Northern Ireland Assembly, 19 May 2025

449 contributions from 68 members. The official report.

Speaker's Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I inform Members that I will not be in the Chamber tomorrow, as I will be representing the Assembly in London.

Members' Statements

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I repeat a call that a High Court judge, in the highest court in the land, has already made and that has been reiterated at appeal stage. The same call has been made by the Chief Constable, by various political leaders, by uachtarán Chumann Lúthcleas Gael

[Translation: the president of the Gaelic Athletic Association]

, by people of influence from all across Ireland and, most importantly, by Bridie Brown, the widow of Sean Brown, who was cruelly murdered in 1997 as he locked the gates of his beloved Bellaghy Wolfe Tones club.

On Friday evening past, I joined thousands of people to walk behind the Brown family in an act of solidarity from St Mary's Church in Bellaghy to Páirc Seán de Brún. Thousands of Gaels walked behind Bridie and her sons and daughters in solidarity. They are Gaels just like Sean was. They are people who care about their community, the place that they call home, their club and their sport. They know that Sean was targeted because of what he represented. He was an ordinary Irishman who cared about Bellaghy and volunteered for so much of his life at his club.

The message on Friday evening was clear. Speakers from the legacy sector, the president of the GAA, Jarlath Burns, and others called on the British Secretary of State to do something different: to do the right thing. The murder of Sean Brown was traumatic for his family and for the community at the time in 1997, and that trauma has been exacerbated by successive British Governments, who have added to their pain by refusing them truth and justice. It is now time to stop the delay, do the right thing and announce a public inquiry.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Saturday marked a very proud and poignant day for Bangor on the Eisenhower pier that overlooks Bangor marina, as a very special naming ceremony and service of dedication took place for Bangor RNLI's new lifeboat, the Ruby Robinson.

That special event was very well attended and coincided with the 60th anniversary of Bangor RNLI, which was established back in 1965. Since then, the station has served with great honour and distinction. The Ruby Robinson becomes only the eighth vessel to continue that proud legacy of saving lives at sea.

The new lifeboat represents the very best in life-saving capability. It is fast, agile and ideally suited to our coastline. It has already proven its worth. In September 2024, it rescued and no doubt saved the life of a missing dinghy sailor. That incident showed the skill, courage and dedication of the crew and the capabilities of the new vessel. It was even called to action twice yesterday, in Ballyholme and Crawfordsburn, and made a real difference on both occasions.

None of that would have been possible without the extraordinary generosity and legacy of the late Dennis Walter Filby from England, who kindly donated money to fund the new vessel. Dennis was a quiet, unassuming man who, for many years, worked on the farm of Ruby Robinson. In an act of generosity, Dennis left the majority of his estate to fund the new lifeboat. That lifeboat is borne of kindness, friendship and selfless giving. It was fitting that members of Mr Filby's family attended the special ceremony in Bangor on Saturday as the vessel was entrusted to the Bangor crew, who continue to answer the call, day or night, in all conditions, 24/7 and 365 days a year, with selfless dedication.

I pay tribute to the volunteers of Bangor RNLI, past and present, who, for six decades, have served our communities and saved lives across our seas and shores, as well as the members of very dedicated team at the neighbouring Donaghadee RNLI station who continue to serve at sea with such dedication. Let us remember Dennis Filby and his kindness and generosity. He was a quiet man whose lasting legacy will now echo across Belfast lough and beyond, saving lives at sea. May the Ruby Robinson and her crew always return safely. May her name be ever linked to courage, compassion and the enduring spirit of public service.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I rise to remark on two separate, extremely concerning incidents that occurred in North Down over what was a challenging weekend, and to thank the PSNI and the emergency services for their swift and diligent response.

On Saturday night in Millisle, a car collided with pedestrians outside a licensed premises on Main Street, resulting in a number of injuries. That was an irresponsible and cruel incident that was, seemingly, carried out with little regard for life. That incident could have been devastating, and I am relieved that it did not result in a fatality. However, I understand that those who were involved sustained serious injuries, and I wish them all the support that they need to make a full recovery.

Last night, an incident occurred in Bangor that involved the use of firearms on High Street. That has caused great distress to many people across our city. We must be clear: guns have no place on our streets. However, what unfolded last night was an extremely difficult and sensitive situation. I commend the PSNI, which had to balance the safety of the public, the individual involved and its own officers while de-escalating the situation at hand. Officers showed bravery, compassion and professionalism in incredibly intense circumstances. I hope that those who were involved get all the support that they need.

I wish to record my thanks and gratitude to the PSNI for its work in dealing with a number of challenging incidents across North Down over the weekend.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

I wish to refer particularly to the firearms incident that took place in Bangor last night. I happened to be in the vicinity, in a local petrol station, at the time. I was aware that lots of police were running backwards and forwards, but I was not aware of the situation that was developing. There has been much speculation, particularly on social media but also in the press, as to who did what and when. At this time, speculation is unhelpful. The most important fact, and the bottom line, is that no one was injured. A gentleman is now in the care of the health service. I think that, in another jurisdiction, the outcome of that incident could have been completely different.

I join others in commending the professionalism and courage of all the police officers who were involved in last night's incident. Individual officers shepherded people away to safety, without any thought for their own safety. I am aware that the PSNI is conducting a full and proper investigation into the circumstances of the incident, and I encourage everyone to give the police the space to carry out that investigation.

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

Along with thousands of other Gaels, colleagues and I attended the Walk for Truth to Páirc Seán de Brún in Bellaghy on Friday evening. People from all over Ireland — clubs and counties — marched to call for justice for Bridie and her family and for an inquiry into the callous murder of Sean Brown, an innocent man who was well respected by all in the community. Five High Court judges have found that a public inquiry into Sean Brown's murder is the way forward. The PSNI Chief Constable has supported that. I am aware that, at Government level, discussions about legacy issues and future legislation are ongoing. We, the people who gathered in our thousands on Friday evening, know what the right thing to do is, and we support it. I think that even Hilary Benn knows what the right thing to do is. On Friday evening, those people sent a very clear message to Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, and to the British Government: do the right thing and hold a public inquiry into the callous murder of Sean Brown.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I commend the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society for another hugely successful Balmoral show, which was attended by over 100,000 people over four days. It was a fantastic networking event and a fantastic platform to showcase the talent and creativity of our rural communities. I had the opportunity to attend for three days. We had our party stand there; we had an AERA Committee meeting at the show; and the Assembly had a base there as well. It was a wonderful opportunity to engage with farmers. We also had a very good Q&A session with the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster. I commend and thank the staff for helping to facilitate that.

Whilst the mood at the show was vibrant and good — and, importantly, the sun shone — farmers are deeply concerned at proposals that are coming down the track that could have a serious impact on their livelihoods and the wider rural economy. The four days were a really good opportunity for farmers and people who are not farmers to come and speak to us about their concerns. Some of the key issues that were raised with us during the show were the inheritance tax changes that are coming down the track; the review of the nutrients action programme; the spiralling rate of bovine TB; the future of farm support; ammonia; planning; and even the recent trade agreement with the USA, which was mentioned a few times. We must continue to engage and work on those issues with farming organisations and their representatives to help address them where we can, given the huge impact of farm businesses on the vitality of rural communities, on the economy and on underpinning our food security.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Last week, the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, finally admitted what Members on these Benches and the public at large have known for years: our immigration system, in the United Kingdom, is broken and the rules for entering our country must be tightened up. The proposed changes finally inject some common sense into the rules governing entry to the United Kingdom. They include that all visa applicants will require a certain level of English proficiency; that only those who can contribute to our economy can be considered for entry; and that it should be for Parliament, not courts and unelected judges, to decide who enters the United Kingdom. Those words are welcome but must be followed by concrete actions that are applied equally across the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland cannot be out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom in ensuring that our borders are more secure.

The issues have been felt throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in my constituency of North Belfast. The increased number of houses of multiple occupancy and unvetted males is rightly causing concern to families, children and our public. Just this week, the courts remanded into custody a 35-year-old male asylum seeker who, in the words of the judge, posed:

"a risk of harm to the general public",

which

"specifically seems to be enhanced in terms of young females".

He is charged with indecent exposure to young females in lower north Belfast. Such incidents are becoming all too common.

Tomorrow, the House will debate a motion from this party on the issue. I see Members opposite shaking their heads. Be in no doubt: the public will be watching people's reactions to the debate tomorrow, because people are deeply concerned about the matter. They will not be browbeaten into silence by fake charges of racism or being far-right. People who are concerned about the safety of their family or children are not racist or far-right. It is not controversial to say that the Government should put the interests of those born here first. This party will continue to be a champion for a system that treats people fairly. This party will not be silenced on the issue. Tomorrow, the public will be watching.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I stand to speak about the recent announcement of how the £55 million allocated to early years and childcare will be spent this year. I welcome much of the funding announcement. Having spent a great deal of time with providers, parents and bodies from the sector, I know that they want us to work constructively on the issues for families. We have said since the introduction of the childcare subsidy scheme that it needed to be built on. In fact, the very first question that I asked in the Chamber was whether support for families would be expanded to school-age children, so it is positive that the Education Minister has listened to those calls and extended the scheme to include children of primary-school age.

The cost of childcare continues to be a major concern for so many families. While the announcement does not increase the 15% subsidy rate, which needs to happen, it will expand the number of families who can avail themselves of support and will further help those with multiple children. It is also really positive that programmes such as Sure Start will continue to receive some additional funds to help with increasing costs. I have seen at first hand the impact of Sure Start in my constituency of Lagan Valley. I also hope that the committed money for the Pathway fund gets to providers that applied swiftly. Providers have been placed in incredibly difficult circumstances, with some staff having been placed on protected notice. Of course, I welcome the further investment to support preschools that are transitioning to offer full-time hours. That is crucial to early learning and is especially important for children facing educational disadvantage.

The £55 million from the Executive is hugely welcome after decades of underinvestment. However, we still await the much-delayed early learning and childcare strategy, which is crucial to securing long-term transformational change for children and families. The strategy needs to be informed by the huge amount of research that has been done over the years, and it needs to reflect the true experience of families and parents. Parents have concerns about the recent Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) childcare survey. They are not questioning how the survey was carried out; they are concerned about how the information has been presented. On the average monthly costs of childcare per child, the survey results state:

"In cases where a child is spending two days with a grandparent or relative and two days in nursery, the child will be included in the 31-40hrs per week band".

Surely we cannot combine informal forms of childcare with paid childcare, as such data would not reflect the actual cost that parents face. All that families ask for is to be heard and for the actual costs that they face per day of childcare and how that adds up week on week, month on month, to be shown. I hope that clarity will be provided and that the true cost of paid childcare is acknowledged in policymaking.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will speak about the British Heart Foundation's commentary on 'Good Morning Ulster' this morning on the results that show increasing numbers of people being diagnosed with heart failure, and I am glad that the Minister is in the Chamber to hear this. The increasing number of diagnoses is very concerning. I know that you have a history of heart problems, Minister, so you will be well aware of the matter. We now have the highest number ever, and those are not records that we want to set. I was extremely concerned by the comments made by the young woman, Mary McFarland, who spoke on the radio show. She is in her early 40s with three young children. She was actively having a heart attack but was told by health professionals that she was not and that it was a panic attack.

It is a common experience for all women, but particularly for young women, to be told, when they are having heart failure or a heart attack, that it is an anxiety attack or a panic attack. They are diagnosed with everything but what is actually happening to them. We need some education on that. We need to educate ourselves so that we understand the symptoms, but our health professionals and others around us also need to understand that women have heart failure and heart attacks. More women die from heart and circulatory issues than from all female cancers combined. We need to take on and challenge the issue, and t needs to be taken on as part of a women's health strategy. I am sure that the Minister is well used to listening to me speak about that, but it is important. As I said, we do not want to set records such as this.

Thankfully, Mary was taken to the hospital by a friend. She was taken not by the ambulance or by the health professionals who came out to see her but by a friend, and her life was saved. She had three young children. It could easily have been lights out for Mary and a family member lost. I want people to know that and to educate themselves, and I want to ensure that our health professionals are educated.

I did not intend to make this remark, but I feel that I must, before I sit down. As a woman who has often been afraid, I have never ever been afraid of a transgender woman or a black man. It is white men from here whom I have been afraid of. Do you know why? It is because 30 women have been murdered in the North in the past five years, and all of them, without exception, were murdered by white men from here.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am concerned about media reports over the weekend that centred on what seems to be fraudulent activity in the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA). Yesterday, the media reported that some drivers had been able to gain a licence through payment, having not sat a driving test, and that, as a result, a police investigation has been launched. Let us think about the realities. Effectively, that means that, right now in Northern Ireland, there are, potentially, people who are driving with a licence without having sat their test. The implications for road safety are huge, yet the Infrastructure Minister, having known that to be the case, has been silent on the matter in the Chamber. The DVA has not come forward either. The Infrastructure Committee was unaware of the matter, despite having recently had a closed session on another issue; we found out about it through the media.

There are far too many questions to be answered by the Infrastructure Minister and the DVA. How long has it been going on? When did the Minister become aware? When did police step in? How many DVA staff or driving instructors or driving schools were involved? Does it centre on one area of Northern Ireland? The list goes on.

I am aware that, in recent weeks, the DVA has sent letters to people revoking their licences. The people to whom those letters were sent may not have been involved in any fraudulent activity but may have been caught up in this farce due to the fact that they sat their test within a certain timescale or with a certain examiner or examiners. That has huge implications for those who have acted in good faith and in accordance with the structure for obtaining a licence — an essential document. While a police investigation is under way, it is important that assurances are given immediately to the Assembly and to the public on how it is being handled. It is yet another sign of dysfunction in the DVA. It must be dealt with, particularly as DVA is undertaking another round of recruitment. Public confidence on the matter must be restored.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I would like to speak about two events from the past few weeks. The first is an attack on the place of worship of our small but much-valued Jewish community. The vandalism at Belfast synagogue is another stark example of the insidious antisemitism that permeates the narrative of far too many political parties and, indeed, many so-called peace activists. All MLAs and political representatives of all parties should join me in utterly condemning attacks on our small Jewish community. At some stage, we may also hear commentary from the parties opposite and beside me condemning the scourge of antisemitism, although, for some ideological reason, that appears to be beyond them.

The second event is the attempt by RTÉ, some so-called artists and the usual horde of myopic politicians on this island to ban Israel's entry to the Eurovision song contest. No matter that the Israeli broadcaster, Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation (IPBC) Kan, is heavily criticised by Netanyahu's Government and that the singer, Yuval Raphael, is a survivor of the Nova murder, torture and rape attack by Hamas and other Gaza thugs on 7 October, the antisemitism brigade tried to ban her participation. It is good to see that their racist and sectarian tropes were roundly ignored by the real people of Europe, as they gave Yuval's entry, 'New Day Will Rise', which is a song about peace and hope, the largest people's score, bringing the Israeli entry into second place.

It was also noteworthy, although, unsurprisingly, this was not mentioned by any of the media on these islands, that our nation gave Israel its highest score and that Ireland gave it its second highest score. The real people of Europe have spoken. It is about time that the antisemites did the same.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the UK-EU summit that is taking place in London today. It feels like a lifetime since the breakfast — I am still calling it "breakfast" — the Brexit referendum in 2016 and the UK's withdrawal from the European Union in January 2020. Both moments will be remembered as being among the most damaging acts of economic and social self-harm that any Government have undertaken. As the former vice-chair of the Remain campaign in Northern Ireland, I was proud to campaign alongside people from every background to make the case for EU membership. We won the argument in the North, but we were still dragged out against our will.

What followed the referendum was not an honest reckoning with the consequences of Brexit but a campaign of mistruths and denial from those who championed it. Instead of working to limit the damage, successive Tory Governments, backed by the DUP, pushed for the hardest possible version of Brexit, with no regard for the impact on this island or the Irish Sea.

Last year's general election delivered more than a change of Government: it brought a renewed opportunity to rebuild relations with the EU. For the first time since Brexit, the Chancellor has met EU finance Ministers, and, today, the Prime Minister is meeting EU leaders to chart a path forward. From the early details that we hear, that seems to be a positive move — we are moving in the right direction — but a lot more needs to be done.

I urge those leaders to focus on three priorities. First, we must restore the freedom of movement of our young people. Our economy and society are enriched by the talent, energy and diversity that mobility brings. Limiting it holds back growth and opportunity. Secondly, the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) must be scrapped. It is doing real, measurable harm to tourism in Northern Ireland. The island has a seamless tourism offer. We cannot allow an artificial barrier to damage livelihoods in that key sector. Thirdly, we need closer alignment on emissions trading. With joined-up schemes across these islands and the EU, we can avoid price instability, support our industries and keep household energy bills lower.

People here did not vote for Brexit, and we must never stay silent about the damage that it has done not just to our economy but to the fabric of our society. Today marks a chance to repair some of the damage, but the SDLP remains clear that the only true path to recovery is through a new Ireland that takes us back into the heart of the European Union.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Last week, I received a partial response to a freedom of information request asking for all information held by the Executive Office about a meeting between the First Minister and the Chair of the Executive Office Committee. Tellingly, the handwritten notes from that meeting were not disclosed as part of the bundle. The little information that I received was released only after the Information Commissioner issued a formal decision notice against the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

What was disclosed was, frankly, astonishing. Who in the House was aware that the Executive Office operates something called the "media monitoring unit"? That name would not sound out of place in a soviet Ministry. Shockingly, neither would its activities. We do not yet know how many staff it employs or what it costs the taxpayer, but, thanks to my FOI request, we know this: between 7 November and 6 December, the Executive Office had civil servants typing up five full transcripts of interviews featuring me or my staff on 'The Nolan Show', totalling a whopping 63 pages. The transcripts covered contributions from me, my assistant Sammy Morrison and even an expert on freedom of information, Martin Rosenbaum. Let me be clear: those were not policy briefings but media appearances by opposition voices, and they were transcribed at public expense not to assist government work or to keep accurate records but to track political criticism. That is not media monitoring; it is political surveillance.

The TUV is, of course, flattered that we so terrify the Executive Office that our every word must be catalogued and filed away, but how can such an issue arise? Some would call that abuse of public money. How can it be justified to use public resources in that way? If civil servants are being diverted to transcribe radio interviews with opposition politicians, the public is right to ask this question: is that the First Minister and deputy First Minister's real priority? If there is money to burn on typing up 'The Nolan Show', no wonder the public have lost confidence in this place.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you illuminate the House on how Mr Aiken's comments align with Standing Orders, particularly Standing Order 24A(6)(d) on Members' statements? Will you also remind him that to claim that people are antisemitic just because they support the rights of Palestinians is a disgraceful slur against the name of anybody who stands up for Palestinians and does a disservice to the many Jewish people in America and across the world who stand up for Palestine?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I listened intently to Dr Aiken's remarks. As I recall, he spoke about the attack on the synagogue and then raised a second issue that was also important. He then reflected that others had refrained from condemning such incidents and said that that was antisemitic. He did not name any Member, so I do not see that any Member should be offended, if they have not done anything in that respect. Mr Aiken did not name anybody. He referred to those who refrained from condemning incidents he regarded as antisemitic. In a political Chamber, that is pretty reasonable comment.

Assembly Business

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that Standing Orders state that Ministers should bring matters of importance to the House before they reach the media and given that the anti-poverty strategy that the Minister for Communities is supposedly introducing was discussed in the media last week, will you look into why we still have not seen a statement from the Minister for Communities about the important and long-awaited anti-poverty strategy?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I cannot: we wait for Ministers to ask us for the opportunity to make a statement, and Minister Nesbitt has asked to make a statement this afternoon. Should the Minister for Communities ask to make a statement, we will facilitate that. I note that the Executive approved the strategy last week and said that we would hear more about it in the Assembly, which is the appropriate way to do it. I have not been notified at this point, but I would not be surprised to receive some form of notification that we will discuss that matter in the next 24 hours.

Ministerial Statement

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have received notice from the Minister of Health that he wishes to make a statement.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank you, Mr Speaker. When I took up post, the last thing that I was looking for was a fight. I have huge respect for the tens of thousands of wonderful colleagues who deliver excellent healthcare every day in Northern Ireland, including, of course, GPs. In fact, I could argue that a GP saved my life, because it was my doctor, fresh into post, who had the professional curiosity that alerted him to the possibility that I had a heart condition. He sent me for tests, which ended with my being fitted with two stents, a pacemaker and a defibrillator. Please believe me when I say that I have a personal interest in supporting primary care.

That personal interest is matched by a professional one. Members will be well aware of my ambition as Health Minister — the so-called shift left — to focus on prevention and early intervention, switching focus from our acute hospitals to concentrate on primary, community and social care. I am not saying that, as Minister of Health, I am the best friend that GPs could have hoped for, because I am sure that every Minister has cherished primary care, but I hope that they understand that it is a key focus of mine.

That said, I did not come into post to make promises that I could not keep or agree to demands that the budget cannot satisfy. Regrettably, I have been faced with such a demand by the British Medical Association Northern Ireland General Practitioners Committee (GPC) in relation to the GP contract for 2025-26. Believe me, I share its frustration that, year after year, there have been inadequate budgets for health and social care, but I must question the wisdom of tabling unachievable demands at a time when budgetary pressures are at an all-time high. I also have to respectfully wonder what it hopes to achieve by treating an ally of primary care as an adversary. All, of course, is fair in love, war and funding bids, but those tactics make absolutely no sense to me.

By way of background, I will start with an issue from last year's negotiations: the question of indemnity, which has been allowed to become toxic over a number of years. Last year, my Department offered £5 million repurposed from the existing funding baseline as a short-term fix pending agreement on the full and final settlement. When I took up post, GPs were accusing my Department of unilaterally changing the agreement in the letter of offer. My officials were insistent that that was not the case, and, from reviewing the agreement and the letters exchanged at the time, I tend to agree. However, I offered independent arbitration, promising to make good any financial shortfall, should the GPs be right. The GPs did not take up that offer. I still do not understand why not, but the suspicion has to be that they recognised that they were seeking to shift the terms of a deal to which they had previously agreed.

This year, the offer is to put that £5 million back into the pot to use for core services and to provide a new, fresh, additional £5 million for indemnity. That is a good outcome. I recognise that the BMA states that £5 million is not sufficient to cover the full costs of indemnity, but let me explain to Members that the value of the offer on indemnity is based on data on the actual subscription costs paid by GPs in Northern Ireland. The data was provided by the three medical defence organisations that provide the overwhelming majority of cover to GPs here, and it was subject to external expert analysis provided by the Government Actuary's Department. I am content that the offer that my Department has made on indemnity is fair and meets the needs of the service.

As to criticism from GP representatives that the offer is not open to locums, I make no apology for that. My Department contracts with GP practices for the provision of services to the population. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the support we offer be targeted to those practices.

Indeed, in March this year, the Public Accounts Committee questioned whether the Department of Health was incentivising GPs to work as locums, to the detriment of the service. I trust that colleagues from that Committee will therefore be supportive of the approach to fund practices directly for the costs of indemnity. The BMA's GP membership has now rejected that offer.

That was one of three key demands. The second concerned the hike in employers' National Insurance contributions. I take the view that it is deeply unfair to ask GPs to fund those increases, so, despite the deficit position that my Department faces, I had already decided that it would not be fair or reasonable to ask practices to meet the extra costs. That is why we put £3·5 million on the table to cover the full costs. When GPs said that that may not be enough, I promised that, if they could produce evidence for that — receipts that proved that it was not enough — I would make up the shortfall. That is another offer that the BMA has rejected.

The third GP demand was for more money. Let me be clear: I wish that I had far more money to invest in primary care. I wish that I had more money to invest in all the really important areas, but the financial realities of repeated Budget settlements that Members endorsed and approved prevent me from doing that. It is simply not the case, however, that extra investment is not being made or, as I read in a public statement last week, that money is even being cut from primary care. In the 2023-24 financial year, the total investment in general practice across Northern Ireland was £388 million. I have already confirmed that the total investment in GP services this year will be over £414 million and will include pay uplifts from last year and the recently announced investments in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and in the primary care elective service. I expect to make a further increase of £10 million to £20 million, or perhaps of £20 million to £30 million, once the pay review body recommendations are decided on for this year.

We have already offered a further unconditional £1 million, yet the BMA NI GPC told me that it wanted £80 million. On at least two occasions, I asked its chair to give me a one-pager outlining what new services it would offer in return. That never came. The extra £80 million is not being demanded for reform or expansion or, indeed, for measures to improve public access to GP services. It would simply be for more of the same. Given the sheer scale of the pressures facing public services across all Departments, that is not a realistic approach to take. That is therefore the position. Giving GPs another £80 million to do what they are already doing, with a vague promise that they will sit down to discuss the severe access issues, is not an option that I can contemplate when there is already a funding gap of half a billion pounds and more in the Department of Health's budget overall. I have been consistent in stating that I will not sign off on catastrophic cuts in order to reduce that funding gap. For the avoidance of doubt, "catastrophic cuts" are cuts that put lives at risk, such as closing an intensive care unit bed.

To summarise, there is £5 million of new money for indemnity, £3·5 million of new money for employers' National Insurance and £1 million of other new money. That is £9·5 million in total. That £9·5 million was hard to source. The Health budget now has a shortfall of in excess of half a billion pounds. I repeat: the shortfall is north of £500 million. I face the quadruple challenge of tackling waiting lists; mitigating the damage being done to other services from the diversion of £165 million from my existing budget to tackle those waiting lists; funding further reform of healthcare; and balancing the books.

I met the BMA NI GPC on Tuesday 29 April. It was clear that it did not like the offer and was determined to ballot its members. We asked it this direct question, "Will you advise your colleagues on which way to vote?". The GPC was equally direct, saying that it would simply state the facts. "Our members will decide" was its position. Two days later, its chair was publicly urging members:

"to REJECT the government contract offer."

Over the past 12 months, MLAs from across the House have written to me to highlight the challenges faced in accessing some practices. We still have many exceptional GP practices, but, from the messages that we receive directly from patients, I can see that some people are still having to phone hundreds of times in the hope of securing an appointment to see their GP. That is not sustainable.

My Department's contract proposals included a number of small but significant changes to help improve patients' experience of accessing services.

Some of those things are simple to implement and do not involve any additional cost to practices, such as making sure that practices make some of their appointment slots bookable so that patients do not always have to call back another time when the daily capacity has been reached; making sure that practices make the most of the digital functionality that they already have to make ordering repeat prescriptions easier; and making sure that, when patients walk in to make an appointment, they do not have to buzz their way into the practice and are dealt with appropriately by a member of staff there and then, rather than having to go outside and phone in.

I also wanted GPs to establish patient participation groups to give patients a voice in how they are served by their practices and for practices to undertake patient satisfaction surveys. Some of the proposals had already been included in the previous year's contract, with the only changes being to some of the wording. Yet, instead of agreeing to those, the BMA offered only to join a new working group to consider them. That was not acceptable to me nor would it be acceptable, I suspect, to most Members. Furthermore, I asked the BMA to commit to sharing with its members our latest proposals for addressing the now wholly untenable access issues. Regrettably, they gave no assurance that they would forward that paper.

The time for general open-ended discussions on improving access is over. I think that I am entitled to see concrete proposals from the BMA. The BMA's Northern Ireland General Practitioners Committee has asked to meet me following the ballot result, and I remain 100% committed to dialogue with the BMA and all the other professional groups and trade unions in the health service. My record speaks for itself on that.

I met the General Practitioners Committee's chair earlier today. My permanent secretary is due to meet the BMA tomorrow to jointly discuss how we expand and enhance GP services and how we can shift resources gradually but steadily from hospitals to community-based services. I had to tell the chair that the GP contract on offer for 2025-26 is at the very limit of what I can do. In financial terms, the cupboard is bare, and there is no point in pretending that I can serve up a sumptuous three-course meal. There is nothing to be gained from further contract negotiations, which would only offer false hope that a better offer might be forthcoming; it will not be. We are at the end point for this year.

I have, therefore, taken the decision to go ahead and implement the contract on offer. I do so mindful of the pressures that GPs are facing in relation to National Insurance bills and the longstanding concerns about indemnity cover. I want the funding that I have been able to earmark for those areas to be released and to provide immediate assistance. Further delay will help no one. As always, I will continue to engage closely with the BMA and GPs. My door is always open for genuine engagement and discussions.

I remind Members of the importance of distinguishing between GP contract negotiations and pay negotiations. Pay is a separate process, and I await publication of national pay review recommendations on pay increases this year for GPs, other doctors and the wider health service workforce. I have said that, all things being equal, my intention is to implement the pay increase recommendations as promptly as possible. That will put further pressures on my overall budget, particularly if the proposed increases are well above inflation. The likelihood is that my budget shortfall will grow even further. That is another reason why I cannot go any further on the GP contract this year or, indeed, on the so many other parts of Health and Social Care that are crying out for additional funding.

I will now listen carefully to what Members have to say. I can only hope that no one will turn it into a party political issue. I commend the statement to the House.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister. I am sure that that will be an interesting meeting tomorrow. That is the end of the statement. I am now looking for questions.

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

Minister, today's statement is not just about a failure of negotiation; it reads like the Executive are declaring war on our already overburdened GP sector. In any trade union negotiations, if you publicly detail the content of those negotiations and then impose a settlement that has already been rejected, it follows that there will be retaliation. We shall have to wait and see.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr McGrath, I just said that I am looking for questions.

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

I am just getting there, Mr Speaker.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Well, can we get to it?

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

Minister, if you are willing to go to war with our GPs and impose the settlement on them without their approval, has your Department assessed the impact of doing so? Will you take responsibility for the collateral damage that will undoubtedly follow?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

In return, I ask the Member whether he will take responsibility for his language. We are implementing this: we are not imposing it on the GPs. You are using inflammatory language, which is a matter of regret.

I have gone as far as I can go with the financial offer. I have detailed it to you. I am not the first to make it public. The GPs were balloted by the General Practitioners Committee, so they know what the offer was. They know that it was £9·5 million. They know that £5 million of that was for indemnity, that at least £3·5 million was being made available for National Insurance and that another £1 million was being put into the pot. I twice said, "Tell me what you would do for service delivery with an additional £80 million", and I did not get a response, because the answer is that it would only be more of the same. I cannot fund that.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Minister, you began by saying that you were not looking for a fight, but your statement is extremely combative. You are emphatic that you cannot do any more for GPs. However, equally emphatic is the fact that 99·7% of GPs have rejected your contract offer. The BMA talks of GP burnout, early retirements, potential contract hand-backs and recruitment and retention issues. It has mentioned the potential for collective action and reduced service in protest —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Is there a "why" or a "what" or anything, Mr McGuigan?

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Minister, can you reassure us in this Chamber but, more importantly, patients at home that your approach and the stand-off will not have a detrimental impact on patient access to GPs and, ultimately, patient outcomes?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I have no alternative to taking this course of action, because the money does not exist. Let Hansard record that the statistic that the Member quoted is the response of those who voted. It seemed to me that the Member was trying to imply that it was 99·7% of all GPs, but that was only the responses of the GPs who voted.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I must say, Minister, that making this type of statement in the House is an interesting way to conduct a negotiation. Minister, do you understand how GPs will view this statement, given that your Department spends well over £0·5 billion per year on the administration of health in Northern Ireland? Do you accept that GPs are entitled to look on £9·5 million as a rather poor settlement?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I gently remind the Member that, although she says that this is a strange way to conduct a negotiation, the negotiations are over. I am not conducting a negotiation. The negotiations are over.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Our GPs deliver 10 million appointments every year on 5·4% of an £8 billion Health budget. That is significantly below the 8% to 10% in other UK nations. Your stated ambition is to shift left into the primary and community sector. What justification is there for continuing to underfund GP practices in Northern Ireland? Will you commit to a plan to move closer to parity with the rest of the UK?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his questions. I would love, as I said in my remarks, to fund the shift left immediately. By the way, I do not necessarily accept the figure of 5·4%, because all these things are open to debate. How do I justify not increasing the money? I justify it because, to fund that, you would be talking about catastrophic cuts. You would be talking about potentially closing an intensive care unit bed. The Member is a nurse, and he knows how catastrophic those cuts would be. I have spoken to the chair today and said, "Let's talk", and she has agreed that we should talk. What is on my agenda is the longer-term view of how we achieve that shift left, but, at the moment, with a £0·5 billion hole in the budget, I cannot find £80 million for GPs.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, you outlined in your statement — you just said it again — that there could be catastrophic cuts that cost lives. The inability to access a GP and to have fully functioning, sustainable GP services is costing lives and will cost lives into the future. Evidence was given at the Committee last week about the late diagnosis of many palliative care patients. If you cannot access your GP, you will get a late diagnosis, if you get a diagnosis at all. What are you going to do? You said that it is no longer a negotiation, but how does that align with your stated commitment to ongoing dialogue with the BMA and GPs?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I think that the Member is aware that I am very conscious about access to GPs, and we wanted to make access to GPs a part of the negotiations, which would have led to a bilateral agreement between my Department and the General Practitioners Committee. We were not able to get there. In fact, we refined our asks around access; I think that we made them simple and cost-neutral to GPs. At the last meeting that I had, when they said that they were going to ballot their members, I asked the direct question, "Are you prepared to share our latest proposals on access with your members before they vote?". No such commitment was given. We are not in a good place; I accept that, and I accept that, if you cannot get timely access to the GP, the implications for the service user or patient can be extremely severe. I want to fix that, but I cannot fix it with money.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I agree that an open-ended period of negotiation, with little or no prospect of the funding situation changing, would only provide a distraction from the wide-ranging discussions that the Health Department will have with primary care. Does the Minister hope that, through the new access indicators, as well as GPs receiving financial clarity on indemnity and National Insurance, patients will see real benefits from the contract?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. Yes, of course I do. As I said in my remarks, one of our proposals on access issues was pre-bookable slots, so that the people who are making dozens and dozens of calls and are sometimes frustrated to be told that all the bookings for the day are gone might be able to pre-book. I think that that would be of great comfort to many of the people who spend a lot of time on redial.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

The BMA has said that the £3·5 million made available by the Department for the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions may not be enough to cover the actual cost to GPs. However, the Minister said in his statement that £3·5 million will cover the full cost. Can the Minister provide evidence that it will indeed cover the full cost and, if so, has that evidence been provided to the BMA?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I made the point in my remarks that we based the £3·5 million on figures from the Government Actuary's Department and the three big indemnity insurance companies, so we have a solid evidence base. I am not sure of the extent to which we have disclosed the statistics to the BMA, but what we have done, which is much more important, is that I have given a ministerial guarantee to that committee that, if GP practices can prove that £3·5 million is not enough, which they should be able to prove through receipts, we will make up the shortfall. Therefore, they should not lose out and should not have to fund a single penny of the additional hike in employers' National Insurance contributions.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Minister, the statement is nothing short of a disgrace and, at times, a personalised attack on members of the General Practitioners Committee. Our GPs see 200,000 patients a week but constituents need more access. It is the first time, I believe, since devolution that a contract has been imposed on medical staff in Northern Ireland. Is the Minister satisfied with that, and does he think that patients will actually get more access to their GPs?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I find the Member's language inflammatory and far from helpful. Once again, I say that we are implementing, not imposing, the contract.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

It is vital that patients can access their GP when they need them, and ensuring that our GP surgeries are viable and sustainable is a key component of that. Is the Minister convinced that what he is proposing can deliver on that?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I am convinced that we have dealt with, on a long-term sustainable basis, the toxic issue of indemnity, which has become toxic over a number of years. Absolutely, we have done that. We have covered the hike in employers' National Insurance contributions, whether that is £3·5 million or maybe a little bit more. We have managed to put another £1 million into the core funding envelope. I know that that is well short of what the GPs want. Is it a perfect solution? Of course it is not. As I said in my remarks, I would love to give more money to every core element of health and social care delivery, but the budget is not there to achieve that.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his interesting statement. Access to GPs is an issue that is raised with me daily, particularly by rural patients, who have to travel further. He will know that, in the south-west area, we have a had a collapse of services, and I am concerned that the statement will push further collapse.

My question is on the increased technology that the Minister mentioned. He mentioned pre-bookable slots to ensure that patients are dealt with when they walk into practices. How will that be effectively monitored by his Department in an independent way? Has he seen any improvement to that over time, as money was provided by the previous Minister, Minister Swann, in the previous mandate? We do not know where exactly that money went to improve telephone services.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member. The money that Mr Swann put in was to improve access to telephony and IT services, and there are IT solutions to achieve what she has asked about. On her concern that this may lead to the collapse of GP practices, I suggest to her that, if we had decided to withhold the £5 million for indemnity and the £3·5 million for National Insurance and not put in the extra £1 million, that would have put more pressure on GP practices that are struggling with their finances.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, thank you for your statement. Given that GP practices that are run by trusts and those that have returned their contracts and have become GP practices that are organised by the trusts have their practice indemnity paid for them, does the Minister not see that there is a clear need to pay the indemnity costs for all other GPs whose practices are not within trust responsibilities?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

If I have understood the Member correctly, he is asking for indemnity for all GP practices. That is exactly what we are providing.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

All GPs.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

No, GP practices.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Last year, there were 312 active GP practices. Giving £1 million of new money in funding for all of those practices represents £1,600 each for six months or £3,200 for 12 months. Can the Minister explain exactly what a practice could do with that type of money?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

The Member needs to realise that there is not a limitless pot of money. One million pounds is not fantastic — I accept that — but no money is worse. We have done what we can, avoiding catastrophic cuts elsewhere in health and social care delivery.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Minister, will the GP contract investment attract more GPs in order to stabilise the service? Our constituents want more access to GPs, and we need you to stabilise it. What are you going to do, if we see more GP hand-backs?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. Of course, if you want to make becoming a GP attractive, you will put more into GP practices, but the money does not exist. There is a shortfall of half a billion pounds in the current Health and Social Care budget. We are investing, and we are investing in the GP workforce. I say to the Member that, to help primary care to deliver and to grow, which is what her question was on, you have to train, develop and retain the GP workforce. Despite the number of GPs who are on principal salary retainers having increased by about 9% between 2018 and 2023, that has been offset by changing patterns of workforce. The annual intake to GP training sits at 121, and that is an increase of 86% since the 2015-16 financial year. In less than a decade, it is up to 121.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Minister, I concur with other Members who have spoken about the tone in which you have delivered the statement, and I certainly concur with them about the content of your statement. You have come to the Chamber many times and said that the Department of Health needs more money just to stand still. I do not know how that equates with your lack of sympathy, expressed through your statement today, for the ability of GP practices —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Please come to a question, Ms Bradshaw.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

How does what you have said many times in the Chamber about the Department of Health's budget equate to your lack of sympathy for the GPs who are trying to run a service?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I would just draw the Member's attention to the fact that I began by saying that I believe that I am a friend of the GPs because of my emphasis on the shift left. What I have done is state the facts. If the Member does not like the tone, that is a matter for the Member.

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

Minister, two GP practices in south Armagh are being or are on the cusp of being managed by the trust. With the managing GP having stepped back from Maphoner surgery in Mullaghbawn, locums and the trust are managing that practice. In Rathkeeland House surgery, in Crossmaglen, the managing GPs are scheduled to step back at the end of August. That is 10,000 patients being impacted. Minister, what are the implications of your statement for the possibility of implementing and starting new managing GPs in Maphoner surgery in Mullaghbawn and Rathkeeland surgery in Crossmaglen? How will that impact on my constituents in and around Mullaghbawn and Crossmaglen?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I cannot quantify how many GPs or surgeries are now beginning to contemplate contract hand-back, but I can tell the Member this: if we had not put the additional £9.5 million in, it is likely that even more would be finding themselves thinking in that direction.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Minister, I know that you are aware that there is huge concern amongst our public about access to GP services. In fact, the Public Accounts Committee is conducting an inquiry on the matter, and it is public knowledge that over 12,000 people who are concerned responded to that inquiry. Do you believe that your statement will worsen an already serious crisis and expedite a situation where GPs who had not decided to hand back contracts will, unfortunately, hand them back because a difficult situation has been made worse by a Minister who, it would seem, is not willing to respond to the concerns of GPs and the public on the matter?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his comments. Am I unwilling to respond? If you are talking about giving GPs an extra £80 million for doing more of the same, I am unwilling to respond, because I cannot afford to respond in that way.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, numerous concerns have been raised with me regarding access to two surgeries that have been taken over in the past 12 months. What steps can you take to ensure that future contracts will have better patient access requirements built in from the get-go?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member. I outlined in my opening remarks some of the measures that we were intending to propose to GPs. We will continue to press GPs to address the serious issues with access.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Despite your opening comments, Minister, not only have you picked a fight with the BMA but it seems as if you have brought your boxing gloves, head guard and the gumshield. The statement is laden with events and accusations that the BMA may challenge, but I will leave that up to it. You talk a lot about collaboration and working together since you took up post: how does the statement meet that threshold?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question. I assure him that there was no accusation — no accusation — in my opening remarks. I regret that we have come to this pass, but it is a pass — it is an impasse — because GPs want £80 million that I do not have; in fact, it is questionable whether that would be the best investment across Health and Social Care.

I regret that we are in this position. I emphasise the fact that I have spoken to the chair of that committee today, and we have agreed that we will meet again and discuss a way forward. That is not to say that the negotiations for 2025-26 are still open — they are not — but we need to take a longer-term view for the sake of all the people of this country.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Minister, there has been a decades-long failure of your Department to workforce plan in primary care. Demand far outstrips supply, and GPs are under considerable pressures. It is not one or two GP surgeries; it is every surgery across Northern Ireland, which means that it is a systemic issue. How are you increasing capacity in the community, including in dental, pharmacy and audiology services, because there are major problems there and they are coming down the line?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. She made the point that the situation is the outworking of decades of underinvestment, failure and missed opportunities. I have said that I am not going to criticise what has gone before, because it will not improve the outcomes for a single patient or service user. I want to be forward-looking. I have already told you about the 86% increase in GP training places over the past nine years. I made a major announcement last week about pre-registration training right across a range of specialities, and I direct the Member to that statement.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the almost £10 million funding for primary care. Of course, if the Budget had allowed, the reality could have been quite different. Can the Minister give an assurance that rural constituencies, such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone, will benefit from this assurance for the GP settlement? Also, on the improved MDT roll-out in rural constituencies, how can that be accepted by the GP federation?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her question. On rurality, there will be an equitable distribution of the funds. The £5 million for indemnity and the £3·5 million plus for National Insurance are not for urban or rural areas; they are for all GP practices. The Member will be aware that, recently, the transformation fund promised £61 million to increase the availability of MDTs, but that will only take the teams to 12 of the 17 GP federations. Unfortunately, it will be the end of the decade before we can realistically look at making MDTs available to every GP in all 17 GP federations.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 19 May 2025.

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 and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 19 May 2025.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the programme of expenditure proposals for 2025-26 as announced by the Minister of Finance on 3 April 2025 and set out in the Budget document laid before the Assembly on 12 May 2025.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours and 30 minutes for the debate. The Minister will have up to 60 minutes to allocate at his discretion between proposing and making a winding-up speech. A Member from the Opposition will be called first and will have 10 minutes to speak. A representative of the Finance Committee will be called second and will have 10 minutes to speak. All other Members who are called to speak will have seven minutes.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As you know, I am a man of few words. I do not intend to make a very long introductory statement but, if provoked, I am prepared to use my time at the end.

I previously made a statement to the House on the Budget but I welcome the opportunity to debate it more fully with Members. The agreement of the Budget shows the Executive's determination to work together and do things differently using our limited resources to deliver what matters most. The Budget reflects our Programme for Government (PFG), as we have specifically ring-fenced some £441 million for our shared priorities. While the funding received following the Chancellor's spring statement could not be included in the departmental budget outcomes, the Executive agreed on how the money would be allocated in June monitoring.

Including those indicative June monitoring allocations, the Budget provides Departments with £19·3 billion, which will be spent on running our public services and investing in our infrastructure. Some £16·8 billion of that has been provided for day-to-day services, including £1·2 billion that has been earmarked for specific purposes and £15·6 billion of general allocations that may be spent at the discretion of individual Ministers.

With Health receiving £8·5 billion, Education receiving £3·3 billion and Justice receiving £1·4 billion, those three Departments alone account for some 80% of the available funding for day-to-day spending, providing vital funding for health services, schools, policing and the wider justice system.

The Budget will mean £215 million going towards cutting health waiting lists and supporting investment in elective care. Some £165 million of that is earmarked within the Health budget settlement, with a further £50 million to be provided at June monitoring. In a recent statement to the Assembly, the Health Minister announced a package of initiatives to tackle hospital care backlogs, including a waiting list reimbursement scheme, demonstrating how that funding will make a difference. As the Health Minister said in that statement:

" It provides a sharper focus that is targeted in a way to have an effective impact on waiting lists." — [Official Report (Hansard), 6 May 2025, p16, col 2].

It invests in our children's futures while also helping hard-working families by doubling our investment in the early years and childcare strategy to £50 million, with a commitment to provide a further £5 million in June monitoring. We can already see the positive difference that that uplift in funding will make, with Minister Givan announcing last week that it will help to enable the extension of the childcare subsidy scheme to cover school-age children. It is estimated that the number of children who will benefit from the discount will now increase by 60%, from the current 15,000 to approximately 24,000. Education is further supported with £75 million for the Education Authority (EA) pay and grading review and £15 million additional for special educational needs.

The Budget provides £322·5 million to support our agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development, recognising the importance of that sector to our economy and local farming communities. Some £5 million has been earmarked for investment in Lough Neagh, recognising its importance and the desire to protect it. Some £15 million has been earmarked to build the skills base that our economy needs now and in the future.

Recognising the importance of safe communities, Justice has received earmarked funding of an additional £5 million for that purpose and £16 million for the Executive's programme on tackling paramilitary activity and organised crime. That is on top of the £37·8 million of security funding provided by the Treasury.

The Executive Office has been provided with an additional £2 million towards ending violence against women and girls. It also receives £150 million for historical institutional abuse (HIA) victims and truth recovery.

The Department for Communities receives £47·3 million to fund existing welfare mitigations and £16·9 million to support benefit delivery.

The Budget recognises the need for transformation, with £21·3 million for transformation projects in Health, Justice, Infrastructure and special educational needs, as well as £25·4 million for the Integr8 system, which will support all Departments.

Importantly, in terms of today's spending, excluding earmarked allocations and in-year transfer, the Budget provides every Department with an uplift on its 2024-25 final Budget allocation.

I turn to capital investment. Some £330·6 million has been provided for Executive flagship projects, with a further £102·8 million for Strule Shared Education Campus and £59·9 million for shared and integrated education. Some £100 million has been provided to deliver social housing. In line with that commitment, we are also investing £105·7 million in waste water infrastructure. Some £99 million has been provided for city and growth deals, inclusive futures and complementary fund projects. In line with our commitment to tackling climate change, £12·3 million has been provided for the just transition programme.

Departments have also received £1·6 billion of general capital allocations that will provide investment in our schools, hospitals and road network, supporting the construction industry and our economy. Financial transactions capital (FTC) funding is the catalyst for stimulating private-sector investment in infrastructure and other projects that benefit our region. For the first time, that funding has been oversubscribed, with £58·7 million being made available to support initiatives that include co-ownership and capital grants to businesses. That is a positive development. Members who vote against the Budget will therefore be voting against every single announcement that I have made in the past five minutes and will be doing so in the absence of any alternative proposals.

With increased demands on services and rising costs, significant challenges remain as we strive to deliver the public services that people rightly deserve. The 2025-26 Budget, however, prioritises the funding that we have available to make a real difference for the betterment of people's lives across society. The Budget provides record levels of funding for our public services and helps facilitate the delivery of our Programme for Government priorities, but challenges most certainly remain. Many in the Chamber have opinions on where Ministers should spend money, but fewer say which services Ministers should stop in order to make that happen or where they would like to see changes take place. Simply put, additional funding for one area means less funding for another. Articulating problems is very easy. Working together to address them is what we are elected to do. As Finance Minister, I have worked to build consensus among my Executive colleagues and focused on what we can do together.

I hope that the 2025-26 Budget will be our last single-year Budget, as, in the autumn, I intend to bring forward recommendations for a three-year resource Budget and a four-year capital Budget, reflecting the period that is covered by the comprehensive spending review. A multi-year Budget has the potential to be a game changer and to enable Departments to plan on a longer-term, strategic basis. Work has already started on multi-year Budgets, with the Department of Finance's Budget sustainability team supporting Departments with their five-year budget plans. The benefits will be realised only if the Westminster Government use the spending review as an opportunity to invest in public services. I have made that clear in my meetings with the British Government. I continue to make the case to the Treasury for the Executive to be fairly and properly funded, reflecting our relative need. Professor Holtham's recent work has been crucial in my making that case.

There is no doubt that the financial outlook remains incredibly challenging, particularly given the Government's continued policy of austerity. Behind those millions and billions of pounds are people and families who are hoping and striving for better. Now that all Ministers have their funding envelope, it is incumbent on each of us to manage our budgets efficiently and effectively. All decisions must be taken with the intent to make things better and to make every pound count. I will keep working in partnership with my Executive colleagues and will continue to press the case for better funding for our public services. I commend the Budget to the Assembly.

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

I will speak in my capacity as leader of the Opposition and as Chair of the Committee for Finance. Yet again, I draw attention to the anomaly whereby I am obliged to divide my time between speaking in those two roles.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. Matthew, you have raised the issue previously. You have been told that a Member can speak only once to a motion. That is covered in Standing Orders. If you are unhappy with that, I suggest that you go down that route. I understand the point that you are making, however.

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

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will be pursuing the point, particularly because others in the Chamber make great play of the importance of opposition in other Chambers on this island. I intend to do my job in opposition on this part of the island and to have it properly respected. Anyway, I will move on.

I am giving the views on the Budget on behalf of the Finance Committee. We have carried out important scrutiny in that context. I thank the Minister for tabling the motion, which follows on from the Committee's Budget debate prior to the Easter recess. In the past number of months, the Committee has met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to discuss the Budget process alongside our Scottish and Welsh counterparts. Soon, we will engage informally with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

In the past, the Committee has been critical of the Executive for not explicitly linking Budgets to the PFG. Committee members, however, welcome the development of five-year business plans and, indeed, the indications of moving towards having multi-annual Budgets following the comprehensive spending review. I acknowledge that the Minister made that point today.

We are all aware of the extremely challenging Budget envelope that we have for 2025-26, and the Fiscal Council has noted the considerable general pressures that Departments face, not least through the impact of the autumn statement and the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions.

The Committee looks forward to receiving briefings from the Department this week on the fiscal framework and, we hope, on the report on our relative need from Professor Gerry Holtham. I may say more on that soon. At this point, we are, as I said, still largely dependent on regional rates and reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing when it comes to money that is independent from the Treasury. The Committee also acknowledges the funding provided by financial packages, including New Decade, New Approach and Fresh Start, for shared education and housing and the Executive restoration package. As Members are aware, those financial packages are confirmed separately by the Secretary of State, who sets out the funding and any relevant conditions.

I mentioned the impact of the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. The Treasury has confirmed that the Executive will receive £146 million from Westminster Main Estimates to offset that cost. However, the Committee is aware that that is approximately £60 million short of what is needed for core Departments and does not extend to the wider public sector, such as GPs' and dentists' practices, nor indeed councils and community and voluntary sector organisations that are involved in the provision of public services.

The Budget's uplift of 5% of the regional rate for domestic and 3% for non-domestic properties provides, in total, £732·3 million of funding in 2025-26. The Committee has engaged with officials regarding the levels of unpaid rates. The Committee also welcomes the uplift that was delivered in the restoration package to the Executive's borrowing power through the reinvestment and reform initiative. That additional £20 million in 2024-25 rises with inflation in subsequent years, so its addition gives the Executive the ability to access £225·7 million of borrowing for 2025-26. With Treasury allocations and funds available from June monitoring, the Executive Budget for 2025-26 stands at just shy of £17 billion in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and just under £2·5 billion in capital DEL. We are pleased that FTC bids have, for the first time, exceeded the available allocation, which is £58·7 million. That is a welcome development and something that many of us, from all parties, have called for.

Across resource and capital DEL, £440·6 million has been earmarked for PFG priorities, including £357 million in the Budget 2025-26 outcome and £83 million of indicative June monitoring allocations. Resource DEL allocations include a welcome £250 million to cut health waiting times. Capital DEL allocations include the allocation of £21·3 million of the £47 million that is available from the Executive restoration package. There is still some work to do on the public-sector transformation board (PSTB). The Committee has applied considerable scrutiny to the work of the PSTB and will engage further with the Minister and Secretary of State on that.

Turning to the Department of Finance's own budget, non-ring-fenced DEL for 2025-26 amounts to £240 million and there is capital DEL of £32·1 million. On a number of occasions, the Committee has considered the Executive restoration package cliff edge when the short-term Budget support that is being provided runs out but the 24% Barnett consequential top-up has not had time to build up to a similar level. The Committee particularly looks forward to being briefed by Department of Finance officials this week regarding the fiscal framework and the work of Professor Holtham. It is vital that the Executive's Budget is set at the appropriate level.

Through its membership of the Interparliamentary Finance Committee Forum, the Committee has engaged significantly with its counterparts in Wales and Scotland and will continue to do so. It will also engage with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I look forward to hearing Members' comments and those of the Chairs of other Statutory Committees. We welcome the fact that the debate was brought forward by the Minister.

In the remaining five minutes of my 10 minutes — the Minister having taken 10 minutes of his 60 — I will endeavour to give the view of the official Opposition. This Budget represents drift, inaction and distraction by the Executive. Interestingly, the Minister said contradictory things in his opening remarks. He talked about the tightness of the spending settlement, but, from that lectern a few minutes ago, he also said that Departments have had "record levels of funding". It is true to say that, in the previous financial year, which was the first year back after restoration, the Executive experienced record levels of funding. The question that we are asking today is this: what have they done with it? How clear and specific are the targets set out in this document for the second full-year Budget of our restored Executive? How ambitious and realistic are those plans?

The answer, I am afraid, is this: not at all. There has been consistent drift and inaction from the Minister.

I will pick a few specific areas. There is no plan for investment in water. The Finance Minister and his colleague the Economy Minister made great play of the cost-of-doing-business review in response to the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. Their response, in policy terms, to the research that they commissioned an academic to do was, "Forward it on to London". There is no clear plan from the Finance Minister or his colleagues for electricity investment and infrastructure. Compare that with what his counterpart Eoin Ó Broin and other Sinn Féin TDs were saying, possibly with some merit, in Dáil Éireann, just a few weeks ago, when they called out the absence of strategic investment in water, infrastructure and a range of other priorities south of the border. Who is in charge of those things north of the border? It is Sinn Féin — it is a Sinn Féin Finance Minister and other Sinn Féin Ministers. I accept that we are in a different situation on this side of the border, that we are not yet in a sovereign Irish Government representing the whole island and that the Minister will probably say to me, "Ah, but the choices I have are not the same as a Minister in Dublin has". That is true, but I would expect to see from a republican Finance Minister a little more ambition than simply to say, "London isn't giving us enough money. Therefore we can't take action".

In his statement, the Minister said that he wants to see alternatives. I am glad to say that the Opposition have, today, published a detailed alternative plan — a five-point approach — that is different from that published by the Executive. There are things that the Minister and his colleagues could do to increase investment in Northern Ireland, but they are not doing them. He is not doing it. He is not taking the power to increase infrastructure investment, for example, by a more innovative use of infrastructure financing. He is not taking increased fiscal powers; in fact, I had to press him in the Committee to find out whether there is any plan to increase fiscal devolution. You would not know from what is in the document, because there is no intention to increase our fiscal powers whatever. There is a consistent argument that we are not getting enough money from the British Government — that is, of course, true; I would not disagree with that — but the test of people in power is not what they do to blame others for the limitations on their power. By the way, there is a legitimate and robust argument that the UK Government are not funding this place to need. As an Opposition we have consistently agreed with the Executive on that, but we have also said, "Show us your alternative view. Maximise the powers that you have in terms of fiscal devolution, local revenue raising and a greater use of alternative sources of funding".

From 1919 to 1921, Michael Collins was a republican Minister of Finance who raised money internationally to help pay for the new Irish Republic. I would expect a republican Finance Minister to show a little more initiative than to simply wait for the UK Government to increase allocations; I expect a little more ambition from the Minister. The document does not have the ambition that we need for our public services, and it does not come near the kind of aspiration that we should have for our people. It has no plan for long-term investment in our infrastructure and no plan to take more powers to this place, rather than simply shifting blame to others. It is, I am afraid, a further example of the Executive's drift, inaction and distraction, so the Opposition cannot and will not support it.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On behalf of the Committee, I confirm our support for the motion to approve the programme of expenditure proposals for 2025-26. The Committee has engaged with officials from the Department on its budgetary allocation for this financial year, most recently at our meeting on Thursday 8 May. Consequently, members have been provided with a picture of the financial landscape for a Department with a remit that touches the lives of so many citizens across the North and employs over 11,500 people — over one third of the NICS headcount. Members remain particularly concerned about the potential impacts on housing, social security, employment support, local government and community development.

The Department for Communities has been allocated a total of £938·1 million in resource DEL, £270 million in capital DEL and £48·1 million in financial transactions capital. The Committee notes that those allocations are set against a backdrop of significant and rising pressures. Crucially, the Department faces a non-ring-fenced resource DEL shortfall of £98·6 million or 12% against its stated requirements. We also note that, while additional funding for Civil Service pay awards and National Insurance contributions is included, that does not fully cover the pressures faced by the Department and its arm's-length bodies (ALBs).

The Committee welcomes the earmarked resource funding, which met departmental requirements in full, including £16·9 million for up to 400 additional benefit delivery staff. However, we also note the Department's advice that that funding is not yet recurrent and that recruiting to those posts will be challenging. The Committee will maintain a keen interest in the recurrent nature of that essential funding and in the high levels of agency staff usage.

During its recent session with officials, the Committee explored several areas of specific impact and concern arising from the budget settlement. The allocation, for instance, of £63 million for new social housing starts will support approximately 1,000 new homes. That is welcome, but it falls significantly short of the 2,000-home target. The Committee supports the Department's intention to bid for further in-year funding.

I now turn to the arts, culture and heritage sectors. Although some additional support for National Museums and Libraries has been indicated, the Department's briefing confirmed unmet bids for further investment across those areas. The Committee has been awaiting a detailed departmental briefing on that pressing issue. Regrettably, it has now been postponed on two separate occasions. We also await briefings on the anti-poverty strategy and languages strategy.

As Chair of the Committee, I recently had the privilege of attending the Equity trade union conference in Derry, at which, for all the recent successes that we have had, the funding threat to our burgeoning film and TV sector was made clear, echoing our feedback from stakeholders that was gathered earlier this year. Culture and the arts have been a significant contributor to so much of what we do. We have all been proud recently of many of the achievements. The Committee will continue to monitor the health of the sector closely.

The voluntary and community sector has also featured prominently in our discussions. An additional £2·8 million to help to address pressures, such as the real living wage and employers' National Insurance contributions, is a positive step. However, the Committee remains attentive to whether that meets the full scale of need and will continue to explore how a coherent and supportive approach can be promoted for all third-sector organisations.

A significant concern for the Committee is the continued absence of a dedicated, ring-fenced budget line for the anti-poverty strategy. We understand that work is ongoing, but the Committee will seek assurances about how statutory obligations to tackle poverty will be resourced and delivered effectively by the Department and in conjunction with stakeholders, such as councils. Furthermore, the Committee will closely monitor the implications of welfare changes emanating from Westminster, particularly those outlined in the recent Green Paper, and will seek clarity on the adequacy of consultation around those changes and of funding for employment support programmes and the status of Barnett consequentials in that critical area.

The Committee for Communities is committed to its role in scrutinising the Department's expenditure and the delivery of its extensive range of services and supports. We will continue to engage constructively with the Department as it navigates those financial challenges and works to deliver for all our communities.

I will now make a few brief remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson for communities and housing. As I have outlined, the budget position for 2025-26 is a challenging one from a Communities perspective. It is fair to describe it as a standstill budget, as it largely reflects the budget position from last year and does not provide much room for new spending. A key concern at this stage is about the shortfall in funding for social housing. Only £63 million was allocated to that, which, as I have said, will allow for only half of the 2,000 target for new social homes to be built.

I urge the Communities Minister to continue to raise with the Department for Work and Pensions the proposed cuts to disability benefits, which will cause untold harm to some of the most vulnerable in our society. What those cuts will mean for people here remains unclear. It is vital that we continue to be able to protect people. The austerity agenda of the Labour Government has been roundly rejected. They should abandon those cruel cuts immediately.

While I acknowledge the reports of the anti-poverty strategy being brought to the Executive last week, I urge the Minister for Communities to engage meaningfully with the sector to address its concerns, including the absence of any ring-fenced budget to support its implementation. After many years of waiting for an anti-poverty strategy, we need to ensure that we have a robust and ambitious plan that will effectively tackle the root causes of poverty and deprivation. It is unclear why the strategy, having been brought to the Executive last week, has not been brought to the Chamber as a statement today. I urge the Minister to make that statement as a matter of urgency so that we can continue to press on that important strategy on behalf of all the people who have been waiting for it for so long.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I will make some remarks on behalf of the Committee and then, with your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, in my personal capacity.

On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for securing the debate on the 2025-26 Budget and for laying the associated Budget documents last week. The Economy Committee received oral evidence on these matters from the then Minister in December 2024. We heard from officials on 5 February 2025 and noted further written departmental submissions on 26 February 2025. We heard from the current Economy Minister on 9 April and have lately received the Department's Estimates memorandum for 2025-26. The Estimates memorandum helpfully provides comparisons for key budget lines, contrasting the closing position for 2024-25 with the proposed opening budgets for this year.

Despite the Executive's agreeing the Budget and a Budget document having been laid, the Department for the Economy is yet to provide the Committee with impact assessments for the allocations for 2025-26. As indicated in my remarks on behalf of the Committee last month, without those, Committee members have found it impossible to determine what the Budget might mean for skills places, apprenticeship numbers, further education (FE) places or, indeed, higher education (HE) places, all of which could impact significantly on our economy.

Some information has been provided on Northern Ireland Civil Service pay pressures and the FE pay deal. As I indicated in April, if FE lecturers accept the pay offer of around 5·5%, which, I understand, they may have done today, there may be a further pressure of around £5 million on the Department's budget. It is not clear at this time how that will be addressed. Previously, the Department advised that it is expected that pressures associated with higher education provision would largely be met by the 2025-26 Budget. However, in subsequent papers, the Department appeared to advise of a baseline cut to higher education, including student support. Some of those have been offset by further allocations that were made in recent weeks, however, at this time, the Committee is still not clear on what the overall impact of that cut will be on higher education places.

The Programme for Government includes a significant commitment to promoting economic development. The skills barometer shows what the skills need will be in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, however, the Committee cannot be absolutely sure at this time that all the promises set out in the PFG will be met by the budget allocation.

I will make a number of remarks as economy spokesperson for my party. The Budget arrived in my pigeonhole only this morning, so I was not able to quite get across its 117 pages. I will, however, remark on the section on the economy.

First, I congratulate the Minister on securing a pay settlement with FE lecturers. In fairness to the Minister, I think that she recognised the important role that they play in our economy and for young people across Northern Ireland. She was determined to get an outcome on that and had the Committee's and my support. I thank her for that. Secondly, the Committee previously raised with the Minister the issue of securing and allocating FTC. She honoured her word by making bids for that, and the Finance Minister has made allocations. I thank the Economy Minister for that.

I want to make some other comments. I have huge concerns about the proposed cuts to higher education in Northern Ireland, particularly to our institutions of Ulster University in Belfast and Coleraine and Queen's University Belfast (QUB). The issue has made its way into the media in recent weeks via a letter sent by the three higher education institutions and two teaching colleges in Northern Ireland that outlined their serious concerns about the current budget. I also received a copy of a letter sent to the Minister by Queen's University, dated 12 May. It sets out clearly the university's concerns about the allocations and the "grave implications" that they have for higher education and capital projects in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Minister's commitment — this is on page 53 of the Budget document — to increase domestic and international air connectivity. However, no details have been set out on how the Executive propose to do that. There is no line on the long-awaited route development fund or, indeed, airport support beyond what has previously been provided.

The Committee will look with interest to ensure that we receive details of how the Minister proposes to allocate her budget, and we will support her in trying to make Northern Ireland continue to grow its economic status.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister of Finance for tabling the motion, giving Committees and, indeed, Members an opportunity to make further comment on the programme of expenditure proposals for 2025-26 prior to the passage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

The Committee for the Executive Office considered written and oral briefings from the Executive Office on its budget in March 2025, and it has received several further written updates. It is due to meet the Department's permanent secretary in the coming weeks to discuss the departmental plan for the next financial year.

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

Members noted that, when taken with the baseline, resource DEL allocations will enable the current commitments on ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) to be taken forward in line with spending plans and that the funding for good relations will ensure that delivery continues to be maintained at current levels. It is somewhat disappointing that, given the importance of those programmes to communities across Northern Ireland, little room is left for emerging needs or to expand provision.

Members also noted that the funding that is available to non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) only partially meets pay and inflationary pressures over and above the baselines that were brought forward. We remain concerned that continued pressures of that type could impact on NDPBs' ability to discharge their functions fully and effectively.

An allocation of earmarked resource DEL that is below the departmental requirements of £168 million has been provided. That funding is mainly for victims' payments and forecast costs of truth recovery redress payments and of establishing and implementing a statutory public inquiry. The Committee will closely monitor those requirements during the year, and it looks forward to the introduction of the Bill in the coming weeks. Members also noted that capital allocations, including an allocation to meet the financial transactions capital net requirement, will allow inescapable pressures to be met.

The Committee is seeking further information on a number of areas, such as the north-west development fund, and is exploring the good use of public money for accommodation and establishment costs. We will monitor the impact of reduced opportunities for in-year allocations on the delivery of key areas of the Department's work. We welcome the much-trailed anticipated move to multi-year Budgets and the certainty that that will bring to TEO and its delivery partners, the development of TEO's five-year business plan and greater alignment between the Budget and the Programme for Government.

I will make some remarks in my capacity as an individual MLA. There is funding for a number of really important areas of work, albeit in a less-than-optimal allocation. The fact that there is now money is important, and we now need to see action from the Executive. I refer to the long-awaited review of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) programme and the promise that, in the next round of funding, its next iteration will see it aligned with emerging issues in good relations in its broadest sense and in tackling racial tensions.

Linked to that is the, again long-awaited, draft refugee integration strategy. We know that the Executive have signed that off, and we are waiting to see the implementation plan and funding programme. Last summer, the PSNI received £2·8 million in the October monitoring round, for example, to cover the costs of the summer riots. I and my party believe that that money would be better allocated to the Executive Office for its good relations and race relations projects. We would find that a more harmonised society could be produced as a result of that, rather than fissures being widened and wounds being allowed to fester.

In my remarks as Committee Chair, I did not mention that we are looking at the three bodies: the Irish Language Commissioner, the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. We understand that each body will receive approximately £1 million a year for running costs. As a party, we support the establishment of those three bodies, but we recognise that that is a lot of money allocated to them while we see a constriction on the money for front-line grassroots projects. We will keep an eye on that to ensure that the money is spent effectively.

I will move on to victims and survivors, including those impacted on by the Troubles, those who lived through the hell of childhood abuse and those who were so badly treated and forced to live for varying degrees of their lives separated from their children, many of whom never got to meet their adult child or their birth mother. I am talking about the mother-and-baby institutions. We are keen to see the Bill on the inquiry and the redress scheme come forward. I am also pleased to see the Executive Office's commitment to continue funding the specialist support services for them in the Budget. We cannot assume that the passage of time is lessening the psychological impact and the need for those tailored support services, given the circumstances that people lived through.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the final Budget 2025-26.

As I stated at the draft Budget stage, the Committee was, of course, pleased that the Executive agreed to earmark resource DEL of over £300 million for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. However, at the Balmoral show last week, the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) highlighted to the Committee the need for long-term ring-fencing of the agri budget, inflation-proofed, to ensure continuity and planning. We were delighted to have a formal briefing from the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster (YFCU) at the Balmoral show last week, which was followed by an informal Q&A with the YFCU and the AERA Committee, when we were joined by members of our Economy Committee.

I will highlight some of the financial matters raised by the young farmers. We heard of young people's desire to get into and stay in farming, to be nature-friendly farmers and to help improve our environment. They struggle to secure finances, due to high land prices and risks perceived by financial institutions. Financial barriers also limit their ability to invest in modern equipment, technology and sustainable practices. Members heard of the need for additional financial incentives, grants or expert advice to help young farmers navigate the planning process. The proposed changes to agricultural property relief and inheritance tax policies are also causing worry. These changes will lead to the fragmentation of family farms.

On that note, the House should note that, last Friday, the UK Government's Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee called on the Government to delay announcing their final agricultural property relief reforms until October 2026 — they come into effect in April 2027 — which will allow for better formulation of tax policy and protect vulnerable farmers.

On 6 February, DAERA officials provided the Committee with an oral update on the draft Budget 2025-26 proposals. At that time, only £15·7 million resource DEL was allocated, compared with bids of around £50·9 million. On capital DEL, the Committee heard that DAERA had submitted bids to DOF totalling £179·2 million against the proposed allocation of £119·5 million. On 3 April, the Executive agreed the final Budget 2025-26, which confirmed the opening allocations for DAERA as £599·5 million resource DEL; £31·8 million ring-fenced resource DEL, including depreciation; and £119·5 million capital DEL.

At our meeting last week at the Balmoral show, we considered a written briefing from officials. Unfortunately, the only change from the draft Budget 2025-26 allocations was an extra £3·4 million in resource DEL for the pay award from 1 August 2025. The £19 million general allocation will cover some, but not all, of DAERA's statutory obligations that relate to bovine tuberculosis compensation and the contractual pressures on pay and running costs. There is no change from the draft Budget 2025-26 capital DEL allocation of £119·5 million, which is £7·1 million less than DAERA's £126·6 million of inescapable and high-priority bids. We were advised by the Minister that he has agreed to make an opening overcommitment of around £15 million.

There has been a reallocation in the just transition fund for agriculture. The £12·3 million of Executive earmarked capital will now fund three main projects: £5·5 million for bovine genetic improvements; £5·4 million for the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry (SULS) project; and a total of £1·4 million for farming for carbon projects. The Committee is pleased to hear that the Executive have also agreed indicative Executive-earmarked resource DEL allocations to DAERA at the June monitoring round of £1·4 million for employers' National Insurance contributions and £5 million for Lough Neagh, which aligns with the PFG's priority on:

"Protecting Lough Neagh and the Environment".

The Committee also recognises that the final Budget position remains an extremely difficult outcome for DAERA. On 5 June, the Committee will discuss with officials the further work required as part of the June monitoring round to determine the extent of the pressures. The Committee remains concerned about the disparity between the resource DEL bids and the allocations for specific statutory functions and projects, as the allocations range from as little as one sixth to around half of what was bid for.

The trajectory of bovine TB remains upwards. Compensation for 2024-25 was projected to be almost £42 million when we reported on the draft Budget, but it now looks to be closer to £50 million for the year 2025-26, and it could be more.

The Committee focused on a number of areas of capital allocation: for example, Farming with Nature has a capital allocation of £4·5 million, and the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) framework has been allocated £4 million. We have continued our programme of external meetings and hearing from stakeholders about the impact of the funding shortfalls.

At our meeting on 8 May, we held an evidence session with officials on the consultation on the proposals for the nutrients action programme (NAP). We heard at the Balmoral show that farmers are committed to playing their part in improving water quality, but the UFU warned that the proposals fail to reflect the complexity of on-farm decision-making and risk undermining environmental progress and farm viability. Both the UFU and the YFCU highlighted the lack of engagement with industry on the new aspects of the NAP. Some members expressed concerns that incentives and support for farmers to play their part in improving the environment were lacking, leading to "no carrot, just stick" approaches.

It remains to be seen whether the Minister will receive significant allocations in future monitoring rounds. The Committee will continue to support the Minister in seeking additional funds as needed. It is expected that the Chancellor's announcement on 11 June of a comprehensive spending review will cover three years of resource spending and four years of capital spending. That should provide for longer funding periods for organisations, but the lack of multi-year budgets was cited by many rural groups as a significant issue.

I turn to some brief remarks on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

You have less than a minute, Robbie.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I will wrap it up pretty quickly, if I can.

I highlight the unprecedented pressures that face our agri-food and rural sectors. Whilst the wider Budget implications extend further than our Finance Department, there is no doubt that the most imminent crisis for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is the future viability of farming families in Northern Ireland and, crucially, food security. We have to be clear that Labour's proposed inheritance tax reforms are draconian and that the risk of fragmentation to family farms is very real. Added to that, we have a lack of action to address the spiralling bovine tuberculosis crisis, the blunt approach to the NAP proposals, with no identified support or incentives for farmers, and the cumulative threat of damaging trade deals, be they with the US or the EU or the Mercosur deal. Our farming sector is being squeezed from all sides.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question Time will begin at 2 pm, so I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Philip McGuigan.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Communities

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

1. Mr Gaston asked the Minister for Communities to outline all funding that his Department and its arm's-length bodies, including Northern Ireland Screen, have provided to Kneecap since 2017. (AQO 1989/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Neither my Department nor any of its arm's-length bodies (ALBs) have provided any funding to Kneecap since 2017.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I welcome confirmation from the Minister that no money from his Department has been provided to Kneecap, and I trust that that will continue. As the Minister responsible for local government, what is he doing to stop that pro-IRA rap group from turning Belfast City Council-owned Boucher Road playing fields into its personal propaganda stage?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will be aware that, although I oversee local government legislation, it is up to individual councils to make such decisions. I hope, however, that councils will take into consideration the good relations issues that have been raised in light of some of the comments made not only by Kneecap but by all those who seek to engage in what is essentially the glorification of terrorism.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Does the Minister agree that the UK Government and the Irish Government need to distance themselves fully from the funding of state sponsorship of racism, antisemitism and sectarianism in view of Kneecap? Some Members in the House have suggested that it is mad to complain about such comments from Kneecap: does the Minister further agree that that is quite irresponsible, to say the least?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I completely agree with the Member; in fact, it is not only right but our responsibility to call out such behaviour. There will always be things that people do in the arts sphere with which we disagree, but Kneecap's comments went far beyond anything that comes anywhere close to being artistic licence. It was the glorification of terrorism. It was also supporting and calling for violence towards MPs. Not only should there be criticism of that but it is incumbent on us to call it out. I call on the UK Government and the Irish Government to consider their actions in that regard.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Will the Minister outline how funding decisions for cultural and artistic output balance freedom of expression with public accountability?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will be aware that the Arts Council is the primary body responsible for funding the arts in Northern Ireland. It has policies that help it work out where those boundaries and barriers are. For example, it has a good relations policy and an equality policy.

As Minister for the arts, I want to make sure that we do everything that we can to showcase the wide range of artistic talents that we have in Northern Ireland. Let me be clear, however, that that should never come at the expense of standing up for what is right and standing against what were clearly, in those circumstances, the wrong comments.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Minister, can you detail whether your Department has given funding through community arts funding to any organisation that has been publicly singing:

"up to our necks in Fenian blood"?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

As the Member will be aware, it is up to the Arts Council to determine funding and everything around that on the basis of its policies. It has its equality and good relations policies, and it is only right that they be fully implemented. Where standards have fallen below what is expected, action should be taken. What I will not do, however, which some are trying to do, is judge the entire bands community by the actions of a few, if they have fallen below expected standards.

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

No one should trivialise individuals trivialising violence, whether they are artists or not. For the sake of consistency, when the Minister met the Loyalist Communities Council did he explicitly say to it that the trivialisation of violence, including that by loyalist paramilitaries, was wrong?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I have been consistent on the matter and have not trivialised it. As part of my discussions, I made it clear that I am looking to the future and that there is no role for violence or the threat of violence in our society. The Member should not need to ask that question, because I have been entirely consistent on the matter. No matter where it comes from, violence and the threat of violence is wrong. That is not only the case now; it always has been. No one should ever seek to justify it.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

2. Mrs Erskine asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the Northern Ireland Football Fund. (AQO 1990/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

A total of 37 applications were submitted under the Northern Ireland Football Fund’s performance programme from 38 different clubs. One application was made jointly by two clubs, and one application was received from a local council in partnership with a performance club. Applications are being considered, and decisions will be taken in the near future. I hope to announce the first projects to be taken forward under the rolling programme of investment from late summer 2025.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of Dungannon Swifts' recent win in the Irish Cup final, and I hope that he will join me in congratulating them. Dungannon Swifts is testament to the importance of home-grown talent, particularly with respect to Dungannon United Youth, bringing grassroots sport to areas and giving people an opportunity. Will the Minister ensure that funding through his Department inspires the next generation and that grassroots funding will be prioritised?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely. I am more than happy to congratulate Dungannon Swifts on their incredible victory. The Member has written to me to ask that I host a reception for the club in Parliament Buildings, which I am more than happy to do. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of grassroots sport across Northern Ireland. With regard to football. I look forward to attention being turned to the grassroots element, and I hope to make an announcement on that in due course and help grassroots sport across Northern Ireland.

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

I wrote to the Minister about the fund in March. At that time, he could not tell me the number of applications to the fund or the total value of funding applied for through applications to it. Does he have those figures now? What action will he take to reduce any unmet demand? Does he have any figures that quantify the downstream value of active participation in sport from a grassroots level across the board?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The impact of sport in Northern Ireland is almost unquantifiable because the benefits are huge. Across the Departments in Northern Ireland, you will see the impacts, whether they are in Health, Education or, potentially, the justice system, of getting people, especially young people, involved in sport. The grassroots level has a huge impact, which is why I am such a strong supporter of it. I do not have in front of me and nor have I seen the full list of applications, but I reiterate what I said to Mrs Erskine: we have had a total of 37 applications from the performance clubs.

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

3. Mr Crawford asked the Minister for Communities for his assessment of the work undertaken by his Department on supporting people with disabilities and long-term health conditions back into employment. (AQO 1991/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My assessment is that, through the £28·9 million that my Department allocated in 2024-25, successful outcomes were delivered, but, if we are to address economic inactivity and see more disabled people thriving in work, we must significantly invest, increase the capacity of the existing provision and implement new provision.

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I understand that the paper is with you and your Department on whether the Department will continue funding the employment support scheme? When will the Minister make his decision? If the decision is to cease the funding, how will he ensure that those who require the support will not be adversely impacted?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We have a number of employment support schemes, some of which have been dependent on direct finance from the UK Government. I hope to be in a position very soon to come to the House and announce the budget decisions that I have made, but I believe in those programmes, first of all, because I believe in the dignity of work and believe that some people need help to get back into work. That should be provided, because it is good for them and good for society but also because of the economic benefit and return that we get from people being in work. I am absolutely committed to that. It is a significant part of my anti-poverty strategy, which I brought forward last week, and I look forward to that being supported fully.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Does the Minister agree that we should help more people with disabilities to get into work? What action will he take to ensure that that happens?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely. I have met many disabled people who have told me about their desire to get into work but also about the barriers that exist. We have 325,000 people in Northern Ireland who are economically inactive, 122,000 of whom have a disability or a long-term health condition. We need to make sure that supports are in place to help those people. We will bring forward actions in the anti-poverty strategy and the disability and work strategy to make sure that that happens so that we see a real, positive change in people's lives.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Minister, what actions in the disability and work strategy fall under your Department's direct ownership? How will they be prioritised for implementation?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That strategy will come forward shortly. It is important to note first of all that it will be an Executive strategy, because it is not something that my Department deals with alone. A number of barriers hold people back from getting into work, and some of those employment supports can be delivered through my Department. I will continue to do that, and, hopefully, we will be able to ramp it up in a coordinated way through the disability and work strategy.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

4. Mr Delargy asked the Minister for Communities for an update on how his Department is supporting the 2026 Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in Belfast. (AQO 1992/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I met representatives from Belfast City Council and Comhaltas on 26 March, when I advised that I am happy to support the fleadh and look forward to working with partner organisations to ensure that it is a successful event.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Thanks to the Minister for his short answer. It is great to see the fleadh coming north again. It was in Derry in 2013 and was a fantastically successful event. What is the Department doing to support grassroots organisations such as Comhaltas?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Promoting the event will clearly be the responsibility of Belfast City Council, but I have offered any assistance that the Department can give. We are happy to do that and to support organisations across Northern Ireland that want to promote the culture and music of the area. It is so important that the event is coming to Belfast so that we can showcase not just what the city has to offer but, hopefully, various music and cultural traditions from across Northern Ireland.

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

Minister, at the last Communities Question Time, you confirmed to me that you would be happy enough to attend Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in Belfast if you received an invite. Have you received that invite yet?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I have not received an invite yet, but I made clear at the meeting with the organisations — Comhaltas and Belfast City Council — that I would be more than happy to support the event next year. However, with it being more than 12 months away, maybe they have not got the invites out just yet.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Minister, can you outline how the fleadh will contribute to the development and delivery of the Department's strategic aims when it comes to arts, culture and shared community spaces?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First of all, I hope that it will put the spotlight on Belfast and Northern Ireland and inspire more people to get involved so that they can understand the rich artistic, cultural and musical traditions in Northern Ireland. We will certainly look at actions that we can take to ensure that there is a legacy from the event.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

5. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister for Communities to provide an update on financial support available for community halls. (AQO 1993/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am pleased to confirm that I have asked my officials to develop a programme to provide funding for small-scale renovation and improvement projects for community halls and facilities that deliver benefits to the wider community. I will make a formal announcement on a new programme next month.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, do you agree that it is time for that to be a more permanent, recurring fund year-on-year?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is already looking forward to it being regular, and, of course, I am more than happy for that to be the case, because I go out to community organisations across Northern Ireland and the state of facilities is often raised with me. In fact, Joanne Bunting had me out at Bloomfield Community Association just last week, and we discussed that very issue. This will allow us to gather information and data on the vast number of community facilities across Northern Ireland. I will look towards securing a recurring funding pot to support those facilities, many of which act as a fundamental asset in local communities.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

7. Mr Harvey asked the Minister for Communities to outline any progress to update the active ageing strategy to reflect the needs and priorities for older people outlined in the Programme for Government 2024-27. (AQO 1995/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Based on gathered evidence, it is apparent that the existing strategic strategy framework remains appropriate. I have, therefore, decided to retain the existing active ageing strategy, whilst instructing my officials to bring forward a new action plan based on the existing strategy framework.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. There has been extensive commentary about the other social inclusion strategies. Will the Minister ensure that the active ageing strategy is given its proper place and the same prominence?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

In 'New Decade, New Approach', 14 social inclusion strategies were mentioned, and I am certainly keen that progress is also made on the delivery of active ageing provision. Too often, the older population can be taken for granted, and we saw that with the Labour Government's decision to cut the winter fuel payment. I will continue with the strategy and the subsequent action plans, and I look forward to taking that work forward, at pace, subject, of course, as always, to Executive agreement.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Given the growing number of older people who are facing poverty, will the Minister advise on when he will make a statement to the House on the anti-poverty strategy, which he brought to the Executive last week?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I intend to meet, as we previously discussed, the expert panel and other key stakeholders. I intend to do that before the strategy goes out for consultation, but, of course, I will bring it to the House so that Members have the opportunity to question me, and I look forward to that.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Minister, I am glad to hear that the active ageing strategy's action plan will be updated, but, as Mr Harvey mentioned, there are other social strategies. Minister, will you provide an update on when you will deliver each of those strategies, as I know that you have a time frame for that? I am particularly interested in the LGBTQIA and the gender strategies. After all, we do not want just the good-looking ones at the front.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I want to progress those and to make sure that we make a real difference for people right across Northern Ireland. All those will be considered, and we will look at the actions that can be taken that will actually make a difference. However, of course, all those will be subject to Executive agreement, and, therefore, I am not in control of the time frames.

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

Whilst the Minister is practically a youngster, most of us are getting older and progressing in years, and we know that there will be an increasing number of older people in our communities. Does the Minister agree that some form of formal, official older people's service — akin to what we have with the Youth Service for young people — should be developed so that there are organised activities in every area across Northern Ireland for older people to engage with? Having information about what help is available for them, tackling loneliness and social exclusion and all the other benefits would be of great use to people as they grow older.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am very grateful to the Member for his kind comments. I am always open to looking at ideas that can help to make sure that we deliver for the people whom we are sent here to represent. My only caution around that would be that I do not want to set up another body for administration if we can do those things in other ways. I believe that there are good supports there. The Make the Call service is one example of something that does predominantly help older people in our society. Whether it is through the actions that will be in the anti-poverty strategy, the housing supply strategy or money that I have given for winter fuel payments or for Supporting People, I am committed to delivering for older people in Northern Ireland. I am happy to work with anybody else who will help with that.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

8. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister for Communities to outline any plans in place to tackle black mould and damp in public and private rented houses. (AQO 1996/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Environmental health officers have powers to deal with damp and associated mould issues through enforcing the statutory minimum fitness standard for all housing tenures. My Department issued guidance on damp and mould to social housing providers in January 2024. The Housing Executive has developed and is delivering an extensive action plan that will address the wide-ranging issues that contribute to damp and mould in its properties.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response. Awaab’s law, which is part of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 in England and Wales, requires social landlords to fix dangerous damp and mould within set timescales and to address all emergency hazards within 24 hours. It will come into effect in October 2025, with His Majesty's Government also consulting on extending it to the private rented sector. Will the Minister be following that course of action?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for raising that important issue. I am looking for the most appropriate way forward on this. One option is the possibility of including some of the provisions in Awaab's law in a change in the decent homes standard. That may be the most appropriate response to that. Of course, we will keep that under review.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

10. Mr Middleton asked the Minister for Communities to provide an update on the Inner Walled City public realm project. (AQO 1998/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Construction work on the Inner Walled City public realm project began on 6 January, and works are scheduled to last approximately 18 months. Those works have been progressing well, and my officials continue to meet regularly to ensure that this progress continues with full engagement with all local stakeholders.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his response and I welcome the £1·2 million that his Department has provided to restore the Austins building in the city centre. Minister, will you outline any further plans that you have to restore buildings in Londonderry city centre?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am delighted that we were able to provide that capital grant funding, and we will continue to look for ways in which we can help put buildings to new use. We have many unused buildings throughout our towns and cities and we want to make sure that we are looking at all available options. I hope that that £1·2 million for Austins will be the start and that we will see organisations such as the Inner City Trust work with the Department to make sure that that is delivered.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome progress on the Inner Walled City scheme that the original question referred to. Will the Minister consider a regeneration scheme for Foyle Street, adjacent to the city walls, where beleaguered businesses have suffered from the prolonged closure of the street due to works by Northern Ireland Water? The good news is that the street will be reopened to traffic at the end of this week. However, the street still could do with a facelift, and any intervention from the Minister would be welcome.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am more than happy to ask officials to look into that to see where that is on any potential schedule or list and to take evidence, if need be, to determine the need in that area. I am certainly happy for that to happen.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

12. Mr Blair asked the Minister for Communities for his assessment of how victims of domestic abuse can be better supported through the social housing system. (AQO 2000/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Victims of domestic abuse are provided with support to access and to maintain social housing. When applying for a social home, victims of domestic violence are awarded primary social needs points in the housing selection scheme. Following my decision to remove intimidation points from the housing selection scheme, all victims of violence, abuse and trauma are now able to access the same categories of points within the scheme for violence or the threat of violence.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he give us any information on the work that his Department or its agencies might be doing with other bodies to ensure that progress is made in ensuring that victims of domestic abuse can be better supported to access social housing and on how the Department is helping to better shape such policies and partnerships?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely. We work with a number of organisations to ensure that that is the case. In particular, you will see the outworking of that in the Housing Executive's domestic abuse action plan. I believe that that has resulted in some good work with other organisations, including the PSNI. However, if the Member has any further suggestions on how we should engage or who we should engage with, I am more than happy to hear from him.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister mentioned the removal of intimidation points and the impact that that might have on those who find themselves in a domestic abuse situation. Can he outline exactly what the impact might be and how victims of violence and abuse in general, as well as domestic abuse, can be assisted by his proposal to remove intimidation points?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First and foremost, this is the levelling of the playing field, and we have seen that already start to work out. Over the weekend, I received a very kind email from a constituent who, as a victim of domestic abuse and domestic violence, had been waiting for a long time and had always seemed to be passed over. She has now received the home that she had been waiting for for a long time. I hope that she is the first of many people who will be helped by this change in policy that will level the playing field. I do not believe that it will solve all the problems by itself, but it is an important start that we can make. I will continue to support, through the Supporting People programme or other actions that my Department or the Housing Executive can take, those who find themselves in that situation.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

14. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the anti-poverty strategy. (AQO 2002/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The anti-poverty strategy was presented to the Executive at the end of March and its publication for consultation was agreed at the Executive meeting last week. I look forward to hearing from people during the consultation period so that we can have an effective anti-poverty strategy in place.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The strategy was heavily trailed in the media last week ahead of the Executive meeting, yet, as we stand here today, neither Members nor the sector have seen a copy of that document. Why the delay, and does that speak to a disrespect for those of us in the Chamber?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I always said that I would consult those in the group that was involved with the co-design before I publicised the document. That is meant as no disrespect to the House, but those who were involved in the document's co-design deserve to be consulted as well. I assure the House that I am looking forward to the strategy's publication and to the debate so that we can look at the strategy and see what improvements can be made. Ultimately, we have something that is realistic, deliverable and can change people's lives.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Ms Brogan is not in her place so we will move swiftly on to topical questions.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

T1. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister for Communities, following Mr Tennyson's question, when, having provided some form of an update, he will come to the House with a statement on the strategy, given that it was deeply disappointing that Members learned of Executive approval for the anti-poverty strategy in the media last week in a press conference at which he was very public, thereby annoying quite a lot of people, and whether the strategy lacks the same ambition as today's Budget discussion. (AQT 1311/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

As soon as I consult with the groups, I will bring the strategy to the Assembly. Unfortunately, I did not hear the debate that took place today, so I am not sure how useful it was. However, I hope that we will have an opportunity to have a proper conversation on the issues. What we have going out for publication shortly is an anti-poverty strategy that is deliverable and realistic and that, importantly, deals with the root causes of poverty.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Minister, I could be forgiven for asking this question: why did you hold a press conference and, at the same time, say that the strategy was going to consultation? Surely that is pre-empting the consultation to some degree. Most people who contributed to the process will be deeply annoyed by that. Has your Department ring-fenced any budget for the implementation of the strategy, or is it simply going to be like the child poverty strategy and sit on a shelf and do nothing?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It is not going to sit on a shelf and do nothing. That is why I wanted to make sure that we publicise something that will be deliverable and make a change. It is going to be very difficult for us to ring-fence a budget for all the measures that are in the anti-poverty strategy because they are all-encompassing. Poverty is not something that we deal with through just one or two simple measures or objectives. There are many different things that we need to do, and that is why it is a cross-departmental strategy involving Health, Education, Justice and Communities. Many of our Departments will have a significant role to play. In fact, so much of what we do — nearly everything that we do — is connected in some way to poverty, so it is not possible for us to simply say, "We're going to ring-fence this funding". For many months, I heard of the importance of consulting with the groups before publication. I needed to get Executive approval for publication first. Now that we have that, I want to make sure that we are consulting. We will certainly have the debate in this place after.

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

T2. Mr Crawford asked the Minister for Communities what his Department is doing to support regeneration in town centres across North Antrim, particularly where addressing derelict buildings and attracting new investment are concerned. (AQT 1312/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Department is taking many actions to deal with those issues. I do not have the specifics of the investment in North Antrim, but I am happy to provide that information to the Member. It is key that we invest in our towns and cities, seek regeneration and reuse derelict buildings in particular for social and commercial purposes. I hope that when I make those announcements in the coming weeks, you will see the seriousness of my commitment to that.

Colin Crawford (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will you confirm, Minister, whether any additional funding or targeted schemes be made available for small businesses that are looking to revitalise vacant properties in towns such as Ballymena and Ballymoney?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We are looking at that, and there has been some success with other schemes, such as the Vacant to Vibrant scheme in Belfast and elsewhere. The return on the investment has been incredible, and that should indicate where I will place resources in the coming years.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T3. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister for Communities what engagement he has had with the anti-poverty sector before publishing the anti-poverty strategy. (AQT 1313/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

As I said in my previous answer, I intend to engage with the sector in the coming days before publication.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Minister will be aware that there is a high degree of scepticism in the anti-poverty sector about whether the strategy is ambitious enough. Will the Minister commit to listening to the sector as part of the public consultation process? Will he invite or has he invited any of the co-design groups to any briefings as part of the process?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course I will. There is not much point in having a consultation, if you are not prepared to listen to what people say. I am committed to making sure that we hear the different views, and, if groups, individuals or political parties have ideas about what they would like to be included in the strategy, they have the opportunity to say so. Obviously, the Executive parties have already had the opportunity. Others will have the opportunity to do that as well. However, what is important, as other Members have highlighted, is the fact that we need to publish something that is deliverable. There is no point in having a lot of aims and objectives in the strategy, if we are not able to fund and deliver them.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

T4. Mr McGuigan asked the Minister for Communities when the disability strategy and disability in work strategy will be presented to the Executive. (AQT 1314/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I hope it will be in the coming weeks, but I do not have a firm timetable. I hope it will be very soon, because they are important issues and a significant part of the economic inactivity challenges that I highlighted previously. I look forward to making sure that we get the Executive's approval and move forward with those strategies as quickly as possible.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that. Given the changes in disability benefits that have been imposed by the British Government, we urgently need to see the delivery of both disability strategies. What measures is his Department considering to support disabled people into employment?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Those strategies and all the strategies that we talk about will not be fixed in stone. They need to adapt to the times we are living in, and the changes announced by the UK Government highlight how important it is that we are able to respond and help in whatever ways we can. Again, there will be responsibilities for all Departments, but the Department for Communities wants to make sure that it is in a position to help through, for example, employability programmes. I have heard time and time again from disabled people who say that the system works against them and they are not getting help to break down the barriers to work. I want to make sure that we help those people in particular.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T5. Mr McAleer asked the Minister for Communities, who may be aware that the Tyrone Fleadh has started in Fintona and there will be a full week of talks, music, parades, language and culture, to join him in commending the Comhaltas for organising a fantastic event and to recognise the important cultural, social and economic impact that an event such as the county fleadh has on local areas. (AQT 1315/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely. As I said in my earlier answer, I welcome any opportunity to highlight our rich cultural and musical heritage. I am not familiar with exactly what is going on in the Member's area, but I am familiar with next year's event because I have been briefed by the organisers. Certainly, I welcome any opportunity to highlight those who encompass all the musical traditions in Northern Ireland.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. Will the Minister give an update on the heritage, culture and creativity programme?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Work is being taken forward. There are still a few changes to be made to it and a little more work to be done, because we want to make sure that it is effective and fit for purpose. It is another strategy that we will bring forward in the coming weeks, and, importantly, it will make a real difference. The arts sector in particular has struggled for funding and support, and I want to make sure that we change that.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T6. Mr McHugh asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the timeline for the Irish language strategy. (AQT 1316/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Last week, the Executive agreed the next stage in the process, which is to take all the work from the expert advisory panels, examine it in Departments and look at what its impact will be on the Irish language and Ulster-Scots language heritage and culture working groups. We will look at that and consider the next steps.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

How many people are working on the Irish language strategy in your Department? Is that number sufficient?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not know the exact number of people who are working on that strategy. I believe that it is sufficient, given that we are going out to other Departments for them to analyse and assess the costs and deliverability of some of the recommendations that have been made. The work has been handed over to those Departments, and we look forward to hearing their responses.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

T7. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister for Communities, having commended him for bringing to the Executive an anti-poverty strategy that was 18 years in the making and for getting departmental collaboration and agreement, whether he agrees that he will need the support of all his Executive colleagues to make it deliverable and effective, as outlined in the initial agreement. (AQT 1317/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

In response to the Member's first comment, I am pleased that she commends me for the delivery of the strategy

[Laughter.]

She is more than welcome to do so.

The important point is that this is not a DFC strategy but a cross-departmental one. The issues that we need to deal with are found in education, health, disability, debt, substance abuse and childcare. It is about fuel poverty, place, housing, advice services and training and employment services. We need everybody to work together on this, and we need to make sure — I cannot emphasise this enough — that the strategy is affordable and deliverable. Nothing turns people off more than strategies that are unachievable and that, they know, will never be achieved. That is what creates so much dissatisfaction and disappointment in politics. Let us make sure that we can put something together and deliver it so that we can make a difference.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I call Mrs Dodds to ask a short supplementary question.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister detail the child poverty statistics and explain how the strategy will help us to drive down those figures?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

In the last year for which figures are available, 25% of children in Northern Ireland were in poverty. In the whole of the UK, that figure was 31%. It is not acceptable that one in four children in Northern Ireland lives in poverty, and I am determined to change that by making sure that, as an Executive, we focus on all the issues that I have outlined. In tackling poverty and child poverty we need to take a whole-system approach. We have identified the issues. We have got the work and got the literature, including all the reviews that have been done of this. We know what the issues are. Hopefully, in the coming week, I will bring forward the three-pillar approach of making sure that we reduce the risk of people falling into poverty, minimise the impacts of it and help people to escape it.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

T8. Ms Sugden asked the Minister for Communities, in light of her understanding that the Riverside Theatre is likely to close indefinitely and appreciating that it is not his direct responsibility, how he feels about that being the only council area without such a facility, particularly given the north coast' s reliance on tourism. (AQT 1318/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am sorry to hear that, if it is the case. You are aware that it is not a direct responsibility of the Department for Communities. However, after the Adjournment debate in this place, I wrote to the university on that. My officials and I will be willing to help in any way we can to ensure that the arts can continue to develop. I am more than happy to discuss the issue with the Member.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that response. Does that include potentially looking at having a new facility on the Causeway coast? Obviously, that would have to come with capital funding.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I need to be very careful in my response to the Member. She will be aware of the budgetary situation in which we find ourselves. We are, of course, happy to explore all options. If we are unable to provide funding ourselves, we may be able to signpost her in the right direction.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Ladies and gentlemen, that completes the 15 minutes of topical questions to the Minister for Communities. I ask Members to take their ease before questions to the Minister of Finance start at 2.45 pm.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members, we move on to questions to the Minister of Finance. We will start with listed questions. Questions 2 and 15 have been withdrawn.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Brooks asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the work that he has carried out in advance of HM Government's spending review 2025. (AQO 2004/22-27)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

12. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Minister of Finance for an update on engagement with the British Government on the spending review 2025. (AQO 2015/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker]

, I will answer questions 1 and 12 together.

The spending review is an opportunity to invest in public services and support a shared ambition for economic growth. With my devolved Government counterparts, I discussed the upcoming spending review with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (CST) at the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee on 27 February. I then wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 10 April on a range of Executive-specific issues to be considered in advance of the spending review that is due to be announced on 11 June. A joint letter from the devolved Finance Ministers to the CST was issued on the same day and covered a number of common issues. Together with my counterparts in Wales and Scotland, I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 April to discuss the issue that was raised in our joint letter. Following that, a joint letter to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was issued on 9 May, which pressed for a further Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee meeting and bilateral meetings in advance of the spending review.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Today of all days, the Minister will be well aware of the needs and asks from around the Chamber and from Departments. In recent weeks, I have engaged with local police, who, it is clear, are stretched, and we are all aware of the pressure on our housing stock. Today, however, particularly in advance of the ministerial visit next week to Dundonald High School that I asked for, what is the Minister doing to impress upon Whitehall the crisis in our school estate, with maintenance backlogs amounting to £450 million?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member will be aware that my predecessor commissioned Professor Gerry Holtham to carry out work to identify the true need of spend in this region. That work has been completed, and I can confirm to the House that I have issued that report to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and copied in the Secretary of State. That report looks at our devolved institutions and our spend in great detail. It looks at education and other areas to see the difference in the spend that is required here compared with elsewhere. I assure the Member that I have continued to press the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State on the need for this place to be fairly and properly funded to allow us to deliver education, policing or whatever it might be and ensure that the services that we deliver are in modern, fit for purpose buildings, such new schools.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister, will you give us an overview of the other Executive-specific issues that you raised with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, please?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There is an ever-growing list of issues that we are raising with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope that the spending review will resolve some of them. I expect that it will not resolve others, so those discussions will have to continue. However, as I have noted, those issues include our funding at need and the potential cliff edge; agriculture support funds; access to Treasury reserves; Housing Executive borrowing; local growth and renewal funds, the UK Internal Market Act, specifically in relation to financial assistance powers; the redevelopment of Casement Park; the cost of doing business; tax-free childcare; inheritance tax; fraud and error benefit; employers' National Insurance contributions; the mother-and-baby homes redress scheme; and transformation. As I said, some of those matters may be addressed in the comprehensive spending review. How satisfactorily they are addressed remains to be seen, but I suspect that I will have to continue to engage with the Treasury on other models.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, my question is about when you are dealing with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Is there any indication that we will relook at how debt is classified and whether there will be changes in how we look at the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) and our ability to tap into that, particularly for things such as infrastructure spending?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There has been no direct comment from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, though I am aware that Rachel Reeves has commented on that over a period of time. It will be interesting to see whether the comprehensive spending review will be used to see how we classify debt. Will it help alleviate some of the pressures on Departments when repaying — obviously, any borrowing has to be repaid — and will it open up opportunities for investment in infrastructure in the future? I await to see what the comprehensive spending review says on the matter.