Northern Ireland Assembly, 17 February 2025

316 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

Members' Statements

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

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

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

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

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

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

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

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

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

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

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

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

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

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

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

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

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

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

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

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

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

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

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

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

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

"need evidence before deciding on whether 3 year old know whether they are trans",

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

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

"When it comes to toilets, changing rooms, healthcare settings, sporting opportunities and job opportunities, however, sex matters. Many women have been forced into silence on these issues in their workplace, in their family life and in public. They fear ... challenging gender ideology."

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

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

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

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

"pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend"

were over.

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

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

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

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

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

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

[Translation: Well done, Lola, Anto and Kneecap]

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

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

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

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

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

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

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

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

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

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

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"to believe in democracy is to understand that each of our citizens has wisdom and has a voice."

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

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you. That concludes Members' statements.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill [NIA Bill 09/22-27] be agreed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

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

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

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

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

"must have regard to the salaries payable"

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

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

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

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

"there are many younger Members who have young families to keep. Why should their pay not stay in kilter with that of their counterparts in other places?"— [Official Report (Hansard), 4 February 2025, p11, col 2].

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

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

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

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

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

"the board must"

— I emphasise the word "must" —

"have regard to the salaries payable"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Sinéad Ennis to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

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

[Translation: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

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

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

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

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

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

Question put.

Some Members

Aye.

Some Members

No.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill [NIA Bill 09/22-27] be agreed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

This motion will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate.

Question put.

Some Members

Aye.

Some Members

No.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Resolved:

That, as provided for in Standing Order 53(1), this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill; and to submit a report to the Assembly by 1 April 2025. Composition: Sinn Féin 2 Democratic Unionist Party 2 Alliance Party 1 Ulster Unionist Party 1 Social Democratic and Labour Party 1 Quorum: The quorum shall be five Members except when no decision is taken or question put to the Committee, when the quorum shall be four. Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine. — [Mr Brooks.]

Executive Committee Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put.

Some Members

Aye.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

No.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 17 February 2025. — [Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance).]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

On a point of order.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am not finished. I will bring you in afterwards, Matthew.

If that is clear, we will proceed.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £26,536,605,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2025 and that resources, not exceeding £31,041,393,000, be authorised for use by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2025 as summarised for each Department or other public body in column 4 of table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates 2024-25 laid before the Assembly on 10 February 2025.

The following motions stood in the Order Paper:

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £12,148,157,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2026 and that resources, not exceeding £13,968,655,000, be authorised for use by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2026 as summarised for each Department or other public body in column 4 of table 1 in the Northern Ireland Estimates Vote on Account 2025-26 that was laid before the Assembly on 10 February 2025. — [Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance).]

That this Assembly approves that resources, not exceeding £2,776,000, be authorised for use by the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission and the Department for Communities for the year ending 31 March 2024, that a sum be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, not exceeding £464,000 for use by the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, for the year ending 31 March 2024 as summarised in part 1 of the Statement of Excesses 2023-24 document laid before the Assembly on 10 February 2025. — [Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance).]

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

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

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Matthew O'Toole to speak on behalf of the Opposition. Matthew, you have 10 minutes.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

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

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

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

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am happy to give way to the Finance Minister.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Much appreciated.

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

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will speak on behalf of the Finance Committee, allowing the Chair to focus on his role as leader of the Opposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

1. Mr Donnelly asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline what steps they are taking to ensure their Department’s communication on social media is accessible to everyone. (AQO 1540/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

2. Mr Kearney asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the implementation of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. (AQO 1541/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra.

[Translation: I thank the Minister for her answer.]

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

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

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

3. Mr Brooks asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline their plans for engagement in the United States of America during the St Patrick's Day period. (AQO 1542/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

4. Mr Crawford asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of current measures to adapt to climate change. (AQO 1543/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

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

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I think that we get the gist, Mr McGlone.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

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

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

5. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the legislative programme for 2025. (AQO 1544/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

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

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

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

6. Mr Durkan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to provide an update on any progress to establish an infrastructure commission, following the creation of a cross-departmental working group in early 2022. (AQO 1545/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

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

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

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

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move to topical questions.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

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

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for specific details, given that it is one month until St Patrick's Day, on whether they have had any conversation about whether they will attend Washington, specifically the White House, that week. (AQT 1021/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

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

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

T2. Mr Brett asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they agree with him that the outworkings of the current recruitment exercise by the Police Service of Northern Ireland should result in appointments being made on the basis of merit and whether, as they continue to lead this Executive, they will not endorse a return to discriminatory practices when it comes to employment in the PSNI. (AQT 1022/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

T3. Ms Finnegan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they agree that the British Government's farmers' inheritance tax will be detrimental to family farms in the North. (AQT 1023/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Member to her place and thank her for the topical question.

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

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

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

T4. Ms Mulholland asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to provide an update on the timeline for the appointment of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. (AQT 1024/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

T5. Mr Delargy asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to provide an update on the work of the Truth Recovery Independent Panel. (AQT 1025/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

T6. Ms Ferguson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that her constituency of Foyle has witnessed an increase in attacks on and violence against women and girls, and given that it is important that we do everything that we can to stop what is a stain on society, for an update on the roll-out of the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls. (AQT 1026/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

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

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

T7. Mr Chambers asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the recent criticism aimed at the anti-paramilitarism billboard campaign by former Finance Minister and Lord Mayor of Belfast Mr Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, who feels that they stigmatise the community in west Belfast. (AQT 1027/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

1. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Finance to outline any plans he has to introduce a two-year Budget cycle in 2026. (AQO 1555/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

2. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Finance, further to the consultations on revenue raising, to outline what steps his Department has taken to ensure the measures are fair and equitable. (AQO 1556/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

3. Mr McGuigan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the funding required by Departments as a result of storm Éowyn. (AQO 1557/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

4. Ms Nicholl asked the Minister of Finance to provide an update on the use of artificial intelligence across the Northern Ireland Civil Service and other public bodies. (AQO 1558/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

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

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

5. Mr Harvey asked the Minister of Finance to provide an update on his Department’s engagement with HM Treasury on a funding package for the public sector to offset the increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions. (AQO 1559/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

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

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

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

6. Mr Crawford asked the Minister of Finance whether he intends to discuss reducing VAT for the hospitality sector with the UK Government, following plans by the Irish Government to reduce their VAT rates. (AQO 1560/22-27)

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

15. Mr Middleton asked the Minister of Finance to outline what steps he is taking to support the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland following plans by the Irish Government to reduce their VAT rate for hospitality to 9%. (AQO 1569/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 15 together.

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

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Colin McGrath (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

7. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the proposed changes to rating policy. (AQO 1561/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

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

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

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