Official Report: Tuesday 08 April 2025

Mr Speaker: Before we begin, I ask for the House's indulgence to stray slightly from our normal procedures. Today is the last sitting before Dr Alex McGarel retires from the Assembly. While she has been at the Assembly since 2008, first as Clerk to the then Committee for the Environment, she has, over the past 11 years, been Clerk to the Business Committee and been responsible for working with Whips and the Executive to manage the business coming through the House.

Alex would be the first to advise me that I should not name officials in the Chamber

but it is right that we should formally record her work and dedication to the Assembly. She is very well regarded by Members and her colleagues and will be very much missed. I therefore hope that the whole House will join me in thanking her for her service and wishing her all the best for a very long and happy retirement, although, as I understand it, she is going to lamb sheep [Laughter.]

Having done that for quite a number of years in years gone by, I know that it is no retirement, but it is very rewarding when you bring a little lamb into the world. Thank you, Alex, for all that you have done.

Mr McGlone: With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to be associated with your comments. From being in the Assembly, as a former Chair of the Environment Committee and in various other roles that I have performed, I know that Alex has always been there, bringing a very professional, intellectual and calming influence to all that she was associated with. Alex, from me to you, I offer my sincerest best wishes for the future and for your retirement in whatever guise that may take. Best wishes, Alex.

Ms Bunting: This announcement has taken me by shock this morning. Alex will be a significant loss to the Assembly and to the House. I have worked with Alex for many years during my time as a member of staff in the DUP Chief Whip's office and as DUP Chief Whip. She was always there if I needed to understand something, needed something explained or needed assistance or help. Alex was always a very steady hand, dispensing sage advice. It was a joy to work with her and to know that she was there to give that advice and assistance, and she was always good fun.

Alex, I cannot thank you enough. I appreciate that it is not protocol to speak beyond the Speaker's Chair, but, on behalf of everybody in the DUP, I wish you every success in the next phase of your life. You will be sorely missed. Thank you for everything that you have done for us over the many years that you have been here.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Like Joanne, I was shocked to find out this morning that you were going, Alex. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I wish you all the very best. I was Sinn Féin's Chief Whip twice. As we know, it is not easy, and, as you know, we are not easy. [Laughter.]

On a personal note, I thank you very much from my time as Whip and in the office of Deputy Speaker. I have no idea what lambing sheep entails — I am from the New Lodge Road, and not many sheep are lambed in that area — but I have no doubt that you will work as hard at that as you have at your job here. You are well respected across the House and by all parties, and you will be missed. Thank you very much. Enjoy your very early retirement. Good luck.

Ms Bradshaw: On behalf of the Alliance Party MLA group, Alex, I say that you have been a wonderful source of information. As late as 5.30 pm last night, I ran in to ask you about Standing Order 33. We will miss you sorely, and I am sure that your colleagues in the Business Office will as well. Thank you for everything. Have a happy retirement.

Dr Aiken: Thank you, Alex. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I wish you all the best for your well-earned retirement. Mr Speaker, the nice thing, when sitting in that Chair beside Alex, is when she looks across and gives that little, quizzical look. It reminds you that you need to keep on your toes. Thank you very much for everything that you have done, Alex. You will, indeed, be missed. Don't be a stranger.

Mr Buckley: Further to my colleague Joanne Bunting's remarks, Alex, you will definitely be missed. As somebody who has lambed a few sheep, I can say that it is a rewarding and valuable profession.

Mr Speaker, Alex has been of assistance to you in the Chair, and it would be remiss if we were not to also mention a lady who has been vital to so many of us. I think of Kristine Gillespie in the Assembly library. Kristine is also retiring, having given 24 years' service to the library. She has been a valuable source of information for so many of us, taking on board our many issues and complaints — Members are not easy to deal with, at times. I put that on record. I thank them both for their service.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Members. That is the embarrassing bit over, Alex. [Laughter.]

I probably should not have been so nice to Alex, because, when I was the Minister of the Environment for two years, she was feeding Patsy McGlone all the information to go after me on. [Laughter.]

Nonetheless, that is the role of the Assembly: encouraging people to find the appropriate information on which to challenge Ministers and, often, to inform Ministers. That is an important part of the role.

Ms Finnegan: Go raibh maith agaibh, a chairde.

As we speak, the Mournes are burning. They have been burning for three weeks. Huge tracts of land have been destroyed, and all manner of unique native flora and fauna have been killed. Furthermore, we heard, just this week, that there is an 80% chance of another massive outbreak of blue-green algae in Lough Neagh this summer. That is why positions such as the Climate Commissioner are crucial. Aside from that being a legal requirement of the Climate Change Act 2022, which the House supported, protecting our environment will require independent offices that can hold Departments to account on their climate requirements and offer expert advice and analysis when needed.

Of course, the climate threat has no respect for borders and requires an all-Ireland response. The "One Island-One Environment" event sought to examine another major aspect of climate change here: its future impact on the island of Ireland as a single biogeographic entity. On Friday, I attended the "One Island-One Environment" conference with my colleagues, Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly and Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan. At the conference, the many shared climate and environmental challenges and opportunities that face us as an island were discussed. That includes the potential for us to achieve energy independence and energy security as well as addressing the environmental damage to some of our inland waterways, such as Lough Neagh.

Sinn Féin's vision for renewable energy is to ensure that the transition is fair, just and affordable by using our natural resources to create more national wealth for the benefit of all, socially and economically, in the long term.

My constituency of Newry and Armagh shares in the many challenges and opportunities that climate change presents to environmental-facing rural communities across the island. As a Sinn Féin representative for Newry and Armagh, I will work to support family farms and sustainable farming, which play such an important role in our community and local economy.

Ms Bunting: I extend warmest congratulations to the Belfast Giants, who have once again made Northern Ireland proud by winning the Elite Ice Hockey League title for the 2024-25 season, which is the third time in four years. It goes beyond a sporting victory: it is a celebration of excellence, determination, dedication, commitment and the will to win and a demonstration of the unifying power of sport in our society. The Giants' success on the ice is truly remarkable. To lift the league title in such a way and in such a competitive environment is no mean feat. That title win was not a given: it was hard-won in a tough sport. The victory speaks volumes about the professionalism and dedication of the players, the coaching staff and everyone behind the scenes at the club.

What makes the Belfast Giants so special is not just their performance on the rink but the role they play in the life of this city and region. Since their formation in 2000, the Giants have done more than just bring silverware to Belfast; they have made ice hockey what it is in Northern Ireland. They have built the fan base, been instrumental in the growth of ice hockey in Northern Ireland and inspired countless young people to look at the option of sport on the ice.

The Giants' community outreach work also deserves particular recognition. From supporting youth mental health initiatives to engaging with schools, championing anti-sectarianism and anti-racism campaigns, the club has consistently used its platform for good. It is a role model for how professional sport can make a tangible difference in society.

Let us not underestimate the economic impact of the Giants' success. They attract thousands of fans every week, including many visitors from overseas, supporting local jobs, tourism and the night-time economy in east Belfast and beyond.

Well done to all involved in this great victory, and long may their success continue.

Ms Bradshaw: I rise to note a recent report from independent academics in London that has laid bare the severe damage that Assembly collapse and stop-start government is causing to communities and public services in Northern Ireland. It reinforces the need to reform the institutions so that they cannot be collapsed on a whim and the sectarian veto becomes a thing of the past.

The report, 'Reform of Stormont: Options for Discussion', from the constitution unit at University College London states that, during Assembly collapses from 2017 to 2020 and from 2022 to 2024:

That is strikingly similar to the module 1 report of the UK COVID-19 inquiry, which also noted that preparations for the pandemic had been hindered by the absence of functioning government in the months before the virus first emerged from China in late 2019.

The University College London report, authored by Conor Kelly, Alan Renwick and Alan Whysall, goes even further, blaming recent Assembly collapses for the failure to progress long-term solutions to the problems faced by Northern Ireland's finances, health service and other public-sector services. Of course, it must be said that that is to do with not just the non-operation of the institutions but the bias in our institutional set-up in favour of the status quo and against reform. Taking the key decisions to reform our health service and water infrastructure etc and, indeed, to tackle the cost of division is rendered much more difficult by the prospect of blockage via the abuse of the sectarian veto. The report assesses the options for reforming the power-sharing structures at Stormont and says:

and improve the implementation of key policy priorities. Again, that is linked to the emerging evidence in the COVID inquiry.

That independent analysis reinforces what the Alliance Party has been saying for years, even decades. Ransom politics and vetoes over government are blocking the transformation and improvement of key public services and causing damage to people and communities across Northern Ireland. Stop-start government takes a wrecking ball to the key priorities that households in every corner of Northern Ireland are, we know, relying on us to deal with. The independent report, along with the emerging evidence from the COVID-19 inquiry, provides fresh impetus to all parties in the Chamber and to the UK and Irish Governments to engage meaningfully in a conversation about institutional reform ahead of the next Assembly election in 2027.

Ms Dolan: The lack of preschool places is causing great distress to families across Fermanagh. I have been contacted by countless parents who are anxious, frustrated and deeply concerned because they simply cannot secure a place for their child. It is not a case of parents being picky because they did not get their first preference; a number of my soon-to-be four-year-old constituents have missed out on a place at all four of their local playgroups. Their families now face enormous uncertainty as they try to plan for the months ahead, and many fear that their children will miss out on vital early years education. That situation not only places an emotional burden on parents and children but creates serious logistical challenges for working parents who rely on preschool places to help them to balance work and family life.

The Minister and the Education Authority must work with local providers to ensure that additional preschool places are made available in Fermanagh and across the North as a matter of urgency. We need a clear plan to support rural provision and ensure that no child is left without a place.

Mr Kingston: I praise two championship-winning Belfast teams that raised their league trophy last weekend. By number of league title wins, one team is the most successful team in the United Kingdom in the modern era, and the other is the most successful team in the world, no less.

The first champions are the Belfast Giants, who, as Joanne Bunting said, once again won the Elite Ice Hockey League with a comeback win against the Nottingham Panthers on Sunday. The Giants have won four of the past five league titles, all of them under head coach Adam Keefe, who arrived as a player in 2011 and went on to become team captain and head coach. His team is now going for the grand slam, which will be its second grand slam in three years, if it can add the play-off title to the league title and the Challenge Cup, which it has already won this year. The Belfast Giants have now won the Elite Ice Hockey League seven times, extending their record as the most successful team since that UK-wide league commenced in 2003.

The Giants will be back in the Champions Hockey League next season, playing against the top teams in Europe. With matches at the SSE Arena regularly selling out and averaging about 7,000 spectators per game, the Giants have successfully embedded ice hockey here and, as one of our top-performing teams, are a credit to us all in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker, if you do not mind my extending my statement into South Belfast, I will say that the other champion team is, of course, Linfield Football Club, which lifted the Gibson Cup for a record-extending fifty-seventh time on Saturday after defeating Glentoran 2-1 in the Irish Premiership at Windsor Park. Linfield actually won the league a couple of weeks ago with six games to spare, that being the first time that a team has won the league before the split. Linfield thereby extended its record as the club with the greatest number of top division titles — 57 — of any country in the world. It will aim to emulate Larne by qualifying for one of the European league competitions next season.

Particular congratulations are due to manager David Healy for achieving an impressive six league titles in nine full seasons as Linfield manager, a record that will sit alongside his status as Northern Ireland's leading goalscorer at international level. Special mention must also be given to the man who lifted the Gibson Cup on Saturday, Linfield's captain fantastic, Jamie Mulgrew. He won his eleventh Irish Premiership title, setting a new record in the Irish league and overtaking that other modern-day Linfield legend, Noel Bailie, who won an impressive 10 league titles as part of his exceptional total of 40 trophy wins.

We in Northern Ireland take great pride in sporting achievements and in those who put us on the map in international competition, so we wish the Belfast Giants and Linfield every success in their European adventures next season.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Kingston. I am delighted to endorse your remarks about Linfield Football Club; I do not whether I am allowed to do so, but I just have.

Mr Mathison: I rise to highlight the deeply concerning evidence that the Education Committee received last week about the Education Authority's (EA) 14-plus transitions service. The service is tasked to deliver a statutory function to prepare young people with a statement of special educational needs (SEN) for their transition out of statutory education and on to the next step in their journey. We learned that just 10 staff support the service, which aims to support 9,000 young people in the 14-plus age bracket with a SEN statement. Each staff member will end up with caseloads of around 900 young people to support. Is it any wonder that parents report simply not receiving the service at all?

The Committee previously heard evidence from Alma White, who has spearheaded the Caleb's cause campaign, and she powerfully set out how unsupported many parents and young people feel as they navigate the transition. We all know that the budgets of every Department are under pressure, but this is a statutory service. It is not an add-on or an optional extra. Those young people are entitled to a transition plan to support their educational journey. I urge the EA, in the first instance, to urgently bring forward a business case for the resources that it needs for the service, and the Education Minister should look seriously at whether the right financial support is targeted at that vital service.

The concern is about more than the understaffing. We also learned that, even after a plan is provided to those young people, once they leave the school system, no Department or other statutory agency owns the plan or has any legal duty to deliver on it. The legal protections that a student with special educational needs has at school are simply lost overnight. Is it right for us to present our young people with special educational needs with that sort of cliff edge as they plan to leave school?

I fully support the calls from Caleb's cause for legislation to put in place the legal protections that our young people with SEN need at 19 or whenever they leave the school system. I call on the Economy Minister in the first instance to urgently update the Assembly on the outcome of her Department's review of the matter. We need to know what she will do tangibly and legislatively to address the cliff edge. While we wait for progress, the Education Minister cannot let the EA transition service flounder in its current form. He must act to rectify the position, which was set out so clearly at the Education Committee last week. It is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue in its current form, otherwise we will profoundly let down our young people with SEN.

Ms Forsythe: Yesterday evening, I was privileged to join the deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, at Bloody Bridge to meet and thank the incredible team that is responding to the fires in the Mournes. We appreciate them so much as they fight the fires to keep us all safe and save nature. The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS) has been dedicated and outstanding in its work across Northern Ireland to fight a huge range of fires, especially those in the Mourne Mountains this weekend. Last night, it was insightful to hear about the success of the tactical approaches used across the fire sites, as well as about the professionalism, expertise and hard work in the face of danger. Our Fire and Rescue Service is amazing, and I thank it for all that it has done and continues to do.

Two weeks ago, I stood here and spoke about the devastating fires in the Mournes and appealed for people to stop that awful behaviour. I am saddened to have to speak again following the escalation, with a major incident declared on Saturday night and an arrest for arson. It needs to stop. I welcome the fact that the PSNI have made an arrest in connection with Saturday's fire, as well as its excellent coordination on the ground, closing roads and managing safety. I give special thanks to our local Mournes neighbourhood sergeant, Kenny Gracey, who was among those whom we met last night.

It is important that the seriousness of the criminal activity that led to some of the fires be recognised. Arson is a dangerous crime that puts many lives at risk, not least the lives of those who go out to fight the fires. I hope that we see serious sentences and punishments that fit those crimes.

Last night, we also met Sky Watch Northern Ireland, which is a Northern Ireland-based search-and-rescue charity that uses specialist drones, high-tech equipment and all-terrain vehicles to assist the police, fire service and other agencies with emergency responses. Its input into dealing with the fires has been critical. Mr Speaker, those on the Sky Watch NI team spoke highly about you and were grateful that, in your time as AERA Minister, when there were horrific mountain fires in 2021, you recognised their need for improved equipment and secured resources for them.

The deputy First Minister and I were grateful that those on the team took the time to show us their equipment and how they reach difficult terrain in their vehicles. They demonstrated how they use the drones to view and measure the movement of the fire to assist the fire service. That was so impressive, and it gave us a great insight into the importance of resourcing such things to enable our emergency services to respond to such events. It would be great to see DAERA supporting the team's ideas for new drones to carry water up to the fires, which has the potential to make a huge impact.

Again, I thank the emergency services, as they continue to fight the fires today. I pray for their safety and call on the public to stay out of the mountains until it is declared safe to return. I call on anyone with evidence of criminal behaviour to come forward to the PSNI.

Mr Gaston: I rise for the third time in the Chamber to raise the issue of the imposition of Irish language signage at Grand Central station. I do so, Ms Hunter, not because of a coloniser mindset, but because I believe that Northern Ireland is big enough to accommodate identities that are not Irish. While the issue was raised under "any other business" at the Executive on Thursday, the media have noted that Ministers were surprised by the deputy First Minister's robustness at the press conference. Be that as it may, I welcome the acknowledgement by yet another senior figure in the DUP that the Infrastructure Minister's decision is controversial and should go before the Executive.

When does the point come when I will welcome not just words but actions? On Friday, my party leader made four points about the issue. The Minister cites Translink's decisions to have bilingual signage at Newry and on some Glider services as justifying her imposition of Irish language signage at Grand Central station. In doing so, she acknowledges that it is for Translink, not the Minister, to make such operational decisions. The partnership agreement that governs the relationship between DFI and Translink makes that clear. Secondly, while the Communities Minister may have statutory responsibilities in respect of language, Minister Kimmins has none. That means that her decision was a cross-cutting one that required Executive approval. Thirdly, the money spent on this is immaterial: what matters is the social impact. The polling which I have referenced in the Chamber shows that the Irish language has a chill factor for people from a Protestant background, including Alliance voters. Fourthly, in contending that her remit involves overseeing the delivery of public transport services, Minister Kimmins effectively concedes her overreach, because imposing the signage on a station is clearly neither overseeing the delivery of public transport nor compatible with the arrangements that afford such functions to the arm's-length body. Translink is not being allowed to operate as an arm's-length body if the Minister is involving herself in the minutiae of operational decisions.

I have established with the Business Office that my petition to refer the matter to the Executive remains open to receive signatures until 28 April. After that, it will be too late, and every unionist in the Chamber will have to answer why they did not join me in doing something about it. In the words of Hamlet:

Mr Buckley: I stand today to give voice to the growing frustration and disappointment felt by many hard-working families in our community. Those families are being denied preschool places for their children not because they applied too late or did not meet the requirements but because of a system that prioritises certain circumstances over others. The dated and discriminatory legislation, which has been in place since 1999, instructs preschool education providers to prioritise some kids over others, placing labels and assumptions on kids before they have even had a chance to start their education journey.

Let me be clear: supporting vulnerable families and ensuring that every child has access to early education is vital. However, we must also recognise that many hard-pressed working families are being penalised because they do not meet the current criteria. Parents are penalised for going the extra mile and for working every hour of the day to provide a living for their family, with little left at the end of the month to show for it.

In the past week, I have spoken to working families who have been denied a preschool place even though they have multiple children already at their preferred school. I have spoken to working families who have been allocated a space in, sometimes, their eighth or ninth school of choice, which is often far from their home and past a number of preferred schools along the way. It is beyond ridiculous. Those families contribute to society, pay taxes and do their best to provide for their children, often juggling work, rising living costs and childcare, yet, when it comes to securing a preschool place, they find themselves at the back of the queue. That is not just disappointing; it is unfair.

The system should not pit one family's needs against another's. It should be about balance. Every child deserves a start in life, regardless of their parent's income bracket or employment status. Preschool education is not a luxury but a foundation. Access to such a thing should be equitable across the board. We call for a more inclusive approach that does not overlook the struggles and contributions of working families. Members, we should endeavour to have a system that values fairness and ensures that no family is left behind simply because they are doing their best to stay afloat.

Mrs Guy: I am delighted to congratulate Harmony Hill Primary School in Lisburn on celebrating its 60th anniversary. I pay tribute to the leadership team of Mrs Johnston and Mr Henry for the work that they do and to all the staff in that absolutely wonderful school, which is the heart of its community. I also acknowledge an amazing concert that the school held last week in the Island Arts Centre in Lisburn to celebrate the anniversary. It was an absolutely amazing night. There are so many talented kids in that school. Well done to all of them and to all the staff who made the event happen. I send congratulations to them again on their 60th anniversary and best wishes for the rest of the celebrations that they have planned.

Mr Gildernew: I raise again the desperate situation of many families who need respite services. It must be said that, in many situations, respite is the bare minimum that many of our carers and families get. It allows them a short time to have a break, refresh their batteries and just recharge. However, too often, we see situations in which respite is cancelled at the last minute for families who were so desperately looking forward to it. I have seen that happen once again in Dungannon in my constituency. On that occasion, the cancellation was linked to staffing, but the impact is the same. They are families, some of them with parents in their 80s, who are doing the vast majority of the care, day in and day out, week in and week out, and had been looking forward to one weekend. The levels of respite in general have been cut dramatically over years now, which means that many families get only a weekend or a day or two at a time. To have that withdrawn at short notice is absolutely devastating. I urge the Minister of Health and the trusts to look urgently at how the situation can be stabilised, because it is just not fair to continue to let down families who do so much on behalf of all of us. In many ways, they are the backbone of the health service, and we are letting them down repeatedly.

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

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

Mr Lyons: I am pleased to move the Final Stage of the Child Support Enforcement Bill. I thank the Committee and Members across the Chamber who have given their support to the Bill and its progression through the Assembly.

The Bill will enable the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) to make an administrative liability order without requiring an application to the Magistrates' Court. The existing court-based liability order process takes, on average, 22 weeks. It is estimated that the new administrative liability order process could be substantially shortened to six weeks.

If the Bill attains Royal Assent, secondary legislation will be required to implement and commence the proposals of the Act. It is expected that the first regulations relating to appeals against liability orders will be subject to the confirmatory procedure, thereby ensuring enhanced scrutiny through debate in the Assembly. Members may also note that a regulatory impact assessment was not prepared as the Bill will have minimal impact on businesses, charities, social economy enterprises or voluntary bodies.

The measures in the Bill will substantially speed up the time that it takes for the CMS to initiate its strongest enforcement powers and will improve the CMS in its role to secure child maintenance for children. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): As Chair of the Committee for Communities. I support the Final Stage of the Child Support Enforcement Bill.

The purpose of this short but significant Bill is to enable the Department to make administrative liability orders for the enforcement of child maintenance payments, replacing the current court-based process. It provides for the right of appeal to a court against the making of such an order. The Committee for Communities has welcomed the legislation, which aims to reduce the time taken to pursue enforcement action from the current average of 22 weeks through the courts to six weeks via the new administrative route. Members were reassured to note that the administrative orders carry the same weight as those issued by courts. Appropriate safeguards will remain in place, including access to appeal and the discharge of orders, where appropriate.

Following Second Stage, the Committee took forward its scrutiny role in accordance with Standing Orders. Despite receiving a modest response to our public call for evidence, we undertook a range of activity to inform our considerations. That included engaging directly with officials from the Department for Communities, who provided written responses and oral briefings, and commissioning research from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), which produced a comprehensive comparative analysis and other useful insights.

The Committee carefully considered the Bill's two clauses and one schedule as well as the wider implications of moving from a judicial process to an administrative process. Members explored matters such as safeguards for vulnerable individuals, including those experiencing mental ill health or domestic abuse, as well as the cross-border enforceability of administrative orders. Members were broadly satisfied with those measures.

Clause-by-clause scrutiny was conducted at our meeting on 21 November 2024. Having satisfied itself that the provisions of the Bill were appropriate, the Committee agreed all aspects of the Bill without amendment. No amendments were tabled by Members or the Minister at either Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage. That reflects the Committee's view that the Bill, as drafted, appears fit for purpose and will maintain sufficient protections. I wish to place on record the Committee's thanks to all those who supported our scrutiny of the Bill, including the departmental officials and the RaISe team.

While the legislation will affect a small proportion of Child Maintenance Service cases — around 2% — it still represents a significant change in process. The Committee has therefore recommended that the Department monitor the new arrangements and review their implementation after 12 months. We expect to be kept informed of how the new system is operating in practice, including its effectiveness in reducing processing times and maintaining safeguards.

On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I am content to recommend that the Assembly agree the Final Stage of the Child Support Enforcement Bill.

Mr Durkan: We on the Opposition Benches will vote for the Child Support Enforcement Bill to pass today.

The Bill retains parity with the rest of the UK, which passed its Bill in July 2023. We have previously made and, I am sure, will again make a principled argument against parity because we recognise the invidious position that that often puts the Minister and the Executive in when cuts come from London. However, on this occasion, parity is bringing legislation that will actually benefit the people here, and we welcome that. The non-payment of child maintenance disproportionately affects women, and the payment of child maintenance is also an important alleviating factor in tackling child poverty. All in all, this is positive legislation. We welcome it and give it our support.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful for the support across the House, and I commend the Bill to the House.

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

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

Mr Lyons: The Employment Rights Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 10 October 2024. The Bill aims to improve workplace conditions, extend employee protections, modernise employment laws, enhance existing provisions and introduce new rights. It also allows for the establishment of a single, UK-wide enforcement body, to be known as the Fair Work Agency, which will bring together existing enforcement functions from across a number of regimes.

The Bill is substantial, but the legislative consent motion (LCM) includes only the small number of provisions that affect devolved matters. The provisions fall under the remits of the Department for Communities, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance. Following requests from each of the relevant Ministers, I agreed to include the provisions of the Bill that fell to each of their Departments in the LCM in order to maintain parity with Great Britain on those matters.

I will now turn to the provisions of the Bill that fall within the scope of the LCM. Clauses 12 and 13 relate to statutory sick pay (SSP), which is the minimum that an employer must pay an eligible employee if they are unable to work owing to illness or injury. To be eligible, an employee must have average weekly earnings at or above the lower earnings limit, which is currently £6,500 a year. SSP is paid from the fourth day of absence. The standard rate for 2025-26 is £118·75, and it is paid for 28 weeks. Clause 12 will remove the waiting period for SSP. Currently, employees must wait three days before they can receive SSP payments. By enabling SSP to start from the first day of sickness, the Bill ensures that employees are supported from the moment that they are unable to work, which will address gaps in financial support during short-term illnesses and reduce financial hardship for employees.

Clause 13 will remove the lower earnings limit so that all employees, regardless of their income, will be eligible for SSP. That change will ensure that low-income workers, who are often most vulnerable to financial hardship during illness, are not left without support when they need it most. To ensure fairness, SSP payments will be set at whichever is lower between the flat weekly rate of £118·75 and 80% of the employee's weekly wages. That means that the majority of people who get SSP will continue to get the flat rate. For those who already earn less than the flat rate, however, the percentage-based option ensures that no one will receive more in SSP than they would have earned through wages.

Enforcement and dispute resolution is currently carried out by HMRC on a UK-wide basis. Part 5 of the Bill proposes to transfer SSP enforcement and dispute resolution to the new Fair Work Agency. In Northern Ireland, that change will ensure that local workers will benefit from the same level of enforcement and support as workers in Great Britain. DFC will retain overarching policy responsibility for SSP and maintain an advisory role to support the Fair Work Agency.

Clause 145 will amend the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 for the purposes of abolishing the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) and transferring its functions to the new Fair Work Agency.

The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority is a non-departmental public body that is sponsored by the Home Office and operates UK-wide to tackle worker exploitation, tax evasion and health and safety negligence. In Northern Ireland, its operations are funded and managed through DAERA. The authority currently employs two Northern Ireland-based enforcement officers, and it is understood that the functions currently carried out in Northern Ireland by the authority will not change on the ground.

Schedule 11 provides transitional and saving provisions, with paragraph 19 of that schedule providing that any of the amendments to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 made in paragraphs 17 to 23 of schedule 10 do not affect any provision of that Act relating to the operation of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. That is a simple saving provision that ensures that the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 remains operable and so maintains the Agricultural Wages Board for Northern Ireland.

Schedule 7, at paragraphs 8 to 12, lists the Northern Ireland legislation that is subject to enforcement by the Fair Work Agency under Part 5 of the Bill. That relates to legislation in respect of statutory sick pay. Schedule 7, at paragraph 35, gives powers enabling the Secretary of State to increase the remit of the Fair Work Agency in the future on a range of labour market and employment legislation by adding to the list of relevant labour market legislation contained in Part 1 of schedule 7, however paragraph 35(3) requires that any such changes that include Northern Ireland devolved legislation will require the consent of the relevant Northern Ireland Department or Departments.

Clause 30 of the Bill seeks to amend the Procurement Act 2023 by allowing a UK Minister to produce and publish a code of practice in relation to the protection of workers in outsourcing arrangements by public bodies to ensure that workers are treated no less favourably than workers of the contracting authority. The Procurement Act 2023 is UK-wide; however, as procurement policy is a transferred matter, Northern Ireland has opted out of the Act for key policy matters that do not relate to trade. It is, therefore, proposed that clause 30 will apply where reserved bodies are operating in Northern Ireland; where there is joint procurement between a transferred Northern Ireland body and a UK reserved body where the UK body is in the lead role; or where a transferred Northern Ireland body uses a framework set up by a reserved body or uses a reserved central procurement authority. Clause 30 will not apply to transferred Northern Ireland public bodies except for the previously mentioned circumstances.

In summary, agreeing the LCM will bring benefits to Northern Ireland. It will ensure that employees here receive the same enhanced SSP entitlements as their counterparts in Great Britain. That uniformity will help to prevent inequalities in worker protections and will minimise administrative burdens for employers operating across the UK. Incorporating the proposed abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the establishment of the Fair Work Agency avoids the need for a separate enforcement body in Northern Ireland, which would require significant time and resources to establish. The amendment to the Procurement Act 2023 will provide for the protection of workers in outsourcing arrangements by reserved public bodies operating in Northern Ireland, and the Bill has been amended to ensure that the powers enabling the Secretary of State to increase the remit of the Fair Work Agency by adding to the list of relevant labour market legislation contained in Part 1 of schedule 7 to the Bill will rely on the consent of the relevant Northern Ireland Department where they relate to Northern Ireland devolved legislation.

The proposals are not expected to have direct financial implications for the Northern Ireland block grant. At a UK level, consolidating functions under the Fair Work Agency is expected to generate efficiencies, although specific savings have not yet been quantified. While I seek to avoid using the LCM process where possible, in all the circumstances, it seems sensible to secure the benefits of the Bill for employees in Northern Ireland by agreeing to an LCM in respect of the Bill. The other Executive Ministers who are party to this LCM agree that, in these circumstances, an LCM is the best approach. The use of this procedure in this case should not be seen as a precedent or as an indication of how I intend to proceed in the future in this area. I am very aware of the importance of the Assembly's role in considering legislation and, in particular, the value of the Committee's scrutiny role.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): At its meeting on 27 February 2025, the Committee was briefed by officials from the Department for Communities, the Department of Finance, the Department for the Economy and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Committee was informed:

Those are all positive changes, which the Committee welcomes. Members were also informed that there will be an increase in cost for some employers in the North, particularly those who previously made SSP payments from the fourth day of sickness or excluded low-earning employees. Whilst we do not like to see increased costs, we were pleased to hear that they are mitigated to some degree by the broader benefits of supporting employee welfare, particularly for those who are on lower incomes, and reducing workforce disruption caused by sick workers attending work and passing on illness to others and the impact that that has on productivity.

The Committee heard that aligning with the Bill through an LCM ensures that employees here will receive the same enhanced SSP entitlements as their counterparts in other jurisdictions. That can only be a welcome measure at a time when working families are under increasing financial pressure in a cost-of-living crisis. The Committee welcomes the fact that that will prevent inequalities in workers' protections and minimise administrative burdens for employers who operate here and in Britain. The Committee asked officials what safeguards would be in place to ensure that the existing devolved employment laws were not altered without full Executive agreement. We were informed that the creation of the Fair Work Agency would have no immediate impact on devolved employment law. I welcome the comments that the Minister made at the end of his opening remarks on future changes that may be considered.

By seeking an amendment to the Bill, the Department for the Economy has future-proofed the North's option to become involved with the Fair Work Agency's work should the relevant Minister deem that to be appropriate at the time. It was reassuring to note that the Department for the Economy has been working closely with its colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on an amendment to the Bill that will introduce a consent mechanism to ensure that, if a future Secretary of State wants to increase the Fair Work Agency's remit so that it falls across devolved powers, they must seek the full consent of the relevant Department here and will not be able to proceed without that consent.

Members also asked about the proposal to abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and whether any assurance could be provided that, as a result of the transition, there would be no weakening or dilution of the protection that the current level of labour market enforcement offers here, particularly in vulnerable sectors. We welcomed the officials' response that some of the benefits that will be brought about will enhance those protection levels and that the only difference that employees, employers and employee providers will notice is that, instead of having to go to multiple places when they need help, there will be a single point of access for help. The Committee also welcomed the guarantee that there will be no dilution of the protection measures that the GLAA offers. We also asked the officials whether there would be any impact on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as a result of the LCM. We were told that no impact is anticipated and that one of the main reasons why the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority exists is to ensure that labour providers comply with all their statutory obligations, including, importantly, health and safety law. The Committee welcomes that reassurance.

In considering the LCM, the Committee decided that it is supportive of the provisions of the Bill that relate to statutory sick pay and believes that they will offer substantial protections to workers. The Committee also welcomes measures in the Bill that remove the eligibility requirement for earnings to be above the lower earnings limit and allow payment from the first day of any period of entitlement. The Committee is also supportive of the calls by the Equality Commission and the unions to ensure, in the context of addressing the potential for forced labour and the exploitation of migrant workers, that the remit of the FWA in the North covers all sectors of the economy in which migrant labour is prevalent; that operations in the North are sufficiently resourced; and that there is an associated focus on raising awareness of the rights of migrant workers. The Committee is also supportive of the call for union representation on the FWA. We were reassured to hear that the creation of the Fair Work Agency would have no impact on devolved employment law, as members feel that our employment and equality legislation needs to be protected. That will then ensure that the Assembly is protected and that no decisions to expand the remit of the FWA can be taken without the consent of Assembly Ministers. The Committee feels that consideration should be given to what local accountability mechanisms could be established to ensure that there is appropriate oversight of the role that the Fair Work Agency is proposed to fulfil. Consideration should also be given to the role that trade union representatives can play as part of that oversight.

We were recently informed that the House of Commons Report Stage of the Bill was held on 11 and 12 March and that Government amendments were tabled and are now in the Bill. We were made aware that the Government amendments were largely on provisions that did not engage the legislative consent mechanism and, therefore, do not come within the scope of the LCM. The Committee welcomes the relevant amendments to the Bill on SSP, the Fair Work Agency and the requirement to obtain the consent of the relevant Department here before any transferred legislation relating to employment rights can be added to the FWA's remit. Whilst the Committee is of the opinion that it prefers to see legislation originate in the Assembly, it accepts that, in this case, it is advantageous that any changes be made across all jurisdictions at the same time to ensure that people here in the North benefit from the changes brought about by the Bill. The Committee is therefore supportive of the draft legislative consent motion. On that basis, on behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.

I would like to make a few remarks as Sinn Féin communities spokesperson. Sinn Féin is broadly content with the reforms set out in the Bill, particularly the changes to statutory sick pay. Once enacted, the Bill will ensure that every worker is able to access statutory sick pay from the first day of illness. I acknowledge that the Department for the Economy is doing some interesting work on a 'good jobs' Bill, and we look forward to seeing more progress on that.

Initially, we had concerns about the Fair Work Agency, particularly the provision that allows the Secretary of State to expand the remit of the agency into devolved areas without any local democratic input. However, as I outlined in my earlier remarks, the amendment secured by the Minister for the Economy has provided an assurance that any future expansion of the FWA into devolved areas must have the consent of the Minister for the Economy and cannot proceed without that consent. It is important that the Fair Work Agency have local trade union representation on its board as a means of ensuring that workers have a voice in any discussions about the operational remit of the agency.

Finally, it is our view that local legislation is generally preferable to legislative consent motions. However, we are content that, on this occasion, the LCM provides the best mechanism for adopting the changes to ensure that we maintain parity with the other jurisdictions and that workers benefit from greater protections at the earliest possible stage.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I put on record the Committee for the Economy's support for today's LCM. At the Committee for the Economy's meeting on 19 February 2025, we received oral and written evidence from the Department on the aspects of the Bill for which legislative consent is sought today. As the House is aware, although the Employment Rights Bill includes a large number of provisions, most apply only to GB. The Department briefed the Committee on those aspects of the LCM that will touch on the devolved competencies of the Assembly.

The Committee understands that the FWA is intended to bring together existing state enforcement functions and, over time, take on the enforcement of a wide range of employment rights. The FWA will be an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade, and the Bill will allow the FWA to enforce certain employment legislation in respect of holiday and statutory sick pay throughout the United Kingdom. Officials indicated that, initially, there will be, in effect, no change to those enforcement functions in Northern Ireland, other than the establishment of the FWA and the abolishment of one body, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, and one role, Director of Labour Market Enforcement.

The Bill is understood to give the Secretary of State for Business and Trade the power to make regulations to expand the remit of state enforcement functions to include other employment legislation. Those are now subject to amendments that require the consent of the Executive. The Committee for the Economy therefore agreed that it supports the LCM. On behalf of the Committee, I am happy to have outlined our support for the motion.

Ms K Armstrong: Thanks to the Minister for bringing forward the LCM today. As the Committee Chair outlined, the Bill aims to improve workers' conditions, extend employee protections, modernise employment laws and enhance existing provisions.

It also allows for the establishment of a UK-wide enforcement body, which is to be known as the Fair Work Agency and about which I raised concern at the Committee at the time. That agency will bring together existing enforcement functions across a range of areas.

The Bill is substantial. Its impact is wider than usual on the devolved settlement. However, the LCM includes only a small number of provisions that appear in the Bill, as the Chair outlined. The amendments that were taken forward after the LCM are not included here. The provisions of the Bill fall under the remit of the Department for Communities, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance. As we heard from Mr Brett, the Department for the Economy is content with that.

I would not say that I am not content with the LCM, but I would like to highlight to the House the fact that the background paper states:

as outlined by the Chair and taken forward by the Minister for the Economy,

I wish to ensure that, in endorsing the LCM, the House recognises the potential for the Fair Work Agency to make changes to employment rights but only if the relevant Northern Ireland Department deems it appropriate. Therefore, I ask the Minister for Communities, who is moving the LCM on behalf of so many others, as he said, to assure the House that, if any Department deems that future Fair Work Agency changes to employment rights are appropriate for introduction in Northern Ireland, the changes will be subject to regional public accountability, as some witnesses who provided evidence to our Committee called for, and will be brought to the House for confirmation before being implemented.

There is no mention of the Windsor framework and article 2, which talks about no loss of equality and human rights for people in Northern Ireland because of Brexit. I would like an assurance from the Minister for Communities that, although the LCM and the Bill do not make reference to the Windsor framework, our equality and human rights here will not be eroded through the Fair Work Agency.

Mr McAleer (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

On 19 November, we first considered correspondence from DAERA on the potential extension to here of provisions in the UK Employment Rights Bill that would abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, move its enforcement powers to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and create a UK-wide Fair Work Agency that would carry out the work of the GLAA going forward. Minister Muir was minded to agree to an extension of the powers to NI via a legislative consent motion.

We next considered the matter at our meeting of 23 January 2025, when we received an update letter from DAERA and noted that Minister Muir had now agreed to the extension of the powers to here. We were advised that, as well as DAERA, the Department for Communities, the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy were within the scope of the Bill and that DFC would lead on the LCM.

The Committee noted that Minister Muir had indicated that he was content to support the LCM subject to the Bill's being amended in Part 2 of schedule 4 to ensure that approval from the Executive was required in the event of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade choosing to exercise the powers to amend relevant labour market legislation as set out in Part 1 of schedule 4. The Committee agreed to seek an oral briefing from DAERA and DFC officials. The briefing took place at our meeting on 20 February. We discussed the Minister's proposed amendment, which was to give assurance that the Secretary of State's powers to amend relevant labour legislation in NI would not be exercisable in the absence of Executive approval. The Committee also heard that the GLAA's functions would continue until the Fair Work Agency was operational and that there would, therefore, be no gap in the service provided to workers and employers.

The Committee heard that the Bill would bring benefits in protecting workers' rights and create a single recognisable brand for workers. The Committee then agreed to write to DAERA and the Committee for Communities in support of the LCM.

The Committee considered the matter for a final time at its meeting on 27 March, when we were advised by DAERA that further amendments to the Bill had been made as a consequence of the House of Commons Report Stage. However, none of the amendments changed the clauses to which Minister Muir had consented, and no new clauses had been introduced that were relevant to DAERA, so the LCM did not need to be amended. We noted that we had already agreed to support the LCM, that Minister Muir's requested amendment had now been included and that the Department was satisfied with the LCM as drafted.

After considering the matter at four meetings and taking oral evidence from DAERA and DFC officials, the Agriculture Committee supports the extension to here of provisions of the UK Employment Rights Bill through the LCM.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Declan. Minister, please make the winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. On balance, the provisions of the Bill that engage the LCM should extend to Northern Ireland. Agreeing to the LCM will allow important provisions to be enacted across the UK. I am grateful for the support that we have had across the Chamber and from the Committees.

One issue, in particular, has been raised again: that of Northern Ireland's employment legislation being added to the list of relevant legislation. Just to be clear in response to Kellie Armstrong's comment, changes that include Northern Ireland devolved legislation will require the consent of the relevant Northern Ireland Department or Departments. It is not a matter for the House or the Executive; the consent is given by the Minister, and that consent is given by way of communication between the Secretary of State and the relevant Minister.

I am grateful for the widespread support that we have in the Chamber and commend the motion to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members may take their ease for a few moments before the next item of business.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): 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 the First Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

. Today, we seek the Assembly's approval for the Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations 2025. It might be useful for Members if I set out the principal considerations that informed the preparation of the statutory rule (SR).

The Executive Office proposes to make a statutory rule under powers conferred by section 50 of the Climate Change Act 2022. When the Act was made in 2022, section 50 was an addition to the Climate Change Bill that was voted on and agreed in the Chamber. Therefore, the regulations are procedural in that they are the legislative tool for completing the establishment of the Climate Commissioner, a requirement that was made in law in 2022.

As is required by the Climate Change Act, the statutory rule is subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure before the Assembly. The statutory rule is in line with what is allowed for in section 50 of the Act, which is that it will allow TEO to establish an independent office to be known as the "Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner" and to allow the commissioner to have the following functions. The commissioner will oversee and report on the exercise of functions of our Departments under the Act. In particular, the commissioner will be able to provide advice and make recommendations to Departments, undertake commission research and publish reports, advice, recommendations and any other relevant information. The purpose of the statutory rule is, therefore, to implement section 50 of the Climate Change Act and to establish a Climate Commissioner here.

Climate change is not a concept or a possibility; it is happening right now, and the impacts locally are as real as they are pressing. Once established, we would be the first area on these islands to have its own dedicated Climate Commissioner. They will work together with the other climate advisory bodies that operate here: the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) and the just transition commission to support delivery of the Climate Change Act. That is something that, we hope, Members will get behind today.

We thank the Executive Office Committee and the Examiner of Statutory Rules for their prompt scrutiny of the regulations, and we welcome contributions from Members today.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): The Committee first considered the draft regulations on 23 October 2024, and Members agreed to forward the SL1 letter and draft statutory rule to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to seek its views before formally considering the SL1. On 20 November 2024, the Committee considered the response from the AERA Committee of 11 November. The AERA Committee indicated that it was supportive of the functions of the proposed Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner. At that meeting and having further considered the SL1, the Committee decided to withhold its consent until any amendments recommended by the Climate Change Committee had been incorporated into the regulations.

The Committee agreed to request an update on the timescales for ongoing engagement with the Climate Change Committee, as well as further information on the costs that the proposed commissioner's office would entail, the organisational structure of the new office and whether the office would remain in TEO after establishment. The response to those queries, including input from the Climate Change Committee, was received from TEO on 4 December 2024. The Committee considered the response from TEO and formally considered the SL1 for the draft regulations on 15 January 2025 and had no objection to the proposed statutory rule.

The Committee then received an oral briefing on the draft regulations, as laid before the Assembly, from the director of climate change and green growth in TEO on 19 March 2025. The Committee agreed to write to the Department to request a detailed breakdown of the £1 million per annum estimated costs for the establishment of the commissioner's office, including accounts for the salaries of the commissioner and their staff and infrastructure costs. The Committee also agreed to schedule the draft SR for consideration at the meeting of 26 March 2025.

At that meeting of 26 March, the Committee considered the answers received to its queries of 19 March and the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Examiner had no issues to raise. However, her report stated that the draft regulations contained typographical errors that had arisen as a result of a technical drafting issue. The Department is concerned and will correct those minor errors at its earliest opportunity. I am content with the approach of the Department in this instance.

The Question on the draft regulations was put to the Committee, and it divided: five members voted "Aye"; three members voted "No"; and there were no abstentions. The Committee therefore recommended that the draft Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 be approved by the Assembly.

I will now make a few points in my capacity as an MLA. The Climate Change Act was, of course, proposed by a DUP Minister. After considerable discussion to build consensus around the content of that legislation, it was unanimously agreed at Final Stage. That included DUP MLAs, of course, who backed their Minister's Bill but also Members right across the political spectrum of the Chamber.

The incorporation of a Climate Commissioner was primarily in recognition of the cost of inaction, which would be considerably higher than the cost of a commissioner who would ensure action. Northern Ireland had already been an outlier in the UK, with a record of improvement, particularly around carbon emissions, that was notably inferior to the rest of the UK for almost the entire 21st century. It would be peculiar if unionists were to continue to argue that Northern Ireland should remain an outlier in the UK on the matter. It is worth noting that steps to combat climate change in Northern Ireland, including the appointment of —

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Butler: Would the Member like to reflect on her statement where she rolled all unionists into one? You talked about the DUP at the start of your statement, which was fine. However, we have not had the chance to speak in the debate yet, and you have just said, "unionists". Would you like to reflect on that statement, please?

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your intervention. I was referring to the unionist position at the time that the Climate Change Act was before the Assembly. [Inaudible.]

Ms Bradshaw: OK, that is fine, but I will reflect that the three members at the Executive Office Committee who voted against were all unionists.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: No, I would like to make some progress.

It is worth noting that steps to combat climate change in Northern Ireland, including the appointment of a commissioner, are to be matched by a just transition fund for agriculture, which is now in place at £12 million. However, climate change is by no means just about agriculture, despite the fact that our departmental set-up puts Agriculture and Environment together. The very reason for having a commissioner appointed by the Executive Office is that climate change is a cross-cutting issue. We need to do much more on clean energy, which falls to the Department for the Economy. We need to do much more on active travel, which falls to the Department for Infrastructure. Clean air is a Health issue as well as an environmental one. Preparing the next generation for climate-friendly living is an Education issue. The allocation of resources to combat climate change and reduce pollution falls to Finance and even, in some instances, councils. That is why the matter cannot be left to a single Department and why we support the regulations today.

Ms Finnegan: Climate change is a defining crisis of our time on a global and national scale. Through the New Decade, New Approach agreement, a commitment was made to introduce legislation and targets for reducing carbon emissions in line with the Paris Accord on climate change. That commitment resulted in the Climate Change Act that was passed in 2022, which sets out ambitious emissions reductions targets for the North to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It established a framework to help do that and requires the Executive Office to establish an independent office for a Climate Commissioner. We need to appoint a commissioner and implement the Act. As we approach 2050 and work towards net zero, we need to honour those commitments and ensure that a commissioner is appointed and the Act is implemented. The draft regulations set an annual monitoring duty for the commissioner alongside reporting and oversight roles, mainly to manage the operations of the Act.

The cross-party support for the Act makes it essential that we see the motion passed. We are living in a climate crisis typified by extreme and unpredictable weather conditions. Locally, we have seen the impact of flooding, storms and, most recently, forest fires, which cause devastation to the environment and the communities that inhabit them. As we speak, the Mournes are burning and have been for three weeks. Just this week, we have also heard that there is an 80% chance of another massive outbreak of blue-green algae in Lough Neagh this summer.

The creation of this role is a legal obligation in the Climate Change Act. We share a moral responsibility to tackle the climate crisis that is upon us and create a Climate Commissioner. On that basis, I support the motion and encourage others to fulfil their legal and moral obligations to do so.

Mr Harvey: I oppose the imposition of the outworkings of the regulations, outworkings that will undoubtedly create yet another tier of bureaucracy that Northern Ireland can do well without. Whilst I acknowledge that the Executive Office is legally bound to lay the regulations before the Assembly and create a Climate Commissioner within the mandated two-year period, the DUP position on the issue remains the same as when the Bill creating the office was debated in the Chamber during the last mandate.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for giving way. While I no longer sit on the AERA Committee, the Member and I were colleagues on it during the lengthy debate on the Climate Change Act. He points out that the Executive Office is legally obliged: will he also consider that the wording of clause 50 of the Climate Change Act came about from an amendment brought to the House by his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs at the time, and that his party supported that Bill in its totality? Indeed, at its Final Stage, his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, who is now the Speaker of the House, said, in the Chamber:

his words —

NI —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Philip — Mr McGuigan, there is ample time for you to speak in the debate. I can add you to the list if you so wish.

Mr McGuigan: I will finish, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Interventions are supposed to be short. You and I both know that your intervention is well beyond what it should be, but I am more than happy to add you to the list.

Mr McGuigan: I just want to make the point again that the Act was supported not only by the DUP but by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, who was a DUP Minister.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Member for his intervention and comments.

Let me be clear: legislation to tackle climate-related environmental issues is a necessity. It is vital that, as custodians of the planet and the world around us, we take our role seriously and seek to live more sustainably. Our party continues to champion sustainable industries and efforts to tackle environmental harm as we collectively seek to legislate to protect our natural assets. We cannot, however, permit ourselves to operate in a bubble on the issue, however genuine our motivation may be.

There is a cost to everything, and, in an era in which we constantly ask ourselves whether we are getting value for money, I fail to see how the outworkings of the regulations represent value for money to the taxpayer. I fail to see how an estimated annual cost of £1 million to facilitate the creation and functioning of the office of a Climate Commissioner represents good value for money. The existence of a commissioner will do absolutely nothing to address the issues. It must be considered what an additional £1 million could do if it were used to tackle the likes of the Lough Neagh crisis or if it were invested in sustainable infrastructure or in the use of green energy across the government estate. All those examples would represent tangible benefits in addressing environmental issues across Northern Ireland. I am concerned that the regulations merely divert much-needed finance to administrative costs.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr Harvey: Yes, of course.

Mrs Erskine: The Member has rightly pointed out the financial impacts and constraints. I will put the DUP's position on the record. We objected to the amendment at the time, but, once it was made, we would have had to vote down the entire Bill. Doing so would have knocked out everything.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Member for her intervention and comments.

Given that my party and the TUV were the only parties to reject the creation of a commissioner initially, it will be interesting to see whether other parties in the Chamber continue their support for the office. It will also be interesting to note whether, when it is created, those parties take any of the advice or recommendations from the commissioner's office under their notice. I suspect that that will be the case only if the new commissioner plays the right tune. When presented with recommendations and advice in the past from UK-wide expert bodies, such as the UK Climate Change Committee, that advice was ignored, as it did not suit parties' political agendas. Even if we accept that there is some value in creating the position, the role of the commissioner has already been undermined by the failure to consult him on the content of the current carbon budgets and the 2040 emissions targets.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate his setting out his party's position. As I outlined, we discussed the regulations on at least five occasions in Committee. It was only at the last moment that one line was read out to say that the DUP was not in support of them. Committee members from the DUP had the opportunity on many occasions to raise their concerns and ask TEO officials for guidance and information. They never took that opportunity.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Member for her intervention and comments. We raised our objections at the proper time, thank you.

This is mandated in section 23 of the Climate Change Act. How are we to expect that any commissioner will represent value for money when we are coming so late to the game. The Office for Environmental Protection —.

Ms Ennis: Go raibh maith agat.

I appreciate the Member's giving way. I find it bizarre that the DUP and the Member are encouraging a race to the bottom. Does the Member not agree that investing in climate action is a bargain but waiting for climate collapse definitely is not?

Mr Harvey: I thank the Member for her intervention. Indeed, we want to invest our money wisely.

As I was saying, the Office for Environmental Protection and the UK Climate Change Committee, which are both expert bodies in the field, have ably provided guidance and advice on these matters in the past. I see no need to duplicate their role. At a time when hospitals and schools need funding and families are dealing with the continuing effects of the cost-of-living crisis, I cannot, in good conscience, support the creation of further bureaucracy in the system.

Mr Stewart: Climate change is one of the defining challenges of our time. We all recognise that there is an urgent need for robust, independent oversight as we strive to meet our net zero obligations by 2050. However, it is important to remember the financial reality: we need to balance our climate obligations against the need to deliver high-quality public services for all our people. The creation of an independent Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner, as provided for in section 50 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, is a logical and necessary first step. The new office will have a clear remit to oversee and report on departmental compliance with climate obligations, offer expert advice, commission research and publish findings and recommendations to guide policy and delivery. It is also right that the commissioner operate independently of Departments such as DAERA, DFI and DFE, which will be tasked with delivering the actions that the commissioner monitors. I note that the NICC's placement in the Executive Office is a deliberate act to ensure separation of leadership from the centre of government.

While the UUP supports the establishment of the commissioner in principle, I must highlight concerns around cost, sustainability and timing. We are told that the commissioner's office is expected to cost approximately £1 million per annum. That is significant recurring expenditure at a time when our public finances are under considerable strain.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept, as I do, the fact that there is a UK Climate Change Committee, which is an expert body in looking at these issues for the whole UK? Why would we spend that amount of money when that body is already in place?

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for that intervention. She will realise that, as a devolved region, we control our own Departments and that, while the Climate Change Committee exists and offers some advice, the Climate Commissioner will specifically oversee our Departments. [Inaudible.]

Mr Stewart: Sorry, are you seeking to make an intervention? I thought that you were speaking to me. I will move on.

The commissioner's office is expected to cost approximately £1 million per annum, which is significant expenditure at a time when we are under strain. We face acute pressures across our health service, education system and community infrastructure. Every pound must be carefully weighed. The Executive's "Planet" mission in the Programme for Government is commendable, balancing green growth and an equitable, just transition, but we must ask whether this is the right moment to commit substantial new funding to the establishment of another body and is well intentioned.

I note that, while the regulations have been carefully drafted and comply with the enabling power of the Climate Change Act, there has not been a full public consultation. I appreciate that the Act does not require one, but transparency and public engagement are essential, so it would be good to have that.

Moving forward, it is critical that the office deliver. It must not become a well-meaning but costly entity that publishes reports without delivering meaningful change. It must hold Departments accountable, challenge when necessary and support the practical implementation of climate policy, especially where delivery lags behind ambition.

We will not oppose the regulations, as we welcome their strategic intent and the focus on strong and independent oversight, but I urge Ministers to be careful of the cost — not only the financial cost but the cost to public trust when delivering during this mandate. I reiterate that, as we strive to meet our climate obligations and to play our part, we must ensure that that is not at the expense of our people and does not further undermine the delivery of high-quality public services in an area in which these institutions are already under considerable strain.

Ms McLaughlin: My SDLP colleagues and I warmly welcome the appointment of Northern Ireland's first Climate Commissioner.

The SDLP has long championed the creation of an independent office to oversee and scrutinise our collective efforts to meet climate targets. The Assembly agreed to that in 2022.

Today marks progress, but it is also a reminder of how far we have yet to go. As I have said before and, no doubt, will have to say again and again, Northern Ireland will not, on its current trajectory, reach net zero until the year 2118. That is not just disappointing; it is unacceptable for our people, the planet and, above all, the future generations who will pay the price of our inaction. What makes it worse is that we were once ahead of our neighbours and counterparts, east and south, in our ambition to tackle climate breakdown. However, we have fallen behind. That is a truth that we must face.

It is not all bad news, though. Northern Ireland will now be the first region in the UK to establish its Climate Commissioner. That is a significant achievement and we should be proud of it: while others talk about independent oversight, we are putting it in place. That is not just symbolic; it is structural, and it sets us apart. It sends a signal to investors, communities and the next generation that Northern Ireland is serious about green transition and wants it to happen. Importantly, placing the commissioner in the Executive Office will allow them to operate with the independence that the role requires. Given how cross-cutting the climate challenge is — it spans Agriculture, Infrastructure, Communities, Economy and much more — separation from departmental silos is essential. Now is our chance to act more decisively.

The levers that we need to deliver a just, green and ambitious transition are all within our grasp, but we must be bold enough to use them, create certainty for businesses, empower communities and take part in local climate action to ensure that no worker is left behind in this economic transformation.

As others have said, this is a legal obligation of the Climate Change Act. I was somewhat surprised by the DUP's position at the Committee. It was a little bit johnny-come-lately. Once again, I fear that the DUP, instead of leading, is following, and it is following the TUV. That is not leading and it is not leadership.

Mr Blair: Like my Alliance colleague who spoke previously, I am pleased to support these long-awaited regulations, which will represent, if passed, a significant step forward in our ongoing journey to a more environmentally sustainable future for Northern Ireland.

The appointment is not merely a legal requirement. The proposed Climate Commissioner will play a pivotal role in managing the delivery of our climate policies, advocating for nature recovery and supporting initiatives crucial to the protection of our species, populations, habitats and ecosystems. It is therefore crucial that the regulations before us be put in place so that the required progress is made.

We have faced instability in our Assembly and subsequent gaps in delivering crucial climate policies, including our pledge to support the appointment of a Climate Commissioner. Some are still trying to delay progress, raising concerns about costs and bureaucratic processes. Such delays and indecision jeopardise Northern Ireland's position in the global effort to protect our environment and, more importantly, the well-being of our communities. We cannot allow hesitation to hinder our progress any further.

Let us be clear: our planet must take precedence over short-term financial concerns. The nominal costs associated with establishing the commissioner should be viewed through the lens of the long-term benefits of a sustainable environment and what that will yield for communities and future generations. Unfortunately, some parties, including, very obviously, the DUP, continue to voice scepticism about the necessity of a Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner. However, we cannot afford to overlook the scientific consensus on the issue. The UK Climate Change Committee has publicly welcomed the establishment of such a role and highlighted the urgent need for strong leadership and coordinated action in addressing the climate crisis. That same —.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for giving way. He highlighted the fact that others have raised the issue of costs. He rightly points out the global damage to the environment, but, if we look much closer to home, 30 miles down the road, at the gorse fires in County Down and, indeed, in County Antrim, we will see that the cost of not doing the right thing for our environment and our climate will be far more expensive in the long run.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for the intervention, and I welcome the example that he gave. I can add another one — I am sure that he would agree with this — which is the rise in the water temperature in Lough Neagh. I know only too well about that in my constituency, and it will probably play out in the news again very soon this year. Additionally, in looking at our global responsibilities, however, we should acknowledge the fact that net zero targets that established national Governments set represent at least 87% of global greenhouse gas emission targets, so there is also a crucial part to play there.

As climate-related events escalate worldwide, the call for urgent action has never been clearer. It is our collective responsibility to support the draft regulations today, recognising that immediate action is required and that further delays are simply not an option. We are more than a quarter of a way through the 21st century, yet the climate crisis remains real and urgent, as world events show us on an increasingly regular basis. It is now time to get on with it.

Mr Kingston: No one in the Assembly doubts the need for us to be good guardians of our natural environment and to recognise where human activity is causing damage to our environment and our planet. At every level of society, we need to play our part in reducing harmful emissions and unnecessary waste and in increasing recycling. However, the headline commitments in recent climate regulations have been highly aspirational and devoid of a concrete assessment of the policies and proposals that Departments would need to advance. Despite that, there are estimated net costs of £479 million for carbon budgets to 2037 and £707 million under the revised emission targets for 2040. Those are huge sums, considering the deep financial pressures that public services face.

Throughout the advancement of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was a political compromise in the face of a rival, private Member's Bill from the Green Party that would have gone even further, the DUP sought to protect agriculture and the taxpayer in Northern Ireland from unrealistic demands. We question the value of establishing a Climate Commissioner at a cost of in the region of £1 million per annum, which is not an insignificant sum, and whether such a post would contribute anything to what already exists through the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection. It remains our view that, given the state of public services, including the pressures facing health, education, infrastructure, policing and all other services, any business case that is developed to operationalise the commissioner's office should not be railroaded through at the expense of projects that are, to all intents and purposes, more important and impactful for the people, communities and groups that face significant challenges in everyday life.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: No, I will carry on; there is plenty of speaking time for all.

There has been a degree of revisionism in this place, and we have heard it in the debate, on the DUP's position on a Climate Commissioner. The record is clear: we opposed outright the establishment of such a position and voted against a host of amendments that sought to progress that proposal under various guises. At Consideration Stage of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill, Tom Buchanan raised the following questions, which remain as valid today as they were then.

What will an additional body deliver:

Where are the gaps:

He continued:

Will it be policing? Or:

During the passage of the Act, no thought was given to how a commissioner would interact with the Climate Change Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection. No financial modelling was provided, and there was no proper consultation or impact assessment. The Climate Change Committee's response to the consultation on the draft regulations for a Climate Commissioner was, in part, to point out the potential for its role to overlap with that of any new Climate Commissioner. It beggars belief that we are going down the road of a possible duplication, at a cost to the public purse, when no such office exists in any other region of the United Kingdom.

Mr Butler: I am often asked why I joined the Ulster Unionist Party and not the DUP, particularly when I am interviewed by young people. It is because of moments such as this, and that is the honest truth.

Some Members: Do not be ridiculous.

Mr Butler: That is the honest truth. I am going to speak the truth, and I am going to speak for a unionism that is not in denial. It is a unionism that speaks to reality head-on. I am disappointed with the Chair of the Executive Office Committee for othering unionism. I will put that in context. I asked the Chair to clarify her statement and her use of the word "unionist" to describe a homogenous group of people. Unionists are free thinkers, and that is probably why we have a number of parties: because we are not afraid to speak out on important issues. I hope that the Chair reflects on that.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: I absolutely will.

Ms Bradshaw: The problem, when we sit on these Benches and look across, is that there are very few issues on which you vote in a different Lobby from other unionist parties. It is very easy for us to see that you, in many ways, are a block.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her intervention. The Member did not engage with my point. I talked about using the word "unionist". I suggest that someone looks through Hansard and Twitter to see how many times the word "nationalist" is used to describe either Sinn Féin or the SDLP. It is probably zero. However, she has no problem with the use of the word "unionist" to talk about unionist parties.

Back to the matter under debate. A unionism that does not cherish the environment or speak to the truth of climate change is not strong. I suggest that it is brittle. We see the devastation caused by the wildfires, the scorched fields, the blackened hills and the exhausted firefighters, and yet we hear the commentary today about the fiscal appropriation of what we are trying to do. Where is the depth? Where is the sincerity?

Let me give you some testimony and background to show why this is important to me. When I joined the Fire Brigade in 2000, for the first four or five years, I probably dealt with three or four grass or gorse fires in that time. There were no major or significant incidents. The fires happened in small numbers. Since that time, worldwide, probably led most effectively in Spain, but we have spoken into it for quite a few years now, is the growing propensity, risk and cost of wildfires in Northern Ireland.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Yes.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member add to that the growing cost of the recent storms and floods and the costs associated with the rising temperatures, which have contributed to the algal bloom in Lough Neagh?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree.

I will set a bit more of the context. Why do I think that this is absolutely necessary? For five years out of the past eight, we did not have any ministerial lead on anything in this country for health, education, wildfires or the climate. Let us not lose sight of ourselves here, guys. People are going to put their trust in us. Do we deserve it? No, we do not. We have no stability or credibility, and that is what we are trying to achieve. We are looking at a body that will still be created, that we can still speak to and that we can still change. But let me tell you this —.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: I will let you in in a wee second.

One week of wildfires in Northern Ireland costs more than £1 million. Just for that week, not for the reparation, not for fixing back or building back. What else happens in that week when we spend at least £1 million on a major incident? We put people's lives at risk.

Mr McGuigan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Give me one second. I am very popular today. One wee second. I will let you in, because it is genuinely important to talk about the issue.

It is probably £1 million per week, and there is another cost that nobody has mentioned today, especially when the fire is in the Mournes. There are two dams in the Mournes that supply our drinking water. How much does it cost to clean that water after a fire? After the last burn, it cost £890,000 to clean the drinking water. We have to be fiscally appropriate, but let us talk about all the costs.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. Given the number of interventions, he is certainly very popular, and I appreciate this opportunity to make a couple of points. We have talked about wildfires, but as far as I understand it, those were set deliberately, and there is an investigation into that. On the wider point, though, it is this place's responsibility to make good decisions. The Member has highlighted that in this debate, but we are talking about £1 million here. My party's point is that agencies are already in place to do that work. It is not about climate change: we all agree that action needs to be taken, but there are agencies in place to do that, and £1 million could be invested in school counselling or in Health for core grant funding in the community.

I reflect to the Member that his Minister rightfully comes to the Chamber and often talks about a lack of funding —

Mr Butler: An intervention is supposed to be short.

Mr Martin: I will be short. That money could be used more effectively elsewhere.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member take his seat? I had a discussion with Mr McGuigan earlier about stretching the boundaries of an intervention. There is ample opportunity for you to put your name down if you so wish. Do you wish to put your name down? No. Well, that is fine. We will keep it nice and short, then. Thank you for your intervention — I think. Mr Butler?

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member has put his point on the record. Equally, I have set out why it would be penny wise and pound foolish to suggest such a thing. The Member will understand that that £1 million is set aside for this purpose. It is not something that a Minister can bid for and then allow to be traded off.

Wildfires are avoidable. They may be, and predominantly are, set deliberately. However, the reality is that because of climate change, the fire loading in those mountains and grassland areas is significantly worse than it was 20, 25 or 30 years ago. I am glad that the Member has put on the record that this is not about climate denial. I hope that other Members will speak to that.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: At this point, to be fair, it is right to be fiscally appropriate and the DUP has centred on the figure of £1 million. I think that Mr Carroll had asked for an intervention first.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Is the Member concerned that gorse fires are happening generally but also, seemingly, there is no record kept of how many occur? Leaving aside whether it should happen at all, there is a requirement for farmers to notify the Department before a gorse fire. Beyond two applications for consent in the past five years, no record is kept of people notifying the Department. Does the Member have any concerns about that?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for raising that. One of the things that I am frustrated about at the moment is that while, to his credit, in 2021 the then Minister, Mr Poots, embarked on a strategy for tackling those types of incidents, that piece of work, unfortunately, has still not seen the light of day. I do not know whether that is down to political failure. We need to get to the bottom of that to find out why we have not —. I will give way.

Ms Ennis: I appreciate that the Member has been generous with his time. Mr Kingston posed the question: who will pay the price? Does the Member agree that communities in the Mournes have had to deal with not only this wildfire but previous incidents in 2004, 2011 and 2021? People are still dealing with the impact of the floods. Ordinary people's energy bills are going up. Those are the people who will pay the price for the DUP and others' cowardice when it comes to this matter.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member; she has put her points on the record. I agree with the first part of what she said. There are legitimate reasons why people should question when we spend £1 million on setting up an agency. We do not want a body, whether it is arm's-length or totally independent, to be without function or purpose and not have deliverables. The outcomes will be really important, but the impacts are on our communities. In the Mournes, for example, cover is provided by retained firefighters. There are no full-time fire stations there. Those firefighters are men and women who are pulled out of their everyday jobs to spend 16 or 18 hours up a mountain. That has impacts on their families and the businesses in the area. Those impacts are probably not even captured. I am going to let Mr Blair in.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member, who has been incredibly patient. I want to ask him two things. First — I hope that he does not mind me asking — does he feel that some of what we are hearing today from the DUP is a bit rich, considering that that party thought that it was OK to spend around or over a quarter of a million pounds on magnetic pouches for a very limited number of schoolkids? Secondly, the Member has covered well the cost of doing nothing. On that theme, apart from the fact that doing nothing is much more expensive in the longer term, does he agree that the Climate Commissioner could play a vital role in ensuring that public funds are best spent in a coordinated and targeted way?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his input. Fiscal appropriation should be the concern of all the Ministries, Departments and Members here. I have no issue with that.

In reality, what we have faced over the past couple of weeks — we have all spoken about it and made comment on it — is avoidable. Some Members have said that the burning was deliberate, but we can embark on a package of work, and the Climate Commissioner and the commission can play a specific role in that. Why would that be important to Northern Ireland? It is because Northern Ireland should set the standard for everything. We should not be behind the eight ball when it comes to protecting and cherishing our environment and being the lead voice in making Northern Ireland the place that it should be. Part of that is about protecting our environment and heritage, not to mention the impact on our wildlife.

I do not want to demonise anyone, but we need to get on with this at pace.

Mr Gaston: Going by the debate so far, I have no doubt that the regulations that are before the House will be approved, but I welcome the fact that, after I raised questions on 19 March, DUP colleagues joined me in making similar points the following week in Committee.

Regardless of the motive, there are good reasons for opposing the regulations. Northern Ireland will be the first region in the UK to have its very own Climate Commissioner. When I look at all the things on which we fall behind, I have to ask why we are taking the lead on this. Importantly, the Executive Office Committee has received evidence that the commissioner will require a budget of around £1 million per annum. It is estimated that the commissioner will have 15 staff. I contrast that with other important bodies, such as Intertrade UK, which has an independent budget of zero and an independent staff of zero. No one used the appointment of a Climate Commissioner as a reason to get this place up and running, but some unionists claimed that Intertrade UK was in that category.

I will ask those who champion climate alarmism four fundamental questions. A number of Members have, rightly, made interventions, so if any of them want to make an intervention to answer my questions as I go on, I will be happy to give way.

Can you provide any data on the impact of climate change on Northern Ireland? I look to Mr McGuigan, Mr Stewart, Mr Butler and Mr Blair: does anyone want to give me that detail?

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Go ahead.

Mr Butler: On the Northern Ireland-specific facts, we have a stand-alone Fire and Rescue Service. It is unique on these islands. Every Fire and Rescue Service in England, Scotland and Wales relies on the support of other services. We do not: we have a stand-alone service. When we have a spate of such incidents, therefore, which are happening with greater regularity and ferocity because — this is unarguable — of climate change, why would we not use the data that we have, which is our data, and respond accordingly to protect our environment?

Mr Gaston: Mr Butler, we have changes in climate. My goodness, we had the medieval warm period. Was it a renegade step that the Vikings did not come forward with a climate commissioner to sort out all their problems? The Thames froze. These are natural cycles.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. Go on ahead, Mr Butler.

Mr Butler: The Member's strategy is simply to do nothing. We can do something, but his strategy is to do nothing. What sort of politics is that?

Mr Gaston: We have heard in the debate that we have a body that can oversee and look at these issues. Mr Butler denies the fact that climate changes come and go.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes, Ms McLaughlin.

Ms McLaughlin: Mr Gaston, in the House last week, you said that you wanted a green transition. You wanted Ballymena to be a hydrogen hub —

Mr Gaston: Absolutely.

Ms McLaughlin: — because of climate change.

Mr Gaston: No, no.

Ms McLaughlin: No, you cannot have that one day and have nothing the next day. Climate change is either happening or it is not; it either is a crisis or it is not. You cannot just pick and choose your fights.

Mr Gaston: As I said in the House last week, Ms McLaughlin — indeed, she was in the Chamber at the time — I recognise where the economy is going, so I make no apology for championing North Antrim and championing Wrightbus to deliver new buses, but, my goodness, we have not heard anybody come up with a fact or a figure today to tell us what the benefits of having a Climate Commissioner will be.

My second question is —.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes, go on ahead, Mr Blair. [Laughter.]

Mr Blair: I will give the Member a figure. The water temperature of Lough Neagh has risen by over 1°C, and he has seen the consequences. Climate change has been a contributing factor. It is not the only factor, but it has certainly been a contributing factor. Separately, when it comes to global responsibility — I would really like the Member to tell me what his global responsibility is — the Global South, which has undeniably contributed far less to climate change than industrialised and developed areas, is in a situation in which millions of people are already facing displacement from their home because of rising sea levels. Can the Member therefore define for the House his global responsibility?

Mr Gaston: I am here to talk about Northern Ireland. The Member talks about 1°C, but he fails to take into account the mass amounts of sewage that are being deposited into Lough Neagh. That also creates blue-green algae and has a big effect on the quality of our drinking water.

I will move on to my next question. How are we to assess the success of the commissioner?

No? Nobody has taken me up on that one, so I will move on to my next question. What change to global temperatures will there be if he or she is the most successful commissioner that we could possibly have?

Mr Blair: I understand that the situation will be slightly better than medieval warming.

Mr Gaston: Is that an intervention? I have no idea, Mr Blair, whether you are —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Blair.

Mr Blair: I thought that he had given way, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Gaston: Yes, I —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): No, he did not.

Mr Gaston: — will give way. Take to your feet. Do you want to come in, Mr Blair?

Mr Blair: No.

Mr Gaston: Nothing. That is OK. I gave you the opportunity.

If the UK were fortunate enough to have the most excellent Climate Commissioners in all four nations, what would be the impact be on global temperatures? I say to all the climate alarmists and all those with facts and figures that, once again, I am prepared to give way. Ms McLaughlin, you are smiling. Anybody? Officials were not able to answer those questions in Committee. MLAs? No? I will therefore move on. Unless and until those questions can be answered, this project has to be considered questionable.

Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Finance told me that he would have to examine the case put forward by the Chief Constable for the PSNI to get more funding. Who has examined the case for a Climate Commissioner against the impact that a commissioner will have on the climate? I dare say nobody. I put it to the House that, for the money involved, there are many more worthy causes that should be placed ahead of having a Climate Commissioner.

I will also explore some fundamental, factual issues with commissioners. At the Committee for the Executive Office, we were told that the suggested annual budget of £1 million was based on what one would expect a commissioner's office to cost. The Executive Office Committee has recently been looking at issues related to historical childhood abuse. We have a Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse. From what I have seen, she is doing a very good job and is an excellent fit for the role. Does she have a budget of £1 million? What was her budget to highlight her work and to look out for victims outside of Northern Ireland? Was it anywhere close to £1 million? Absolutely not. I would like the First Minister, when she is summing up, to pick up on that point.

Furthermore, I will contrast the proposed powers of the Climate Commissioner with those of the proposed Commissioner for the Ulster-Scots and the Ulster-British Tradition. The Climate Commissioner, who will take up office should the regulations pass, will, according to regulation 4, have powers to:

When I compare that with section 3 of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, I discover that, unlike the Climate Commissioner, the Commissioner for the Ulster-Scots and the Ulster-British Tradition will have no powers to make recommendations and no powers to commission research or publish material pertaining to his or her office.

Whether it be on budget or powers, it seems as though some commissioners are more equal than others.

Members, we all have a responsibility to steward our environment and pass it on to the next generation in a better shape.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Mr Donnelly.

Mr Donnelly: There is worldwide scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man-made, resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Organisations such as NASA, the Royal Society and the Met Office are all very clear on that. Does the Member know better than them?

Mr Gaston: Once again, I ask the Member this: what difference will that commissioner make here in Northern Ireland?

Mr Donnelly: You have no answer.

Mr Gaston: What will —? [Interruption.]

One Member at a time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Donnelly, behave. We are having a fruitful debate, and I am allowing a degree of movement because many Members have considerable views. However, I will not tolerate shouting across the Chamber like that — not in this place. This is not the Dáil. [Laughter.]

Over to you, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. You raised a very good point about the Dáil and the conduct of its Members. You would not get that in Stormont.

We all hear well and good about the commissioner and what they are going to do. I will make a point that I made at Committee: once the commissioner is in place, there will be extra bureaucracy for businesses. Mr Butler is the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. My goodness, once the Climate Commissioner comes into place in Northern Ireland, they are going to have a devastating impact on our agri—.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Clearly, he is a climate change denier. The agri-food industry is so important to here. Does the Member accept that, if this region were labelled as one that is not fulfilling its global commitments in regard to climate change, that would have a devastating impact on our agri-food industry? International customers would vote with their feet.

Mr Gaston: The net zero Bill, which was rushed through this place at the end of the previous mandate, basically put a knife through a lot of our agri-industry. In years to come, our stock numbers will be slashed. I have no doubt that the commissioner will add an extra burden.

Mr McAleer: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

Mr McAleer: Has the Member been following at all the legislation that Minister Muir is introducing? The Department is introducing measures by which we can meet our targets without slashing the national herd.

Mr Gaston: I hope that that is a commitment and that, when the new commissioner is in place, they will not challenge that.

The people who are best placed to look after our environment are our farmers. They have done that very well for the past number of years. No farmer wants to damage the landscape; they want to have the most efficient landscape in the best shape possible and to have the best produce. I will take no slight to the agriculture industry in this place. Indeed, at every opportunity, I will stick up for the farmer.

Mr McAleer: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: One more.

Mr McAleer: We accept the importance of farmers: they are the custodians of the countryside, and 75% of the land here is farmed. Does the Member accept that, if this region were considered one that does not meet its global responsibilities towards climate change and the environment, that would have a detrimental impact on our farmers in marketing their produce on the international stage?

Mr Gaston: As we have already heard, we have a UK-wide oversight body that is in charge of all this. Why does Northern Ireland think that it knows best? It will create an empire of 15 additional staff, who will put bureaucracy above and beyond what there already is. I certainly do not believe in that. It is not the best use —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. We hear Members talk about the protection of Northern Ireland agriculture. They say that, if we do not comply with targets or meet the vast swathes of regulations on climate change, we will, in some way, be at a loss. However, a number of years ago, China was building two new coal plants each week.

How does the Member think that a Climate Commissioner specifically for Northern Ireland will benefit the Northern Ireland public?

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Buckley. I hope that, throughout my speech, I have shown that I do not believe that the Climate Commissioner will bring anything to Northern Ireland. I do not think that they will bring any benefit. I believe that they will bring only bureaucracy and more headaches for business and our agri-industry. I am very happy, at the end of the debate, to be the only one in that position, though, hopefully, the DUP will divide the House on this, and I certainly will vote against the establishment of this commissioner. It is not the right time, there is no need for the post, and that £1 million would be better spent elsewhere.

Mr Carroll: The previous contribution would have been a good comedy act if the issue were not so serious: the future of the planet and life itself on it. Obviously, there is a need for a robust Climate Commissioner with teeth to act and enforce a change of policy and action, but I remain unconvinced that this legislation will actually achieve that. The legislation states that the commissioner will provide advice and recommendations to Departments here on how to manage the transition to a net zero economy. Providing advice and recommendations is all that they are allowed to do. The obvious question is this: will the Executive actually act on those recommendations? Other activists will be asking that as well.

The CCC letter states:

That is not quite coming out of the traps fighting, to put it mildly. On the role of the commissioner, it also states that the commissioner, going back to my earlier point, will provide advice and recommendations to Departments on how to manage the transition to a net zero economy. As part of that, I emphasise the point that the commissioner engage with a range of stakeholders, whether it be the farming community, businesses or the community sector. The commissioner will have to engage across the board. It may look like innocuous stuff at first glance, but I believe that that will give cover to inaction, which will be presented as the farming community being opposed to this, that and the other, even though most farmers, despite protests from the big agri sector, need and want to see climate action.

Given what we have heard from one Executive party, I am concerned that the Executive have the power to include a clause to allow the office to continue to function in the event of a vacancy or defect in the appointment or reappointment. So, if somebody leaves the commissioner role because they are prevented from acting by the DUP or anybody else, how do we know that the person who is fulfilling that role will be operating independently? I question whether the regulations will allow fairness to take hold.

There are more questions than clarity in the legislation. I urge the First Minister and the Executive to move at speed to ensure that there is an independent environmental protection agency (EPA) and that the legislation comes through urgently. Despite the important legislation passed in 2022, it is clear that the Executive are moving at a snail's pace whilst the planet heats up. We have had the hottest years on record over the past 10 years or so. That is the evidence that people should be referring to and looking at. We are seeing extreme weather patterns in summer and winter. Climate change will lead to devastation across the world, including here, and particularly for poorer people in the Global South. I care about those people, even if some in the House do not. Locally, we have continuous environmental destruction; habitat destruction; gorse fires; unsafe and unhealthy meat farming; and waste dumping, whether at Mobuoy or in our waters of Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and elsewhere.

I will certainly not oppose the legislation, but my concern is the lack of action that will probably come from the commissioner's role being established. I will be happy to be proven wrong on that point.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call on the First Minister to conclude and wind on the debate.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

. Thanks to many of the Members who spoke for their sensible contributions to the debate. In some ways, it is a repeat of the debate that we had in 2022. I want to pick up on some of the points that were raised today. It would be short-sighted of anybody having this debate today not be very conscious of and acutely aware that the Mournes are on fire, that Lough Neagh is in crisis and that flooding is becoming an everyday reality for many people. That is climate crisis in action. That is what is happening all around us, and we have a moral duty and a responsibility to do something and to do something with urgency. This is not a choice. It is an absolute necessity. I thank all those who contributed positively to the debate, and I welcome the fact that many Members indicated that they will vote for the regulations. It is an absolute dereliction of duty by the Members of the DUP to vote against the regulations, particularly given the crises that we face right now. It is illogical — completely illogical. I will go further and concur with some of the language that has been used today, which said that it is a "bizarre" and "peculiar" approach.

I am bringing these regulations on behalf of the Executive Office. I want to pick up on some points that Members made during the debate. I re-emphasise the fact that the commissioner will have a crucial role to play in helping us to achieve net zero. In the first instance, the commissioner will hold us all to account and ensure that we all play our part and deliver on the promises that were made. The Chair of the Committee made that point. We all have a part to play, every Department has a part to play and every agency has a part to play. The significance of the commissioner is that they will provide independent advice to all Departments on how we should go about meeting our climate change targets in a way that responds to our communities' needs.

A number of points were made that asked why we are doing this. We all voted for the legislation. That is why, and it is also necessary that we do this piece of work. The remit of the commissioner was brought forward by Minister Poots, the then AERA Minister. That is what we are voting on today.

Mr Carroll: I thank the First Minister for giving way. Did the deputy First Minister make it clear anywhere in the Executive what type of commissioner she and her party would be supportive of?

Mrs O'Neill: As I said, I am bringing the legislation on behalf of the joint office — on behalf of the Executive Office. I will pick up on the role of the commissioner. It has already been prescribed in legislation, so that is what the commissioner will have to do. However, there will be more work to be done on that. Some Members have questioned the value of such a commissioner when other places may not have one. The value is that it gives us a local lens. It will be in addition to other things that are already there, so it can only be an advantage to us. Members refer to the fact that there is a Climate Change Committee. That is fine and grand, and we can lean into that, but the local lens will be the additional value that will also allow us to address any particular challenges that we have here.

Members referred to the Budget and the amount that a commissioner will cost. As has been said, it will cost round £1 million. That is, more or less, the average cost of setting up any new arm's-length body. That will be money well spent, for all the reasons that many Members eloquently gave today. The cost of doing nothing is much, much higher. That is why it is essential that we get on and do this work. It is going to take a bit more time. Moving the motion on the regulations today is the outworking of the 2022 legislation, but it will take another period of time to get the commissioner up and running and to address some of the outstanding issues that have been identified.

This is not about duplication. It is very much about the role of the commissioner — that is the local lens — and the role that it will play in holding us all to account. It will also complement things that are already happening. A lot of responsibility falls to DAERA under the legislation. We have already seen some progress in some areas. We have the Lough Neagh action plan and the first environmental improvement plan, and DAERA is working towards the just transition commission. The commissioner will have to work in tandem with other agencies, so there will have to be memorandums of understanding on how they work with other bodies, such as Waterways Ireland, the Utility Regulator and the Environment Agency. There is a huge amount to be worked out in the period ahead as we get this up and running.

Someone asked a question about the role not going out to consultation — I do not think that the Member is in the Chamber now. The definition of what is included in the role of the commissioner's office has been defined in the 2022 legislation. Ordinarily, you would go out to consult in instances such as this, but, because there is limited policy discretion, it was not deemed necessary. However, the functions can be added to in the future by regulation, and perhaps that is something that we will revisit here in the future.

After the regulations have been affirmed by the Assembly — I am assuming that, given the number of Members who have indicated that they will vote for them — we will move on to the next step, which is to fully establish the commissioner, to have the office up and running and to allow TEO officials to work on and resolve any outstanding issues in section 50 of the Climate Change Act.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): I thank the First Minister for giving way. It is important to put on record that the First Minister is, indeed, responding to the debate on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It is also important that I distance myself from some of the personal remarks that the First Minister has made today in response to the debate. I am sure that those around the House will understand fully that there is a range of views. Of course, on many of the issues referred to by the First Minister, there is a different view in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

This is being moved forward because we recognise that there is a legal requirement on the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. As I indicated in response to questions last week, my concern is entirely about the cost of this, the reasoning for doing this right now and the added value of it, given the work of the UK-wide Climate Change Committee, at a time of significant financial pressure on our public services. That is my position; I have articulated it. I put on record that there is a difference of views, but we are moving forward, because this is a legal obligation. Until the House amends the legislation, it will remain a legal obligation.

Mrs O'Neill: The deputy First Minister has her personal view on the record. I undertook to bring this forward, in one sense because it is a legal duty, but it is also a moral duty, folks. It is a moral duty: we have to do it. I am absolutely determined to work with others to ensure that that is the case.

I thank Members for their contributions throughout the debate. Establishing the body will take a bit of time. We have a bit of a road to go to refine everything, to make sure that we have it up and running and to see how it works and interacts with all the other bodies. We have to do this. We have to protect the world for future generations. Someone mentioned going to school assemblies or talking to young kids: this is about their future. This is about the world that they live in, what it looks like and how it feels for them. We should all commit to working together and acknowledge that climate change is, in fact, a reality, that we are living in those times and that we must do something about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, First Minister, and thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for an entertaining debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm — oh, it has just started. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Speaker: Question 8 has been withdrawn.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion for children and young people is a very complex procedure. It requires specialist clinical and nursing input that is prior to, during and post procedure. Officials have been working with Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to identify measures in order to address the issue. The trust scheduled additional clinics and theatre sessions to reduce paediatric waiting times, and additional PEG procedures have occurred. The trust now has a weekly list to carry out PEG insertions.

Belfast Trust explored the potential for another NHS body to carry out the procedure and approached the private sector to see whether we could address some of the backlog. An NHS provider has outlined that it will be able to carry out some procedures. South Eastern Trust is also in a position to carry out some less complex procedures. However, the private sector is not an option.

I assure Members that departmental officials and Belfast Trust colleagues are working hard to deal with the issue, but the ongoing pressures on the service and the demand for theatre capacity mean that it will not be solved immediately. We will continue to assess and gauge progress, with the aim of ensuring that all children and young people receive the care that they require as quickly as possible. The actions that have happened and are planned are having tangible impacts on the waiting list. We have seen a reduction from 92 children last April to 27 children on the waiting list now.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his answer. The campaign group Parents 4 Pegs NI will be holding a drop-in session upstairs and would welcome the engagement, if you are free later, Minister. They would welcome further clarity — you have given some — on whether the current strategy, as they understand it, of having two surgeries a week, the partnership with Evelina hospital in London and the surgeries currently being done at the Ulster Hospital will be sustained in order to see the rest of the waiting list reduced and will continue to be the way to move forward.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his interest and his follow-up question. If I can, I would certainly like to engage with the parents. It is a situation that became intractable for quite a time, and I was concerned about why the list became so long. It was a result of capacity at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, and that was due to demand and the availability of a number of theatres. There has been a lot of good work in the coordinated approach that the Member has outlined and in the validation of the list. I am pleased to see that there has been a significant reduction in that waiting list. However, given the fact that they are young people and it is such a serious condition, really the only acceptable number on the waiting list has to be zero. That is the target.

Mr Chambers: Will the Minister detail the measures that he has put in place to oversee the mitigations?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. Officials in my Department maintain regular contact with the Belfast Trust's management to oversee that the proposed actions are taking place. Officials schedule regular meetings with senior trust representatives, and the main aim is to ascertain the current waiting times and to discuss any issues arising that may cause delays. Officials work with the Belfast Trust's senior team and with other trusts to consider options and to ensure that the progress that has resulted in the reduction from 92 to 27 children can be maintained. The trust is a crucial partner in the regional child health partnership and in paediatric surgery, and that is a standing agenda item at those regular meetings. PEG insertion procedures will be discussed at that forum.

Mr Speaker: Members, there is a problem with the microphones. I have to shout. Members might note that. I do not think that any of them are working. The sound is not working on the monitors or the live coverage. However, we will continue.

Mr Nesbitt: I was clear last year that we expected a very difficult winter and that my Department's winter plan would not eliminate the pressures but, at best, serve to mitigate them. We know from previous years that people become sicker and sicker for longer over the winter months and that that brings additional pressures to a service that is already feeling strain and facing long-term financial challenges. That is why I no longer talk about winter pressures but about additional winter pressures, given the pressures that are on emergency departments (EDs) 365 days a year.

As expected, the huge pressures manifested themselves in those emergency departments over Christmas. We had long waits and overcrowding, but we have learned from previous years that, overall, unscheduled care activity and acuity do not increase in winter; rather, it is the slowing of the flow through the system that creates those delays and additional pressures. Some of the flow issues are due to increased discharge delays to nursing homes and because domiciliary care demand has exceeded capacity. The situation is clearly not what I wish for for our patients or staff, and I apologised at the time to everybody affected.

I remain determined to find better ways to work as a system to tackle the complex issues that we face. That is why I initiated a series of winter planning workshops with the aim of identifying new and innovative solutions to our collective system flow issues. I attended the first of those in March and was encouraged by the engagement and enthusiasm from leaders right across the Health and Social Care (HSC) system; indeed, over 100 people turned up. The room was full, and we had a waiting list. The final workshop will be held in June, and that process will inform a sharper, more focused winter improvement plan for next year.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. In light of the winter pressures, what steps is the Department taking to reduce the number of people unnecessarily attending accident and emergency departments? How can we better educate the public on appropriate alternatives in order to ease the burden on our emergency services?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. There is a question in my mind about what percentage of people who attend an emergency department do so unnecessarily. Again, "Zero" would be the ideal answer to that question. We are trying to identify as early as possible in the patient journey the correct pathway for them. That may be an emergency department, but it may not. It might be to stick with primary care and their general practitioner. We also have urgent care centres being developed in our acute hospitals and other pathways such as respiratory areas and cardiac areas. We are looking at as many different pathways as possible to take the pressure off the emergency departments.

Mr Speaker: We are working again.

Mr McGuigan: I accept that the workshops are ongoing and have not been completed yet, but the Minister has mentioned domiciliary care.

has the Minister come to the conclusion that additional support is needed for domiciliary care teams in the lead-up to the coming winter to ensure timely discharge from hospital?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Committee Chair for his comments and the question. Yes. The biggest single action that I can take is to introduce a real living wage for people who provide social care. That way, it will become a more attractive profession, and we can therefore grow that workforce. If we do not grow the workforce, the pressures will, by and large, remain.

We often say that, to deliver healthcare, you need buildings, equipment and medicines but, if you do not have a workforce, all that is as nothing. When winter pressures were manifesting themselves in the emergency departments, that was when we saw where the problem was. It was the flow, and the problem was at the back door. People who were medically fit for discharge from acute beds were still in the beds because they did not have what they wanted, whether that was a bed in a care home or a domiciliary package. That is not easily fixed, because it requires a long-term recruitment and retention process to get the right workforce. We are working on it, and the real living wage is an important step in addressing the challenges.

Mr Donnelly: Community pharmacy has been identified as a key part of the response to additional winter pressures. Will the Minister invest in stabilising that sector in order to maximise the role that it plays in supporting the health service to respond to additional winter pressures and meeting patients' needs closer to home?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. He knows that I have the desire to shift left to primary and community care, and community pharmacies are key to that, as are general practitioners, dentists and so on. I continue to engage with Community Pharmacy NI. They come to me with what, I believe, are valid concerns. When they articulate where they are, they do not make things up. They say, "We have genuine concerns about the future of our ability and the sustainability of some of our community pharmacies". Yet, when I look at the statistics, I see that we have more community pharmacies per 100,000 people than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and that our investment in community pharmacies has gone up significantly, by millions of pounds. It is not an area where I have come to some definitive conclusion on why, while we are investing, they are not satisfied with that investment and still come back with genuinely held concerns. That will be an ongoing discussion until we get to a resolution where we are all happy that we have an agreed position.

Mr Nesbitt: I am pleased to say that, since the beginning of the 2023-24 financial year, around 9,000 individuals have availed themselves of services in the Regional Trauma Network through the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) and its 46 community and voluntary sector partner organisations. Around 600 individuals have availed themselves of services through the health and social care trusts' Regional Trauma Network teams. To date, the total number of cross-referrals has been low, but that is not unexpected at this stage, and numbers continue to grow. The latest figures, as of the end of December 2024, are 60 referrals from trusts to community and voluntary groups, with 123 referrals from community and voluntary groups to trust trauma teams. At present, there are 424 people in therapy across all trust trauma teams. The service user experience captured has been positive.

Of major significance, in addition to direct referrals between statutory and community and voluntary sector organisations, is the fact that the RTN is taking forward additional work across a number of work streams, including training, research, monitoring and evaluation and children and young people, recognising the intergenerational impact of the conflict. The Regional Trauma Network also contributes to the overall ambition of the mental health strategy. Ultimately, the network and the service that it provides make a real difference to real people who have suffered physical and psychological harm. It offers a range of supports and interventions to address the long-term consequences of their traumatic experiences.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister. What he laid out is encouraging. The Minister knows that dealing with bereavement is key to supporting victims and survivors, be that Sean Brown's family, Patsy Gillespie's family or Mary Hull, whom you, Minister, know very well. Are there any specialist bereavement services part of the Regional Trauma Network? Would the Minister support a bereavement payment scheme?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. The Regional Trauma Network is as broad in its reach as it can be, and, of course, service users bring up bereavement daily. I am confident that the RTN has the capacity, skills and experience to deal with that.

The Member will be aware that the Regional Trauma Network was my big ask as I led the Ulster Unionist delegation into the Stormont House talks — my goodness — 10 or 11 years ago, so I am pleased to see it in place. The biggest toxic legacy of our conflict, which we so euphemistically call our "Troubles", is poor mental health and well-being not just at an individual level but at a family and community level. The RTN is making significant inroads in tackling that toxicity, and bereavement is a central part of that.

I am certainly open to discussions on a bereavement payment. I would not want to make policy on the hoof — I am sure that the Member will appreciate that — but that is certainly worth detailed and due consideration.

Mr Speaker: Members, whilst our mics had been working, Hansard is not recording this. Our sessions are supposed to be in public. There is no record of what is happening, and the public are not able to hear it. We will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt: Can I not just say what I want? [Laughter.] [Interruption.]

No. [Laughter.]

Mr McGrath: Get your own money. [Laughter.]

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What about those of us who have asked questions but not had the responses recorded?

Mr Speaker: We will get advice on that. Obviously, the Minister was using scripted material, so [Inaudible.]

OK, Members, you can relax for about 15 minutes, go and get a cup of coffee or whatever, and hopefully our technical people will resolve [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: I think that the audio recording for Hansard is now working. Can we test it before we start? I invite Members to take their ease for a minute while we check that Hansard can hear me talking so that the plenary sitting can be reported. The answer is yes, so we are ready to go again. The first supplementary question to Mr Beattie's question will be from Jonathan Buckley.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether our microphones are working just yet. Oh, they are now.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Buckley: Minister, although the Regional Trauma Network has played an important role in supporting victims and survivors of the Troubles, are the network's current capacity and resources adequate to meet the needs of those who are affected, especially in light of the complex and long-term nature of the traumas that those victims experienced during Northern Ireland's Troubles?

Mr Nesbitt: As I was saying, the RTN was set up specifically for victims and survivors of the conflict. It was agreed during the Stormont House talks by Martin McGuinness, Peter Robinson and all the other party leaders who were involved. Then, however, officials made the point that the National Health Service has to be open to all. One cannot have an NHS service, or a Health and Social Care (HSC) service, that is limited to a specific number of people. The compromise was to have that first phase, which is to run for a minimum of three years, with phase 1 being specifically targeted at victims and survivors of the conflict.

The network has a waiting list. That answers the Member's question, in that the capacity is not there to deal with every single victim and survivor who wants to ask for help with the trauma that they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a consequence of the conflict. Could that resource be put in place? I think that doing so would be just too big an ask. On top of that, at some point there has to be a phase 2, which will open up the RTN further in order to comply with what the officials were saying back in the day, which, as I said, was that one cannot have a National Health Service service that is limited to a specific group of the population. Phase 1, that period of at least three years, takes us to April of next year, so we are only 12 months away from a decision, but the decision does not have to be to just open it up to everybody. We may look at a graduated move towards opening it up, because, to get back to the Member's question, the capacity will always struggle to meet the demand.

Mr Speaker: Your two minutes are up, Minister.

Ms Flynn: With phase 2 approaching, is the Minister confident that the Regional Trauma Network can be protected for the people for whom it was designed, namely victims and survivors? I raised the matter with the deputy First Minister the other day in relation to the wider victims and survivors strategy.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I acknowledge her ongoing interest in the area and in the broad field of mental health and suicide prevention. As I said, April 2023 is the appropriate date to start the clock on phase 1, so April 2026 is when three years will be up. I go back to the fact that it is a period of at least three years, not of three years. Certainly, from talking to groups such as Relatives for Justice (RFJ), the Ely Centre and South East Fermanagh Federation (SEFF) — the six or seven groups that were always involved in the co-design of the network — I know that there is extreme concern. It is not over-egging it to say that there is extreme concern about opening it up, thereby diluting what it can do for their service users. I am very aware of that, and I will work hard to try to protect it, because it was my idea, and the idea was to work for the victims and survivors of the conflict.

Mr McNulty: A Cheann Comhairle,

thank God that your mic is now working. No pun intended, boom boom.

Minister, we are told that many young people aged 18 to 24 are experiencing trauma resulting from violence and paramilitary threats. That is not a legacy issue; it is happening now. What work has been done with the Justice Minister to prevent such violence and to support the young people who are being affected?

Mr Nesbitt: I am suffering from trauma from your sense of humour. [Laughter.]

We have a number of strategies in play. If you are referring particularly to people who are suffering trauma and community coercive control by paramilitary groups — is that where you are? — yes, there is the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme. There is a lot happening. Justice leads on that, but it is a whole-Executive response.

I represent the town of Newtownards and am proud to do so. Fantastic people live in the town, but I have to accept that, if you go there and look at the murals, you will see every shade of loyalist paramilitarism represented. I am aware that coercive control by paramilitary groups is going on, particularly in the concentrated housing areas such as the West Winds estate and others. Those groups have been on ceasefire for over 30 years, which means that they have been on ceasefire for longer than they were active — not that they should ever have been active — so this question remains: why do they still exist, 30 years after they declared ceasefires? They exist for a number of reasons. Some people are lining their pockets; other people are exercising coercive control over communities that I and many others in the House represent. It is time to stop it. We cannot over-exercise ourselves in what we do to give the people who live in towns such as Newtownards the ability to grow up, live, express themselves and enjoy themselves as freely as possible.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his ongoing interest. I am aware of the frustrations and concerns being raised locally, and he is getting those in his office. I met the GP partners and their staff at the health centre in Carrickmore on 4 December last year.

I fully recognise that there is a huge need to invest in primary care to support the reform agenda and stabilise primary care. Capital investment is required to modernise and maintain that service and ensure that the estate is fit for purpose to enable service delivery. Since financial year 2018-19, around £38 million of capital has been invested, through the primary care infrastructure development programme, in GP premises, including investment in accommodation for primary care and multidisciplinary team purposes.

Carrickmore is a large practice with five GPs, practice support staff and approximately 10,000 patients, but its growing size means that it now operates out of a space that is below its capacity requirements and, indeed, below the Department of Health's recommended schedules of accommodation for a practice of that size. Approximately £70,000 has been invested in the existing premises in the 2024-25 financial year, but that, of course, is only an interim solution to address immediate pressures. Work has also commenced to address the longer-term needs of the practice, and that is potentially in the form of a new build. Initial engagement commenced in October last year between my Department, the Western Trust and the Carrickmore practice, and they have begun to scope the project together. It will be subject, of course, to the usual business case approvals. Timing will be dependent on the outcome of that process and, of course, approval of funding through the Department's overarching capital plan. I am keen that we move towards a new build for Carrickmore.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the Minister's response, and I also welcome the fact that he took the time to come to Carrickmore. You know, Minister, that it is a vast rural area, which brings a lot of issues to do with isolation and accessibility. Minister, the questions that people ask me are these: what are the next steps, and what is the timeline for when we might see capital investment and, hopefully, a new-build health centre in Carrickmore?

Mr Nesbitt: I want to emphasise that I did go there in December. They are great people and very dedicated people, but they are working in a building that is long past being fit for purpose. They do not have enough space, rooms are too small, and they are just making do. You need buildings, equipment, medicines and workforce, and I always prioritise the workforce, but, in this case, the building is just not good enough.

We are at the very start of scoping the project, so I am afraid that it will be a number of years before the building will be delivered. Experience of similar schemes leads me to conclude that it could take in the region of three to five years. Timing will be dependent on a number of factors, as you can imagine, including site availability, ease of obtaining planning permission, tendered costs and everything being affordable within our capital budget. Therefore, I am not in a position to provide a cost estimate at this point. Definitive timings and definitive costs depend on the outcome of the engagement in the design process and confirmation of the availability of funding through our capital plan. The project will be subject to the usual business case approvals, and that will include any potential revenue costs as well as the capital. I would very much like to see a successful and speedy completion of the project.

Mr Nesbitt: The Patient Safety Commissioner for England, Dr Henrietta Hughes, made recommendations in the Hughes report on redress for those who were harmed by pelvic mesh implants and the medicine sodium valproate. The Hughes report was published on 7 February last year. Dr Hughes's remit was specifically for England, but it is acknowledged that patients from across the UK have been affected by these issues. The three devolved Administrations await consideration and assessment from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in London. However, the UK Government have not yet formally responded to the Hughes report, and a UK Government decision on redress has not been taken. I very much regret that those who have been harmed by pelvic mesh implants and sodium valproate have had to wait so long for clarity on the way forward in response to that report.

I wrote to Baroness Merron, who is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Patient Safety, Women's Health and Mental Health at the DHSC, and requested an update on the consideration of the Hughes report recommendations. I have sought assurances that consultation with the devolved Administrations will take place in a timely manner and in advance of any UK Government decisions. Baroness Merron responded that the UK Government are carefully considering the report before coming to a decision. She recognises that any response by the UK Government is likely to have implications for the devolved Administrations, and she said that she is keen to work closely with officials right across the UK in considering the report's recommendations. She has provided assurance that my officials and I will be engaged in a timely manner and in advance of any UK Government response. The approach to redress in Northern Ireland will be informed by the UK Government position, and, as I say, that is not yet determined.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. As you know, lives have been devastated by the complications of vaginal mesh. One of my constituents faces having to spend almost £30,000 to access mesh removal, a burden that is financially and emotionally crippling. In light of such cases, will you commit to commissioning a review of the care and support available to women harmed by vaginal mesh to ensure that they have safe, accessible and fully funded pathways to have the mesh removed?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her follow-up question and her concern, which I share. The numbers in Northern Ireland have to be determined. I am not hiding behind the fact that we are waiting for the Department of Health and Social Care in London to respond definitively to the Hughes report, but it is important that the devolved Administrations go forward together on the issue. If you start doing things differently, you potentially sow the seeds of division among the people who are suffering in England, Scotland, Wales and here. I am open to what the Member has suggested and will make that part of my consideration, but, I am afraid, the next step is to wait for the UK Government to respond to the Hughes report.

Ms D Armstrong: Men are sometimes overlooked on the issue of surgical mesh. Will the Minister detail what engagement there has been to address the issue of hernia mesh?

Mr Speaker: You have half a minute, Minister.

Mr Nesbitt: I will need half a minute to get to the answer, Mr Speaker.

I thank the Member for her question. We have been engaging with the campaign group Hernia Mesh Awareness NI about the Hughes report and redress, and that includes surgical mesh for men. I assure the Member that not just is it on our agenda but action is being taken to scope out, understand and react appropriately to the men who have suffered in that area.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: I very much welcome the opportunity to join the Member in paying tribute to members of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, who have been tireless in recent days, manually beating down the fires in the Mournes. I will visit them: I want to show my appreciation and admiration of them, but, as the situation is still live, it would be inappropriate and would be a distraction if I were to go down in my ministerial capacity at this stage. However, that does not diminish my absolute gratitude for what they have done to protect life and to preserve that very important area of Northern Ireland.

Mr McGrath: After the previous set of wildfires in the Mournes in 2021, we were promised a wildfire management plan and a Mournes wildfire strategy, which were to be delivered by the Department of Finance and the Agriculture Department, so does the Minister agree that the lack of progress on those matters has, literally, fuelled the fire and put our firefighters, our communities and our natural environment at grave risk?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his follow-up. I am not sure that I agree that that has fuelled the fire, but I am sure that every Member would like to see a wildfire management plan and a wildfire management strategy. I know that the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs shares that ambition and, I think, is pressing officials to bring forward proposals. He has had a particular difficulty in that nobody tendered to deliver the wildfire management plan. However, it is not as if nothing has happened. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) has new vehicles that have been helping to tackle the fires in the Mournes today.

You point out many times that there is disagreement between members of Executive parties in the Chamber. It is not my responsibility to criticise any other Executive member. That falls to you, Mr McGrath, as a member of the Opposition. However, I agree that it would be nice to see those things executed after all these years, and I have faith that the AERA Minister will do that.

Ms K Armstrong: I will not say that other word.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I am sympathetic to that, because it is an unexpected and additional burden that has been placed on opticians, GPs, pharmacists and the rest. Within the Budget, the Minister of Finance has informed me that £3·5 million has been contributed to what, we think, will be a £36 million challenge. That is within the broader challenge, where we still believe that, despite the additional £50 million for waiting lists, the overall budget for the Department of Health is around £400 million short of what we need to deliver all services. That means that there will have to be priorities and that decisions will have to be made. Once again, I return to the fact that, without a workforce, everything else is as nothing. I want to do everything that I can to close that gap on the additional costs of National Insurance before I do many other things.

Mr Speaker: I think that "ophthalmologists" is the word that you are looking for, Ms Armstrong.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You are absolutely right.

Minister, thank you for your answer. Do you accept that the Department of Health is effectively asking GPs, pharmacy owners, dentists and ophthal — opticians to absorb the cost and that they will close the gap through personal finances?

Mr Nesbitt: I am afraid that you have failed in your audition to become Health Minister, but that is the way that it goes.

I do not accept that at the moment, because it is just too early. We are still in the foothills of how we carve out the Health budget, because it is, after all, over £8·4 billion. Despite the fact that there is a £400 million gap — I do not wish to underestimate the severity of that — I tend to be a "glass half full" person. I will work with the new permanent secretary and senior officials in the Department to see what can be done. Certainly, trying to avoid individuals having to put their hands in their own pockets to cover those costs is a motivation for me.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I wrote to Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and communicated with the then Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald; indeed, the three devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and here have been liaising. I think that there is a concerted approach to make the Treasury aware of just how serious this is, particularly in primary and community care.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his answer. Community pharmacy and primary care, as I said, are very important for everybody. The Minister will remember that I had an Adjournment debate on the shrinkage in NHS dentistry in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. We could see further shrinkage, decline and closure. Has your Department done any assessment of what that will mean for rural constituencies such as mine, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where health inequalities are worse because of many different factors?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member will be aware that tackling health inequalities is a key focus for me; it is something that I have communicated to officials and, more broadly, the Health and Social Care system, and it has been very well received. We are starting with two urban areas as demonstration areas for Live Better, but that is because that is the easiest way to trap the empirical evidence that will allow us to validate what I intend to do. We will then tackle the deeper challenge of making it work in rural areas.

I do not want to see a single community pharmacy close, and I do not want to see one more GP practice hand back its contract. That is a particular challenge in rural areas. I assure the Member that an appropriate focus is being put on that by departmental officials and the trusts.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question, and I note his contribution to that event in the Long Gallery, which I attended.

A new facial palsy regional planning group was established in September 2023. It has developed a pathway for local services for adults and children. It has been a complex process, with multiple services involved in the pathway development — the pathways need to be multiple — and multiple access points into the service across all trusts. Those standardised pathways will ensure appropriate treatment of patients and local services, as far as possible. They will also outline the appropriate referral pathway for those who require enhanced and specialist intervention.

A communication is being issued to each trust in the coming weeks that will inform them of the agreed pathway, and an information webinar will be delivered to GPs and emergency departments to aid with timely and appropriate referral. In addition, a new nidirect web page was established recently to assist patients who are experiencing facial palsy symptoms. It will signpost patients to helpful information while they wait for an assessment. A video has been produced by a service-user advocate. It is being used on social media platforms to promote the new nidirect web page.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. He alluded to the fact that it has been a long and complicated process. It is a complex condition. It is my understanding that funding was released to the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust to deliver an in-reach service from GB to support patients in the interim. As yet, I am not aware of that service having been established. Will the Minister provide any background to that and an assurance that that is still on his Department's agenda?

Mr Nesbitt: I can say to the Member that, on average, only three to five patients are assessed as being suitable for surgery every year in Northern Ireland. Those referrals are managed through the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust as part of a network arrangement with a specialist provider in Great Britain. The activity represents a small component of the care pathway for facial palsy. The majority of patients are managed locally across the trusts. In-reach services are provided as part of the total commissioning arrangement for plastic surgery provided annually to the South Eastern Trust.

Most of the facial palsy assessments and treatment are provided locally through the local hospitals' specialties, but the strategic planning and performance group sends most of the patients who require specialist surgical Botox treatment to the United Kingdom via an extra-contractual referral or "ECR".

If that does not answer the Member's question, I am more than happy to accept a follow-up in writing.

Mr Nesbitt: I most certainly have, yes. There is £215 million, which is broken into three pots of money. There is £85 million for red-flag cancer and urgent and £80 million to stop the waiting lists growing any larger, effectively. That is £165 million of the £215 million. That is coming out of my budget; it is being ring-fenced by the Executive.

Tackling waiting lists is an Executive priority. I have no difficulty with that, because I agree with it. I will get another £50 million in June monitoring if I can provide the right plan, and I accept that I need to be able to justify that spend.

To tackle the waiting lists in this financial year, there has to be a cocktail of actions. First, work will be carried out by the health and social care trusts. We will do that in the HSC system. Secondly, we will have to look to independent providers. Thirdly, we will look to reinstate the cross-border scheme. We will do all that at pace. I will meet officials in the coming days to look at an options paper that they are preparing for me in that regard. I put in this proviso: I know that many Members like the cross-border scheme — it is very popular — but remember that patients have to pay up front and then be reimbursed by the Department. There is an equity issue there that I am concerned about, and I want to see what can be done, with no guarantees, to try to mitigate the fact that there may be those who cannot afford or do not have the means to find the money for the upfront payment. However, perhaps we can deal with them through one of the other pathways that we will create.

Ms Flynn: Minister, thanks very much for that response. I am delighted to hear about the work that you are undertaking with the trusts and the other providers. You spoke about an options paper that may be ready in a number of days or weeks. Will the Minister share that with the Committee and other Members?

Mr Speaker: You have about a minute, Minister.

Mr Nesbitt: I am more than happy to share the paper with the Committee at the appropriate time. The paper is coming to me to facilitate a meeting next week; I am not sure which day of the week. I cannot really say, because I have not seen it yet, whether I will just say, "That's perfect. Let's sign it off", or whether I will ask officials to go away and do a bit more work on it. I would rather that it comes to the Committee as a pretty definitive plan so that I can say, "Here is our plan. What do Committee members think of that? Can you advise and assist me on how we might make it better?". We want to proceed at pace. If we start next week, I am told that it may be another six to eight weeks before we can put the cross-border scheme in place and start the machinery rocking. That is getting well into this financial year. Like the people who are on a waiting list, I am pretty impatient to get that done.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Health. That was an unusual Question Time. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment or two whilst we change the Chair for the next item of business.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Ms Forsythe: In the absence of Matthew O'Toole, the Chair of the Committee for Finance, who is on paternity leave, I will propose the motion on behalf of the Committee for Finance and the Committee for the Economy. The Chair of the Committee for the Economy, Philip Brett, will make a winding-up speech on the debate. I thank the Business Committee for scheduling the debate and the Minister of Finance for agreeing to respond to it.

On 30 October 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced significant increases in spending to be financed by a combination of tax rises and higher borrowing. While there were a number of announcements on the spending review and increased UK Government spending, there were also a number of proposed UK-wide tax increases, including an increase in employer National Insurance contributions as well as increases in the national minimum wage and the national living wage.

Following its meeting on 27 November 2024, the Committee for Finance agreed to host a joint event with the Committee for the Economy to engage with stakeholder groups, across businesses, the community and voluntary sector and social enterprises, to consider the impact of the changes as well as to discuss rates relief and rates reform. The event was held at the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) headquarters and attended by 36 stakeholder groups. On behalf of both Committees, I put on record our thanks to all the stakeholder groups that participated in the event — their input was greatly appreciated — and to NICVA for hosting and contributing. I also thank both Committee teams for organising and setting up the event.

The round-table discussion considered three topic areas: the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions; the increases in the national living wage and the national minimum wage; and rates relief and reform. The session provided an opportunity for members from both Committees to hear concerns directly from stakeholders regarding the impact of the autumn Budget. The collaborative approach taken by the two Committees underscores members' commitment to ensuring that the voices of stakeholders are heard.

The Committees and stakeholders welcomed the increases in the national living wage and the national minimum wage as positive. However, the lack of notice and consultation on the increases, combined with the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions at the same time, has created a much more difficult situation for businesses and voluntary and community sector organisations. Phasing in the changes or greater consultation and support would have eased that very difficult situation. The impact of the changes follows on from rising costs due to the effects of the COVID pandemic and wider rises in the cost of living, which have already made it harder for businesses to invest and expand.

The Committees heard from stakeholders about the direct financial burden on employers due to the increase in their National Insurance contributions. They feel that the burden of filling gaps in the UK Government's finances is being placed on them without proper consideration of the impact. The stakeholders advised that the increase would be significant for businesses, particularly labour-intensive sectors such as hospitality, retail and care. It may limit growth potential and will increase the financial pressures facing businesses and the community and voluntary sector, potentially leading to job losses and reduced investment.

The stakeholders acknowledged that the National Insurance cost relief threshold has been increased from £5,000 to £10,000, providing some support for small businesses. They said, however, that that does not significantly offset the broader impact of the other sudden increases in costs, with Northern Ireland having a higher density of small and microbusinesses compared with other regions. The Committees were told that higher costs for businesses will, in most cases, lead to higher prices for consumers, thereby reducing discretionary spending and weakening consumer confidence. It was pointed out that businesses in border areas are already seeing customers shift spending to the Republic of Ireland, further impacting on the economy in Northern Ireland. For some businesses, Christmas 2024 was their last.

Flat funding for the community and voluntary sector and more than 10 single-year Budgets mean that those organisations cannot easily absorb additional unexpected costs, which has led to reduced services, job losses and, in some cases, closure. Protective notices have already been issued to staff.

On the issue of business rate relief and rates reform, the stakeholders presented a comprehensive assessment of Northern Ireland's business rate system, highlighting key concerns about fairness, transparency and the broader impact on business sustainability. Stakeholders told us that the current rating system is not fit for purpose. Examples such as higher rate poundages in Northern Ireland compared with in parts of England, including Oxford Street, were cited as evidence of there being systemic issues. The cumulative impact of sudden employers' National Insurance increases and wage increases, coupled with rising rates and other cost increases, was described as being a "perfect storm" for many stakeholders.

Stakeholders highlighted previous setbacks, including COVID and the resulting supply-side issues and higher costs, describing the autumn Budget as the "final blow" for struggling businesses. Although increasing the national living wage and the minimum wage is always to be welcomed and will deliver some economic benefits, businesses, social enterprises and the community and voluntary sector will struggle to cope with the unexpected nature of the rise when combined with tax increases and other rising costs. Those tax increases, coupled with higher borrowing costs, have the ability to discourage growth increases in employment and investment. The lack of planning and consultation that is associated with the cost increases, as well as an inability to plan and manage the increases with the knowledge of funding that multi-annual Budgets bring, has exacerbated their impact, leading to concerns about business closures, job losses and weakened consumer confidence.

Both Committees agreed that the impacts of the changes were so significant that it was necessary to hear from stakeholders at a dedicated event, rather than through Committee evidence sessions. An event offered the scope to hear many more voices and allowed Committee members to engage more freely in order to get a clear understanding of the views of the stakeholder groups. The report on the event has allowed us to share the issues with other Members and to have today's debate so that the issues may be aired and so that we can hear the Minister of Finance's perspective on behalf of the Executive.

The Finance Committee has engaged closely with him on UK Government support to mitigate the impact of the changes on the public sector. Unfortunately, as Members will be aware from the Minister's recent statements on the 2025-26 Budget, the UK Government will provide only £146 million of the £200 million that is needed for the core Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) to fund the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. That sum does not encompass the wider public sector, including doctors and dentists. It does not even include the needs of councils or of organisations in the community and voluntary and sector that provide public services.

Members will be aware that the Minister's predecessor started a rolling process of reviewing the rates system. That is not likely to deliver change in the immediate future, however. This debate provides an opportunity to hear the Minister's perspective, on behalf of the Executive, on the impacts of those issues and any strategic response that there is to them.

Having spoken as the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, I will now make a few remarks as a DUP MLA. As I have said in the Chamber previously, and I will repeat today, the Labour Budget has caused increased anxiety for many of our small business owners and their staff, who make our high streets and town centres thrive, provide essential services to the most vulnerable and are at the cutting edge of manufacturing and food production in our communities. Once again, it is worth highlighting the fact that the increase to employers' National Insurance contributions is making our public services feel the pain, and right at their heart. Today's joint statement from dentists, GPs and community pharmacists once again describes the significant impact that the increase has on them. The community and voluntary sector provides a critical lifeline to so many people who face barriers to seeking support for, for example, their mental health. We are talking about the most vulnerable people in society. Staff and the people whom they serve will be affected by those policies, as the sector cannot easily absorb the additional, unexpected costs.

The Government have presided over chaos and sweeping cuts, whether those are directed at our pensioners, WASPI women — women against state pension inequality — disabled people, businesses or family farms. My party calls on the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy to lead a coordinated response across the Executive to help protect businesses, the community and voluntary sector and public services here.

Ms Dolan: It is disappointing that, since last year's Westminster election, the Labour Government have embarked on the same failed economic policies of their Tory predecessors. Small and medium-sized businesses are a significant driver for our local economy and have already had to survive numerous challenges in recent years, including Brexit, COVID-19 and high levels of inflation. Instead of implementing measures to support those businesses and the community and voluntary sector, however, the British Chancellor has chosen to place the burden for problems with their finances on those who play a crucial role in providing jobs and is punishing those organisations and groups that work tirelessly in our communities by increasing employers' National Insurance contributions.

Our public services also face additional financial pressure following the decision by the British Treasury not to cover the full costs of the rise for the public sector here, despite the extensive efforts and strong lobbying by the previous and current Finance Minister for it to do so. We still now face a £60 million shortfall.

One positive aspect of last autumn's Budget statement was the move to increase the national minimum wage, which will help almost 170,000 of the lowest-paid workers here, reduce inequalities and support overall spending in the economy. It is concerning, however, that the British Government have not matched that positive move by prioritising investment in public services and initiatives to support wider economic development. We have witnessed their priorities again in recent weeks, with the spring statement announcing increased spending for militarisation rather than funding for local businesses, communities and public services.

At a local level, I recognise that efforts have been made to reduce the financial pressures faced by businesses, with a continuation of the small business rate relief scheme, which benefits over 30,000 businesses, and the Back in Business scheme, which encourages the opening of retail businesses on our high streets in premises that have been lying vacant. Work is also ongoing by the Department of Finance on a review of rate support.

The community and voluntary sector is having to cope with those additional pressures, which follow on from the loss of the European social fund as a result of Brexit. Community organisations had to endure another broken promise from the British Government when the money that they provided for their successor scheme to EU funding did not replace all funding in full and was, in fact, providing millions of pounds less. Without being matched with adequate funding, the latest costs, following decisions by the British Chancellor, have led to further uncertainty for many community organisations, placing in jeopardy jobs and programmes that have been vital in supporting people to achieve new skills and gain employment.

Given the limited financial capacity on resources that we have as a devolved Assembly, I recognise that it is extremely challenging for Executive Ministers to mitigate for taxation and spending decisions made by the British Government. However, it is our duty to continue to stand up for all our citizens and present a united front to oppose actions that detrimentally impact on people here.

Mr Honeyford: There is not much positivity to shout about in our economy and at a time of great uncertainty on the world stage, but I want to start with a few positives for local people by welcoming the increases for the lowest paid in our society and the benefit to our local economy with the rises in the national minimum wage and the living wage. That will bring so much help to so many. Alliance believes in those rises as they align with our progressive values of fairness and equality. The increases to the living and minimum wages are a positive step forward as we improve living standards and work to reduce poverty and to support workers with their cost of living. They will have seen massive increases to energy costs, alongside inflationary rises. That is where the positivity ends.

I have to raise concerns about the employers' National Insurance contribution increases, which are coming at the same time for our business community as the living and minimum wage rises. That compounds the financial burden on our local businesses, our social enterprises and the voluntary sector. They already have to tackle the rise in operational costs. Again, they are affected by the energy costs and inflationary supply costs. Those have been highlighted, and the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee has also talked about the labour-intensive businesses, which are in the retail and hospitality sectors. I want to raise those again. We have sectors that have not had any rates reduction passed down from the Assembly that the other regions of the UK have had. Given the VAT rate reduction in the South, the sector has been squeezed on two fronts, which has further compounded the issue. We have a problem on our high streets that needs to be addressed.

I want to give a shout-out to the AERA Minister and the dilapidation Bill that is coming through for our high streets. That will give powers to councils to enable them to start to tackle some of the issues that sit there.

Looking further at our high streets, how can it be fair that a landlord with a unit that has been sitting empty for years on end — often with ratepayers having to pay to dress the windows to cover up those old buildings and bring some life back to that high street — gets a reduction in rates, while the small businesses next door that are fighting for their lives, trying to keep the lights on and trying to pay their staff are paying more than double than anyone elsewhere in the UK? Something is wrong there and needs to be fixed quickly. The Department of Finance needs to get on with reviewing the progressive changes that we need to our rating system. The changes need to be fair to our local companies and local businesses and fair to the employees who work in them. That, rather than sitting back, kicking the can down the road and saying, "This is a 10-year process", would encourage growth in our economy This is urgent for a lot of those businesses, and we need it looked at and tackled now.

Every party in the Chamber talked about change at the last election, but if you were to ask businesses or those employed in them about change, they would say that they have not seen a lot of change to any of this. The Committee for the Economy is not seeing a lot of meaningful change coming through, and there is no any sign of legislation coming forward that will make a meaningful change to our economy locally.

It is the Alliance view that the Government should be raising additional tax from the superwealthy, not from the most vulnerable; not from hard-working people; and not from small businesses and microbusinesses, the self-employed, social enterprises or the voluntary sector. However, social enterprises and community organisations often serve the most vulnerable and are caught up on two fronts: they not only have higher operating costs but those costs are rising at a time when the demand for their services is increasing. If there is no support coming, that will, potentially, leave a gap that our public sector simply cannot fill.

Alliance wants to see a coordinated Executive response coming from the Department for the Economy that moves beyond reactive measures and builds a proactive strategy to grow our economy, be that through advanced manufacturing and innovation, in fintech or in energy, to realise the growth of green technologies. Equally, we need to see the investment in future generations. I welcome the increased investment in skills training but would love to hear the Minister provide a little clarity on what that will deliver, when and by whom. I am concerned about the drop in innovation and research funding for our universities, and maybe the Minister can also address that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Perfect timing, David.

Dr Aiken: We have concerns about the National Insurance contribution rises, bearing in mind that one of the things that was set out by the Labour Government when they were coming into power was that growth would be the most important thing. Everything that they have done since seems to stifle that growth. One of the things that we have seen in Northern Ireland — we have heard this from many parts of our economy — is that any recent attempts to grow have been snuffed out, and they have been snuffed out particularly by rises in National Insurance contributions and some of the other activities coming from the Labour Government. It seems quite strange for a Government who came in specifically to make sure that our economy was growing to have stifled it and stopped it moving. As MLAs here, we all need to encourage our Economy and Finance Ministers to endeavour to raise that when in joint talks with the regional Governments and, in particular, with our Westminster Government to make sure that they know and understand that.

On top of that, we are in a situation where, of course, a lot of our economy has been stifled by the Windsor framework. The additional burdens and layers of bureaucracy that are laid on, particularly for our small and medium-sized enterprises, are becoming a real challenge. As we look into the not-too-distant future, given what we see across the Atlantic — the rise in concerns about tariffs and the likely implications of those — we can see that we are moving into a very grave period of uncertainty. We in the Assembly must do everything that we can to support our industries and companies and enable them to get through that. If that means some innovative thinking from the Economy and Finance Ministers, they should do that and lead by example. Whether it means looking at issues around rates, at improving how we do some of the training and support or at how we can improve what our higher and further education sectors are doing, all those things need to be engaged on to help grow our economy. We must recognise the fact that, across Northern Ireland right now, many of our companies are considering whether they will invest in the future, retrench or look at whether they can even continue. For a Government that came in saying that they were all about growth, we are not seeing it.

Finally, we must encourage our Finance and Economy Ministers to make that message loud and clear, wherever that may be, either in Westminster or amongst the other regions. Above all, I commend the motion to the House.

Ms McLaughlin: I support this important motion, which highlights the significant challenges that are facing our businesses, social enterprises and the community and voluntary sector, particularly after the Chancellor's autumn Budget statement. The SDLP has long argued that economic policy —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Sinéad, could you move your microphone? Thank you.

Ms McLaughlin: — must be based on fairness, sustainability and, above all, support for those who create jobs and deliver essential services. Those sectors form the backbone of our economy, yet, the measures in the Budget fall short of addressing their critical needs.

I will begin with some positives. The increase in the national minimum wage is a welcome step for many low-paid workers who are struggling to make ends meet, given rising rents, food prices and energy costs. However, while the wage increase is important, it is not a comprehensive solution to the cost-of-living crisis. When businesses are simultaneously burdened with higher National Insurance contributions and escalating overheads, we risk making it harder, not easier, for employers to maintain those pay increases in the long term. Across Northern Ireland, small businesses are telling us daily that they are under immense pressure. Many are still recovering from the combined impacts of Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing crisis in the cost of doing business. The Budget adds additional burdens without offering the necessary support to help those businesses adapt. The increase from 13·6% to 15% in the National Insurance contributions for employers is a concern and will, unfortunately, hit SMEs and social enterprises the hardest.

At a time when we should be encouraging investment, growth and job creation, that increase could hinder businesses' ability to create jobs and invest in their staff. The impact on the community and voluntary sector is also severe. Those organisations provide vital services, whether that be through food banks, mental health support or crisis intervention, often stepping in where the Government have failed. However, despite their essential role, they are expected to absorb wage costs without additional funding. Financial uncertainty and one-year Budgets leave many of those organisations struggling to plan.

The challenges do not end there. The recent spring statement introduced more cuts to welfare, including the decision to allow those who are under 22 to claim the health-related elements of universal credit. Additionally, for new claimants, the health-related elements of universal credit will not rise with inflation until 2030. That will have a devastating impact on those who are already struggling the most. At the same time, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has downgraded predicted growth for this year from 2% to 1%. That is a worrying sign that the UK economy is slowing down, yet the Budget fails to offer the necessary support to offset the risks.

Let us not forget the Trump tariffs. The recent announcement that tariffs could return could completely wipe out any fiscal headroom that the Chancellor sought in her Budget. For businesses in Northern Ireland, especially those that are in the export industries, that brings another looming threat of economic instability.

We cannot simply acknowledge the challenges but must concentrate on solutions. The SDLP has called for a coordinated response from the Executive led by the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy. That response should include targeted business rates relief for small businesses and social enterprises to help offset the rise in costs. It should include reform of the non-domestic rates system to make it fairer and more responsive to the needs of businesses.

I completely concur with my Economy Committee colleague David Honeyford: it is a bizarre and unfair policy that is actually anti-business. We need to reform it, and we need to do so soon. It should also include measures to provide certainty for the voluntary sector. Multi-year Budgets have the potential to offer the stability that those organisations need. Without that certainty, they will continue to struggle to deliver essential services. Any Barnett consequentials arising from the Budget must be ring-fenced for Northern Ireland. By doing that, £61·2 million could be put to childcare, £68 million to housing and £170 million to infrastructure projects. Those are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent investments that could improve the lives of families, increasing the amount of affordable housing and creating the structure needed to drive sustainable and inclusive growth.

The Budget highlights the broader issue of Northern Ireland's continued reliance on decisions made at Westminster, without us having the fiscal tools to shape our future —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: — increasing the instability at the coalface of our communities.

Ms Sheerin: I concur with a lot of the remarks that have been made this afternoon. It is regrettable that we have been placed in this position. Both the Ministers referred to in the motion are bringing the case for our businesses to the British Government and have been doing so since the Budget was announced and the measures were brought in. As others have outlined, it is unfortunate that the employers' National Insurance contributions have not been funded in the North in the way that they have across the devolved regions. That highlights the disparity that we face and the fact that we are funded below need. We already see that starkly in our public services. Trying to keep the lights on across the North is increasingly difficult.

The British Government have prioritised warfare over welfare and have made decisions that have hurt the most vulnerable in our society. Our small businesses also now feel the pressure from that. From engaging with our small businesses, we know that they do not begrudge the rise in the living wage and the national minimum wage, which will benefit many of our low-income earners, but they need support, if they are to meet those targets. We can all take a lesson from those decisions, which is that we would be better making our own decisions here and that there is a better way for us all to live.

Mr Frew: We have had several debates like this in the past number of months, because we recognise the danger and the deep concern of our working people and business owners — rightly so — about the impact of the autumn statement on their businesses, lives and livelihoods. It is therefore important that we grapple with the issues and debate them when we can.

We need to realise a number of things. What is the purpose of government? Government's first responsibility is to keep us safe through security, upholding the law, protecting rights and liberties and providing good public services so that we can strive and thrive. This Government do not do any of those things well; in fact, they do them poorly. When you look at the record of the new Labour Government, you can see that they are anti-labour. Is it not ironic that the Labour Party has turned so far away from its roots and from the people that it professes to protect? This Government are anti-labour. They are anti-jobs, anti-workers and anti-economy. They do not leave it there; they attack our pensioners. They attack our farmers, and not only that, they attack our farmers' children. That is how dangerous this Government are. Instead of upholding security and keeping us safe, they want to fleece us for every hard-earned pound. That is some Labour Government.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that it stands in stark contrast to what Labour was promising before the election?

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

Mr Frew: Thank you. Yes, absolutely, and it is no wonder that people lose trust in politics. A party says one thing out of power and does another thing when in power. It would not be so harmful, if it did not impact on us so greatly, but it does. It impacts on us mightily.

One of the things that strike me — Members will know that I repeatedly raise this in the Chamber — is that we have not been governed well over the past five years. The measures that have been brought in have hurt our people, businesses and society. Who pays the price for that bad governance? Our people pay, not the Government, politicians or Ministers. Our families and hard-working people and those who run businesses pay. It is so difficult to run a business. The politicians who make the decisions think that they have a hard job, but they should try running a business and employing 100 people to feel the pressure. Yet we have Departments and Ministers who make horrendous decisions because we have been governed badly over the last five years and because they have to fill the black holes that they create and support. Who picks up the pieces? Our businesses and our employees. It cannot stand.

When I heard the autumn statement, I thought that Labour would never go through with it. How could they? Think of the pain that it is causing. Surely they will see sense and do a U-turn. Yet, 1 April came and went.

It is not just the increase in employer National Insurance contributions from 13·8% to 15%; it is the lowering of the threshold from the current £9,100 to £5,000. If you ask any small-business owner who employs between seven and 30 people, they will say that that hurts most. Especially in our high streets, voluntary sectors and low-cost businesses, the threshold move has caused the damage, because no one escapes that.

It is right to say and good to applaud the fact that the national minimum wage and national living wage have increased. However, it is not much good to have a national living wage increase when you have just lost your job on Friday.

The Government must get real. To be fair to the Northern Ireland Executive, they could have done little to prevent the Labour Government from announcing and enforcing the measures. However, they cannot shirk the responsibility of doing what they can to help our people. There have been times when English companies have availed themselves of rates relief that, in Northern Ireland, we have not been able to offer. Now is the time when the Finance Department and Minister and the wider Executive should be thinking about how they can get relief to hard-working people, businesses and the people who employ people and who create wealth. We need to find relief for those people now.

Mr Buckley: Does anybody remember that, a year ago, the Labour Party was on the cusp of power? It has already been mentioned: what was the Labour Party's mantra? It was, "Growth, growth, growth". The Labour Party manifesto set out "five missions to rebuild Britain". Number 1 was "Kickstart economic growth". What has it delivered except downgraded forecasts for growth figures, stagnation and the economy on an edge? They spoke honey before the feast and vinegar after the plates were cleared.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. For once, I agree with much of what he says. Does he acknowledge, however, that he is not necessarily one to lecture anybody else on growth, given that the Brexit that he championed has reduced UK trade by 15%?

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

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention. As always, he is filled with contradictions. He is the very Member who would have us tied to the European Union and at risk of retaliatory tariffs, so he is in no place to lecture about regulation. The Member is in no place to lecture about taxation. He is a wealth denier and a job denier, so I take no lectures from the Member for Upper Bann.

Let us go on, because the point is clear, and Mr Tennyson set it out. If you follow the Alliance Party's approach and, indeed, that of the Labour Party, what do you do? If you target wealth creators, what do you expect to happen in the economy? I welcome the approach of the Committee for Finance and the Committee for the Economy to the matter. Listening to the round-table discussion was an extremely interesting and useful exercise for members. We got live, real-time data on how hospitality, retail, manufacturing, the voluntary sector and public services are being affected. We heard on the radio and TV this morning about how our GPs and pharmacies would be affected.

I will focus on business. Regarding the increase in contributions from 13·8% to 15%, we have to remember that Northern Ireland is an industry of small-business owners. Their margins are tight, and they struggle to absorb the costs, so what do they do? They have to pass the costs on. Inflation takes money out of the pockets of all our constituents. It increases prices on the shelves and reduces the take-home pay of parents who are working hard to feed their families. Businesses are taxed to death. You cannot keep shaking the money tree of a small business and expect a return.

The strategies that we have seen are anti-growth and go against what Labour argued for. Reduced investment, job losses and price increases limit hiring. My colleague Paul Frew is absolutely right: a rise in the living wage or the minimum wage is not much good, if you do not have a job at the end of the week. We have to get real. At the Committee recently, we heard from the manufacturing sector and, in particular, from Denroy Plastics, which talked about hundreds of thousands of pounds to foot the bill for the employers' National Insurance contributions. I asked, "How do you pay for it?". "We have to make efficiencies", was the answer. That means looking at automation, which reduces the workforce and the number of jobs in the community. The company does not want to do that, but it is being forced down the inevitable route. How can businesses pay for the increase? The money tree has been shaken so hard that they can only pass the cost on to the consumer.

Businesses are against the wall. When it comes to taxation, they face a situation that is peculiar to Northern Ireland. Corporation tax is 25% in the United Kingdom, compared with 12·5% in the Republic of Ireland. VAT on hospitality is 20% in the United Kingdom, compared with 9% in the Republic. People will say that I am making a pretty good case for unification, but I will tell you this: if members of Sinn Féin had articulated those low-tax policies in the Assembly, perhaps we would be in a better place today. They are happy with this quagmire, however, because it suits their position.

We must understand that, if the Government's expectation is that, by increasing those levels of taxation, they will, in some way, generate additional revenue, they are wrong. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has already poured cold water on the Government's suggestions of the revenue that the increases in employers' National Insurance contributions will generate. It is clear that the anti-growth strategy employed by Labour and by the Tories before that will not break the vicious cycle. We must cut regulation, target specific industries for growth, reform our planning system and cut tax in order to grow.

We must trust businesses. We need a spirit of entrepreneurship in this country that encourages people to get into business and employ people. If we do not and we continue in this vein, we are essentially stifling our economy, creating stagnation and leaving our constituents vulnerable to the high winds of the open sea.

I say to Members —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Buckley: — that I agree, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Ms D Armstrong: It is good to hear unanimity in the Chamber today. I wish to address my comments specifically on the impact that the increase in National Insurance contributions and the minimum wage will have on the hospitality and retail sectors. Indeed, I have been lobbied by those sectors in my constituency to use my voice to raise the problems that they face. However, it must be noted that industry stakeholders consistently report that the increases will be catastrophic to an array of sectors in Northern Ireland, particularly the community and voluntary sector, as we have heard, at a time when businesses and community and voluntary sector organisations need support and not challenges.

The hospitality sector, in particular, has been brought to a cliff edge by the changes. Was it not enough that prices were rising and staff retention was an issue or that they faced exorbitant energy and rates bills? The increase in the minimum wage and National Insurance contributions may well be the final straw that leads to many hospitality businesses closing their doors. In addition, as referenced earlier, the hospitality sector relies on many young, part-time workers. Figures show that 63% of jobs in the accommodation and food sectors are part-time, and those employers will be particularly exposed by the lowering of the threshold for employers' National Insurance contributions.

Hospitality and tourism account for over 77,000 jobs here and, together, contribute nearly £2 billion to Northern Ireland's economy. The proposals in the Budget served only to decimate that already struggling sector. One of my constituents gave the example of licensed premises with accommodation that is located in a rural town and employs 23 staff: 13 are full-time, 10 are part-time and six are under the age of 18. The business contributes £20,000 in rates annually. The company's turnover was almost £1 million in the last trading year, but it made a loss of just under £100,000 before tax. It was moving back into profit this year, but that has now been threatened by the Budget announcements.

That business faces the key challenges of energy costs, cash flow management, recruitment and retention of quality staff, taxation levels and the cost of investment. Fourteen staff are directly affected by the change in the national living wage — that is two thirds of the staff, including the part-timers. The combination of the increase in the national living wage and the change in employers' National Insurance contributions will add 8% to the current wage bill, increasing it from £408,000 to £440,000. It means that the company has to find another £32,000 when it is already making a loss of £100,000. What will it do? The only available options are to take on fewer workers, give workers fewer hours, scale back the customer offering or try to put up prices. Those options are unsustainable for people and employers in the hospitality sector.

The picture is equally bleak for our retail sector. In February, I took part in Retail NI's 2025 High Street Summit, where stakeholders from across Northern Ireland gathered to discuss the challenges facing the sector. Survey results revealed by Retail NI that day make for particularly grim reading. It found that the average cost to Retail NI's members, as a result of National Insurance and minimum wage increases, will be £90,000 per annum. Some 74% said that they would have to reduce their workforce and their staff's hours, 89% are seriously concerned about the impact of rate increases, and 96% believe that the Executive need to do more. It is abundantly clear that the increases are the last thing that our hospitality and retail sectors need at this time. Westminster and, indeed, Stormont should focus on how we can ensure the long-term viability of those local businesses, rather than bombarding them with even more punitive measures that serve only to harm them. The Budget will make the most vulnerable worse off and harm our local economy at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions.

I support the call for a coordinated response from the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy, along with the findings of the cost of doing business in Northern Ireland research, to demonstrate the devastating impact that the autumn Budget will have on the economy here.

Mr Gaston: Day and daily, we hear complaints in this place that Northern Ireland is being treated badly by the UK Government and that the problems pertaining to everything lead back to London, although the Labour Government are an absolute gift to those who want to make that point politically. A cynic might say that it is easy for an Assembly with no tax-raising powers — thank goodness for that — to blame Westminster. I want to look at how we act, however.

The motion draws particular attention to the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. What it does not highlight is the fact that Northern Ireland got £146 million in Barnett consequentials to offset that rise in the public sector. Yesterday, the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee touched on that issue. The Finance Minister's response was that Stormont had made the decision to reprioritise that money towards other things. It is one thing to want to defend that decision, but for him to come to the House and ignore the fact that £146 million came here because of the changes made to employers' National Insurance contributions is downright misleading.

Since coming to this place, I have struggled to process why, instead of using the additional moneys that were received in Barnett consequentials for their intended purpose, the Executive have, time and time again, reprioritised those moneys towards other things in order to ensure that they can put the "Made in Stormont" stamp on them. Apparently, the Executive know better.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I note that the thrust of the debate is to discuss employers' National Insurance contributions, which are a Westminster form of taxation. Although I agree with him that there are cases in which the moneys should be targeted at their intended purpose, does he not agree that it is important for our local Executive to be agile, provided that money is not wasted on services in, for example, the health service, which may experience pressures from time to time, given the particular situation?

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

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I appreciate Mr Buckley's intervention, but I am trying to concentrate my remarks on the fact that we got that money to offset the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. Yes, we have talked about helping businesses and the voluntary sector to offset pressures that they may face, but it was decided that the money that we received for employers' National Insurance contributions would be better used for other things. In this case, that is wrong.

Take councils, for example. Each council in Northern Ireland put its rates up — that increase was not the only contributing factor — and, as a result, the burden was passed on to the ratepayer. Belfast City Council put its rates up by 5·99%. Of that, 1·45% — equivalent to £3 million — was to cover employers' National Insurance rises. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council increased its rates by 3·99%, and 1% of that, or £820,000, was to cover employers' National Insurance increases. I therefore ask Members to ask themselves this: does this place always have the interests of voluntary sector organisations, which we say that we are concerned about, at heart?

Let us look at some of the expenditure. Where was the concern about public money when £54,000 was spent on a four-day trip to Washington last year? Do the Executive care for those who are on the minimum wage when they spend £1,000 a week on photographers? What about the £36,000 a week spent on hospitality? If we are going to complain about others, we need to make sure that our own house is in order. The Assembly may not like to acknowledge that there is a culture of wastage here, but I have no such problem pointing that out. I also make the point that there could be cuts made to UK Departments, which I would positively welcome. A few fewer bureaucrats in the NIO would be no bad thing.

To finish, and to bring me back to the point that Mr Buckley raised, I believe that money that is allocated to Stormont to offset employers' National Insurance increases should have been spent on doing that. Going by the Executive's past form, if Westminster were to allocate money for businesses to offset those increases, there is absolutely no guarantee that it would be passed on to them for its intended purposes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call John O'Dowd, the Minister of Finance, to respond to the debate on the motion. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

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

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the impact of the Chancellor's autumn Budget statement, and I commend both Committees for the work that they have carried out. I share Members' concerns. My predecessor and I raised the impact of changes to employers' National Insurance contributions directly with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The changes affect the public sector and businesses alike and have served only to apply more pressure to already constrained budgets and bottom lines.

It is disappointing that there has been no change in approach from the Westminster Government, despite challenges from me and my counterparts in Scotland and Wales as well as from the business and voluntary and community sectors. The spring statement was an opportunity to do that, but what we have got is the continuation of austerity, neglecting to support those who need support most. Whilst Whitehall Departments will be fully funded for the additional costs that they incur as a result of the increases, due to the different structures of our public services, the Barnett consequentials that we receive will be far short of the cost that the Executive face. Central government costs alone are forecast to be around £207 million, while the Executive will receive just £146 million in Barnett consequentials towards the costs, a shortfall of some £60 million. It is unacceptable that a policy decision by the British Government should result in financial pressures for the Executive, as a devolved Government.

The uplift in the national minimum wage is welcome. It improves economic, social and personal well-being for workers and reduces inequalities, whilst there are also benefits for business in talent attraction and retention. I recognise, however, that labour costs are significant for many employers, and any increases in wages can impact on operational costs and sustainability. However, from my recent engagement with employers, the strong consensus is that the changes to the National Insurance contributions will have the most profound impact. The changes were unexpected by employers, be they in business, the broader public sector or the community and voluntary sector and social enterprises, which also provide services to many of the most vulnerable in society, have had little notice to plan for the hike.

Members will be aware that the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre has taken forward work commissioned by my predecessor on the cost of doing business here. I received a copy of the final report yesterday, which I am considering. The study was commissioned following concerns raised in the aftermath of the Chancellor's autumn Budget. However, the research was broader than that. It looked at the impact of labour, energy, property, transport, materials and insurance costs on sectors and by business size, as well as the VAT differential for the hospitality sector on the island. Researchers also undertook an extensive consultation exercise with 25 sectoral and business bodies, so that they could have their say. The report provides me with an independent evidence base on which to present as strong a case as possible to the Treasury ahead of the June spending review. I will shortly write to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, using the research to press home the need for support or mitigations to ease the impacts of the National Insurance contributions. I will also share the report and engage with my Executive colleagues to discuss the implications of the work for their Departments and the areas for which they are responsible. It is important to note, however, that, as a devolved Administration, our ability to absorb any increased costs for the wider public sector or to provide additional support to businesses because of decisions made in Westminster is limited.

I note that the report produced by the two Committees includes a theme of "Business rates". When considering what local support can be provided to ease cost pressures for businesses, it is important to understand that any rate relief means forgoing revenue, charging other ratepayers more or reducing public services. My Department already provides over a quarter of a billion pounds worth of support in our domestic rating system each rating year. Around 70% of non-domestic ratepayers occupy property with some form of rate support. That rises to 75% when vacant property relief is taken into account. Almost 4,500 manufacturers here pay the lowest business rates in these islands. They get 70% off their rates by virtue of industrial derating, which is a tax relief unique to this jurisdiction. Over 30,000 businesses, from a tax base of just under 75,000, get a small business rate relief, which we have just renewed for the 2025-26 year. I also introduced legislation last month, with the Assembly's support, to renew the Back in Business scheme and the rural ATM rates exemption scheme.

Almost 57% of all pubs get some form of rate support, and 65% of those in the hospitality sector are in receipt of support via the small business rate relief scheme. Over 63% of retailers get some form of support, with 80% of that support provided to small retail properties with an NAV of £15,000 or less. The strategic review cycle of rate support measures has now been commenced, and the cost of doing business research, alongside direct engagement with business stakeholders, will help to inform those considerations.

The planned increase to employers' National Insurance contributions will prove incredibly challenging for our local businesses, the community and voluntary sector and public-sector employers. Devolved Governments quite simply do not have the financial capacity to compensate for decisions made on reserved taxation matters. This was a decision taken in Westminster on a reserved taxation matter. Now that I have an independent cost of doing business report, I will press the Treasury for a solution to its decision while working closely with Executive colleagues to consider the implications of that work within our remit and limited resources.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Phillip Brett, Chair of the Committee for the Economy, to make a winding-up speech on the debate. Phillip, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

First, I thank all Members who spoke and, indeed, the Minister for their contributions to today's debate. As Chair of the Economy Committee, I pay tribute to the Committee for Finance for making arrangements for the joint event that took place on 29 January. I commend the Committee members and, indeed, all the stakeholders who were involved. All Committee members who were at the event can attest to how useful an engagement it was.

Members have spoken eloquently on the subject today, and I will briefly recap some of those comments later in my contribution.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement contained a number of measures, including welcome increases in the national minimum wage and the national living wage. Those have been welcomed across the Chamber, but that is less so the case for the significant increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. All of that was in the context of a wider cost-of-living pressure that is being visited on businesses whilst they struggle to reboot following the COVID pandemic. The continuation of these government changes, along with the limited notice, has caused disquiet amongst employers across a range of sectors here in Northern Ireland.

At the joint evidence-taking event, other issues in respect of business rates were raised. In brief, stakeholders argued that rate rebates in other jurisdictions generated unhypothecated Barnett consequentials that had not found their way to businesses here in Northern Ireland. There was discussion of the impact on particular sectors with lower wages, including hospitality and childminding, and we heard that those changes could have a substantial impact on sectors that depend on government contracts, such as social enterprises. The motion before the House calls for a coordinated, cross-departmental response to that, and the Executive may take some lessons from the previous high street task force and associated interventions. Perhaps a wider review of policy is also needed to ensure that economic development and economic opportunities are supported in line with the Programme for Government.

During the debate, there were many eloquent contributions that covered many of the issues that were raised by contributors at the event that I mentioned. I will go into some detail. The Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee highlighted and summarised well the issues that were raised. The impact of these changes is clear. They will limit growth, stymie investment and put jobs at risk. The Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee also holds the role of chair of the all-party group on voluntary and community sector and has been a tireless champion for that sector in the Assembly. The community and voluntary sector plays a vital role in all aspects of government life. Government services could not, will not and cannot be delivered without our community and voluntary sector, and it is important that we continue to stand up for it.

Ms Dolan rightly highlighted the shortfall of £60 million in the National Insurance contribution from the Barnett consequentials. The estimated cost of the changes to Departments here is £207 million, and we are receiving only £146 million. However, as the Member also rightly articulated, the continuation by the Executive of the small business rate relief scheme and the industrial derating scheme will be a massive support to businesses right across Northern Ireland.

Mr Honeyford mentioned the current rates exemption for derelict buildings. We can see the impact that that continues to have at the Tribeca site in my constituency of North Belfast; it brings down our city centres. There is a need for government to look at how we can ensure that relief is not given to businesses that infect our high streets with dereliction.

Steve Aiken, a Member for South Antrim, said that, despite saying that they want to go for growth, the Labour Government seem to want to go for broke. The impact here in Northern Ireland is exacerbated by the Irish Sea border and the continuation of our being cut off from our largest market, which is the internal market of the United Kingdom.

I usually agree with much of what Mr Gaston says, but I struggled to follow his argument. The Executive have allocated the full £146 million that was given to them as a result of National Insurance changes. Rather than the UK Government giving the Executive more money than was needed for the changes, we are actually £60 million short, which is highlighted —.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for taking my intervention. Will you outline what the money that the Treasury gave to Stormont has been spent on?

Mr Brett: If you read the Budget that was published yesterday, Mr Gaston, you will see that that money will go towards meeting the impact of departmental salary costs. Right across our Departments, the cost of those changes is over £200 million. The Minister of Finance is holding £146 million in the centre, and that will be allocated in June monitoring to ensure that those changes are funded.

The current leader of the Opposition, Ms McLaughlin, rightly highlighted the impact of welfare cuts, how they will continue to impact on the ability of consumers to spend in businesses and the need for us to continue to support the most vulnerable. Mr Frew, a Member for North Antrim, rightly articulated how the Government have become an anti-labour Government, and he said that they are the very antithesis of what they claimed to be. Mr Buckley, as always, brought some much-needed colour to the debate and reminded us that, one year ago, we were told that it could only get better. If this is better, I dread to think what getting worse is.

There are a number of positives, however. The rates review, which the Minister of Finance and the Executive have agreed to undertake, is an important step in making sure that we continue to target and support businesses through any means that we possibly can. The cost of doing business research will give us and the Executive the ability to see what further targeted supports are required. The Budget that was agreed yesterday will see £16 billion being spent next year on delivering key public services and supporting our businesses. The oversubscription of financial transactions capital shows, once again, that the Executive are determined to make use of all publicly available funding to ensure that we can support those who are most in need. There is also additional funding for businesses, with an additional £6 million through support for Invest NI, which was agreed as part of the Budget, and £15 million to invest in skills.

The Executive will continue to use all the avenues that they have to support businesses across Northern Ireland as the House and the Executive continue to stand up for our business community.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should take their ease.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. Ms Forsythe, you will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the absence of Matthew O'Toole, the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance, who is on paternity leave, I will speak for the Committee for Finance in proposing its motion. Members will be aware that, in previous mandates, it has been for the Committee for Finance to undertake a round-robin exercise to hear the views of the other Statutory Committees on their respective Departments' budgets, as was the case in 2022. The exercise also takes in the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council's view of the Executive's Budget for 2025-26. The Committee has compiled and published a brief report on those views. Today's debate provides Members and, in particular, Chairs of the Statutory Committees with the opportunity to debate the 2025-26 Budget. The Finance Committee takes it role in leading scrutiny of the Executive's Budget very seriously, with members seeking ways to support and facilitate other Statutory Committees in the scrutiny of their respective Departments' budgets. The Committee is very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to respond to the debate today.

I will start the debate by highlighting the extremely difficult Budget envelope that we have for 2025-26. While elements of the Executive restoration settlement are still helping to deliver funding, Finance officials have highlighted to the Committee on a number of occasions the fact that in-year funding from the UK Government will be significantly less than last year and that Departments must live within their budgetary limits. With the final Budget being approved by the Executive on 3 April, it is timely for the House to debate this motion. I thank the Business Committee for scheduling the debate. The debate is informed by the Budget document itself, by the very useful Fiscal Council assessment and by the excellent scrutiny undertaken by Statutory Committees. I thank the Fiscal Council and all the Statutory Committees that were able to respond with their thoughts, on which I will now reflect.

The Fiscal Council highlighted the fact that the Executive have delivered a Budget that formally balances each of the distinctive control totals for day-to-day resource spending, capital and financial transactions capital (FTC). That means that the proposed departmental allocations and forecast debt interest costs are covered by a combination of block grant funding, regional rates revenue and capital borrowing. The Fiscal Council notes that the Budget balance is resting on some significant assumptions, most notably in Health, where the position bakes in a reliance on trusts raising £200 million of additional savings. There are also general pressures that the Committee has previously noted arising from public-sector pay and the cost of meeting the UK Government's employers' National Insurance increases. I also note that, in his written ministerial statement last week, the Minister confirmed that the Executive will only receive approximately £146 million of the £200 million that they identified as needed for the core Civil Service to offset the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. That £200 million did not include GPs, dentists and all those public-sector employees who are not core civil servants, nor does it include the councils or third-sector organisations that deliver public services. Additionally, that funding will not be available until the Westminster Main Estimates in June, and it will be allocated through our June monitoring round here.

Until then, Departments will need to manage the additional costs.

The Fiscal Council has assessed that, because of the large spending increases in the October 2024 UK Budget, it is unlikely that the Executive Budget for 2024-25 will unbalance, but there are significant potential pressures to contend with in 2025-26. As has been discussed with the Committee on a number of occasions, the restoration package contains a funding cliff edge in 2026-27, when the short-term Budget support that is being provided runs out but the 24% Barnett consequentials top-up will not have had time to build up to a similar level.

The Committee welcomes the interim fiscal framework signed off by the previous Finance Minister last May, which has delivered considerable benefits for the Executive, not least the recognition of the 124% relative need figure. The Fiscal Council highlights that 2025-26 represents the eleventh successive year in which Northern Ireland has operated with a single-year Budget. Many stakeholders have told the council and the Committee that multi-year Budgets would provide a better basis for delivery and for workforce and transformation planning in Departments and arm's-length bodies (ALBs). However, the council suggests that, while that is true, recent experience shows that, even over relatively short periods, initial Budget allocations can be amended significantly as the overall funding position changes and resources are reallocated between Departments.

With specific reference to the Department of Finance's budget, the Committee has noted that the Department will carry significant capital pressures that it intends to manage down during the year through a range of measures. The Committee will continue to keep those pressures and others identified by the Department under observation. As well as continuing their scrutiny of funds arising from the restoration package, including the public-sector transformation fund, members are heavily engaged with the workaround fiscal framework being taken forward by Professor Gerry Holtham. It is hoped that that will take us beyond the 124% relative need, compared with per head spend in England, which has already been identified in the interim framework.

Through its membership of the Interparliamentary Finance Committee Forum, with counterparts in Wales and Scotland, the Committee has recently engaged with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Rt Hon Darren Jones MP, as part of the fourth meeting of the forum, which was hosted in Parliament Buildings. With our Scottish and Welsh counterparts, the Committee is keen to engage with UK Treasury to provide greater scrutiny of its actions, which have a direct and significant impact on the UK's fiscal context, not least the Budget for Northern Ireland. With our Scottish and Welsh colleagues, the Committee is working to ensure that our Budget settlements reflect our respective needs and are more adaptive and flexible. The current arrangements do not incentivise the Executive to grow the economy or tax base here, as the current arrangements with the UK Government see us losing any growth in our fiscal base to the Treasury.

As per the custom in previous years, the Committee agreed to ask the other Statutory Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly to review the anticipated impact of the 2025-26 draft Budget proposals on their respective Departments. The Chairs of the Committees will have an opportunity to comment, but I will note the common themes from the Statutory Committees. They include concerns over the lack of a multi-year Budget. They indicated that a multi-annual Budget would assist Departments in their long-term planning, especially for larger capital projects. We are aware that the UK Government plan to produce multi-annual Budgets going forward. We will know more following the comprehensive spending review later in the year.

The Committees indicated that a joined-up, cross-departmental approach with departmental budgets being linked to the Programme for Government (PFG) would help to link funding decisions to policy outcomes and that that would make it easier to assess whether financial allocations were being directed towards the most urgent needs. That has been a consistent theme of the Finance Committee, and it is hoped that the work already under way through the Budget improvement road map will allow Departments to provide longer-term budget plans that are linked to PFG priorities through indicative five-year business plans. While those are likely to focus on baseline budgets, they will be an important planning tool.

The Statutory Committees have indicated their understanding of the constrained fiscal context in which we find ourselves. They acknowledge that there are considerable pressures on the public purse and that difficult decisions will need to be made during the 2025-26 financial year.

I look forward to hearing Members' comments and the Minister's response. Once again, we are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to respond to today's debate.

I will make some brief comments as a DUP MLA. I welcome the progression of the 2025-26 Budget, which, with a Programme for Government in place, will enable priorities to align and funding to flow. While we recognise that the Budget is incredibly challenging, we all need to work hard as we see it progress. We need to ensure that value for money is delivered, eliminate any wastage of public funds and see the delivery of real public-sector transformation: improved procurement practices; significant improvement in the management of major capital projects; and improved cross-departmental working. We know that no Minister has received an allocation of all that they wanted, but we need to see value for money for Budget allocations in the delivery of public-sector services across Northern Ireland.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and outline the Committee for Health's consideration of the 2025-26 Budget. I thank the Committee for Finance for its work in producing the report. I also thank the members of the Health Committee for their work and the staff of the Committee for providing invaluable information and briefing papers on the Budget process and timings.

Even with those briefings and the information from the Finance Committee, the Health Committee was still unable to consider the Health Department's budget in sufficient detail to allow it to come to a position on the Department's allocation for this financial year. That has been frustrating for members. I note that we asked for a detail breakdown of the allocation for 2025-26 but were told that that is unavailable and that decisions are still to be made on the allocation of funding. Indeed, at the last briefing, on 27 March, the Health Committee was told that the Health Department's projected funding requirements for 2025-26 were £8·984 billion, which is almost £600 million more than the Department's allocation of £8·4 billion. Officials advised members that the Department is assuming that there will be additional allocations totalling £190 million during the year through the immigration health surcharge and the funding to cover additional costs for National Insurance contributions. That leaves the funding gap at approximately £400 million.

At that briefing, members were advised that, without additional funding, the Department of Health will have to consider making savings of £280·8 million through high- or catastrophic-impact measures. That is at a time when the health system already struggles to meet demand. Waiting times are among the longest in the world, and every organisation that we speak to outlines the difficulty in funding services and programmes.

Over the last number of years, there have been many reports on how we need to transform the healthcare system to improve outcomes for patients. Now we need to see decisions being made on transforming our services so that patients and their families achieve better health and social care outcomes. That is why the Committee welcomes the additional transformation funding for the roll-out of multidisciplinary teams in primary care. They have been shown to be transformational in communities, and they deliver better outcomes for patients. However, by having only a partial roll-out, we are creating additional inequalities across our system. That needs to be addressed in the coming period.

I will briefly mention the Department's capital allocation. In recent months, the Health Committee has had major concerns about some significant projects, particularly those being taken forward by the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. We have an amazing maternity hospital that cannot be opened due to issues with the water, and we have a mental health inpatient centre that has been open for only a few years and needs significant work due to leaking pipes. That does not build confidence in the Department's and the trusts' ability to manage significant projects. The Committee will have a briefing this week on the lessons that have been learned from the maternity hospital and how they will be applied to the new children's hospital.

It is disappointing that the Committee has not been able to scrutinise the Department's detailed spending plans for 2025-26. There is a need for better planning by the Department and the trusts on spending, and, like the previous Member to speak, I state that a multi-year Budget would provide the opportunity to improve planning.

The Committee remains committed to working with the Minister and the Department to ensure that additional funding is provided to the Department throughout the year. It is important that the Department has detailed plans for how it will spend any additional allocations that it receives during the year.

Mr Tennyson: I welcome the opportunity to participate in an important debate on the 2025-26 Budget and the reports from the Committee for Finance and the Fiscal Council relating to that Budget. As I prepared for the debate, I revisited discussions that we had on the 2024-25 Budget a year ago. Back then, largely due to the stop-go nature of the Assembly, we were considering a Budget in the absence of any Programme for Government or public consultation. At the outset, therefore, it is important that we acknowledge the significant progress that has been made since. We come to the debate in the knowledge that the views of citizens, stakeholders and organisations have been considered and that the Executive's allocations reflect their priorities and commitments in the Programme for Government.

We know that, as has been referenced, too many of our constituents languish on hospital waiting lists, so it is right that £215 million has been ring-fenced to tackle waiting lists and invest in elective care. Overall, the Department of Health's budget has been uplifted by over £600 million from its opening position in 2024-25, which complements the £60 million that has already been invested for GPs and primary care in public service transformation.

Considerable steps have been made, such as the more than doubling of the earmarked funding for early years and childcare to £55 million, with an additional £15 million being allocated to special educational needs (SEN). It is welcome too that additional funding has been secured for safer communities, although it is imperative that the business case that is with the Department of Finance, as presented by the Chief Constable and the Minister of Justice, is progressed as swiftly as possible to support stabilisation of the PSNI and to ensure that policing can meet the needs of our community. I welcome the efforts of the Minister's predecessor in acknowledging the underfunding of policing and justice, and I hope that the Minister will continue in that vein.

While difficult choices have been made on prioritisation, it is vital that we see the same step change in approach from all Ministers in how they spend their allocations, if we are to deliver on the Programme for Government commitments. We need a genuine commitment to public service transformation and reform that goes beyond the mere lip service that we are used to. The time for reviews and consultations is over. Meaningful action is required in so many areas, be that hospital reconfiguration; reviewing the funding and governance arrangements for NI Water, where the status quo is hampering economic development, contributing to a housing crisis and destroying our environment; the approach to major capital projects, which has resulted in an overspend of £3 billion, as highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) this week; or, as we have debated, meaningful action to tackle the cost of division in our society so that we fund services and not segregation. It is true, of course, that our finances are constrained, but those constraints cannot be trotted out as a lame excuse for indecision or lack of delivery, as we witnessed recently with the Minister for Infrastructure blaming austerity for a failure to pedestrianise Hill Street at a cost of £5,000.

As the Fiscal Council's report clearly illustrates, we must take action to ensure that we are in a better place ahead of the 2026-27 financial year as regards moving towards multi-year Budgets, which, as the Chair of the Committee said, is essential for forward planning, but also ensuring that we do not face a cliff edge and that our funding is properly baselined and indexed at a level that adequately reflects our relative need. While I welcomed the appointment of Professor Holtham to conduct a review of our relative need, it is disappointing in some senses when compared with the experience of the Welsh Government, who appointed an independent commission that was, at least at first glance, superior in the resource and time that was available to it to complete its work. I fear that we are, as I said yesterday, at the eleventh hour as we rapidly approach the second stage of the spending review, in which we can secure changes to our funding formula.

While much has changed at the Assembly over the past year, it is unfortunate that the wider context of the UK public finances has not changed. Tory austerity has, in many respects, been replaced by Labour austerity, with government decisions compounding rather than easing pressures on communities and public services in Northern Ireland. The UK Government have a crucial opportunity to do the right thing by revisiting their economic strategy to ease pressure on businesses and workers, to pursue progressive taxation and to revise our relationship with the EU to secure economic growth.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs about our report on the draft Budget for 2025-26. I thank the Committee for Finance for coordinating reports from the Committees. I will make a few overarching comments before highlighting some details in the Committee report.

The Committee hopes that the Budget will in future be linked to the Programme for Government, and recognises that 2025-26 will not see us receive the levels of Barnett consequentials of 2024-25. DAERA places significant reliance on in-year monitoring rounds and consequentials to fund statutory duties, such as bovine TB compensation. The Committee takes comfort from the fact that the additional consequentials were at least baselined, however.

At its meeting on 6 February, the Committee held an evidence session with officials and heard that only £15·7 million of resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) was allocated, compared with bids totalling £50·9 million against the opening 2024-25 position, which explains some of the difficulties. The Committee heard that DAERA had submitted bids to the Department of Finance totalling £179·2 million of capital DEL from a zero base against the proposed allocation of £119·5 million. We will have the Minister before us this week to discuss delivery of DAERA's corporate plan, and the difficult budget position will no doubt be discussed further.

The Committee is pleased that the Executive agreed to earmark resource DEL of over £300 million for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. The Committee is, however, concerned about the disparity between the resource DEL bids and the allocations for specific statutory functions and projects, which range from as little as one sixth to around half of what was bid for. For example, the bovine TB programme delivery bid was £24 million, but only £6·8 million was able to be allocated. A bid of £11·5 million was submitted for delivery of the environmental improvement plan, which includes Lough Neagh, but only £6·8 million was allocated. There is therefore a quantifiable risk.

The Committee remains concerned that the trajectory of bovine TB remains upwards, with the resulting escalating costs of the bovine tuberculosis programme, which include compensation, heading on a similar trajectory. In the 2023-24 financial year, the total DAERA bovine TB programme expenditure was £55·7 million, which represented an increase of 39% since 2020-21. The compensation costs alone were £36·5 million in 2023-24. Compensation for 2024-25 was projected to be almost £42 million at the time that we reported on the draft Budget. It is now projected to be £46·5 million for 2025-26. The Committee shares the Minister's hopes that the most recent review of bovine tuberculosis and the establishment of the TB partnership steering group will be a turning point.

On 6 March, we received a briefing paper from the project manager who is tasked with implementing the Lough Neagh plan. We scrutinised the allocation of capital funding of £12·8 million and the shortfall in resource funding, which has led to three of the actions in the Lough Neagh plan not being taken forward as planned. One is action 17, which was to:

The main capital expenditure is £5·5 million for phase 2 of the sustainable use of slurry project and £3·5 million for digital transformation projects across a range of relevant business areas. The Committee was also concerned about a lack of allocations for avian influenza and bluetongue outbreaks. That is of immediate concern to the Committee owing to the recent, highly publicised incursions of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) at a number of premises.

The Committee has consistently highlighted the need for significant just transition funding. It is pleased to see an Executive-earmarked allocation for the just transition fund for agriculture of £12·3 million. The Committee has since scrutinised that specific set of funds more closely and focused on a number of capital allocations in particular. For example, Farming with Nature, which is due to launch later this year, has a capital allocation of £4·8 million, while the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) framework has been allocated around £4 million. We have continued our programme of external meetings in order to hear from stakeholders about the impact of funding shortfalls. The Committee believes that those meetings are incredibly important. For example, we have heard from the RSPB about the shortfalls for nature restoration and from rural partnership groups and rural support networks about the historical underinvestment in rural women and about the loss of rural transport.

The Committee has also voiced concerns over cuts to discretionary spend, as those areas are often where a good impact can be made on public well-being, such as access to nature and rural support initiatives, but such areas are often the easiest from which to cut funding. At a recent visit to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) in Hillsborough —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr McGrath: It is important to acknowledge that having a Budget prepared and a Programme for Government in this place is definitely a step forward. We are here to talk not about the Budget but about the findings of the Committee for Finance and the NI Fiscal Council in their interrogation of its draft.

While the language of the two reports is relatively clinical and objective, the content clearly identifies many areas of concern. To begin, the alignment, or lack of it, between the Budget and the Executive's much-hailed Programme for Government is a key point for the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, which states:

Less diplomatically put: they are barely linked at all. In the draft Budget, as little as £425 million is directed towards Programme for Government priorities. To put that in perspective, that is less than 3% of the overall total Budget. Even then, that meagre funding is not guaranteed, with much of it dependent on the outcome of in-year monitoring rounds. Some might call it creative accounting, but you cannot deny that it simply does not add up.

The Executive say that the Budget will help to do what matters most, but, based on the figures, how are we supposed to take that seriously? We have to remember that this is one of the largest financial settlements that we have ever had. With it, there is an opportunity to invest strategically in our shared priorities. The Fiscal Council outlines that there remains scant detail on how Programme for Government priorities will be funded, with several not being costed at all.

The Executive are no longer in a position to blame others for their own inaction. Both pieces of work highlight the need for greater fiscal devolution to put our public finances on a more sustainable footing. That point was reinforced yesterday by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's report on the funding of public services in the North. Despite the urgent need to progress that critical issue, successive Finance Ministers have sat on their hands. Decisions on how we run this place are then inevitably constrained by the choices made by the UK Government. It is hard to tell whether the Executive are helpless or hapless. All they do are sell people short and give way to hopelessness.

There clearly needs to be more funding, but there is a need for the Executive to be critical and honest about how well it is being used currently. Just last week, the Public Accounts Committee highlighted the massive overspend on major capital projects — over £3 billion. Imagine what we could have achieved if that had been directed towards critical areas, such as healthcare, housing or childcare.

As an Opposition, we have proposed practical solutions to ensure that public money goes further while addressing Programme for Government priorities. I know that the Finance Minister is keen to see our Budget, as he mentioned yesterday, and I am sure that, with the 3,480 staff in his Department compared with the two in mine, he will be willing to wait just a bit longer for that detail. However, we have a housing plan. It was thoroughly costed, and it demonstrated what can be achieved with a clear and focused strategy, which is something that the Executive have frequently failed to deliver.

In conclusion, while vital, it is not just about the amount of money that we have; it is about how we choose to spend it and how we leverage the powers that we have to make public finances go further. It might require hard decisions, but the Executive cannot continue to bury their heads in the sand and blame everyone else as things get worse. They must learn from past mistakes and focus on efficient, strategic and long-term investment. Do that and, perhaps, we will finally deliver a Budget that genuinely delivers for people who live here.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I support the motion. The Committee for Communities considered the Department for Communities budget allocation for 2025-26 and budget management for 2024-25 in response to the Committee for Finance's round-robin call for views.

The Committee acknowledges the challenging fiscal environment in which the Budget has been set, with limited funding available to meet departmental needs. Executive officials have characterised the 2025-26 financial year as one of the most constrained in recent history, with no Department receiving the full amount requested in its bid. That has necessitated difficult prioritisation decisions across all areas of public spending.

The Committee is particularly concerned about potential impacts on housing, social security, employment support, local government and community development. In addition, the Committee notes that the changes to the Civil Service budget and workforce could impact on service delivery: for example, in the administration of welfare, housing grants and employment support schemes. While recognising the Executive's efforts to stabilise public finances, the Committee notes that many of the pressures evident in 2024-25 remain unresolved, particularly in relation to housing shortages, welfare mitigation measures and local government funding.

The Department for Communities has been allocated funding across various expenditure categories, with notable increases in some areas but significant constraints in others. The Committee notes that, while the total Budget allocation for DFC appears substantial, increasing demand for public services, inflationary pressures and constraints on discretionary spending mean that the Department faces considerable financial challenges.

Although the Committee welcomes initiatives such as multi-year Budgets and routine publication of in-year financial monitoring data for greater transparency, members emphasised that clearer alignment of Budget allocations with PFG objectives is essential for effective scrutiny and accountability. The five-year departmental business plans expected in autumn 2025 may help to address that gap, provided that they integrate financial planning with strategic priorities.

The 2025-26 Budget has been developed in the context of extreme fiscal constraint and a significant reduction in Barnett consequentials compared with 2024-45. That has left Departments with little flexibility to manage emerging financial pressures, particularly those relating to pay awards, inflation and public service demands. The Executive have attempted to offset some of those constraints through revenue-raising measures, including planned increases in domestic and non-domestic rates, expected to generate an additional £140 million in 2025-26. However, those measures will not fully address the existing shortfalls.

The housing sector remains under significant strain, with a persistent shortage of affordable social housing. The Housing Executive requires substantial additional investment to address backlogs in maintenance and repairs. It is good to see that JobStart 50+ has received an additional £1·9 million, reflecting the importance of employment support for older workers, although broader skills and training programmes remain, particularly for younger people, underfunded. It is worrying to note the impact of Civil Service budget changes: a reduction in the budget for shared services, finance, procurement and digital transformation could slow administrative processes. As well as that, 1,300 vacant NICS posts remain unfilled. Ongoing recruitment issues could impact on the delivery of welfare, housing grants and employment support services. Community and voluntary organisations that rely on NICS-led funding schemes may experience delays in grant approvals and financial processing, further affecting service delivery. We are acutely aware of the impact on the arts sector, with groups still awaiting letters of offer and staff being put on protective notice.

The Committee acknowledges that the 2025-26 Budget is set against a backdrop of severe financial constraints requiring difficult trade-offs between competing priorities. While the Executive have sought to stabilise finances, many critical funding gaps remain unaddressed. The Committee therefore wishes to make the following recommendations.

To create stronger Programme for Government linkages, future Budgets must clearly align with Programme for Government priorities to enable better accountability. On sustainable welfare funding, the Department should prioritise securing long-term legislative backing for existing welfare mitigation schemes. In relation to the housing investment strategy, the Department should develop a long-term financial plan for housing and regeneration, including exploring alternative funding models. To improve transparency in budget reporting, the Department should enhance financial transparency by publishing detailed expenditure tracking reports. To support the Civil Service's financial stability, the Executive should ensure that reductions in funding do not disrupt critical services, particularly those affecting housing, welfare and employment support.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Gildernew: The Committee for Communities will continue —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up.

Mr Frew: So far, this has been a very useful debate. For someone who sits on the Finance Committee, it has been useful to hear from all the other realms of governance in this place and to hear Chairs of all the other Committees speak on their purview and responsibilities in their departmental scrutiny roles.

It is fair and true to say that the Northern Ireland Assembly will get more money than it has ever got, both in cash terms and real terms. It is also fair to say that we are living in a tighter and more constrained environment with our finances. There are a number of reasons for that. I do not know how many Budget cycles I have lived through now, but we always seem to talk about the same issue. We say that we do not get enough money and that we have too many bids for the money that we have, so we cannot meet demand. We are a devolved region. Some people might want fiscal powers, but I certainly do not, because I do not think that the parties in this place would use those powers appropriately for our people. I am quite content with the Assembly's not having fiscal powers.

What options are left for us? The options that are left are to make sure that we are as effective and efficient a government as possible. I can say quite clearly, given the evidence that I have gathered and from what I have seen in my experiences here, that we are not efficient and not effective. We are definitely not efficient and effective enough. There is much more that we can do to make sure that we are efficient and effective. We are wasteful. If the private sector is wasteful, it goes bust. If the public sector is wasteful, it bids for more money.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. One of the things that we in the AERA Committee have been looking at is project overruns in time and cost. Does the Member agree that a considerable amount of work needs to be done to ensure that government projects are looked at through a more forensic lens and that we get that value for money and delivery on time?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Frew: I absolutely agree with the Member. That is the type of strategic thought process that we should be encountering, not because we are in a tight and constrained fiscal place but because we should have been doing it years ago. We should have been making more of our efficiencies and effectiveness way back when we had more money, so to speak.

I will not pick on the Member for his intervention, but look at agriculture. Look at the money that we spend every year on bovine TB. However, we do not address bovine TB; we test for it. All that we ever do in this place is test for bovine TB. We do not eradicate it, and the measures that we have in place do nothing to eradicate it. We measure it. We measure the scale of bovine TB. That is all that we do. We keep doing it year in, year out. Do we expect another outcome? Of course we do not. That would be madness. Not only that, but look at our Health Department. Some 50% of our Budget is spent on Health, and we have hospitals that cannot even be opened years after they have been built. They are lying empty. How did we get to that place? We have thousands of people languishing on waiting lists in pain. We have the built form of a state-of-the-art hospital that cannot even be opened.

Even more, however, and this is part of the problem with the process, is how we should scrutinise that. How do we effectively scrutinise that? We have a report here from the Finance Committee that says more about what is missing than what is in it. Through no fault of its own, the Health Committee did not submit to that report because the Department could not get its act together to give adequate information to the Committee. There is a breakdown in scrutiny. What type of breakdown is it? It is a 50% of our Budget breakdown in scrutiny — 50% — and then we wonder why we have problems. We wonder why we are not effective or efficient. How can we be effective and efficient? How can we measure the effectiveness of government if we cannot even get the information that we require to scrutinise the Departments appropriately?

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): On behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office, I thank the Finance Committee for its work on the report, for helpfully sharing information on Budgets and financial matters and for bringing the motion to the House. The Committee for the Executive Office considered written and oral briefings from the Executive Office on 12 March and 26 March 2025 respectively. Committee members agreed a response to the Finance Committee at our meeting last week, and we appreciate the flexibility shown by the Finance Committee in accepting input after the initial response date.

Committee members noted that the Executive Budget for 2025-26 is challenging. During the briefings, the Committee noted that the allocations for TEO agreed by the Executive in the 2025-26 Budget are considerably lower than its bids, meaning that many of TEO's pressures cannot be met. That is problematic, and the issue will be compounded if, as expected, there are not the same opportunities to access additional in-year funding through monitoring rounds and Barnett consequentials. In the past, TEO has been reliant on in-year allocations to fund and continue key programmes. Members are concerned that the progress that was made in previous years could be lost if programmes are scaled back or delayed because of reduced funding.

Members noted that, when taken with the baseline, allocations to our DEL will enable the current commitments to be taken forward in line with spending plans for the ending violence against women and girls programme and that funding for good relations will ensure that delivery is maintained at the current levels. That is somewhat disappointing, given the importance of those programmes to communities across Northern Ireland and the impact that it will have, and it leaves no room for emerging needs or expanding provision.

Members noted that the funding available for non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) only partially meets pay and inflationary pressures above and beyond the baselines that were brought forward. The Committee was concerned that continued pressures of that type could impact on the ability of those NDPBs to discharge their functions fully, efficiently and effectively.

An allocation of £150 million of earmarked resource DEL has been provided in response to the requirements of £168 million. That funding is mainly for victims' payments, forecast costs for the truth recovery redress payments and to establish and implement a statutory public inquiry. The Committee will closely monitor those requirements during the year.

Members also noted that capital allocations will allow inescapable pressures to be met and the allocation of £2·3 million to meet the FTC net requirement.

The Committee is seeking further information on a number of areas such as the north-west development fund and the costs of the overseas bureaus. It is exploring the good use of public money in relation to accommodation and establishment costs, particularly in relation to the new commissioners. We will monitor the impact of reduced opportunities for in-year allocations on the delivery of key areas of the Department's work.

Finally, we welcome the anticipated move to multi-year Budgets and the certainty that that will bring to TEO and its delivery partners; the development of TEO's five-year business plan; and the greater alignment of the Budget with the Programme for Government.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I will make some initial remarks as Chairman of the Economy Committee. I thank the Committee for Finance, of which I am a member, for initiating the debate today.

The Committee for the Economy received oral evidence on these matters in December from the then Minister. On 5 February 2025, we heard from officials, and we noted further written departmental submissions on 26 February. The Committee looks forward to welcoming the new Minister to its meeting tomorrow to discuss the Budget settlement for the Department for the Economy. The Department produced a Budget plan and furnished the Committee with information on resource and capital bids, setting out which of them had been met and which had not. Indeed, officials helpfully provided a comparison with key Budget lines contrasting the anticipated closing position for 2024-25 with the opening position for 2025-26.

Despite the Executive's agreeing the Budget last week, the Department has yet to provide the Committee with the impact assessments for the draft allocations for 2025-26. Without those, Committee members found it impossible to determine what the draft Budget might mean for skills places, apprenticeship numbers, further education places and higher education places, or what the impact of the baseline cuts might be on Tourism Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Screen. Some information has lately been provided in respect of NICS pay pressures, which indicated that extra pressures of £3 million had materialised owing to the pay uplift being higher than expected. Additionally, employers' National Insurance increases were estimated at £6 million for the Department and its arm's-length bodies, plus a further £5 million for further education colleges. Sticking with pay pressures, if FE lecturers and FE non-teaching staff seek to match the teachers' pay deal of around 5·5%, that would be a further pressure on the Department of around £5 million. According to the Finance Minister's recent statement, the Department appears to have received an indicative general allocation of £3 million in the June monitoring round. Therefore, from the get-go, the Department for the Economy may be looking at a deficit of around £11 million in relation to pay.

The Department previously advised that it expected that pressures associated with the anticipated demand for apprenticeships and Skills for Life and Work traineeships would be met in the 2025-26 Budget. However, the Department also identified a shortfall of £4·1 million of skills funding. According to the statement to the House yesterday, the Department appears to have received a further £8 million from the Minister of Finance, which is very welcome news. Nevertheless, the Committee remains unclear as to whether the demand for the very large number of places supported by the skills fund will be met in 2025-26.

The Department previously advised that it expected the pressures associated with higher education provision would largely be met by the 2025-26 Budget. However, in subsequent papers, the Department appeared to advise of a baseline cut to the higher education student support budget line of £6·6 million. The Department also referred to an increase in resource DEL spending at the Magee campus of the Ulster University of £7·4 million covering GEMS NI and further student places increases. Therefore, the Committee is unclear as to whether the cut to higher education places will be met by reducing the number of places at Queen's University and Ulster University's Coleraine and Belfast campuses in order for the Minister to meet her priority in relation to additional places at Magee.

The Programme for Government included a significant commitment to promoting economic development. The 'Skills Barometer: 2023-33' report showed that skills need in Northern Ireland continues to grow. Unfortunately, the Committee cannot be absolutely sure at this time that the promises in the PFG can be kept by the Department, given that we have not received the information on that budget.

I will, just briefly, make some comments as a DUP economy spokesperson. We look forward to interrogating the figures with the Minister for the Economy tomorrow. We recognise the pressure that her budget is under. However, important matters need to be clarified. Cutting funding to Queen's University to fund ministerial priorities at other campuses cannot and will not be accepted by this party. Cuts to FE colleges, in particular the closure of the Castlereagh campus, will not be tolerated by this party. Tomorrow, we look forward to receiving evidence from the Minister. This party will continue to stand up for institutions right across Northern Ireland, and not just in one location.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Members. We are moving towards the time limit of the debate. We must bear in mind the number of Members who want to speak, the winding-up speeches and the Minister's response, and, having taken all those relevant factors into consideration, we have decided to apply a grace period of up to 15 minutes to accommodate the number of Members who wish to speak.

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

Towards the end of last year, the Committee received briefings from officials on the Department's planning for the 2025-26 draft Budget, and we then heard evidence on 6 February on its draft 2025-26 Budget allocation. The Budget provides the Department of Justice with a resource DEL allocation for the 2025-26 financial year of £1,406 million. That includes earmarked funding of £37·8 million of additional security funding, and £16 million for the Executive programme for tackling paramilitary activity and organised crime, of which £6·8 million is due to be allocated to Departments other than Justice. The Department will receive a capital allocation of £100 million against a final bid of £135·3 million, which, it has stated, will be used to address inescapable capital bids. The non-ring-fenced resource DEL allocation represents an increase of £132·3 million, or 10·9% on the previous year. While the additional funding is welcome, it still leaves the Department facing stabilisation pressures amounting to some £33·9 million.

The pressures faced become even greater due to the anticipated additional cost of National Insurance contributions of £15 million, revised pay award assumptions of £4·3 million and the estimated £6·55 million required to implement the Burgess report recommendations on an uplift in legal aid fees, which is seen as an urgent priority.

As well as the stabilisation pressures, the Department faces exceptional pressures of £227 million in relation to holiday pay, the McCloud injury-to-feelings remedy and the PSNI data breach, although it is not yet clear when those costs will crystallise. The Committee has repeatedly been advised that those exceptional pressures cannot be managed within the Department's Budget allocation.

To help to inform the Committee's consideration of the Budget, we invited the eight non-departmental public bodies to outline the likely implications and pressures arising from their indicative allocations. The PSNI, while welcoming the increased allocation, expressed concern that it would not be sufficient to meet its pressures and, in general terms, its disappointment at yet another one-year Budget. Thankfully, it appears from the Finance Minister's comments yesterday that that practice is coming to an end. The PSNI also expressed concern that insufficient funding will impact on its ability to implement its recovery plan and increase police officer numbers.

The PSNI was concerned about meeting the cost associated with the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. That concern was echoed by all the Department's non-departmental public bodies. While the Committee heard that additional funding towards the cost was expected, the Department advised that it was unlikely to be sufficient to meet the additional pressures in full. Committee members voiced particular concerns about the impact that the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions will have on the community and voluntary sector organisations that carry out vital work in the justice sector on behalf of or in partnership with statutory agencies. The Committee welcomed assurances from officials that individual business areas are alert to the issue and will engage directly with community and voluntary organisations to deal with pressures on a case-by-case basis.

As Members will know and as I have previously outlined, the Department's budget is predominantly demand-led, with the Police Service, courts and tribunals, prisons and legal aid accounting for the majority of it. It must be recognised that there is increasing demand for all services across the justice system. The Committee recognises that, despite the increased allocation for 2025-26, the Budget remains challenging for the Department of Justice. Officials have reported that there is minimal, if any, scope to reduce resources or divert them from one area to another. The indications are that pressures are unlikely to be eased through in-year funding, and the Department has advised that difficult decisions on prioritisation and, indeed, service provision will be required across the Department and its NDPBs.

I will now speak in a personal capacity. There is no question that the warnings raised by the Chief Constable about the limitations that the Budget will place on the PSNI and its ability to keep people safe are deeply alarming. Given the chief's warnings, particularly about child sexual abuse, I am concerned about the damage that may be inflicted on society in the three years that it is scheduled to take the PSNI to reach 7,000 officers. It is also clear to me, however, that awards to the PSNI would have an impact on the courts, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), legal aid, the Prison Service and the probation service, as the branches of the justice system are interdependent.

It is imperative, for the sake of society's safety —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Ms Bunting: — that the Department is appropriately funded and that it prioritises its spending —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Time is up.

Ms Bunting: — appropriately and prudently.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I will speak to the motion first in my capacity as Chair of the Education Committee. The Committee has been provided with Fiscal Council and Finance Committee reports, which members have noted. In February of this year, the Committee received a written briefing from the Department of Education on the 2025-26 draft Budget position. Further to its allocations of £3·219 billion resource DEL and £380 million capital DEL, it set out a challenging picture. Officials outlined a likely unavoidable resource DEL pressure of £260 million and highlighted further high-priority pressures in the region of £64 million, with further pressures of £29 million relating to strategy delivery plans.

Concerns about the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions were also noted, and we are aware of the Finance Committee's report that specifically highlights that matter. The Department estimates that, even if, as suggested, two thirds of the cost were met centrally, pressures of £17 million would arise. Similarly, the Department stated that capital budgets would fall short of the likely requirements by £91 million, and it was noted that, as highlighted by the Fiscal Council report, approximately 43% of that is already allocated. The Committee noted all those pressures and sought further clarity from the Department about whether an equality impact assessment (EQIA) had been undertaken. The Committee has now been assured that an EQIA is being taken forward.

The key theme of both reports is the need to move to a multi-year Budget, which has been visited by the Committee on many occasions, most recently when we were briefed by the Department on its five-year SEN delivery plan. The challenge of delivering a five-year plan of that complexity on a single-year budgetary cycle cannot be overstated. The Committee would welcome measures to allow the Department to plan more strategically on a multi-year cycle.

The Committee has identified early years and childcare as a key strategic priority and therefore welcomed the £50 million investment that was confirmed in the draft Budget. However, the Committee has regularly emphasised the need to see delivery of that long-overdue strategy and expressed the view that future investment in childcare should be targeted towards the parents most in need of support.

The Committee has also identified SEN services and transformation as a key area of focus, and it received recent updates on the scale of the financial challenge in delivering the Department's plan. I note, therefore, the Finance Committee's report, which highlighted the need to align the draft Budget with the PFG priorities, among which SEN, childcare and early years are listed. The Committee would encourage any resource that can be targeted at SEN on that basis to be made available.

In short, the Committee is fully cognisant of the budgetary challenge ahead in this financial year and notes the reports highlighted in the motion, which have been provided to it in that context.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will speak briefly as an Alliance Member. Clearly, the Education Department's budget is under pressure — that is accepted across the House — but Alliance has been consistently clear about the need for real ambition to deliver a transformation of how our education system is delivered, if we are really to address the financial challenge. Regrettably, the Education Minister does not seem to have a significant appetite to look at how the structures of the system drive financial pressures. For example, we have no clarity on when or, indeed, if an independent area planning commission will be established to ensure that we have the right number of schools to deliver a truly sustainable school estate. We have seen no clear move to act on the independent review of education recommendation to look at models to address pairs of unsustainable schools located next to each other, often serving different communities. The Minister has been clear that he sees no need to carry out an audit of the cost of division in his Department. Then, we have the huge capital cost of the Strule campus, for which, as far as I am aware, no value for money case has been set out.

I am entirely content to note the reports and support the ask for the Finance Minister to take them into account. However, if we really want to find ways to ease the budgetary pressures in education in the long term, we need the Minister and the Department to take meaningful steps to look seriously at transformation and structural reform.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): The Committee received oral evidence from the Department for Infrastructure, Translink and Northern Ireland Water to consider their assessment of the funding requirements for 2025-26. The Committee sought to understand how each organisation will manage and prioritise its capital and resource spend to ensure that they remain within their approved totals. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the assessments of the requirements vary significantly when compared with the proposed allocations in the draft Budget.

The Committee is well aware of the Department's requirement for significant capital investment. However, in the absence of a multi-year capital Budget, we lack the certainty of funding for projects. That not only complicates delivery but is undoubtedly a more expensive way to fund capital projects that can take a number of years to complete. The Committee noted the Department's assessment that its opening draft resource allocation is 8% less than what it considers to be its requirement. The increase in National Insurance contributions for the Department and its arm's-length bodies will place a further strain on resource spending and is forecast to increase it by over £12 million.

As we have seen recently, NI Water forecast that it would be in an overspend position in 2024-25. That resulted in the Minister's decision to engage forensic accountants to examine NI Water's spending. We await the findings of that work.

Having noted that the draft Budget for 2025-26 highlights reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing of £105·7 million that is earmarked for NI Water, the Committee questioned DFI and NI Water officials in order to understand whether that money will provide additional capital or whether it will be used to offset a lower capital allocation. The Department's equality impact assessment of the draft budget seems to suggest that Northern Ireland Water's capital allocation has been effectively reduced from £323·7 million to £244·3 million and then supplemented with RRI borrowing. Although the Committee was told that no final decisions had been made, the net result seems to be that Northern Ireland Water's capital budget will be just £26·3 million better off, despite the Executive's having borrowed £105·7 million. That falls far below the investment required to maintain and update our existing infrastructure in line with the Utility Regulator's determination to address the historical underfunding under price control 21 (PC21). It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the basis for the RRI borrowing. For example, have the Executive approved that borrowing just as a means to access additional capital in order to give DFI the flexibility effectively to reduce the conventional capital allocation to NI Water?

The Committee continues to be concerned about road safety and the limited maintenance service for our road network, which prioritises upgrades only on the basis of the extent of a road's condition, often to the detriment of less significant but necessary works. The Committee will undoubtedly be keen to explore the specific improvements that will be delivered through the transport and roads asset management (TRAM) group from the proposed increased resource allocation of approximately £30 million, compared with the 2024-25 opening position.

I will now turn to Translink. During its oral evidence, Translink highlighted the point that the uncertainty over funding presents a significant ongoing challenge in planning for future years and that its funding is insufficient to meet the requirements under the public service contract, leading to a substantial loss and leaving its cash reserves at an unsustainable level. When it questioned Translink representatives in February 2025, the Committee noted that, under its Treasury management policy, Translink's day-to-day cash reserves should not fall below £30 million. It is expected, however, that, by the end of the financial year, its reserves will be approximately £23 million. The Committee further noted that public transport spending in Northern Ireland is the lowest in the UK, at approximately 35% of the UK average. The Committee recognises the legitimate concerns about the impact of reduced funding on services, particularly on those who live with disabilities. Those concerns are worsened because of the number of wheelchair-accessible taxis operating across Northern Ireland.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I thank, on behalf of the Committee for Infrastructure, the Committee for Finance for coordinating the responses to the debate on the draft Budget. It is clear from those responses that there are mounting challenges in how we deliver our finances —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mrs Erskine: — and our public services. I look forward to the remaining contributions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for using the grace time. It is important to hear everybody's voice, and I appreciate that you have done that.

The obvious question for people here to consider is this: how many more reports do we need to read on the failure of our Budgets to meet people's needs? How many more reports need to be published in order to explain how our public services are at breaking point, which they certainly are? Despite a mounting pile of evidence, the Executive parties, which complain about Westminster austerity, insist on implementing Westminster's austerity Budgets.

The links between the Budget and the Executive's stated priorities in the Programme for Government are weak at best. The earmarked allocations for childcare, for ending violence against women and for social housing are all a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed. I support the motion, but there is another report that the Finance Minister should take note of, which is the NI Affairs Committee's report on the North's public services. To no one's surprise, that Committee found that our public services are crippled by inadequate funding, a lack of reform and political instability. That is not news to my constituents and many others.

The slow and dramatic collapse of health and social care and education is having a disastrous impact on people's quality of life. Ordinary people did not need a report to tell them that our public services are at breaking point, because they experience that every day. People who cannot afford to go private wait months or years for a first appointment with a consultant. Mental health needs are 40% greater here than they are in Britain, and the North recently held the world record for prescribing the most antidepressants per head of population. There is a backlog of at least a year for major court cases. School classrooms are crumbling or infested with black mould. Up to 80% of schools are operating at a deficit.

In the face of this crisis, one-off emergency rescue packages simply will not cut it, and neither will single-year Budgets. What is urgently needed is long-term, sustainable and predictable funding based on people's needs. The 124% uplift in funding from Westminster to the North is clearly not enough to avert a catastrophe for our public services. We need to transform the way in which our public services are delivered, so that they are sustainable, high-quality and dependable for current and future generations. We need to make progress on transformation while maintaining day-to-day services. I emphasise this question: transformation for whom? It should be for people, not to satisfy the austerity wolves in the Treasury or Number 10. The Budget will not allow us to do both: £95 million of transformation funding from the restoration package has already been diverted into day-to-day spending. For as long as we are handed paltry Budgets from Westminster, we will never be able to invest in transformation.

Despite much of what the media and the political class tell us, the answers to our financial crisis are not water charges or rates increases. Ordinary people have already been punished enough. A 5% regional rate increase is being implemented as part of this Budget with absolutely no improvement in the delivery of services to justify it. At least 35,000 people in the North have been impacted on by the Labour Government's cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) and universal credit. Last week, the House passed a motion calling for tax increases for the superwealthy. There was clear consensus that, rather than punishing the poor, there are more progressive ways of raising revenue for our public services. One of the options is to complete the devolution of corporation tax. Instead of arguing to cut it, the Executive should fight to raise corporation tax on corporate giants that are raking in record profits.

Giving due regard to the findings of the reports cannot just mean business as usual, nor can it mean the Executive forcing ordinary working-class people to foot the bill for water charges. The Executive need to break from Westminster's economic rule, stand up to Keir Starmer's attempts to impose a new era of austerity and refuse to implement cuts that will devastate working-class communities across the North. Otherwise, there will be another decade of misery, poverty and crises in public services.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Finance to respond to the motion. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Finance Committee and NI Fiscal Council's reports on the 2025-26 Budget. First, I thank the Committee and the Fiscal Council for the detailed work that they have carried out in developing their reports, and I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. As you are aware, I was here yesterday, giving an oral statement on the final Budget 2025-26, which was agreed by all Ministers on 3 April. It is my intention to return to the Assembly in mid-May for a full debate on the final Budget.

I will turn to the Finance Committee's report. It provides a useful summary of the issues reflected in the draft Budget. I am pleased that it refers to the extensive engagement with my Department, which, I hope, the Committee found useful. I welcome the Statutory Committee's recognition that there is considerable pressure on the public purse and that difficult decisions will need to be made in a challenging fiscal environment. Much of that has been reflected in today's debate.

Despite the challenges, it is important that we recognise that the Budget that was agreed last week provides some £19 billion for public services and infrastructure. The Finance Committee report identifies a number of common themes across all Statutory Committees, about which we have heard from Chairs and Deputy Chairs today. As I outlined yesterday, this is the last year in which I intend to bring forward a single-year Budget. The second phase of the spending review will be announced in June and will set out the Executive's resource funding envelopes for 2026-27 to 2028-29 and capital envelopes for a further year to 2029-2030. I intend to bring recommendations to the Executive for a multi-year Budget in line with the period of the spending review. Multi-year Budgets will be a game changer and will enable Departments to plan on a longer-term basis, bringing greater efficiency and effectiveness, but they will not solve all our financial problems. The five-year departmental sustainability plans will be a step forward, putting Executive finances on a more stable footing. The Budget that I presented to the House yesterday was the first step, earmarking funding specifically for Programme for Government priorities.

Of course, delivering our priorities is not just about additional allocations; it is about how existing departmental budgets are spent. It is vital that existing funding is directed towards the agreed priorities. To help measure that work, work is under way to align departmental spending areas to PFG priorities, and that information will be published as soon as possible, following the receipt of all departmental information. We will use the final Budget spending area financial data in that analysis. However, this is the first time that we have linked baseline expenditure with the PFG. The information will be published and will be subject to appropriate caveats.

I will turn to the Fiscal Council report on the draft Budget for 2025-26, which was helpful in informing consideration of the Budget. That report also highlighted the continuing difficult financial circumstances and challenging decisions for this year and into future years to maintain sustainable public finances and provide stable, high-quality public services. The Fiscal Council suggested a number of interventions that could, in principle, mitigate budgetary pressures. All those things have to be considered. Some have already been ruled out, by me and other Ministers, but others are more feasible.

In setting the regional rate, the Executive had to be conscious of the impact on households and businesses. We had to carefully strike the right balance between raising income and limiting increases as much as possible, and we had to recognise the ongoing challenges for households and businesses. In my view, the uplift for domestic and non-domestic properties that was agreed for 2025-26 achieved that balance. The Executive are committed to looking at options to deliver efficiencies, generate revenue, enhance borrowing powers and explore the potential for more fiscal powers. It will be for Ministers to make plans to live within their final 2025-26 allocations and make savings through efficiencies in order to fund higher priorities. In addition, the outworking of the Executive's Budget sustainability plan will help to drive efficiencies in the Budget process as well as in Departments.

The Budget improvement plan is a significant pillar of our future work plan. My predecessor, Minister Archibald, approved and published a high-level road map for the Budget improvement plan and put in place a series of measures to improve the overall Budget process. That road map sets out short-term actions and areas to be developed over the longer term. The focus of the short-term actions has enabled some positive progress in relation to the 2025-26 Budget, including improved equality information and more user-friendly supporting documents, but I would welcome input on ways in which the process can be improved further or feedback on what has been completed to date. My Department has also published a high-level road map that sets out key elements in the development of longer-term five-year departmental plans. The road map covers short-term actions and key actions over the medium term that will facilitate Departments in progressing the development of five-year financial sustainability plans, the intent being that those will be in place in this calendar year. Now that a 2025-26 Budget has been finalised, I intend to formally commission those plans in the coming weeks.

The Executive's focus must be on wider Budget sustainability, and we must also look at how we can do things better, improve efficiency and focus on desired outcomes. While income generation will be part of the decision, it must be based on the economic and social context and the need to deliver the public services that our citizens expect. The Budget sustainability plan committed the Executive to the completion of a strategic review of income generation measures. It will be for all Ministers to consider the appropriate income generation measures for their Department, and, obviously, Committees will play a vital role in that as well. Work on the strategic income review will commence shortly. That will allow Ministers the time and opportunity to consider their spending envelope and income generation measures for the 2025-26 financial year before contributing to the review. It will also allow time to consider new income generation measures and alternative funding sources and assess how other funding sources can be maximised, with the review ideally to be completed in advance of the multi-year Budget's being set later this year.

I welcome the contributions from the Committees today. As I said in a debate yesterday, the work of the Committees in this place is not properly recognised or valued, and Committees are not given the credit that they deserve. As we continue with a very challenging budgetary outlook, the work of the Committees will be vital in ensuring that we deliver the public services that our public expect from us.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Jemma Dolan to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

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

I will make a winding-up speech on the Committee's motion.

First, I thank those who contributed to the debate. The Committee tabled the motion to allow Members, particularly Chairs of Statutory Committees, an early opportunity to discuss and reflect on the 2025-26 Budget that was recently agreed by the Executive. The Committee is grateful to the Minister for agreeing to respond today. The Committee also thanks the Fiscal Council for its assessment of the Budget, which was published recently. The council provides a vital function in supporting the Assembly's scrutiny of the Budget. The Finance Committee finds its assessment very useful, and it raises issues that the Committee previously identified.

As the Committee had hoped, the debate has been useful and constructive. Members are aware that the Budget outlook for the 2025-26 fiscal year is challenging. On many occasions, the Committee has heard officials talk about the need for Departments to live within their means and the fact that there are unlikely to be significant in-year transfers from the Treasury.

I will now reflect on the main themes that Members raised in today's debate. All Committees and the Minister agreed that we have a difficult Budget envelope. Employers' National Insurance contributions and wage pressures were common themes. Concerns were expressed about the absence of multi-year Budgets, and the need for greater alignment between the Budget and the Programme for Government was discussed. A number of Committees raised the issue of lower in-year flows of funds from the British Government, and the Chair of the Health Committee talked about there being a lack of detail.

I will now say a few words on behalf of Sinn Féin. The reports on the draft Budget reiterate the strain that our public finances currently face and highlight the limitations that exist for us as a devolved Administration in trying to address those challenges. The Fiscal Council and the Committee for Finance both highlight the desire for multi-year Budgets that exists among the various stakeholders. The direction of travel towards that as early as the next financial year is a positive development that will put medium- and long-term planning on a more sustainable financial basis and support transformation. The interim fiscal framework that was agreed last year was a significant step forward in establishing a better funding model. It was also a recognition that the North has been underfunded for many years. The framework secured an extra £248 million for our public services for this year.

The legacy of underinvestment is something from which we continue to suffer. It is deeply disappointing that, since last year's Westminster election, the Labour Government have embarked on the same failed policies of austerity as their Tory predecessors. Through her autumn Budget statement, the British Chancellor sought to put more pressure on our public services, the community and voluntary sector and businesses here by announcing a rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. Despite covering that rise for Whitehall Departments, locally, we are facing a shortfall of £60 million for our public sector. I welcome the efforts of the Executive to mitigate decisions by the British Government, such as ensuring that the agriculture sector remains an earmarked allocation in the Budget after the British Treasury removed it from being ring-fenced; prioritising money for cutting health waiting lists; and doubling the allocation for childcare. While raising the revenue that is required as part of the interim fiscal framework was achieved through an increase in the regional rate, considerable rate relief remains available for households and businesses. The Finance Minister recognised the impact that the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions would have on businesses, and that led to a lower non-domestic rate rise.

The suggestion that we should put further financial pressure on those who can least afford it as a result of the legacy of underinvestment in our public services by the British Government to address issues such as capacity in our water infrastructure is not the solution. Given the limited fiscal powers and resources that are at the Finance Minister's disposal, I recognise that it is impossible for him to compensate for the spending decisions that are made in London that prioritise weapons of war and the interests of the few, not the many. However, we must continue to do all that we can to stand up for the interests of our citizens here. That is why it is important that the Finance Minister continue to make the case with the British Treasury for adequate funding for our public services. I know that work is ongoing in that area, given Professor Holtham's assessment of our level of need ahead of the spending review in June. We also need to see more fiscal powers devolved that would provide us with greater financial ability and capacity until constitutional change enables those of us who have been elected to here to have full control of our own affairs.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask anyone who is leaving the Chamber to do so quietly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Michelle Guy to raise the matter of the lack of respite provision in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust area. I call Michelle Guy, who has up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will speak on behalf of families in Lagan Valley and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust area who are desperate for respite services. Not only are those families being failed by our system but they are being traumatised by it. I have been privileged to speak to many families who have been impacted on by this. They love their family members dearly, they are experts in caring for them and they are simply asking for some support. When describing their experiences, families have expressed to me feeling threatened, manipulated and misled by their interactions with the South Eastern Trust. Others have spoken of a get-it-spent culture that creates wastage and focuses energy on quick-win-style solutions aimed at making the numbers look good rather than meaningful interventions that will make a real difference. A lack of strategic thinking and a failure by trusts to work collaboratively in a focused way to solve the acute and specific issues of overnight respite completes the picture.

Families recognise that most staff are doing their best — in fact, many go above and beyond in really challenging circumstances — so they are very much looking up the chain for accountability, action and, importantly, leadership. Minister, families recognise that you have personally met them and organisations supporting them recently and have made commitments in relation to pressing for a culture shift in the trust. That is welcome, but the level of mistrust that exists will only be overcome by delivery, not warm words.

Starting with my constituency, Minister, I know that you visited Lagan Valley in relation to adult services back in January at the invitation of my colleague David Honeyford. Preceding that, respite services were stood up again at the Hillhall facility in November. The families benefiting from that are grateful, but what is amazing about this community of families is their deep empathy and willingness to support each other. Each of those carers has a unique understanding of the pressure that other families are under, and they have been keen to speak to me as passionately about the needs of others as for themselves. One family told of their relief to now have respite on a monthly basis restored but were quick to highlight very elderly carers, including one in their 80s who has gone for a year with no break. However, such is their lack of trust in the system, they expressed concern that the help that they are now receiving could be withdrawn or reduced suddenly. Their specific concern is that the boost in adult provision is only being sustained by slippage in restoring services for children with complex needs. How is that possible? Minister, I hope that you can provide an assurance today that a feared trade-off between adult and children's services will not materialise and there will be no rollback of restored services in Lagan Valley or the South Eastern Trust.

That concern is not without reasonable foundation, because it is the case that money allocated in the previous financial year for children's services did go unspent. The catalyst for that investment announcement was the BBC documentary 'I Am Not Okay', which provided a shocking insight into the experience and daily challenges of four mums as they care for their much-loved autistic sons who have extremely complex and challenging behaviours. Your response to the public outcry was to announce a welcome commitment of £2 million in emergency funding for respite care, followed by a commitment of £13 million annually to expand services. The families featured in the programme, and others in similar situations, felt relieved that, with that investment, something was going to change. However, not all the £2 million was spent, and what was spent was invested in increasing some therapeutic services and early intervention rather than addressing the current and acute needs. As one person explained, parental classes or early intervention measures are no use to a teenager with profound needs deemed to be on the edge of care. They need respite, and watching limited money that was meant to support them be spent on other things was exasperating and compounded their sense that their children, as one mother put it, are the forgotten children.

Minister, when you made your announcement, you created an expectation of improvement in a matter of months. The latest position that I have been given from the South Eastern Trust is that 83 children with disabilities, whom we know of, are waiting on a residential short break and that many who have been promised one have had short breaks cancelled at short notice. It remains the position that Lindsay House is unavailable for respite and that Redwood will not open until September, leaving families with the prospect of a summer without support. Families have also asked about capacity at Greenhill, specifically about an additional chalet that they were told will not now go forward. They were offered no explanation for that.

Even if all those facilities were opened and staffed tomorrow, it would be doubtful that the capacity that they offer would meet demand. The question that many are asking is why the response to the crisis is not regional in nature, such is the level of crisis, and most families could not care less about trust boundaries and are willing to travel to access support. The sense among families is that trusts continue to have a silo mentality and that firm direction needs to come from the Department that trusts must collaborate better and be solutions-focused, with the interests of the children and their families at the centre of resource planning.

In the meantime, families have told me of their fear of admitting how bad things have become, in case that is weaponised. In conversations with families, they have told how raising concerns is met with the threat of their children being moved out of jurisdiction, and some have told how they have been accused of abandoning their child simply for asking for help. Others have told of being patronised or having their child placed on the child protection register, which implies that they, as a parent, are a risk to their child when, in fact, they have been hospitalised following an assault by their child.

Some of the parents have expressed some cautious optimism that people are saying the right things now, but they have been let down many times already and remain scarred as a result of the toxic culture. One outworking of that culture is a likely under-representation of the number of families on the edge of care. That is currently 81 in the South Eastern Trust, but some families are aware that they are not counted in the figure because their request has been categorised as "parental request" rather than "assessed need". If the orientation is child-centred, it is in no one's best interests to underestimate the true level of need.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. She makes a very important point in relation to how children's needs are assessed. One of the issues around the South Eastern Trust, in particular, is the number of families who are still waiting for contact with a social worker. That is a very issue. The South Eastern Trust is completely out of kilter with other trusts in relation to that number of families. Does the Member agree that that leads to an exacerbation of the problem and that things can get out of hand quicker because help is not available or assessed?

Mrs Guy: I thank the Member for her intervention. I absolutely echo her words. That exact concern has been expressed to me: parents have raised that same issue of getting access to a social worker and, even if they do, getting the help that they need. I thank the Member for that; I appreciate it.

In the Minister's funding announcement in October, he, rightly, identified workforce as a key barrier to progress — one that needs to be tackled head-on, with improved pay and terms and conditions to attract people to the roles. Connected to workforce is the fact that, increasingly, our special schools are providing de facto respite for children, as there is no other outlet available to give parents a break. Staff in those settings are doing all that they can, but they are ill-equipped to deal with such complex needs. Indeed, some families have built up £10,000 to £12,000 in direct payments instead of respite, where there are no suitable services to spend it on. I also had one family reach out to say that they had found someone to accept direct payments for overnight support in the home, but their request for additional direct payments to cover that was yet to be assessed and was initially dismissed. Such examples really jar, because the problem of sourcing and employing resource — to compensate for system failures — has been pushed back to the families, only for them to be presented with a "Computer says no" response.

I can say with certainty that the Minister feels the same level of compassion and concern in his dealings with these families as other Members and I do. However, the difference between us is that he has the power to act. Members have been afforded a platform, tonight, to speak on behalf of the families; to tell their stories; to ask that the Minister gives clear direction and timelines to the South Eastern Trust and every trust for delivery for these families; and to ask that, going forward, all carers are treated with the level of respect, dignity and professionalism that is befitting of the pressures that they are living with as they care for their cherished loved ones.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Given the high number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, time will be limited to four minutes per Member, with the exception of the other Lagan Valley representative, David Honeyford, who will have five minutes. I caution in advance that interventions could also impact on the number of Members who are called to speak, as we are time-limited in an Adjournment debate.

Mr Gildernew: I assure Members that I have not moved to the South Eastern Trust area, but I retain my interest in carers and respite. In fact, I raised the issue this morning in Members' statements.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate today. The lack of adequate respite services in the South Eastern Trust and, indeed, across the North deeply impacts on countless families in my constituency as well as those in the South Eastern Trust area. Respite care services provide essential relief for adults and children with learning difficulties, complex needs, physical disabilities or other needs and are a key support for their carers. Respite care is not a luxury; it is very much a lifeline for carers. It is essential for their physical and mental well-being and for the continued care of those whom they look after. It offers a break from the relentless 24/7 care that they provide to loved ones, ensuring that those loved ones receive the highest level of care. Respite often supports carers so that they can manage some of the day-to-day activities that are taken for granted by those of us who do not have to provide care. It also provides a safety net for carers if they fall ill or are hospitalised or if either the carer or their family member needs a break.

Those who work in respite services absolutely deserve our respect and praise for their work in very challenging circumstances. Respite facilities face issues with staff retention, due to the mounting pressure on those who provide respite care. That is not their fault; it is a reality of the situation in which they are working. Many facilities cannot cope with the increasing demand of planned respite and the pressing demand of unplanned and emergency respite that can arise. Sinn Féin believes that ongoing co-production with families, carers and front-line staff is essential to ensure that funding is targeted effectively and delivers meaningful improvements in respite care where it is most urgently needed.

We welcome the Department of Health's allocation of up to £2 million for the remainder of the financial year and an additional £13 million annually that is aimed at expanding and improving respite care services. However, families affected by the crisis have reported that there is little evidence of tangible improvement on the ground as a result of that funding. Families are all too familiar, unfortunately, with receiving a last-minute notice that their respite has been cancelled. Minister, that situation arose once again with Woodlawn House in Dungannon in the past week. Families, some members of whom are in their eighties, who look after loved ones with very complex cases had, with only a week's notice, the respite that they were so badly looking forward to taken away. As someone tweeted, if any of us were told that the leave that we were looking forward to had been scrapped, we would be devastated. Carers are doing their utmost, but late cancellation, in particular, and the lack of regular and sufficient respite leave them feeling hopeless and abandoned at times.

Last October, Sinn Féin successfully had a motion passed that called on the Health Minister to urgently bring forward a plan to improve respite services across the North. I look forward to hearing an update on those plans and how they will target support for carers. We need assurances that the respite services that were previously closed have reopened and will not be repurposed for residential care, which, itself, is a very valuable and much-needed service. We need clear planning mechanisms to ensure that local healthcare trusts can develop and implement the services that are necessary to significantly increase respite provision in order to provide support for families and carers.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Member for Lagan Valley for securing this afternoon's Adjournment debate on what is a very emotive subject, particularly for the families who are impacted on by the continued lack of respite provision in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust area. Anyone who has watched Tara Mills's 'Spotlight' documentary, 'I am Not Okay', or who has heard the evidence provided to the Health Committee by some of the women who feature in it will have been deeply moved by their lived experiences of life with a child who has severe autism and behavioural problems.

My constituency office team has been navigating that system on behalf of families in Strangford who are crying out for respite. Sadly, those challenges are being faced by growing numbers of families. In 2020, the number of children with autism or a learning disability was 4,500. Today, it is more than 5,600. Despite the ever-growing need for services in that area, it appears that, in some trust areas, provision has stood still; in others, it appears to have diminished.

The 'Spotlight' programme highlighted a societal shame that cannot be allowed to continue. That travesty has been particularly acute in the South Eastern Trust, where 499 children are on a waiting list for disability services. Of that number, 118 are awaiting family support services and 71 are awaiting gateway services. Whilst efforts are being made across all trusts to tackle that crisis in provision, it is unclear, as yet, what impact will be felt among the families who are desperately in need of respite support.

There is an onus, particularly on the South Eastern Trust, to ensure that complex needs cases are given the attention that they deserve and that those families receive appropriate care. Funding has been allocated: it is critical that it is directed to front-line services and to the provision of respite beds and fully trained and professional social services for the families of children with complex needs.

Regular overnight respite is paramount for a family to properly function whilst caring for a child. I found the comments of the late Geraldine O'Hagan particularly harrowing as I watched the 'Spotlight' programme. That the provision of children's disability respite care services did not look much different throughout her 30 years of social work should be deeply troubling to us all. One thing is abundantly clear: the system has failed those children and their families. I applaud those who had the courage to tell their story and bring that travesty to light. That should not have been required. It now falls to the Department and individual trusts to make good on their promises and ensure that other families will not have to endure the pain that has been evident in the lives of those families.

Mr Chambers: I am sure that we all agree that adequate short-break services, whether day care or respite, are essential to the well-being of families and carers. Respite offers young people and children with learning disabilities and complex health needs a new setting to be supported in. Importantly, they also provide the families of a disabled child with a break from their dedicated caring responsibilities.

From sitting on the Committee for Health, I am aware of the significantly increased demand for family support and short breaks across a wide range of services for children with disability. In the South Eastern Trust, in particular, a significant number of families are on the waiting list for overnight respite. Lindsay House was a lifeline for many families when it served as a short-stay facility, and I know that the trust is making progress on its remobilisation.

Just as demand continues to increase, so do challenges in the provision of residential respite. Workforce pressures and the availability of beds have been greatly impacted in responding to the needs of children and young people who enter medium- to longer-term care. However, I am sure that those are challenges that the trust, the Department and the Minister are alert to.

I applaud every family member and loved one who is involved in the care of a person with additional needs and the bravery of each family that welcomed the BBC into their home for the recent 'Spotlight' programme. The programme effectively and powerfully highlighted the real-life implications of the insufficient availability of short-break and residential provision in the Belfast Trust and South Eastern Trust. Through our television screens, we got only a glimpse of the challenges, but none of us could have been left untouched. The Minister, I am sure, had the same reaction when he watched the programme and listened to the families. I welcomed his swift response in committing additional funding for this new financial year and a proportional allocation for the last. I recall the Minister saying at the time that that would be a challenge to deliver but it was a challenge that he was prepared to undertake. The 'Spotlight' families and the countless others who were not broadcast but likely face the same challenges, deserve no less.

I look forward to the Minister's response on the provision in the South Eastern Trust, but I do so in the knowledge that there is no solution that will fix the issue overnight. It will take commitment, but the Minister has already shown clearly that he wants the system to do better.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the Adjournment debate and thank the Member for bringing it. It is an incredibly important issue that we have covered at great length in the Health Committee. It is close to all our hearts, because it concerns some of the most vulnerable in society and those who carry the mantle of caring for them. There are few issues that galvanise the political view across this place as much as this one. I pay particular tribute to the families who spoke out so eloquently in the BBC 'Spotlight' documentary and when they have spoken to us in this place and at the Health Committee. The 'Spotlight' documentary was a remarkable piece of film-making on the challenges that they face and the absolute importance of having respite care.

We know that there are specific staffing issues in the South Eastern Trust. We understand, having heard from the Department of Health at the Committee, that, from April onwards, we will see an expansion of existing facilities and the recovery of the beds that have been lost as a result of COVID and other pressures over the years. I have to be absolutely clear, however, and say that, at one point, 499 children across the South Eastern Trust area were waiting for disability services. That includes those who were looking for respite care. In the Belfast Trust, the figure was 34. In the Western Trust, it was 140. In the Southern Trust, it was 180. In the South Eastern Trust, it was just under 500. That, even in its own right, should speak to the fact that some sort of intervention is required to address the imbalance or at least to assess why there is such extra need in the South Eastern Trust.

Service provision for those with a learning disability is an issue that is close to my heart. I have done a lot of work on it over the past number of months and years. I have asked the Minister many questions about the learning disability service model that will be published and consulted on. It has been co-designed with trusts. It will have a costed action plan. It will be a bit of a game changer and help embed respite care and put it on a more equal footing across the North. I commend the departmental officials who are getting that document ready for publication. I have met them, and I know that their passion is to make sure that the service that is provided in the community meets families' needs. All of us in the House want to see that need being addressed, as it has not been addressed up to now. There should be an apology to the families who have been let down, an apology to the children who have been let down and a promise that, from this point on, we will get it right.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for Lagan Valley for securing the debate. Like her, I am not on the Health Committee, but, like many others, I watched the incredible and very moving 'Spotlight' documentary 'I Am Not Okay', which explored the experiences of four families caring for children with autism and detailed some of the crises in Northern Ireland's health and care services.

In conducting some research for the debate, I came across a petition from the National Autistic Society (NAS), which states:

It appears to me that three distinct areas require improvement. There may well be others. There are probably many Members in the Chamber who are more across the issue than I am. The first area is capacity. We know that, pre-COVID-19, levels of provision and support were far from ideal. Post-pandemic, however, they are really poor. Legitimate questions need to be answered. The second area is staffing. Again, there are differentials between pre-pandemic and post-pandemic levels. The final area is consistency of service provision. It appears to me that each health and social care trust operates its own resource panels, which leads to trusts dealing with cases in slightly different ways.

It also appears that family support services are limited for children with very complex needs. I imagine that the lack of respite care, which is what we are talking about today, must have a significant impact on those children's parents. I am sure that it, in turn, leads to some of them experiencing burnout. I also imagine that it puts significant pressure on their relationships. In October 2024, the Minister allocated a welcome £13 million of additional funding for that specific area. Today, we need to know how that money will be spent, what direct impact it will have and when.

My two requests to the Health Minister today come from people who know the challenge at first hand: to provide immediate access to short breaks and residential care for families who are currently in crisis in Northern Ireland and to provide the resources needed for the commissioning of services to support autistic people with high support needs and their families, such as short breaks and residential placements.

I do not think that anyone in the Chamber will even get close to representing the true feelings of families who are affected by the lack of service provision. The reason for that is that we cannot empathise because none of us is walking in their shoes, but we can ask questions, we can scrutinise and we can demand answers.

Mr Honeyford: My first proper job before I was self-employed was working in the Lisburn assessment and resource centre (LARC) in Seymour Hill garden centre, which provides job opportunities for adults with learning difficulties. They are days that I remember really fondly.

Roll on to 2022, after the election, when I sat in Hilden Bowling Club listening to stories from local parents, some of whom were getting older and were really concerned for their loved ones and some with the most vulnerable residents of Lagan Valley. A couple of other representatives and councillors were at that meeting, and we came away from it really affected by the stories that we heard. I have enjoyed working with those parents since. We are really blessed in Lagan Valley, and, thankfully, we have them, because there is a real powerhouse of energy from a lot of those parents, who fight for the cause. I have been really blessed to have been able to give them some small assistance to get them started. I will give a shout-out to Vivien and Karen who started Sensability and to Philip who started the Live Life Well-being Centre.

I thank the Minister for his engagement in early January. He came to Sensability to listen to parents' concerns around not just respite but transport, the needs and building needs of the area and the wider issues simply to make life better and easier for people.

Prior to the debate, I chatted to some carers. They are the type of people who, when my electricity was out during the recent storm, contacted me to make sure that I was OK. We are talking about the type of people who go above and beyond their own family and look out for society as a whole. I spoke to someone who said:

The resumption of respite in Hillhall has, thankfully, started to ease pressure on some families after a period of 18 months without any respite. Unfortunately, Hillhall has been closed and open for the past five years. The real concern in the community is, yet again, an emergency placement, which effectively closes the centre to everybody else. During that period of blocking, we heard the same tired excuses from the Department that there was nowhere else to place people. I do not want to get into discussing the situation around the last individual who was there, but there was always an alternative solution. The fact that they are not blocking that facility today is evidence of that.

The system for allocating respite was also raised. The social worker needs to sign it off, and Diane rightly mentioned that. I am aware of quite a few families who cannot access respite care simply because they cannot get to their social worker.

Minister, you met Beth, and you will remember her. She looks after her sister Jenny. Beth is 81, and her concerns are around Jenny. She articulated those passionately to you and to me a couple of times before that, and her concern is about what will happen to Jenny as Beth gets older. Ultimately, she is 81 and will not be around for ever, and her concern is what will happen there. When you met, she was so appreciative, but, today, Jenny still waits for a care package. She has been waiting since Christmas. I heard only recently that Beth has not had access to any respite care and, unfortunately, very recently had a fall.

The question has to be asked: with a care package in place and respite care, would they be as exhausted, and would events have turned out the way that they have? I do not know, but this is Jenny's life, which, I suppose, is when decisions meet reality. The Department is actually placing more cost on itself. Through inefficiency and not dealing with one issue, you create a cost elsewhere.

I want to wrap there. Again, I thank the Minister for coming, but we need an assurance that access to respite in Hillhall will continue in the long term and that it cannot be an option to use that facility for anything other than respite care. I would appreciate the Minister's confirming that without any ifs and buts. We need a firm guarantee for the families that that facility will remain open and that it will be used solely for respite as we move forward.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me in. I thank the Member for Lagan Valley for securing an Adjournment debate on such an important subject. Like the Members from Lagan Valley who have so eloquently made their case, I have represented constituents from across Lagan Valley who have found challenges, not just since COVID but probably from further back.

I will not cover too much ground that has already been covered, other than, perhaps, to offer a challenge to all of us. As you know — I often talk about it — I chair the all-party group (APG) on disability. For quite a while, I have also been a member of the all-party group on learning disability. Having met officials, professionals and politicians, it strikes me that we all want the same thing, but there is something quite wrong in the system that we have developed over the years: our approach to how we share the ambition for people with disabilities and learning disability. We work with their families across every statutory agency, and, only a couple of years ago, we faced down the challenges faced by families who were waiting lengthy times for a statement or a report on their children so that they could access adequate education in our schools, and it is sad to see that played out in other spheres, including Health. To be fair to the Minister, he has already stepped up to the mark in that regard.

That is what we can do in the intervention phase, guys. That is entirely appropriate, and I absolutely agree with some of the comments. We need to ensure that the families get that respite. We need, however, to achieve a massive culture shift when it comes to all things pertaining to learning disability and disability.

What do I mean by that? I will set the tone, if you like, by referring to problems that we also face in getting respite care and homes for children who are looked after. It is not just in learning disability and disability where there is a backlog. There are almost 5,000 children in care. There is a shortage of the foster carers and respite homes needed to help all our children. As a society, we have become desperately busy, and, arguably, we maybe chase the wrong things at times instead of prioritising what will impact on us in the future right across Northern Ireland.

The other thing that strikes me is that we have an ageing population, and we may face difficulties in the future because of the workforce pressures that come with that. As mentioned by Mr Honeyford, in particular, parents who are elderly may be looking after children who are quite elderly and facing challenges.

We need a major shift in how we approach everything to do with disability and learning disability. Future debates on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), in particular, could be very useful in helping us to shape our legislative intent and ambition. I hope that, even after the debate tonight, we will be focused on bringing immediate respite to those who need it desperately.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for being here. I also thank my colleague for securing this very important debate. Adequate short break provision is absolutely essential. Hearing Members' powerful testimonies of some of the interactions that all of us here have probably had has added to the debate and its poignancy.

In February, there were 85 young people on the waiting list for short breaks in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust area. Only 13 young people receive regular short breaks. Some 72 families are in crisis every single day and every single night, yet they cannot get the relief and rest that they need. When additional funding was announced last October, parents absolutely expected that there would be new respite beds. A constituent of mine who has a young child with complex needs was told that respite beds would become available at Redwood. She was even given a tour of the building and was promised that it definitely would not be turned into a residential home. She heard on the radio that Redwood would be residential after all. I can begin to imagine how crushing that was, because, when speaking to her, I saw that it was incredibly crushing for her.

The trust hoped to recover respite beds in Lindsey House and to provide additional nights at Greenhill, but my understanding is that it does not intend to create any new additional respite beds. Even with those very limited plans, our hopes are extremely fragile. I learned today, in a response to a question for oral answer, that only 6% of the £1·3 million that was spent last year to improve respite services actually went into overnight short breaks. That is alarming.

In order to make up for that glaring lack of services, the trust will often offer direct payments in lieu of short breaks. Parents then need to make their own arrangements. That is more work for parents who are already at breaking point. My constituent does not currently receive those payments, as she finds it too difficult to manage recruitment and all the admin that comes with being an employer. I have been told by organisations that work in this sector that direct payments are often returned unspent because parents cannot find care providers either. I asked a priority question for written answer about the exact numbers, but I did not get an answer back in time for today's debate. In any case, that shows me that direct payments do not work for parents, who need respite services rather than cash.

There are so many things that are wrong with the way that children's disability services are being delivered. I could speak on, but I want to say one more thing. In reading through Committee evidence, I can see that there has been an acknowledgement that, at times, compassion and empathy have been lacking in interactions between the trusts and service users. My constituent has also felt let down by that. Parents do not deserve to be spoken to in a way that lacks compassion just because they ask for the help that they need to care for their child, whom they love so much. I believe that the trust has committed to looking at that cultural aspect of disability services, but change cannot come soon enough.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member, who is a colleague of mine from Lagan Valley, for securing the Adjournment debate. This is a very welcome opportunity to be in the Assembly to highlight these issues again. As a member of the Health Committee, I have been focusing a lot of my attention on respite services, and for the purposes of today's debate, I will focus primarily on children's respite services.

At the very first Health Committee meeting last year, I raised the matter of the review children's social care services in its entirety, the implementation of Ray Jones's report and, from that, the issue of respite. We did not secure an inquiry then, but it has become a priority for the Committee. It is something on which we have been engaging over the past year. I want to highlight the Minister's commitment to the issue, given the fact that he has appeared before the Committee to answer questions and in the Chamber a number of times. However, I will say that the leadership on the matter comes not just from the Department but from across all the trusts, and therein lie some of the issues.

We are engaging on the South Eastern Trust tonight, but the issue is similar across all trusts in Northern Ireland where families are waiting. Many families have been in touch with all of us on the Health Committee and with their local MLAs. Every time I do a social media post or speak to the media on the issue, a new family comes to me for assistance. It was the same last night when a number of new families reached out for support, many of whom, as my colleague from the Health Committee mentioned, are still waiting for a disability social worker to approach them and assess their respite needs.

I heard from families who said that their child has been deemed to need a 5:1 or a 3:1 care ratio of staff to child. However, those people are being abandoned to look after their child on their own. Why is a parent, who, in most circumstances, is a mother, left to deal with all the issues that their child with complex needs has — the child whom they so care about — every day, on a one-to-one basis, but they cannot get respite because the child's needs are so complex that they require a 5:1 or 3:1 staff ratio? Something is simply not adding up.

There are also a few more specifics that we need to point to, such as Greenhill. It was said that Greenhill would be taking on a new cabin that had four beds — a four-bed unit — that would have brought it up to being a six-bed unit, except they are actually closing the other two-bed unit. Why is that happening? When we asked about it at Committee a number of weeks ago, it was confirmed, after much deliberation, that it would be a four-bed unit. However, I have an answer to a recent question for written answer that says that it will be a two-bed unit seven nights a week. What on earth is the answer? What will Greenhill actually offer to parents? We need that answer.

We also need an answer on Redwood. The Minister committed to the £50,000. Minister, you said, the last time that I questioned you on the issue of fire safety, that if we get that open, we can enable Lindsay House to open as well, transferring the long-term placement from one to the other. What are we going to do when those parents who also need long-term placements come to the door of social services and say, "I cannot cope any more"? Are we going to shut down all the other respite facilities yet again? We do not have an answer for that.

We also have not got an answer about registration when it comes to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority and whether we can change the rules to allow short-term and long-term placements to coexist. If someone moves into a long-term placement that is supposed to be short-term, the other beds are shut down in their entirety. That is not acceptable. We cannot allow bureaucracy to stop children from accessing the care that they deserve. Families are in crisis and have been for years. We need answers and deliverables that will achieve more respite in the now. It can be done. We have seen that we can recruit staff. We can see that parents are —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Miss McAllister: — expected to cope —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Miss McAllister: — and we should ensure that the trust will cope, too.

Mr Mathison: I thank my colleague Michelle Guy for bringing this important issue to the Floor. My party colleagues and every contributor to the debate have very clearly set out the issues, so I will do my best to be brief. I do not want to rehash the numbers and statistics that we have already been through: they have been set out clearly. I will speak from a personal perspective and as a local MLA. I am very conscious of the pressures that are on the South Eastern Trust's respite services. Those issues come through my constituency office regularly, and I have submitted many questions to the Minister on the matter, as I am sure that other Members have. As has been set out, there is a sense among Members that we are not clear on some of the timelines and on when the investment that was announced in October will deliver real impacts.

The 'Spotlight' documentary was referenced. Anyone who watched it could not have failed to have been moved by that depiction of the pressure that some of these families are under. It is clear that the Minister was moved. The Minister acted quickly, which should be acknowledged and welcomed. Now, however, we face the issue that the initial announcement of investment raised hopes and expectations that things would change, notwithstanding the Minister's caveats that the challenge was significant. There is now a risk that trust in this being delivered will be eroded.

I have had the privilege of being able to support one of the mums from the 'Spotlight' documentary through my office in some small way; obviously, I have not been able to deliver everything that the family needs, because the pressures are so great. In my engagements with that individual, the sense of living in crisis every day has struck me. It is not a sense of things getting bad and of struggling to cope; it is crisis every day. My sense is that the services do not engage with those families on the basis that they are in crisis. Rather, there is a sense of there being gatekeeping and of people being pushed back from access to services. I am not trying to be critical of trust staff when I say this, but it has been shared with me — I have found this very concerning — that there is a sense of, "We can give you this, but that will take something away from another family. Are you sure that you're comfortable with that?". That sort of approach is not appropriate for a family that is in desperate need of support but also aware of all the other families in their community that desperately need support and that will not want to be seen to be taking that support away from them. We have to be conscious of the fact that there is so much guilt tied up in all of this for the families anyway, because nobody wants to admit that they are struggling to cope and that their life feels like it is in a crisis every day. Social services should be there to meet families as they present at their point of need, but that does not seem to happen at the moment.

We know that resource is under serious pressure, so these are my questions to the Minister, which have been echoed by other Members. When are we going to see the direct outworkings of the investment that was announced? It seems that Greenhill and Lindsay House in the South Eastern Trust area are being suggested as part of the solution, and I am keen to hear when those beds will be available and what assurances we can get.

As my colleague Nuala McAllister said, we need assurance that there will not be slippage the minute another family presents with longer-term care needs. When will the services be in place, and when will they be there on a sustainable basis, so that all the families who need them can access them reliably?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, and I thank all the Members who have spoken in the Adjournment debate. I call the Minister of Health to respond. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the 10 months or so that I have been in post, I have found this issue to be unique in that money is not the primary issue. I have been able to find some money. We have not been able to spend it all, and that is indicative of the fact that the issues are primarily buildings, beds and workforce.

I will immediately address the point from Mr McGrath about the numbers. The South Eastern Trust has the worst vacancy rates for social workers in children's disability teams. That speaks to what you addressed.

Some of the issues are particular to the South Eastern Trust, but others just reflect broader systemic issues that impact on families across Northern Ireland. It is not confined to one trust or area; it is a regional challenge that I want to see responded to with a regional response.

Across all the geographic trusts, overnight short breaks for children with disabilities have been significantly reduced due to the limited availability of residential provision. Much of that provision is now being used for medium- to long-term care placements. The stark impact was laid bare in last year's 'Spotlight' programme, which so many Members have referred to and which featured the lived experience of five families. It also had input from the Children's Law Centre and the National Autistic Society. The accounts were powerful and touching and impossible to ignore. As a former broadcast journalist, I repeat my admiration for Tara Mills for that powerful piece of journalism. It acted as an accelerant rather than a wake-up call for my Department. In October, as Members have said, I committed an additional £13·1 million of recurrent funding to help address the challenges. That has allowed us to start that acceleration work in the Department and across trusts, expanding capacity and trying to reform our delivery models.

I take the opportunity to provide an update on the South Eastern Trust and to outline our regional response and share how we are working with the families highlighted in that programme. I will also briefly touch on adult respite services, which remain a key part of the overall strategy.

The current position in the South Eastern Trust is deeply concerning. There are just two operational respite beds at Greenhill, and they are available only three nights a week. It is not enough. As of now, 85 children are on the waiting list for short breaks, and families, I understand, are under immense and sustained pressure. Much of the reduction in provision stems from the repurposing of Lindsay House, a dedicated seven-day short-break facility, which has been redirected to care for children entering the care system. That was a decision made out of necessity, but it impacts profoundly on children with disabilities and their families.

To address that, £2·4 million in annual recurrent funding has been allocated specifically to the South Eastern Trust to restore and expand respite services for children with disabilities. Several important actions are already under way. Re-mobilising Lindsay House by relocating children currently in care to Redwood Children's Home will free up much-needed short-break capacity. The target date for this is September, though it depends on the successful completion of key interdependent actions. Minor capital works are in progress at Redwood to ensure that it can safely and appropriately accommodate children, and I am encouraged that all posts at Redwood were filled in one day at a recruitment event in March, which reflects a strong commitment from staff. Plans are in place to expand Greenhill's operation from three to five nights a week. That will require further recruitment, and that is scheduled to take place next month.

Mr Honeyford asked for a guarantee on the Woodlawn facility: I cannot give a guarantee. The system is so fragile that, if one new child presents, the plans need to be redrawn. Miss McAllister talked about bureaucracy, but it is about safety. Alongside its residential provision, the trust is scaling up the LynC Outreach service.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: That provides community-based support during evenings and weekends. Once it is fully implemented, the service will provide day breaks for 80 to 85 children who are on the waiting list. Learning disability nurses will be key to supporting the complex healthcare needs of those children during outreach. I give way briefly.

Mr Honeyford: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. We were talking about the Hillhall site. The issue was an adult who was at that location and was blocking it. [Inaudible.]

Mr Honeyford: Once one person is there, nobody else can access it. Nobody else could access that facility because there was one person in it. That closed the whole place. That is the issue. That should not happen.

Mr Nesbitt: That is the issue, but I take exception to your use of the term "blocking". That person is a service user who needs help.

Last week, I again met the families featured in the 'Spotlight' programme. Also at the meeting were senior officials from the Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust. The families have shown immense courage and persistence in advocating change not just for themselves but for other families. I have met them on several occasions, but, in a way, I am meeting them too often: it would be better if we did not need to meet, because that would mean that their needs had been met.

The discussion was honest and constructive, because it was about culture and communication. Mr Mathison and Mr McMurray raised the issue of what some people have said and the tone in which they have addressed some of the families. That was discussed and acknowledged by senior figures in the South Eastern Trust, so I expect to see significant positive change in future engagements. Further work, particularly on the pace of change, is needed, however. I am pleased to say that there will be an oversight panel that will be tasked with supporting, monitoring and challenging — the challenge factor will be important — the remobilisation of short-break services.

As I said, the issues are not unique to the South Eastern Trust. Across the country, families feel the strain and the pain of inadequate provision. That is why we are progressing a new regional framework for children with disabilities that aligns with the findings of the Ray Jones review and reflects the evolving and increasingly complex needs of children with autism, learning disabilities and additional needs. The aim of the framework is to improve the current offer of early help and community-based support; develop additional effective residential short breaks and short-break fostering; rethink our approach to residential provision and out-of-home placements; and improve transition pathways into adulthood.

The £13·1 million of additional funding is helping to stabilise services by creating new beds, restoring lost provision and expanding community supports. Without closing the gap in residential care placements, however, short-break services will continue to be diverted during periods of crisis; that, I am afraid, is inevitable. To deliver sustainable, meaningful change, we must invest in modern, fit-for-purpose buildings, a well-trained, supported and motivated workforce and long-term funding solutions that give trusts the stability that they need to plan and deliver services effectively. Those things cannot be done quickly.

I will speak briefly about adults with learning difficulties. While I am assured that most services function as intended, we know that there is room for improvement. Many families continue to rely on that support to manage the demands of caring for adult relatives who have complex needs. Progress on a refreshed service model for adult learning disability has been slower than anticipated due to the impact of other priorities. Officials have now, however, commissioned additional support from the HSC Leadership Centre that will accelerate that work. Our goal is to move towards public consultation as quickly as possible, with a view to implementing a service model that better meets the needs of adults and their families.

There is no doubt that progress has been made, in the trusts and regionally, but I want to be the first to acknowledge that the pace of change is not fast enough. We are constrained by workforce availability, infrastructure limitations and funding pressures: that is not an excuse, but it is the situation that we are in. I repeat my determination to the House and the families that I will do all that I can to make things better.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response.

Members, with your permission and patience, I will ask you to help me end the plenary sitting in the way that it began. The official who is sitting on my right, Alex McGarel, is having her last day. Unfortunately, I could not be in the Chamber this morning when a fitting tribute was paid to her. I cannot let the day end without putting on record my sincere gratitude to Alex. I have needed advice and a steer from her more times in the past year in this post than I did in the previous six years put together. Alex, thank you.