Official Report: Tuesday 03 June 2025

Mr Kearney: Is 15,000 páiste a mharaigh Iosrael in Gaza le 18 mí anuas agus 34,000 atá gortaithe anois. Suas le 50 000 páiste a maraíodh agus a gortaíodh in áit atá níos lú ná Contae Aontroma. Ó bhris Iosrael an sos cogaidh an 18 de mhí an Mhárta, mharaigh siad breis is 1,300 páiste agus ghortaigh beagnach 4,000 eile.

Tomorrow marks the United Nations International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression. In light of the genocide and mass slaughter of children in Gaza, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is calling on workers across Ireland to observe a moment of reflection. Tomorrow at 1.05 pm, workers are encouraged to stand together in their workplaces for a moment of reflection, in a simple act of solidarity and remembrance for the loss of Palestinian children's lives. I urge all workers in all sectors, including in this place, to support that call from the congress and to stand together in solidarity, reflection and memory of the children who have been murdered by Israel and, beyond that, to continue to campaign for an end to the genocide, a permanent ceasefire and unhindered access to humanitarian aid for the starving people of Gaza.

Mr Martin: Over the weekend, the Local Women Magazine Education Awards celebrated the remarkable achievements and tireless efforts of teachers and schools across Northern Ireland. Apparently, all the glitz and glamour made it the educational equivalent of the Oscars. The awards recognised teachers who inspire, lead and change lives for the better in classrooms across Northern Ireland. We have some of the best teachers in the world in our wee country, and they are present across all sectors of education. Teaching can, at times, be a lonely and thankless job, so it is right and proper that we celebrate success. As an MLA who has worked as a lecturer and is passionate about education and its ability to turn lives around, I want to celebrate and recognise the fact that some teachers go way above and beyond what is normally expected in their role.

For me, there is a very local element to the awards: one school in my constituency, Glenlola Collegiate, had five teachers nominated, and one received an award. A shout out to Mrs Graham, Mrs Patterson and Mr Spence, who were nominated as best teacher in post-primary; Mr Barr was nominated as best teacher — rising star; and Mrs McKee was nominated as teacher of the year in special educational needs. I love how teachers do not seem to have first names. However, special congratulations go to Mr Spence, who won in his category, and is 'Local Women Magazine' best teacher of the year. Who says that there is no glamour, Mr Spence, in chemistry?

I know that Eric Thompson, the principal of Glenlola, will be very proud of the school's success, as will the board of governors. Every school in North Down strives for excellence, and it is great that we have a publication such as 'Local Women Magazine' that recognises and acknowledges that.

Mrs Guy: I wish to express my congratulations to Moira Primary School, which, at the Local Women Magazine Education Awards at the weekend,

was given an award for best primary school. The judges said of the school, and this is a quote that the school put on its website when announcing its news:

I absolutely recognise that characterisation of the school. Moira Primary School was one of the first primary schools that I visited when I got into this role and it could not have made me feel more welcome. Mr Ford was absolutely bursting with energy and enthusiasm for his school. Actually, he explained to me what the school was doing to create the kind of school community that is represented in that quotation. Huge congratulations to the whole school community. It takes a whole team to come together to deliver that kind of success. I hope that they enjoy their moment, and congratulations to everyone.

Dr Aiken: Over the past few days, two further stark examples of antisemitism occurred. The first was in Boulder, Colorado, when a "Free Palestine" fanatic attempted to incinerate six elderly Jewish people, including a Holocaust survivor, who were walking peacefully, as they did every week, to call for the release of hostages who have been tortured and denied access to the Red Cross for over 20 months by Hamas and its fellow travellers.

The second was the disgraceful anti-Jewish censorship shown by much of the Irish media when they refused to publish a comment by my good friend Alan Shatter — bear in mind that he is the ex-Irish Justice Minister and Defence Minister — on the Irish Government's Occupied Territories Bill. For the record, I will read it now:

President Higgins complains about the rest of the world being unfair by describing Ireland as being an antisemitic reservoir of hate. Rather than denying the obvious, it is about time that he opened his eyes and parked his hypocrisy. We all deserve better.

Ms McLaughlin: I wish to express my horror, heartbreak and anger at the worsening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Since 7 October, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, many of them women and children; over 15,000 people have been arrested; entire families have been wiped out; cities have been reduced to rubble; and, now, in perhaps the most horrifying development of all, children are dying of starvation.

This morning, doctors in Gaza described scenes of total carnage as at least 27 people were reportedly killed by Israeli fire at an aid distribution centre. Hospitals are overwhelmed, medical staff are working in impossible conditions and casualties are mounting by the hour. In 2025, we are witnessing the deliberate blocking of aid, which is being done in full view of the world. It is not a natural disaster but a man-made atrocity. Let me be absolutely clear: the denial of food, water and medicine to civilians is not just a moral outrage but a breach of international law. The Israeli Government and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) cannot be allowed to use the provision of humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Aid is not a tool of revenge but a lifeline.

The people of Gaza have been left abandoned by much of the international community, and Europe, including the British Government, is failing in its duty. While leaders express concern, arms continue to be sold to Israel. That is not neutrality but complicity. We urgently need a full and immediate ceasefire, the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid and a return to meaningful peace talks: talks that are grounded in justice, dignity and equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis. Peace cannot be built on the rubble of homes and the graves of children, however. It cannot be achieved while aid is withheld, while journalists are silent and while international law is ignored with impunity. I stand with those across these islands who are calling for an end to the horror. We must demand more than words from our Governments. We must demand action, an end to arms sales and a clear international commitment to peace, because, every hour that we delay, another child goes hungry, another mother mourns and another family is shattered. History will ask us, "What did you do?".

Ms Flynn: Giving birth should be one of the most fulfilling and joyous times in a woman's life. It marks the beginning of a new journey and a new life, and no mother should be separated from her baby at such a vulnerable and critical stage of development. Recent media reports of mothers being separated from their newborns have once again highlighted the urgent need for a specialist mother-and-baby unit on this island. I commend the courageous women and families who have spoken about their experiences, and their voices must genuinely be heard. I urge the Department of Health to act swiftly and progress the business case for a dedicated unit without further delay. Shamefully, we remain the only part of these islands that does not have such a facility for mothers and babies. Some new mothers experience serious mental health challenges after birth, and they deserve access to specialist inpatient care that allows them to stay with their baby while they are receiving the healthcare support that they need. Mothers cannot wait for that kind of facility any longer. They deserve compassion, dignity and proper care as they begin the life-changing journey of parenthood.

We know that a location for the unit has been identified at Belfast City Hospital. As recently as last week, the Minister of Health said that the business case is at a pretty advanced stage. He hopes that the unit will be green-lighted during this calendar year, which would represent important progress. If we were to get the unit over the line very soon, it would be the first facility of its kind on the island. We need to look at how we can maximise cross-border cooperation so that no mother, regardless of where she lives, faces the awful scenario of being separated from her newborn baby if she is in mental health psychosis or dealing with a bad mental health illness.

I will mention the maternal advocacy and support (MAS) project; all the clinicians who have been part of the campaign; all the groups, including the Maternal Mental Health Alliance (MMHA); and the journalists who have spoken up and spoken out, including Marie-Louise Connolly, who has done a 'Spotlight' piece on the need for a specialist unit. In March, we held a session at the all-party group (APG) on women's health at which we heard from a mother named Laura, who said that, while she was in the mental health unit, when her wee newborn baby was being brought to visit her, she was beside a smoking area. She did not have access to a proper bath to get bathed after giving birth. It is ridiculous that mothers are still experiencing that scenario. Two years ago, a petition was handed to Robin Swann, including signatures from, sadly, some bereaved families. One mother from Belfast had lost her life, so her wee newborn baby was left without a mother. We therefore really need to get the facility over the line for all the mothers and families in our communities.

Mr Middleton: I understand the need for many of our public bodies and organisations to transform and become more efficient. However, I rise this morning to raise concerns about the Housing Executive's proposal to close four of its offices in my Londonderry constituency: at Collon Terrace, Waterside, Richmond Chambers and Waterloo Place. The Housing Executive wants to consolidate those four offices into one in the city centre at Carlisle House. That proposal raises key concerns, not least for those who work in the Waterside office. I have been in touch with many of the staff there who feel that they will be disadvantaged when they move not just in relation to parking and their capacity to meet constituents but in their ability to meet with the most vulnerable in the Waterside.

My constituents will suffer if the consultation continues to go in its current direction of travel because the face-to-face offering in the Waterside will cease. Recently, I met the North West Road Safety Partnership to discuss issues at the site where, it is proposed, the offices will be consolidated. There are ongoing parking issues and challenges there, and I want to highlight that this morning. I encourage people to respond to the consultation, which closes on 9 June. When we look at efficiencies, it is important that we are mindful that closing those offices is not the way to go, given the fact that many people rely on the face-to-face support that they provide.

Ms Reilly: Casement Park to me, as a young sportsperson and Gael growing up in west Belfast, was more than bricks and mortar, as it was for all Gaels: it was a symbol of identity, pride and belonging for Gaels across Antrim, Ulster and beyond. As an Executive flagship project, its delivery is not optional; it is a promise that must be honoured. I had the privilege of playing in Casement Park when I lined out with my club, St Paul's, shoulder to shoulder with teammates and friends and with two of my sisters by my side. Those memories are some of the most special of my life. It is truly sad to think that an entire generation of young Gaels has been denied that same opportunity to wear their club colours or represent their county and feel the pride of place and history that Casement Park embodies. We cannot and will not allow another generation to miss out.

Now is the time for the British Government to step up and put their commitment on the table. No more delays or broken promises: the GAA community has waited long enough. Casement Park goes far beyond sport. It will be a catalyst for regeneration, creating jobs, boosting local businesses and putting west Belfast and Antrim on the map. It will drive investment and pride into a community that has given so much and asked for so little in return. Antrim and Ulster Gaels deserve a home, and that home is Casement Park. For our part, we stand together — club and county, player and supporter — to deliver a stadium that reflects who we are and the future that we deserve. There is no ambiguity in this: Casement Park will be built.

Ms Brownlee: I am delighted to raise again the wonderful achievements of a boxing club in East Antrim. This time, I am delighted to announce that Carrick Boxing Academy now has three Antrim champions, following a tough but rewarding weekend at the Antrim senior championships at Crumlin Star Sports and Social Club in Belfast. The boxers put in an incredible amount of work in the lead-up to the competition, and that dedication paid off in a big way. Scott Murray is now the 63·5 kg senior novice champion; Dan Ames is the 71 kg senior novice champion; and Ruben Bell is the 71 kg senior open champion. All three lads brought home gold medals. We are especially proud of Ruben Bell, who was awarded the County Antrim belt, a new addition this year that was presented to the open class winner.

It is a huge moment for the club, which has gone from strength to strength, and a reflection of the commitment and drive of the boxers, the coaching team and everyone who supports Carrick Boxing Academy. We are proud of how far all the athletes have come and excited to see what is next for them, with East Antrim punching above its weight again.

Ms Forsythe: On Friday past, it was a privilege to sponsor the launch in Parliament Buildings of the 'Say Their Name' report by the amazing Cancer Fund for Children. It is an evaluation report on the support offered to children and young people attending residential bereavement group work programmes held at the Cancer Fund for Children's Narnia Garden cabin in the grounds of Daisy Lodge in Newcastle in my constituency of South Down. Friday's event, which was hosted by Thomas and Leah Haighton, was very powerful. Sadly, Thomas's wife, Lyndsey, passed away from cancer, and the Cancer Fund for Children supported his family throughout their journey. Lyndsey's beautiful picture sat proudly at the event, where her daughter, Leah, spoke about how the bereavement programme helped her and her brother, Lewis, to deal with their grief. Leah said that the loss of her mother at such a young age was the biggest thing that has happened in her life. I am sure that her mum would be so proud of her.

Specialised programmes are needed to support people, especially young people, through those times. Sadly, that type of bereavement support does not exist across our healthcare system and has not been rolled out in our schools. The impact of accessing support on young people who are dealing with their grief has been described as "life-changing". We need to call for funding to ensure that the support remains in place in Northern Ireland. Through its informal therapeutic support model, the Cancer Fund for Children has delivered the programme to over 60 young people. The proof of its impact is shown in each of their powerful testimonies.

On Friday, we also heard from Christopher Smith, whose wife, Leancha, sadly died from cancer. Against the beautiful backdrop of pictures of the family together, he spoke about how his daughter, Meabh, attended the bereavement support and how that helped them to speak about their grief as a family and keep the happy memories alive. It was very emotional to hear the stories and to feel the impact of the programme in the room, with people from across Northern Ireland, including my constituency. Sometimes we see policies and procedures set out, but there is nothing more impactful than hearing real-life stories. It is a credit to the team at the Cancer Fund for Children to have delivered the programme through Joe and Gemma and to have really made a difference to many lives.

I take the opportunity to pick up on the call from Brid Carroll, who spoke about the importance of the evaluation and of the real need to ensure that bereavement support is in place in Northern Ireland, especially for young people. The programme was funded by a stream of the Department of Health charity fund, which has now stopped, but the service cannot stop. It needs to be funded to stay in place, because it is literally changing the direction of people's lives at their toughest moments. The model is in the Cancer Fund for Children to connect, nurture, understand and empower those who are managing their bereavement journey. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we need to embed this as a core function in our health service and work in partnership with our schools. Just remember, for those who are gone: say their name.

Mr Gaston: Through a series of questions for written answer, I have established that, in little over a year, Stormont Departments have spent over £470,000 on travel outside the British Isles. That is nearly half a million pounds of public money being spent in just over 12 months on foreign travel. More than £52,000 of that was spent personally by Ministers. What I have exposed is a culture of lavish long-haul junkets that are disconnected from the everyday realities that the people whom we are supposed to represent face.

Let us look at the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It spent nearly £78,000 on overseas travel, including £11,134 on a trip to New York for Climate Week NYC, where three officials, including the Minister, flew across the Atlantic to discuss sustainability. The Department that enforces rigid environmental rules on farmers apparently does not stop to consider its emissions or the cost of flying thousands of miles to talk green. It is hard to take the green rhetoric seriously when it comes wrapped in business class boarding passes.

Then there is the Department of Education. The Minister himself spent £8,128 on overseas travel, including visits to Washington DC and Iceland. On his watch, officials made costly trips, such as that to Tokyo, which cost £3,366. The extravagance does not stop there. The Department for Communities managed to spend over £2,280 on a single trip to Los Angeles for one official. That included nearly £1,200 on a hotel stay and nearly £1,000 on flights. What was so urgent that a transatlantic trip to California was necessary when so many community services here are barely staying afloat?

Of course, the biggest spender is no surprise: the Executive Office, which is the Department of Michelle O'Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly. They burned through over £126,000 on foreign travel, including the six-person trip to New York for St Patrick's Day last year, which cost a staggering £38,000. That is over £6,300 per person.

Thanks to today's 'News Letter', we know that the head of the Civil Service was sailing about in a private car, as was the deputy First Minister, while lesser Ministers made do with public transport and Ubers.

Ministers are parading on the world stage while hospital waiting lists grow, budgets in the House are slashed and people at home cannot pay their bills. My goodness, ministerial egos should not be subsidised by struggling families.

Mr Brett: I pay tribute to Manchester United, Northern Ireland and, more important, North Belfast legend Jonny Evans, who this month retired from professional football. As a sometimes heartbroken fan of both Manchester United

and Northern Ireland, I have followed Jonny's journey with absolute pride. Jonny made his debut for Northern Ireland in 2006 on that famous night when we won 3-2 against Spain. Jonny went on to make his professional debut for Manchester United in 2007. After 200 games, he played his last game for the club last weekend, bringing to an end the last of the golden era of Alex Ferguson. Jonny was the fourth player in the history of the Northern Ireland football team to receive over 100 caps, and he was awarded an MBE by the Prince of Wales in 2023 for his services to football.

Despite Jonny winning 11 major championships with Manchester United, including the Premier League and the Champions League, he said that the greatest moment of his career was captaining his country and representing Northern Ireland on the world stage. Jonny has been with us during some of our more difficult and, indeed, our best times, as he played for Northern Ireland in the Euros in 2016. As a lifelong Northern Ireland fan, I thank Jonny for his service to my club and, more important, to our country. There are some vacancies in managerial football in North Belfast, so Jonny is welcome to come back if he wants to take up a position at Seaview. I wish Jonny a long and happy retirement with his wife, Helen, and their children and to thank him for his service to the people of North Belfast and Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: Before I come to my remarks, I will respond to Dr Aiken, who earlier, I think, compared a Bill that is being discussed in Dáil Éireann to the Nazis. Dr Aiken is entitled to robust views on Israel, but I genuinely ask him to consider his earlier remarks, because they are remarkably intemperate.

Yesterday, in the Chamber, I asked the Justice Minister about a subject that has received much commentary and is of high public interest in Northern Ireland: the sentence given to Mr Winston "Winkie" Irvine. I respect the fact that the Justice Minister did not want to comment on a specific sentence — it is right that any Justice Minister is clear about judicial independence and not straying into that area — but I also asked her about broader confidence in the justice system and, indeed, broader concerns about this society and some of the moral hazard that we have created by allowing people to continue to exert coercive control over communities while drawing money from the public purse and, it appears, being able to enjoy some level of public esteem or some level of private power and influence to the extent that the great and the good write letters to try to get them a lighter sentence.

There is a broader question for the justice system when an individual — any individual, by the way — is not charged with terror offences or even membership of a terrorist organisation when lots of UVF paraphernalia are found at a property belonging to them and when, as soon as they arrive in Maghaberry jail, they are put in the segregated loyalist wing. Those are real questions for our society, and broader policy questions arise from them.

Lots of people in the constituency that I represent feel frustrated that they can do nothing when a UVF/UDA flag appears in their street, and the same would be true of IRA or dissident paraphernalia. People want to live in a society that has moved on from all that. They want something different and something better.

However, they feel that we have created some kind of strange, post-conflict Shangri-La where, if you have some kind of affiliation or influence or you are deemed to be the right kind of person, you can draw money from the public purse, gain access to senior people — politicians, diplomats or senior members of the police — get invited to cushy panels paid for by the public purse or at someone else's expense, and, frankly, get treated in a more lenient way by the justice system, including, when you get sent to Maghaberry, getting immediately put on to a segregated wing.

Those are real questions. Yesterday, I was disappointed to hear the Justice Minister avoid those questions — nothing to do even with the specifics of one sentence but with the broader justice system. It gets right to the heart of the situation that we have created: the weird Shangri-La —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — for people who continue —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — to exert coercive control in our society. It has to end.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Gerry Carroll. Gerry, you have two minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I met a constituent of mine Saira Khan, who I have known for many years and who has lived in West Belfast for around 10 years. Despite that and the contribution that she and her family have made to the community in the west and beyond, her brother and mother face deportation to South Africa against their wishes and needs and despite having submitted all the documentation and information asked of them by the Home Office. Both face a really disturbing situation of state violence and displacement. In less than two weeks, both face deportation.

To be unequivocally clear, the family lives here. It wants to remain here, it contributes to here and it wants to stay. I say this directly to the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer: intervene and put a stop to this appalling situation, which will see those people's lives upended and the relationships that they have built torn apart by the Home Office and the British Government. You are supposed to be a human rights lawyer: show some interest in human rights for the Khan family and everybody else who is affected by this situation.

I have submitted a question for written answer to the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the issue. They need to intervene to support and protect the Khan family. This is an appalling act of injustice, and the Justice Minister cannot turn her head and close her ears to it. It is clear that Ministers need to act to stand up for this family. The British Government need to reverse their decision as well.

The community is not waiting by. Participation and the Practice of Rights has organised a defence protest this Friday at 12.00 noon outside the family home at Colinview Street, off the Springfield Road. I encourage everyone who is interested in standing against displacement and state violence to come, show support and stand side by side, shoulder to shoulder, against this appalling act of violence and in support of this family.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. That ends Members' statements.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call a representative of the Assembly Commission Mr Andy Allen to move the Further Consideration Stage.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been selected so there is no opportunity to discuss the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill now. Members will of course be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Infrastructure that she wishes to make a statement. I remind Members that they must be concise in asking questions. This is not an opportunity for long introductions or debate.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): In compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement to the Assembly in respect of a British-Irish Council (BIC) ministerial meeting of the transport work sector, held on 4 April 2025. To ensure appropriate cross-community representation at the meeting, junior Minister Cameron was also in attendance and is aware that I am making this statement to the Assembly.

Members will be aware that the British-Irish Council, which was established in 1999, with transport as one of the original areas of activity, is a forum for its members to discuss, consult and use best endeavours to reach agreement on cooperation on matters of mutual interest within the competence of its member Administrations. The British-Irish Council transport work sector is chaired by the Executive. This group has proved to be a valuable forum for ongoing cooperation in sharing information and experiences of developing and implementing transport policy. As I have previously highlighted, the Executive were represented at the ministerial meeting that took place here in Belfast by me as chair, accompanied by junior Minister Cameron. The Government of Guernsey were represented by Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez, President of the Committee for the Environment and Infrastructure. The Government of Ireland were represented by Darragh O'Brien TD, Minister for Transport. The Isle of Man Government were represented by Hon Michelle Haywood MHK, Minister for Infrastructure. The Government of Jersey were represented by Andy Jehan, Minister for Infrastructure. The Scottish Government were represented by Fiona Hyslop MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Transport. The British Government were represented by Simon Lightwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Transport. The Welsh Government were represented by Chris Warner, deputy director of transport strategy and policy, deputising for Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, Ken Skates MS.

During the meeting, Ministers considered a paper prepared by the work sector on the review of activity 2021-24, detailing the extensive work that has been undertaken under that work plan. The Council proceeded to discuss developments in transport from 2024 onwards. I noted that the Executive have taken a targeted approach to emissions reductions and that the introduction of a zero-emissions vehicle mandate and the vehicle emissions trading schemes (VETS) have been key policy and climate change interventions. Confidence in the electric vehicle market continues to grow here. There has been a 75% increase in the availability of public EV charging infrastructure in the past two years, and the number of EVs on our roads has more than doubled over that period. That shift to the use of electric vehicles is pivotal as we move towards our goal of net zero by 2050. In addition, I highlighted the road network improvements that I have recently announced, specifically key bypass projects that aim to lower emissions and reduce congestion, particularly in our small town centres. I reflected on our partnership with the Irish Government in developing the A5 to improve connectivity and, importantly, to save lives, and highlighted the all-island rail review as a further example of positive collaboration between the two Administrations.

Ministers from across Administrations shared their experiences, achievements and challenges in the transport sector. Priorities that were identified included the importance of active travel solutions, connecting communities, freight, decarbonisation and removing barriers to travel for the most vulnerable people. Council members reiterated their view that working collaboratively in the transport sector will be key to achieving wider ambitions around economic growth and the delivery of clean energy, as well as improving public health. Ministers noted and agreed to the content of a forward work plan for 2025-28 for the transport work sector, which will inform each Administration's policy in addressing decarbonisation of the sector. The forward work programme identified four areas of focus for the work sector over the next three years, including the role of modal shift, active travel and public transport, the importance of HGVs and linkages across these islands, decarbonisation of ports and sustainable transport in rural areas.

The transport sector is one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions. Member Administrations are fully committed to reducing those emissions and agree that a collective approach to decarbonisation will be required to meet net zero climate commitments across these islands. As an Assembly, we have committed to taking action to tackle the climate crisis and reduce emissions across all sectors, including transport. In that context, the British-Irish Council continues to offer an essential framework for sharing challenges and best practice across the Administrations.

In closing, I place on record my thanks to my ministerial colleagues across the BIC member Administrations who participated so productively in the ministerial meeting, and to junior Minister Cameron who accompanied me. My officials and I look forward to working with the Ministers from the other Administrations and their officials in all the agreed areas of cooperation in the transport sector. The development of an implementation programme for the forward work plan, to include the timing and location of each activity that has been agreed, will be decided in the coming months. That concludes my statement. I am happy to take questions from Members.

Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

A key area of focus over the next three years will be modal shift, active travel and public transport. Other jurisdictions are increasing investment in public transport, recognising the environmental and economic value of doing so. Will the Minister and the Executive be doing the same?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, officials are working on the new suite of transport plans, which will look at transport policy and investment decisions until 2035. It is my aim to ensure that the transport network meets the needs of people and businesses both now and in the future.

As I have mentioned in the House before, there are eight plans in total: seven local transport plans and one strategic transport plan. The strategic plan covers the strategic road and rail network across the region, whilst the seven local transport plans are being developed in a more integrated manner with the councils' local development plan processes. The plans that are in development will set out the potential interventions that I propose to bring forward to address many of my priorities in the transport strategy. The local transport plans are being developed in an integrated manner and are, therefore, dependent on councils' timetables for their local development plans.

The largest, and one of the most advanced, transport plans is the eastern transport plan (ETP), which covers Belfast and the four surrounding council areas. The site visit that we had as part of the BIC sessions provided insight into the transport challenges that Belfast faces and outlined some of the draft proposals from the Belfast city transport plan section of the ETP. It is an example of the work that is incorporated into all those transport plans.

As I said, officials are actively working with all councils and stakeholders using a vision and validate approach, which will consider the wider societal changes that we face, generate a future vision for the planned area and identify transport measures that will help us achieve the overall vision. It is my intention to prepare and have ready for public consultation draft plans for the Fermanagh and Omagh transport plan, the north-west transport plan, the Belfast city centre transport plan and the metropolitan transport plan. Those plans will consider the further investment that is required in all areas of transport.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for her statement. I noted that she highlighted joint collaboration as part of the all-island strategic rail review and further noted her mention of sustainable public transport in rural areas. My council area — Fermanagh and Omagh District Council — has one of the highest rates of car ownership and usage, yet Fermanagh is not included in the all-island strategic rail review. That is a huge omission, given that we are talking about trying to reduce emissions. Can you update the House on the progress of feasibility studies arising from the review, including anticipated dates for commencement or completion? The inclusion of Fermanagh will be reviewed in 10 years' time. What is your Department doing to look at feasibility in the meantime?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, we hope to see the outcome of the feasibility study in the coming weeks. It was initially planned for the spring, but we were then told that it will be in the summer, so it should come fairly soon. I look forward to seeing the outcome of that.

On the specifics of Fermanagh — I, too, note that there is a serious gap in the all-island strategic rail review — we are looking at how we can ensure that the transport plans focus on those areas. You will be aware of my recent announcement around funding community transport, which is a key element of providing proper public transport for people in more rural areas in particular. We are looking at a number of things, which will be incorporated in the bigger transport strategy and the local transport plans that officials are working on in conjunction with the councils.

Mr Boylan: Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire.

In your statement, Minister, you mentioned EV charging infrastructure. Do you have any plans for cross-pavement solutions so that people can charge electric vehicles at home, which is a key part of the just transition?

Ms Kimmins: We have been looking at that issue and trying to find solutions. It is becoming more of an issue. As I noted in the statement, more and more people are purchasing EVs, so it needs to be addressed to ensure that everybody has equitable access. There are now 672 publicly accessible commercial EV charge points here, which are operated by over 20 charge-point operators. Provision has grown by 73%.

We have work to do in the areas in which people do not have immediate access to those types of charge points. We continue to work to find a balance that will ensure that everyone can find a solution in the meantime.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her statement. I will build on what we have just heard on EV infrastructure: how does the 75% increase that the Minister mentioned compare with the other islands? What ideas were discussed for how we could improve EV infrastructure in Northern Ireland on the basis of the best experiences of the other jurisdictions and experiences as a whole?

Ms Kimmins: I do not have the actual figures in front of me to see the comparisons, Peter, but we can get those. There are lots of things, some of which are around a culture shift and trying to encourage people to have the confidence to purchase an EV, but the cost must also be recognised. Those are parts of the discussion that we have been having across the Administrations about how we can ensure that anyone who hopes to make the transition from a petrol or diesel car to an EV can find it affordable and accessible to do so. We are working across Departments to see what good practice elsewhere is encouraging uptake in other areas and to see how we can further utilise that.

We have also been looking at Motability. The importance of Motability to EV growth here in the new and second-hand car market cannot be overstated. The scheme is delivering new low- and zero-emission vehicles. That is helping to show people that they are working, and it gives them confidence to purchase those vehicles. As the number of purchases goes up, we are moving into a second-hand EV market, which means that they are more accessible for lots of people.

The infrastructure piece is key to a lot of this, because that is an issue for many people: it is a barrier for many people if they cannot get access to charging infrastructure. As I have said, there are almost 700 publicly accessible charging points. It is about building on that and ensuring that it is made easy for people to access charging points, be that at their home or as part of their journey, no matter where they are going. We are working on that on an all-island basis, because we know that people frequently commute and travel across our island. We are also looking at what is happening across the water and at how the benefits could be transferred to here.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for her statement. Another area of focus in planning is the importance of HGV and linkages across these islands. The Minister will be aware that there was a commitment in the Union connectivity report to improving linkages between Northern Ireland and Scotland, most notably the freight corridors taking Northern Ireland goods via the A75 and A77 roads that serve the port of Cairnryan. What engagement has the Minister had with her UK and Scottish counterparts on that matter?

Ms Kimmins: The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, and I had discussed the matter. There is ongoing work on recognising the importance of those roads in ensuring the streamlining of that transport and on recognising the importance of our freight industry from an Irish perspective and from across the water. I recognise some of the challenges that are faced in Britain, particularly from the Scottish perspective. There are ongoing discussions on that.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister mentioned removing barriers to travel for the most vulnerable. Hopefully, she will be aware that the journey by train to George Best Belfast City Airport can be challenging for passengers with accessibility needs. Will she provide an update on or timescale for when decisions will be made on improvements to rail accessibility at the airport through the City Airport rail connectivity feasibility project?

Ms Kimmins: We await the outcome of that feasibility study, as we do for the other feasibility studies. I hope to provide further information on that very soon. We visited Belfast City Airport recently, and that issue was discussed as part of that engagement. I am keen to see the outcome of the study and to see what we can do in the time ahead.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister said that the forward work plan for the transport sector, which was agreed at the meeting, addressed sustainable transport in rural areas as one area of focus. What ideas and inspiration did she take away from that meeting on that area?

Ms Kimmins: We have significant rural areas across the North, so it is not just because of the meeting that I am keen to address the issue. I said earlier that community transport is a very important part of that work. We need to ensure that the community transport sector receives the funding that it needs to deliver the services that it provides. Those services are absolutely crucial to the people who use them.

It is also about ensuring that other people have access to them. That is ongoing work. We recently had the community transport review. We talked about the transport strategy and the transport plans, which are integral to ensuring that rural communities have connectivity and equitable access to public transport. There are individual plans, but the wider strategy is being looked at in conjunction with the Council to see how we can address the issues. We are also looking at best practice from elsewhere. We are looking in particular at what our Irish counterparts in Dublin are doing, given the rural populations that we all serve. We are looking at lots of things in conjunction, but we already have a good handle on what the issues are here and what we can do to address them.

Dr Aiken: Minister, when you discussed the decarbonisation of ports, was there any discussion about making the Irish Sea a zero emissions zone (ZEZ)? We have seen that happen, particularly in Europe for the Mediterranean Sea and the Baltic Sea. I understand that there are ambitions in Dublin to do the same with the Irish Sea.

Ms Kimmins: We are looking at all those aspects. I mentioned HGVs and the ports. As I said, there is work being done to simplify the process for those affected. Some of the sectors are probably ahead of us on a lot of that stuff. It is about a managed transition that does not put an unnecessary burden on the sectors involved. Cross-departmental working between us and our counterparts, probably mainly those in Scotland and Wales, will be required for us to meet the targets contained in the Climate Change Act 2022. That is probably in its earlier stages, Steve, but it is on our agenda as something on which we will work closely in the time ahead.

Mr Gaston: Minister, you said in your statement:

Minister, do you recognise that many people will regard that comment as hypocritical, when Stormont Departments have run up a bill of nearly half a million pounds on foreign travel since the return of devolution, including by Minister Muir and his officials, who spent £11,134 on a trip to Climate Week NYC?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, that question is not related to the statement, so I will move on.

Mr Brett: Minister, thank you for your statement. There was no mention in it of the Union connectivity review, however, or of the £5 million that was provided to Northern Ireland as a result. Why was that not discussed at the meeting? Do you have any update to give on the spending of that £5 million?

Ms Kimmins: It was discussed in the bilateral meetings that we had with Simon Lightwood on how we can further enhance the work that is already happening. We have been engaging directly with the British Minister and Department to see how we can further enhance the work that we are doing and how we can identify other opportunities to utilise the funding from the Union connectivity review. We have seen some of it fund the really good work on the feasibility studies that we are awaiting. That is an ongoing piece. The Union connectivity review may not have been specifically discussed as part of the plenary meeting, but such discussions happen between Ministers regularly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister on her statement.

Mr Durkan: On a point of order, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle

. Members are often reminded that our questions following a ministerial statement should be relevant to the statement. Is it therefore in order for Ministers' responses not to bear at least a wee bit of relevance to Members' questions?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You should know, as a former Minister. You often did it: from memory, you answered whatever way you wanted to. That is something that Ministers do.

However, I take your point: the responses should be closely related to what is in the statement. That is the preferable position. I have reminded Mr Gaston and others before that, under Standing Orders, Members' questions need to relate to the statement. I ask that that also applies to Ministers' responses. You know the craic though, Mark, because you did it plenty yourself.

Before we move on to the next item of business, which is on the Supply resolution, I remind Members that their commentary must relate to the topic at hand. If it does not, I will tell Members to get back to the substance of the debate.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours and 30 minutes for the debate. The Minister has up to 60 minutes to allocate at his discretion, between proposing the motion and making a winding-up speech. After that, a member of the Opposition will be called and will have 10 minutes in which to speak. A representative of the Finance Committee, if different from the Opposition representative, will be called second and will also have 10 minutes in which to speak. All other Members who are called to speak will have seven minutes. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate.

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

As you have set out, the debate is on the Supply resolution for the Main Estimates 2025-26, which relates to the supply of cash and the use of resources for the current year, 2025-26. It seeks the Assembly's approval for the 2025-26 spending plans of Departments and other public bodies, as set out in the Main Estimates, which were laid before the Assembly on 21 May 2025. The Main Estimates are based on the departmental spending plans that are set out in the Executive's Budget 2025-26, which I announced on 3 April 2025. The Budget 2025-26 was agreed by the Assembly on 19 May 2025 following an extensive debate, and I will not repeat the details of that in my speech today.

The Main Estimates position is set out in a detailed document, and the Budget (No. 2) Bill reflects that position. Should the Bill proceed as planned, it is anticipated that it will receive Royal Assent in mid- to late July. In the meantime, the 45% Vote on Account, which was agreed by Members in February of this year, provides Departments with the authority to utilise resources and access the necessary cash to deliver services.

The Main Estimates for 2025-26 highlight areas of expenditure or income that rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act. That is where the authority of the statutory powers has not yet been obtained through legislation. 'Managing Public Money' provides for that as an interim measure, enabling expenditure until such powers are in place. I am pleased that a number of functions that previously required the use of the sole authority of the Budget Act have been resolved. The financial provisions Bill, which is due to be introduced shortly, will further reduce reliance on the sole authority of the Budget Act. My officials will continue to monitor the position.

Executive colleagues are considering their departmental budget allocations. Any adjustments will be submitted to my officials as part of the June monitoring round process, which is due to close on 5 June. Those will be considered by Executive colleagues, and I will provide an update on that to Members in due course. Due to time constraints and the need for the Bill to complete its journey before the end of July, it is not possible to include June monitoring adjustments in the Main Estimates. Any changes to departmental budgets due to the outcome of the June monitoring round and any further monitoring rounds that take place in 2025-26 will be reflected in the spring Supplementary Estimates.

I look forward to putting the spending plans for 2025-26 on a legal footing, and I request that Members support the Supply resolution for the Main Estimates 2025-26. That, together with the Budget (No. 2) Bill, which I will introduce in the Assembly today and which will be debated at a later stage, will ensure that services continue to be funded for the remainder of the financial year.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole, leader of the Opposition and Chair of the Finance Committee.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will say something at the end of my remarks about the continued anomaly of the allotted time. First, I will speak as Chair of the Finance Committee, and I will then turn to my remarks as leader of the Opposition.

The Committee received a briefing from officials on the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill at its meeting on 20 May. I thank officials for making themselves available for that. The Main Estimates were published on 22 May — the period for which they have been available is important for transparency — and I am sure that all Members have read the Main Estimates document from cover to cover. Members will be aware that the Financial Reporting (Departments and Public Bodies) Act (NI) 2022 delivered a number of changes to how financial information is presented. Members will also be aware that the 2024-25 financial year saw considerable Barnett consequentials arising from the restoration package and other allocations and that those will not be replicated for 2025-26.

The draft Budget for 2025-26 was agreed by the Executive on 19 December 2024, subject to a 12-week consultation period that ended on 13 March. The 2025-26 Budget was agreed by the Executive on 3 April. Today's Supply resolution allows Members to consider the allocations that are involved in individual budgets. The Budget (No. 2) Bill, which will be introduced today, will give legal authority to the Budget that we are discussing under the resolution. The Estimates should be aligned to the latest Budget as agreed by the Executive on 3 April. A total of 18 Northern Ireland Main Estimates are presented for 2025-26, with one for each Department and separate Estimates for other relevant public bodies and specific public service pension schemes. Each Estimate is produced in a standard format. The consolidated boundary is defined in order to include all bodies that are classified as central government bodies.

With Treasury allocations and funds available for June monitoring, the Executive Budget for 2025-26 stands just shy of £17 billion in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and just under £2·5 billion in capital DEL, with £58·7 million of financial transactions capital (FTC). For the first time, FTC bids exceed what is available. Across capital and resource DEL, £440 million has been earmarked for Programme for Government (PFG) priorities, including £357 million for Budget 2025-26 outcomes and £83·4 million for indicative June monitoring allocations. Resource DEL allocations include £215 million to cut waiting times. Capital DEL allocations include the allocation of £21·3 million of the £47 million that is available for transformation from the Executive's restoration package. Treasury and Executive earmarked resource DEL allocations amount to £1·245 billion, with capital DEL of £839 million.

Table 2 of the Estimates document sets out the composition of the departmental expenditure limit for each of the Departments and bodies, with table 3 highlighting resource DEL and table 4 showing capital DEL.

I will turn to table 5. Use of the sole authority of the Budget Act allows the Assembly to approve expenditure and for that to be legislated for in the Budget Bill. Such expenditure has fallen to £13·4 million from over £28 million last year. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about when a Fiscal Council Bill and the financial provisions Bill, which will specifically cover that issue, will be introduced.

The Department of Finance budget represents one of the smaller Executive allocations. That reflects its position as an administrative spending Department that provides shared services across the Executive. As such, a significant majority of its budget is used for administrative rather than for programme purposes. Non-ring-fenced resource DEL for 2025-26 amounts to £240·1 million, with capital DEL of £32·5 million. The Committee is engaging with the Department on its significant capital pressures and will continue to do so. With regard to the Department's non-ring-fenced resource DEL, the Committee has specific plans to scrutinise each of the key budget areas, with a particular focus on procurement, NI Civil Service (NICS) shared services and Land and Property Services (LPS), which are the main areas of the Department's capital spend. The Committee has taken a specific interest in the Department's contingent liabilities, which are outlined in the Main Estimates. It has liaised closely with the Department on them and will continue to do so. The Committee also notes the superannuation and other allowances that are in the Department's second request for resources.

For each Department and body, the Main Estimates highlight planned expenditure for 2025-26 and provisional out-turn for 2024-25. The Committee looks forward to the publication of five-year business plans for each Department.

We know that the comprehensive spending review announcement next week will provide indicative resource budgets for the next three years and capital budgets for the next four years. That should allow the 2025-26 Budget to be the Executive's last single-year Budget for the foreseeable future. Members will see significant benefits from multi-annual Budgets, including better ability to plan and greater scrutiny of funding for grant recipients. While the Committee is aware that the Supply resolution debate on the Main Estimates is a largely technical exercise, it has applied an appropriate degree of scrutiny. On the basis of members' agreement at our meeting on 28 May to accelerated passage for the Budget (No. 2) Bill, the Committee for Finance supports today's Supply resolution motion.

I will now make a few remarks as leader of the Opposition. Given the fact that I am constrained because of the two roles that I hold and that Assembly Standing Orders provide that I cannot have additional time to do the jobs that the Assembly has given me — leader of the Opposition and Chair of the Finance Committee — I will limit myself to pointing out one very important anomaly that has already arisen in relation to the Programme for Government and the 2025-26 Budget. The anomaly relates not only to those documents but to the statement made in the Chamber yesterday by the Communities Minister.

Just a few weeks ago, the Assembly passed the 2025-26 Budget. Not long before that, the Assembly voted to approve the three-year Programme for Government. I think that I am right in saying that the Programme for Government promised that there would be just under 6,000 new social housing starts before the end of the mandate that we are in. Just weeks after the Assembly approved the Programme for Government and passed the 2025-26 Budget, the Executive are already falling catastrophically short of the targets that they set themselves. When the housing Minister comes to the Assembly and says that his budget will only facilitate the start of between 900 and 1,000 new-build social homes, that is, frankly, a shambolic situation. That is way under the trajectory that the Executive need to be on in order to complete their target for social housing starts by the end of the mandate.

We often talk in the Chamber about the housing crisis that we face. Indeed, the Minister's party talks often about the housing crisis south of the border. His party is robust and consistent in challenging the Irish Government on their failure to deliver housing, and it is right to do so. It is also robust in calling out the failure to properly invest in the infrastructure that is needed to facilitate that housing, be it waste water or energy infrastructure. His party does that all while the Budget brought to this Assembly by the Finance Minister and the Programme for Government that his colleagues signed off go nowhere near to delivering on the housing crisis. We know that, because that is literally what the Communities Minister told us on the Floor yesterday. All the PR stunts, photo opportunities and warm words that were offered by the Minister and his colleagues come to nothing when it is clear that the Executive are already missing one key target for social housing by a long way. It is all guff; Ministers stand up and make promises and pledges, but, within weeks, a Minister comes to the Chamber and says, "Well, I do not have enough in my budget", so, just weeks after announcing the targets in the Programme for Government and a Budget, we are already failing at coming anywhere close to those targets. If we build 1,000 new social homes this year — that is a significant "if" — we would basically have less than two years to deliver another 5,000. That is shambolic. It is way behind the targets, and it is important that we call that out.

I have chosen one specific example. Rather than getting into the whole range of targets where there are challenges and shortfalls, I picked that one, but it is not alone. It is completely and inextricably linked to our failure to invest in our waste water infrastructure, but what does the 2025-26 Budget do? As we established, if you look at the Department for Infrastructure's budget, you see that it marginally increases investment in waste water, but that increase is below the level of inflation. That is absolutely pathetic. Frankly, it is gaslighting people. The Minister's party talks about grand plans and calls out the Government in Dublin for their failure to deliver on housing, water and investment in infrastructure, but then, when it has the power in its hands, it simply gaslights people and fails to deliver. That is what we have from the Executive and the Minister.

Had I more time, I would cover the other areas of the Budget, but I do not have it. Therefore, I chose to focus on that one specific area of failure. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain to me why missing his social housing target by literally thousands is good enough for the people of the North.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to make some very short remarks on behalf of the Health Committee on the Supply resolution. I have spoken on behalf of the Committee in relation to the 2025-26 Budget and will do so again in the Budget (No. 2) Bill debate next week.

We are all aware of the pressure on our health system. We see the headlines every day. We hear the experiences of people in our constituencies who are struggling to access services and treatment, and we hear the evidence from our health and social care professionals who are trying to navigate a system that no longer seems to be working well. With an opening budget of £8·4 billion, the Minister of Health has outlined that an additional £600 million will be required to balance the books this year. We have been told in Committee that, by 2050, if something is not done, the Health budget will take up 80% of the overall Budget, so we need to fix the system.

The Committee agrees that action needs to be taken to address the inequalities that we are seeing in the provision of services. We are moving closer to a two-tier health system where, if you can afford to pay for treatment, you get it, but, if not, you go on a long waiting list where you may have to live in pain, present more often to your GP, present more often to emergency departments and, potentially, suffer worse outcomes. Therefore, at present, it could be argued that our system is making some people more unwell and that lots of our citizens cannot access the most appropriate services. The Committee therefore welcomes the Executive priority in relation to waiting lists and the £215 million allocated in this financial year to address waiting lists. Not only will it have an impact on those waiting lists, but we should see efficiencies across the system in community, primary, secondary and social care settings.

At last week's Committee meeting, the Minister and new interim permanent secretary talked about a system reset. We have also heard the Minister's desire to shift left, and the Committee welcomes that shift to the left. However, we cannot shift services left with no additional funding provided to those in the community and primary sector. Tough decisions need to be made by the Health Minister to better support our primary and community services to be able to provide the services that our communities need. As a Committee, we will work with the Minister to ensure better outcomes for patients, staff and communities.

It is also the Committee's intention to pay close attention to the Department's capital budget spend over the next number of years. We have seen significant delays and overspend in relation to the new maternity hospital. We have seen and heard of the significant issues with the mental health in-patient unit, and, while the Committee will continue to monitor progress on those projects, it is keen to know what lessons the Department and the trusts have learned from those projects and that those lessons will be implemented —.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Chair for giving way. He mentioned the Department's capital budget. We have seen huge waste and misuse of funding in the capital budget. Does he agree that the mother-and-baby unit could have been built by now had we not been wasting money in the Belfast Trust in relation to all the other building programmes and that it is imperative that the Executive and the Minister get behind the build of the mother-and-baby unit?

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Member for her intervention. The mother-and-baby unit is an essential part of healthcare for citizens here in the North, and, as Chair of the Health Committee, I want to see that built very soon. The Member will know, as I know, that our Committee has, on too many occasions, discussed problems in the Belfast Trust and inefficiencies and, in particular, problems with capital investment in that trust area. We want to see that resolved and lessons learned from those events so that we can move forward and use all the money available to the Health Minister and our health services in the most efficient way to deliver better outcomes for our patients, including mothers and children here in the North.

The Committee has been advised that there is a £1·6 billion backlog of maintenance work on our health estates. We are keen also to understand the breakdown of that and the plan to address that backlog.

The Committee will apply the necessary scrutiny to departmental spending this year and to the bids that the Department will make, and I will comment more on that during next week's Budget (No. 2) Bill debate.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Audit Committee): The main role of the Audit Committee is to scrutinise and agree the budgets and Estimates of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) and to lay the Estimates before the Assembly. The Committee also undertakes a budget scrutiny role for the Assembly Commission, although my contribution today will relate solely to the Estimates for the NIAO and the NIPSO, given that the functions in respect of the Commission's Estimates are yet to be codified. The Committee plans to progress that matter during the mandate. The Audit Committee fulfils its Estimates role in place of the Department of Finance, in recognition of the independence of those non-ministerial bodies. The Committee does, however, have regard to the advice of the Department of Finance and the Public Accounts Committee in respect of the NIAO in carrying out that role.

The Audit Committee's report on the Estimates for both bodies for 2025-26 was laid in the Business Office on 14 May 2025. The report was laid subject to the views of the Department of Finance in relation to both organisations and subject to the views of the PAC on the NIAO Estimate. That was due to the extremely tight timescales set by the Department of Finance for the Estimates to be considered and reported on. The report was noted by the PAC at its meeting on 15 May, and it had no comment to make. The contents of the Audit Committee's report reflect the factual position on its scrutiny and deliberations relating to the evidence provided by both the NIAO and the NIPSO on their Estimates for 2025-26. That consideration of the draft Estimates and associated correspondence formed the basis of the Committee report, which gave legal effect to the Audit Committee's statutory function of laying the Estimates for the NIAO and the NIPSO before the Assembly.

Given the manifest connection between the figures in the Estimates and the draft Budget report, I will highlight some of the Committee's deliberations concerning the budgets for both bodies. I will begin with the NIAO. During scrutiny of the proposed draft Budget, Committee members questioned officials on how they justified additional funding over and above the previously agreed 2022-25 NIAO budget. Members were alarmed to hear of the threat to the NIAO's public audit function and its vital scrutiny work. The Committee considers that that scrutiny is integral to the public finances of Northern Ireland, and the Committee also noted the PAC's recent observation that the NIAO's average spend is well below that of other public audit agencies in the United Kingdom. The Committee continues to stand over its decision to fully support the work of the NIAO. In considering the Estimate provided by the Audit Office, the Committee noted that it broadly aligned with the budget of £11,153,000 agreed by the Committee in November 2024. The Estimate included only one minor variation of £55,000 relating to a recommendation from the Department of Finance that NIAO retain its ring-fenced DEL depreciation at the 2024-25 level.

I will move on to the NIPSO. Despite its having a relatively small budget, Committee members were struck by the wide remit of the NIPSO, as well as the growing numbers of complaints considered by the office since its inception in 2016. Members were particularly interested to hear about the recently introduced role of the office in relation to the Complaints Standards Authority. That, combined with investment in other preventative measures such as the own-initiative programme, could lead to savings further down the line by reducing the number of complaints finding their way to the NIPSO in the first place. In considering the Estimate provided by the NIPSO, the Committee noted that it broadly aligned with the budget of £5,150,000 agreed by the Committee in November 2024. The Estimate included only one minor variation of £37,000, which, again, related to ring-fenced DEL depreciation being retained at the 2024-25 level.

The Committee has noted that any changes to budget allocations for the NIAO or the NIPSO during the 2025-26 financial year will be handled through future supplementary processes, and the Committee will examine those with the diligence required at the appropriate time.

I will speak briefly as a DUP MLA. I welcome the presentation of the 2025-26 Estimates as they flow under the priorities of the Programme for Government. Differing from the leader of the Opposition, I welcome the Communities Minister's announcement as to how he will progress his budget under tight constraints, with realistic plans as to what he can do within the budget that he has been allocated and whilst moving forward under the agreed priorities. It will be a difficult year. It will be difficult for the Executive to manage, but we need to join together and remain committed to the Programme for Government and its key objectives.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that not only is the initial Budget important but the monitoring rounds throughout the year are vital in distributing funds? The Department of Health benefited from those greatly last year.

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

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, the monitoring rounds are incredibly important. The Finance Minister has indicated in advance some of the plans for the June monitoring round. Given the movements at the end of the previous financial year, which transferred extra money across to 2025-26, we will look to see where those allocations go. It is a critical time, and we must maximise all potential available funding across all Departments.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I will speak to the Supply resolution for the Main Estimates as Chair of the Committee for Education in the first instance. As has been outlined, some of this is largely a technical exercise, but it still bears commenting on how Departments are setting out their plans to spend the budgets that have been allocated to them.

The Main Estimates indicate that the Department of Education will receive a budget of approximately £3·2 billion in non-ring-fenced resource funding and £388 million in capital funding, alongside the very welcome extra £55 million investment in early learning and childcare. The Main Estimates for all Departments highlight an extremely challenging financial situation. The Education Committee has had briefings from departmental officials about the constraints that they face due to the financial pressures of its budget. The Department outlines pressures in the region of £310 million in resource and £83 million in capital.

It seems from the Estimates that the Education Authority (EA) will largely bear the brunt of that. It is looking at having to make savings of around £300 million based on its provisional allocation. The Main Estimates illustrate just how constrained funding for the Education Authority is likely to be. I think that I speak for all my Committee colleagues when I express concern at the level of the funding that the Education Authority is operating with, especially when we consider that it is the arm's-length body in education that has the most direct impact on children and young people. The Committee received from the Department a capital briefing earlier in the year and a resource briefing in May. Each highlighted grave concerns about the need for significant additional investment simply to ensure that the basics of an education system can be delivered.

I want to speak specifically to special educational needs. The Estimates set out an allocation of £641 million for that area of the Department's spend. That is undoubtedly one of the biggest pressures facing the education system. I think that the Committee is agreed that the current system has, in recent years, failed and is failing the most vulnerable children and young people. At a time when early intervention is critical and needed, it has not been delivered or made available. The five-year SEN reform agenda delivery plan that the Minister announced is a step in the right direction, but it is unclear, from the Main Estimates for Education that are set out here, exactly how that £641 million is going to be invested in SEN. The Committee anticipates seeing a much more detailed breakdown of the budget, because it is not clear what is going into statutory services, what is going into support services for pupils and what is going into the vital work of transformation. As far as I can tell, the £641 million will probably be required just to deliver statutory services. Transformation in that area is urgently required, so we really need to see how that is going to be resourced. We cannot overstate the pressure in that area.

The Estimates are high level, which makes it difficult to truly understand how exactly investment will be prioritised over the year. We are conscious that, as has been referenced, June monitoring rounds may present an improved picture, but the mood music with regard to what is likely to flow from Westminster is not good, so I think that we face a very difficult year in managing the Education budget.

I will now make some remarks as one of the Alliance Party's education spokespersons. Clearly, all Departments face a challenging position, not least Education. As I mentioned, it does not look as though huge amounts of funding will flow to stabilise that picture. Shortfalls in Education are sitting at the hundreds of millions, and we really are not clear where those savings can be found, particularly for a body such as the EA, which has to deliver its statutory functions before anything else can be considered. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see where the cutbacks can be made. The feedback that I am receiving from EA officials is that they are really concerned that services are at breaking point.

I emphasise that we need to hear from the Education Minister a strategic vision of how he will transform the system. That is a long-term project, but we need to start hearing what the direction of travel is to reduce waste in the system, to tackle the cost of division and to look seriously at the sustainability of the school estate. I do not see any particular evidence in these Estimates for how that can be delivered in Education. They look at just delivering business as usual, as far as I can tell. I would like to see investment in areas that deliver some of the strategic change that is needed, but perhaps more can be said about those issues when we speak to the Budget issues next week.

Finally, we look to the investment that is coming from all Departments, but I emphasise that, while these institutions remain unreformed, our finances will always remain on an unstable footing: while vetoes remain in the Assembly, similarly, the financial stability of the institutions remains at risk.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the AERA Committee on the Supply resolution for the Main Estimates 2025-26 as relevant to DAERA.

Looking at the overall picture for 2025-26 compared with the previous year, I see that DAERA has £630·7 million resource DEL, which is a £21·7 million increase on this point in 2024-25. The total net capital budget is £119·5 million compared with around £97·5 million for 2024-25. However, as with last year, those allocations do not cover what is needed and what was bid for by DAERA. For example, on capital DEL, the allocation is £119·5 million, which is £7·1 million less than DAERA's £126·6 million inescapable and high-priority bids. Therefore, we support the Minister and agreed that he make an opening overcommitment of £15 million on the capital allocation. That was unfortunate, but the Committee recognises that the final budget remains an extremely difficult outcome for DAERA.

On 5 June, the Committee will discuss with officials the bids for June monitoring to determine the extent of the pressures, which I will return to later in my remarks. The Committee has held a number of meetings with the Minister and DAERA officials on the budgetary pressures of 2024-25 and those of 2025-26. I highlighted a range of those across DAERA's remit in the Chamber on 19 May, and I will not return to that. The Committee remains concerned about the disparity between the resource DEL bids and the allocations for specific statutory functions and projects, ranging from as little as one sixth to around one half of what was bid for.

I will now focus on some of the subheading detail under the total net budget. Food and farming allocations are lower at this stage, with around £439 million net resource compared with provision of £450 million last year. For capital, there is an increase to around £79 million compared with provision of almost £62 million last year.

For veterinary and animal health, we are seeing a consistent downward trajectory, with net resources at around £81 million for 2025-26 compared with provisions of around £113 million in 2024-25, which was already £20 million lower than 2023-24. The Committee has heard of the increase in bovine tuberculosis, the difficulties in vet recruitment and the need to monitor other animal health diseases, such as avian flu and sheep scab, and to improve animal welfare generally. The budget will not support the Minister in that regard, particularly in the payment of bovine tuberculosis statutory compensation. He will again rely on monitoring rounds to fund that and other statutory duties.

The resource allocation for rural affairs is around £16 million, slightly up on last year's provision of £15 million for 2024-25, and capital is much lower at around £1·2 million compared with provision of over £7 million for 2024-25. The impact of the loss of EU funding in that area is still being felt, and the overall of lack of funding and lack of multi-year budgets has been flagged to the Committee by rural groups on a number of occasions as hugely problematic for the services that they deliver. It is of huge concern to see the resource budget for environment, marine and fisheries with a net resource of around £32 million compared with previous provision of around £66 million in 2024-25. Again, that figure was £8 million lower than the year before.

The capital budget is up slightly, at around £10 million compared with around £8·5 million in the previous year. The Committee has heard about the need to redevelop the aquaculture sector to get it back to where it was over a decade ago and about the difficulties that the fishing industry faces on a number of fronts, but the situation will not be helped by this Budget.

The Committee is pleased to see an increase in net resources for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) from provision of around £34 million in 2024-25 to around £44·5 million for 2025-26. The Committee has been calling for additional resources for the NIEA to improve planning application times, efficiencies and investigations. The NIEA will be aware that it has received emails from many Members about those issues.

What does all of that mean in practice? It does not matter what the allocation is, if it does not meet the need. We know that this is an extremely difficult outcome for the Department, and we will hear from officials on Thursday about the June monitoring round bids for resource and capital. As I stated in the debate on the final Budget, the Committee was pleased to hear that there is to be an agreed indicative Executive-earmarked resource DEL allocation to DAERA in June monitoring of around £1·4 million for employers' National Insurance contributions and £5 million for Lough Neagh, which aligns with the priority:

in the Programme for Government, but it remains a concern of the Committee to hear that the Minister is relying on June monitoring and subsequent monitoring rounds to meet statutory and contractual elements.

It is an understatement to say that there are financially challenging times ahead. With the Programme for Government, however, there is now an overarching framework to support and scrutinise the Minister's spending decisions. I will finish the Committee's comments there and add a few of my own, if that is OK.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: If you will be brief.

Mr Frew: I hear what the Member has said right along, and I know that he is representing the Committee. Does the Committee realise, however, that no Ministers will be able to get the money that they need to meet their needs as they see them and that every Department should look for efficiencies? Is the Committee looking at that issue and putting pressure on DAERA to apply efficiencies throughout the Department?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Robbie, you have an extra minute.

Mr Butler: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that. I can confirm to the Member that the Committee is interested in efficiencies, as all Committees should be. We have put a series of questions to the Department about the different departmental functions, including staffing, recruitment and vacancies that either need or do not need to be filled. The Civil Service and each Department should be in a constant state of review and improvement.

From my and my party's perspective, I will raise a concern about over-reliance on in-year monitoring rounds as a method of budget management. The Member for North Antrim is, however, right to suggest that every Department comes in slightly under budget, but some Departments are affected to a greater extent than others, with DAERA being one. That is coupled with the failure to have a Government here for 11 years out of the past 25. That has meant that we have never built up a head of steam. We also do not have the political legacy to provide our beleaguered constituents with absolute confidence.

Those concerns create a potent and deep instability for our farming and agri-food sector at a time of immense pressure for it. The sector faces a toxic mix of the spiralling cost of bovine tuberculosis, the estimated cost of which is around £60 million in this year alone; delays in a moribund planning system; and uncertainty over the nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals. If we add to those the ongoing confusion about inheritance tax reform for family farms and the looming threat of tariffs, we have an arena that is marked by real financial anxiety.

Environmental and climate goals are rightly ambitious, and I touched on some of those when speaking as Committee Chair. Current funding shortfalls, however, risk turning ambition into broken promises. Our farmers are being asked to do more with less, particularly in the wake of the damaging cuts to rural support that followed Brexit. It is not just about numbers but about livelihoods, heritage and food security.

We need certainty, not scraps from the monitoring round table. The competing demands across our services and sectors require more than ad hoc solutions. We need a realistic UK comprehensive spending review, mature conversations about revenue raising and a shared commitment to building back pride in a Northern Ireland plc that delivers the political stability and the ambition that our people deserve.

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

As Chairperson of the Committee for Communities, I will indicate the Committee's support for the Supply resolution for the Main Estimates for 2025-26. As Members are well aware, the Estimates detail the spending plans of Departments and other public bodies and form the basis for the authorisation of sufficient funding and resources for services, as will be detailed in the corresponding Budget (No. 2) Bill.

The Department for Communities, with its extensive remit aimed at working together to improve communities through tackling poverty and disadvantage, supporting equality and diversity and promoting employment, culture and heritage, accounts for a very significant portion of the overall Budget, not least as it employs over 11,000 staff to deliver vital public services that often provide financial support to those in our community who are most in need. The Main Estimates detail a total net resource departmental expenditure limit for the Department of £954·9 million and a total net capital DEL of £318·1 million. Its resource annually managed expenditure (AME), primarily for social security and pension payments, is projected to be over £10·4 billion. That rise of 7% is driven by forecasts for social security benefit spending this year. Departmental officials recently informed the Committee that, while some pressures have been addressed, the Department faces a non-ring-fenced resource DEL shortfall of £98·6 million or 12% against its identified requirements. Inevitably, that means that many vital services will operate within standstill budgets, which presents considerable challenges in the current economic climate.

I will now drill into some of the specific allocations in the Department for Communities budget. The Committee notes that the capital DEL increase is significantly driven by an additional £100 million allocated for social housing. That is intended to support approximately 900 to 1,000 new social housing starts. Although that is a welcome investment, the Committee remains keenly aware of the broader annual target of 2,000 homes and the ongoing and urgent housing issues here.

On resource spending, the Committee acknowledges the earmarked funding of £16·9 million for benefit delivery staffing, with the aim of recruiting up to 400 additional staff. That is a positive development for maintaining essential services, although we note the Department's advice that the funding has not yet been confirmed as recurrent. The Committee will maintain a keen interest in any forthcoming review of the 1,000 ongoing vacancies, which the Minister referenced in his statement yesterday, and the potential impact on front-line service delivery. The Department has also outlined modest uplifts to support its arm's-length bodies (ALBs) and the voluntary and community sector, which face increased pay and National Insurance costs, providing an additional £3·7 million and £2·8 million retrospectively.

For culture, arts, heritage and sport, the Main Estimates detail resource DEL of approximately £105 million and capital DEL of £42·2 million. However, the Department's briefing to the Committee on 8 May indicated that bids for further investment in those sectors could not be met from its initial allocation. Those core responsibilities of the Department must be supported.

The Committee for Communities will continue its detailed scrutiny of the Department's spending decisions and their impact on service delivery. Although today's motion concentrates on providing necessary overarching financial authority, our Committee remains focused on several key areas. We have consistently highlighted the need for clarity on and adequate resourcing of the forthcoming anti-poverty strategy. The strategy is a matter of significant public and Committee interest, and we await its publication and the launch of a consultation on it in the near future. Furthermore, the Committee has repeatedly sought detailed briefings on the Department's plans and funding for the protection and maintenance of our built heritage. That is a critical part of the Department's remit and is worthy of scrutiny. We will also continue to maintain a close watch on the mechanisms that are in place to ensure that funding for vital arts and cultural organisations is distributed in a timely and effective manner to allow them to sustain their invaluable work.

The Committee acknowledges the challenging financial environment faced by all Departments. There can be little doubt that the block grant significantly misses the mark, and we await the British Government's response to Professor Gerry Holtham's forthcoming review, which we expect to confirm that the North remains underfunded compared with relative need. We also look forward to the potential for greater long-term planning that may arise from the upcoming British Government comprehensive spending review and the Executive's move to multi-year budgeting. That, alongside the development of departmental five-year plans, should provide a more stable financial footing in the years ahead. However, we are acutely aware that the British Government are consulting on reform of the health and disability benefits system and employment support and have signalled a partial U-turn on winter fuel payments, which may lead to new or different budgetary pressures. Those issues are creating significant anxiety and concern in our community.

The Committee for Communities will, of course, continue its diligent scrutiny throughout this financial year. That will include scrutiny of the in-year monitoring rounds and the anticipated changes to the benefits landscape to emanate from Westminster.

The Minister yesterday made significant announcements on a range of areas, including housing; employment support; public realm; the arts; and sport. The Committee looks forward to working with the Minister to see those projects delivered and to scrutinising the detail once he is in a position to update the Committee.

Mr Frew: Members lament — I know that I do — having to talk in a Budget debate again. It is just a constant cycle. I will address the issues that I have found in the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2025-26. Whilst there have been improvements in linking the Main Estimates with the Programme for Government and the legislative programme, you can still see massive gaps. You can see where improvements have been made, but we are nowhere near there yet, and, because we are not there yet, it is causing violence to the Programme for Government and the Budget. I will not have time to go through everything that I have studied in what is a substantial document, so I will pick out some of the issues.

The leader of the Opposition was right to mention the Communities Minister's utterances yesterday about his budget allocation. I will start with housing. Housing is a massive issue. It is one of the issues in the Programme for Government that need to be funded through the Budget. What I got from the Communities Minister yesterday was hope — hope that he can manage what he has, hope that he can get more money through monitoring rounds and hope that he can meet his target, as he did last year. That is exactly what we need to hear from Ministers. We need Ministers to look at their budget, see the restraints and sense where they can make differences. That is why we have locally accountable Ministers. None of us ever has enough money. That goes for households, daily living and Departments. We need Ministers to knuckle down and drill down into efficiencies in their Departments. It is not just about making efficiency savings but about looking at how we can do things better and better help our people. Sometimes when we hear laments, sad stories and sob stories here about not having enough money, it really gets me down, because that is not what we want to hear from politicians. We want to see and feel hope.

One of the issues that I will raise is in the DAERA Main Estimates. The introduction states:

It is clear that all that the Alliance Minister cares about is net zero. It does not matter how much he will destroy in our farming industry and our rural communities to meet targets that are unachievable and have been since they were set. What does that do? It increases poverty. He will do violence, if he pushes through his nutrients action programme, which, by the way, our party opposes and which, as far as I know through public utterances, Sinn Féin opposes. A majority in the House are opposed to the direction that the AERA Minister will impose and that he will need to fund through his budget. It is a farcical situation, because the Executive are not joined up, if the AERA Minister can impose that against the wishes of the rest of the Executive and the Assembly.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. Before the Assembly was restored, Members from across parties were waxing lyrical about the environmental crisis at Lough Neagh. What does he propose that the Minister do: stand over the environmental crisis that is unfolding before our eyes and do nothing?

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

Mr Frew: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Of course the environment is really important, but why is he throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Why has he not consulted the farming community? Why will he not work with the farming community? Why is he burying his head in the sand on NAP?

NAP is a disaster. I have read it, and it is an absolute disaster for the rural community, our farming industry, our exporters and the people who produce our food.

The current plans pose a serious threat to our farming sector and food production, risking livelihoods, putting more people into poverty, cutting livestock numbers, affecting food production and threatening Northern Ireland's ability to produce the food that we need and that we need to export. That spells disaster, yet the Minister is going to preside over the disastrous policy, which does violence to other PFG priorities such as "Grow a Globally Competitive and Sustainable Economy". On the one hand, a Department is driving forward on one goal in the Programme for Government; on the other, it will do violence to the other priorities in it. That is not sustainable. That is not effective government. That is not an efficient Executive. The Assembly will have to have a say on it.

That is just one of the issues that I see that can become farcical because of this and the silo mentality of Departments. It is good that improvements have been made and that the Budget can sometimes align with the Programme for Government. However, what we have discovered is that Departments can also do violence to other priorities in the Programme for Government.

Again, with the Department of Health, the legislative programme suggests that the Minister will introduce a public health Bill. It has not gone away, you know: it is still there and being consulted on. That will cause massive damage to public health. It will give dictatorial powers to one Minister in this place to lock people down and to ban sports. What will that do? It does violence to the "Cut Health Waiting Times" priority and to the "Ending Violence Against Women and Girls" priority, because we know that, during lockdown, such violence increased. It will also do violence to the priority on better support for children and young people. I could go through more in the Programme for Government that the public health Bill will damage. We are still waiting to see what the Minister of Health produces.

Those are just some examples of how Departments in their silos and Ministers in their aims and objectives can do massive damage to this place that we call Northern Ireland. They can do great damage to the Executive and to the Assembly that tries to help and support them. It will do harm, not good, to our people, as the Executive did during the pandemic and the zombie Assembly did when it allowed that to happen.

We need to make sure, as MLAs, that we scrutinise every move that is made, not just those by the Department of Finance or the Finance Minister. He has produced a Budget. Every Member here will decide whether it is good or bad. However, it really gets me down when Ministers say, "I do not have enough money to do what I need to do", yet they will do violence to other Departments and other aims and objectives in the Programme for Government through some of the aims and objectives that they pursue. That cannot stand.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): The Main Estimates indicate that the Department has been allocated a budget of approximately £243 million of resource DEL. Some £212 million of that is earmarked, which means that only a small amount of baseline funds is available to the Department to react to emerging challenges. In addition, the Department will receive £16 million for capital projects to support areas such as good relations and the Department's arm's-length bodies (ALBs). In relation to the ALBs, the Committee looks forward to visiting the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation later this year to discuss the site in further detail and to look at how investment is being used to good effect.

The Department has received an increase of £57 million in its budget allocations for resource DEL since last year's Estimates. There are a number of reasons for those increases. The Department has earmarked a further £50 million in respect of funding for the historical institutional abuse redress scheme and support services, the victims' payment schemes and commitments under the truth recovery programme. Those costs could increase further once legislation is passed for the establishment of an inquiry and redress scheme for the mother-and-baby institutions. The Committee is eager to look into the details of that when the Bill that establishes an inquiry proceeds to Committee Stage. Hopefully, that will happen before the summer recess.

The Department has also seen a further increase in resource DEL of over £49 million since the 2024-25 spring Supplementary Estimates. That funding includes increased provision for Communities in Transition funding, the Windsor framework programme, refugee and asylum support and integration funding. It is important to get that extra money to the right people. Without those resources, groups on the ground cannot continue their work on peace and reconciliation and good relations or support people who are affected by the pressures of our society. The Committee looks forward to undertaking further scrutiny of the Department's finances in the coming weeks and months.

Miss Dolan: While the motion is largely technical in nature, it provides us with another opportunity to discuss the Budget and our overall financial position. I begin by recognising the ongoing efforts of the Finance Minister to prioritise the delivery of public services in challenging financial circumstances due to increasing costs and the British Government's continued policy of austerity.

The launch of the cross-border health reimbursement scheme this week is a key example of the work that is being done at a local level to reduce the pressure on our health service and make a meaningful difference in people's daily life. Together with additional funding for childcare and investment to protect the environment and to support the strategy to end violence against women and girls, the money that is being allocated to various Departments and public services reflects the priorities in the Programme for Government.

As we are aware, however, negative spending decisions by the British Government continue to have a detrimental impact on our ability to deliver the public services that our people deserve, as the Executive do not have the fiscal powers to mitigate negative spending decisions that are made in Westminster. This week, the Finance Minister met Treasury again. It is the continuation of the work that he and, indeed, his predecessors in the role have been doing to ensure that we have a fair funding model. The Minister intends to move towards multi-year Budgets following this year. That has the potential to enable Departments to make plans on a longer-term strategic basis. However, increasing the capacity and ability of our public services also requires a change in direction by the British Government. I hope that they will take the opportunity in their upcoming spending review to do just that.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): As I have said during previous debates, the Committee for Infrastructure has spent considerable time exploring the financial position of the Department for Infrastructure and the organisations that it funds to assess the potential impacts that that might have on real terms delivery over the course of this financial year. We know that many of the priorities under the Programme for Government are dependent upon our having a well-maintained and fit-for-purpose infrastructure network that seeks to complement the aspirations that can be delivered through growth to our economy and to support the lives of the those who call Northern Ireland home.

It will come as no surprise that the funding of Northern Ireland Water has been a recurring issue, not only for the Committee for Infrastructure but for other Committees. As I have stated repeatedly, the Committee recognises the funding constraints and the level of funding that the Department provides. However, we also need to recognise that the Department sets the policies, and, through the price control process, a determination is made by the Utility Regulator on the funding requirements to deliver those policies.

At its meeting next week, the Committee will receive oral evidence on the final allocations in the Main Estimates. I note, however, that Northern Ireland Water's capital allocation is approximately £332 million. Although that essentially provides a nominal increase in the region of £8 million, compared with the indicative allocation of £323·7 million in the Department's equality impact assessment, it still falls way below the determination under price control 2021-27 (PC21). Moreover, given the Executive's reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) capital borrowing of £105·7 million, that would provide a significant uplift to Northern Ireland Water if that were in addition to what it received in the previous financial year. It would appear, however, that that borrowing is being used to maintain similar levels to the 2023-24 Main Estimates, albeit with a modest increase for Northern Ireland Water, to enable additional funding to be provided to other business areas in the Department.

I note that the Main Estimates 2024-25 provided approximately £245 million for roads, rivers and waterways. In the Main Estimates 2025-26, I see that that has increased to £336 million, some £91 million more. That is particularly relevant since essential updates to our already ageing water infrastructure cannot be commenced, which will undoubtedly impact on the delivery of the Programme for Government priorities. In addition, the Committee will be keen to explore the significant improvements that will be delivered because of that increased funding for roads, rivers and waterways. I am sure that that will form part of its ongoing scrutiny throughout the financial year. It is important that the Committee has a clear understanding of the rationale underpinning those decisions over the coming weeks.

Balancing a budget is not easy, particularly when resources are constrained, but it is essential that the Committee can work collaboratively with the Minister to understand her decisions and what improvements will be delivered. Increased funding to other business areas will mean that more can be delivered to improve the condition of our road network through a well-funded maintenance programme and comprehensive winter service. It is no secret that the Committee continues to be concerned by wider road safety issues. Therefore, I urge the Department and relevant stakeholders to place a particular focus on tackling irresponsible driver behaviour.

Turning to Translink, the Committee recognises the legitimate concerns around the impacts of reduced funding on services to those living with disabilities who are reliant on public transport. I am confident that the Committee will seek to engage not only with Translink but with relevant representative groups to examine the impacts that arise from the funding for this financial year. Moreover, day by day, the commitments under the Climate Change Act will become more of a reality, which will require significant and sustained funding to encourage a modal shift from our reliance on cars. Our public transport system will play a key part in achieving those commitments, but without the necessary funding to provide a reliable and convenient alternative, particularly in rural areas, road users will be reluctant to make the switch.

As Chairperson, I am confident that, as a Committee, we are all working towards the common purpose of improved delivery to the benefit of everyone across Northern Ireland.

I will talk briefly as DUP infrastructure spokesperson and as an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I pinpoint my comments in relation to NI Water and the concerns there. Infrastructure has a huge capital budget, and that really needs to be planned on a multi-year budget to make sure that planning is appropriate for the road infrastructure projects that we have, particularly when you look at PC21. However, I am concerned about the sustainability of funding for Northern Ireland Water and the constraints that that places not only on Northern Ireland Water but on investors and developers in Northern Ireland. We are hearing from construction companies about the difficulties that they are having with employment as a result of underfunding in NI Water and the difficulties in getting housing up and going. It is causing difficulties with social and affordable homes and with school capital builds. We need to be realistic about that.

Infrastructure is an important part of being able to deliver our Programme for Government aims and achievements. I am just not wholly sold on things like developer-led contributions, because that will increase housing prices for homeowners. We need to look very carefully at the measures that we put in place. However, I am confident that the Committee will continue to scrutinise that.

Dr Aiken: I welcome the chance to make some comments today on the Main Estimates 2025-26. First, I acknowledge fully that few, if any, Departments or ALBs will be pleased with the current budgetary position. We do not underestimate for one moment the challenges facing a number of our public services. We also sincerely hope that this is the last time that the Assembly and the Departments are given no choice but to work to short-term, single-year budget plans.

Minister, it would be much appreciated if you took the opportunity in your remarks at the end of the debate to update us on any discussions that you have had with Treasury about the CSR.

Such financial uncertainty has no greater impact anywhere than it does in our health service. For over a decade, through financial uncertainty and repeated political instability, our health service has been expected simply to carry on. In the main, it has just about managed to do that, but, regrettably, our patients and health workers have been left to pay the price.

With a budget of £8·4 billion, we acknowledge that our health service is receiving a significant proportion of the overall block grant Budget — that is fairly much in line with the rest of our nation — and I appreciate the importance of trying to align spend with what is in the PFG. The Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, has already set out a clear set of actions. On Friday, he published a detailed revised version of the elective care framework, which sets out in black and white how he is going to spend the money that has been set aside this year. Many thousands of patients are going to benefit directly. We also welcome his commitment to what has long been our party's priority: support for the youngest patients and those people who have been waiting for the longest.

However, once again, we need to be honest with the public. The majority — over three quarters — of the £215 million that has been presented as a new waiting-times package already existed within the Health budget, but, now, has instead been ring-fenced internally. The Executive's approach has only exacerbated the overall shortfall that our Department already faced. Speaking to the Health Committee last week, the Minister was clear that he will not be able to do all that he needs to do, or wants to do, given the significant funding gap of £600 million.

We understand Members' genuine frustration that, at times, the Department of Health says that it faces x amount of a funding shortfall, but, by the end of the year, the gap has closed. I appreciate what you said, Mr Frew: we spend a lot of time scrutinising the documents as they come through. However, to be clear, this year's circumstances are very different. Extensive saving plans have been baked in, avoidable costs have been stripped out and the new permanent secretary has devised a welcome new approach to financial sustainability. The good news is that by bringing in somebody from outside, he seems to have brought in new thinking. We might encourage other Departments to do the same.

The Assembly and Executive will soon have to take a decision: should we be telling the Minister of Health not to pay our health workers the most recent set of pay award recommendations, which they deserve, or to give the trusts the go-ahead to implement devastating and counterproductive cuts to front-line healthcare; or should we be encouraging all Ministers to urgently try to get to grips with the 2025-26 situation and come up with solutions? I understand that that is much easier said than done. In the meantime, it is only right that we ask every Minister, including the Health Minister, and senior civil servant to continue all efforts to ensure that the funding that is set out in the Main Estimates is being spent in the most efficient and streamlined manner possible.

Mr Chambers: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Certainly.

Mr Chambers: Does the Member agree that multi-year Budgets would be helpful to all Departments?

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

Dr Aiken: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for the intervention. Yes, of course, multi-year Budgets would be very helpful. I have previously asked the Finance Minister to give us an indication of how we are going to look for the next couple of years, and whether the Treasury is likely to sign off on that, because multi-year Budgets is definitely where we need to be.

Major progress has already been made in Health, with the slashing of off-contract agency costs and better workforce planning. The most recent announcement on commissioning places will also help to put Health's finances on a more sustainable footing. However, we need to be realistic and recognise that we cannot simply wish away the problem of the shortfall in the Health budget.

Mrs Dodds: I appreciate the Member giving way. You make some important points, particularly around the idea of new thinking about how to manage our budgets and progress reform. That is very important, and we look forward to meeting Mike Farrar to get the detail. You also make a point about the budget shortfall for Health. I recognise fully how challenging that budget is. Do you agree that it is important that we have accountability from the trusts on how they spend their budgets — particularly from the Belfast Trust, where we have seen a huge amount of wastage in the capital programme?

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for her extensive remarks. I totally agree. I doff my hat to the Minister of Finance. One of the most difficult things to control across government is spending in ALBs. They do not even report to the same accounting standard or at the same time. Who is actually accountable and responsible? We are quite happy to chastise Ministers regularly for not doing things, but they might not find out what is going on until the day before, or, indeed, they may not be given the full picture. That says something about the culture out there, which has to change.

The Main Estimates are very clear. They set out the funding envelope within which we have to work and what the Northern Ireland Assembly is supposed to deliver. That money is for the people of Northern Ireland, but a large amount of it is passed to arm's-length bodies. We have heard the frustrations from the Department's officials. They do not know what is going on either. Some of the Department of Finance officials are probably some of the best civil servants in Northern Ireland. If they do not know what is going on in ALBs, including how money is moved around, that is a significant area of concern that we need to look at. The Finance Committee has spent a lot of time looking at monthly out-turns, and there have been some curious shifts of money in those. I mentioned our concerns about the Department for the Economy, bearing in mind that not only did it have its accounts qualified but they were disclaimed. There should be significantly more scrutiny on the funding of any Department in that position.

I will bring my remarks to a close shortly. Given the issues that we have, we need to be able not only to shape the funding available but to ensure that is it spent effectively and efficiently and there is accountability for how it is spent. That may mean asking some extremely hard questions of our officials, such as questions about where delivery and accountability actually lies. We are accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. If we do not do what we are supposed to, we are out. The same question should be asked of the Civil Service.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Time is up.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I apologise for not being present for all the remarks that Members have made. As you will be aware, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, a serious incident took place in the early hours of this morning in North Belfast. Our thoughts are with all those who have been affected.

I welcome the Finance Minister back to his place. We missed him yesterday, but I thank him for his engagement on behalf of the Executive with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We look forward to, hopefully, getting a bit of an update on that important engagement when he makes his concluding remarks.

On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this debate on the Supply resolution. Its passage will authorise the Main Estimates and provide an important paving resolution for the Budget (No. 2) Bill next week. The Economy Committee received oral and written evidence on budget matters from the Department in December, February, April and as recently as last week. The Committee also received the Department's Main Estimates memorandum and, more recently, the impact assessment for budget allocations. It is fair to say that, even with all that briefing, Committee members have greatly struggled to understand the Department's budget position for 2025-26 compared with that of the previous year.

The Committee learned only last week that we are to see a 3% increase in support for skills places and an 8% increase in higher level apprenticeships in 2025-26. It appears that, despite a flat cash allocation, the overall projected numbers for higher education students are to stay the same. For Queen's University, there will be no projected change, whereas, for Ulster University, there will be a reduction in places at the Belfast campus and an increase in places at the Coleraine and Magee campuses. Overall, those are important developments, so it is very strange that members found it almost impossible to get the Department to share that information with the Committee, despite the best endeavours of the Member for Foyle on several occasions.

The impact assessments, which were expected to provide a significant level of detail, told us almost nothing. The Estimates memorandum, which showed us overall trends, also showed almost nothing at the budget line level. The position on the anticipated delivery of key outcomes was not set out to the Committee in a particularly forthcoming way, making our assessment of Budget allocations very difficult.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. My intervention relates particularly to the Department for the Economy and is something that I raised in previous remarks. Bearing in mind the fact that its accounts were disclaimed, do you not think that the Department's accounting officer should be making sure that there is a proper presentation of information to the Committee to enable it to do its job?

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

Mr Brett: My colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee are looking at that issue. Hopefully, the PAC will release its report soon and establish who has primacy. The Committee is keen to get into the detail of the discussions, and it will seek clarity and confirmation that there are not reductions in resource spending and that the support for city and growth deals will not be undermined.

As was indicated in the previous debate on the Budget, pay pressures on the Civil Service and further education have crystallised into additional employers' National Insurance costs. The Department appears to have assured the Committee that it will cover those costs. The Committee pays tribute to the Minister for negotiating a pay settlement for further education lecturers. It would be remiss of me not to put on record my thanks to the Minister for doing that. We remain concerned, however, about how a reduction in Northern Ireland Screen's budget may affect the continuing delivery of successful creative industries here.

The capital budget position is that projects that have been committed to, such as the Magee expansion and the city and growth deals, will be delivered. Other capital projects appear to have been paused.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I am happy to give way.

Mrs Dodds: I am glad that the Member referenced the creative industries. Will he join me in congratulating the Deluxe Group in my constituency, which has received the King's Award for Enterprise in the category of international trade?

Mr Brett: I am happy to join the Member in doing that. Richard and the team down there have done a fantastic job. The new Harry Potter ride, which is to be opened at a Universal Studios park, was produced in Northern Ireland, in the Member's constituency. I congratulate her, because, in her time as Minister for the Economy, she championed that industry, which is proving to be hugely successful.

Notwithstanding the difficulties with Budget scrutiny, I anticipate that the majority of Committee members will support the Supply resolution.

I will now make some comments as a private Member. I have some concerns about the continued funding model for the higher education sector. All our institutions are on record as saying that the current model is not sustainable. Indeed, they all continue to make representations to the Economy Minister. I was therefore disappointed to learn that, rather than issue a statement to the House or to the Committee, she had issued one through the Sinn Féin press office to say that she would not be increasing tuition fees. In doing so, she set out no plan for how she will fund the model moving forward. As a North Belfast representative, I am disappointed that the Department is cutting 250 places at the Ulster University campus there. I recognise, however, that my colleagues who represent the Foyle constituency will warmly welcome the growth this year, by 250 places, at the Magee campus. I pay tribute in particular to my colleague Maurice Bradley, who continues to champion the Coleraine campus and has secured an additional 200 places for it for this year.

I am keen for the Minister of Finance to respond in particular to the June monitoring round position in his closing remarks. The Minister for the Economy has said that she wrote to Executive colleagues to seek additional funding for our higher education sector, and I am keen to ascertain how much she has requested at this stage. It seems that there is already a claim on some of the June monitoring round allocations, so it would be useful if Members could understand how much it is anticipated will be available to all Departments, how much has already been earmarked and what will be left up for grabs, although I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to give an exact figure, given that there will be underspends in some Departments. With that, I bring my remarks to a close.

Mr Gaston: I begin by drawing Members' attention to the total resource and capital expenditure on page vii of the Main Estimates document. It amounts to some £30·8 billion for services in Northern Ireland. Leaving out the non-cash items, the net requirement is some £27·4 billion. We should keep that figure in mind every time that a Minister comes to the House and laments the lack of public money coming from Westminster.

Fundamentally, that expenditure is possible because of the grant to Northern Ireland from Whitehall, which is approved by Westminster in His Majesty's Treasury Northern Ireland Office Main Estimates 2025-26.

The truth is, as the Estimates show, that it is great to be British — I am sure that the Minister will agree — and all the moaning from this place about an alleged lack of money does not obscure that reality. If only the Executive would spend our funds more wisely and efficiently. It seems that, once the "Made in Stormont" logo is attached to the Budget, the wastage begins. If Members want evidence of that, they need only turn to table 5 on pages xxii and xxiii. There we have a summary of our expenditure that rests on the sole authority of the Budget Act. When we last debated the Estimates, I drew Members' attention to a document on the Department of Finance website titled, 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland'. Paragraph 2.5 of that document deals with securing adequate legal authority and states:

However, here we are again, voting on giving over £13·3 million to Departments with no bespoke legislation in place. The Department of Finance document says that the authority of the Budget Act should be relied on only in "certain limited circumstances" and normally for expenditure of "no more than £1·5 million". Yet, in the case of just one Department — the Executive Office — we are approving not one but four such schemes. With over £12·5 million of services being delivered without specific Assembly legislation, the Executive Office is acting in a fashion that is arrogant and disrespectful to the Assembly.

I will stay with the Executive Office for a minute. I note that, on page 168, no income is listed under resource connected to historical institutional abuse. Let me spell out what that means: it means that the institutions in which children suffered abuse, usually but by no means exclusively at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church, have failed to contribute a penny to their victims. That is a scandal, and it was a shameful failure of the Assembly not to build into legislation a requirement for them to contribute to the scheme up front. I hope that that lesson has been learned for future redress schemes that go through TEO. In Scotland, money is paid up front, but not in Stormont.

I will move on to one of the sacred cows of the Assembly: the North/South bodies. On page 14 of the Estimates, we are told that the resource spend on the Loughs Agency is £44,444,000. That is a body that, as I spelt out last week, could disappear in the morning and no one would notice, as its functions are performed by other bodies and it offers only duplication. On page 118, I read that £2,117,000 of resource spending will go to Safefood. I am sure that its employees in County Cork will be grateful, but not one person in Northern Ireland will be employed with that money. That is a scandalous waste when our health budget is under severe pressure.

I turn to page 192 and the spend on the Assembly Commission, which is over £62·6 million. Why is that so generous? It is partly because of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill that the establishment is so keen to rush through the House in order to give MLAs a pay rise. As I learned recently, it is also to fund the media monitoring service, so anyone who dares to be critical of the Assembly and how it operates should know that, when they are on the radio or TV, their every word will be transcribed at the public's expense. Last month, the Commission tendered for such a service at a cost of £35,000 to the public purse that, I assume, is included in the figure of £62·6 million. I ask the Minister, whose Department operates the media monitoring service, this question: is he content to spend that money on that contract? Is it a prudent use of public money? Why do we have two sets of civil servants or contracts, as it will be in the case of the Commission, monitoring the media at public expense? Who benefits from that service? I had never heard of it until I came to the House.

I will finish by saying that I want to put pressure on the Executive. We have the Programme for Government and the Budget. When the Programme for Government was laid out in front of us, it was hailed as a new dawn for the Assembly and for how we would get things done in the House. The Budget does not stack up. It does not meet the commitments in the Programme for Government. We have already seen how 50% of our social housing will not progress this year because of a lack of funds. This place needs to get its house in order. I hope that, when I stand here in future years, we will have a Programme for Government and a Budget that match what has been committed to.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm, as it always does on a Tuesday. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Minister, you will be next Member to speak after Question Time to respond to the debate, and I remind you that you will have 57 minutes. I am sure that we are all looking forward to that.

Mr Speaker: Questions 8 and 11 have been withdrawn.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The main benefit from the recent UK-EU agreement will arise from GB, Northern Ireland and the EU having the same regulations in the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) sphere and in a number of other agri-food areas. The commitment to align regulations should mean the removal of almost all SPS-related certification and controls on the movement of SPS goods between GB and the EU. That, in turn, should make it easier to move agri-foods and plants from GB to NI, with savings to businesses and government. I am aware that the UK Government have published their assessment on the long-run impact of an SPS agreement, which concluded a positive impact of up to 0·14% on GDP. That is equivalent to up to £5·1 billion when compared with projected UK GDP levels in 2040.

I recognise concerns raised by the fishing sector that reciprocal access does not extend to access for Northern Ireland fishing vessels to the Irish 6-to-12 nautical-mile region. However, the extension of the existing arrangements until 2038 brings some certainty for our fishing sector, and there is no guarantee that annual negotiations would result in a better outcome. The UK Government have not yet provided any detail on the proposed £360 million Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, and I continue to press for that.

I am disappointed that veterinary medicines are not in the scope of the agreement, but I will continue to urge the UK Government and the EU to obtain a resolution in order to ensure continued supply.

I emphasise that it will take some time to turn the political agreement into a legal agreement. I am disappointed that customs and wider single market access is not part of the agreement, but I welcome it.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for his answer. Expanding on that theme, has the Minister engaged with local producers to understand the practical effects of the agreement on cross-border trade and, indeed, market access?

Mr Muir: As always, I will continue to engage. I have been speaking to a number of people who have outlined the benefits associated with it and the benefits of our access to the single market for goods. That is an advantage that Northern Ireland has, more broadly, beyond agri-food. It is important that we take advantage of those opportunities but that we also see the implementation of the agreement in a speedy manner, because we want to see the trade frictions that have previously been in place removed.

Mr McAleer: Minister, given the fact that a lot of our food is produced on an island-wide basis, do you see any opportunities from the recent EU-UK agreement to enhance island-wide cooperation in the agri-food sector?

Mr Muir: We already have access to the single market for goods, including agri-food, and there has already been significant cooperation on an all-island basis. For example, the dairy industry has been able to take advantage of the benefits of the Windsor framework around access. The agreement is a reset in relations between the UK and the EU, and it is broader than just agri-food. It is important that that is part of it, but it also allows us to cooperate in other areas, such as emissions trading schemes and the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), and on the environment and climate change. I look forward to the reset and will continue to engage with my colleagues, North/South, east-west and across the EU.

Mr McMurray: What engagement does the Minister plan to have with the UK and EU in advance of any SPS and veterinary agreement being finalised?

Mr Muir: I have been engaging significantly with the UK Government. On the day of the agreement and in the days following, I had meetings with the UK Government, and I will continue to do that. It is important, as it is turned into a legal text, that the needs of Northern Ireland are shaped. I will also be in Brussels next week to engage with the European Union and the relevant bodies that are represented there about that. I will continue to advocate for the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: The policies and proposals for consultation included in the draft climate action plan that relate to livestock focus on improving cattle productivity and harnessing the benefits of genetics and dietary interventions, not herd reduction.

Improvements in livestock productivity are encouraged through a combination of the earlier age at slaughter of clean beef cattle, earlier age at first calving of suckler and dairy heifer replacements and reducing suckler and dairy cow calving intervals. The aim of implementing those productivity improvement actions is to maintain beef and milk output while removing older and more inefficient cattle from the Northern Ireland herd. Those improvements in productivity will be supported through the beef sustainability package, the farming for sustainability knowledge transfer programme, the bovine genetics project and the carbon footprinting project through my Department's sustainable agriculture programme. Mandatory reductions in livestock numbers are not intended to form part of the forthcoming draft climate action plan.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. Over 1,000 people attended a consultation event last week and roundly rejected the nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals. In under a day, around 2,000 people signed a petition launched by my colleague Michelle McIlveen, which calls for those proposals to be scrapped. Minister, why will you not listen? Again, we ask this: will you scrap the NAP proposals and go back to the drawing board?

Mr Muir: Your tabled question for oral answer was about the climate action plan, which relates to greenhouse gas emissions. I will give people their say on that. There is a requirement to undertake a 16-week consultation as part of doing that. Once I get Executive agreement, we will go out to consultation on the climate action plan, just as we are consulting on the draft NAP proposals. It is important to say that they are draft proposals and that there is a public consultation on them. People should have the opportunity to have their say.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister give an update on his plans to establish a just transition fund for agriculture?

Mr Muir: As Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I worked with my Executive colleagues to make a bid to the UK Government for a just transition fund for agriculture. That bid was not successful in the Budget that came out at the end of October last year. I was not defeated. I worked on it, and I was able to secure over £12 million from the Finance Minister for a just transition fund for agriculture in this financial year, and we are delivering that on the ground. We are also setting up a just transition commission for Northern Ireland to ensure that there is fair and just pathway ahead. It is important that we deliver that support to farmers in Northern Ireland.

Mr Carroll: Minister, do you believe that the granting of prospective mineral licences will impact on whether a climate action plan is deliverable, given their cross-cutting nature, and what do you believe will be the wider impact on our water and environment in general?

Mr Muir: I am very conscious that granting those licences is a regulatory decision that sits with the Department for the Economy. I have to respect the process that is followed in relation to that. If the Member wishes to write to me about specific concerns around greenhouse gas emissions and that issue, I would be happy to consider that matter.

Mr Gaston: Minister, last Thursday, in Greenmount, I stood with over 900 farmers who are concerned by the apocalyptic cuts that will result from your nutrients action programme proposals to destock farms. How can you morally put forward proposals that will destroy farming and rob the next generation of their right to inherit a viable family farm? Minister, I urge you to do the right thing by withdrawing those proposals before you destroy the industry.

Mr Muir: There is a lot of misinformation that relates to the question that was posed by Mr Gaston. The proposals are in draft; no final decisions have been taken. I am blue in the face from saying that. It is not about doing what he outlined. It is about ensuring financial and environmental sustainability, which go hand in hand. I encourage people to feed into the consultation because, as Minister, I am engaging with it, as are my officials. I thank my officials for their engagement on the nutrients action programme. They have engaged, and they have listened.

It is important that I put this on record: the social media commentary around the nutrients action programme in recent weeks has been disgraceful. There have been misogynistic comments about officials in my Department. There have been racist comments about people whom we are very fortunate to have working in our agri-food sector. Not for a very long time have I seen such vile homophobic comments about me. I am a gay man, and I am proud to be a gay man. That has no relevance whatsoever to the nutrients action programme or my ability to do this job.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Muir: I am delighted that protecting Lough Neagh is a key priority in the Programme for Government 2024-27. It reinforces the need for the implementation of the science-led actions in the Lough Neagh action plan. We need collective action and support to continue on that journey. I am pleased to report that, of the 37 actions contained in the Lough Neagh action plan, 10 have been delivered, 23 are progressing, and I am committed to driving forward the implementation of the remaining actions. Actions delivered include progress on the Lough Neagh small business research initiatives, enhanced responses to reports of water pollution through an increase in water quality inspectors and an increased focus on areas of highest risk, with DAERA officials undertaking increased waterway inspections in several Lough Neagh catchments of concern. I stress that there are no quick fixes to the issues in Lough Neagh, but the longer that we leave it before we take action, the more costly it will be and the longer it will take to fix.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for that response. Will the Minister provide an update on the nutrients action programme consultation?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Michelle. There is a requirement arising from the Lough Neagh action plan and the environmental improvement plan. There is also a requirement in law to review the nutrients action programme. We are undertaking a consultation on draft proposals. No final decisions have been taken. As I have always stated, it will require Executive referral and decision. I am engaging and listening, and I am prepared to take on board feedback, as always. I really welcomed the opportunity this morning to have what was a challenging but constructive engagement with the Ulster Farmers' Union and Northern Ireland Environment Link. All in the room acknowledged the problem with water quality, and the agreement was that it needs to be resolved. I welcome the work that has been undertaken to date, and we all acknowledge that more needs to be done.

I welcome the outcome from the meeting this morning with the Ulster Farmers' Union and Northern Ireland Environment Link on the importance of everyone complying with existing regulations. People need to play by the rules, and the vast majority of farmers play by the rules. Let us put that on record. The focus must always be on the people who do not. I reassured everyone in the room that these are draft proposals. I heard their concerns and reiterated that no final decisions have been taken. I found it very heartening to have constructive discussions about the potential of setting up a stakeholder group consisting of agri-food and environmental stakeholders to consider the nutrients action programme proposals and the responses from the consultation to inform decisions on what will be implemented and the time frames for that. It is clear that time frames for implementation are very important to all concerned, and we need to find a way through that together. In respect of science and evidence, I provided reassurance about the processes in place.

Ms Finnegan: I express my heartfelt disappointment in hearing about the social media comments that the Minister has endured. It is absolutely disgraceful and should never be the case.

With regard to the recently released NAP consultation introduced to protect our waterways, there is obviously huge concern from farmers. In the context of that, has the Department undertaken any modelling of how the proposed changes to the nutrients action programme could affect livestock stocking rates or the economic viability of the different farming systems?

Mr Muir: Thank you for your kind comments. They are appreciated.

A regulatory impact assessment has already been undertaken, and we will undertake an economic impact assessment. Let us be very clear: my agenda is not about herd reduction; it is about financial and environmental sustainability. The outcome from the meeting this morning was really positive. The immediate focus has to be on ensuring that people are playing by the current rules around the nutrients action programme. That is what we are going to focus on, and I am confident that we will find a way forward in relation to that.

Mr Clarke: I join the previous Member in saying that no one should personalise those things against anyone. I am sorry to hear your comments around that, Minister. That should not be the case for anyone. I do not support that commentary.

In your response today, you referred to water quality and to your scientists. What do you say about your former Chief Scientific Adviser, Dr Sinclair Mayne, who was appointed in 2016, being there last week among the other 900,000-odd people who were arguing against the science? He is an esteemed character who is renowned in his field. Do you have confidence when a former colleague of your scientists was on a platform last week disagreeing with the science that is being used for the proposals?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Trevor, for your kind remarks. In the discourse around this and many other issues, it is much better to play the ball and not the player. There is a consultation on the issue. There are many good people across the Chamber for whom I have a lot of respect, and we can debate these things. Let us find a way forward.

My Chief Scientific Adviser is Alistair Carson. I was with him this morning. I have respect for the different opinions on the issue. I am conscious that there is discourse on the science and the evidence. Processes are in place in the Department to seek independent expert scientific advice and to commission external peer reviews of any issues that may need to be considered transparently and robustly off the back of the consultation. I want to ensure that we get external independent assessment of some of the stuff that has been raised with me. I need to satisfy myself before I bring forward any final proposals. I also need to satisfy people who respond to the consultation that their concerns have been addressed. We will do that.

Mr Butler: I associate myself with the comments that have been made across the House. Holding any Minister's feet to the fire should never descend into personal attack, particularly around sexual orientation, so the Minister has my full solidarity on that matter.

Minister, I will hold your feet to the fire, however. There is a disconnect between the Department, you and the farming community. I have heard the statement "Nothing about us without us": what will you do to restore confidence among the farming community that any future development of the NAP will have that community's voice at the centre of it? The farming community will be key to delivering clear and clean water and will be our environmental champions.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Robbie. It was really good to meet you and the Deputy Chair beforehand, and I thank you for your ongoing productive relationship with me and the Department.

We have a challenge here. We have a crisis in water quality. It is not just Lough Neagh: Lough Erne and many other waterbodies across Northern Ireland are in a critical state. Forty per cent of our drinking water comes from Lough Neagh, so we have to address the issue. We also need to ensure financial viability and sustainability in the long term for agriculture, and that is what I am commissioned to do. It is a tough ask, but I am determined to do it. This is the challenge of my life, and I will deliver on it. We have to do that, because we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland.

I am very conscious of the concerns that have been expressed not just about agri-food but by environmental groups. They are coming to me with legitimate concerns, such as, "Is this going to be the situation for ever and ever?". Today's discussions with the Ulster Farmers' Union and Northern Ireland Environment Link are about setting up a stakeholder group that will bring together all the relevant people to consider what will be brought forward and when and how we go forward with the measures. That is really positive, and I want to take that forward.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I add my voice to those who stand in opposition to any inappropriate, homophobic remarks. That is utterly disgusting. You have the Opposition's support in calling that out. You are doing your job as a Minister, and you can be challenged on substance but not on anything else.

Minister, it is clear that Lough Neagh is an environmental crisis and will require action on nutrients overload. That is a fact; it is not subject to debate. There must also be investment in NI Water. It is a twin-track thing. Both issues need to be dealt with. On NI Water investment, are you disappointed about and have you raised with your colleagues the fact that this year's budget —

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, could we get a question, please?

Mr O'Toole: — has a below-inflation increase for waste water?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Matthew, for your kind comments. Some of the social media commentary from well-known personalities and the comments below that commentary — they are platforming it — do not reflect the farming community in Northern Ireland. The reception that I have had from all arts and parts in Northern Ireland has been extremely welcoming and extremely positive. Some of the groups that I have engaged with, such as the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster, are really positive examples of inclusivity when it comes to the future of Northern Ireland. I want to put that on the record. We are all clear that there are challenges here, but there is no need to engage in such comments. Some of the comments against officials in my Department are really despicable.

You raised the important issue of sewage pollution. I met the Infrastructure Minister yesterday about that. My role is in regulation and enforcement of that sewage pollution. What is happening is not right, and I am the first Minister to grasp the issue of regulation and enforcement. The bye ball that was given to NI Water when it was established in 2007 — the permission to pollute under the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) — is wrong. I want to see an end to that: I want NI Water to be treated like all other polluters in Northern Ireland. It is wrong that NI Water is given special status in that regard. Alongside that, we need to see investment in waste water infrastructure, and it is for everyone in the Chamber to engage with the Infrastructure Minister on that. I will not be found wanting in dealing with all forms of pollution, because it is a critical issue for us all.

Mr Muir: I welcome the success of the carrier bag levy, which, since its introduction in 2013, has already removed approximately 2·4 billion bags from circulation across Northern Ireland. Our carrier bag levy is the most extensive of its kind across the UK and extends to bags of all materials, not just plastic bags. The primary objective of the levy is to influence customer behaviour that will promote a reduction in the number of carrier bags in circulation. The latest carrier bag levy annual statistics, published on 22 August last year, show that the number of carrier bags dispensed in 2023-24 was 8·1% lower than in the previous year. In addition to the levy's environmental aims, the funds generated from it are made available to support environmentally beneficial programmes and initiatives.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. To what extent has the levy contributed to Northern Ireland's overall recycling and waste reduction targets?

Mr Muir: It has made a contribution. In the greater scheme of what we can do on household recycling, it is not that significant, but it has an important role to play not just in recycling but in reducing waste going into, for example, our marine environment, which is something that we want to deal with. There is a wider sphere of work that we need to do to increase recycling not just by households but by businesses. I consulted on that last year, and we will bring forward proposals on that. I will also consult on a waste management strategy.

Mr McReynolds: To date, how have projects funded by the carrier bag levy benefited the environment?

Mr Muir: The carrier bag levy income is used to fund environmental projects, and each project is assessed against the environmental benefits that it can deliver. While all the projects and their benefits are too numerous to list today, I would like to highlight just a few examples.

The levy funds the reuse and repair initiative, which is run by the Northern Ireland Resources Network. I know that the East Belfast Mission in the Member's constituency is a member of that network and is actively involved in reuse and repair activities for the good of the environment and society. It was the reuse and repair initiative in Bangor that repaired a light in my house, and I thank it for that. The levy also funds the multimillion-pound environment fund, which delivers projects that protect and improve habitats, landscapes and the quality of air and water. It enhances access to the natural environment, with associated benefits to health and well-being and improved environmental education. Those are just some of the environmental benefits that the carrier bag levy income delivers every year.

Mr Muir: I am pleased to report that, alongside the EFRA Secretary of State, I approved the appointment of the UK Deposit Management Organisation (DMO) on 6 May as the operator of the deposit return scheme (DRS) in England and Northern Ireland. Subject to parliamentary approval, it has also been designated as the DRS scheme administrator in Scotland.

The UK DMO is an independent, not-for-profit, business-led organisation appointed by the Government to develop and ultimately deliver the schemes day-to-day. Importantly, the DMO's role is to create the necessary infrastructure and run the deposit return scheme. That means managing producer registrations, flow of deposits, financial obligations and the effective collection of drinks containers and ensuring that recycling rates improve over time. The appointment proceeds from the making of the Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 on 23 January.

My officials will continue to engage collaboratively with the UK DMO to meet our collective ambition for the DRS.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. I also offer my solidarity and support to him and his officials in the face of the abhorrent abuse that he has been on the receiving end of.

Is the Minister aware of what budget will be required to roll out the deposit return scheme? What lessons can be learned from the scheme in the South to minimise inconvenience and expense and maximise environmental benefit?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Mark, and thank you for your kind comments. It is important for you to say that, and I appreciate it.

The deposit return scheme will be positive. There is a value in the products that are being returned, so that will help people to understand the scheme's financial viability going forward.

There are lots of lessons to be learned from the South, which has had DRS in place since February last year. I am jealous of that, given that it has not yet been rolled out across the UK, essentially because the previous Government were more interested in bickering with other parts of the UK on the issues. EFRA Secretary of State, Steve Reed, and I will go down South and see it being rolled out. I saw it in Dundalk, and I want to show him that. It will be good to see the scheme rolled out North and South.

Ms Egan: Minister, I would also like to add that the abuse that you, your officials and others in the sector have received is totally unacceptable.

How will the deposit return scheme align with those in the rest of the UK and Ireland?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Connie. Your comments are very much appreciated.

The scheme will align with those in England, Scotland and the South of Ireland. Wales has decided to do its own thing, and I have meeting with Welsh officials on the matter afterwards. It is good that there will be North/South alignment, and, hopefully, we will see a cultural change. In Northern Ireland, we have a history of DRSs. We used to bring back lemonade bottles to get money for them. I remember collecting them as a child. We are essentially rolling out something that existed a long time ago.

Mr Muir: Provision of funding for local shows is not a statutory obligation under the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949, and opportunities for financial support in the form of discretionary sponsorship are extremely limited. One such potential opportunity for funding exists under the Northern Ireland regional food programme delivered by DAERA. The scheme provides funding for the promotion of local food and drink at regional fairs and exhibitions, which includes agricultural shows. Following the recent competition, five local agricultural shows applied for funding. All five were successful, with letters of offer totalling £36,939·68 being issued to the Antrim, Armagh, Ballymoney, Castlewellan and Clogher shows. Any potential further support will be to cover costs associated with my Department's exhibits at agricultural shows during the 2025 show season.

I met representatives from the agricultural show industry and had a good engagement with them on the future support that will potentially be available through our future rural policy, and consideration will be given to hosting a business stakeholder engagement to allow for the co-design of that policy.

Mr Middleton: Minister, I thank you for that extensive response and join others in condemning those who have attacked you personally or your officials. It is unacceptable and needs to be called out.

Agricultural shows are welcome opportunities to showcase the industry. They also offer DAERA a useful opportunity to encourage people to enter the sector. Are there any further plans for the Department to expand its offering at those shows?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much for your question, Gary, and thank you for your kind comments.

DAERA generally has a presence at those shows, and I think that that presence is warmly welcomed. They are a good opportunity for engagement with the agriculture community, and we will continue that engagement alongside the support that I previously outlined. Agricultural shows are a part of rural life, and that is why, in future rural policy, I want to consider how we can mainstream them.

Ms Murphy: Minister, I also record my solidarity with you following some of the disgraceful commentary on social media.

Will you consider undertaking a cost-benefit analysis to determine the return that rural economies get off the back of financial investment in agricultural shows?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much for your question, and thank you for your kind comments.

An independent resilience review was undertaken, and, as far as I am aware, it is on our website. Hopefully, it will outline a bit more on the evaluation of the importance of shows in Northern Ireland. The review was given full consideration, but, in the financial context that we are in, my focus is on meeting statutory obligations, such as discharging our obligation on bovine TB compensation. I want to see what more we can do as part of rural policy, and that is why we want to consider how agricultural shows fit into that.

Mr Muir: The puppy-smuggling trade in Northern Ireland commonly involves rogue dog breeders and puppy traffickers attempting to transport low-welfare pups via the two main ferry ports in Northern Ireland to be offered for sale in Great Britain. My Department created the Paws for Thought multi-agency group in 2020 to coordinate the actions of relevant statutory agencies here in order to disrupt the trafficking of low-welfare pups. The group comprises representatives from the police, HMRC, local councils, Belfast Harbour Police, ferry companies and DAERA officials. I met the group last year and saw its operation in action.

Through the group, it has been possible to target individuals who are known to be moving consignments of low-welfare pups to Great Britain through ferry terminals. That joined-up working has resulted in a significant number of seizures of pups and in criminal convictions for those involved. In addition to the targeted checks, councils carry out follow-up activity to identify potential illegal breeding sites. Since the group's inception, statistics gathered by my Department suggest that the number of pups being moved from Northern Ireland to Great Britain for sale through our ports has fallen by about 50%. That shows that the enhanced scrutiny of those movements has successfully deterred unscrupulous traders and transporters who do not care about animal welfare.

As well as pups that have been illegally bred in Northern Ireland, my Department and its partner agencies remain aware that pups are being moved into Northern Ireland illegally from unlicensed breeding establishments in the Republic of Ireland. My officials have met their counterparts in the South to discuss how we can facilitate the exchange of information so that more can be done to tackle those operations at their source. In addition, my Department continues to run a social media-led awareness campaign to highlight the role that everyone has to play in tackling puppy smuggling.

Mr Speaker: We must move to topical questions.

Mr Muir: First, thank you for that, Patsy. I am thick-skinned enough to be able take some of the comments that were aimed at me. They were a bit shocking: I have not seen anything like that since the '90s. Some of the comments about foreign nationals who are working in our agri-food sector were beneath contempt, and it is important that we call them out. We can have a rational discussion about these things, but it should not descend into that. Some of the comments that have been made against officials are wrong.

I am not aware of any planned review of office accommodation. We do keep that under review because we want to make sure that we are managing our money effectively when it comes to accommodation. If you have concerns about sites that you feel are not being fully utilised, I am happy to discuss them with you.

Mr McGlone: The assurance that I seek from you, Minister, is that there will be no diminution of services or depletion of access to services, especially for those of us who live in rural areas.

Mr Muir: That is an important issue, Patsy. The DAERA Direct offices, for example, are really important. It is important that my departmental headquarters are in the north-west and that a number of staff are able to base themselves there whilst having the flexibility to work from home. It is important that we serve all our communities across Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: I was pleased to see that a range of climate change-related questions were included in the most recent life and times survey, which is well established. A clear majority of respondents view climate change as a serious threat, support international cooperation and political action to address it and want local politicians to do more to tackle climate change. I was also heartened to see that the majority of respondents felt a personal responsibility to play their part in reducing climate change. Those results are encouraging for the direction of travel that Northern Ireland is taking to address one of the most pressing challenges that we face. I share those concerns, and decisive action in that area is one of my key priorities.

You will recall that the Assembly declared a climate emergency in 2020 — I made my maiden speech when we did that — and we passed the Climate Change Act 2022 unanimously at its Final Reading. Those were significant and welcome developments. My Department has been working at pace to implement many of the Act's requirements, including the introduction of climate reporting for public bodies; producing the first three carbon budgets; and taking forward work to establish a just transition commission. We have more to do, and I will continue to work with my Executive colleagues to do that.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister, for that really encouraging response. What more can the Executive do to move faster on climate action?

Mr Muir: There are a number of things that we must do in response to climate change. We have to take actions to mitigate and adapt. The fact that the institutions did not sit for two years is why we are behind on the climate action plan 2023-27. That is with the Executive for agreement, so, once we have that, we will consult and get people's views on it. We have over 250 proposals on adaption, which will go out for consultation very soon. It is important that we get people's views.

The third issue is funding. We need to be able to deliver a just transition, but we also need to invest in the future and create good green jobs. I am engaging with the UK Government on that. I would like to be able to go to them with a green growth strategy as a template for delivering those good green jobs in Northern Ireland. That is why I continue to seek Executive agreement on that strategy. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband, wrote to me yesterday and is very amenable to engaging with me and my Department so that we can create those good green jobs and decarbonise our society.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Doug. The registration of dogs and the requirement to update records has been identified as a really important issue. It is part of the animal welfare pathway that we announced. That has 10 actions that will be taken forward between now and the end of the mandate. One such action is on the registration of dogs, because we want to make sure that there is more of a requirement to update the records. As you know, that does not occur in all cases, and we need to make sure that it is done. We also need better public awareness about dog ownership and about people's requirement to register dogs in the first place.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister. I will raise this issue so that you can understand the depth of the problem. Your Department puts out guidance to say that councils should issue warning letters about dog licences. Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council has given out 11,000 such letters. Derry City and Strabane District Council has sent 6,000. Belfast City Council has given out 18 letters. Ards and North Down Borough Council has issued zero. It is clear that your Department's guidance is either ineffective, is being ignored or is not understood. Which is it?

Mr Muir: The fundamental issue is that the legislation needs to be changed so that it is made very clear that there is a requirement to update records and that there is an associated penalty. That is what has happened. We can send letters, and some councils are sending more than others, but, fundamentally, we want to make sure that councils do not have to send those letters and the records are updated. The animal welfare pathway will make sure that the registration details are updated and that there is much more of a legal requirement to do that. I worry that it is not happening, and, unfortunately, dogs are straying and we are not able to find the owners. We want to address that problem.

That is a practical example of what we can do in the Chamber through secondary legislation. A lot of focus is put on primary legislation, which is important, but secondary legislation offers an opportunity to address such issues, and I am keen to do that.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Nuala. The green growth strategy is an important issue that we talked about earlier when we linked it to climate change. My Department has been leading on the development of a green growth strategy on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive, and it has collaborated with other Departments, local government, key stakeholders, businesses and the voluntary and community sectors. It is a draft multi-decade strategy for climate, the environment and the economy.

The strategy sets out a long-term vision for the future of Northern Ireland, where we transition from a high to a net zero emissions society and enjoy the long-term economic, social, health and environmental benefits that that will bring. In October 2021, the Executive agreed on the text of a draft green growth strategy, which was issued for consultation. The strategy was revised and updated to incorporate feedback from the consultation exercise and the impact of the Climate Change Act 2022. While my predecessor agreed the updated strategy, it was not possible to secure approval in the absence of an Executive. In the interim, the draft strategy has been further updated to reflect accuracy and relevance. It was shared with the Executive in December last year, and I await approval for it.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer. Forgive me if I missed or misheard what you said. Will you make it clear that you have brought papers to the Executive for approval? What has caused the delay in approval? Has your Department caused the delay, or have the papers not been brought to the Executive?

Mr Muir: As I said, the draft green growth strategy was updated to reflect accuracy and relevance. It was shared with my Executive colleagues in December last year. Ministerial colleagues have come back with feedback, except for those from one party. I am still waiting for feedback from one partner in government. Once I receive that feedback, we can, hopefully, get agreement on the strategy, but it has been outstanding since December last year. It is important that we get it agreed because it gives us the opportunity to create good green jobs and increase decarbonisation.

There are many papers that I will continue to engage with my Executive colleagues on to get agreement for, including the climate action plan 2023-27. Essentially, all that I need is agreement to consult on the action plan. We are under an obligation to proceed with that plan, and it is important that we do it. We are also under an obligation to adopt the river basin management strategy, and agreement on that is outstanding. Agreement is also outstanding on the dilapidation Bill. I will continue to engage with my Executive colleagues on that, and I know that there was commentary yesterday about the dilapidation Bill's not having been presented to this place. Hopefully, we can get agreement on it at the Executive meeting on Thursday.

I also need to get agreement on a legislative consent motion on welfare requirements for cats, dogs and ferrets, and I need that by Thursday. I also need agreement on the peatlands strategy. I will continue to engage respectfully with my Executive colleagues. It is a power-sharing Executive, and I respect that we have different views. Hopefully, we can come to a common and agreed place.

Mr Muir: We have talked a wee bit about that today. I have made this very clear, but I will state again that the proposals are draft proposals, and it is a public consultation. It would be improper to close the public consultation and deny the public the opportunity to feed back. It is important that we give people an opportunity to consider the proposals and come back to us. We have received responses.

I made it clear that we had a robust and frank exchange of views this morning with the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Northern Ireland Environment Link, but, out of that, there were constructive discussions about the potential to set up a stakeholder group, consisting of agri-food and environmental stakeholders, to consider the NAP proposals and the responses to the consultation and to inform decisions on what will be implemented and the time frames for doing so. I have been very clear about that engagement. There has been engagement, but there will be significantly more in the time ahead. We are very keen to do that and to engage with people. I recognise that the time frames for implementation are important for people. We are keen to find a way forward together. It is a public consultation, and those are draft proposals. I know that people have consultation fatigue, but it is an opportunity for people to feed back. I am very keen to engage with people in order to find a road ahead.

On the fishing sector, which the Member mentioned, I am very disappointed with the UK Government's decision as part of the UK-EU agreement. I have been engaging with officials to see whether there is a package of support that we can deliver to the fishing industry in Northern Ireland.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer. The recent announcement of the £360 million Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund was very welcome. Will the Minister give an update on what that will mean for some of our costal towns and the fishing industry?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Diane. I am engaging with the UK Government. I have asked for a meeting with the Minister who has direct responsibility for that in order to get more details, because I want to make sure that Northern Ireland gets its fair share. There are other issues arising from the deal, such as access to the 6-to-12 nautical mile zone in the South. I will look to engage directly with my Irish Government counterparts on that.

We want to continue to engage with the industry on wider issues, particularly harbour developments. We want to pull this together. There is lots of other stuff that we need to do on apprenticeships, which Michelle McIlveen raised. I want to explore that and the marketing of the industry. I will do what I can to support the fishing industry. One of the key concerns that has been raised is access to labour and the migration rules that the UK Government have put in place. I again urge them to rethink those plans.

Mr Speaker: Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir: If anyone has not watched the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee meeting from last Thursday, I encourage them to tune in, because it is ably chaired and senior officials, including the chair, from the Office for Environmental Protection were there to outline their concerns. I fully — 100%, totally and utterly — appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by the farming community about the nutrients action programme. However, alongside that, we have significant environmental issues that we must address.

In a horizon-scanning document that was published two weeks ago, the Office for Environmental Protection outlined that the two issues on the horizon — it outlined previously that nutrients are its priority for the year ahead — are waste water and the nutrients action programme. I am very conscious of the need for us to stay on the right side of the law, and that is why it is important that I take the actions that I take as Minister. Previously, we were not on the right side of the law on ammonia. I do not want to have us in the same situation on nutrients.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Is the Office for Environmental Protection considering the contribution of waste water to poor water quality in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Stewart. I know that it is considering that seriously, as am I. The situation with waste water infrastructure and the pollution that it causes in our waterways are not acceptable. The status quo will not pertain. The issue needs to be addressed, because it is contributing to poor water quality not just in Lough Neagh but in Belfast lough and other areas.

The issue of water quality is not an isolated one; it is serious in areas such as Lough Erne, and that is why we need to address it.

Mr Speaker: We have no further time for questions.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd. You have up to 57 minutes, Minister.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I await a lectern, Mr Speaker. I am sure that one is heading in this direction.

Supply resolution debates can often cover many aspects of public expenditure, not always directly relating to the subject being considered. I will, however, endeavour to address as many of the points raised during the debate as I can in the time allotted.

First, I once again thank the Finance Committee for its agreement to take this important legislation through by accelerated passage. That agreement secures the timely passage of the legislation through the Assembly, thereby avoiding any risk of uncertainty over the funding of public services.

Having listened to colleagues' comments, I will respond to a few of the points made. There was a common theme in some of them.

I once again thank the Chairperson and the Committee for agreeing to accelerated passage. As leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Toole once again raised his concerns about the quantity of time that he has to respond in such debates. I suggest to him that perhaps quality, over quantity, might be more beneficial to us all. That is a common theme through all of these debates, and it may be a theme to go with.

Mr O'Toole rightly pointed to concerns raised in the Chamber yesterday. I have not fully studied the statement from the Minister for Communities, but there was concern that we may not meet our social housing targets for this year. However, we are in June of the financial year, and there is a long slog ahead. I am committed to working with every Minister around the Executive table to deliver, in particular, on the Programme for Government targets. The figures set out by the Communities Minister state that he will build around 1,000 homes this year: we want to see that figure increase, but we also welcome the fact that there will be 1,000 homes built for families and people to move in to this year. Of course, there is rightly a focus on the homes that will not be built. I commit to working with the Communities Minister and others, but let us also look at what will be done: 1,000 homes will be built.

I understand that the Communities Minister will bring a paper to the Executive for discussion, and I look forward to it. There are ways of looking at how we deliver on our commitments in a constrained budgetary period and at those with whom we partner to deliver those projects. For instance, are the reserves of housing associations and their access to loans being fully utilised to deliver our building programme? Are there other ways of doing that? It is important to look at that. I have been engaging directly with the Treasury on Housing Executive borrowing. I do not believe that that will be resolved as part of the comprehensive spending review, but it has to be resolved as part of the fiscal framework. The Housing Executive being allowed to borrow is a game changer for many reasons. It is something that we need to continue to look at.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for giving way. For clarification, is the Treasury pushing back against reclassification?

Mr O'Dowd: The Treasury is not yet convinced of our arguments. Perhaps I will put it that way, as it is the most diplomatic way of putting it at this stage, as negotiations continue.

Philip McGuigan, Chair of the Health Committee, pointed out the pressures facing the Health Department in the delivery of front-line health services. We all agree that there are huge challenges there, as in other Departments. I noted a comment from him which I concur with:

As an interested observer and as Finance Minister, I can only agree with that comment. There is deepening and growing concern about the continued presence of the Belfast Trust in the media for all the wrong reasons, particularly, from a Finance point of view, the significant overruns in capital projects in which the Belfast Trust has been involved. We rightly point towards Westminster and Whitehall for the lack in the overall, global Budget, but whatever moneys we have must be used effectively and efficiently, and we have to deliver changes in people's lives. No doubt, the Committee will continue its work. The Health Minister has put particular focus on the matter, but, as Finance Minister, I also have significant interest in it.

Nick Mathison, Chair of the Education Committee, referred, as others have done, to the pressures on Departments' budgets — inescapables and other pressures that may be there. Figures vary, whether you are talking about £300 million for Education, £600 million for Health or maybe £200 million for Agriculture. All those figures are there and in the public debate and discussion. I encourage Committees to interrogate thoroughly the figures that are presented to them by Departments in relation to the pressures that they are under, what is inescapable and what their priorities are, moving forward. It is vital that not only Committees but the general public fully understand the true scale of the challenge that faces the Executive and the Assembly moving forward in the delivery of public services. Figures being bandied about may garner headlines. As I have said in the Chamber before, I will not be guided by the latest headline when making funding decisions. However, I want to ensure that Committees have had the opportunity to understand fully what is a real pressure, what is inescapable and what is a negotiating position. When we understand that fully, it is much easier to understand the scale of the challenge. When you understand the scale of the challenge, it is easier to find a solution, where possible, to that challenge.

Mr Mathison also talked about transformation and funding for special educational needs. There has been a significant additional allocation of around £15 million to SEN in the last Budget round. I am particularly interested in that area and want to continue to support it. However, again, as each Minister comes to me setting out their challenges, I will do what I have asked the Committees to do — I have no doubt that Committees are doing it — which is to drill down into the figures that they present to me. I will put it to them: "What are you doing to help yourself with regard to transformation and ensuring that your budget is being used efficiently and effectively, and what are your plans for change?" Then we will get down to the nitty-gritty of what I, as Finance Minister, can do for them.

It is not the role of the Finance Minister to become a counsellor for Ministers or for the chief executives of arm's-length bodies (ALBs) or other agencies. I am not here for people to tell me their problems. I am here for people to tell me the challenges that they face, and I will work with them when we have engaged fully and accepted the scale of the challenge that they face. That may not be resolved in one Budget year. Hopefully, with regard to the multi-year budgets that will be completed after the comprehensive spending review (CSR) on 11 June, Departments will have the opportunity to forward plan much better and we will have the opportunity to make the transformation to our services that, I think we all agree, is needed.

Unfortunately, Robbie Butler is not in his place. He mentioned a report from DAERA. I may have misheard him, but I thought that he said with regard to the Committee report that it does not matter what the allocation is if it does not meet the need. If that is his position, I have to disagree: it does matter what the allocation is. No Department receives or will ever receive, I suspect, the full allocation that it has bid for. However, as I said earlier, we expect to see moneys being used effectively and efficiently. A failing that any organisation can have is to become fixated on what you cannot do rather than on what you can do. It is vital that we are much more focused on what we can do, while we continue to lobby and engage with others on the proper funding that we need.

Colm Gildernew, Chair of the Communities Committee, touched on social housing, the need for a properly laid-out anti-poverty strategy and other matters. I have no doubt that the Committee will continue to engage with its Minister on those matters.

Paul Frew referred to the need for Ministers to come to this place and give people hope. Although I do not agree with some of what Paul had to say, I fully agree with him on that point. I am not talking and have no doubt that Paul is not talking about people coming here and giving false hope, but there is no point in anyone coming into the Chamber and laying out a list of problems. We all know the problems. We want to see people coming in here and presenting solutions. I will continue to engage with Executive colleagues in that mode.

Jemma Dolan reminded us of a lot of the ongoing work that has come about as a result of the Budget. The cross-border health scheme that was recently announced by the Health Minister would not have happened without the Budget initiatives taken by the Executive and the Health Minister. The increase in childcare funding would not have happened. The increase in funding to ending violence against women and girls would not have happened. The increase in funding to tackle the pollution of Lough Neagh would not have happened. The increase in funding for community safety would not have happened. The increase in funding for skills in our economy would not have happened. None of that would have happened had it not been for the strategic Budget decisions made by the Executive and endorsed by the Assembly.

Deborah Erskine, talking about DFI and the challenges that it faces, covered the wide aspect of the road network and road safety, which is particularly pertinent given the debate in the Chamber yesterday and the Minister's announcement about a change in legislation. On NI Water, as with all bodies, multi-year budgets will assist us in planning.

Steve Aiken touched on arm's-length bodies and agencies. I say this to all arm's-length bodies: the cavalry is not coming over the hill to save you. I will touch on the CSR in more detail as I come to the end of my address. We will have to do things differently. The Member has expressed concerns and asked questions about developer contributions. Those things have to be looked at. How the NIEA examines developers' solutions on waste water has to be looked at afresh. When developers come forward with proposals on systems that are guaranteed for a lifetime and those proposals are turned down, that is short-sighted in many ways. There will not be the hundreds of millions of pounds extra that the Utility Regulator drew up — in a budgetary vacuum, it has to be said — for NI Water or for any other organisation. We have to look for alternative ways of delivering the housing, the businesses, the schools, the hospitals and all the things that we need. We simply cannot stay still in that regard.

I will move on to another point that Steve Aiken touched on. ALBs spend a huge amount of public funds — a huge amount. Steve rightly asked this: while the Assembly and the Committees hold Ministers and Departments to account, who holds ALBs to account? I would argue that it is the Minister, first and foremost, and then the Committees, if they do not do it in conjunction. Today, my permanent secretary addressed a significant number of ALBs on the projected Budget trajectory for the next number of years, emphasising to them that, to use my terminology, the cavalry is not coming over the hill. We have to live within the budgets that we have and do things differently. We have to be accountable, effective and efficient. I have no doubt that Committees will take on the charge of holding ALBs to account.

A number of Members asked for an update on the CSR. Yesterday, I was in the Treasury engaging with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones. The CSR is not yet complete: the discussions around it are not yet complete. We have presented Treasury with the Holtham report and given it the review that was carried out by Ulster University of the cost of doing business here. Obviously, it has the Fiscal Council report, and it has comments from Sir Robert Chote on the necessary outcomes of the CSR. Tomorrow, I will meet the Secretary of State to continue the conversations around the comprehensive spending review and the urgent need for a fair funding settlement to be given to this place in order to allow Departments to carry out their duties and to allow us, as Paul and others have said, to give people "hope" in the time ahead. It is too early to state what the outcome of that will be. There are different noises in some of the media around what actions are likely be taken with Whitehall Departments. Obviously, if there are swingeing cuts in Whitehall, we will have a reduced consequential. My officials will continue to engage with Treasury, and I will continue to engage at a political level until the announcement is made. It is not over until it is over. We await the announcement on 11 June. Obviously, I also raised the need for Casement Park to be properly funded.

Phillip Brett made comments as Chair of the Economy Committee. He spoke of the challenges facing the Department for the Economy, as well as the challenges facing the Committee in its scrutiny role. I will not get into the issue of the Department's accounts, because the Public Accounts Committee is scrutinising that. It would not be appropriate for me to comment. He asked what bids have been made as part of the June monitoring round. The closing date for bids from Departments to the June monitoring rounds is 5 June. We await bids from Departments — they have until 5 June.

I had announced a number of funding allocations, which we already knew about, as part of the budgetary statement on what will be allocated on 5 June as Barnett consequentials. Those were included in the Government's announcement on National Insurance contributions, and they stand. I am not aware of any further consequentials at this stage, and I am not aware of what movement there has been between Departments in the Executive — obviously, my officials are gathering that information — so I am not aware of how much money there will be to allocate in June. However, I suspect that it will not be on the scale of what we saw last year. We will wait to see what funding comes forward.

Finally, Timothy Gaston exposed himself as a —. I wrote on a note that he had exposed himself as a Tory, but then I scribbled it out. Maybe he is closer to Reform UK now. I did not want to insult him by calling him a Tory. His theory that, once the Executive label is attached to something, everything goes wrong — public services go wrong — does not explain why public services in England are in such a dire state. The common denominator is that public services have not been properly funded over the past decade or more. You cannot blame the Executive for it all. The Executive have responsibilities, individual Ministers have responsibilities, and it is right that we have to be held to account over those. He also said that there was still a significant portion of funding not covered by its own legislation. Those areas will be covered once we have brought forward the Fiscal Council Bill and the financial provisions Bill, both of which, in fairness, Mr O'Toole asked about. Both Bills are with my Executive colleagues. I hope to have those passed by the Executive and brought before the Assembly before summer recess. They are with Executive colleagues. The other legislation that will cover the outstanding spend that Mr Gaston referred to is the truth recovery Bill, which, I believe, TEO is progressing. Stand-alone legislation will cover those areas.

In conclusion, I find these debates useful in the sense that I get an overview from Members of their opinions and understanding and their evidence-based engagement at Committee level. It is very useful to me as Finance Minister to sit through these debates and listen to the experiences of Members and the information that they have at hand and that they present. We undoubtedly face significant financial challenges, and I have no doubt that we will continue to face them after the comprehensive spending review is announced on 11 June. We cannot, however, simply shy away from the challenges that we face. Let us instead understand their scale, which will allow us to bring forward proposals to tackle them. We will have to do things differently in several different areas. Agencies and regulators that operate on behalf of the Assembly, the Executive and the public will have to be imaginative about how we can put in place the infrastructure to support the economy, housebuilding and people. We will have to ensure that our arm's-length bodies, in whatever form, use limited public resources as effectively and efficiently as possible. If they do not, they will be held to account. I commend the Supply resolution to the House.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to introduce the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA 14/22-27], which is a Bill to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources for the year ending 31 March 2026 (including income); to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of that year; to authorise the use of those sums for specified purposes; and to authorise the Department of Finance to borrow on the credit of those sums.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Just a moment.

I have received a letter from the Committee for Finance under Standing Order 42(2), advising that the Committee is satisfied that the Budget (No. 2) Bill can now proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point under Standing Orders about the allocation of debate time. The Minister responded thoroughly to Members, which is fair enough, but, by my count, he used less than half the time that had been allotted to him. I had 10 minutes in which to cover Finance Committee issues and to talk in my Opposition role. I make a genuine point about process and about making sure that we can carry out our roles, including the role of being in opposition. I will write to the Committee on Procedures and others in the hope that the situation will be improved. I genuinely think that it is a real challenge.

Mr Speaker: OK, Mr O'Toole. You have made your point of order.

Members should take their ease for a moment while we change the top Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Joanne Bunting to raise the matter of social and affordable housing in East Belfast. Joanne, you have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Bunting: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this topic in an Adjournment debate. It is a subject of great import in my constituency of East Belfast. I am grateful to the Minister for Communities for his attendance this afternoon and look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject.

First, it is my privilege to represent the constituency in which I was born and raised. I take that responsibility seriously and do not take lightly the trust that was placed in me by the electorate. I am immensely proud of my part of the city and all that it has to offer. East Belfast is a superlative place in which to live, work, visit and raise a family. It is extremely safe and has superb schools, beautiful restaurants and excellent cafes and takeaways. In East Belfast, although you are in the city, you are only ever minutes away from parks in the country. The city centre is easily and quickly accessible, and there are reasonably decent transport links. There are greenways and plenty of local and varied shops, including artisan shops. East Belfast has a strong culture of close-knit communities, and it has active churches and community groups, many sports clubs and a hospital. Thus, it is a highly desirable location. Of course people want to live there; why would they not?

That has always been the case in East Belfast, and, as a result, there have always been extensive waiting lists for housing there. Whilst it is a vibrant and diverse constituency that is rich in community spirit, heritage, historical significance and resilience, there is no denying the very real challenges that we face when it comes to meeting the housing needs of our people. Housing issues comprise by far the largest aspect of my casework. All types of homes are needed, but it goes beyond that, because there also issues with quality, maintenance and schemes.

Four years ago, I secured a similar debate on housing in East Belfast. Since then, little has changed. Indeed, with the demise of the tower blocks and the fact that so many of those who were displaced are seeking to remain in East Belfast, the situation will not be resolved easily or quickly. In that previous debate on the subject, I stated:

— or damp conditions, with mould —

The common thread to all those stories is the significant shortage of suitable and affordable housing. Those comments are as true today as they were then. =

The root of the housing crisis in East Belfast stems from a lack of affordable housing and a legacy of Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) stock being sold off and not replaced in similar numbers. In the nearly 20 years between 2004 and 2023, despite the fact that a significant number of people sought homes in the east and were on waiting lists for them, in the development of social housing, East Belfast fell behind the three other Belfast constituencies. It lagged massively behind North Belfast and West Belfast in particular. The figures that the Housing Executive provided are stark: in East Belfast, 1,734 homes were developed; in South Belfast, there were 1,880; in West Belfast, there were 3,694; and, in North Belfast, there were 4,036. I remind Members that the number for East Belfast is 1,734. In only one year in that 20-year period were more houses built in East Belfast than in the rest of Belfast. In 2021, East Belfast got 57 houses, South Belfast got 23, West Belfast got 31 and North Belfast got 36. Hence, I very much look forward to the day when the Housing Executive is once more permitted to borrow to build. I know that no one has pushed harder for that than Minister Lyons, and I trust that his efforts on that will be rewarded imminently by His Majesty's Treasury. I also welcome his scoping exercise, which was done alongside Belfast City Council, to identify and evaluate potential sites for housing development.

It must be borne in mind that multiple factors contribute to the lack of affordable housing, which, in turn, increases the need for social housing. House prices are rising, making it increasingly difficult for people to afford home ownership. People are being priced out. East Belfast is one of the most expensive places in Northern Ireland in which to buy. Many of the homes that are built there are beyond the reach of a considerable number of people, as the escalating costs of building are passed on to the consumer. East Belfast is in demand, and demand increases the asking price. That is the market.

More people than ever are renting privately, but private rentals can be expensive and unstable, resulting in constant worry about eviction and, sometimes, relatively short-term tenancy agreements. Furthermore, there are private landlords who will not accept tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit, thus adding to the number of obstacles for some people to overcome. Homelessness is on the rise. Many people are being forced out of their home altogether. Those individuals might have to wait a considerable time for suitable accommodation, but, in the meantime, they have nowhere to go.

Furthermore, the issue is not simply about the number of houses but about the right kind of homes in the right places that are built to meet the real and changing needs of our communities. Those needs include homes that are energy-efficient and accessible, that can help families to thrive and that reflect the make-up of East Belfast.

Infrastructure is at capacity, and planning is slow. East Belfast is already considerably built-up, so there is limited space on which to build. The biggest development opportunities in the past number of years have been in Dundonald, where several new private housing developments have been established. However, many of those houses could not be classed as affordable homes. NI Water advises that the area is pretty much at capacity, and that impacts on planning decisions and time frames for building. Frankly, the roads are no better. Getting through Dundonald at rush hour is not a pretty picture. Some might say, "Use public transport. Get the Glider", but even the park-and-ride facilities in East Belfast are full. Planning and infrastructure are not the Minister's problem, but they exacerbate the housing issue and the demand for social housing.

I will touch on housing associations and then turn to allocations. My office receives multiple complaints from tenants who indicate that their housing association is not fulfilling its responsibility as a landlord in maintenance and improvement schemes. Across East Belfast, members of residents' groups with which I am involved regularly express their frustration that, whilst NIHE tenants receive support from bathroom, kitchen and window schemes, their home is left with draughty windows and bathrooms and kitchens that either have problems that have not been properly addressed or that are well over 20 years old and in desperate need of replacement. That includes people who are on full rents. It is not acceptable. Moreover, numerous tenants indicate that service standards are falling or that work on outdoor maintenance and keeping developments in good condition is minimal.

I will express my sympathy and frustration for rather than at the Housing Executive where allocations are concerned, because, regardless of a problem tenant's track record, it is obliged to rehouse them. Thus, there are repeat offenders who move perpetually from place to place, leaving a trail of mayhem and, often, destruction in their wake. That is reprehensible. Due care should be taken over allocations and the damage that such people can do. Problem tenants can completely change the character and reputation of an area and make life pure misery for people who live there. In some cases in East Belfast, the Department for Communities and other government agencies have spent many millions working alongside residents to help them improve and regenerate their locality, only for a few reprobates to be assigned to housing in the vicinity. The peace is then shattered, the reputation is lost, and those stable and long-term residents are tortured and become afraid, watching the place that they love degenerate. I so wish that the Housing Executive had sharper teeth and lower thresholds to deal with people who wilfully, deliberately and defiantly misbehave and wreak havoc for fun.

Before I take my seat, I express my gratitude to Paul McCombe, Gary Ballantyne and all the patch managers who are helpful and treat their work as a calling, not forgetting the legend that is Carole Johnston, who has just retired. We wish her well. We are immensely grateful to you for all that you do and the constructive and productive way in which you work with us to help people in communities. I also thank those in East Belfast who provide housing and accommodation for people who struggle to garner any points and require additional help with their circumstances and to rebuild their lives. I think particularly of MindWise and the East Belfast Mission.

I stress that the housing issue is not simply about the provision of bricks and mortar. Housing is foundational. It is about dignity, health, education and community cohesion. A secure and stable home is the starting point for employment, well-being, family life, prospects and hope. When we get housing right, we reduce pressure on our health and social services, improve educational and justice outcomes and build stronger, more connected communities. I know that the Minister gets that and will consider options to address some of the long-term problems. The housing aspects of his statement yesterday are immensely welcome. He is deeply committed to addressing homelessness and increasing the housing supply, amongst the many other housing initiatives and targets that he announced yesterday. I congratulate him on his vision, determination and successes thus far and look forward to hearing from him on how his proposals may impact on East Belfast. He is well aware that ambition is important but so is delivery. My constituents in East Belfast live in hopeful expectancy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Peter McReynolds. Peter and all other Members who are called to speak will have up to seven minutes.

Mr McReynolds: I rise to speak on the importance of social and affordable housing in East Belfast. I thank Ms Bunting for securing the debate, the Communities Minister for being here to listen to us, and the Housing Executive and the many housing associations that operate in East Belfast for providing the basic human right to a safe and comfortable home.

Each week, I sit down with staff in my constituency office to discuss themes and emerging issues. Without a shadow of a doubt, housing and housing stress is the number-one recurring issue that they deal with daily. I pay tribute to my staff for the work that they do for me each week.

In East Belfast, 3,700 people are currently on the social housing waiting list, yet, in 2024, only 655 people were allocated a social home. The demand is nearly six times the availability. That means individuals, families and children living in uncertainty and insecurity. Taking that to the extreme, I took part in a sponsored sleep-out last year with MACS NI, about which I have spoken before in the Chamber. I obtained a glimpse of the reality of homelessness in inner East Belfast, located at Banana Block, just down the road from here. I experienced the judgement and stigma that come with homelessness and the wider, cumulative effect that not having a good night's sleep has on you the next morning.

I will turn to the wider impact that the lack of housing and social housing has on our constituents. My office regularly hears about tenants being served notices to quit by their landlord. They cannot afford to rent elsewhere on the private market because of the cost. The loss of a home from the private rented market is one of the most-cited reasons for people experiencing hidden homelessness, when individuals and families are forced to sofa-surf and may not be known to the Housing Executive. Additionally, high rents are leaving private rented tenants vulnerable to homelessness, with around one in eight private renters presenting as homeless to the Housing Executive since 2018 citing problems in affording their rent. We must do more to secure tenancies in rented accommodation. I appreciate that that is not immediately within the gift of the Communities Minister, but I would appreciate a response to the point and an update on the work that he is undertaking within his Department.

I also regularly hear of adult children who have to live with their parents, often with children of their own, as there is nowhere safe for them to go because hostels and emergency accommodations are not suitable for parents or young children. I have dealt with cases where the stress of having so many people crammed into one household has an immediate impact on everyone living there and can lead to fractured family dynamics. For example, in a recent case that arrived in my office, there had been violent interactions between family members because the living situation caused so much tension within that confined space. I also have several homelessness cases for single males, as they score very low on points eligibility, and I know personally of friends over the years who have experienced that. It is a chronic and recurring theme, and updates from the Minister on that would also be appreciated.

When it comes to new builds to address housing stress, as Ms Bunting mentioned earlier, only 46 social housing units were completed in East Belfast during the last financial year, whilst 239 units are under construction and 293 units are due to start construction. We are still trying to catch our tail with the level of demand in East Belfast, and that has led to creative approaches being taken by the East Belfast Mission and Hosford Community Homes. I was delighted to hear updates on their work last Friday alongside Ms Bunting, the High Sheriff of Belfast, Fiona McAteer, and Councillor Sammy Douglas.

The situation has worsened since we last had an East Belfast Adjournment debate in the Chamber, on the stalled waste water project, Living with Water in Belfast, and the knock-on effect that it will have on the construction of current and future properties across all types of housing. A lack of new builds has an immediate impact on people who are experiencing housing stress but also elevates the need for other types of housing. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister, in his response, what recent conversations have taken place with the Infrastructure Minister on that point and the impact that the lack of support from Northern Ireland Water is having on housing stress across East Belfast and wider Northern Ireland.

Housing is fundamental, deeply personal for everyone and a highly emotive issue. It is so important that everyone has access to safe and adequate housing, whether that is via a social home or affordable housing, to make homeownership more achievable for individuals and families who want to take that next step. I thank the Member again for having secured the Adjournment debate today.

Mr Allen: I, too, thank my constituency colleague for securing this important Adjournment debate. It is not the first; it is one of many that we have had about all constituencies right across Northern Ireland. It is one of just a plethora of debates that we have had declaring a housing crisis — a housing emergency. We all accept, right across Northern Ireland, that the time for action is now.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to tackling homelessness and increasing the supply of housing. The issue affects, as I have already said, every community, and we have already heard about its impact, and about individuals having to be lifted from the communities in which they live, where they want to be and where they have their support networks. For example, just this week, families were relocated to Portrush for temporary accommodation because it was the only available temporary accommodation, despite their children going to school in East Belfast. We have some terrific schools in East Belfast, as the Member highlighted. East Belfast is a wonderful place to live, grow up, have a business, bring your family up etc, but there are challenges with housing.

The housing supply strategy, likewise, is a positive and necessary step forward. It sets out a long-term direction, but the challenge now is delivery. We need homes on the ground, not just ambition on paper. However — the Minister will have noted this, as I have previously highlighted it — does the ambition of the housing supply strategy truly meet the reality? The Communities Committee has had numerous engagements with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and, in one of those meetings, it highlighted its assessed need, which would appear to go much beyond what the housing supply strategy is aiming to deliver. That is not just a criticism for the sake of making a criticism, recognising all the challenges that we have; it is about the reality and the reality of what we are delivering for our people.

The announcement of the affordable rent scheme and £10 million for the loan to acquire move-on accommodation will also go some way to easing the pressures, particularly for those stuck in temporary accommodation or insecure housing. Efforts to secure borrowing powers for the Housing Executive and to allow the use of its reserves to purchase properties to address the temporary housing challenges are also welcome. However, I turn back to the former. I think that I heard the Finance Minister say in the Chamber just a short while ago that Treasury:

I hope that I have not misquoted the Minister, but the genesis of what he says is deeply concerning. I ask the Minister for an update. I know that the Communities Minister is not the lead Minister in relation to getting borrowing powers for the Housing Executive, but, if we cast our minds back to when the reclassification of the Housing Executive was first announced, which was way back nearly five years ago, we see that the progress that has been made has been slow. We need to see significant progress. Likewise, we need to learn from the steps that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has taken in relation to housebuilding in other areas. We need to see that learning being lifted and taken forward as part of a wider piece. The Opposition tabled a motion about the availability of public land, and I am sure that Members can point to a plethora of derelict sites. I think of sites in the Mount on the lower Newtownards Road and across East Belfast that could be available to deliver much-needed housing.

Statistics have already been highlighted about the number of people on social housing waiting lists, which equates to one in 32 people across Northern Ireland. Thousands of those people are in East Belfast. We have also heard about East Belfast Mission, for example, which does not just talk about the issue but has taken action. East Belfast Mission has taken proactive steps with the likes of Commonweal Housing. They secured funding to purchase five homes in order to support individuals and families to move on outside of its temporary accommodation. In reality, however, that is only part of the solution. We have also seen initiatives being taken forward around the housing selection scheme. I have had that engagement with people myself. Whilst it is part of the solution whereby they can increase the number of areas of choice that they can put down, it is, in part, tinkering around the edges. Unless we build enough houses for the demand that is the reality, people can put down any number of areas of choice.

Ms Armstrong will recognise these comments, because we highlight it continually at Committee but are not getting the progress on it that we would have hoped for. The place-shaping team in the Housing Executive and how it assesses need in an area does not look fundamentally at the reality. There are many areas where housing could be delivered, but it is just not being taken forward.

I recognise the challenges and the fact that East Belfast is a great place, but we really need to get on with delivering housing in East Belfast and across Northern Ireland.

Mr Brooks: I thank my constituency and party colleague for securing this important Adjournment debate. The acute demand for housing in East Belfast is no surprise to anyone here. We understand, of course, that it is not an isolated issue but a reflection of some of the pressures that are faced across Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is why there is interest in the Chamber today.

Rising demand, ageing infrastructure, inflation and a cost-of-living crisis are all challenges that have placed significant strain on our housing stock, particularly for those who are most acutely in need of social housing. Addressing those challenges will require a multifaceted approach. As we have heard many times today, we cannot get away from the need to build more homes. On that, I echo the view of colleagues in hoping to see a time where we see the Housing Executive building again and supporting the mapping exercises that are going on as well to identify locations in East Belfast for that.

We also need to look at some of the existing but more dog-eared and less habitable stock and bring it back into use. I think that the Minister gets that. He has shown that he gets it, while being limited by a severe lack of funding available to his Department and by the failure of the Department for Infrastructure — I understand its budgetary issues — to deal with the water infrastructure issues that are perhaps the most significant hurdle to unlocking the building of more affordable and social homes. I note that, in the Minister's most recent housing supply statement, he said that he has confidence that Executive colleagues are ready to carry their weight on those issues, and I certainly hope that his confidence is well founded.

I credit the Minister for his determination to seek innovative means of improving and progressing the circumstances of people who require social housing and those who struggle to afford private rents but are perhaps unlikely to be able to access social housing any time soon. I also welcome his determination to address the problems that were caused by abuse of the intimidation points system, which has long skewed that system. That is one of the issues in East Belfast that I focused on first — I raised it through questions for written answer and in the press — following my election to this place.

The growing demand for social housing in East Belfast far outpaces the available supply; nobody will be surprised to hear that. They have heard my colleagues give the data and figures that show the steady increase in demand. Families, individuals with disabilities and older residents are among those in most need of secure and affordable accommodation. A lack of homes and the longer waits for homes place people in increasingly precarious living situations. Compounding the issue is the limited number of new social homes being constructed in the area. While, as my colleagues have said, private developments have sprung up, particularly in Dundonald, they often cater to middle- and higher-income residents and offer little relief to those on waiting lists.

It is obvious to me, as a private renter who is seeking to become a first-time buyer, that the current rise in rental prices is unsustainable. A range of factors have contributed to the rocketing of rental prices over the past number of years. I and others have raised in the House the significant problem of the growth in the number of houses in multiple occupation and Airbnb-style short-term lets in residential communities. In a housing shortage, we see existing stock and traditionally lower-cost private homes in traditionally working-class communities being bought up as commodities, which has the dual effect of corroding our residential communities and driving up costs by removing supply from the market. I say this clearly to the Executive as a whole and to the Department for the Economy, which is responsible for the regulation of short-term lets: it is not enough to regulate the quality and safety of those properties for tourists; they must also be regulated and restricted to prevent their proliferation bringing greater harm to residents and communities.

In combination with that, when discussing HMOs, one cannot overlook the malevolent impact of government immigration policy. I want this to be clear: I do not speak to demonise those who have come here, but it would be wilful ignorance to pretend that the approach of the UK Government, through Mears — paying landlords often generous rates that are guaranteed over a set period — has not pushed private rental costs higher.

A few short years ago, when I worked for my colleague Joanne Bunting, there were times when I advised constituents that, while I would do all that I could for them, their low points would mean a long wait and that, in the meantime, they may need to look at private rental options. While that remains a stark reality, it borders on the ridiculous to give such advice. On that point, I recognise the Minister's exploration of options specifically for those caught in that quandary, including bringing forward the intermediate rent initiative and his ongoing support for co-ownership to make it easier for those who are able to take that first step towards owning a home. However, it remains the case that, when faced in our constituency offices with people who have those problems, we have to provide that advice, even when we know that they will struggle to cope in the current market.

A combination of factors has reduced the availability of long-term rentals and inflated rental costs across the board. Last weekend, I saw on social media a Victorian-era, standard two-bed, mid-terrace house in the Bloomfield area, which has one bathroom, one reception room and a backyard that is functional for little more than bin storage, being advertised for over £1,000 per calendar month. I see today that it is "let agreed". That is over a grand a month for what has traditionally been entry-level social housing. That is not to mention other costs, such as deposits, and it is not an extreme example, which also exist. That has become standard, and it feels as though costs have doubled or more in recent years. That is unsustainable.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have more to say, but I realise that I am coming towards the end of my time, so I will just concur with all the sentiments that have been expressed by colleagues. Again, I thank my colleague for bringing the issue to the Floor.

Miss Hargey: I thank Joanne for securing this important debate on housing, particularly in East Belfast.

Sinn Féin believes that housing is a human right. Everyone in our society, no matter their background or where they come from, should have access to safe, secure and affordable housing. We know the role that housing plays in improving outcomes for people, but it is also a fundamental part of their health and well-being. We are in a housing crisis — there is no doubt about that — and East Belfast is not immune to that fact. That area also faces pressures across all housing tenures, as we have heard today, with growing waiting lists in the social housing sector but also increased pressures because of rent increases in the private rented sector.

We know that the lack of housing supply creates those real pressures in our housing system overall and plays its part in pushing up rents. There are other issues — Airbnbs and so on — that we need to look at more systematically when it comes to the challenges, particularly for inner-city communities. Of course, we also see, particularly since COVID, increases in waiting lists across the board and in the number of people presenting with a multitude of additional challenges for which they need support. That is why we need the housing supply strategy and why it is so critical to address the fundamental challenges that we face. We need to ensure that it is done in a coordinated and cross-departmental way. Importantly, we need to co-design the solutions with the housing sector, communities and those who find themselves on the waiting list or the transfer list.

Alongside that, we need to address the right-to-buy scheme, which has undoubtedly depleted our housing stock across the North since it was introduced in the late 1980s. We need to ensure that we consult on that. Again, I call on the Minister to look at that urgently. That practice has ceased in other social housing providers and exists only in the Housing Executive. There is already that inequality, and, without replacing that stock, we wonder why we find ourselves in a housing crisis. That area needs to be looked at urgently.

We also need to ensure that land is available and, in particular, that public land is prioritised for public housing. We have seen examples of that in Belfast, particularly with Belfast City Council working with the Department for Communities and the Housing Executive on a strategic site assessment. They have looked at a number of pieces of land, particularly surface car parks that were transferred under local government reform in 2014. That has led to a housing-led regeneration programme in the city, and that will bring not just major investment in housing but significant increases in housing options in the city. Importantly, we will start to rebuild an inner-city core.

We also need to ensure that the strategies align with public realm works and that there is the ability to re-stitch our neighbourhoods into the city centre and into one another. We know that, during the last major investment in public housing, in the 1960s and 1970s, what was done pertained to the conflict. A containment strategy was devised that segregated and cut communities off not only from one another but from the city centre. We need to make sure that any major housebuilding programme undoes some of that negative segregation of our neighbourhoods.

Good work will come from aligning the housing supply strategy with local development plans to ensure that the approach that has been taken in Belfast can be replicated across other council areas and co-designed to meet the needs of those areas and localities. We particularly have to recognise the differences in urban and rural challenges. We have to ensure that we are look at systemic issues at a local level and, importantly, that we make housing a priority in all the work that we do.

The urgent revitalisation of the Housing Executive is a priority. We need to see the Housing Executive building homes again and having the ability to borrow money on the strength of its assets, similar to what councils are already doing. That could present a huge opportunity for the Housing Executive, whereby it could reinvest in its existing stock to bring it up to modern standards and start building homes again. That is also important in the context of retrofitting. We know the challenges posed by climate, the cost of living and fuel poverty. A retrofitting programme would have a huge impact, particularly given the age profile of some of the housing stock in areas such as East Belfast. We need better management of the existing stock, particularly in the social housing sector, and we need to make sure that we maximise not just the application system but the transfer system. If there are new housing developments, we can maximise the number of people whom we move off the list if we maximise transfer applications.

This is an important discussion. There has been good work in East Belfast, such as that on the Park Avenue and CS Lewis Square developments. Andy touched on the East Belfast Mission, which is doing excellent work that dovetails with the Department's priority of building community wealth in how the community can also own and manage such assets, and, importantly, respond to community need.

Addressing the housing crisis requires a systemic approach. We need a ramping up of the housing supply strategy and a revitalisation of the Housing Executive to ensure that we see direct action. We need to see the action that Belfast City Council is taking with the Department and the Housing Executive replicated by all councils.

Mr O'Toole: I agree with lots of what has been said in the debate. As a constituency MLA who works in the south inner city, which is an area with significant social housing need and demand, I, like other MLAs, regularly deal with housing pressures and my office works hard with the Housing Executive and housing associations to try to address that real and acute need. Access to housing is a human right but also a significant challenge. It is something that the Executive need to deal with via the housing supply strategy, which we hope will come forward at some point soon — I will touch on what the Minister said yesterday — and other means that I will talk about in broader terms.

The Adjournment topic relates specifically to East Belfast but we share in broad terms a Housing Executive area. I am in East Belfast now; I am in East Belfast all the time. East Belfast is a wonderful constituency. Its working class communities face many of the same issues that exist in the south of the city. Joanne Bunting talked about the relatively low number of social housing starts in the east of the city. South Belfast is not too far ahead of you, as you referenced in your statistics, and that has been a challenge in particular areas. I welcome the developments that have happened. There have been some in my constituency along McClure Street in the lower Ormeau. New homes in that development have been occupied in the past year, and it is an example of a positive and proactive development that is addressing need.

Clearly, there is a range of issues that we need to deal with. I agree with those Members who said that we need to make progress on the reclassification of the Housing Executive. The creation of the Housing Executive is something that my party, and, in a sense, the historic civil rights movement, was involved in setting up. We are proud of that and want to see the Housing Executive revitalised so that it champions and is at the forefront of social housing. That way, rather than just managing social housing allocation, the points system and area planning, it can build social homes and not just leave that to housing associations. Having said that, housing associations do an important job.

One thing that I will say to the Minister is that, as Chair of the Finance Committee, and, indeed, as a Committee member before that, I have been pretty repetitive about unused financial transactions capital (FTC), which is a type of spending. I have always said that we would be a constructive Opposition, and I will acknowledge when Departments and Ministers actually try to make use of FTC. The Minister's Department has done a bit of that and has been responsible for pushing in that regard. That is to be welcomed.

It would be remiss of me if I were not to use the opportunity of an Adjournment debate that is about a specific constituency challenge to talk about the broader challenge that has come up in the past couple of days. It came up in the debate on the Main Estimates, and we talked about it yesterday when the Minister brought his statement on his departmental budget to the House. We can all come here and talk about the issues and the discrete things that need to happen in particular constituencies, and we can talk about the particular levers, but the Executive are already falling way short of their plans to deliver social homes.

The Programme for Government is quite clear — to be fair, the Minister acknowledged this and was at least upfront about it — about the fact that there would be just under 6,000 new social housing starts. The number was unusually and admirably specific, and, because of that, we can already see that the Executive are short of that target. There are a few cricket fans in the Chamber, so, to use a cricketing analogy, our run rate is nowhere near where it needs to be to get us to 6,000 by 2027. If we are delivering 1,000 homes this year, that leaves barely a year and a half to deliver another 4,500 to 5,000. If I am wrong, the Minister can correct those statistics. Why are we in that situation? Clearly, part of it is the budget shortfall, but there are other challenges. I am afraid that we heard some of that from the Finance Minister earlier, who said that we should be grateful. When he was challenged on the lack of delivery of social housing, he effectively said that we should be grateful that 1,000 homes are being built. I am afraid that it does not work like that, with the greatest of respect. If the Southern Housing Minister were to stand up in Dáil Éireann and say, "You should be grateful for the fact that we missed the housing target", one can imagine what the Sinn Féin representative would say in response to that, with all due respect. It would not be, "Yes, we are grateful". [Interruption.]

Members are speaking to me from a sedentary position. I know that this is an Adjournment debate, but that is true. That is a fact. South of the border, missing targets like that, with the Minister saying that we should be grateful, would not simply be waved off as acceptable. It should not be acceptable north of the border.

The Finance Minister also failed to engage seriously on the question of water, and waste water infrastructure is at the heart of so many of the fundamental challenges that we face. We had Question Time with the Environment Minister earlier, and given the fact that Lough Neagh is becoming an open-air sewer, the crisis in our water system is a fundamental challenge to our environment. We cannot get housing starts, and the fact that connections are so far behind is a major drawback to economic investment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew, can you draw your arguments towards East Belfast, please?

Mr O'Toole: I am drawing my arguments towards East Belfast, because as others have said and as I am sure the representatives of East Belfast will admit, the failure to invest in NI Water and the inability to get connections is a fundamental problem. Those things are all connected.

Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I strayed into the political and went outside the normally collegiate tone of an Adjournment debate. We are having this debate very early on a Tuesday afternoon, so people will forgive me for getting a little bit too political, given that we are still well in the middle of what is a working day in most people's daily life. Those things are all connected in East Belfast, South Belfast and across the North, so let us not play the game of simply pretending that there is nothing that we can do to deliver the social housing targets that people were promised just a few short weeks ago.

The Communities Minister is here, and I hope that he will be able to provide us with an update on the housing supply strategy and Housing Executive reclassification, but he, along with others, including the Finance Minister, needs to account for the failure to deliver targets. I hope that the Finance Minister thinks better of simply asking people in the North to accept something that his party would never ask people in the South to accept.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank Ms Bunting for securing the Adjournment debate. I do not live in East Belfast, although I will sort of claim that I lived there as a child because I spent so much time there visiting my Aunt Nuala and my Uncle Jimmy. Unfortunately, their street no longer exists. Mashona Street, beside Euston Street Primary School, was redeveloped. I thought until very recently that Daddy Winker's Park was called Daddy Winkler's Park, so there you go.

The housing issue that was been brought for debate today is, I agree, an issue in East Belfast and across Northern Ireland. It is a matter that strikes deep at the heart of all our values and the future of what we want for this place. We are failing to deliver social housing in Northern Ireland, and there are a number of reasons for that.

East Belfast is very proud of its rich heritage. Hard-working people live there, and they have a strong sense of identity, but a growing crisis lies beneath that pride. Too many families are waiting for a place to call home. They are waiting for dignity, stability and hope, and the damage grows with every day that social housing is delayed. Let us be clear that this is not just about buildings; it is about people. It is about the young mother who is raising her child in damp, cramped conditions. It is about the older man who spent his life in service to the community but now faces isolation without suitable housing. Those people are not statistics: they are our friends, our neighbours and our family.

It has been said many times in the Chamber that, when social housing is unavailable, the consequences ripple throughout every part of life. It affects children's education and people's physical and mental health. The lack of housing drives families away from the community that they helped to build, weakening the bonds that hold us together. The failure to act also deepens inequality: without adequate housing, those who are on low incomes are pushed further to the margins while private rents climb beyond reach. We are in danger of creating a two-tier East Belfast: one for those who can afford stability, and one for those who are left behind.

Housing is not a luxury but a right that should be protected, promoted and delivered by those in power. When that delivery fails, trust in public institutions erodes, people begin to feel forgotten and resentment replaces hope. There is hope, however. I spent a bit of time, a couple of weeks ago, with the East Belfast Mission at Hosford, where six new apartments have been built just across the road from the Skainos centre. Those apartments will house people who are coming out of the homeless hostel and will provide them with some stability as they, hopefully, move into more permanent housing. That hope comes from the community and from organisations that work in East Belfast. I believe, however, that with political will, smart planning and genuine commitment to the public good, we can replicate that in East Belfast by delivering the homes that it needs. We can invest in our future, protect our community's fabric and ensure that every person, no matter their income, has the chance to live with dignity.

To that end, I have this question for the Minister: do you think that it is time that the database of public land owned by all Departments and their arm's length-bodies is produced and aligned with identified housing need? We know that the Housing Executive is awaiting Treasury clearance to be able to borrow and to start to build again. I know that the Housing Executive is looking at its land asset management strategic plan in order to identify where potential land will be. That land needs to be made available now, however. We cannot wait for the Housing Executive to get its clearance. That land needs to be made available in order to meet the needs of people in East Belfast and across Northern Ireland.

As has been mentioned, there is an issue with what is beneath the ground. Over the nine years that I have been an MLA, I have grown sick of saying that there will be no cranes without drains. The Northern Ireland Water issue is curtailing necessary housebuilding, and it needs to be sorted. I know that it will not be dealt with by the Communities Minister, but the Executive need to take that under their wing and run with it. It takes far too long to get planning permission. The system can be updated in order to ensure that appropriate permission is provided, but in much quicker time. I believe, for instance, that we should pause the house sales scheme until the Northern Ireland Housing Executive can replace those houses with the new dwellings that our people need.

I want the Minister to explain what it is that he can do for East Belfast, taking it as one particular area. What does the outlook look like for you in order to be able to achieve your housing supply strategy? What will be the housing investment plans? When will we see an updated land asset management strategic plan? When will we see asset transfer, so that communities can make better use of the space that is available, for example above shops? I hope that you will encourage the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's place shaping team to look at land banking. There is a massive piece of land on the former Sirocco Works site in East Belfast that is owned by private companies. What could we do with that land if some of it were available for housing? We need to move forward on the Private Tenancies Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. The notice to quit period needs to be brought in as soon as possible. Too many people are hitting the homelessness lists because they have had to leave private rentals.

Land regeneration will be key for East Belfast. Where is the land? What can be done with it? When can we action that? Minister, what can you do to help East Belfast?

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

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, and I thank her for her clear passion for East Belfast and its people. I have no doubt that, if she were ever to leave the House, there would certainly be a career for her as an estate agent because she talked so eloquently about East Belfast and the locality. However, we know that that may well be a difficult job because of the difficulties we face with housing in East Belfast and across Northern Ireland. It is not the first time that we have debated the issues around social and affordable housing in the Chamber. Some of the issues raised today are specific to East Belfast, but most of what has been discussed is replicated across Northern Ireland.

I understand the issue. It is one that we all face as constituency representatives, and we have all seen how acute it has become in recent years. Since I came into post, I have worked tirelessly to make sure that housing has the priority it deserves. I have been clear with Executive colleagues that we need to focus on delivery, and that means taking action to meet the increasing demand for social and affordable housing. We need to make homelessness rare, brief and non-recurrent. We need to make better use of publicly owned land and find ways to address our waste water infrastructure constraints.

We have made significant strides over the last year, and I am more than happy to highlight some of the actions that we have been able to take and the positive changes that we have made. Unfortunately, Mr O'Toole is not in his place any more. He asked for an update on when the housing supply strategy would be published: I am pleased to tell him that the strategy was published in December 2024. I am sorry that he is not here for me to remind him, because I know that Mr O'Toole loves to pull us up, where possible, and it would have been nice to remind him of that. Nevertheless, we have a housing supply strategy in place, and work is well under way on the first action plan.

We have also secured housing as a priority in the Programme for Government. We have an Executive commitment to provide the homes that we need and a joined-up commitment across the Executive to make the necessary changes to meet the need. We have also secured commitments around homelessness prevention as well as taking decisive action to reform the private rented sector. The cost-of-living pressures are a reality for many, and I will bring forward a fuel poverty strategy at the end of the year.

In the last financial year, I provided close to £180 million for the social housing development programme, which ensured that we were able to start 1,504 homes. In the East Belfast constituency, 66 social homes went on-site in the last year, with a total of 288 under construction at the end of March 2025. There were also 62 social homes completed in that time, and a further 197 are to start as part of the programme over the next three years. I recognise and understand that it is not enough. I would like to be able to do so much more for the people of East Belfast and beyond.

I made my budget announcement to the Assembly yesterday. I prioritised the allocation of funding to new-build social homes. Over 80% of available funding is being directed to the social housing development programme. It will allow delivery of 900 to 1,000 new-build homes, but I recognise that it is significantly short of our target. However, bids will be submitted in-year to the Department of Finance to address the shortfall. I will continue to press for adequate funding to meet the Programme for Government commitment. I am more than happy for Mr O'Toole and others to continue to raise the issue in the Chamber. I encourage you all to do so because I want Executive colleagues to be aware of the strength of feeling and the need to meet the target. I welcome the fact that housing has been highlighted and is on the radar.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will give way to Mr Allen.

Mr Allen: Minister, in yesterday's statement, you mentioned that it is not enough to simply ask for more money and said that we need to do things differently, which is why you will bring a proposal to the Executive shortly on how we can do more with the money that we have to build more homes. Will you give a broad outline of what that entails?

Mr Lyons: One of the issues has been mentioned, and that is land. Land costs contribute about 20% to the cost of new homes. We have a lot of public land in Northern Ireland. We have a lot of unused public land across Departments, district councils and other public bodies. I want to see that land being used. The Executive are not cash-rich, but they are asset- and land-rich. I hope that Executive colleagues will recognise the particular need that exists in my Department and that we can find a way to come to an arrangement that ensures that that public land is used when we face what the House has declared to be a crisis in housing.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will.

Mr Allen: On that very point about public land, one of the major criticisms highlighted by housing associations is the affordability of that land. Will that be looked at as part of the conversation?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. The whole point of bringing forward that proposal is to find ways to ensure that that public land is used. It is about not just the availability but the cost of public land and what can be done around that. If Executive colleagues are not able to help with cash, can they help in other ways, such as the provision of land? I will need to bring that to the Executive.

There are other options that we can look at. The planning system was mentioned. We need to make sure that it is as simple and straightforward as possible. There are actions that Ministers can take. There are proactive things that we can do to move it along. The historic environment division, which sits in my Department, is a statutory consultee. When I came into office, we were hitting our targets about 27% of the time. Every week that goes by adds delay and cost to the building of new homes and anything else that we may want to proceed with. I specifically put additional resource into the historic environment division, and, as a result, we have gone from meeting 27% of our targets to 72% of our targets. That shows what can happen when we realise and identify what the problems are and put practical solutions in place. Those are the things that I am talking about when I say that we need to do things differently and look innovatively. I will always ask and bid for more money, but I want to make sure that we make the money that we have go as far as possible. I will continue to press for such positive changes.

Another example is intermediate rent. I appointed Maple and May to act as intermediate rent operator. That will deliver over 300 new-build high-quality homes over the coming years. Co-ownership was also mentioned today, and we continue to progress that. Mr Brooks raised the issue of availability in the private rented sector and rising rents in East Belfast. We certainly need to address that. In fact, some of the money that we are putting towards homelessness prevention can help in the private rented sector.

My time is running on, and I want to address a few other issues that were raised. Ms Bunting raised the issue of antisocial behaviour and its impact on entire communities as people are moved around from one area to the next. Housing associations and the Housing Executive often feel powerless in that regard. That will change. I want them to make use of the powers that they have, but I recognise that they are constrained by some of those powers, which is why I am bringing forward new measures to make sure that we can tackle antisocial behaviour. The Member raised that with me last year, and I have taken action. We went out to consultation. I look forward to bringing in those changes as soon as possible and having the legislative vehicle to do that.

I will briefly address a few more concerns. Mr McReynolds talked about infrastructure. I spoke today to the Infrastructure Minister about waste water issues. It is absolutely right that we deal with that. Mr Brooks mentioned Mears. The approach of Mears has absolutely driven up prices, because it essentially names the price for property, which certainly has an impact on the affordability of rent. I think that I have addressed Deirdre Hargey's point about public land.

I am glad that Mr O'Toole mentioned financial transactions capital, because we in this Department have done more than all the other Departments combined to make sure that we utilise FTC to address some of the housing problems that we face.

My time is running short. I want everyone in the House to be aware that I know the issues concerning housing in East Belfast and beyond and that I am doing everything that I can to help people across all tenures. Giving people a safe, warm and affordable home is one of the most important things that we can do, and I will not be found wanting in that regard.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Joanne, for bringing the topic to the House for debate.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Speaker to make a ruling on the Chief Executive's disgraceful decision to deny four women who were wearing "Mothers Against Genocide" T-shirts access to the Building today? I sincerely hope that nobody in the Building finds opposing genocide controversial.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. I will make sure that the Speaker takes note of that point of order and examines it carefully.