliver only a limited service to maintain our roads, which, as Members across the House will know, has led to the deterioration of roads throughout all our constituencies. Additional funding has, typically, been secured from monitoring rounds, but the absence of specific provision at the start of the financial year means that the Department has no certainty of funding for its winter service, which includes the gritting of roads.

Looking forward, our roads will continue to be a critical component in supporting our daily lives. However, commitments under the Climate Change Act will require us to adapt our transport network and how we use it. The Committee welcomed the opening of Grand Central station in Belfast, which will provide a regenerated hub in Belfast with the capacity to reduce our reliance on cars. However, whilst that investment is welcome, it needs to be complemented by the equivalent upscaling of services to promote a modal shift from our reliance on cars. At the same time, we must take the time to understand the needs of and barriers faced by those living across our communities, particularly in rural areas, so that we can best provide services that meet their needs, albeit with finite and stretched resources. In addition, we need to see an acceleration in our network's ability to accommodate the changing needs of motorists as they switch from petrol- or diesel-powered vehicles to electric or zero-emission forms of transport. That acceleration needs a holistic approach to identify viable improvements in our current systems that will support our future needs. The electric vehicle charging network is a key component in that. Following Northern Ireland's inclusion in the vehicle emissions trading scheme, demand will continue to grow as a result of the targets placed on vehicle manufacturers when phasing out the scale of manufacturing combustion-powered vehicles in favour of greener alternatives.

We need to be innovative in developing solutions to overcome the barriers to accelerating that delivery by reviewing relevant areas in our planning system, our use of financial transactions capital for private-sector borrowing and wider capacity across our electricity network. In addition, our public transport needs to evolve to greener forms of transport to lead the way and reduce the pollution caused by harmful greenhouse gases. As we all know, that will require significant capital investment over a number of years, particularly for Translink. Given our future commitments under the Climate Change Act, we need to provide adequate funding to allow that to occur. I understand and accept the need for the Bill to progress without delay to ensure that Departments have the legislative authority for the first few months of the next financial year.

I will make a few brief remarks as DUP MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It is no surprise that infrastructure is a key economic driver in our society. It is key that we scrutinise where the money is spent. The numbers on a page will affect everything outside these doors. I talked about roads earlier: obviously, from my point of view as a Fermanagh and South Tyrone MLA — I am looking across the Chamber to my colleague from the same constituency — rural roads are vital. We cannot and should not forget the need to ensure that they are maintained to a proper standard and are developed. Our rural roads need urgent attention, particularly after the recent storm. I want Budgets to focus on that, with the ring-fencing of a rural roads funding pot, which I have mentioned in my role on the Infrastructure Committee.

My colleague Diane Forsythe's work has been vital to scrutinising how funding is allocated, how budgets run over and how time is spent in delivering capital projects, of which there are many in the Department for Infrastructure. I recognise that, as the Minister well knows, legal challenges also play a role in that. Whilst that does not negate the fact that it is important that people have an opportunity to challenge decisions, we have to take into consideration how that impacts on vital infrastructure projects across Northern Ireland. If we do not have the right budget allocated appropriately, and if money and time run over on those projects, it costs every Department in Northern Ireland. We have to take a strategic look at that, and I thank my colleague for her work on that.

I will move on to other issues, including NI Water. Capital budget is paramount when it comes to unlocking areas of constraint. Discussion must now move on to proper solutions. I am glad to see that the Minister is bringing forward a consultation on developer-led contributions. I will watch that carefully to make sure that it does what it says on the tin and works for people on the ground. Discussions must move on, however, and we must have action. I urge the Minister not to put the eggs in one basket but to bring forward an ambitious approach to dealing with the issue.

My colleague Stephen Dunne put forward many pertinent points about infrastructure yesterday, so I will not rehearse everything. I will, however, say this: it is key that we have a budget that reflects the need for modal shift — moving people out of cars and on to public transport — and that understands the concerns of rural people who cannot access the public transport network, whether they are seeking to get to work or to socialise. It is important that we see an ambitious approach being taken to the rail review, with budgets matching delivery. I am glad to see that the Union connectivity review provided funding for feasibility studies, but I would like to see Fermanagh included in that. We need to take a strategic approach to looking at how our budgets match up to all those policies, which, unfortunately, tend to sit on shelves. I would like to see those policies dusted down and an ambitious approach being taken to infrastructure and how we fund it.

Suffice it to say that I will watch carefully where the money goes, as it affects our daily lives. I urge officials to understand that we, as elected representatives, need to have information in a timely and clear way so that we have complete transparency and can have fulsome scrutiny of the issues.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I welcome the Finance Minister to his new role and wish him well in it.

I will make some comments on behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office. The Department has a relatively modest budget, starting with a flat-cash resource DEL budget of £182 million. According to briefings by the Department, that was revised to £183 million in June and to £187 million in October. The spring Supplementary Estimates now show an expected resource DEL spend of £194 million, along with £22 million capital DEL. It is important to note that the majority of that money has been earmarked for things such as support for victims and survivors of abuse, which means that the Department has very little wriggle room when expected to manage budgetary pressures.

Although the total amounts are relatively small, the Department deals with some of the most sensitive issues in our society: victims and survivors of the conflict; victims and survivors of historical institutional child abuse; victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions; and fostering good relations between our communities. The Committee strives to ensure that the resources for those things are sufficient and that the money is well spent. While financial scrutiny has been applied to questions of small amounts of spending, the Committee has been particularly exercised about how payments through the redress scheme for historical institutional abuse are to be recovered from the institutions that were responsible for the terrible ill treatment of children.

By the time that the redress scheme closes to new applications in April of this year, it is estimated that £100 million will have been paid out or allocated from the block grant to cover its costs. Despite constant questions from the Committee, we still have no idea of how much the institutions will pay back to the public purse. We know that some of them have made interim payments, but we have no idea of how much has been paid or the degree to which the institutions will contribute to future requirements for specialist services such as mental health support for victims and survivors. Although the state was also culpable for what happened to the most vulnerable people in our society, we should expect the institutions to contribute and the process to be transparent.

The victims and survivors of that abuse are adamant that the institutions must pay out. The Committee fully supports that position and continues to put pressure on the Department to use whatever levers are necessary in order to ensure that that is the case. It is a theme to which the Committee is compelled to return. We will have legislation this year for an inquiry into mother-and-baby institutions and a redress scheme. We may well have the same for historical clerical sexual abuse in the future. Those are things that need to be done right, however, so resources must be made available for doing so.

The draft Budget for 2025-26 suggests that there will be an uplift in the coming year of £84 million for non-earmarked resource DEL and £155 million for earmarked resource DEL. The Committee looks forward to being consulted on how the Department will spend that money and to being involved in the decisions on future spending and on setting funding priorities. Indeed, we anticipate hearing from the Department in detail about those spending plans shortly.

I will make one point in my capacity as an Alliance Party MLA. The Minister of Finance will probably be aware that there is a long list of commissioners who need to be appointed. There is a similarly long list of draft strategies and reviews to be signed off in the Executive Office. I appreciate that his focus is very much on budget allocations and spending, but I would like him and his officials to be mindful of the fact that delays to services, programmes and providing support really impact on our most marginalised, our most disadvantaged and our most vulnerable. There may be spending delays, but public money will have less impact the longer that such projects and programmes are delayed.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. Since she raised it, may I ask her a question out of curiosity? Has her Committee been scrutinising the Budget and the related lack of a plan for the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation? I was wondering whether she has heard anything more about that during the process.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your question. No, we have not heard anything more. The Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation is, however, mentioned in that long list of commissioners and board members who need to be appointed.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I will address the Assembly on the Budget Bill as the Chair of the Communities Committee. Given the extensive discussion yesterday on the Supply resolution and its linked motions, I will not rehearse the points that were made. Instead, I will focus on the critical issues in the Bill that impact on the Department for Communities and on the people who rely on its services.

The Budget Bill is not just a procedural matter but a reflection of the choices that we make about how to fund essential services, support our most vulnerable and plan for the future. One important aspect of the Bill is that it provides legal authority for certain spending that currently rests on its sole authority. That is spending that in normal circumstances would require specific legislation. Instead, however, it is being authorised through the Budget Bill as an interim measure.

For the Department for Communities, that spend includes £12 million for supplementary welfare reform and mitigation payments, which provide essential support to people impacted on by welfare changes. The payments are vital, yet, for recipients and the organisations that help administer them, they lack having been put on a permanent legislative footing. Although we welcome the Minister's assurance that the payments will be put on a statutory footing this year, it is a fact that they remain in a precarious position, dependent on temporary measures. That lack of permanence creates uncertainty for the people who rely on those payments and the organisations that administer them.

Another pressing issue is the increasing reliance on headroom funding, with the Executive allocating £183·3 million across all Departments. Of that, £3·3 million of resource DEL and £1·5 million of capital DEL is allocated to the Department for Communities. While headroom funding helps ensure that additional resources are not lost, it also creates instability. Departments and service providers cannot make long-term plans if they do not know whether the funding will be sustained. For the Department for Communities, that particularly affects housing support and homelessness prevention; social security payments and discretionary welfare support; and funding for local councils and voluntary organisations.

Without long-term financial certainty, housing providers cannot commit to multi-year investments and community organisations are left in limbo, unsure whether their funding will continue beyond the immediate term. People in crisis should not have to wait for last-minute reallocations to find out whether essential support schemes will continue. I know that the Minister is keenly aware that we need fewer last-minute reallocations and more stable needs-based budgeting. The British Government must also step up and play their part to make that a reality.

The Committee has heard directly from the Department for Communities about the difficulties posed by financial instability. We are told that, instead of being able to focus on long-term improvements, the Department is constantly forced to react to funding shortfalls and unexpected pressures. That instability has real and damaging consequences: fewer social affordable homes are being built; key housing and regenerating projects face delays; and ongoing uncertainty surrounds the Supporting People programme and discretionary welfare assistance.

The Budget Bill grants the necessary legal authority for spending, but it does not address the deeper financial challenges facing the Department and the Executive as a whole. Public services in the North continue to be underfunded compared with objective need. Without a fair funding settlement from Westminster, we will continue to see Departments struggle to balance their budgets, essential services stretched to their absolute limits and vital programmes operating with no long-term certainty.

The Committee for Communities will continue to scrutinise spending decisions to ensure that public money is used effectively; push for a more strategic multi-year budgeting approach so that services are not forced into crisis management; and examine the proposed solution to welfare mitigation funding to ensure that people get the support that they need without having to rely on emergency budget measures. The Budget Bill is a necessary step, but it is not a solution. We must move towards a funding model that is stable, strategic and fair, one that allows Departments to plan effectively, ensures that resources are directed where they are most needed and gives certainty to the people and organisations that rely on those services.

The Committee will continue to hold the Department to account, but financial oversight alone will not fix a system that is structurally underfunded. That is a challenge for not only the Executive but the British Government, who must acknowledge the unique financial pressures facing the North and step up to support us with a more sustainable funding model. Our communities, who depend on those services, cannot afford another year of last-minute fixes, emergency reallocations and financial uncertainty. We need a better way forward.

Dr Aiken: Minister, it will come as no surprise after yesterday's debate that we will support the Budget Bill's passing Second Stage. The 15 clauses and three schedules cover the £31 billion as laid down in the schedule and the Estimates, including the revised total amount of £26·536 billion. The Chair of the Finance Committee raised the issue of the increase in National Insurance contributions. We are concerned that the Department of Finance has not been able to estimate the likely costs of that. I thank the Minister for his commitment to come to the Committee as quickly as possible when those details have been worked out. However, for many of us, there has to be a concern that the Department of Finance, with its specific HR role across the Northern Ireland Civil Service, has not identified those figures yet.

The detail of a lot of the impacts still needs to be worked through. My learned friend the Chair of the Committee pointed out that many Committees need to get to the bottom of the Estimates. The commentary yesterday from my friend Mr Gaston about our billions-sized Budget that could be a trillions-sized Budget made me look quite closely at some of the figures in the Estimates memorandum and the other documentation that we have in front of us, including the Budget Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum. I notice that paragraph 10 of the explanatory and financial memorandum talks specifically about the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland for 2024-25 and states that the Bill will authorise a revised total amount of £26·5 billion. I have checked the £26·5 billion against the spring Supplementary Estimates, and, yes, that figure appears to be correct. The memorandum says that the Vote on Account amount is £12·148 billion. Minister, the Vote on Account is 45% of the Budget. Forty-five per cent of the figure of £26·536 billion does not equate to £12·148 billion; it equates to £11·941 billion. There is a difference there of £650 million. I might be reading this wrongly — I probably am; this is just from an initial look — but, bearing in mind that we have already picked up some inconsistencies in the spring Supplementary Estimates, the messages that have been coming across to us and the detail that has been there, there needs to be good scrutiny of what is coming before us. Not now, Minister, because I would not want to put you on the spot, but maybe you could task your officials to come back to the Finance Committee and explain that discrepancy. Either the Vote on Account is wrong, the figure that was used initially is wrong or we are £650 million out, which is not a position that we should be in.

There is a lot more detail in this, and it is up to the Committees to go through the figures. In fact, I encourage every Member to properly scrutinise the documentation that is before them. It is our duty to make sure that the Departments are held to account. The responsibility to ensure that the documentation is correct does not reside with just the Department of Finance. It is important that we carry out that degree of scrutiny. I will bring my remarks to a close at that point.

Minister, we appreciate the fact that you will get back to us on the issue of National Insurance contributions fairly quickly. Also, can we resolve the issue of what the Vote on Account amount actually is and whether the £650 million discrepancy is a result of my not being able to do maths correctly or whether it is not written down correctly? I suspect that it be somewhere in between and that it needs to be looked at.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Steve. That is much appreciated.

Mr T Buchanan: I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments at the Second Stage of the Budget Bill as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Chair of the Committee highlighted a number of issues yesterday, so I will keep my comments brief.

Our agriculture industry and farm businesses are the cornerstone of the rural economy and are fundamental to our local communities and rural life. I welcome the fact that the agriculture support fund has been ring-fenced as part of the draft Executive Budget for 2025-25. I would, however, have liked to see it increase in line with inflation. Direct farm support is essential to our farming, the agriculture sector and, by extension, the Northern Ireland economy. Therefore, it is vital that this statement of intent be built upon in future financial years.

One of the huge financial pressures on the Department's budget is bovine TB. Almost £56 million was spent on the control of TB in the past year, and, whilst current estimates indicate a rise in programme costs of approximately £60 million for this financial year, the current situation with respect to dealing with bovine TB in the next financial year is not only stark but, we believe, unsustainable. The veterinary service animal health group projects an increase in compensation of £14·2 million above the £32·3 million baseline, yet the Minister proposes to allocate just £3·6 million, leaving a significant shortfall of some £10·6 million. There is also a project deficit of £3 million in the Department's proactive work in reducing TB incidence. It is, therefore, clear that the current proposed allocation falls far short of what is needed to proactively tackle the disease. I urge the Finance Minister to reflect on the prospective impact of not adequately funding TB compensation or future interventions. Going forward, we must see positive action from the AERA Minister in introducing proposals to deal with what has been a long-standing issue for many years.

In these challenging financial times, with small margins and high input costs, it is imperative that the Budget supports the vitality of farm businesses and promotes profitable and productive agriculture. The increase in employers' National Insurance contributions will have a huge financial bearing on our farm businesses in terms of their labour costs. Coupled with the inheritance tax proposals, that has the potential to be the end of the road for many farm businesses, yet I do not see in the Budget any mitigating measures to help farm businesses absorb the extra National Insurance costs. It is therefore vital that the Finance Minister leaves no stone unturned in making the case for the Treasury to fully fund those costs and that he continues to lobby for the reversal of the proposed change in inheritance tax.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I will turn to public services for a moment. Although investment in public services is vital, so is ensuring that projects are delivered on time and within budget. Perhaps the parties that relentlessly call for the devolution of further fiscal powers should focus their attention on tackling some of the preventable waste in the system. The scale of financial mismanagement in the Northern Ireland Civil Service is deeply concerning. The recent revelation of a £2·45 billion overspend on major capital projects raises serious questions about oversight, accountability and the responsible use of taxpayers' money.

It is clear that accountability mechanisms are wholly inadequate: the Northern Ireland Civil Service board does not have proper oversight. Moreover, there is long-standing concern that Committees are not provided with sufficiently detailed information in adequate time for scrutiny or, indeed, with the presence of officials to analyse Departments' bids, expenditure and future spending. In particular, Departments ought to provide briefings on bids for monitoring rounds no later than seven days following their submissions to the Department of Finance, as stipulated in legislation.

Those issues must be adequately dealt with because, given all the pressures in all the Departments, we cannot continue to sustain such exorbitant overspends. We will therefore continue to scrutinise the issues to make sure that budget is spent in the most efficient and effective way.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister of Finance for moving the Second Stage of the Budget Bill, and I congratulate him on his new position, along with his colleagues, the new Minister for the Economy and the new Minister for Infrastructure. We will miss the latter at the Health Committee.

I will speak in my capacity as Alliance Party health spokesperson. Whilst our difficult financial position is evident in every Department, nowhere faces such overwhelming pressures as our health service. Many times in the Chamber, we have discussed growing waiting lists, challenges around discharging patients from hospitals and the crises in respite care provision and domiciliary care. That is just to mention a few of the many serious issues in the health service. However, we should take this opportunity to acknowledge any progress that has been made. The Minister of Health deserves credit for meeting, through in-year allocations, the pay requirements of our health service staff. Ensuring that health and social care workers, who perform an essential and invaluable role, are paid appropriately must be a priority for the Department of Health. That progress is welcome. Without health service workers, there is no health service. However, although the £36·5 million financial pressure on GP practices, community pharmacies and other social care providers due to the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions announced in the recent UK Government Budget is noted, no mitigation measures have been announced.

As has been highlighted many times, Northern Ireland continues to have the most expensive health service and the worst outcomes in the UK. Our waiting lists are among the longest in Europe. Most targets are consistently missed. There is a growing risk, if issues are not targeted, of our moving towards a two-tier system in which only those who can afford to do so can avail themselves of essential treatments. That would go against everything that our health service can and should stand for. In effect, we already have a two-tier system in Northern Ireland, with many people across our communities feeling that they have no choice but to spend huge amounts of their savings, borrowed money or money from family members to access healthcare. That is shameful and a huge failure.

As we all know, Health receives by far the largest allocation of the Budget. Clearly, something is going wrong. The challenges that are facing the Department of Health will not be resolved by simply giving it more money. The Health budget has increased by over £2 billion since 2020. Last week in the Health Committee, the Minister mentioned some of the unsuccessful bids that he submitted, most of which would have required more money. While it is understandable that he is seeking additional funding for such projects — it is what he should be doing — it is impossible to facilitate every request from every Department. The Minister must seriously consider how his Department could be run more effectively and efficiently. We need to do things better in healthcare provision.

As the Chair of the Health Committee highlighted, there is a clear need for investment in primary and domiciliary care and for the strategies to improve people's healthcare across Northern Ireland, such as the already mentioned mental health strategy, which has been underfunded for many years. Reform and transformation are also needed, and the Minister has spoken many times about his desire to shift left. That is in line with the principles of the Bengoa report, 'Systems, not Structures: Changing Health and Social Care', from 2016. We have discussed Bengoa many times, and, while we always hear positive language from members of all parties on the need for that reform, it is not always reinforced by action. Just a few weeks ago, we discussed the crisis in our health service in an Opposition day debate, and some of the decisions that local MLAs and councillors made contradicted their parties' stated aims on reform through Bengoa specifically.

Reform must be more broadly a priority for the Executive and Departments, not just Health. It must include reforming these institutions so that the Assembly and the Executive are never again collapsed and held down by a single party. With the cycle of crisis and collapse, the 2024-25 Budget was the tenth single-year Budget in a row. How can Ministers ever plan for anything in the medium to long term if they are working on the basis of a single-year Budget? That is especially relevant for Health. Much of the transformation agenda will take years to carry out and will require substantial changes to how every trust and hospital operate. We must therefore seek to end ransom politics and move towards being a more mature and properly democratic Assembly, where parties can make difficult decisions and not walk away, collapsing the Assembly, when things get tough.

We must address the costs of division. It is estimated that continuing division on the basis of our political and religious divide costs our economy up to £400 million per year. Imagine how valuable that additional funding would be. While the UK Treasury must take some of the blame for our current financial predicament, it is understandable that the UK Government expect us to look at specific options for addressing our own financial problems. Addressing division would be one of the easiest ways to do so.

In conclusion, I welcome the passage of the Budget Bill following our useful debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates yesterday. It is an important role for any Executive and it provides an opportunity to discuss what our priorities should be. I look forward to hearing from other Members and to working with the Minister of Health in particular to progress urgent reforms and ensure that Health and Social Care is accessible to everyone in Northern Ireland when it is needed.

Ms Dolan: I thank the Minister for bringing the Budget Bill to the Assembly, and I take this opportunity to wish him well in his new role.

I also recognise the work of the previous Finance Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, particularly on securing the interim fiscal framework, which marks a significant improvement in our funding model. That secured an extra £248 million for our public services for the forthcoming year that would otherwise not have been available. It was a recognition from the British Government that the North has been funded below need and a commitment that we will be funded at or above the relative level of need in future financial years.

Unfortunately, a decade and a half of Tory austerity has starved our public services of vital funding, and we continue to face considerable challenges. It is welcome, therefore, that the Budget has prioritised investing in areas that will be most effective in improving the lives of workers, families and communities here. We are all well aware of the strain that the health and social care sector is under and of the need for transformation. However, there is recognition in the Budget that additional funding is required to support services in the interim.

Doubling the allocation for childcare is another significant step in helping to mitigate financial pressure on parents, and it will support them to remain part of the workforce or return to work. The decision by the British Government to remove ring-fencing for agriculture support funds was extremely disappointing and caused concern to the farming community at a time when it is facing other issues, such as the inheritance tax. I am pleased that funding for DAERA is an earmarked allocation. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the investment from the Mid South West growth deal will be a key driver in addressing regional economic imbalance and will see the delivery of a vital piece of infrastructure, the A4 Enniskillen bypass.

There remains an onus on the British Treasury to alleviate the additional pressure that its decision to increase National Insurance contributions is putting on our public finances, and I reiterate the call for it to cover those costs in full.

There is an obvious need for more fiscal devolution, which would provide us with greater flexibility around Budgets and enable us to achieve greater fiscal sustainability in the longer term. I welcome the efforts of previous Finance Ministers in that area and the commitment from the new Minister to continue that work.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I welcome the opportunity to speak as Chairman of the Committee for Justice on the Budget Bill. I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession.

Throughout the past year, the Committee has scrutinised the Department of Justice's budget through regular oral and written briefings and updates. The 2024-25 Budget was described in oral evidence by senior departmental officials as the "most challenging" that the Department has ever faced, with the Executive having just £1 billion above funding baselines to allocate against reported pressures totalling over £3 billion across Departments. The permanent secretary also reported that the Justice budget has increased by only 13% over 13 years, with the block grant having increased by 53% over the same period. The Department's share of the block grant has fallen from just under 11% in 2011-12 to around 8% currently. That has undoubtedly contributed to pressures being felt across all areas of the justice system.

The Department's opening budget for 2024-25 was £1,262 million, which included £31·2 million of additional security funding and £12·8 million of funding for the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme. That left an opening non-ring-fenced resource allocation of £1,218·4 million. Against that opening baseline, the Department initially reported pressures of £446 million for 2024-25. The Department received £95 million of the £1 billion available to the Executive, which reduced those pressures to around £350 million.

The Department also submitted capital bids of £122 million for the 2024-25 year and received an allocation of £92 million — a shortfall of 25% of what was required for inescapable and high-priority projects. As Members will know, the Department of Justice's budget is mostly demand-led, with the majority taken up by the Police Service, the Courts and Tribunals Service, prisons and legal aid spend. Those demands show no signs of abating, with all areas across the justice system reporting pressures in year.

The Department submitted non-ring-fenced resource bids totalling £349·2 million as part of the June monitoring round and received a general allocation of £35·02 million. That was split across a number of directorates and agencies and included allocations of £7·4 million to the Legal Services Agency and £23 million to the PSNI. As part of the October monitoring round, a further £5·2 million was allocated to the Legal Services Agency and almost £36 million was allocated to the PSNI. While all business areas will have benefited from the extra funding provided to them in year, it was particularly welcome in both those areas.

Legal aid is essential in ensuring that citizens are able to access justice. It is not acceptable that delaying legal aid payments to practitioners has been used by the Department as a budget-management tool. Evidence that we have received indicates that that makes legal aid work less attractive to members of the profession and those entering it, which will ultimately impact on the ability of people, some of whom are among the most vulnerable, to access justice. Members will be aware that a judgement was delivered recently in a case by the Bar of Northern Ireland and the Law Society of Northern Ireland on the practice of delaying payments for legally aided work, and I understand that the Department is working through the implications of that judgement. Nonetheless, the Committee is pleased to note that the average time taken to make such payments has decreased over recent months.

I will turn to the PSNI. While the in-year funding has helped to alleviate policing pressures, we must not ignore the fact that the number of police officers has fallen to an all-time low of 6,300 — a position described by the Chief Constable as extremely concerning.

Members of the House will know that New Decade, New Approach set a target of 7,500 officers. A recruitment campaign began on 22 January this year, which is welcome and long overdue, but, at this stage, that is just about replacing officers. The Committee was informed that the PSNI has developed a business case to increase the number of officers to 7,000 over the next three years. That will, of course, require significant financial investment and involve recurring costs in coming years. It will also be a considerable period before those who graduate from police college are on the beat.

The Committee was pleased to find that three of the Department's transformation programmes have progressed to the final stage in the process. Those important projects relate to electronic tagging, speeding up and transforming the justice system and reducing offending and the prison population. The Department indicated that those programmes will cost around £53 million over a five-year period, so additional funding from the transformation fund will be very welcome, but much more remains to be done.

The bids submitted by the Department as part of the in-year monitoring process included what the Department advised are "exceptional pressures" of £227 million relating to holiday pay, McCloud injury to feelings and the PSNI data breach. No funding was allocated to those pressures. At this stage, it is not clear when those costs will crystallise. The Department advised, however, that those exceptional pressures cannot be managed within its budget allocation and informed the Committee that the then Finance Minister had indicated her intention to explore the potential for making a reserve claim from His Majesty's Treasury in respect of those pressures.

I will briefly look forward. Aside from the exceptional pressures of £227 million, which will be carried into the coming year, the Department reported non-ring-fenced resource DEL stabilisation pressures of £206·8 million against its opening baseline budget of £1,218 billion. The Department has received an additional general allocation of £132·3 million, as well as additional security funding and funding for judicial salaries, reducing those stabilisation pressures to around £35 million. However, new pressures have since emerged, which means that the Department will go into the new financial year with a shortfall of some £60 million. The new pressures include increased employers' National Insurance contributions, revised Northern Ireland Civil Service pay award assumptions and the anticipated cost of an increase in legal aid fees.

Committee members voiced concerns about the impact that the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions will have on the justice sector and, in particular, on the community and voluntary sector organisations that carry out important work on behalf of or in partnership with statutory agencies. Members were pleased that officials confirmed in oral evidence to the Committee that, while the Department is not aware of what the actual costs may be, individual areas are alert to the issue and will engage directly with the community and voluntary organisations to deal with the pressures on a case-by-case basis.

I mentioned that additional costs from an increase in legal aid fees are also anticipated in the coming year. A consultation is ongoing on a number of increases that were recommended by His Honour Tom Burgess in his review of criminal legal aid. Members will be aware that criminal barristers have withdrawn services for certain categories of criminal case. It is imperative, therefore, that efforts continue to be made to resolve the issues and that the interim uplift to legal aid is implemented at the earliest opportunity to prevent any further action, which, as I have said, can impact on the most vulnerable citizens in our society.

Those are two new pressures, but they are far from the only pressures that will be faced by the Department of Justice or its agencies in the next financial year. The Committee understands from the Department and the Committee for Finance that the level of in-year funding is expected to be much less in 2025-26 than it was in the current financial year, so the likelihood of in-year allocations to manage pressures will be significantly diminished. Therefore, while the additional funding allocation of £132·3 million above the baseline is to be welcomed, the position for the Department going into the new financial year will still be extremely challenging. Departmental officials advised that business areas are considering what actions are required to live within their allocation and that difficult decisions will have to be taken. The Committee expects there to be ongoing engagement and that it will be kept fully informed to help ensure that the Department's budget is maximised and key priority areas are funded to deliver effective outcomes right across the justice sector.

Mr Chambers: I welcome the chance to make some brief remarks on the Budget Bill at its Second Stage. I will focus my comments on our health and social care system. I listened with interest to yesterday's debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates. Although many sensible points were made across the Chamber, what struck me most was a small number of comments from an even smaller number of MLAs, who seemed to be casting doubt on the existence of financial woes in the Department of Health. Any Members who try to claim that our health service was not handed a poor financial deal at the start of 2024-25 are simply not living in the real world. They certainly have not talked to senior clinicians and service leaders, who have spent almost the past year constantly firefighting and having to deliver unprecedented levels of savings as a direct result. For almost the entirety of 2024-25, the Department of Health has existed in a significant deficit position. Although some MLAs are now almost using the fact that the Department and the Minister were able to balance the books as some sort of irrational justification for additional funds being unwarranted, those same MLAs are ignoring the undoubted damage that has been inflicted.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Chambers: Sorry, but I want to make some progress.

Week after week, MLAs from across the Chamber urge the Minister and the Department to do more to reduce waiting times, to introduce new schemes and to invest more money in existing services, yet the Executive, propped up by the Assembly, consciously took the decision last May not to spend money — not a single penny — on waiting list reduction initiatives. MLAs, particularly those from the other Executive parties, therefore need to take —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Alan.

Mr Chambers: — some ownership of that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Alan, I remind you that we are discussing the Budget Bill, and you are —.

Mr Chambers: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I am responding to comments that were made yesterday, and —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. This is the Second Stage debate on the Budget Bill.

Mr Chambers: — I feel that I have the right to —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. Excuse me, Alan. Take your seat, please, for a wee minute. I just want to explain something to you.

Mr Chambers: OK, I will —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, Alan. Take your seat, please.

Mr Chambers: Sorry.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate what Members said yesterday, and your party had a right to respond then. Today, however, we are talking about the Budget Bill. I have given you loads of latitude, but, given what I said to Matthew O'Toole, I encourage you to address some of your concerns in the context of the Budget Bill. Continue. Thank you.

Mr Chambers: I am almost finished, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We could spend many hours in the Chamber discussing the rights and wrongs of how the 2024-25 allocations have panned out, but, to sum it up, our health service, patients and health workers were not given the priority that some in the Chamber would like to pretend that they were. That is deeply disappointing.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Alan. I am sorry for disturbing your speech, but, for consistency, we need to apply the rules across the board.

Mr Frew: I will try, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, to abide by your rulings today.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Well, Paul, if you do not, I will remind you. [Laughter.]

Mr Frew: That must be the earliest ever intervention, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I may now hold the record.

I start by paying tribute to the previous Finance Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald. We on the Committee for Finance worked well with her. She was always approachable and she was always there to answer questions. We did not always like her answers to our questions, but, nonetheless, she was always available. She performed her role very well. I give credit where credit is due.

I also wish the new Finance Minister well. He has moved from one Department to another. It takes time to get to grips with a Department and its functions, so I wish him well in his endeavours. I believe that we all want the same thing in this place. Whether a Member of the Assembly or a member of the Executive, we all want to do our best for the people whom we represent.

I also pay tribute to my colleagues on the Finance Committee. Together, we are working well and doing scrutiny well, even though we do not always get the information that we desire in a timely fashion and even though we have to ask the same question on several occasions. We work well together, not least the Chair and the Deputy Chair. The vast knowledge and experience that those two individuals — Matthew O'Toole, the Chairperson, and Diane Forsythe, the Deputy Chairperson — bring to the table are clear. All members of the Committee value their expertise and life experience in this field.

I will address the issue around the accelerated passage. We have always granted accelerated passage for the Budget Bill, and I understand that there are good reasons for that. What I take grave exception to is the question that is put to the Committee, because I do not believe that we can truthfully state that we have had "appropriate consultation" when we do not have a Committee Stage. We guard, religiously and hard, our Committee Stage in every other Bill, but not with the Budget Bill. I understand why that is: I understand the fast-moving nature of the Budget Bill and that it needs to be imposed so that things can continue to be paid. However, I think that there is merit in looking at Standing Orders and changing the question that is put to the Finance Committee in which the Committee has to state that there has been "appropriate consultation". I am sure that we can find a form of words that changes that so that we do not feel uncomfortable with answering that question in the affirmative. To answer with a negative would put us in dire straits regarding our finances, and it would hurt people. We do not want to do that. I ask — I plead — that the Assembly looks at Standing Order 42(2) and the wording of the question. It comes from paragraph 20 of strand one of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and section 64(1) of the Northern Ireland Act.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Paul, here is your second intervention.

Mr Frew: OK.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate what you are saying, but it relates to the next item of business, when we will be looking at Standing Orders. Furthermore, I remind you and every other Member that the Committee on Procedures can change the wording of any Standing Order, at any stage. Please continue.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. You will be glad to know that I will not need to speak on the next item of business. I have put my views on record.

It is very important — it has always been — that our Budget Bills and our Programmes for Government, albeit in draft, are aligned completely, but that has never happened; that has never been the case. It is not right to say that it is the case today, simply because we have a draft Programme for Government, high level as it is. That draft Programme for Government may change following the consultation. We need to make sure that the Programme for Government informs the Budget Bill. Remember that the Budget Bill gives authority for 45% of the spend in next year's Budget. I cannot see any evidence on these blue pages of where the Programme for Government has informed the spend, the areas of spend and who gets what, where and when. I do not see that. There has to be some way to align and state in the clauses on the blue pages of the Budget Bill the Programme for Government's aims and objectives. That would make it easier for the MLAs who are not on the Finance Committee, or leads on other Committees, to understand the Budget Bill, what it does and the rationale for the millions here and there, or, as Timothy Gaston highlighted, the "trillions" here and the "trillions" there. That is a very important point.

It is important that all Executive members support the Budget Bills; there is a collective responsibility. I am glad to see that there will be support across the Executive table for the Budget Bill. I will wait to see what happens in the Budget (No. 2) Bill, which is a completely different animal. It is regrettable that the Ulster Unionists did not support the Bill in its primitive form, because it is basically the outworkings of it that are in this Budget Bill.

I will also speak about Health, because it represents a massive amount of spending in the Budget Bill: nearly 50% of the Budget. In fact, in this Bill, it is over 50%. As other Members have suggested, it is simply not good enough to give more money to the Department of Health when it refuses — refuses — to reform. The Health Department is absolutely ignoring its symptoms. If it does not seek wise counsel on those symptoms, it will collapse and, with it, care provision in this country. That is why it is important that we do not just give in to the relentless pressure to give more money here and more money there when the practices have to be reformed so that spending is more efficient. That is the same for every Department, not just Health. I see evidence of that reformation in other Departments: I see none in Health. That might be because they are so under the cosh or because our waiting list times are growing rather than shortening, and they cannot lift their heads. It is about time that the Health Minister realised what the symptoms are and dealt with them before they become much worse.

It is also clear that the Assembly and our people face unprecedented times. The Labour Government are being reckless with their employers' National Insurance hike. It is absolutely reckless, and I am being mild. The inheritance tax on the farming community is a ticking time bomb that could even lead to food shortages in some areas. Certainly, increases in the costs of doing business are rife. The Budget Bill authorises 45% of the spend in the next year, so I want to see where we are trying to rescue the situation and support our employers, our businesses and those who provide a service, not a product. Those who provide services cannot put the cost of the National Insurance burden on to a product: how are we supporting them? A lot of the voluntary and charity organisations support government. If they were not in place, the Government could not do their job. How does the Budget Bill support the organisations that provide a service on which the Government rely? I do not see it. It is important that we raise those issues.

We also talk about infrastructure. My colleague Deborah Erskine raised the fact that it is vital that we have appropriate investment in our infrastructure. It is not just about our roads and waste water infrastructure: if we do not spend adequate sums of the money in the Budget Bill on our infrastructure, people will die. That is why we need to take a more strategic look at how we spend money in Health. It has always been the cry that, if we do not spend more money on Health, people will die. However, if you do not spend more money on infrastructure, people will die. If you do not spend more money on the Department for Communities, people will die. It is as stark as that.
It is important that we get to grips with the strategic vision and direction that the Budget Bill will take. I have been through so many Budget debates, as have other Members across the Chamber. It seems that we do this robotic thing: Committee Chairs and party leads record in Hansard their gripes, complaints and concerns. Valid as those are, we just go through the motions. When will we see strategic thought and vision coming from the Executive?

I will mention, as I always do, the issue of sole authority. I am glad to see that we are making progress and that the amount is coming down. However, even the £24·5 million that is based on sole authority could be quickly reduced by Departments bringing forward Bills. Where is the legislation? That is a very important point because we have a Fiscal Council Bill sitting there to put the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing: where is it? Where is the financial provisions Bill from the Department of Finance that would do away with all the Executive Office's sole authority black boxes. Of course, the biggest one is the welfare reform mitigations, and the Minister has promised that a Bill will be forthcoming this year.

I must applaud the progress that has been made. It is because of the pressure that the Finance Committee has placed on the Executive over the past number of years that we have got the level of black-boxing of expenditure under sole authority of the Budget Act down and could see an end to it. I am sure that we need to keep the black box facility and spending under the sole authority of the Budget Act for things that happen, especially on welfare reform mitigation and everything that comes with it, and emergencies that come to the fore in-year. I am not talking about getting rid of the sole authority of the Budget Act or the black-box system, but I want to see their use reduced further. It is not right that the Department of Finance has relied for so long and for so many millions of pounds on black-box authority.

The DUP Ministers have stepped up with legislation: where is the legislation promised by other Ministers? We ain't seeing it. It is certainly not happening in the Department of Finance. We were promised Bills last July, and we are still waiting for them. It is important that we raise the issues, because, while the Budget Bill is a lot to do with the money that we get, there is also the element in the Budget that relates to the rates base. There is always a cry — mostly from the Opposition but also from Sinn Féin — for more fiscal powers. We should not get more fiscal powers to supplement Budget Bills when we can see, as was raised yesterday, that there is a £2·45 billion overspend on major capital projects. That is shattering. That money could be spent in so many ways; for example, on new schools and new hospitals. We have a state-of-the-art, brand spanking new hospital that cannot even be opened and used. We have £119 million in unpaid rates that we cannot get in. We have had £65 million in rates written off. What could that £65 million do? There are still major issues in the Executive and the Department of Finance that need to be resolved before we can even have a grown-up debate and conversation about taking on further fiscal powers. We cannot deal with the powers that we already have: why would we need more? It is important that all Ministers get to grips with their Departments and ensure that they are performing properly.

I heard the Minister of Finance defending his Department yesterday. I take exception to that. The Minister has been in his Department for five minutes. I am not sure that he will have got to grips yet with the performance of the Department of Finance.

Mr O'Dowd: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will, yes.

Mr O'Dowd: I was not just defending my Department; I was defending the Civil Service against what I believed to be an unjustified attack. As the Member has stated, I have been around the Executive table in different modes for a number of years, so I am familiar with how the Civil Service works. When individual civil servants fail, they should be held to account like everyone else. However, pointing the finger of blame solely at the Civil Service for the delays in building projects is wrong.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind the Member that mentioning the Budget Bill and then straying all over the shop is not going to cut it. I ask you to address your remarks to the Budget Bill.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will again bend to your ruling and try to — will keep to the Budget Bill as much as I can.

It is important that, with the Budget Bill, we ensure that we have strategic vision and direction. I just do not see that happening well enough. I do not see the Civil Service functioning well enough to produce that, perform it and play it out and to spend the millions of pounds that we have appropriately and efficiently. It is not just about the Department of Finance or the Department of Health; it is about many other Departments.

Whilst we see millions here, there and everywhere in the blue pages of the Bill, I want to see greater alignment with the Programme for Government. I want to see greater efficiencies in our Civil Service, and I want us to get a bang for our buck every time we pay tax and rates. I want to see that money used wisely. For the life of me, I cannot see it yet.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is much appreciated.

Sinéad, you are down to be the next Member to speak, but it is nearly 1.00 pm, and I do not think that it is fair on you to ask you to start, only to interrupt you for a suspension. You will be the first Member to speak after Question Time. Is that fair enough? OK.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. This item of business will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Sinéad McLaughlin. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Trusts are responsible for delivering the screening services that they provide. They have a statutory duty of quality. Each trust is responsible for maintaining internal structures to support quality improvement and local coordination of screening services. They are also charged with ensuring that their workforce is appropriately trained. The Public Health Agency provides oversight and external quality assurance for screening programmes. It is also responsible for maintaining structures to support quality improvement and coordination of the screening programmes across Northern Ireland.

Screening programmes have a learning event protocol that sets out the arrangements between the trusts and the Public Health Agency to support a culture of shared learning in order to improve the quality and safety of the programmes. Any issue, regardless of its impact, including near misses, should be reported immediately by the trust to the relevant screening team in the PHA. The team will then work collaboratively with the trust to investigate, review and implement any actions recommended because of the investigation. For more serious incidents or if more than one trust is involved, an incident management team will be established with involvement from relevant stakeholders. Serious adverse incidents (SAIs) are notified under the regional procedure for the reporting and following up of SAIs.

Individual learning events are discussed at regular meetings between the PHA and the trusts, and a summary of learning events is reviewed at regular regional quality assurance meetings with an emphasis on sharing lessons learned with other, unaffected trusts, identifying trends that require further investigation and agreeing mitigating actions to reduce the chance of recurrence. The learning event protocols are regularly reviewed and updated accordingly.

Mrs Guy: Minister, thank you for the answer. Was that protocol in place between 2008 and 2021, considering the significant number of women, particularly in the Southern Trust, who were placed at considerable risk in those years? Who is accountable for the lack of adherence to that protocol?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her interest in the issue, which goes much broader than a protocol. I have no doubt that she was shocked, as was I, at the time that passed before there were the right interventions.

The screening programme encompasses a range of services provided by the trusts, GPs and the Business Services Organisation (BSO). We have had a number of reports on what went wrong with the occurrences in the Southern Trust. I await some quality assurance reports, and I will then decide on the way forward. The point is that it does not matter what protocols are in place; it is whether they are effective and are followed. Clearly, something went badly wrong and affected a really large number of women. I am determined that we will get to the bottom of it. The questions that we must ask are, "What went wrong? Why did it go wrong? Who was responsible for it going wrong? What steps can we put in place to ensure that it never happens again or, at least, to minimise the chances of it happening again?".

Mrs Dillon: Minister, with regard to Mrs Guy's questions about the protocols, are you saying that something has changed and that something new has been implemented to ensure that the PHA has that overarching responsibility to ensure that what happens in the trusts' screening programmes is being done effectively and properly and that there are no issues? Also, will you give us some reassurance on the accreditation status of the HPV screening services in the Belfast Trust that are currently in place? I would encourage every woman to have her screening and smear test done.

Mr Nesbitt: I join the Member in encouraging women not to be shy and not to be put off going for screening because it is important that they do so. The issues about Belfast's accreditation I will characterise as more technical than real issues with regard to the quality of the screening, and that is being addressed.

For the overall picture on screening, we follow the advice of the UK National Screening Committee, so I am satisfied that everything that should be done is being done to ensure the quality of screening operations in Health and Social Care (HSC) in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, I noticed that you did not answer the last question. The Belfast Trust has been given the contract for the regional cervical screening programme for Northern Ireland, despite the fact that it is not yet accredited for such screening. Is the Minister satisfied with the decision to award the contract to the Belfast Trust? During a recent Committee meeting in Daisy Hill Hospital, the PHA admitted that it was short-staffed and was having to send tests to Gateshead in Newcastle to clear a backlog of screening. In awarding the contract in that way, the Minister bypassed two trusts — the Northern Trust and the Western Trust — that are fully accredited.

Mr Speaker: Please get to your question, Mrs Dodds.

Mrs Dodds: The award of that contract resulted in the resignation of two senior members of the service.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her remarks. The awarding of the contract was the appropriate and best way to go forward. I accept that there have been workforce issues. There has also been an issue with some equipment, but, as I said in my previous answer, any issues with accreditation are more about technical and administrative issues than with the quality of what is being done. It is, of course, a matter of regret that some of the tests had to be exported to get the results expedited, but we are moving in the right direction to providing that screening.

Mr Beattie: To tie this down and clarify, will the Minister advise who is ultimately responsible for the policy decisions in relation to the screening programme?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank my colleague for the question. The Department is guided, as I have said, by the UK National Screening Committee. It is an independent committee that advises Ministers and health services across the four UK countries on all aspects of screening. Its recommendations are evidence-based about whether to introduce, continue, change or withdraw screening programmes for a variety of conditions. In addition, there is a Northern Ireland screening committee that considers recommendations from the UK National Screening Committee. It is chaired by the Chief Medical Officer and provides policy advice to me and has a specific focus on implementation issues in Northern Ireland. I then consider and make my decision on screening policy in Northern Ireland on the basis of the advice, as I said, of the UK National Screening Committee and, indeed, the Northern Ireland committee.

Mr Durkan: With regard to bowel cancer screening, we still lag behind the other regions of the UK on the age range for screening. How and when will we see that disparity addressed?

Mr Nesbitt: I have been talking with officials with a view to expanding it, and that is part of the three-year plan that I published recently. It is dependent on budget and finance and on workforce. I would like to see it offered from the age of 50 upwards, and that is an ambition that I will work towards within the confines of budget and workforce.

Mr Nesbitt: The draft Budget allocation does not align with the draft Programme for Government, as it provides no additional funding for waiting list reductions, despite waiting lists supposedly having been identified as an Executive-wide priority. Indeed, the draft Programme for Government states:

That is despite the fact that waiting lists are one of the nine priorities in that draft document. This will be the second consecutive year where no such money has been provided by the Executive.

Overall, my Department's proposed allocation for the financial year 2025-26 represents a small increase in funding compared with 2024-25. However, it will not be sufficient to cover the significant increases in costs that we will face. That is due to a number of factors, including pay and price inflation; the increase in National Insurance contributions for GPs, pharmacists and social care providers; and, of course, rising demand. As a result, my Department projects a funding gap of some £400 million for the financial year 2025-26, with Health and Social Care system being asked to deliver in the region of £200 million in new savings for the second year running. Even then, it is anticipated that significant in-year monitoring round allocations will be required to break even. The assumption that savings on that scale are achievable is not without considerable risk. It will inevitably have consequences for service delivery, including waiting times. With the draft Budget allocation, I challenge the Assembly and the Executive to consider honestly how they can expect us to achieve a reduction in waiting lists.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his response, which nails the myth promoted by some that a vague reference in the Programme for Government is somehow an illustration of prioritisation. Does the Minister agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for some MLAs in the Chamber to demand additional investment in existing services while actively supporting a Budget that does not give him the resources that he needs?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I agree that there is an irony in the fact that, despite being warned of its potential impact on healthcare delivery, Members will vote for a Budget and then write to me almost daily to request that I consider additional funding for a new service here — bowel cancer screening, for example — and a new service there. At least one Member a week writes to me about the cross-border initiative. That initiative was so successful that we wanted to do it again; in fact, it formed part of a £135 million bid for waiting lists that was submitted to the Department of Finance but not supported by the Executive. From memory, that meant that around 4,000 people failed to get procedures. Yes, the irony klaxon sounds daily in the Department of Health.

Ms Flynn: Minister, I take into account the fact that you are completely constrained when it comes to additional funding requirements and that you find it difficult to bring on board any new projects or to expand funding. Can you elaborate on core grant funding under the current budget and how that looks for this financial year? Some groups that had been in receipt of that funding, such as the Samaritans and Carers NI, have been in contact.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her interest in the core grant scheme. When I took up my post, the scheme effectively did not exist, in that no money had been allocated to it. I was not happy with that position, so, following negotiations with the permanent secretary and others, we identified £1·8 million to go towards the core grant scheme. That is about 50% of what I would have liked that funding to be.

The other issue that I had with the core grant scheme was that it had not been reviewed for over 20 years. That meant that any community or voluntary sector group that had come into existence in the past 20 years was precluded from applying for a core grant. I therefore spoke to the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), which kindly agreed to chair a co-design process, and we now have a new core grant scheme. We have just allocated the £1·8 million. Those in receipt of a core grant have got their letter, and those who were unsuccessful have been offered feedback. I intend to open up the next tranche of core grant funding in the autumn.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister outline his priorities for the Department over the next year, specifically his priorities for the 2025-26 budget allocations?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I have already published a three-year plan that covers my intentions and ambitions for the remainder of the mandate. We will shortly follow that up with a more detailed and costed plan for financial year 2025-26.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I acknowledge and have sympathy with some of the arguments that you have made about other Executive parties' hypocrisy, but would it not be easier to get political support and buy-in and, indeed, public engagement on your budgetary needs if the Programme for Government were more specific about the actions that you intend to take? Compare it with the Southern Programme for Government. I do not endorse it or say that it is deliverable, but it states:

I am not saying that those are the right or wrong targets, but they are clear targets to which the Minister and the Government can be held accountable. Would it help you to build political support if the Programme for Government had that level of detail?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the leader of the Opposition for those comments. I am more focused on the three-year plan. I do not see what is wrong with reading the three-year plan and seeing that I have targets of 46,000 additional appointments and 11,000 procedures between now and 2027.

Mr Nesbitt: Oncology teams and surgical teams that manage cancer patients strive to minimise the need for emergency department visits. Every hospital trust in Northern Ireland has a 24-hour systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) telephone advice service. Patients are encouraged to contact their treating unit through that service if they feel unwell during or within six weeks of completing SACT treatment, or within 12 months of completing immunotherapy treatment.

Similarly, cancer patients who have recently undergone surgical treatment receive verbal and written discharge advice, including instructions on how to access the surgical team and advice on under what circumstances they may need to seek emergency care. When a cancer patient is referred to an emergency department by their GP, they will be triaged, stabilised and assessed by the ED team based on clinical priority and within the physical and staffing constraints of the emergency department. If necessary, the ED team will contact the relevant oncology or surgical team to assess and admit that patient.

In addition, each trust has an acute oncology service that aims to provide a coordinated approach to the care of cancer patients suspected of having a first diagnosis in the emergency setting or of those who are admitted acutely ill due either to the disease or to complications with treatment. That service currently operates on a five-day, nine-to-five model across all trusts. Extending the acute oncology service to seven-day working is a recommendation of the Northern Ireland cancer strategy, but, due to budgetary constraints, that has not been progressed. Work is still progressing to assess demand and to develop appropriate pathways, with costed proposals to extend the service being considered, based, again, on available funding.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for his answer. I have a number of constituents, including elderly individuals, who are terminally ill with cancer and are still being referred by their GP to the emergency department. I am aware of numerous cases, which I have forwarded to the Western Trust, of those individuals having to lie on chairs for up to five days before being treated. Do you agree that urgent action needs to be taken, particularly in respect of cancer patients, who have a suppressed immune system? They need to have priority status, and we need to look at other options so that they do not lie in A&E for what is sometimes days.

Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely agree with the Member. After Christmas, I visited seven EDs, including Altnagelvin, which, as the Member knows, is the oldest of our type-1 EDs. Altnagelvin is more than ready for a replacement ED, and I hope that there will be one, although it may be five years before we get to that point. When I was in that ED, I spoke to people who had been in the same chair for four days. That is not acceptable under any circumstances. I met a man there who has since, sadly, passed away. He had cancer. He was on a trolley and had been for a number of days. He made it to a hospital bed for, I think, his last 24 or 48 hours on this earth.

On GP referrals, the Northern Ireland Cancer Network has developed a resource for GPs to try to assist them in managing mild to moderate side effects, but I think that the Member is talking about much more serious conditions. I assure the Member that I am aware that more work needs to be done in this area and that that work will be done.

Mr Dickson: Minister, what plans do you have to expand the vague symptoms pathway to rapid diagnostic centres? Do you intend to expand those beyond Whiteabbey and Dungannon?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his interest in the area. I have visited the rapid diagnostic centre in Dungannon. It is a first-class service. I was assured that, if you present with one of those vague symptoms, you will be checked in, you will be assessed, you will have your scan and, within two hours, you will get your result — hopefully, one that is pleasing and agreeable to you.

I have no particular plans to expand the service, because, as I have already said, although Members are standing up, telling me to, "Do more here, do more there, expand this, introduce that" — where is the money? Show me the money, and I will do it.

Mr McNulty: It is my understanding that patients diagnosed with cancer in emergency departments have a significantly lower chance of survival than those with a referral. How will you address that sad reality, Minister?

Mr Nesbitt: It is a fact that people who visit emergency departments are not in a good place. The longer they stay, the greater the risk to their health. There are solid statistics for that. I am not aware of the exact statistics on cancer that the Member mentions, but the general point is made and is accepted. It is not acceptable that people have long waits in emergency departments. I can assure the Member that I am not the only one in charge of delivering healthcare who is focused on that and on trying to find solutions.

Mr Nesbitt: I recognise that arrangements for clinical negligence indemnity are a matter of concern for GPs locally. My Department has been exploring options for a long-term future for GP indemnity. I recognise that progress in that work has taken longer than expected. However, in fairness, that reflects the complexity of the issue.

I had committed to the work concluding with proposals for a long-term solution by the end of the 2024 calendar year. I am pleased to advise that, after careful consideration of a wide range of options, I have identified what is, I believe, the best, most appropriate option to address this key issue for the longer term.

As part of the 2025-26 contract negotiations, my Department met the Northern Ireland General Practitioners Committee. We have provided details of the long-term proposal. I am hopeful that we will be able to reach agreement on that important matter soon. I am aware that representatives of that committee have briefed the Health Committee on the indemnity offer. As that is still the subject of an ongoing negotiation, it would not be appropriate to comment on the detail of those discussions.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for that update, though I suspect that, given the end of his answer, he will not answer this next question: what is the rationale for excluding locum and sessional GPs from the proposed indemnity scheme? Is it not the case that, by excluding those GPs, those costs will be passed on to practices and will therefore undermine the stabilising effect of any scheme?

Mr Nesbitt: It is my understanding that we are negotiating with practices rather than with individual GPs. I want to be careful in what I say, because we are not over the line, and it is an issue that, in my assessment, has become quite toxic over the past number of years and is affecting the relationship between the Department and primary care. There are other issues in primary care that we want primary care to address. The primary one is access. I am sure that every Member of the House, as a constituency MLA, has constituents coming to them weekly, if not daily, with issues to do with accessing their GPs. With respect to the Member, I do not want to go any further, because those negotiations are not over the line, and, in my mind, the question of indemnity may open up another discussion about access to primary care.

Mr McGuigan: I take on board the Minister's caution, given that negotiations are ongoing. He mentioned opening up access in the final part of his answer to Mr Tennyson. Does the Minister agree that resolving the indemnity issue would have a very positive impact on opening up and providing greater access to GP services?

Mr Nesbitt: That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. If we can deal with the, as I describe it, fairly toxic issue of GP indemnity and put a long-term solution in place, it gives me, I think, permission, as it were, to go back and ask, "Can we now look at an issue that is very toxic for me and for Members of the House, which is constituents finding it difficult to get access to their GP?".

Mr Chambers: Minister, I very much welcome the fact that an offer and a longer-term potential solution have been identified. If agreed, I hope that those will allow an even greater focus on how primary care can undoubtedly assist with the Minister's shift-left agenda. Does the Minister agree that primary care has the potential to play an even greater role in addressing some of the many elective challenges that are being faced within secondary care?

Mr Nesbitt: I have made it clear that my ambition is to rebalance how HSC services are delivered to facilitate a greater proportion of care being provided by primary care, community care and social care to get it as close to people's homes as possible to relieve some of the pressure on secondary care. That will require a combination of investment in the core general medical services contract through the GP contract and in the wider primary care services and workforce.

When I first talked about shifting left, there was concern, particularly among doctors and people who work in primary care, that I would be asking them to do more for the same amount of money. That is not the case. I recognise that if we are going to ask them to do more, we will have to pay and commission them to do so. The challenge is how to get away from the pressures on our acute hospitals outright because that is where all the really expensive procedures take place. Therefore, if you can focus on prevention and early intervention, maybe you will relieve a bit of the pressure on the acute hospitals and release some cash, which can be put into primary care.

Mr Nesbitt: My Department is committed to ensuring equitable and timely access to cancer diagnosis and treatment for all residents in Northern Ireland, regardless of location. It is important to understand whether individuals in rural areas face different challenges or barriers compared with those in urban areas when it comes to a cancer diagnosis. We have to understand any differences that exist. Therefore, my Department funded the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry at Queen's University Belfast to develop a research project on routes to diagnosis.

That project aims to identify the key event in each cancer patient's pathway that most directly led to their cancer diagnosis, whether that was through a GP red-flag referral, a screening programme, an emergency department or any other route. The project also examines the cancer stage at diagnosis by the route of diagnosis. The research will highlight any demographic inequalities in the diagnostic routes that need to be addressed. Identifying and addressing those disparities is essential to promoting early cancer detection, improving survival rates and reducing cancer mortality for all.

The most recent report of the project, published in 2024, provides findings for patients who were diagnosed in the period 2018-2020. It includes analysis by demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, trust area and social deprivation. The Northern Ireland Cancer Registry is now working on a follow-up report for patients diagnosed between 2018 and 2021, which will provide an analysis of their routes to diagnosis and of the differences between those who live in urban and rural locations.

Mr Donnelly: The Minister recently attended the excellent "Nip it in the Bud" event in the Long Gallery, which was held by the Farming Community Network and Macmillan Cancer Support. He will be aware that people in rural areas with an advanced cancer diagnosis are 5% less likely to survive than people in urban areas with an advanced cancer diagnosis, which is completely unacceptable. I appreciate his answer about routes to a diagnosis and wonder what else he is doing to reduce the barriers to cancer care in farming and rural areas?

Mr Nesbitt: I will take a broader run at answering the Member's question. He will be aware that the area of health inequalities is where I want to put a focus in my remaining time as Minister. The term "health inequalities" is almost shorthand for three things: inequalities, as in outcomes; health inequities, as in access to healthcare; and health literacy, because people in some areas, particularly areas of deprivation, do not know how to navigate the health and social care system in the way that Members might.

The rural challenges are greater than the urban challenges. The Live Better initiative to tackle health inequalities is running in two demonstration areas. Those areas were deliberately chosen because they are tight urban areas, so the empirical evidence can be collected more easily, which will be much harder to do over a rural geographic spread. That does not mean that we are going to ignore the rural areas.

It just means that I need to be able to go back to my Executive colleagues and say, "Here is really solid empirical evidence that these interventions work. Now we are going to face the test of making them work in rural areas, which are more challenging". That will include cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: It is my ambition that there be a UK-wide facility that would bring on any drug. NICE and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency give us advice, and that is the advice that we follow. In this instance, it is my understanding that the Belfast Trust makes the decision on whether this young man is allowed that drug. I am following up with the Belfast Trust to further understand its decision-making process. Several Members have approached me about this new drug for their constituents. Although I am not a clinician, on the face of it, it looks as though it is a revolutionary and very positive development, and I am keen to see it rolled out at pace, particularly for a young man such as the one whom you referenced.

Mr McGrath: I reiterate the point about moving "at pace", because timing is critical. If the people involved do not get access to the drug before the start of muscle wastage, the drug is of no use to them. The word that Alfie used today about not getting access to the drug was "cruel". That is the word of a 12-year-old to Members of this Assembly. It is cruel, and I hope that we can overcome and ensure that he, along with others, is able to get access to those drugs.

Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that I am on that case. It is a matter of coincidence, I believe, that one of the very first events that I went to in this Building after being elected for the first time in 2011 was organised by my predecessor as Minister of Health, Robin Swann. It was a constituency event about Duchenne, so it has been on my radar for a long time. I am now aware that the new drug is becoming available, and I do not want to see it restricted from young men. This young man will lose the power to walk, I understand, in relatively short order if we do not do something.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question, and I found it most interesting to attend that event yesterday in the Long Gallery. I will attempt to answer her question by referring to the rare diseases action plan, because the disease that she is talking about is just one of many rare diseases. The point that I was trying to make in my remarks yesterday was that, although we may refer to rare diseases as those diseases that rarely affect people, in fact, in the totality of rare diseases, we are talking about 110,000 people in Northern Ireland. Well over 100,000 people are, in one way or another, affected by a rare disease. So, let us not consider rare diseases as something that affect only a handful of people.

On that basis, my Department recently published the year 2 progress report for the Northern Ireland rare diseases action plan. That was back in September, and it details good progress, including additional genome sequencing of people living with a rare condition who do not yet have a diagnosis, progression of rare disease care pathways for several paediatric and adult services and success in a number of important bid applications to external research organisations to progress the rare disease information hub and clinical trials. I say to the Member that I will go from the House and ensure that we are looking at a pathway to deal with that condition.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for that. I appreciate that it was only yesterday, and I have no intention of bouncing him. For people who have already been diagnosed with the condition, what steps will the Minister take to ensure consistency across the trusts in the timing of appropriate treatment and appointments?

Mr Nesbitt: I will answer that question with a generalisation. Although we have five geographic health trusts, it is my ambition that the trusts will deliver standardised, regional services that are consistent no matter the condition or issue that they address. One of the challenges that I have put to the chairs and chief execs of the trusts is to find where best practice exists in treating any particular condition, roll it out and make it common practice across the trusts. The logic of that is compelling, and, nine months in, I have yet to fully understand the barriers and obstacles to that happening. They clearly exist, however, because we still have what are commonly referred to as postcode lotteries. We have to stop that. We have to have health equity. Everybody has to be able to get a best-practice service when they need it.

Mr Nesbitt: It would be if I had the funding, but I gently remind the Member of what I said earlier. We made a bid of £135 million to tackle our waiting lists. That included a significant sum to treat — the figure of 4,000 patients springs to mind. I would love to be able to do it. It was popular. It was successful. It made sense and it took a big chunk out of a number of waiting lists. What was not to like about it? Unfortunately, all budgets are constrained and limited, and I cannot make it a priority when I have a £400 million gap in my projected spend according to the draft Budget 2025-26. My two priorities, frankly, are to avoid having to make any cuts that fall into the "catastrophic" category, such as closing an intensive care bed in an acute hospital, and to avoid industrial action by staff.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. Does the Minister know the potential cost of the cross-border scheme?

Mr Nesbitt: The cost of a cross-border scheme would depend on the procedures that we commissioned and the number of people we commissioned them for, so there is no set figure.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member, and I share his concern. Those things are societal issues, I am afraid, but it is a matter of utter regret that they are making their way on to health and social care campuses and that they are happening to health and social care staff beyond the curtilage of hospitals and other health and social care sites. I advise the Member that that issue was first addressed in some depth in recent times towards the end of 2023, when the trusts and the union side came together to agree the paper 'Violence and Aggression in the Workplace' in NHS settings.

The pilot scheme for body-worn video in the Belfast Trust is helpful. As a member of the Policing Board, I was impressed with the impact of the use of body-worn video by officers in the PSNI. I would like to see that pilot successfully concluded and rolled out. We must have zero tolerance of attacks. We must be imaginative and generous in what we do to protect health and social care staff.

Mr McGuigan: I appreciate the Minister's answer. In a four-to-five-year period to 2023, there were 50,000 reported incidents of violence against healthcare staff. It would be interesting to know what the figures have been since. You will be aware, Minister, that, in 2023, your Department launched a new regional framework to address the issue. It would be useful to get your assessment as to whether that framework has been implemented and your assessment of it, going beyond what you have said about body-worn video.

Mr Nesbitt: I am more than happy to provide the up-to-date figures for the Member and my assessment of whether we are moving in the right direction and of what more, if anything, can be done to protect our staff.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his interest in this important issue. I assure him that the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) is looking at this. One of the big issues is hybrid closed-loop systems for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes. The SPPG will bring me its recommendations for a future strategy.

Mr Harvey: Thank you for your response, Minister. The transition from paediatric to adult care for young adults suffering diabetes can result in a reduction in funding and choice of treatment. How will you address those inconsistencies and ensure safe transition for young diabetics leaving paediatric care?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. I do not have a specific answer for him on that transition, but, across a number of healthcare services, transitioning to adulthood is far from good enough in my opinion. It is an issue that has exercised me since taking up post. I think, for example, of ADHD and autism. For children with learning disabilities, there tends to be what is commonly known as a "cliff edge" when you transition to adulthood. That should not be the case. It has been so for some time and it is time to say enough is enough, and we need to address it. I thank the Member for alerting me that that also includes the issue of diabetes. It is now on my radar, and I thank him.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. There have been a number of initiatives. Consultants have been validating the waiting list. More procedures have been carried out by the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, which is the regional centre for PEG procedures. Training has been provided by the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children to facilitate those procedures taking place at the Ulster Hospital, which involves making the workforce appropriately trained and motivated. Therefore, some significant effort has been made to address the waiting list. I do not try to deceive the Member: the waiting list is still too long.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer and the steps that have been taken. When does he think that Northern Ireland can align with NHS England standards, where children newly added to the waiting list are operated on within four to six months?

Mr Nesbitt: The independent Fiscal Council made clear that for us to deliver health and social care services on a par with England would require our budget to go up to £104 to £107 for every £100 spent by NHS England.

In fact, the Appleby report said that, if we were to include social care, we would need £109 for every £100 that NHS England spends. That is the comparator to get to where the Member wants NHS Northern Ireland, as it were, to get to. The draft Budget for next year puts us at £101·05, so it will not be possible to achieve what the Member wants.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Health.

Ms McLaughlin: At the outset, I welcome John O'Dowd to his new ministerial position, and I thank Caoimhe Archibald for her service to the Department of Finance.

We all know that we are not short on challenges in Northern Ireland. Years of stop-start government and mismanagement from Westminster mean that we face a difficult settlement here and have profound issues to address. I take the opportunity to recognise that the Executive operate within difficult financial constraints, and, of course, we know that there is not enough money to do everything that Ministers or the public would like to see done. I accept that that work is not easy, but we all put ourselves forward for public office on the basis that we will fix challenges for the people whom we serve, and now is the time to get on with that job. Unfortunately, the Budget Bill does not meet the challenges and marks more of the same from the Executive, continuing with a status quo that ran out of road a long time ago.

People here rightly deserve a long-term strategic plan to address our challenges now that the Government are back up and running. The Budget Bill and the Programme for Government (PFG) should always be aligned, but that has never happened. All too often, government lacks the creativity and ambition to get to grips with the issues that we face. Take financial transactions capital (FTC) as an example in the Budget Bill: millions remain unspent while crucial capital projects sit waiting to be delivered. Take the Barnett consequentials: we should have ring-fenced that funding in recent years to deal with the huge childcare costs that families face. We have not yet met that challenge, and parents still pay the price.

I will make three points to the Chamber and the Minister, not about the money that we have but about the way in which we do things. First, we need to see multi-year budgeting, which is a cause that, I know, the Finance Minister agrees with, so that future Budgets can be more effective. We are yet to see any progress on that. Secondly, we need to see the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council (NIFC) put on a statutory footing. For some time, the SDLP has been calling for that to happen without delay. We are pleased to see it included in the 2024 legislative programme, but it now needs to be delivered. Thirdly, there is regional balance. Members of the Executive and the Finance Minister in particular rightly and frequently go on the airwaves and into meetings with the British Government to make the case for needs-based funding for Northern Ireland, and that is as it should be. We look forward to reading the results of the independent review of the fiscal framework to determine the scale of the need that we experience here.

It is so important that we get it right, but it seems that we never apply the same logic when we eventually spend that money here at home, as we will see as a consequence of the Budget Bill. If we are so enthusiastic about and persuaded of the case for needs-based funding for Northern Ireland, why are we not as enthusiastic about adopting a needs-based approach to our spending here? Why do we not have a formula that directs health funding to the places with the worst health outcomes? Why do we have confusion over education funding, which seems to make little sense to the public? Why do we not see positive discrimination of the kind that the Northern and Western Regional Assembly (NWRA) has called for, whereby we overinvest in the places that have been left behind? Investing more in the places that need it is our argument in front of the Chancellor on our trips to London. I simply argue that that should be our argument in front of the public as well, and we should follow through with action by modelling what we ask for.

We can meet the challenges only if we have effective long-term government budgeting linked to the outcomes that we want to achieve with detail and strategic priorities. That is the task ahead, and we look forward to ensuring that the voices of the people whom we represent are heard and acted on as those consequential decisions are taken by the Government.

Ms Forsythe: I record my sincere thanks to the Department of Finance Budget officials who regularly and comprehensively brief our Finance Committee on departmental finance and the wider Budget process. They do an excellent job, and we on the Finance Committee want to support their good work and ensure that other Committees are able to conduct the same quality of scrutiny of their Department's accounts. It is concerning that so many other Committees have concerns about the lack of detail on aspects of their Department's finances.

On the Department of Finance accounts specifically, I thank the Finance Minister and his predecessor, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, who, with the support of their officials, have led by example through their professionalism in returns, their management of balanced budget targets and their provision of detailed projections, including highlighting in this week's Committee papers the specific additional cost to the Department of Finance core of the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. I encourage the Minister, from his central position of oversight, to share how they did that and ask other Departments to follow suit to provide more complete and meaningful budget projections to help Committees in their scrutiny.

As I noted yesterday, it is unacceptable that we do not have clear sight of the total cost of the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. I welcome the Minister's opening remarks, in which he committed to writing to the Finance Committee and working with us to clarify the progress on that. The Minister said that the problem is that Treasury has not yet said how much it will provide, but we need to see clarity on the total cost. How much is it, and how much has the Minister asked Treasury for?

We welcome it once again that, in the forthcoming 2025-26 year, we will go forward with a draft Budget and a draft Programme for Government, and we aim to have those aligned. It is our hope and expectation that all parties and Ministers will support the Budget Bill. As we look into the new financial year, we need to make sure that all Departments take steps to ensure that they deliver value for money within the allocations provided. Steps need to be taken to ensure that projects are delivered on time and within budget.

The recent Audit Office report highlighted the £2·45 billion overspend on major capital projects, about which there are serious questions to be answered. Comments have been made on the issue, but I do not feel that the blame is being laid solely at the feet of civil servants. There has been a failure to follow up on significant recommendations that span six years, and there are responsibilities for everyone here. An overspend of £2·45 billion on major capital projects is a serious amount of money, and we really need to be seen to address that for the confidence of the public.

In the Department of Finance, we see the increasing cost of public-sector sick pay. It cost £44 million in 2023-24 and is set to increase this year. With individual Departments saying that it is a Department of Finance issue to manage sick leave and the Department of Finance having no targets to reduce or investigate cultures, it is of huge concern and needs to be addressed. We need to value our Civil Service staff and understand what is happening there.

Another significant issue is the level of uncollected rates debt in Northern Ireland, which my colleague Paul Frew mentioned. The proposal to remove reliefs from those who already pay their rates is out for consultation. That will squeeze them further to raise £2 million or £4 million on those items. On the other hand, over £115 million worth of prior years' rates bills have still not been collected, and £65 million worth of rates bills were written off in the past five years. Rather than increasing taxes further for hard-pressed families and businesses who already pay, why not focus on collecting the huge outstanding bills that would increase revenue substantially more?

Those are just some of the concerning issues that need to be addressed. Every Department needs to demonstrate its work to reduce the waste of resources.

We support the progression of the Budget Bill today, but we do so with our eyes wide open to the real financial challenges that we face. We need to move forward with a collective approach in the Assembly and from our Ministers to send a strong message to ratepayers that we are committed to facing the financial pressures that lie ahead and to delivering front-line services.

Ms Mulholland: First, I welcome the Minister to his new role. I am sure that he is delighted that I will not be haranguing him about landslides any more. I wish him well in his new role.

As I am a member of the Communities Committee, I will focus my remarks on the Department for Communities, and that will be the crux of my contribution. As a former youth worker and a strong advocate of social justice and inclusion, I have seen at first hand how much a Budget matters, not just in economic terms but to those whom I represent. A Budget determines whether families have a home and whether they can heat that home; whether communities are safe; whether people have somewhere to turn to in crisis, such as ill health or bereavement; and whether we can support people back into work.

In the main, the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Budget Bill are backward-looking, reflecting changes that take place between the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates through in-year monitoring rounds, so it is crucial that we take stock of the financial trajectory of the Department for Communities over the past year. The Department plays a vital role in supporting some of our most vulnerable from providing housing and welfare support to tackling social exclusion, as well as supporting the arts, culture and sport sectors.

At the outset of the financial year, the Department faced significant pressures. The resource bids outstripped available funding threefold, and similar constraints were evident in the capital allocations. Evidently, the challenge for the Department has been to manage limited resources effectively while striving to meet the growing demand for services.

It is clear that one of the key priorities for the Department over the past year has been housing. At various monitoring rounds throughout the year, additional funding was secured for social housing new builds, reflecting the urgent need in our communities for more affordable homes. However, challenges remain in meeting that demand, particularly in homelessness interventions, where increasing pressures continue to strain resources. Additionally, there is the monthly cost of temporary accommodation. The cladding safety scheme also received targeted funding, highlighting the Department's commitment to ensuring safer living conditions for tenants. In the October monitoring round, £24 million was allocated for new-build social housing, but, as I said, demand continues to exceed supply.

The Department has also had to navigate increased demand for welfare support. Discretionary support and homelessness prevention received allocations to help to mitigate the rising hardship, particularly in light of changes to welfare policy and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. The winter fuel support allocation of £17 million was a key intervention, demonstrating a focus, albeit rather unfocused, on protecting those at risk of fuel poverty. However, that was a reactive measure rather than a long-term strategic solution to the underlying issue of financial instability for vulnerable households, which, obviously, leads us back to the lack of an anti-poverty strategy.

Yesterday, we heard that £12 million is being used to mitigate welfare payments for those moving to universal credit from legacy benefits. It is noted that the Minister intends to put welfare mitigations on a statutory footing, but we need to stop relying on the sole authority of the Budget Bill to fill the gap where legislation is not forthcoming. We expect to see that welfare legislation in the next six weeks, so we should not be in the position next year of looking at £12 million coming out on the sole authority of the Budget Bill.

Beyond welfare and housing, the Department secured funding to further support the arts and cultural initiatives, with a £500,000 allocation to protect those vital sectors. However, some, including me, would argue that that is not nearly enough to sustain and nurture a thriving sector that contributes so much for so little. The Supporting People programme, which assists those with additional housing needs, also received funding in that monitoring round, but ongoing demand highlights the challenge of ensuring that there is consistent and sustainable support for those who rely on those services. It is not good enough that, in some cases, those working in that sector live on a month-to-month contract.

We need to look at how we can make that a more stable feature within an ongoing budget. Those engaging with the most vulnerable in society need stability and dignity in their work.

Throughout the financial year, the Department for Communities has said that it has had to adapt to shifting financial circumstances by making difficult decisions. The funding trajectory of the Department has evolved through the successive monitoring rounds. In the June monitoring round, £10 million was allocated to homelessness interventions and discretionary support, and, in the October monitoring round, £500,000 was allocated to the arts sector, £24 million for social housing new builds and £17 million for winter fuel support. In the January monitoring round, £4·5 million was allocated for new-build social housing and there was continued support for Supporting People. In the February adjustments, £1·4 million was allocated for critical emergency financial assistance for those affected by storm Éowyn. While the Department has outlined that it has made progress on its priorities, it is clear that funding constraints have limited its ability to deliver on all fronts. The reliance on the in-year monitoring rounds to address funding shortfalls has been a recurring challenge. That has enabled a reactive approach, which undermines the long-term financial planning that we need to see in a Department that deals with such a huge number of critical services.

The recent Excess Vote also notes the breaches in capital limits, notably due to the unanticipated increases in universal credit advances. That demonstrates the difficulty in using financial foresight. It also demonstrates that, as we have raised in the Assembly in the past couple of weeks, the more people there are who have to move on to universal credit, the more need there is for us to mitigate the five-week wait with something much more effective than advance loans so that, hopefully, we do not see that breach in the capital limits next year.

The 2024-25 Budget was hugely challenging at the outset. We came into it after a prolonged period of austerity and stop-start government, with resource bids outstripping the funding available for allocation by 3:1 at times and similar pressures on our capital budgets. Agreeing that 2024-25 Budget was the first step in offering stability, but so much more needs to be done. The interim financial framework, which was agreed in May 2024, provided an additional £431 million of funding for public services, but it needs to be further progressed to a more permanent framework that properly reflects our relative needs. There are wider structural issues due to the cycle of crisis and collapse that we cannot ignore. The 2024-25 Budget was the tenth single-year Budget in a row, as many others in the Chamber have mentioned. We cannot have financial sustainability without political sustainability. That is why we have consistently and persistently advocated for reform.

In conclusion, while the Department for Communities has worked within difficult financial constraints to support individuals and families, the current financial framework is unsustainable. We need commitment to a multi-year Budget approach that allows for long-term planning. Only then can we ensure that the Department fulfils its mandate to improve the lives of those who depend on it most.

Mr Gaston: I begin by focusing the attention of the House on the figure of £31,041,393,000 in clause 1(2). Yes, it is not quite the £57 trillion that we were promised yesterday in the Estimates but, even so, it is a generous amount of money. I remind the House that none of that money is raised by the Assembly. The finances that we debate today are only available to Northern Ireland by virtue of our membership of the United Kingdom.

In schedule 2 to the Budget Bill, we have the Department of Health Estimates, with a stated requirement of £4,053,054,000. It is noteworthy that that figure allows us to provide an NHS that does not require patients to pay €80 a day for inpatient services at a hospital. That figure also ensures that no one needs to cough up €100 when they attend accident and emergency or €65 to see their GP. Finally, I highlight the fact that part 1 of schedule 2 to the Budget Bill, which is on page 41, means that the Fire and Rescue Service will not send you a bill after it has been called out. None of that is the case for our friends across the border in the Irish Republic. My goodness, Members, it is great to be British.

That having been said, as I highlighted yesterday, many of the ways in which we spend that generous sum from Westminster are highly questionable. Frankly, I think that we would benefit from a Northern Ireland Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). As conceded by the Minister and highlighted by previous contributors to the debate, it took a single TUV MLA to pick up on an error that was in the billions of pounds. I remind the House of the difference between a billion and a trillion: one billion seconds is 31 years and eight months; one trillion seconds is 31,710 years. That is a vast difference. That is why it was important to pick up on that yesterday.

Let us focus on the numbers that we can relate to and rely on. If we were to open up our books to DOGE and Elon Musk, what would they make of the table in part 2 of schedule 1 on page 29 of the Bill? Do Members really believe that we should continue to spend over £1 million a year on the North/South Ministerial Council, a body that will not answer straightforward questions from Members and that says that it is not bound by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which applies to every other government agency in the UK? What would DOGE make of a Budget that disregards the Department of Finance's own guidance and awards £24 million to Departments without any bespoke legislation being in place? Would Elon Musk continue to send thousands of pounds to Stonewall, a discredited organisation —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — that has been abandoned —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — by the public and private sector —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — in the UK.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. I do not know what DOGE is. Is it the Department of Justice? No. Elon Musk is not part of the Assembly, and neither is Trump. I note your craft in citing page numbers, but will you please stick to the Minister's Budget Bill? Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, anything that I said in my remarks relates to the pages of the Budget Bill and is in that context. Indeed, I believe that we all know the answers to the questions that I posed.

On a positive note, I observe that, from this day forward, the Assembly cannot wash its hands of issues and blame London, which many Members love to do. When the Budget passes, the financial decisions that it contains and every unwise penny that is spent, of which there will be plenty, will carry the "Made in Stormont" stamp.

I will close by making a final observation. In the Minister's response to the debate yesterday, he questioned whether delivering the Estimates book to all Members represented value for money. If that was a polite way of questioning whether MLAs in this place ever opened that book, I share his scepticism. However, receiving the book was very helpful to my office and to me when preparing for the debates yesterday and today. There is certainly a case for reviewing whether it is necessary to produce copies for every MLA, but if he were to cut the printing of hard copies of the Estimates book entirely, that would be a most regressive step. Indeed, because of the book, a number of MLAs were able to scrutinise what has come before us and pick up errors therein.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, Mr John O'Dowd, to conclude and wind up on the debate.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Members, Chairs and Deputy Chairs who contributed to the Second Stage debate on the Budget Bill. It is very useful for me, as Finance Minister, to hear the views of the respective Committees and of Members on the important financial and economic issues that face us as an Administration and, indeed, a society. I noted many of the issues that Members raised, and I will endeavour to respond to as many of them as possible in my closing comments.

The debate was opened by the Chair of the Finance Committee, Matthew O'Toole, who welcomed the positive engagement of my officials with his Committee and the work that they were able to carry out. Again, he called for multi-year Budgets. A number of Members referred to them. As I pointed out yesterday, I cannot introduce multi-year Budgets in the absence of a multi-year comprehensive spending review from the Treasury and Whitehall. He challenged me to bring forward an initial programme for spend or give indicative budgets to Departments. He accepts that that work is now under way. However, as I also stated yesterday, that is subject to change, depending on how the wind of the economy is blowing or what decisions are made in Whitehall. I have committed to the House that if, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, the Labour Government live up to their commitments to introduce a three-year resource budget and a four-year capital budget, I will follow that up with a Budget to my Executive colleagues that will then, hopefully, progress to the House.

Understandable concerns were raised about the sole authority of the Budget Bill with regard to a number of spends. Several Members raised that issue. We are working our way through that. I encourage colleagues, through their Committees, to raise it with their respective Ministers. Where areas are still in the black box for a period, legislation should be brought forward or Ministers should be engaging with my Department on the financial provisions Bill that we intend to introduce.

Mr O'Toole moved on to speak in his position as leader of the Opposition. He referred to the crises in the health service and public services. Clearly, all our public services are facing huge challenges. First, we must recognise those challenges, and, secondly, we must plan a way forward to respond to them. The stability that we have brought to our Budget and political system is a significant advance in taking on the challenges in our public services. The Budget process itself is not a one-off event. Members will be aware from their Committee work that there is constant engagement between Committees and their respective Departments on the Budget and how Departments manage their individual budgets. They are also aware that several Bills have passed through the Chamber on that.

On the draft Budget, which is out for consultation, and the lack of debate in the Chamber, I am following, as my predecessor did, the legislative process for the Budget. I am following Standing Orders. I accept that the period between January and March is tight when it comes to bringing forward this part of the budgetary process and that that presents challenges to Members. However, I am following the legislative process for bringing forward the Supplementary Estimates, the Budget (No. 2) Bill etc — all that process is being followed. The important point is that there is a public consultation to allow people to air their views.

Philip McGuigan, as Chair of the Health Committee, quite rightly paid tribute to HSC staff and covered a number of areas of concern in the health service. He also recognised the pay deal that was awarded this year despite the challenges that were faced initially by the Health Minister. That pay deal has now been awarded. It is a useful example of how one can look at a glass sometimes. Something can be presented as being a glass half full or a glass half empty. Perhaps, the way in which the pay deal for the health service was presented initially caused undue anxiety to health service workers and the public. However, the Health Minister did deliver the pay deal. That is important.

Mr McGuigan also referred to the use of all-island healthcare and how that has assisted people on both sides of the island, ensuring that we are attempting to deliver more effective and efficient healthcare to people at as local a level as possible.

I thank Deborah Erskine, Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, for her kind words. When I was Infrastructure Minister, I found the engagement with the Infrastructure Committee to be constructive always and, quite rightly, challenging at times. I thank her and her Committee.

The impact of storm Éowyn, particularly on rural communities, has been recognised. The Member will be aware of the financial commitment that the Executive have already made to various Departments and agencies in that regard. We are assessing the full cost of the storm, and we may have to engage further with the Treasury when we know the full cost.

The Member also, quite rightly, referenced the challenges that are faced by NI Water, DFI Roads, public transport and active travel etc, all of which fall under DFI's remit. It is a crucial area, and I have a lot of knowledge of it. If we do not get our infrastructure right, the rest will not follow behind. It is an area that requires investment and scrutiny.

The Chair of the Executive Office Committee, Paula Bradshaw, raised issues within her remit. She referred to the appointment of commissioners and other public appointments. Ms Bradshaw is not with us currently, but much of that is to do with TEO rather than me directly. I have some information to hand, however, which I can forward to Ms Bradshaw in due course.

Colm Gildernew mentioned the £12 million welfare payment that is covered by the black box provisions. I hope that the Communities Minister will bring forward the necessary legislation to cover that. He also referred to the role of the Fiscal Council and the need for an evidence-based and needs-based approach to the Budget, which I fully agree with.

Steve Aiken raised an issue in relation to the accuracy of the documentation that is before us. I assure Dr Aiken that while 45% is an approximate figure, he will note that it is used neither in the legislation nor in the financial memorandum that is attached to it. Today, we are asking to agree the actual figure, which is above 45%. That came about because not all Departments asked for 45%. Some Departments have asked for slightly more than 45% for specific reasons, and I will ask my officials to communicate with the Finance Committee on that matter. For instance, the Department for Infrastructure has asked for a £103 million spend and a £6 million spend, which brings it over the 45%. TEO has £35 million more over the 45% figure, and the Department of Health has £63 million over the 45% figure. The exact figure is 45·7789%, but the Member raises a valid point. If we are using figures in presentations to Committees or the Assembly, we should give the exact figure. In future, I will endeavour to ensure, in the interests of fullness and openness, that when we are presenting these matters, we present the exact figure for full and complete transparency. I can assure the Member that the financial memorandum and the Bill refer to the actual amount that is being released rather than the percentage amount.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for giving way and for coming back to that matter so swiftly. The concern is that there is a quantum of £650 million. The black box provisions came down from £1 billion to £24 million through the sole authority of the Budget Act, and we are now saying that we are not quite accurate on the Vote on Account of 45%. I do not want to take the debate much further, Minister, but if we could get those figures in front of the Finance Committee, we could get stuck into them. That situation raises more than a few concerns.

Mr O'Dowd: The Member raises a valid point, in the sense that the actual financial figure may be different. We will, however, clarify all that with the Committee. Nowhere in the legislation is the figure referred to as being 45%. We gave a rounded figure during the presentations, but as I said, for the sake of fullness and transparency, we should use the exact percentage point that we are asking Members to release. The legislation gives the exact cash amount that we are releasing, so there is no inaccuracy in that. However, if we are quoting figures, particularly in a Budget debate, let us make sure that they are completely transparent.

Tom Buchanan raised the issue of the cost of bovine TB. Again, I work with all Ministers on the challenges that their Departments face. The previous Finance Minister worked with the Agriculture Minister on those matters, and awards have been made recently in relation to the challenges and costs of bovine TB. I will commit to continuing that role.

Danny Donnelly referred to ensuring that the Health Department runs effectively and efficiently. I agree, but I apply the caveat that all our Departments need to be run effectively and efficiently in order to ensure that we meet the challenges of our Budget and look for opportunities to improve public services.

Jemma Dolan brought some positivity to the debate. She referred to the doubling of the childcare allocation and to earmarked funding for DAERA, so well done, Jemma. It is always nice to hear a bit of positivity. Joanne Bunting referred to the challenges that the Department of Justice faces. I again emphasise that I will be working with all Ministers to ensure that we get the most out of our Budget and deal with the challenges that we face, and I do recognise the challenges that the Justice Department faces. Alan Chambers, I have to say, dutifully defended his Health Minister, as he does, and he is right to do so. If any of my colleagues behind me want to copy his example, they should. [Laughter.]

As the old saying goes, there are always two sides to every argument, and he rightly pointed out the challenges that the Department of Health faces, so I will work with Minister Nesbitt.

Paul Frew recognised the previous Finance Minister's commitment and work, as did a number of other Members who spoke, and it is only right and proper that they did so. Caoimhe left an important legacy in the Department. I do not want to incur the wrath of the Speaker, but Mr Frew spoke about the wording of Standing Orders, which is a matter for the Committee on Procedures, but I can see his argument. He questioned whether the Budget was linked to the Programme for Government. I would argue that it is, as the priorities in the PFG are well known. The legislation before us is not the place for the clarification that he requires or for further linkages to be made to the PFG. As he knows, legislation is a rather blunt instrument, but, again, I accept his point. It is up to individual Departments and Committees to establish whether there are linkages between the two, however.

Sinéad McLaughlin spoke about multi-year Budgets and the role of the Fiscal Council. She asked how we will ensure that our Budget is based on need and that it tackles social disadvantage. I welcome the appointment of Professor Gerry Holtham, who led the Holtham commission in Wales, to conduct an independent review of the North's level of need. That data-driven evidence will allow me to approach the Treasury and Whitehall in a more informed and robust way than simply going along with well-rehearsed arguments. The work of Professor Holtham, who is well respected, will be crucial to ensuring that the Executive are properly funded.

Diane Forsythe commended the departmental officials who have been engaging with the Committee for Finance, and I very much welcome that. My officials work extremely hard and are keen to work with the Committee and others.

I wrote to the Finance Committee to give it all the information that I can at this stage about increases in employers' National Insurance contributions. The estimated cost to the Executive, to councils and to the community and voluntary sector will be in the region of £200 million. How much we will get in return from Barnett consequentials has yet to be confirmed to me. Members ask how much I am looking for from the Treasury. The answer is that I am looking for it all. I have asked the Treasury to reimburse fully the Executive, councils and the community and voluntary sector. It is an ambitious ask, but that is from where we have to start, so that is how much I have asked for.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister's offering some insight into that matter. Will he give us a timeline for when he expects to be able to provide clarity? Does he have a meeting coming up with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, or is he talking just about ongoing correspondence between his officials and Treasury officials? When can we expect to know more?

Mr O'Dowd: I am meeting the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on, I think, 27 February, along with the Finance Ministers from Scotland and Wales, as part of the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee. The three of us have already met to discuss how we will approach our meeting with the Treasury, and I believe that we will do so with a combined voice, which will lend more strength to our arguments. Work is therefore ongoing. When will the Treasury confirm its figures? That is a matter for the Treasury. I have asked for the figures to be confirmed as soon as possible. The Treasury is working its way through its processes, and, unfortunately, I have no control over that.

Sian Mulholland referred to the need for more social housing and a range of other matters concerning the Department for Communities. Again, I emphasise that I will work with Ministers in all Departments. There will also be a challenge function in that. I do not pick out Communities in that regard: there is a challenge function for me, as Minister, to ensure that all Departments are doing everything within their power to help themselves; that they are using the funding that they have effectively and efficiently; that their further spending proposals fit in with the draft Programme for Government; and that they ensure that public services will be improved effectively and efficiently. I will approach all Ministers on that basis.

Timothy Gaston did not miss the opportunity to put the ball in the back of the net. If I leave an open net, why would he not? I can understand why he did that. He made the point that none of the funds that we are talking about in the Bill has been raised by the Assembly. That is factually correct. However, is that not an argument for more fiscal authority and powers for the Assembly? As the Member said, it will be stamped, "Made in Stormont", produced by the Northern Ireland Assembly. If we are voting on it and managing it, let us have more authority and more power over it. He missed this point: the money that we spend has come from the taxes of the people whom we represent. That is an important point to remember in this equation. While it may be held in the Treasury, the taxes that go to the Treasury come from the people whom we represent, so let us ensure that we give them full representation.

Mr Gaston rightly challenged the standard of healthcare in the South, but that is not about a lack of money; it is about a lack of political ambition. If we were sitting with a €12 billion surplus, I suspect that Members in the Chamber would challenge me and the Executive to ensure that that money went into front-line public services. I would argue that, in the South, it is about not a lack of money but a lack of political ambition.

I ask Members to support the Budget Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2024-25; the Vote on Account for 2025-26; and the Statement of Excesses for 2023-24, as identified by the Public Accounts Committee.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There are Ayes from all sides of the House, with the exception of Mr Gaston, who has indicated his opposition.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. Amendments to the Bill may be submitted to the Bill Office up to 9.30 am tomorrow, 19 February 2025.

Members, please take your ease.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. Minister, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank you and the Assembly for your patience and assistance with the progression of the Budget Bill. As Members will be aware, Standing Order 42(5) states:

That is to ensure that the Assembly has ample time to consider and debate legislation fully. Following January monitoring, the Executive agreed the final Budget position for 2024-25 on 16 January 2025. That left a short window in which to complete the spring Supplementary Estimates 2024-25, prepare the associated Budget Bill and complete the legislative process before achieving Royal Assent, which is needed by the end of March 2025.

I request that the Assembly agree to the suspension of Standing Order 42(5) to allow the Bill to complete its passage in a shorter time frame and to enable the Final Stage debate to occur in a week's time, on Tuesday 25 February 2025.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. I call Matthew O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not entirely sure why I am being called to speak. I gave the Finance Committee's view in the previous debate, which was that the Committee gave its agreement. I am content to proceed. I have given the Finance Committee's view, which is on the record from the previous debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: I have nothing to add to the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As there are Ayes from all sides of the Chamber and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated. The motion is agreed.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate.

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

Standing Order 39(2) states:

of the 1998 Act

I request that the Assembly agree to the suspension of Standing Order 39(2) to allow the Bill to complete its passage in a shorter time frame and to enable the Final Stage debate to occur in a week's time, on Tuesday 25 February 2025. When the Budget Bill completes its passage through the Assembly, there will be further steps to complete before Royal Assent is secured. There will be an opportunity for the Assembly to discuss in full issues relating to the Budget Bill at the upcoming Final Stage debate on Tuesday 25 February 2025.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As no other Members are listed to speak, we will move to the Question. Before we proceed, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As there are Ayes from all sides of the Chamber and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated. The motion is agreed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I advise Members that interpreters are present to provide simultaneous translation of the debate into both British Sign Language (BSL) and Irish Sign Language (ISL), which is welcome news.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call the Minister for Communities to open the debate on the Bill.

Mr Lyons: I welcome the statement by the British Deaf Association (BDA):

That statement reflects the unique nature of the work that has been done to deliver the Bill through three languages: British Sign Language, Irish Sign Language and English. Nothing about us without us: the Bill will ensure that that is the rule rather than the exception. The Bill will also be the basis for my Department's lead role, which includes convening the sign language partnership group, comprising representatives from the deaf community and Departments.

In March 2004, the Secretary of State formally recognised BSL and ISL as languages in their own right. That recognition provides no legal protection for the languages. Neither language is covered by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. There has been no Executive recognition or formal Executive-agreed policy or strategy document to date. I recognise and appreciate the deaf community's patience during that lengthy period.

When I became Minister a year ago, one of my first commitments was that members of the deaf community would have the same rights and opportunities as those in the hearing community through the introduction of a sign language Bill. Today is a significant step for members of the deaf community towards achieving those rights and opportunities.

Some may ask why sign language legislation is needed when we have disability protections. That question is based on the misrecognition of sign language. Many hearing people have the false impression that sign language is a worldwide, universal language or a visual translation of a spoken language. That is not the case. Sign language differs from country to country in the same way as spoken languages do. Uniquely, across the UK and the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland has two sign languages: BSL and ISL. Around the world, deaf people identify themselves as part of a cultural and linguistic minority and view their sign language as their language of need, not as a communication tool.

Like many other non-English speakers, sign language users cannot necessarily access English-based information on government websites or printed leaflets and various types of literature. The Bill recognises and promotes BSL and ISL and places duties on public bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information and services that they provide are as accessible to individuals who are in the deaf community as they are to those who are not. As the lead Department, my Department will develop guidance on best practice, including advice on what may amount to "reasonable steps".

In addressing some of the more technical aspects associated with the Bill, I confirm that an equality impact assessment (EQIA) was undertaken that examined the Bill's proposals in the context of the promotion of equality of opportunity and good relations, as required by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. No adverse impacts were identified. The Bill will place no duties on private enterprises or the voluntary and community sector. Therefore, the Department is satisfied that a regulatory impact assessment is not required.

The Bill amounts to 15 clauses, which I will summarise. Clause 1 provides for the official recognition of BSL and ISL as languages of Northern Ireland, without prejudice to any established rights or laws in respect of the deaf community.

Clause 2 provides that my Department, as lead Department, will promote:

and:

That includes:

Clause 3 places a duty on all prescribed organisations to "take all reasonable steps" to provide access to information and services through the mediums of BSL and ISL. Clause 4 provides powers for the Department for Communities to make regulations that will set out all public bodies that will be subject to the duties set out in clause 3. Clause 5 provides that the Department must issue guidance of which all prescribed organisations must take account.

Clause 6 provides that the guidance referred to in clause 5 should address issues of best practice. Clause 7 provides the Department with powers to make regulations relating to the Bill. Clause 8 provides that such regulations must be consulted upon and laid before the Assembly.

Clause 9 provides that:

of the Bill within five years of the Bill's commencement and every five-year period thereafter.

Clause 10 provides that:

Clause 11 provides the definition of members of the deaf community for the purpose the Bill. Also for the purposes of the Bill, clause 12 defines the different forms of BSL and ISL, including:

Clause 13 defines everyday reliance on BSL or ISL as referring to someone who relies "wholly or substantially" on BSL or ISL:

In clauses 14 and 15, we have the commencement and short title.

If the Bill attains Royal Assent, secondary legislation would be required to implement and commence the provisions of the Act.

I am aware that the success of the legislation depends on an infrastructure of support for the deaf community, particularly through the building of interpreter capacity to deliver on access to services, which begins with access to information about those services. Therefore, my Department continues to fund accredited BSL/ISL courses across Northern Ireland from level 1, which is beginner level — as Members will now see, I certainly consider myself to be at that end of the scale with my sign language — to level 6, which is degree-equivalent. That is a necessary pathway to qualification and registration as interpreters and translators to support future legislation.

The Foyle Deaf Association (FDA) in Londonderry is nearing completion of its interpreter training programme, which is funded by my Department, with successful BSL/ISL students due to register as accredited interpreters in the near future.

In partnership with the Ulster Society for Promoting the Education of the Deaf and Blind and Queen's University Belfast, my Department has co-developed and launched a new deaf sign language studies programme based in the Centre for Translation and Interpreting at Queen's. That the programme is co-founded with the Ulster deaf society is particularly welcome. The programme will support the aims of the Bill and includes a two-year MA in sign language and interpreting at Queen's University Belfast for BSL and ISL students who are both deaf and hearing. The course will further boost interpreting and translating capacity to address current pressures and contribute to the expected increase in demand associated with legislation. It also provides opportunities for academic study and research development into deaf and sign language issues.

At clause 2, I refer to:

BSL or ISL. That remains a priority for me. My Department currently invests over £250,000 in a variety of family sign language courses for deaf children, their families and their professional support network. I recently visited Action Deaf Youth, a local deaf charity that supports deaf children and their families to build a strong foundation in early literacy, language acquisition, communication and peer interaction. I witnessed the great work that it delivers to support deaf children and their families and how vital early access to sign language is to them. The children even taught me some sign language, in particular some colours, that I am happy to share with other Members later.

As I look up at the Gallery, I see deaf people who use visual languages — signed languages. For the avoidance of doubt, they are languages. For too long, they have experienced social exclusion rooted in accessibility barriers, communication challenges and negative societal attitudes. The Bill seeks to remove those barriers for them and for future generations of the deaf community, including the deaf children I met at Action Deaf Youth.

I believe that the Bill is something we can all support. I urge all Members to get behind it today. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I welcome and acknowledge the activists who are here today. On behalf of the Committee, I very much welcome the Second Stage of the Sign Language Bill.

The Committee received a pre-introductory briefing from officials on 6 February and was pleased that the Minister was able to introduce the Bill last Monday. It is a great honour for me to stand here today on behalf of the Committee for Communities to speak in support of the Second Stage of the Sign Language Bill. It is a momentous occasion for the deaf community in the North, who have waited with extraordinary patience, resilience and determination for the legislation to become a reality. The Bill has been long-awaited, and the journey has been one of commitment, advocacy and collaboration. I agree with the Minister that they are not only languages but beautiful, expressive and important languages that we should nurture and value.

The Committee looks forward to engaging extensively with the deaf community, their advocates and representative organisations. We understand that their contributions to this point have been invaluable. In June 2024, the Committee hosted an event in the Long Gallery that was attended by many members of the deaf community and reinforced the immense need and demand for the legislation. The positivity and determination of that event still resonate strongly with us today.

It has been a long journey since 2015, when the then Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, my colleague Carál Ní Chuilín, announced plans to publish and consult on a framework for sign language. When it was published in 2016, it included proposals for legislation for BSL and ISL. We can all agree that the deaf community has been very patient in its wait for the legislation to finally arrive.

We hope that the Bill will break down the barriers that often stem from a lack of understanding and recognition of sign language and the unique needs of the deaf community. For far too long, deaf people in the North have faced barriers to accessing essential services, educational opportunities and public life. Language is the foundation of communication and inclusion, yet Irish Sign Language and British Sign Language have lacked the formal recognition and support that they deserve. This Bill is a transformational step towards breaking down those barriers, providing formal recognition for BSL and ISL and ensuring that sign language users have their linguistic and cultural rights respected. It provides for official recognition of BSL and ISL as languages with equal status; a statutory duty on prescribed public organisations to take reasonable steps to make their services accessible to sign language users; a commitment to promote the use and understanding of sign languages, including greater access to sign language education for deaf children and their families; and a framework for accrediting sign language interpreters and teachers, ensuring professional standards and capacity building in the sector. The Bill moves beyond disability legislation, recognising that sign language is not just an accessibility tool but a core aspect of cultural and linguistic identity.

The Committee for Communities has already received an overview from officials in preparation for moving forward. At our 6 February meeting, we heard directly from departmental officials about the fundamental aims of the Bill. It was made clear that the deaf community had expressed to the Department the view that disability legislation alone is not the appropriate framework to protect and advance their linguistic rights. The Committee welcomed the clarity that the Bill will provide for public bodies, ensuring that services are truly accessible, inclusive and equitable. The Committee also commends the extensive co-design process that has shaped the legislation. The sign language partnership group established in 2008 has worked closely with the deaf community for over 15 years, ensuring that the Bill reflects the real lived experiences and genuine needs of the community. It was good to hear that the Sign Language Bill will address all of these issues.

Members were also pleased to hear that the Bill team has worked closely with deaf organisations that specialise in the delivery of early years family sign language courses. That is to ensure that funded courses will move fully online, with full support for deaf tutors, and that the Department's funding supports learning from signed play for babies and toddlers to accredited qualifications ranging from NVQ level 1 for beginners to degree-equivalent level 6 for parents of deaf children in order to provide them with the linguistic skill set to help their deaf children acquire signing in the family home in just the same way as hearing children acquire spoken language in their family environment.

If the Bill is supported by the Assembly today and proceeds to Committee Stage, the Committee plans to engage directly with key stakeholders and examine whether they are content and whether any amendments are necessary to strengthen its provisions. The Committee heard that the British Deaf Association and other stakeholders have emphasised the need for ongoing investment in interpreter training, public service accessibility and early years education. This must be living legislation, evolving to meet the changing needs of the deaf community. The Committee noted that the Bill make provision for monitoring mechanisms, requiring the Department for Communities to report every five years on the implementation of the Bill.

The Committee, a chairde,

will scrutinise the proposals closely, ensuring that any proposed commitments can be met and that the deaf community will see real and tangible benefits from this. To conclude my remarks as Chair of the Committee, this is a historic and long overdue moment for the deaf community in the North of Ireland. It is about fairness, inclusion and recognition. The Committee for Communities stands fully behind the principles of the Bill and supports its progression to Committee Stage for further scrutiny. To all of those who have fought tirelessly for this day to come I say, "Thank you". Your advocacy, resilience and vision have made this possible. I look forward to working collaboratively to progress the legislation, ensuring that it delivers real and lasting change.

I will now make a few brief remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson. On behalf of my party, I very much welcome the introduction of the Bill. It has been a long road with many frustrating delays and doubts about when, if ever, we would get to this point, but the resolve and fortitude of the deaf community was unwavering. Only through their tireless campaigning did we get here in the end.

The Bill will ensure that Irish Sign Language and British Sign Language are recognised as the vibrant, living languages that they are. They are integral to the lives of so many people in our communities, yet, for their users, significant barriers remain in accessing public services.

At the heart of the Sign Language Bill is the issue of equality: equality for those who are deaf in their ability to access education, health, justice and many other public services through sign. That visibility and that accessibility are key to improving the lives of those who are deaf and their families. I particularly welcome the Department's commitment to continue the co-design partnership with the deaf community that has been integral to the work done on the Bill to date and will be crucial in the months ahead as we aim to pass the strongest possible Bill. I very much look forward to Committee Stage, when we will have the opportunity to drill into the detail of the Bill and get a deeper understanding of exactly how it will improve the lives of the deaf community.

I look forward to working with the Minister constructively and positively, particularly should the need arise for amendments.

Mr Kingston: As a member of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the Second Stage of the Sign Language Bill. I commend the Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, for advancing the Bill, which completes the set of four Bills that, in May of last year, he committed to introducing. The introduction of a sign language Bill was also a DUP commitment in our 2022 Assembly election manifesto, so the Bill represents DUP delivery on that commitment.

The Bill gives official recognition to British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language as languages of Northern Ireland. It is important that we all recognise that those who use sign language are not signing in English or in Irish: sign language is a language in its own right. For many in the deaf community, it is their first language and their main means of communication. It is also used by a significant number of their family members and friends. The Bill therefore recognises:

The Bill commits the Department for Communities to ensuring the availability of sign language classes. It also requires statutory services and prescribed organisations to take "all reasonable steps" to:

Northern Ireland, uniquely in the British Isles, has two sign languages, BSL and ISL, but we are the only jurisdiction without sign language legislation. We will now rectify that.

Sign languages are fully functional languages in their own right, using hand shapes, movement of the hands, body language, facial expressions and lip patterns to convey meaning. They also have their own grammar, vocabulary and idioms, which are completely different from the grammatical rules of spoken language. For many sign language users, spoken or written language is a second or even third language. As with all linguistic minorities, members of the deaf community have varying levels of English. While some sign language users are bilingual in their sign language and English, many have limited literacy skills. That means that misunderstandings can easily arise, especially when using more complex concepts of grammar or less common words.

Previous government reports estimate that 5,000 of the 17,000 severely or profoundly deaf individuals in Northern Ireland use sign language, which is also widely used among their friends and families, and state that, of the 5,000 who use sign language, 3,500 use BSL and 1,500 use ISL.

Any well-functioning society will want to ensure that all citizens are included and not excluded. We strongly welcome the progress of the Bill at Second Stage and look forward to it coming to Committee for further scrutiny.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister and congratulate him on bringing forward this long-awaited Sign Language Bill.

As many in the House know, I have moderate hearing loss and am a double hearing-aid wearer. As a member of the deaf and hard of hearing community, I welcome the confirmation that British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language will be formally recognised as languages in their own right through this legislation. That formal recognition is important for all who use BSL or ISL. I pay tribute to all the campaigners who have lobbied for so many years for their first language to be recognised. I thank all those involved in promoting and supporting sign language across Northern Ireland. I will specifically mention John Carberry —

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms K Armstrong: — a great guy who explained to me why some people use Irish Sign Language and others use British Sign Language: years ago, people were sent to school in Dublin and therefore learnt Irish Sign Language, whereas, in more modern times, a lot of young people have been sent to school in England and have learnt British Sign Language. Thanks very much to John, whom I have met on many occasions and who is so encouraging and helpful to those of us in the community.

I thank Majella McAteer and Adam McCormick — I declare an interest in that Adam McCormick is a cousin of my husband — of the British Deaf Association for all their work. I recognise the work of Damian Barry, who contributed to the 10-year roadmap and its review. I also thank Jordanstown School — or, to give it its full title, Jordanstown, the Northern Ireland School and Centre of Excellence for Children who are Deaf or Visually Impaired — which I was lucky enough to visit, and the pupils who highlighted why the inclusion of people who are deaf and hard of hearing must be improved across all public services and throughout society.

As a seasoned member of the Communities Committee — a good way of saying that I have been here a while — I look forward to the Committee Stage, when we will consider the 15 clauses in detail. Today, at Second Stage, I will raise some queries about the main principles of the Sign Language Bill. That is not to say that I disagree with the Bill — I absolutely support it and look forward to its progressing — but there are some issues that I would like to understand better.

In clause 2, the Bill proposes that it is the lead Department's duty to promote:

It includes an obligation to ensure the availability of classes for:

BSL and ISL. While those provisions are very welcome, I would like to understand better what is meant by the term "promote". What will the strategic plan and measurement of success be to determine "greater use and understanding" of BSL and ISL? Without mention of investment, it is difficult to ascertain how successfully that will be delivered.

In clause 2(2), the Bill highlights the need to provide classes. It specifies the need to support the "families, guardians and carers" of children who are deaf. I agree that we should provide much more access to learning, but I would have preferred a more holistic approach to sign language classes to ensure that all of society is better able to communicate with people who use BSL and ISL. Making access equal for everyone will go a long way to reducing the isolation and loneliness of adults who have hearing loss in later life or who have had their hearing damaged through accident or injury. Promoting and providing learning to all would enable people to retain communication with others, reducing the isolation and social exclusion experienced by so many of our older adults. During a briefing to the Committee, officials pointed out that classes would be open to everyone. However, by specifically naming support for families and carers of children, the Bill does not convey that to me.

Clause 3 uses the term "prescribed organisations"; not "proscribed", which is something completely different and refers to banned terrorist organisations. It is "prescribed organisations". I raised that issue with officials. I have to say that that terminology is unusual. It is difficult to locate a definition of the term "prescribed", and the Bill does not specify clearly enough which organisations those will be. In order to ensure that every organisation that is required to take reasonable steps understands that it is included under the legislation, I will need to know more than what has been provided to date. I am a great believer in keeping things simple and transparent, and I may consider an amendment if it could improve the clarity in that regard.

Clause 3(2)(b) provides a "Get out of jail free" card for organisations that have taken account of affordability matters when determining how their respective circumstances comply with the provisions of the Bill. I do not believe that affordability is an acceptable excuse for failing to provide sign language communications. If an organisation is required by law to recognise sign language as a language of Northern Ireland, it should have made provisions to ensure that communications are available in the languages of Northern Ireland, so I look forward to drawing out more detail on that clause during Committee Stage.

While clause 4 confirms that all Departments are automatically included in regulations and that a list of prescribed organisations will be included in regulations, as explained earlier, there needs to be a clear rationale for who will appear on the list and who will not. I feel that this reference in clause 4(4) is too loose:

For example, will a privately owned care home, a private domiciliary care provider or a charity-operated nursery be required to offer or facilitate sign language?

Clause 5(3) confirms that guidance will be provided and that that guidance will be developed in consultation with the prescribed organisation and:

While the intention of the clause is not to exclude people who are deaf, it would be more user-friendly to include a requirement to co-design and co-produce guidance with an appropriate cross section of people who use BSL and ISL. I believe that it would be helpful for all the guidance — all that great work — and the reviews of the guidance to be laid before the Assembly.

I would also like to know what the process will be should a prescribed organisation not provide reasonable steps in line with the guidelines produced. With whom will deaf people raise concerns when the guidance has not been followed or if the guidance does not meet the need? What penalties or repercussions will there be if the guidance is not followed by a body that is listed in the regulations?

I will move to clause 7. I am concerned that, as the lead Department, Communities will not be able to confer specific functions on Northern Ireland Departments. That is outlined in clause 7(3)(a). That is disappointing: it would be progressive to, for example, require Education to provide a GCSE or equivalent in sign language or require Health to ensure that sign language interpretation is available in labour wards when a women who is deaf is giving birth. I have a recent example of a family who use sign language but were not provided with communications in their first language — BSL — while the woman was giving birth. The lack of availability of an interpreter meant that that family had a very traumatic experience. Had staff had access to training and the ability to use sign language, it would have been a more inclusive experience.

I would like to know whether the Department is prepared to include in clause 9 the publication of an Executive sign language strategy and action plan to ensure that the report outlined in clause 9 can be scrutinised against set objectives by the Assembly and the public.

Finally, I have gone into some detail on the clauses, and I have done so as I believe that we have the opportunity to deliver legislation that will create a more progressive and inclusive society for people who are deaf or hard of hearing and especially those who communicate through BSL and ISL. I look forward to hearing from the Minister later and to working on the legislation during Committee Stage and future stages.

Mr Butler: I congratulate the Minister, not just for introducing the Bill but for starting the debate by using sign language. That was more than impressive and it was very welcome.

Mr Butler: As chair of the all-party group on disability, I know only too well, from the many presentations that we have had from people of all ages, particularly young people, about the lack of inclusivity that deaf people feel. To see a Minister stepping up today and doing that was —. [Interruption.]

Mr Butler: That is the last compliment that you are going to get in this mandate. [Laughter.]

Thanks to those in the Public Gallery and the activists who, for many years, have wrestled with us, regardless of whether we have been here or not, to bring forward legislation that should, hopefully, bring tangible change to their lives. I therefore welcome this moment, particularly at this early stage. I know that it is only the Second Stage, but, as Kellie Armstrong outlined, it is imperative that we do not just give each other a pat on the back but add a level of scrutiny and deliberative, proactive engagement on all these matters. We must test the legislation diligently to ensure that we deliver something that has both scope and breadth to bring about tangible change. We must ensure that we take every opportunity to create ambitious law but, very importantly, do not overpromise, because that is almost as bad as getting it wrong.

That is why, today, I will seek some clarity to measure the ambition and, hopefully, hear some assurance from the Minister that the legislation will deliver transformative change, particularly for deaf children and young people and the wider deaf community in Northern Ireland. As I have said, for too long, our deaf community has faced real barriers to full participation in society. The Bill presents a chance to right those imbalances, but we must ensure that it has teeth so that it has an impact on their lives. This is not about well-intentioned words on a page or great speeches.

I particularly welcome the recognition of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language and the commitment to promoting greater understanding of and access to those languages. For deaf children, adults and their families, it is about more than just policy; it is about dignity, inclusion and the fundamental right to communicate in their own language. I commend the recognition that deaf children and their families should have access to sign language classes. I ask the Minister whether that will be fully resourced. That is a point that Kellie Armstrong made. I know that it is early, but we need to ensure that, in our compressed mandate, we deliver on what we can and that the classes are widely available and accessible to all families, regardless of income and geography. There are a number of assessments that we can make. I would like to ensure that provision is rural-proofed and prosperity-independent so that it is not just for those who live in our cities or well-populated towns. We need to ensure that those in rural communities and those who do not have much money to access services are not left behind at any point. Good intentions will mean little if families who desperately need those classes cannot access them.

Public bodies must be held accountable for ensuring sign language access across all areas of deaf children's lives, be that in education, healthcare, social services or everyday interactions with government. The Bill must guarantee that sign language is embedded as a right and is not an afterthought. The National Deaf Children's Society has made it clear that access to a language-rich environment from birth is critical for deaf children's development, whether that is in communication, learning, forming friendships or participating in their communities. It is not just about schooling; it is about lifelong inclusion. We have debated many times the importance of the first 1,001 days in any child's life. If any child has additional needs or a disability, that must be picked up at the earliest stage, and we must not wait or delay in getting those necessary supports in place.

We all know that legislation is only as strong as its implementation, so I will ask the Minister a number of questions. Will the Bill be backed by the necessary funding and resources to ensure that it is more than just symbolic? What mechanisms will be in place to monitor its success and listen to experiences, particularly those of deaf children, young people and their families? How will we ensure that teachers and interpreters are appropriately accredited and registered so that quality is not compromised? Will we measure the outcomes for deaf children in later life to ensure that they get all the employment opportunities that they should and all of life's wonderful offerings?

Those are not just technical questions: the answers will determine whether the Bill will deliver real change or simply set aspirations that will never be met. We need to be clear about the stakes. There are at least 1,600 deaf children in Northern Ireland today, more than half of whom have a mild or moderate level of deafness. As we know, the vast majority attend mainstream schools. We also know that deaf children in Northern Ireland are more likely than their hearing peers to experience mental health issues, with figures at around 21% compared with 12% of the general population. That, sadly, is not an accident. It is the result of systemic barriers, isolation and a lack of support.

Minister, the Bill has the potential to be a lifeline that can ensure that no deaf child is left struggling because they cannot fully access their education, their community, the health system or their future. If we get the Bill right, we will be doing more than just passing legislation. We will be correcting an equality imbalance that has persisted for too long. We will be giving more than hope to deaf children and their parents, and we will be legislating for their future, for their success and for a society that truly values them. I am sorry that I am not on the Communities Committee for the Bill. I would really like to be part of it, but I am sure that, when Andy is back, we will work collegiately to assist you with the Bill.

Mr McGrath: Minister, while many people might say that you are not a class act to follow, I disagree. Your opening of the debate can send a real message of hope to people about how this place counts. You said that you thought that your understanding of sign language was basic, but I think that we could have a conversation later about who has the most basic understanding of it, for I have no understanding of it at all. I am delighted, on behalf of the Opposition, to support the Bill. It is what we in the Building should be doing and what we are employed to do. Regrettably, however, it is something that we do not often do, so, when we get an opportunity to legislate, it is critical that we do so. The Bill is a really exciting thing to support. We just know how much good it will bring to people and how much it will help them. Essentially, it is the right thing to do. That makes it easy to support.

In recognition of many of the points that have been made, I will say that the legislation recognises and promotes British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. It places duties on organisations to ensure that their services and information about them are accessible to those who use either. That is very important. To put it in context, over 3,500 people here use British Sign Language as their first language and 1,500 use Irish Sign Language as their first language. That underscores the critical need for the Bill.

Language is essential to all of us. It is part of how we communicate with others. It is how we express ourselves, and it is an integral part of our identity. Those who are deaf or hearing-impaired who may be following the debate today can take heart from knowing that, at long last, Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly recognise their language.

I will focus on two areas. The first is support for families. If and when the Bill passes, it will be essential that families who use sign language as their first language have equitable access through publicly funded services to the early support that they need to develop language and communication skills for their children. That is crucial to reducing the lifetime of disadvantages that deaf children face, and it will transform outcomes for the better. I recently met Auditory Verbal UK, which detailed to me that, if children who are deaf or have hearing impairments avail themselves of the available early interventions, 80% will have educational outcomes that are similar to those of their peers. That is remarkable, because, if they do not get that support, they end up lagging behind and do not get the same opportunities as others in their peer group. With a small investment — I think that it is around £80,000 — staff could be trained in delivering auditory-verbal intervention, which would address that imbalance.

I have written to the Education Minister and the Health Minister on that point. If we balance the cost of those interventions against what it costs afterwards, if we do not provide that early support, it just becomes one of the issues that we regularly mention in this place. If we put the support in at the beginning, it makes all the difference for the young person or, in this case, the young deaf person. It is important that they get the best opportunity that they can for their life journey. It also makes absolute sense considering the interventions that will be required. I ask the Minister to consider working alongside the Education Minister and the Health Minister to see whether, given the fact that it would cost just £80,000 for the whole of Northern Ireland, that support might be forthcoming across a couple of Departments and whether that might help to add to it.

My second point is about a small issue, but it signifies a slightly bigger one. It is about the availability of access to the news for those who are deaf or hearing-impaired. Recently, BBC NI ended its long-standing practice of having a signed news round-up at the end of its lunchtime broadcast. The service was resigned to somewhere deep down in its website for digital access. The impact has been that those who are deaf or hearing-impaired continue to pay their licence fee, but they no longer have the same equality of opportunity to access the news as those who do not rely on sign language. It was a small thing, but it was quite figurative. Lots of us were able to see it in our daily lives — you switched on the news and saw the signing taking place. The removal of it felt somewhat as though a state institution was trying to hide the fact that some people rely on it for the news. It was a mere 90 seconds of sign language, and keeping it would have been so beneficial for those who depend on it.

I hope that the Bill progresses and will be perfected as it goes through its legislative journey. In the nine years that I have been here, there have not been many occasions when you sense something palpably different about something that passes through the House because there is support for it everywhere. We know that it is the right thing to do. Not many good news stories come out of this Building, so let us hope that the Bill will be one of those.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Minister, thank you and well done. To your officials, who have been working in this area for at least 15 years, well done. Knowing those officials, I expect that they have put their heart and soul into the work right from the sign language framework. They have worked with many of the people who are in the Public Gallery — well done to them — and they persevered and did not lose patience with us when it would have been quite appropriate for them to do so.

The message across the Bill's Second Stage debate so far is probably one of pride mixed with regret that we could not bring the Bill forward sooner, because it officially recognises sign language, be it British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language. The legislation puts it on a statutory footing for our deaf community. It was never legal to discriminate against deaf people, but the Bill means that each Department will have to fulfil its statutory obligations towards the deaf and partially hearing community.

Many have said that sign language is the only communication that people who are deaf have. It is something that we take for granted. Some things struck me from just quickly looking at the Bill today. I think of a youngster who might go to child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). They might be very vulnerable, and they might be talking about things that really matter to them or struggles that they have. Rather than the responsibilities being on the child and their family, there will be someone who can sign. It would be even better if it were a professional in CAMHS. I think of children and young people who have to go through family court proceedings when there is a divorce. They might have to talk to a guardian. I want to see that facility being brought to there as well. We have to think of where children and young people are and bring the services to them, regardless of where the service is needed.

I hope that the adults see their work in the Bill, particularly at Second Stage. If amendments are made, they will be made only to enrich and enhance the Bill and make it better. I believe that that will be the case across the board in this place. I certainly want to thank those adults for their perseverance and, indeed, dignity, because it was all very personal. It was about someone's child or someone's spouse not having access to the things that we take for granted, so of course it was very personal. I hope that they will all feel that the Bill that the Minister and his Department have introduced reflects what they have been campaigning for for a long time.

In the 2021 consultation, young people from the National Deaf Children's Society reported the real impact that the legislation would have. For me, this sums it up:

That is really important. One young person said that sign language:

It would mean so much. That is obvious in the Bill's explanatory memorandum.

I will finish by thanking those who have worked so tirelessly for years. I thank the Minister and his officials for their work on the Bill. I want to say how impressed I am with his signing at the start of the debate. That will mean so much. It will have been the first time that deaf adults and children will have ever seen themselves properly represented in the Chamber, so well done. I thank people like Emma, who is the hearing parent of a deaf son, Patrick, who has pursued this on behalf of all the other families and, indeed, those in the Public Gallery. I just want to say this: well done and thank you.

Ms Brownlee: After the conversation earlier, I feel so privileged to contribute to this debate. Today, we mark a significant moment for the deaf community here in Northern Ireland with the Second Stage of the Sign Language Bill. It is not just a Bill but the result of years of tireless campaigning, advocacy and collaboration between government and our deaf community. It is a statement that sign language is valued, recognised and protected as a language of Northern Ireland. For decades, the deaf community have fought for official recognition of their language. Today, we take a significant step towards ensuring that there is equal access to information and services for sign language users in Northern Ireland.

The principle that guides the Bill has been clear from the outset: nothing about us without us. I am so pleased to see that the Department has worked hand in hand with our deaf community to co-design the policy, ensuring that the Bill reflects their needs, their lived experience and, of course, their rights. The Bill has been a long time in the making. Work began as far back as 2004. Finally, on 23 January 2025, Minister Lyons formally secured Executive approval for the introduction of the Bill. At its core, the Bill will officially recognise and promote BSL and ISL as languages of Northern Ireland, ensuring that they are afforded the respect and status that they truly deserve. It ensures greater accessibility to public services and information by strengthening the infrastructure of interpreters and translators, and it commits to continuing engagement with the deaf community through the sign language partnership group, ensuring that their voices remain central to the legislation as it takes effect. It is essential that future investment is provided to increase availability of qualified interpreters and translators to provide greater accessibility to public services and information, ensuring that the deaf community is not excluded from anything; rather, that sign language becomes the norm.

The principle is clear: access to services begins with information. I am so pleased that the Minister has treated that as a priority and delivered it. I am hopeful and excited about the prospect of positive and significant change.

The Bill ensures that our deaf community can access public services, information and opportunities on an equal footing with everyone else. It empowers the community, strengthens inclusivity and affirms the right to linguistic and cultural identity. It is cross-cutting, and its success will, of course, depend on cooperation and support across all Departments and public bodies. That will take time, investment and commitment, but it is a necessity and a long-overdue step towards a more equal and inclusive Northern Ireland.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for opening the debate in such a powerful way. There could not have been a more appropriate way to introduce the Bill to the House, so thank you very much. I also extend a huge "Thank you" to those who have joined us in the Public Gallery. I will try to speak a little more slowly than my normal breakneck speed for those who may be able to lip-read.

Today, we have our first opportunity to debate how we bring about meaningful and transformational change for our deaf community. As the Alliance Party's spokesperson for children and young people, I will focus my comments on the impact that the Bill will hopefully have on children and young people. As other Members have said, the Sign Language Bill is a seminal moment, in that it gives British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language their rightful and formal place as languages. I commend the Minister and DFC officials and especially the stakeholders who have never given up, regardless of the context.

Over the past couple of days, I have had the privilege of hearing directly from the National Deaf Children's Society, which has warmly welcomed the Bill and rightly so. The recognition of BSL and ISL as official languages in Northern Ireland is so significant, and I particularly welcome the commitment to ensuring that deaf children and their families can access sign language classes. I fully support the Bill's intention to ensure that deaf children and their families can enjoy full access to government and public services through sign language. The Bill must achieve access to practical support that will drive fundamental change. It is essential that the Bill and any secondary legislation ensure that access to sign language is promoted in all areas of deaf children and young people's lives. That should be reflected in the measures developed to implement the Bill, including the guidance that the Department issues. It is vital that the Bill be implemented with the necessary resourcing and accompanied by robust review and reporting arrangements that take into account the views and the lived experiences of deaf children and young people and their families. The spirit of the legislation will work only if we take into account their lived experience at every opportunity.

One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it forces us to think differently. Too often, we approach support for deaf children as though their needs begin and end with specific Departments, agencies or organisations. A child's life does not fit into neat compartments. A child is not just a pupil in a school or a service user in a healthcare setting. A child is part of a family, part of a community and part of wider society. Although I recognise the progress that the Bill represents, I hope that we can carefully consider the range of prescribed organisations that fall within the Bill's scope that will be defined in regulations. For example, will all school types and all preschool settings, regardless of their status or governance arrangements, be included? The Bill presents an opportunity to extend the principles far beyond education, including full inclusion for deaf children in areas such as play, leisure and recreation. What organisations will be included? That is why the Bill must be implemented in a way that reflects the full breadth of a child's experience. Its intention to recognise and promote sign language, ensuring that deaf children and the adults who care for them have access to sign language in their everyday lives and supporting the development of deaf culture, marks such a positive step forward.

We need to embed across multiple sectors the early childhood and childcare strategies to ensure that all preschools — public, private and voluntary — are fully accessible and able to meet the needs of deaf children and their families. For primary and secondary education, we need to equip all schools, regardless of their governance, to meet the needs of deaf pupils. For further and higher education, we need to provide the right support so that young people can transition seamlessly from school to college, university or apprenticeship.

The Bill looks at a child as being someone up to the age of 19. With the Children's Services Co-operation Act 2015, for example, if there are mitigating circumstances, we can extend the age of a child. Would that be appropriate in this circumstance so that there is no cliff edge where a child has to transition to adult services whilst trying to engage, for example, in tertiary education? Are we able to ensure inclusive spaces in youth services, sports organisations and faith-based groups, where deaf children and young people can participate fully in social and recreational activities? The Bill is an opportunity to embed real inclusion for young people across all aspects of life. That will happen only if a wide range of organisations are included in the regulations and they all recognise their roles in implementing the Bill, not as a tick-box exercise but as a fundamental shift in practice, which is what the Bill has to signal.

Early intervention is key. Deaf children need access to a language-rich environment from the start, whether that is BSL or ISL, spoken language or a combination. Families must be able to make informed choices at birth about their communication, free from bias and with the right information and support. That includes ensuring high-quality audiology services so that no family is left waiting for a diagnosis; providing sensory teachers to work with children from the point of identification and help families to navigate communication choices in a way that suits them; and offering free sign language classes to families, as set out in clause 2(2)(b), so that parents, siblings, grandparents and carers can develop the skills to communicate from the beginning.

Early intervention is not about just language acquisition, and I know that it does not fall just on your Department, Minister. It is a cross-departmental issue, which is why the Bill is so important. It is about mental health, emotional development, education and skills development and fulfilling potential. We know that deaf children are twice as likely to experience mental health concerns as their hearing peers. The earlier we get things right, the more we can reduce those lifelong inequalities, and that is my hope for the Bill. The Bill must be recognised beyond your Department, Minister. The Department of Health, for instance, must ensure that its family and parenting support strategy fully accounts for the needs of deaf children. Families should not have to fight to be heard, if you will excuse the pun, across different government strategies. The Bill must ensure that all Departments work towards the same goal. We cannot allow the Bill to be passed only to see slow and fragmented implementation.

Clause 9 requires a five-yearly report. Minister, will you give us a bit of an understanding of why five years was chosen? Is five years too long? A shorter reporting term, particularly at the beginning of the roll-out of the legislation, could be really useful.

The Bill has the potential to be truly transformative. However, its success will be defined by how it is implemented. I want to make sure that, regardless of whether it is a deaf child in a rural primary school, a deaf young person entering further education or a family navigating the early years of their deaf child's development, we see a difference in their daily lives.

Mr Brett: I want to make a few remarks in support of the Bill. The public rightly ask what it is that politicians do to effect positive change. Politicians are rightly asked what decisions they make that impact on the everyday lives of the people whom we are honoured to represent. This Bill is what we do. The Minister has come forward with proposals that will fulfil an obligation that has been set upon all of us: that we make legislation that impacts on the very people whom we are honoured to represent. Every day, I am honoured to be a representative of the people of North Belfast in this place, but today is an extra special day. For generations, one of my constituents, John, who is in the Public Gallery today, has fought for equality. Today, the provisions laid out in the Bill deliver true equality for people in Northern Ireland.

I want to record my heartfelt thanks to the dedicated campaigners who have rightly forced every one of us to the position that we are in today. They have sought legislative change not just for themselves but for the next generation to ensure that that generation will not experience the denial of access to basic services that they experienced and that true equality is delivered. The proposals put forward by the Minister play an important role in doing that.

I am often critical of the Communities Minister, particularly when he does not deliver projects that I want in North Belfast, but I must record my heartfelt thanks to him also. When he was appointed to the post just over a year ago, he made a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland that he would bring forward the Bill, and that is exactly what he has done.

In my conversations with some of our guests here this afternoon, they expressed how this being an Executive Bill that has been agreed by the four main political parties means a huge amount to them. They also greatly appreciate having Members from all corners of the Chamber re-emphasise their support for the proposals in and the scope of the Bill. Every one of them has helped us to right a wrong. They have helped to deliver genuine equality and to move the Northern Ireland legislative process to a better place.

I want to pick up a couple of points contained in the Bill. First, when the Minister is making his winding-up speech, I ask that he indicate how the ongoing consultation that he and his officials are having is going, not just with the dedicated members of the Communities Committee, who will, no doubt, come forward with important questions and proposals, but with proposed service users so that we can ensure that we have a Bill that is fit for purpose.

Clause 9, as was raised by the Member for North Antrim, has a reporting period of five years. Has any consideration been given to having an earlier report in the first instance? Maybe, when the legislation has been enacted, we could have a report after two or three years to test how it is working. If it is working successfully, we could move back to the five-year period.

Minister, I thank you for what you have done. I thank the Committee for the work that it will do on this important Bill. Most important, "Thank you" to the ladies and gentlemen up in the Public Gallery, because, ultimately, this is your day.

Dr Aiken: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I record my apologies for my mobile phone going off during the debate? I meant no disrespect to the people in the Public Gallery or, indeed, to Mr Brett. I apologise for that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Noted.

Ms Bunting: First, I apologise that I was not in my place at the beginning of the debate. I had other responsibilities in the House.

At the outset, I want to say that I am immensely grateful to the Minister for introducing this much-needed Bill, which will most certainly change lives and change the quality of lives. I had not intended to speak in the debate and will do so only briefly. I have campaigned for this for a long time because of my experience with the deaf community. Many, many years ago, as a young teenager, I attended a basic sign language class at Dundonald Elim church that I loved. I thoroughly enjoyed it and can remember a couple of words, but, to my shame, no more than a couple.

When I first became an MLA, in 2016, I was warmly welcomed into the Deaf Christian Fellowship in east Belfast, whose congregation comes from across Northern Ireland. Those people taught me so much about the issues facing our deaf community that I had just not considered and that the rest of us who can hear take for granted. They were things that we never think about but that they always have to think about, such as the challenges that face them when raising their children and keeping them safe. When we see a toddler heading towards danger, the rest of us can use our voices to stop them in their tracks. We can call out, and they will stop. That is not the case with a deaf child: there has to be a physical and/or visual intervention every time. When a child in a room goes silent, we know to check what is going on with them, what is happening and what they are up to. People in our deaf community do not share those simple luxuries. They have to be able to see what is happening all the time and be able to intervene directly and physically, because they cannot hear the warning signs and nor, often, can their children. That is considerable pressure in itself, but imagine everyday experiences of shopping, medical appointments and just general interaction. None of that is ever straightforward or easy. Imagine the huge effort required at all times and how draining that must be. Then add into the mix, as those churchgoers taught me, the fact that the deaf community writes and texts differently from those who can hear. You might imagine that, if there were communication issues, writing or texting could overcome them, but that is not necessarily always the case.

When I was out canvassing at one stage, I happened to come upon a man whom I had met in the church to which I referred earlier. We both smiled and tried to communicate as best we could. I was able to understand that his wife was seriously ill. I was eager to help and to offer him our services in any way to try to secure her whatever she needed. We used our phones and paper and pen, but it was very difficult for us both. It was already a hard conversation for him, as he was emotional, but he was frustrated, embarrassed and, ultimately, resigned to the difficulty, because he had been in that situation so often in the past with a hearing person. In the end, he just shrugged. I did not know what to do. I just hugged him, because I, too, was embarrassed that I could not understand everything. We were struggling so much to make ourselves understood, despite all our efforts.

That gracious congregation taught me so much about the extent of the social isolation that people in our deaf community perpetually face for their entire lives. Swathes of our people are struggling with complex, huge and overwhelming social isolation, cut off and excluded from the rest of us and from many aspects of life and society because their language and communication are different. For them, sign language is not a luxury; it is a necessity. The Bill will be a game changer at long last.

The DUP takes support for our deaf community extremely seriously. I am nothing short of thrilled, in all honesty, to see the Bill going through the Assembly. It will make a genuine, significant and tangible difference to so many people. That should be what we in this place are all about. Many can talk about isolation, but the Minister has walked the walk. I am delighted and excited for the difference that the Bill will make. I congratulate the Minister, I welcome the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Mr Donnelly: Like colleagues, I support the Sign Language Bill at its Second Stage and thank the Minister and his Department for the work that they have done to date in developing that vital legislation. As other Members have done, I congratulate the Minister on his demonstration of sign language knowledge at the start of the debate.

As my Alliance colleagues who sit on the Committee for Communities outlined, there is more work to be done, and I look forward to seeing further development of the Bill through its Committee and Consideration Stages. I also welcome the progress of not only this Bill but other Bills, such as the Justice Bill and the Agriculture Bill, which passed their Second Stage at the end of last year. It is encouraging that we are fulfilling our roles as Members of the Legislative Assembly by debating and passing legislation, but I hope that this is the last time that the people of Northern Ireland have to wait until over halfway through a mandate before primary legislation reaches the Chamber.

I will touch on a few points about the Bill. I welcome the inclusion of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language and the fact that legal protections will be given to both. It is also important the Bill has a wide definition of "the deaf community" to ensure that it is not exclusionary and includes those who rely on sign language every day. Like others, I would appreciate the Minister's giving more detail on some of the new powers that are in the Bill. Like my colleague Kellie Armstrong, I would like to see more clarity on the prescribed organisations that are to be included in the regulations, and I would like to see guidance from the Minister's Department on how consultation with those organisations is included. Other Members mentioned the responsibility on his Department to report on the progress of the Bill's implementation, whether that will be five years from now or within a shorter time period.

We discussed the specific challenges that face deaf people in Northern Ireland. There are specific problems, and those often depend on the severity of deafness. For example, 77% of deaf children attend mainstream schools, often receiving no support or acknowledgement of the specific challenges that they face. As has been acknowledged, there is a higher rate of mental health conditions among deaf children in Northern Ireland, with 21% reporting at least one condition compared with 12% of hearing children. The Bill is an important step in beginning to address those unacceptable inequalities, but I ask the Minister how the Bill fits within his departmental objectives and with the objectives of the disability strategy more broadly. I know that very knowledgeable and experienced organisations are meeting the Department about the disability strategy. I have met many of them myself. I would appreciate more detail on how the Bill will progress that strategy. The Bill recognises the specific challenges facing deaf people and how those are distinct from other disabilities. That recognition is essential as we go forward.

I also raise the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The UNCRPD highlights the need to ensure non-discrimination, accessibility and equality of opportunity for everyone, including deaf people. Article 2 of the UNCRPD defines language as including "spoken and signed languages". Article 8 requires states parties to raise awareness, throughout all aspects of society, of the issues and disadvantages facing people with disabilities. That must include deaf people. Some practical aspects of the UNCRPD with which the Bill must ensure compliance include equal access to justice, which is covered by article 13; living independently in the community, which is covered by article 19; equal right to education, which is covered by article 24; equal right to health, which is covered by article 25; and equal right to work and employment, which is covered by article 27. The UNCRPD is all-encompassing, as it should be, and the Bill must reflect those principles.

The Minister and other Members may be aware that I hope to introduce a private Member's Bill that seeks to introduce a new "due regard" principle on public authorities in respect of the UNCRPD and its obligations. My Bill will be out for consultation until 11 March. Improving the lives of people with disabilities must be a top priority for all Members. The Bill represents an opportunity to reflect that by adopting the high standards of the UNCRPD. I ask the Minister to tell us in his winding-up remarks of the extent to which the UNCRPD was a consideration in the development of the Bill. If it was not a consideration, I ask that the Minister outline how he will take the opportunity over the next few months to incorporate those principles into the Bill.

I take this opportunity to welcome the Bill, acknowledge the work of the Minister, his Department and the Committee to date, and I encourage him to take on board my suggestions and those of my party colleagues. Today, we are seeing how the Assembly should function and how it should always function. I look forward to the Assembly carrying out its key legislative and scrutiny roles on this and the many other Bills that are to come over the next two years.

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

Mr Lyons: I sincerely thank all the Members who contributed to the debate for their remarks. I am thankful to the Chair of the Committee and for the contributions from other Committee members and Members of the Assembly.

It is fair to say that, today, the deaf community in Northern Ireland has brought the Chamber together. There have been so many positive comments flying about, that it has been like a love-in in here. I can guarantee you, though, that it will last all of five minutes

but for that period, you have brought us together and we are very thankful.

I have to say that it was really great to see everybody here today. In particular, a short time ago, I looked up at the Gallery, and there were some children there, laughing, smiling and signing to one another. That is really great to see, and I want to make sure that this place is as accessible as possible. I thank Pam Cameron, who worked with me in 2019 and 2020 to write to the then Speaker to encourage greater accessibility to this place for those from the deaf community. As a result, we have interpreters, who come along and make this place more accessible. I am very pleased that that is happening.

I thank all those in the Gallery today. I am not sure whether this is appropriate — we do not normally do it — but I do want to thank the officials, because it has been a labour of many years to get us to this point. We are very grateful for that as well.

I listened carefully to the points that were made by Members during the debate. I start by thanking the Chair for the comments that he made on behalf of the Committee and reminding us of the event that took place in June in the Long Gallery. It was a reminder for us of the reason that we are here today. He also, rightly, acknowledged the patience of the deaf community. This Bill has been a long time coming — too long — but I am glad that we are finally at this stage. He recognised the importance of the Bill and that the Committee stands behind its general principles.

I thank Mr Kingston for his support and, importantly, for outlining what sign language actually is and how important it is that we make progress on it.

I also thank Kellie Armstrong for her comments and, in particular, for the fact that she recognised many of the individuals who made today possible. She mentioned Jordanstown School in my constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting last year. It was a fantastic visit, and it is a truly wonderful school that does fantastic work.

Ms Armstrong asked a number of questions. Although she is supportive of the Bill's general principles, she has a number of questions, which will be answered throughout the process, and we will be happy to address those. However, just to address some of them now: she particularly asked what "promote" actually means and whether I could give a definition of that. We will produce best practice guidance. That will be co-designed with the deaf community, through the sign language partnership group. She will find that, as with so much of the Bill — the bodies that it applies to, best practice and definitions — that will be done alongside the deaf community because it is particularly important that its views are noted in that regard.

She also asked how the legislation's success would be measured. That will be done through the five-year review. It will be an independent report in collaboration with Departments, the deaf sector and the sign language partnership group. A number of Members raised the issue of the five years. That was to give time for the legislation to bed in and to properly review it. However, I am more than open to considering amendments to that or, perhaps, looking at what we can do one, two or three years in, rather than a full review, although that can be considered. We could also look at the possibility of doing an initial report, perhaps an internal one, as to how the legislation is working.

I hope that those who are in the Gallery and watching online today will see that this is actually part of the legislative process. We do not just present something on the table and decide whether to say yes or no. We debate and we try to make improvements. I am happy to do that.

As regards the "prescribed organisations", again that is something that we will develop in collaboration with the community and other interested stakeholders. Kellie Armstrong also made a comment in relation to cost, and I understand where she is coming from: we do not want to make the cost a barrier or to use that as an excuse.

However, there are examples of how it may be unnecessary for us to provide certain services in some circumstances. For example, I am sure that the deaf community might like an interpretation of some of the significant announcements that we make in the House, such as what my colleague Mr Givan has been doing in relation to the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme or what I have been doing in relation to the winter fuel payment scheme.

No offence to Mr Muir, but the Radioactive Substances (Fees and Charges) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2024, which the Minister released last year, may not be as high up the public agenda. It is about balance and what is reasonable, and not all information needs to be provided. We need to consider the key information that improves access to public services. That is what we will be looking at doing.

I mentioned the need to ensure that we liaise closely with those who will be most affected by the legislation. There are not necessarily any penalties attached to the Bill. However, there is a statutory duty to comply, and there will be avenues of redress, as always, if people fail to meet their statutory duties.

I welcome Robbie Butler's comments. He said that the legislation needs to deliver "real transformative change", and I absolutely agree with him. I have no intention of passing a Bill that just says "Sign Language" on the cover; it needs to make a difference and ensure that we have access to information and public services. He also mentioned the importance of rural proofing, and I am interested in that as someone who represents a rural constituency. When I went to Action Deaf Youth, I met young people who had travelled from Cookstown to avail themselves of those services. I hope that, through the provisions that we put in place, those services can be extended beyond Belfast. He mentioned the need for proper accreditation for interpreters, and that will be covered in the Bill as well.

Mr McGrath was very positive. He made some good comments, so that is one for the history books. He said that it was important that we were here to legislate, and the leader of the Opposition is always keen to point out that we need to legislate more. Well, today, we are doing that. Straight after this, I will move the Further Consideration Stage of the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill, and I have already taken through the Defective Premises Act (Northern Ireland) 2024. There are lots of examples of legislation that I have brought forward, but he is right to mention that it is good to make legislative changes today. I am more than happy to work with colleagues in the Departments of Education and Health as he outlined. He importantly raised the issue of the news bulletins, and that was a regressive step. We should see how we can ensure that people have access, but, more than that, we need to normalise sign language. The news bulletins were a part of daily life for those in the hearing community as well, and that has now gone.

Carál Ní Chuilín is no longer in her place, but I agree with what she said about the work of officials and the perseverance of the deaf community over the past number of years. I thank her for her comments about the sign language at the start of my contribution. It is important that people can have that sort of access.

I thank Cheryl Brownlee for her contribution. She clearly recognised today's significance. For me, the phrase that stood out from her contribution was "equal footing", and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to make sure that everybody in Northern Ireland can access information and services on the same basis.

I thank Sian Mulholland for her contribution. She clearly highlighted the importance of implementation, and I am very keen on that. I want the Bill to be passed as quickly as possible. It will be great to have the Act in place, but we need to make sure that we have the follow-on from the legislation as well. Whether schools will be included is a decision that will be made when we look at the prescribed organisations. The Member also mentioned the shift in practice that we need to see and the importance of early intervention, which is something that we are responsible for, and do, in the Department. Early intervention in whatever area can make a real difference.

Mr Brett talked about the real impact that we can make in this place, and I think that we can. Today is a good example of that. He is sitting beside Mrs Dodds, who introduced the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, which I was able to take through the Assembly and enact when I was Minister for the Economy. The now Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2022 and this Bill are two good examples of how we can make a difference in Northern Ireland.

Mr Brett went on to say that he is often critical of me. He has never been critical of me to my face, so perhaps he is critical of me to others, because he is always telling me what a good job I am doing. He is an excellent advocate for his constituency, and he always brings me issues, with which I endeavour to help him. I very much appreciate his kind words, and he is right: today is a good day for Northern Ireland. It represents further delivery, which is what we want to see in this place. He is absolutely right about the consultation. We will be engaging with service users, and it is very important that we do so.

I thank Joanne Bunting for her contribution and for her history of involvement with the issue. The story that she told about her personal experience highlights so much of what we are trying to fix today, which is people's embarrassment and their shrugging of shoulders because they have become so used to the isolation that comes with using sign language. That is what we want to change. We want to make sure that people have access to information and to services. In doing that, we can make sure that we deal with the isolation that so many people so often feel.

Danny Donnelly welcomed what we are trying to do through the Bill. He made a number of points on which I will come back to him directly. The Bill's objectives line up with the objectives in our disability strategy and with the Department's wider ambitions. It is important to note, however, that what we are doing through the Bill is different from some of the other equality legislation that is in place.

Before I conclude, I will return to my reasons for introducing the Bill. The deaf community advises us that disability legislation is not the appropriate instrument by which to ensure access to information and services through linguistic and cultural recognition. The Sign Language Bill does that. The deaf community advises us that disability legislation does not support the promotion of the rights of the deaf community to develop deaf culture. The Sign Language Bill does that. The deaf community advises us that disability legislation does not, through the promotion of BSL and ISL, provide for classes for deaf children and their families. The Sign Language Bill does that. The social exclusion of sign language users is a pervasive issue that affects their ability to participate fully in society, and, despite sign language's being a legitimate and rich form of communication — a language — many deaf individuals continue to face significant barriers that hinder their involvement in everyday activities. Moreover, societal attitudes often contribute to the exclusion of sign language users. Misconceptions about deafness and sign language can lead to discrimination, stigmatisation and a lack of awareness of deaf individuals' capabilities and contributions, and that can result in limited opportunities for them in the workforce and hinder their overall social integration.

In summary, the social exclusion of sign language users is a multifaceted issue that is rooted in accessibility barriers, communication challenges and societal attitudes. To foster an inclusive society, it is essential to address those challenges by promoting awareness, by providing resources and by ensuring that sign language is recognised and valued as an integral mode of communication. The Sign Language Bill does that. The Bill tells us that BSL and ISL are languages. When we accept that, we can foster that inclusive society, thus ensuring that sign language users can fully participate in it, and address the feelings of isolation and frustration to which I previously referred. Moreover, the societal attitudes that often contribute to the exclusion of sign language users, through misconceptions about deafness and sign language that may lead to discrimination and stigma, can be eradicated.

I hope that I have dealt with all the issues that Members raised. I am sincerely appreciative of the support around the Chamber for the Bill. It is not the end — there is more work to do, and I will be open to any improvements that people come forward with — but today is a good day and a positive step forward. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am sure that all Members would like to be associated with the Minister's thanks to those in the Gallery and those who have campaigned previously. I thank also those who provided our simultaneous interpretation today. From the Chair, I recognise the thanks from all sides of the House to the Minister for his signed introduction.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Second Stage of the Sign Language Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Communities.

I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to introduce the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill [NIA 12/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for binding guidelines on school uniform policies to be issued by the Department of Education and to extend eligibility for school clothing allowances payable by the Education Authority.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease for a moment or two.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister for Communities to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List detailing the single amendment for debate. The amendment will be debated under the group heading, "Commencement of clause 2". I remind Members that, once the debate on the group is complete, the Question on the amendment will be put. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Lyons: I beg to move the following amendment:

The amendment is technical and is consequential to the amendment passed at Consideration Stage on 28 January. Members will recall that the newly inserted clause 2 places a duty on the Department to assess the impacts of changes made by regulations provided for in clause 1 and to lay a report on its assessment before the Assembly. The report must be laid at least 36 months and not more than 42 months after the coming into operation of the first regulations made in accordance with clause 1. Today's amendment provides that clause 2 will come into operation on such day or days that the Department may by order appoint, which is in line with clause 1. Subordinate legislation will be required in due course to implement and underpin the primary legislation.

In conclusion, the amendment is technical and is consequential to the amendment at Consideration Stage. It does not denote any change to the policy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): No Members have indicated that they wish to speak.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

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

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to propose the motion. The Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 give my Department the legal powers to introduce the farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP), which is expected to attract approximately 24,000 applications from active farm businesses in 2025. The regulations also include a number of more general provisions intended to enable schemes under the sustainable agriculture programme, such as the suckler cow scheme, the Farming with Nature package and knowledge schemes, whilst also providing the powers to spend the earmarked budget of over £329 million.

I have spoken for a long time about the development of these new schemes, which were developed in partnership with the agricultural policy stakeholders group (APSG). The group is comprised of key stakeholders including the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association (NIAPA), the Dairy Council, the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association (NIMEA), the Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL), the British Veterinary Association (BVA), the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association (NIFDA) and the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association (NIGTA). I apologise for all the acronyms.

I put on record my thanks to the APSG for its tireless work in the co-design process to get us to this point. This has brought a robustness to the development process. I am grateful for the group's support for the SR in order to enable the continued roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme.

I set out my policy intentions for the future of the farm support development programme, now known as the sustainable agriculture programme, in an oral statement to the House on 24 May last year. I promoted the programme at the Balmoral show and regularly in the farming press. My officials have also provided a number of policy briefings to the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee.

The SR ensures that the farm sustainability payment (FSP), when it is introduced in 2026, will be directed towards farm businesses actively engaged in agriculture activity. The draft SR legislates that farm businesses that did not meet specific criteria during a historical reference period, set by DAERA as 2020 and 2021, will not be eligible. That historical years' requirement will not apply to applicants who have set up new farm businesses in any year following 2021. Data indicates that around 1,900 businesses may not meet the specified criteria in 2020 or 2021. I am sure that we agree that that is important and that support should be targeted at active farmers. My Department plans to communicate to those affected by the measures to ensure that support is focused on active farmers during 2025 to enable them to plan effectively. Those impacted on by the historical years exercise will be able to transfer their entitlements, if they choose to do so, by 15 May 2026. Entitlements that are not transferred by that date will expire.

Currently, farm businesses that are in receipt of the basic payment scheme must be actively engaged in agricultural activity and meet the active farmer definition, and that will continue for FSTP and FSP. These regulations reinstate that active farmer definition in law. The regulations also establish 2025 as the final year for new applications for the young farmers' payment and the regional reserve. Those who apply for the young farmers' payment in 2025 will still be able to claim the full five years up until 2029. Unfortunately, the provision of that payment has not shifted the dial at all regarding the average age of farmers. With 58% of farmers over 55 years of age, a new approach is needed. 2025 will also be the final year in which new entrants and young farmers can obtain entitlements from the regional reserve.

I understand that the ending of these schemes and the time provided for scrutiny of the SR are the main concerns of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. I understand those concerns, and I have sought to provide assurance in correspondence that I have sent to the Committee. I also seek to provide assurance today on the Floor.

Applications by new entrants over the past 10 years have averaged at about only 10 per year. Unfortunately, we are not making the necessary impact to achieve the generational renewal that is required. As previously set out, those legacy schemes do not meet important value-for-money tests. Having just secured ring-fenced Executive funding in the next and future financial years as part of the draft Budget, it is imperative that we bank that achievement by demonstrating strong value for money on every pound spent to support our farmers in Northern Ireland.

The Farming for the Generations scheme, included in the sustainable agriculture programme, is a more holistic policy instrument to support generational renewal. I am pleased to say that the pilot scheme that I launched in autumn 2024 has already proven to be very popular, with strong take-up reported. From previous experience of succession planning interventions, the Farming for the Generations pilot provides an initial programme that will provide evidence towards the development of the main scheme. It seeks to identify the key barriers and propose financial interventions, thereby developing solutions that are scalable. In helping to address the concerns of the Committee, I have asked my officials to expedite the development of the main Farming for the Generations scheme. That will be done in co-design with stakeholders, including the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster, and will actively consider the provision of financial support.

The policy intent of Farming for the Generations is to encourage and drive increased levels of generational renewal and remove the barriers that exist to planning succession on farms across Northern Ireland. I am determined, and I am happy to put on record my personal commitment to ensuring that the new Farming for the Generations scheme is open for delivery to new farmers and young entrants by autumn 2026. With the young farmers' payment scheme and regional reserve applications continuing in 2025 and young farmers' payment applicants able to claim payments up until 2029, the risk of a gap emerging between the old and the new schemes is removed. Alongside Farming with Nature, Farming for the Generations is a key personal priority for me and my Department.

In relation to concerns regarding different approaches across the island of Ireland, I intend to discuss succession planning with Minister Martin Heydon, and my officials have already been engaging with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) to discuss my Department's new approach in detail. I also note the developments across the border. I read about them weekly in the 'Irish Farmers Journal', and I am keen to see how we can share best practice and work together to achieve generational renewal alongside engagement with my counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales. That engagement continues to provide opportunities for shared learning on how we can improve generational renewal in the sector.

As was set out in correspondence to the Committee last Friday, to deal with concerns that there were not sufficient entitlements to match the land that is available, there are, at present, around 955,000 entitlements for 1,050,000 eligible hectares in Northern Ireland. The number of entitlements is largely determined by the area that was declared in 2015 when entitlements were allocated. One entitlement was allocated for each hectare that was declared. Clearly, a significant area of land is not used each year to activate entitlements and claim payments. That will continue to be the case, and the presence or absence of the regional reserve provisions for young farmers and new entrants will make no significant difference to the gap that exists between entitlements and available land area. In addition, if there were significantly more entitlements, they would all have to be reduced in value, as the amount of money that is available in the scheme will not increase. Conversely, if a significant gap looks likely to emerge with an entitlements deficit, I will wish for officials to consider the relevant options in response.

The issue of entitlements is complex. I recognise that. I am therefore happy to receive further correspondence on the matter, if any Committee member or Member in the Chamber feels that that is necessary. I have asked my officials to offer briefings to the agriculture spokespersons of the political parties on the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP). The first of those briefings has been organised for, I understand, this Friday.

Active consideration is being given to how we can optimise the approach to the Committee's handling of the scrutiny of SRs. I value the input of Committee members and will continue to take on board feedback, as I did on the five hectares and three hectares issue. I am happy to meet the Chair and the Deputy Chair as and when necessary.

That concludes my overview of the Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. I am happy to answer any questions in response to the debate.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs scrutinised the draft statutory rule over a number of meetings, and it is important to go through our considerations.

On 30 January, we received an oral briefing from officials on the SL1 regarding the draft SR, and we were notified that the farm sustainability programme is now referred to as the sustainable agriculture programme. If approved today, the regulations will:

which I will refer to as the FSTP, and a number of provisions to "support the roll-out" of the SAP.

The Committee heard that the draft SR was an updated version of the plans that were brought before the Committee in May 2024. However, the draft SR that is now before us covers significantly more provisions than were covered in that early briefing. At its meeting on 30 January, the Committee heard:

However, those that do not meet certain:

for the payment.

We heard:

We also heard that those who were not active farmers during the historical reference period will be able to transfer their entitlements by closure of the trading window in 2026 and that the:

When officials came to the Committee in May, five hectares of eligible land was proposed as the minimum, as I think that the Minister pointed out. The Committee disagreed at that time due to the fact that many farms here that contribute to food production are smaller than five hectares. The Committee was therefore pleased to learn that that will remain at three hectares, and we thank the Minister for reconsidering that.

We heard:

which is otherwise known as YFP, but:

We also heard:

Officials highlighted that Farming for the Generations will be:

It will include:

Having heard the detail of the draft regulation on 30 January, the Committee queried a number of matters with officials.

On a positive note, members were pleased to note the early success of the uptake of the beef carbon reduction scheme. We were keen to know how the programme will assist with having an effective supply chain. However, we were advised that the supply chain schemes are not as well advanced as others and that a strategic pilot is being developed.

Some members were concerned about the plan to end entitlements for new entrants, believing that it will deter new people from entering farming because the new farmer will be beholden to another person who is leasing them the entitlements. In response, officials advised that the Minister was not removing support for new entrants but removing old EU legacy schemes. Some members remained concerned that the only way in which a new entrant can get entitlements is to lease them or buy them from a farmer who either does not need them or does not want them — I made the point that it is a bit like buying a liquor licence — which does not allow a young person with no farming background who is just starting out to have their own chance. Members also expressed a desire to see a crisis framework, such as one related to bad weather. Officials confirmed that that was being looked at as part of the SAP.

The majority of members requested more time to scrutinise the draft SR. However, one member stated that he did not want to see any delay, as the plans for the SR had been discussed as far back as May 2024. The Committee then wrote to stakeholders listed on the APSG, giving them the opportunity to provide their views on the draft SR. The draft SR was then due to be considered at our meeting on 6 February, but the Examiner of Statutory Rules advised that there were drafting issues.

As far as we understand, the draft SR went between the Assembly Business Office and the Department a few times before the final revised draft was laid on Friday 7 February. Unfortunately, therefore, the Committee did not have the revised draft SR for 6 February and could not form a view at that meeting. At that meeting, however, we noted correspondence from the APSG, which is chaired by the UFU, confirming that its member groups supported the draft SR. We have also received correspondence from several member groups of the APSG — the NI Meat Exporters Association, the NI Grain Trade Association and NI Environmental Link — stating that they support the SR. We then wrote to the Minister to request that he not move the motion on 11 February. The majority of the Committee also agreed to write to the Minister, calling for the continuation of the YFP and the regional reserve (RR) until Farming for the Generations is in place. The majority of the Committee also expressed concern that, generally, we were not being given sufficient time to fully scrutinise and influence the delegated legislation.

On Monday 10 February, the Deputy Chair and I attended an informal meeting with the Minister at which he provided a follow-up letter that detailed the Farming for the Generations scheme and the rationale for closing the YFP and RR. The Committee then discussed those matters on 13 February, by which time the Minister had agreed to postpone moving the motion until today. The majority of members expressed concern that there had been no change, despite the range of concerns raised by the Committee and that there was still no certainty on the timeline for the Farming for the Generations scheme. Some members felt that brand new entrants to farming would be disadvantaged and that there may be a situation in future in which there are not enough entitlements to match the land available. Some members also expressed concern that farmers who will not meet the "active farmer" definition will have only a short window in which to move their entitlements on to someone else. However, a member also highlighted that the Minister had outlined that the YFP was no longer value for money and that the schemes have made no difference to the age structure of the head of holdings on Northern Ireland farms, particularly over the past 10 years. The majority of the Committee then agreed to write to the Department to seek an urgent response to their concerns and to hold an additional meeting to see whether Committee consensus could be reached on the draft SR. I thank the members of the Committee for participating in that extraordinary meeting on Monday morning.

A response was received to our queries, and the Committee met yesterday at 10.00 am to conclude its consideration of the matters. DAERA's response stated:

The response also states that, if the draft SR is not approved:

I do not need to remind Members of the financial difficulty that farmers already face. In addition, as:

Further Committee discussions followed. Some members raised the issue of a lack of financial support for new entrants to farming and the possibility that the price of entitlements could rise and that the proposed changes could put young farmers at a disadvantage compared with, perhaps, farmers in the Republic of Ireland where a young farmer scheme, I believe, remains in place. The majority of members expressed dissatisfaction that the Department had not taken on board previous concerns raised by the Committee. One member felt that there had been ample time, as the Committee was first notified, as I said, of the Department's intention in May 2024, and highlighted the fact that the scheme did not seem to provide value for money and had a relatively low uptake. However, most members felt that, although the issue was brought to the Committee in May, there had been considerable changes to the policy position since then. Overall, the majority of Committee members feel that they have been put in the difficult position of not being able to fully explore the impacts of concern and that they have no real choice, as to further delay the SR would result in unwelcome consequences, as I have described. Members expressed the need for sufficient time to exercise their scrutiny role in the future and said that, generally, the Committee was not being given time and space to properly scrutinise the details of SRs.

I then sought the Committee's view on whether it could reach a consensus on supporting the draft SR in the plenary debate. I confirm that no consensus was reached on the draft SR. However, the majority of Committee members are of the opinion that, if the House did not approve the draft SR today, the delay would cause difficulty with departmental timings and could result in a failure to bring forward legislation in good time and to create the necessary space for the Committee to work. I am sure that the Minister is hanging on to my every word. I believe that he is listening, because he has made himself available over the past couple of weeks.

I will now comment on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, if that is OK. While the high-level ambition and briefing last May appeared on the surface to provide a reasonable timeline for the transitional provisions, the reality is different. The Department's failure to provide early sight of a finalised draft statutory rule means that we now face an unnecessarily compressed decision-making window. That is not a minor inconvenience; it fundamentally weakens the ability of the Assembly and, in particular, the AERA Committee, of which I am Chair, to do its job effectively. The role of the Committee is not simply to rubber-stamp legislation but to scrutinise it, engage meaningfully with stakeholders and ensure that it is as robust and future-proofed as possible. The truncated time frame means that we are unable to fully examine the implications of the regulations or carry out our core function, which is to support the Minister in delivering the best possible legislation. It is a rather serious failing not just of process but, perhaps, of governance.

A particular concern of mine is that the farm sustainability transitional payments and other provisions are being framed as the key risk factor: the leverage to push this over the line. That does not bode well for future change. Farmers in Northern Ireland already operate under mounting financial uncertainty and severe fiscal pressure. If we are to introduce policy changes that directly impact on family farms, the backbone of our rural economy, we must take time to get it right. That means proper scrutiny, proper consultation and, crucially, proper communication of the Committee's assessments. It cannot be about short-term fixes. We need to see ambition from the Minister — all Ministers — and the Department not just in ensuring the survival of family farms but in working collaboratively with the AERA Committee to mitigate climate harm, improve our shared environment and build a future that works for generations to come.

Mr McNulty: I rise to speak on the farm support and development programme and the Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. The statutory rule, laid by the AERA Minister, represents a key moment in the North's agricultural transition. It will provide the legal authority to implement the farm sustainability transition payments, moving us away from the EU's basic payment scheme, which has been a cornerstone of our agriculture policy for many years. The introduction of the farm sustainability transition payment will pave the way for the farm sustainability payment, which is expected to be fully implemented in 2026. The farm sustainability transition payment is not merely a financial support mechanism; it is part of the sustainable agriculture programme that the Minister announced on 20 January. That marks a shift in our approach to agriculture to one that emphasises environmental sustainability, productivity and the resilience of farm businesses. As we make that transition, we must look at a broad, long-term vision for a more sustainable and future-proofed agriculture sector.

The farm sustainability transition payment is designed to replace, as I said, the current EU basic payment scheme, which has been a lifeline for our farming businesses. Approximately 24,000 farm businesses will be eligible for the payments. Eligibility is not automatic, however. Only farm businesses that were actively engaged in agricultural production in 2020-21 will qualify. Hopefully, that will ensure that the support reaches those who have been directly contributing. If a farm business does not meet the specific agricultural production levels during the reference period, it will, unfortunately, not be eligible for payments. The Minister has already said that 1,900 businesses will not qualify. I would like more information on that, and I have asked a question for written answer to that effect, Minister.

The Minister also mentioned succession planning and generational renewal. He will recognise that the elephant in the room or the bucking bullock in the room is obviously the inheritance tax on farmland, which has caused all sorts of consternation in farming families.

As has been mentioned, the payment is temporary, as it will be replaced by the farm sustainability payment in 2026. The transition payment will, however, play an essential bridging role in helping farmers navigate the changes from the old EU system to the new UK framework.

On the issue of funding, it is important to note that the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has been given the flexibility to adjust payments within the scheme. That flexibility reduces the risk of unspent funds returning to the UK Treasury and will hopefully ensure that the agriculture budget is fully utilised in the North.

The statutory rule is part of a broader shift that aligns with the sustainable agriculture programme, which aims to improve productivity, support environmental sustainability, strengthen farm business resilience and promote generational renewal in the sector. In October 2024, the SDLP secured an important amendment to a Sinn Féin motion. The amendment called for proper consideration of rural development programme funding in agriculture allocations. As many Members will be aware, there is a pressing need for funding to address the environmental challenges that we face, particularly with Lough Neagh. The environmental impact of agriculture in areas around Lough Neagh must be a priority, and we need financial backing for action plans to enhance farming practices that are in harmony with the environment.

The statutory rule is expected to pass without a Division, but that does not mean that we should not take the opportunity to make some critical points. In particular, I challenge the Alliance Party on the proposed structure of the agriculture policy. Given its pro-environment and pro-European stance, it is vital that it be held to account over how that policy compares with the EU's common agricultural policy. It is concerning to note that, in the current proposals, the draft Northern Ireland Budget significantly underfunds rural development priorities, including environmental schemes and support for community-based projects. According to estimates, as little as 4·4% of the Budget is allocated to rural development, compared with 22% under the EU's common agricultural policy. That is a clear divergence from the EU framework and runs contrary to the amendment that we secured in October, which called for a Budget that delivers on rural priorities. That divergence is significant, especially when we consider Alliance's supposed pro-EU stance. If it is truly committed to European values, surely we should see it fight harder to ensure that our agriculture policy —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Justin, I ask you to bring to the fore your remarks on the draft legislation. Thank you.

Mr McNulty: Of course, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I thought that I was —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You can stop there if you want. [Laughter.]

Mr McNulty: While the statutory rule is expected to pass, the Opposition have a role in challenging the aspects of it that, we believe, may not serve our farmers' long-term needs. Rural development and environmental funding must remain priorities. We will continue to push for that and hold all parties to account for their actions or, in this case, their lack of action.

I support the farm support and development programme and the Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations. We must, however, be clear-eyed about the policy's shortcomings and its future implications for our rural communities and for the environment. It is our responsibility to ensure that future generations of farmers in the North have the support that they need in order to thrive in a challenging agricultural landscape and that our environmental goals are never compromised for the sake of short-term expediency.

Ms Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and, in particular, to highlight my party's concerns about the effect that the SR will have on young farmers and, indeed, on the regional reserve. No doubt, the Minister has listened to us wax lyrical about that over the past two or three weeks. A major issue is the uncertainty that surrounds the new entrants' scheme beyond 2025. The scheme has been vital for young farmers and those who are new to farming at a time when the industry faces significant generational renewal challenges. As it stands, there will be a gap in support without there being any clarity as to what exactly will replace the scheme.

At the AERA Committee, Sinn Féin set out its concerns and requested that the Minister continue the young farmers' payment and the regional reserve until the Farming for the Generations scheme is introduced to address the gap. Our fear is that no new entitlements will be issued after that, meaning that, as existing entitlements expire for one reason or another, the total number of available entitlements will decline, driving up the price of entitlements and having an impact on younger farmers. The North will also be less competitive than the South of Ireland, where new farmers receive free entitlements and financial aid.

We will reluctantly support the SR to ensure that there will be no delay in rolling out the basic payment scheme, the suckler scheme and the sustainable agriculture programme. I ask the Minister, in his winding-up speech, to elaborate on the remarks that he made in his opening statement on interventions that his Department could make to address the gap between land and entitlements.

Miss McIlveen: I rise to speak on the SR that is before us. I am on the record in the Chamber highlighting — I have stood on my soapbox on a near-weekly basis in the Committee highlighting — how poorly we deal with scrutiny of statutory rules in this place. Subordinate — or secondary — legislation is hugely important in the delivery of measures that are permitted under primary legislation. However, the time given between the Department presenting to the Committee and the rules being laid in the Assembly does not permit the Committee the opportunity to call witnesses or stakeholders to inform them of the consequences of what the Committee is being asked to agree to.

There is an assumption on the Minister's behalf and that of the Department that the Committee will just nod the SR through, and, no doubt, that will be the case for other Committees — I speak as someone who has worn many hats in this place. I made similar points during the debate on the prayer of annulment of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. Surely on the basis that the Committee successfully overturned the Minister's decision to lay those in the Assembly Chamber, he would take more cognisance of the Committee's concerns. However, again, despite the Committee articulating concerns, there has been no such movement by the Minister on this legislation. From a Committee member's perspective, what we have is the Minister taking the date for the launch of the FSTP — 3 March 2025 — and working backwards, allowing the minimum amount of time for consideration.

We were told in correspondence dated 14 February 2025 that, if the regulations were not approved, the opening of the basic payment scheme would be delayed and payments, which would normally be scheduled for September 2025, might not issue until late November. Therefore, ultimately, if, as a House, we want to do the right thing by some in the farming community, the rest — 24,000 farm businesses — will be penalised by those actions, all because the Minister provided an unrealistic timescale for scrutiny. That is if you consider a briefing and a few questions as scrutiny, and I do not. Mr Blair will, of course, contradict others in the Committee on that and insist that we were briefed back in May 2024. At that time, we had a high-level discussion, but we certainly did not have sight of the regulations that we are discussing today. As we all know, the devil is in the detail.

On 30 January 2025, as the Chairman explained, we received a briefing on the sustainable agriculture programme and the details of the regulations. The highlights were the reinstatement of the "active farmer" definition into law and that 2025 would be the last year that new entrants and young farmers can obtain entitlements from the regional reserve. The new approach to generational renewal will be through the Farming for the Generations scheme, which will not have the financial incentive associated with the previous scheme. In its briefing paper to the Committee, the Department flagged that, in its equality-screening assessment, the closure of the young farmers' programme and the regional reserve would have an impact related to age, so the SR should be screened out with mitigations. However, given that the average age of a farmer in Northern Ireland is 59 and that 67% of farm businesses have a head of holding who is over the age of 55, it is imperative that a programme with an associated financial incentive be in place. Similarly, that should be the case for those coming into farming with no experience.

Whilst the Minister will, of course, cite low numbers and the value-for-money argument, we have to remember that Northern Ireland is relatively small. We have a reliance on the agriculture sector, and, cumulatively, those numbers become important for sustainability. Also, the Department has to take some responsibility for the level of uptake, given the hurdles that it placed on the scheme, leading to those who may have had an interest not engaging.

At the Committee, I was bold enough to ask that the Committee hear from young farmers and the UFU as stakeholders who will be impacted on directly by the change. It was not an unreasonable request given the significance of the legislation. There was, however, resistance to that. I am not sure whether there was a fear of hearing from those who would, potentially, be impacted on. Instead, we received an email from Wesley Aston, CEO of the UFU, on behalf of DAERA's agricultural policy stakeholder group. The email stated:

It is interesting that Mr Aston stated that extending the schemes beyond 2025 was "not an option". In our briefing on 30 January, the Committee was told that not every stakeholder organisation gets what it wants but that we reach a consensus. At the Committee on Monday, the consensus was that we could not reach a consensus. It certainly makes me question the role of the APSG. Is it a co-design group? Does it debate the issues? Does it really consider options, or are final proposals placed before its members and it is merely a tick-box exercise on behalf of the Department? If the latter is the case, that worries me greatly.

I say that given the discussions that we had at last week's Committee on the update that we received on the new farm sustainability standards. Whilst I was grateful for the clarification from officials that the policy was still under development, I am concerned that there appears to be no intention for those standards to be consulted on. Is that because the Department is satisfied that its managed discussions with the APSG and a select group of others is sufficient? In fact, in a later briefing, the RSPB voiced its concerns about the Department's view of what co-design was and what its experience had been. Further to that, will the Minister advise whether, if a member of the APSG has an alternative view — not necessarily on this issue but even in the future — they are permitted to articulate that view outside the APSG? If not, that is another major concern, given that the members are representative bodies in their own right.

I have digressed slightly, but I will go back to the issue of young farmers. It is my understanding that young farmers form part of a subgroup of the APSG and that they were last consulted in April 2023. At that time, they were advised that the land mobility scheme was to end in August 2023, with an assurance that a new scheme would be operational in December 2023. That did not happen. We are told that Farming for the Generations will address many of the concerns that we have raised. However, without having a legislative basis at this stage, no one should be alarmed that we are sceptical. Too many times, promises are made and expectations are raised, only to remain unfulfilled.

As a party, the DUP shares the concerns of other Members who have spoken: issues of access to entitlements for those wishing to start out on their own; and the challenge being placed on the 2,400 businesses that will be deemed ineligible for the new sustainability payment under the "active farmer" definition. The rationale for using 2020 and 2021, the COVID years, as was highlighted by a member of the Committee —.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that there is great concern about the proposed "active farmer" issue and that those deemed by the Department to be inactive have a very short time frame in which to transfer their entitlements?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his intervention.

I fully appreciate that the Executive's decision to formally treat resource DEL as earmarked for 2025-26 may put pressure on the Department to show taxpayers and the Executive that it can deliver change and value for money against the commitment to funding. However, the issue is whether we deliver that change and, if so, how we deliver it.

Correspondence received from the Minister's private office, dated 14 February, following concerns raised by the Committee that there had been no change to the draft SR, stated:

With that being the case — indeed, fact — it is vital that Committee members are given the space, if required, to satisfy themselves of the merits or otherwise of the statutory rule. In the absence of that, I feel that the Department is taking advantage of the rules associated with this type of legislation.

As I said at the start of my remarks, by doing the right thing for some in the farming community and by virtue of the timeline determined by the Minister in respect of these regulations, 24,000 other businesses will be impacted on, which is an unfair position to be placed in.

Mr Blair: As a member of the AERA Committee and as Alliance's AERA spokesperson, I speak in support of the new farm sustainability regulations. It has been discussed and recognised many times in the Chamber and much further afield that the climate crisis is a real threat to our everyday way of life, demands our immediate attention and requires decisive action. Farmers are particularly affected, facing increasingly severe weather patterns all year round, for example. If the regulations are approved today, it will be part of a bigger piece of work. It will mark a pivotal moment for our farming community as we seek to strike a critical balance between supporting our farmers and addressing the urgent demands of environmental protection.

Agriculture continues to remain at the heart of our economy, our culture and our communities. Yet, as we confront the escalating challenges of climate change and the decline of our natural resources, the relationship between agriculture and the environment has taken on increased significance. The regulations being discussed today present us with an opportunity to establish schemes that not only sustain our agriculture sector but promote sustainable practices that are designed to benefit our environment for generations to come. By embedding sustainability in the foundations of agricultural support, we are not merely encouraging farmers to adopt positive practices; we are empowering them to become true custodians of the land on which we all depend. That will improve soil health, advance biodiversity, enhance water quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, these measures, if passed, would see the introduction of various initiatives, such as the beef carbon reduction scheme, the Farming with Nature transition scheme and the soil nutrient health scheme. Those are themes that we have previously discussed here and at the Committee.

It is important to highlight that the regulations also support our young farmers, who are essential to our agricultural future. Their passion and ability to care for our natural world need our support and encouragement. Additionally, the proposed farm sustainability programme incorporates initiatives that assist farm families in preparing for the transfer of their businesses to the next generation. The pilot schemes associated with that have been mentioned.

I thank the Minister for his hard work in ensuring that the regulations have been brought together with these themes and tabled for us to speak to today. I also thank the departmental officials for the patience that they have demonstrated as the Committee has worked its way through the proposals, going right back, as was mentioned, to May of last year. The Committee has been informed in detail that the Department, when creating the sustainable agriculture programme, worked closely with key agriculture and environment stakeholders. That collaboration has involved input from the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association and the Northern Ireland Environment Link, thereby guaranteeing that a variety of perspectives are represented.

The AERA Minister has demonstrated his commitment to the agriculture sector by securing Executive approval to protect farm funding. That represents a major win for our farming community and our natural environment. Northern Ireland is the sole devolved region of the UK to achieve that, which underscores the importance of farming to our economy, our environment and, importantly, our food security.

In conclusion, I urge all Members to support the regulations. By doing so, we can craft a vision for the future of farming in Northern Ireland in which financial viability and environmental sustainability coexist harmoniously. That goal is ambitious, yes, but it is necessary if we are to secure a more sustainable future for our farms, our environment and our communities. Ultimately, we must move ahead with the measures, as progress hinges on our willingness to embrace change. I therefore support the SR.

Ms D Armstrong: I rise with some hesitation to support the regulation and to make some brief remarks. Although there are positive developments in the proposed regulations, there are also issues that require further scrutiny by the AERA Committee, as Committee members outlined, to ensure that our agriculture policy reflects the future needs of the industry and, as Members have rightly stated, the viability of our family farms, which are so hard-pressed. I thank the AERA Committee, which is led by my colleague Robbie Butler MLA, and the previous Chairman, Lord Elliott, a former Member of this House, for their continued work to make the valued case for our farming community and to hold the Department to account on the matter.

As Members have stated, concerns with the regulation are masked within it. More time is needed to look at those concerns, especially support for young farmers and succession planning, but, with the risk of further delay and where payments are concerned, we owe it to the farming community to provide some stability and vote the regulation through, although we must look beyond immediate solutions and prioritise the enduring stability of our family farms, ensuring that we equip farmers with the tools and opportunities to safeguard our farming heritage.

As an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I note and welcome the fact that the minimum for eligible land remains at three hectares, not five, as initially proposed. Proposed changes such as that caused much anxiety in the farming community, especially across my constituency. Many smaller farmers would have been looking into a grim future had that proposal gone ahead, and I acknowledge the fact that the Minister listened to the Committee's recommendations on that point.

I hope that Members agree that we must get this right to ensure that statutory regulations from any Department are properly scrutinised before coming to the House at such a late stage and are not rushed at the expense of the public.

Mr Muir: I thank Members for their contributions. As I explained at the outset, the regulations are essential to ensure that I can deliver for our farming community by opening the farm sustainability transition payment as planned on 3 March and provide the legal basis for the roll-out of other schemes under the sustainable agriculture programme, including the suckler cow scheme, the Farming with Nature package and the knowledge transfer scheme. As I said, I understand that the ending of the young farmers' payment and the new entrants' scheme in particular is of concern, and I hope that the written responses to the Committee and my remarks today will provide the necessary assurances. I will go through Members' remarks once I have finished making these opening remarks in my conclusion.

As I have explained, the Farming for the Generations scheme included in SAP will be the policy instrument to encourage and drive increased generational renewal and remove the barriers that exist to the planned succession of farms across Northern Ireland. Any delay to the opening of the scheme will put at risk the budget that has been allocated to the programme and, indeed, risks delaying farm payments until late November, unfortunately.

I will address Members' comments as best I can. The Chair of the AERA Committee, Mr Butler, made several points. We are bringing forward many aspects of the sustainable agriculture programme. Leaving the EU has brought lots of challenges for the UK, because England, Scotland, Wales and we here have to develop new farm support development programmes. That is not without its challenges. We see those here today not just in our debate on the details of the schemes but in how we work with stakeholders to bring those about. We will have many elements to deal with in Northern Ireland, such as supply chain schemes and a crisis framework. We will work to bring those forward, but I have been getting a sense of the priorities of stakeholders and the AERA Committee. I am hearing clearly that Farming for the Generations is one of the priorities, so we will move at pace on that scheme. Alongside that, it is important to bring forward environmental farming schemes such as Farming with Nature. We will progress those schemes, but we are working in a constrained resource environment in which to bring them forward.

I think that we are all agreed that we want to ensure that funding is prioritised for active farmers: the message around that is clear. When it comes to the timescales for that, it is important to understand that there will be a lead-in, so, if people want to transfer their entitlements, they will be able to. There will be the ability to do that formally online from March, April and May of next year. I will write to the Committee to give it a bit more information on the transfer of those entitlements, so that it is clear on that.

You also spoke a wee bit about the consideration of the SR, Chair. I will speak about that. We can do that better. We are conscious that the Committee has a scrutiny role, and I value that. We will look again at how we can improve the consideration and scrutiny of the SR. That is my commitment. We will do that with the Committee. The other aspect is the wider sustainable agriculture programme. It is a wide and complex programme. That is why it was important that we reached out to brief your party representatives on that. That is essential.

I hope that that addresses some of the points that you raised. I thank you, Chair, and the Deputy Chair for your engagement on the matter over the past weeks. I hope that people can see that I have come from a genuine place to move the SR forward. I know that it is difficult and that there may be lessons to be learnt, but I hope that we can move forward and will be able to support farmers in Northern Ireland.

On Justin McNulty's comments about the definitions of an "active farmer" and an "inactive farmer", I outlined those in the Chamber. That is important. The clear message that I got from the rally that I attended at the Eikon exhibition centre, which was organised by the UFU in response to the issues around inheritance tax — I will come to those — was that it is important that the scheme is prioritised for active farmers. It is not easy to do that, folks. It is complicated to take that measure, but it is important that we do so, and the SR will allow us to do that.

On the issue of inheritance tax, I am glad to see the interest that the Farming for the Generations programme has attracted. My commitment is that we continue to roll out the pilot initiative and move towards rolling out the full initiative next year. The issue of inheritance tax makes that initiative really important in enabling people to plan for succession. That is what one element of Farming for the Generations will do. That is absolutely key, and I hope that I have provided reassurance on that.

I am conscious of the Speaker's ruling on keeping to the subject matter. I will do that, but my understanding from farming unions is that their meeting today with Treasury on inheritance tax was disappointing. Treasury was not listening and was not willing to address farmers' concerns. I say again that the moves will have a disproportionate and detrimental impact on Northern Ireland and that they should not proceed.

I will get back to the SR. The other issue that Justin McNulty raised was Lough Neagh and supporting environmental farming schemes. That is why we are bringing forward Farming with Nature. The SR will allow us to bring forward the transition scheme this year and wider schemes next year. That is critical, and it is important that we progress those at pace. Mr McNulty then pivoted from the SR a wee bit to the issue of rural development. The loss of the rural development programme arose as a result of Brexit, so Mr McNulty's ire in relation to that should not be guided towards me. I am working towards a new rural affairs policy in my Department. That is key, and we will consult on that later in the year.

I appreciate Áine's comments and the engagement that I have had with Sinn Féin on the SR recently. I understand the concerns over the young farmers' payment and the regional reserve, and that is why I have given my commitment to bringing forward the Farming for the Generations initiative on the record today. We do not rule out having a financial incentive as part of that. As part of the co-design process, however, we have to work out exactly what will work and how we can have a business case that will support it. Value for money is key for me, because we are in difficult financial times and want to ensure that we maximise the benefit associated with any funding that we get to go towards farmers. We will actively work on that.

I spoke to a senior official in my Department about the concern about a deficit in entitlements. We will explore that and actively monitor the issue. If any concerns arise from that, we will explore options to address the issue. I totally get the concerns around that, and we will continue to be alert to it.

With regard to the comments from Michelle McIlveen around the issue, hopefully I have addressed some of the issues on scrutiny of the SR. Michelle has been consistent in relation to that issue, and I think they are genuine concerns over how we can scrutinise secondary legislation.

As regards progressing this, the timescales are not what I would have desired. That arose as a result of losing the ring-fencing of the Budget on 30 October. As a result of that, we had to wait for the draft Budget to be agreed. Unfortunately, it was not agreed until just before Christmas. Once I had the certainty of the draft Budget, it allowed me to proceed with the SR. However, we will look at this and how we can improve the relationship with the Committee to enable scrutiny of the SR. It is important that we do that.

On Farming for the Generations, hopefully I have outlined my commitment to ensuring that we will consider whether there can be a financial incentive as part of that. We will do that in engagement as part of that co-design process. I am also conscious of the issue around business cases.

On the APSG, I put on record my thanks to the stakeholders who engaged with the APSG. They gave a lot of them time engaging with the Department. Their views are articulated openly and strongly in the APSG, and organisations are given the opportunity to go back to their own organisation to develop a view and bring it back. The process of developing the new schemes as a farm support development programme is not easy. Look, for example, at Wales and how they got it wrong in terms of engagement with stakeholders. Obviously, there are challenges going forward. People will have different views, and I respect those different views. What we try to do in APSG is come together collectively and move forward on a scheme so that, generally, people can understand and move towards consensus. Some element of my influence is that I devolve that to the APSG and allow them to have those views around those issues. It is important that we give APSG its place in developing agriculture policy.

The issue of the transfer of entitlements was raised in an intervention from William: hopefully, I have addressed that. John raised the issue of the sustainable agriculture programme being about support for financial and environmental sustainability. Both of those go hand in hand. Lastly, Diana, in her contribution, welcomed the move towards three hectares.

I have done all I can to listen to the concerns from the Committee and to balance that against the value-for-money requirement for me as Minister. I appreciate the concerns; they are genuinely held. Hopefully, we can agree the SR today, continue to engage with the Committee around future SRs and find a process to give a better, longer timescale for analysis of those.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Emma Sheerin to raise the matter of simplifying the procurement process for the maintenance of schools in Mid Ulster. Emma, over to you. You will have 15 minutes.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I appreciate the opportunity to bring the matter to the Chamber this afternoon.

We are asking for a common-sense approach to our local schools. It goes without saying that the safety, well-being and health of our children, our pupils attending school and our staff working throughout our school estates are of paramount importance. I know, Minister, that you will be keenly aware of the importance of that and of the importance of accountability when it comes to the spending of public money in our schools. Notwithstanding all of that, we feel that we have to see some changes in terms of maintenance and the ability of schools to manage their budgets better.

Since I became an MLA, principals from across the North have been contacting me about maintenance issues in their school. There are schools in crisis, and we have facilities that look as though they are from the 1950s.

The Minister has visited a number of schools across the North, including Holy Family Primary School in Magherafelt, which is in my constituency. Its classrooms have blue mould on the walls, and children are suffering real-life health implications as a result. Principals have told us repeatedly that they are frustrated by the, as they see it, unnecessary bureaucracy in the system when they attempt to fix a problem in the school or make adaptations to the building.

I have loads of examples of where staff have contacted me about issues that are causing concern. There are two issues, the first of which is delays. I hear about the length of time that it takes Education Authority (EA) maintenance teams to come out to schools. The second is the unnecessary procurement process, which exacerbates the first issue. A school often knows somebody in the local area, perhaps a school governor or a parent of a child at the school, who can give a quote for the work, but, because of the procurement process, the school has to go through a tender process. The work can then end up costing a lot more and taking a lot longer to do.

I will now give some examples. Someone was going to put a handrail on the outside of a school in south Derry for a couple of hundred pounds — the cost of the materials — yet the job ended up costing thousands of pounds. A light fitting that was installed in a classroom unnecessarily cost hundreds of pounds. A local school needs a new front door because the old one is rotten and the pane of glass is coming out of it, but there has been no movement on that for two years now. Someone in the school family is a joiner by trade and could sort out the problem in a matter of days, but the school does not have the freedom to authorise that work. Another example is the refurbishment of a school's boiler house. It was agreed in 2021 that the work needed to be done, but no progress has yet been made, so the school is still waiting on the boiler house's refurbishment.

I will give further examples. A school in my constituency's heating system broke at the end of the previous term. Multiple attempts were made to get a call-out, but the school went for days without heat or hot water, which meant that it could not provide hot school meals. When the engineer turned up to do the repairs, it took him all of an hour to sort out the problem. Once again, a local plumber could have done the work for a fraction of the price and in a fraction of the time. The procurement process is therefore causing a lot of frustration.

A principal told me about an empty space behind the school that could be turned into a playground or an extra facility for the children to enjoy. The Education Authority told the school that the work would cost £15,000. The plan therefore had to be abandoned, because the school could not afford the cost out of the school budget, even though it knew a local contractor who could have done the work for buttons.

One school principal contacted me about an ongoing issue with sewage. After an upgrade of its sewage system, at a cost of £111,000, there was a bad smell in a classroom a few months later. That was in December 2020. The problem was reported, and correspondence went back and forth between the school and the Education Authority. In September 2024, almost four years later, the school was told that the sewage pump had burnt out and that a new one was required. The job was completed on 7 January, but, as of 7 February, the sewage pump is not working, despite the new one having been fitted only a month previously. P2 children are again sitting in a classroom that smells of raw sewage.

I have therefore heard clearly from school principals, staff and parents that they want a safe and healthy environment in which to work. The system is not sustainable or working for them. They want to see a common sense approach and some practical thinking to try to make it more efficient and cut out the unnecessary bureaucracy.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank my constituency colleague for bringing the topic to the Chamber for debate.

There are many challenges for the Education Authority regarding maintaining an ageing school estate and ongoing capital projects and enhancement programmes. Balancing the budget for major works and necessary maintenance can be tough. School governors and principals work tirelessly to ensure that schools are maintained as well as possible, but, sometimes, the procurement process can be problematic. Therefore, a simplification of the procurement of maintenance is necessary. The Member who spoke previously referred to that.

Will the Minister advise what the EA is going to do to give schools more flexibility on what I call small or low-value maintenance works? As the Member who spoke previously said, there are loads of people on school boards of governors or PTAs, for example, who could do that work. They are just not getting the green light or are somewhat concerned from an insurance point of view. Loads of people have loads of skills that could be availed of by the school community; we just need to give them their stripes to do it.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Would he go further and agree that not only are there the skills in local PTAs and local communities but there would be huge savings for government, given the huge costs of procurement?

Mr K Buchanan: I would agree.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. The Member has up to seven minutes.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you. The Member who spoke initially referred to those people doing the work "for buttons", and she is correct. People on a board of governors or parents want to see their little school develop and save money so that their Johnny or Mary will be looked after better. Yes, there is definitely an opportunity there. The Minister can maybe give us some indication of where the EA is going on that.

A more efficient and effective model for low-value maintenance work should lead to more efficient operations. There could be significant cost savings to school budgets if schools could outsource some of those works locally or if they could be carried out by a caretaker or maintenance team, if they exist, already employed by a school. It can be a frustration for a school that it cannot complete or source small jobs itself. The system to carry out simple tasks, such as changing a projector bulb, seems to be slow, cumbersome and costly. Indeed, I heard of an example of a projector bulb costing hundreds of pounds to replace, which just does not stand up. I am sure that you have all heard that example.

It is essential that a school maintains a safe learning environment when implementing essential maintenance tasks. The implementation of a new delivery model in this academic year, if possible, would be positive. It is important that the EA undertakes maintenance based on health and safety, statutory compliance and urgent repairs, and that it ensures that schools are safe for pupils and staff.

In September, the Minister visited schools in Mid Ulster, as previously referenced, including Kilronan School, Holy Family Primary School in Magherafelt, Rainey Endowed School in Magherafelt, Magherafelt High School and Cookstown High School. All the principals sent the same message, no doubt. They all had the opportunity to meet and talk to the Minister and advocate for their individual school's needs, as any school is entitled to do and, no doubt, does. Items highlighted at the time included problems related to mould, as was mentioned, roofs and secondary heating systems. They are generic: we could talk about the same issues in every school across NI. Indeed, some of those schools have been waiting for up to six years to get heating issues resolved once and for all.

Years of underinvestment and budget constraints have meant that EA has had to prioritise school maintenance and development. I appreciate the Minister's efforts to improve the budget for the Department and the school estate. Maybe those who want the estate to improve, as we all do, could have a word with — he was referred to yesterday as "poacher turned gamekeeper", but I will give him his proper title, as that is probably more beneficial — the Finance Minister. It would be good if anybody who could would put pressure on the Finance Minister to provide the adequate budget that my colleague's Department deserves and needs.

Mrs Dillon: I thank my colleague Emma Sheerin for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House. The Member who spoke before me referred to the fact that this could save the Government money. It actually could save schools money. Procurement costs come out of the school budget, and we know how difficult schools are having it and how much they are struggling to save money in their budgets. We need a balanced approach to the challenges that have been outlined; that is essential. We need an approach that maintains robust procurement practices whilst being mindful of cost efficiencies. Empowering our rural schools across Mid Ulster with greater autonomy over procurement decisions could be very beneficial for the schools — pupils, staff and principals — and all the people who are trying to deliver the best education for our children. Simplifying the procurement procedures for lower-value contracts can alleviate administrative burdens. Streamlined processes would enable rural schools to respond swiftly to pressing maintenance needs, ensuring that essential repairs were not delayed by bureaucratic hurdles.

In essence, while centralised procurement aims to ensure consistency and fairness, flexibility, with appropriate oversight and accountability mechanisms, is crucial, because that will allow significant savings in our schools' seriously stretched budgets. By striking a balance between good practice and cost-saving measures, essential works can be carried out in our schools without imposing undue financial strain. Other Members have described how that can be done in our school family and by the people who want to support our schools.

I have heard examples of the current procurement process costing anything up to three to four times what schools are quoted for maintenance works. In one case, a school was quoted £860 for new flooring; that was for the work and everything, all in. When the school had to go through the EA process, it ended up paying £2,400 for the same company to put the flooring in. The company showed the school its invoice. It did not charge the EA one penny more than the quote that it gave the school. That is seriously concerning. We could give many examples like that, as others have done — we do not need to give more — that show the importance of the issue and the savings that there could be for schools. We expect schools to make efficiencies and savings, but we ask them to do so with not one hand but, often, both hands tied behind their back.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. She makes an important point that there are huge savings to be made — we have heard the examples cited in the Chamber and in our communities — but it is not just a Department of Education problem. There is huge waste across government when it comes to procurement. I am thinking particularly of the need for more government efficiencies to help with our public sector at this hard time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. You have up to seven minutes now.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you. The Member has read my mind. I was going to say to the Minister, "You could lead the way here. Other Departments use similar procurement processes that are equally inefficient, so you have an opportunity to work with our schools and show other Departments that it can be done". It can be done with proper oversight and accountability, which I do not want to be removed — we have to be responsible.

I urge the Minister to take on board the concerns that are being raised with us by school representatives across Mid Ulster and review the procurement process as a matter of urgency. Whilst the debate is specifically about Mid Ulster, the issue impacts on all school communities across the North. I look forward to hearing your response, Minister, and I am sure that my colleague Emma Sheerin, all representatives across the House and I will support you in anything that you can do to review the process.

Mr Mathison: I do not want to speak for long: I certainly would not want to step on the toes of any of the Mid Ulster reps, and I will not go into examples from my constituency. Every Member who is here has highlighted the fact that, when you visit a school principal, they will complain about the ridiculous scenario in which, on the one hand, they are pressed by the EA to deliver financial sustainability because budgets are under so much pressure, and, on the other, they are compelled to pay over the odds for EA-procured services. That is an incredibly frustrating position for custodians of public money to be in.

I echo the comments that have been made. All school leaders find that scenario really frustrating. Many are staring into budget deficits that they cannot see a way out of because of the pressures that they are under, particularly from staffing costs. I declare an interest: I sit on the board of governors of Killinchy Primary School, and so I am well aware of the budget pressures that are faced and the difficult position that principals are in when they go to their board of governors to say, "I have had to spend x on this because the EA procured the service, as was required, but I know that so-and-so down the road could have done it for a fraction of the price". It is very frustrating.

The message is clear: schools should be freed up to source the best value for money in low-level, routine maintenance and spending. That could mean anything from cutting the grass, to cleaning the gutters, to buying play resource equipment for the lower end of the school.

Principals should not feel that they are constrained by contracts procured by the EA that end up costing them more money.

In 2017, when the EA was established, we were promised that it was going to deliver economies of scale and that schools would benefit from those savings because the EA would be able to deliver that for them. While centralised procurement may provide a degree of consistency and a degree of central oversight, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it certainly has not delivered value for money. We need to find a way to reset that balance. I definitely echo comments made by other Members that we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. All these processes need to be subject to appropriate and robust scrutiny, so, whatever the EA would do to review its procurement processes to deliver better value for money for schools, there needs to be oversight. It could not just be a nod to someone who lives down the road to say, "You do that, and we will make sure that we get you in to cut the grass for ever and ever and never ask anyone else". These processes should be robust, and we all need to be careful and cautious when public money is being spent, but value for money has to be balanced against that.

I take encouragement from the Minister's previous comments that he is keen to look at the issue, so I am hopeful that, when he responds to the debate, which clearly has relevance in Mid Ulster and across Northern Ireland, there will be a sense of a clear timeline in which we will see some improvement in this area. I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate today. I emphasise that, yes, we want robust scrutiny of public money, but we must deliver value for money for our schools.

Mr Crawford: I join others in thanking the Member opposite for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House today. Although, like the previous Member who spoke, I do not have the pleasure of representing the good folk of Mid Ulster, I am pleased to take part this evening and make a few brief remarks as the Ulster Unionist education spokesperson.

Our schools are not just buildings. They are the heart of our communities and are where our children learn, grow and prepare for the future. For far too long, schools have faced unnecessary delays and deficiencies when it comes to their maintenance and repair needs. That is due, in large part, to a procurement process that is overly complex, slow and burdened by red tape. Every day, school administrators, teachers and parents are frustrated by the length of time it takes to get basic maintenance tasks completed. Whether it is fixing a leaking roof, repairing a broken boiler or ensuring the safety of the playground, the current system is not working fast enough. This is not just a minor inconvenience. It directly affects the learning environment and, ultimately, the quality of education that our children receive.

Today, I join others, right across the House, in calling for a simplified, streamlined procurement process for school maintenance. That would mean faster approval times and more autonomy for local decision makers. We need a system where schools can quickly secure the services that they need to keep their buildings safe and functional. My ask is simple: reduce the number of steps involved in the procurement process, cut down on excessive paperwork and allow local contractors who know our schools and our community best to be prioritised in the bidding process. By doing so, we will not only speed up maintenance work but boost local businesses and create jobs. We also need to ensure that the funding allocated for school maintenance is used efficiently. Every penny must be spent where it is needed most: on our children's education and well-being. Schools should not be waiting for months to fix critical infrastructure issues.

The success of reform depends on the collaboration of all stakeholders: local government, the Education Authority, contractors and community members. Together, we can build a procurement process that is transparent, efficient and serves the best interests of our schools. I firmly believe that a simplified process will lead to quicker repairs, safer schools and better outcomes for our children. Our schools must be a priority.

I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber today to listen and reply to the debate, which is about ensuring that schools are properly maintained without unnecessary delays. Let us make that change happen for the future not only of children in Mid Ulster but students right across Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Ms Sheerin for securing the Adjournment debate and those colleagues who spoke on the issue. Having been a constituency MLA for quite a number of years, I very much share Members' frustrations. I am now in a position to, hopefully, do something about it, which is what I have been trying to do, and I will get to that later in my contribution.

This is an opportunity to provide an update to Members on the Education Authority's plans to introduce new contracts for the delivery of maintenance that will better deliver value for money, quality and responsiveness to all our schools. In raising the subject, Ms Sheerin has pre-empted her colleagues who have tabled a motion for next week on procurement. We will touch on very much the same issues, so you will likely hear a repetition of what I am about to say. I have no doubt that that will help to inform your contributions to and speeches for that debate.

Since becoming Minister, I have visited over 150 schools, including a number in Mid Ulster. I have listened to and heard the concerns and frustrations of many principals about the state of some school buildings. The Chair of the Education Committee, Mr Mathison, just outlined those frustrations — I have heard them — about trying to get value-for-money repairs completed in reasonable time frames.

We have an estate of over 1,100 schools. The recent Audit Office report only served to highlight what we already know: many of our schools are in extremely poor condition. I see that every time that I go to some of those schools. Years of underinvestment, coupled with insufficient budget availability and the requirement for a large number of additional specialist places for rapidly increasing numbers of children with special educational needs, have meant that the top priority for investment has been to keep schools open and safe.

The schools maintenance resource allocation for the current financial year is just over £20 million. That allocation is directed to statutory inspections, response maintenance and the maintenance officers who work on the ground with schools. Planned maintenance has just not been possible within the existing resources. The focus had to be on health and safety, statutory compliance and the need to address urgent and emergency repairs that could close a school or present a significant health and safety risk. It is not good enough, and that is why I am unapologetic about continuing to make a strong case for increased and sustained investment in our education system.

I will take a moment to outline the current maintenance arrangements. The Education Authority has statutory responsibility for maintenance in controlled, maintained and other maintained schools, which are mainly Irish-medium schools. Voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools are responsible for their own maintenance, and they receive an enhanced budget for that purpose. Schools report maintenance issues through the EA's maintenance help desk. The maintenance service will triage those requests, with the response being categorised according to risk. Response maintenance is undertaken by the EA's term service short contractors. Under the current arrangements, there is no scope for controlled and maintained schools to procure their own maintenance works. I hear regularly from schools about that. I am sure that every Member present has heard the same frustrations, and those who took part in the Adjournment debate have articulated them.

I am pleased to be able to inform you that the Education Authority has completed a comprehensive review of how it delivers maintenance and minor works to schools. That review involved many engagements with principals, and the feedback was taken on board. The Education Authority has worked over several years to procure new maintenance contracts, and I am pleased to advise that it is now in the latter stages of that complex exercise to procure new term service short contracts for maintenance and minor works. There have been six separate procurement exercises. Each exercise contains three lots, based on the type of work and the council area. There are two types of work in the exercise: building maintenance/minor works; and mechanical and electrical maintenance/minor works. Two contracts have been awarded, with a planned commencement date of 1 April, and the other four are well under way. The procurement exercises relating to building maintenance, mechanical and electrical maintenance and minor works for the mid-Ulster area closed on 6 February, and the Education Authority will soon begin to evaluate the tenders. It is anticipated that the new contracts will be implemented across Northern Ireland in a phased approach, to be completed by September this year. The new delivery model will include performance measures to monitor early warnings of contractual non-performance and respond immediately, and to monitor cost certainty, with set prices for most requested maintenance activities. That will deliver an improved and more responsive service for our schools. EA maintenance officers will keep schools informed as contracts are put in place across Northern Ireland in the coming months.

While the service transitions to the new model, there are contractor contingency arrangements in place for mechanical and electrical maintenance works. Those are, unfortunately, impacting on delivery on the ground in schools in some areas. The EA is aware of the ongoing contractor capacity issues: it is ensuring that works are appropriately triaged and implementing alternative contingency arrangements where required. Schools should continue to report urgent maintenance issues via the EA's maintenance help desk.

Alongside the new contracts, the Education Authority's maintenance service is reviewing how it can provide the most efficient and effective model for schools to procure low-level maintenance works. That model will be for maintenance works of around £5,000 that form part of the tenant responsibilities. That includes things such as painting and carpeting. That speaks to the example that Mrs Dillon raised about the £800 flooring and how the price rose after the EA process to three times that, at around £2,400. The new approach will allow the school to procure the work at that lower level and take it forward. It is anticipated that any changes will be implemented in the coming academic year. The EA will advise schools on when the change will come into operation. I am sure that that change will be warmly welcomed by schools as it will give them greater flexibility when it comes to smaller scale works while ensuring that there is compliance with health and safety and quality standards. It strikes the right balance between ensuring value for money and health and safety. Schools are all reputable organisations that will not procure work that is to the detriment of either health and safety or the taxpayer. It is right that we provide that flexibility, and I think that it will be welcomed.

I will look at the £5,000 figure. The Department of Finance has a role in central procurement and policy that other Departments follow. The Minister has been looking at that issue. Where there is scope for me to address the £5,000 figure, I intend to do so, albeit it will not be increased in any significant way. We need to make sure that we keep that figure under review, and, where appropriate, adjust it if it can be adjusted. Let us get the new approach in place, and then we can look at the threshold that is currently set at £5,000.

I conclude by acknowledging the frustrations that we all feel about maintenance. However, the new contracts will enhance response times and provide cost certainty in relation to maintenance works. The new arrangements for schools to self-procure low-value works will make a significant improvement for schools. I will continue to make the case for increased and sustained investment in our schools to ensure that all children in Mid Ulster and across Northern Ireland are educated in schools that are comfortable and safe, are of good quality and are properly designed and resourced to support their learning.

I thank colleagues for taking part in the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank everybody who took part in the debate. I thank Emma for bringing it to the Chamber.