The next two motions are on the Supply resolution for the spring Supplementary Estimates 2023-24 and the Vote on Account 2024-25. There will be a single debate on both motions. The Minister will move the first motion and then commence the debate on the motions listed in the Order Paper. When all Members who wish to speak have done so, or when the time allocated for the debate has expired, I shall put the Question on the first motion. The Minister will then move the second motion, and the Question will be put on that motion. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

The Finance Minister is not in her place. I therefore ask the House to take its ease for a couple of minutes, and, if she is still not here, business on the matter will not be conducted today.

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £23,937,688,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2024 and that resources, not exceeding £28,817,828,000, be authorised for use by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2024 as summarised for each Department or other public body in column 4 of table 2 in the volume of the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates 2023-2024 that was laid before the Assembly on 20 March 2024.

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £15,724,763,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2025 and that resources, not exceeding £18,731,611,000, be authorised for use by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2025, as summarised for each Department or other public body in column 4 of table 1 in the Northern Ireland Estimates Vote on Account 2024-2025 that was laid before the Assembly on 20 March 2024.

The Business Committee has allowed up to four and a half hours for the debate. The Minister will have 40 minutes to allocate at her discretion between proposing and making her winding-up speech. A representative of the Opposition will have 10 minutes in which to speak, as will the Chair of the Finance Committee. All other Members who are called to speak will have seven minutes. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate on the motion.

This debate covers the Supply resolutions for the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs) 2023-24, which cover the financial year that has just ended, and the Vote on Account for 2024-25. The spring Supplementary Estimates and Vote on Account are associated with the Budget Bill, which was passed by the Assembly on 20 February 2024 and received Royal Assent on 14 March 2024. That is now known as the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2024.

I would like to remind the Assembly that, in normal circumstances, the Executive would have agreed a series of monitoring rounds over the course of the 2023-24 financial year, resulting in a final planned position being agreed in early January 2024 to which these spring Supplementary Estimates would be written. In normal circumstances, the spring Supplementary Estimates and Vote on Account would be approved immediately prior to the Budget Bill being introduced. However, as I explained during the debate on the Budget Bill, that was not possible this year due to the timing of the Executive's restoration and the need to wait for confirmation from the British Government as to the level of funding available to the Executive.

Work could therefore not be completed on preparing the spring Supplementary Estimates until shortly before the Easter recess in March. It was essential for the Budget Bill to be passed urgently so that Departments would not reach the cash limits set in the previous Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Act 2023. Once again, I would also like to reassure Members that this will not, in any way, be regarded as establishing a precedent.

Will the Minister give way?

Yes.

Will the Minister explain to the House what is the legal effect, if any, of passing retrospectively Supply resolutions for moneys that have already been spent? Is there really any purpose in a resolution such as this at this point?

I thank the Member for his intervention. I will come on to that later in my speech. The figures that are being voted on today are those against which Departments will set their accounts when they prepare those.

I would like to thank Members for their support in delivering the Budget Act 2024 and, by doing so, securing the authority for Departments to deliver services through to the end of the 2023-24 financial year and on into the early months of this new financial year. The spring Supplementary Estimates for 2023-24 and the Vote on Account for 2024-25 have now been prepared and laid in the Assembly. While that is not taking place at the normal time, it remains an important step in the financial process. Once agreed by the Assembly, it will be against these spring Supplementary Estimates that the accounting officers of the Departments, and the other bodies contained in them, will account and their 2023-24 accounts will be prepared.

As I emphasised during the debate on the Budget Bill, the Vote on Account does not constitute setting a 2024-25 Budget. I have been engaging with my Executive colleagues on setting a 2024-25 Budget, and once the Executive have agreed that, I look forward to bringing it to the Assembly. That is not, however, the issue for debate today.

Since the Executive were restored, just over nine weeks ago, we have acted quickly and decisively. I announced over £1 billion of in-year allocations on 15 February to allow pay offers to be made to our public-sector workers and to help offset the pressures facing Departments. I have brought the Budget Bill through the Assembly to secure the delivery of services for the remainder of the 2023-24 financial year and on into the new financial year. Once the Executive have agreed their 2024-25 Budget, I will ensure that the Assembly has ample opportunity to fully consider the Budget (No. 2) Bill together with the 2024-25 Main Estimates.

I ask for Members' support for the resolution for the spring Supplementary Estimates 2023-24, together with the resolution for the Vote on Account 2024-25. I will conclude there, and I am happy to deal with any points of principle or detail that Members may wish to raise in relation to the Supply resolutions for the spring Supplementary Estimates 2023-24 and Vote on Account 2024-25.

I call Matthew O'Toole. Mr O'Toole, you have 10 minutes.

I will first speak as Chairperson of the Finance Committee and then I will make some remarks as leader of the Opposition.

The Finance Committee received a briefing from officials on the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account at its meeting on 20 March. On behalf of members, I thank officials. It is worth reminding Members that the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account relate to the 2023-24 Budget, as has just been said by the Minister. Usually the SSEs would be brought to the Assembly in February for approval, prior to the introduction of a Budget Bill. However, due to issues with Departments running out of money, the Finance Minister took the unusual step of bringing the Budget Bill 2024 to the Assembly in advance of the spring Supplementary Estimates being completed. Those spring Supplementary Estimates are what the Supply resolution debate today constitutes, together with the 2024-25 Vote on Account.

Members should be aware of the review of the financial process, following the passage of the Financial Reporting (Departments and Public Bodies) Act 2022, which resulted in a number of changes to how financial information is presented in these Estimates and in all Estimates documents and the associated Budget Bills. Members will also be aware that, normally, there would have been a series of monitoring rounds over the 2023-24 financial year, resulting in a final plan and position being agreed in early January to which the SSEs would be written. However, the uncertainty over the total quantum of funding available and the need to wait for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to confirm the detail of the financial package meant that it was only possible for Ministers to make a decision on 15 February on allocations to Departments to address overspends and provide funding for public-sector pay awards.

Since the Budget Act 2024, the Finance Minister announced the outcome of the Executive's "final plan" in her written ministerial statement on 15 February 2024, and Ministers have committed to constrain their Departments' expenditure, including pay awards, to the Budget allocation agreed by the Executive and not by the amount of headroom included in the spring Supplementary Estimates, if that is higher. The SSEs document sets out the provision included in the spring Supplementary Estimates beyond the outcome of the Executive's 2023-24 final plan. The Committee noted a number of functions that the Departments are carrying out on the sole authority of the Budget Act 2024. Those are highlighted by the use of a black box in the spring Supplementary Estimates document, which I am sure everybody has read in detail.

Members will be aware that the Vote on Account allows Departments to continue to deliver public services into the early months of the 2024-25 financial year. That does not constitute setting a 2024-25 Budget. The Committee has noted the larger than normal Vote on Account, 65% of the 2023-24 Budget, which would be sufficient to last until after the summer recess if necessary. Members have been assured, however, that the Minister and her Executive colleagues anticipate bringing the Main Estimates and a Budget (No. 2) Bill prior to the summer recess. In relation to the 2024-25 Budget, Members will also be aware of the Budget envelope that the Treasury has awarded the Executive through the Minister's written ministerial statement of 26 March.

The Committee knows that the picture is extremely challenging, even bleak. Members will be working hard between now and the summer recess to apply the appropriate level of scrutiny to the 2024-25 Budget. Members are aware that this debate is a largely technical exercise, and the Committee has applied an appropriate degree of scrutiny on that basis. While the timing and timescales are not ideal, the Committee will support today's Supply resolution motions.

I will now speak as leader of the Opposition. As an Opposition, we will not force today's motions on the Vote on Account and the spring Supplementary Estimates to a Division, but I do want to make some important points about the context that we face, two and a bit months into the restoration of these institutions, and the financial and budgeting consequences therein. The spring Supplementary Estimates that we are debating today, as has already been said, relate to a financial year that has already passed. It is quite an interesting philosophical question to debate what would happen if we chose not to authorise money that has already been spent. It is a somewhat surreal position to be in.

Nevertheless, that is where we are, which is a consequence, in part, of our political dysfunction and the fact that we have not had political institutions for five of the past seven years. The fact that we have to do budgeting in this surreal, often backward looking, often hurried way is a product of our intense and repeated political dysfunction. It is a manifestation of our continued political failure, and it makes the point again, lest it need to be made, that we need to reform the way that our political institutions work so that they cannot simply be collapsed and so that Budget making cannot be thrown into chaos because the inability to set a Budget is, of course, one of the fundamental problems that is created when our institutions do not exist.

As I said, the spring Supplementary Estimates do not set a Budget. They do not even set a Budget looking backwards, let alone looking forwards. They adjust the level of headroom that is open to Departments, and today's debate is largely technical. However, the motion is substantive. It has a kind of legal effect, unlike the now more than a dozen motions that we have debated in the Chamber since we returned, which pledged support for, among other things — I do not have the full list in front of me — a childcare strategy; the cost of school uniforms; a strategy on ending violence against women and girls; capital investment in our fishing industry; a rescue plan for Lough Neagh; and, yesterday, a strategic framework for a shared future. All those motions were submitted by Executive parties. The list could go on.

What we are debating today is somewhat surreal, but it still has some kind of legal effect, unlike any of the motions that we have debated over the past two and a bit months. The public, who have been crying out for political institutions to work and to deliver for them and who have seen video after video of Ministers, including the First Minister, talking about motions that are being passed here, would be forgiven for thinking that those motions, whether relating to childcare, ending violence against women and girls, waiting lists or Lough Neagh, have some kind of legal effect, create some new legal obligation on public bodies or commit a penny of spending towards those issues. However, they do not. They do not, because we have not yet properly got down to delivery in this place.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has made several statements on financial allocations, but we do not yet have a full-year Budget. To be clear, that is in breach of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which requires that we get a draft Budget statement for consultation before the end of the financial year. We have not had that. Now, that would be fine if we were going to get a comprehensive, costed plan for public service recovery, which is what the Assembly agreed to on 6 February. However, as far as I can tell, we are not going to get that.

We are not going to get a multi-year Budget. It is not even clear when we will get a single-year Budget, and it is not clear how that will prioritise any of the pressing issues that Executive parties have brought before the Assembly over the past two months, nor do we know when we will get a Programme for Government. The Executive parties have been meeting for the past nearly two years now. Even amid the political dysfunction, they met to discuss a potential Programme for Government, including, presumably, all the priorities that have been outlined by their members in the Chamber. Yesterday, however, when the First Minister was asked when we would see a Programme for Government, she said to my colleague Colin McGrath, "Let's not be in a hurry. Let's not rush ourselves after five of the past seven years not having any politics here. Let's not rush everyone into something like a plan for people. We can, of course, put down motion after motion, which implies to the people of Northern Ireland that childcare, the crisis at Lough Neagh, the waiting list crisis, help for holiday hunger and help for school uniforms are all being dealt with. We can, of course, imply that, but let's not be in a hurry to deliver a Programme for Government or a costed plan to deal with those things."

I say that because the two key strategic tools that we have, as an Assembly, to deliver change for people are a Programme for Government, which sets out priorities, and Budget documents, which will be Budget statements that come ideally on a multi-year basis. We have not had either a multi-year Budget or a Programme for Government in close to a decade now. Those are the key strategic policymaking tools that we have to change people's lives — I mean the lives of the constituents who send us here — and we do not yet know when we will get either from a new Executive.

I welcome the fact that we have seen significant positive imagery and a joined-up collective approach, and I mean that. I genuinely and sincerely mean it. It is really important, in a divided society and plural society with a set of political institutions that require parties to work together, that we have seen that, particularly from the First Minister and deputy First Minister. However, the next step is the most important, and it is about actually delivering for people. It is about spending money that will improve people's lives, so I would like to hear from the Finance Minister about when we will see a full Budget statement, even if it is for a single year, and when and how that will be joined up to the priorities in a Programme for Government. That is, I am afraid, the least that the people who elect us can expect, because they have been promised, via motion after motion here, that we are dealing with their priorities.

I am pleased that we are here. I am pleased that we are, retrospectively, approving theoretical headroom for Departments — in some cases, for money that has already been spent in a financial year that has already passed — but it is much more important that we get down to the work of setting a Budget and passing laws to improve people's lives.

That was a fascinating piece of speed-reading for the first three minutes, Mr O'Toole.

The underfunding of our public services here by the British Government is well known at this stage, but it is at junctures such as this that the impact of cuts to services is brought more sharply into focus. Although the Assembly has been back for only two months, the Education Committee has sifted through briefing after briefing that have at their core a similar message: there are not enough resources in the system to deliver the level of service that we want and expect for our children and young people and for those whom we charge with educating and nurturing them.

I was highly critical of the actions that were taken in the absence of an Education Minister, when funding for vital programmes was slashed. The holiday hunger grant was cut. The Healthy Happy Minds programme ended. The provision of free digital learning devices for our most disadvantaged stopped, and so on. It baffles me that, in a system that is not resourced properly, officials do not seek to protect and prioritise the most disadvantaged. When I challenged the people from the Department on those cuts, they tried to tell me how difficult it was for them to do it. Imagine how difficult it was for the children and their families who had those vital supports taken away.

It is hugely positive that we have an Executive in place and locally elected Ministers taking decisions. Although we acknowledge that the British Government are failing in their responsibilities to people here in funding our public services, we must recognise that we have an Executive with locally elected Ministers in place. In my role as my party's education spokesperson, I have challenged the Education Minister on his responsibility to identify and set out his priorities for his Department. It is not good enough to simply say that you need more money; the Minister needs to tell us what he is going to do with the £3 billion that he has. I want to see the Minister setting out a plan to tackle educational underachievement, deliver affordable and accessible childcare and transform special educational needs provision. The key is early intervention. All the evidence tells us that investment at the early stage of a child's journey is far more impactful. That is why prioritisation is so important.

Many of the issues that we want to see action on are cross-cutting. One of the criticisms of the Assembly and Executive over the years has been that Departments often act in silos and do not talk to each other. Where shared objectives exist, Departments should, and must, work together and share funding and other resources to achieve them. It makes financial sense, it is a good approach to policy, and, at the end of the day, people want to see their political representatives working together in the interests of all.

I commend the Finance Minister on quickly making available the necessary funding so that a long-awaited pay offer could be made to our teachers. The Finance Minister made it clear that public-sector pay was a priority, and she backed that up immediately with action. The offer has been well received by teaching unions, and I hope that the awards will make a difference for workers. We now need to see the Education Minister working to deliver fair pay for our other workers who are involved in providing services across our education system. Without those people, our education system would not function. They need to be properly valued and recognised for their work.

I thank the Finance Minister for her statement and for her efforts thus far in what are extremely challenging financial circumstances.

My initial remarks are on behalf of the Committee and in my role as Chairman of the Committee. The Minister for the Economy recently provided written and oral briefings to the Committee on the spring Supplementary Estimates. I commend his ability to give the longest possible answers to the shortest possible questions during that evidence session. However, it is notable that, without the transparency provided by monitoring round statements, the Committee has struggled to track the changes in spending from the Main Estimates to the present. The Committee was provided with some clarity by the Department on those issues after our requests. That said, a number of matters remain outstanding, particularly in relation to slippage in spend on city deal funding.

Additionally, as I indicated in my contribution during the Budget Bill Second Stage, the Committee has had very little time to pursue and consider all of this. That said, I think that the Committee was relieved to note that, despite considerable funding pressures in 2023-24, delivery continued for key measurements, including particularly apprenticeships and skills. The Committee did note with concern, however, that, in the coming year, Executive funds will be needed to replace European social fund money, particularly for apprenticeships. That is something that the Committee is united in focusing on.

Another considerable pressure on the 2023-24 budget was the prospective pay settlement for further education (FE) lecturers. It is understood that, should negotiations prove to be protracted, the costs will be shown as accrual against the 2023-24 budget. As that process is understood to be ongoing, consequently, and not to prejudice those negotiations, in my role as Chair, my remarks will necessarily be limited at this stage. I will say simply that the Committee as a whole wants to see a speedy resolution to that pay settlement in recognition of the vital role that the further education sector plays in the delivery of the 10X strategy, which is, of course, the key economic vision that still remains within the Department for the Economy.

Finally in this role, the Committee recently sought clarity, but the Minister for the Economy was unable to help in respect of enhanced investment zones for Northern Ireland, so I ask whether the Finance Minister, in her winding-up speech, can give us any information on the anticipated package of tax breaks or reliefs that might be available to certain sectors of industry in Northern Ireland. That brings my remarks as Chair of the Committee to a close.

I just want to raise a few matters following on from the remarks made by the Member for West Belfast Pat Sheehan in relation to non-teaching staff. We need to see a speedy resolution to that. Yesterday, the Minister of Education stated that an updated business case has been submitted to the Minister of Finance. I am sure that I can say on behalf of the whole House that we hugely recognise the vital role that Education Authority (EA) bus drivers, classroom assistants, catering staff and domestic cleaners play within our schools, and we also recognise the need for them to be funded properly. Perhaps the Minister, in her winding-up speech, can say when she hopes that her Department may be able to approve that business case. It has been hugely disappointing that the Education Authority being unable to say how many members of staff it employs has resulted in this delay. However, we now need to move on and get that pay settlement sorted.

In my role as DUP economy spokesperson, I want to raise the issue of FE lecturers' pay. I do not think that the attitude or position adopted by the Minister for the Economy, namely, "It is nothing to do with me. This is a matter for negotiation between the sector and employees directly", is acceptable. We cannot on the one hand have Mr Sheehan claim the credit for the Finance Minister giving funding to teachers and then on the other hand have the Economy Minister saying it has nothing to do with him when it comes to settling pay for FE lecturers. They play a vital role in the economy right across Northern Ireland, and the Minister for the Economy needs to show leadership on this issue and get the sector sorted as soon as possible.

With that, I bring my remarks to an end. My party will support the motions this afternoon.

I support the resolutions, though, in doing so, I am conscious that the debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates is largely academic given that the detailed spending plans have already been legislated for in the Budget Act.

It has been said that these are exceptional circumstances. They are, but too often in the Assembly is our Budget process exceptional: upended by stop-start Government and subsequently progressed, through necessity, hastily and in the absence of the levels of scrutiny and debate that the people whom we represent rightly deserve and expect. That is why Alliance has consistently and persistently advocated for the reform of these institutions.

There is no point in other parties coming to the Chamber to bemoan the process that we are in or the damage to our public services and public finances caused by repeated suspension if they are not willing to commit to the reform that is necessary to ensure that it never happens again.

In recent debates on the Budget Bill and on public-sector pay, successive MLAs from the two largest parties pretended that there was no consequence from not having had a Government in five of the past seven years and that we merely stood still. That is a convenient lie, told to justify the huge damage that has been done. That damage was evident in the Main Estimates predicated on the Secretary of State's punishment Budget, which implemented a swathe of cuts across the public sector that could not be undone in the final few weeks of the previous financial year.

The most significant movements from the Main Estimates to the spring Supplementary Estimates are a result of the financial package that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed on 15 February. I will address some of the issues pertaining to that pot of money.

There is no doubt that the over £1 billion made available in 2023-24 has provided much-needed relief to public services, as well as significant and welcome progress on addressing a range of outstanding public-sector pay claims. In previous debates, I have raised the issue of non-teaching pay, as Mr Brett has done today. I recognise the progress that has been made by the Department of Education and the Department of Finance since restoration. It is welcome, and I trust that the matter can be resolved swiftly.

It has been well rehearsed by now, however — I will not dwell on the point — that the package in its entirety did not provide long-term stability. There is an urgent need for a renewed fiscal framework and a properly baselined fiscal floor, set at the appropriate level. The challenges pertaining to underfunding are perhaps evident nowhere more so than in our justice system. Since justice was devolved, the Department of Health has seen an increase in its budget of 68%, while the Department of Education has seen one of over 35%. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has seen an increase of just 3%. That is further compounded by the fact that, as more and more people fall through the gaps in service elsewhere in the system — be it in mental health, addiction, early years, education, employment or housing — more and more falls to the Department of Justice as the provider of first and last resort. I do not believe that anyone in the Assembly can argue that, despite dwindling police numbers and pressure on prison capacity, the current funding arrangements are adequate to meet the needs of victims or our wider community. No doubt, during today's debate, a similar story of pressure across the public sector will be told.

While I entirely respect the fact that negotiations on our funding arrangements with Treasury are ongoing, I am concerned that, seven weeks on from the previous debate on the Budget Bill, we do not have a great deal more insight into the direction of travel: the powers being sought for fiscal devolution; how the Minister intends to address conditionality around revenue raising; and whether and when an independent commission to advise on our funding formula will be established. Given the impending spending review within the next year, the urgency cannot be overstated.

Another challenge arising from the UK Government's financial package has been the removal of ring fencing for Fresh Start funding for integrated schools. It is important to emphasise that, while ring fencing has been removed, the money has not been and is not lost to the Executive. It is disappointing that, despite requests, there appears to have been no serious effort by the Finance Minister or the Education Minister to re-profile that money for its original purpose, which was to support integrated education and to seek to educate more of our children together. That is vital for our society and for our education system's financial stability.

Will the Member give way?

I will, yes.

Does the Member agree that it is really important that, in talking about this, no one should be in any doubt that he is right that Chris Heaton-Harris and the UK Government imposed a punishment Budget? We know that we have had more than a decade of austerity, but the decision on the cuts to integrated education was effectively one made by the Executive, particularly by the two Ministers about whom he has talked. Yes, the ring fence was removed, but that did not in any way impose a decision on any Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive to remove that money.

It is important that we are accurate about this. In fairness to the Ministers, the decision to remove ring fencing was not theirs. The Member said that, and it is important that we are accurate about it. Capital money has been found for other projects, however, so it is a question of priority as to whether the Ministers want to return that money to its originally intended purpose and provide funding for the 10 integrated projects. They absolutely should.

While I would be the first to argue that Northern Ireland has been chronically underfunded in recent years and that a failed policy of Tory austerity has decimated our public services and damaged our economy, we cannot shirk our responsibilities to deliver a programme of public-sector transformation in this place. Indeed, if we are to secure substantive progress in negotiations with Treasury, we must demonstrate that we are serious partners and are able to take the long-term decisions necessary to improve efficiency and outcomes for the people whom we represent. It was therefore galling to be present at the debate yesterday on the future of funding for NI Water, during which the Minister could not even commit to an expert-led review of the funding and governance arrangements of that organisation, despite the Northern Ireland Audit Office's clear recommendations. Taking an ostrich approach, despite the overspills polluting our rivers and Lough Neagh and the constraints on development hampering housing supply and damaging our economy, is an abdication of responsibility and is symptomatic of the inertia that has pervaded successive Executives and walked us to the financial and environmental challenges that we now face as an Executive.

I support the resolutions today, but I will put down a marker at this stage: going forward to the Main Estimates and the Budget Bill for this year, we need to see a step change in approach. We must return at the earliest opportunity to multi-year budgets, properly invest in the transformation of our services and learn from international best practice on green budgeting to ensure that our Budget process better protects our environment and upholds our climate commitments.

I speak as Chair of the AERA Committee. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee. In February, the Committee received a briefing from DAERA officials on the budgetary pressures of 2023-24 and those of 2024-25 and beyond. We also held an extra meeting in March with Minister Muir to hear his priorities and to discuss budgetary pressures. The Committee welcomed that meeting, and we look forward to scrutinising the work of the Department as we move forward.

The Committee was pleased that the Minister shared its views that nothing will be gained from pitting agriculture and the environment against each other. He advised us that, during his term, he intends to support our agriculture, food and fisheries sectors, alongside the important rural communities, while benefiting the climate and the environment. The Committee has continued to hear from officials and stakeholders across the DAERA business areas and is building a picture of where our scrutiny focus will need to be when it comes to the budget.

Before I highlight some of the 2023-24 challenges and those that extend into 2024-25, I note on behalf of the Committee that the Budget process in which we find ourselves is unusual, as has been outlined by other Members. In usual circumstances, the spring Supplementary Estimates and the associated Budget Act are connected to the outcome of the in-year monitoring rounds. We are not, however, in those usual times, and it was only possible for the Executive to decide on 15 February the allocations to Departments to address overspends and provide funding for public-sector pay awards.

The Vote on Account is approximately 65% of the previous year's Budget to ensure that it will be sufficient to last until the summer recess if necessary. We know that the timescale for agreeing a Budget will be extended to allow Ministers to determine spending priorities. The Committee looks forward to influencing that process in the future. As a public consultation on the 2024-25 Budget will not take place, it is even more important that the Department engages with the Committee as soon as possible.

For 2023-24, officials advised the Committee that the resource expenditure limits included £600·7 million of non-ring-fenced resource and that almost £330 million is earmarked by His Majesty's Treasury for agriculture, agri-environment, the wider rural economy and fisheries. Treasury has further earmarked just over £28 million for non-ring-fenced resource expenditures for work on the Northern Ireland protocol and Windsor framework and at points of entry. The Committee heard that most of the remaining funding relates to staff costs, the bovine TB programme and other running costs.

I now will draw attention to a few budgetary challenges of the past year that have come to the Committee's attention and to some that will go forward into 2024-25. Bovine TB is one of the most challenging issues facing cattle farmers in Northern Ireland, with high herd incidence of close to 10%. In the previous financial year, £53 million was spent on bovine TB, £38 million of which paid the value of cattle that were slaughtered for disease control. A similar amount is expected to be paid this year. When the Minister briefed us on 5 March, he shared our concerns about the need to deal with that escalating matter. However, our Committee wishes to see the Minister go beyond paying just for the cattle that are lost and cover the full amount of lost income to farmers, for it to be true compensation. It takes time to rebuild a herd, never mind the emotional distress and the financial input over generations to develop improved stock genetics. The Committee will also monitor the outcome of the Secretary of State's consultation, inherited by Minister Muir, on the proposals to reduce bovine TB compensation.

On the implementation of the Windsor framework, the Committee was advised that, in year, DAERA was awarded resource expenditure allocations totalling £28·2 million for 2023-24 under three funding streams. The Committee is aware that staff costs of £18·6 million are the greatest expense to operate the inspection regime along with support staff both on- and off-site. DAERA received only £4·7 million of its bid for £5·6 million for 2023-24 from Treasury. That brings significant uncertainty to the process, given that the Department was not allocated what it bid for. The UK Government's wish to ensure the smooth implementation of the Windsor framework will not be possible if DAERA is not properly supported to implement it. The Committee is aware that rural development funding and support are more pressurised due to EU exit and was pleased to hear that that will be a focus for the Minister.

The Committee expressed concern about the reduced spend in 2023-24 on tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI). DAERA advised that several initiatives, including the rural business development grant scheme, were not delivered in 2023-24 due to the need to undertake evaluations.

The Committee looks forward to seeing the climate action plan. The Minister highlighted to us that investing in addressing climate change is an opportunity to go with the green growth agenda. The Committee assumes that it will see funding prioritised for that green growth agenda. We know that the Minister shares our interest in supporting the agriculture sector to play its part in climate actions; for example, delivering finance to ensure that there is research to improve technology and to invest in a just transition. We are keen to establish when the £2·3 billion will be available from the Departments to implement the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 up to 2027, which is just three years away.

The Committee is concerned that the farm support programme has not kept pace with inflation. We asked the Minister to ensure that the budgets that come to Northern Ireland support our valuable sectors across agriculture, the environment and rural affairs.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Supply resolution debate. As I said in my Member's statement, there are many issues facing the farming community. The Committee Chair touched on the some of those during his contribution, such as the reduction in spend on TRPSI. As we know, the tackling rural poverty and social isolation programme is an example of a relatively small amount of money going a long way in rural communities to deliver projects and programmes on the ground. We also know that farm support has not kept pace with inflation.

As I mentioned earlier, Brexit has had a huge detrimental impact. Now that we are out of the common agricultural policy, which was not perfect but did provide a seven-year budget, a level of uncertainty has been created. Certainly, we welcome the £332·5 million for single farm payments in the 2024-25 financial year. As we know, that is really important income support for food-producing families and farms. We know that it is also important in keeping the cost down for consumers. While we welcome that funding for this year, the danger is that we have no future certainty about it. If we do not get certainty from the British Government, who pledged, pre-Brexit, that they would replace lost EU funding pound for pound, and if that ring-fenced budget is not continued, it could create a cliff edge for our farmers.

The TB costs are in the region of £50 million. There is £38 million for compensation and just over £10 million for running the programme. The Department needs to get to grips with that, because if that cost could be brought down, it would free up additional funding and expenditure for other aspects of farm and rural support. Indeed, we were very scathing about the threats that were made by the Secretary of State, Chris Heaton-Harris, to impose new charges on farmers for bovine TB testing and future cuts to compensation. We feel that those are very punitive.

Farming and rural affairs are in the eye of a storm. We have Brexit, climate change and other world events like war, which have had a huge inflationary impact on input costs. That has all added to a sense of uncertainty. We call on the British Government to live up to their pre-Brexit pledge to replace EU funding pound for pound, because our farmers and rural communities need that degree of certainty.

As already stated, the Assembly finds itself in the unique position of agreeing to the spring Supplementary Estimates for the previous financial year and to the Vote on Account for the current financial year, with a significantly truncated time frame. As a result, the Committee for Infrastructure has not been afforded the opportunity to fully understand and consider the financial position for 2023-2024 and future resource requirements for the Department for Infrastructure in 2024-25.

It is essential that Committees have sufficient time to explore, scrutinise and fully understand their respective Departments' financial positions so that they can fully exercise their advisory and scrutiny functions. To that end, I welcome the Minister of Finance's previous assurance that this approach will not set a precedent for future financial scrutiny or Budget cycles.

Over recent weeks, the Committee has taken evidence covering all aspects of the Department's remit that relates to roads, water and transport. We are all aware that our road network has lacked the required funding to maintain it to the standard that, as road users, we rightly expect. Whilst the Committee welcomed the additional funding allocations to the Department in order to provide additional resource for remedial works to be undertaken, the totality of spending in 2023-24 is still way below the resource requirements that are needed to provide a fully funded road maintenance programme.

I concur with the Minister for Infrastructure's assertion that our infrastructure plays an important role in the daily life of people, the community, the environment and the economy. I am confident that, over the coming weeks, the Committee will wish to review in detail the Department's financial performance for the 2023-24 financial year once the final out-turn figures have been published.

Turning to the current financial year, I will say that the Committee has received oral and written evidence from the Minister and departmental officials to get a sense of the resource requirements that are needed to deliver the services for transport, water and planning, which we often take for granted. From the evidence that has been received, it is clear that the Department faces a number of very significant challenges, particularly in maintaining and updating our water and waste water network and in delivering timely MOT services for motorists and vehicle dealerships at the point of need.

Evidence to the Committee has highlighted the stark reality that much of our water infrastructure desperately requires substantial work to provide capacity in the system for communities and businesses. That work will, however, require significant capital investment to ensure that our infrastructure is fit for purpose, to deliver for existing users, to provide for the construction of new homes and businesses and to attract new investment to develop and grow our economy.

Turning to transport matters, I welcome the investment made to increase testing capacity. That increase arises from the new centre at Hydebank and the development of a new transport hub in Belfast. If the forecasts are accurate, we will see a significant increase in passenger numbers, which will assist in the transition from private vehicles to public transport. That is critical if we are to deliver on the commitments arising from the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. It is also critical, however, that sufficient consideration be given to projects that are not solely Belfast-centric. Naturally, I recognise that, as a capital city, Belfast needs the necessary infrastructure, but the need for investment in other regions should not be understated. If we want to realise the ambition of increasing uptake of public transport, future investment is an absolute priority.

The Committee is keen to work collaboratively with the Minister for Infrastructure and with the Department to identify ways to deliver the services that our communities need. I recognise that financial pressures will constrain ambitions, but I am confident that the Committee will endeavour to nurture a positive relationship in seeking to identify solutions to the challenges that we undoubtedly face.

I will make some brief remarks as DUP representative for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Infrastructure is the bedrock of Executive delivery on aspects of the Programme for Government and its projects. Without adequate funding, it will be impossible to deliver on some of the essential things such as social and affordable homes, boosting our economy by providing more jobs in, for example, the construction industry and environmental improvements. In yesterday's debate about funding for Northern Ireland Water, we heard that Northern Ireland potentially has thousands of overspills that contribute to pollution in our waterways. There is a need, therefore, to look at the matter in the context of Lough Neagh and other areas; I raised that with the First Minister during Question Time, yesterday.

Not least of the essential aspects is decarbonisation: ensuring that we meet our net zero targets by getting people to switch to public transport. That is a significant challenge in my constituency and in rural areas. Public transport is infrequent in many rural towns and villages and needs significant investment. Another of those aspects is the carrying out of health reform, for which we will set up regional centres of excellence and ask people to travel for their appointments. We must ensure that the aims and ideas for health transformation, as set out in the Bengoa report, are reflected in better transportation not only from a public transport point of view but from a road safety perspective.

There are, undoubtedly, challenges facing our overall Budget position. It is important that we get it right. Further to that, it is important that we are innovative in how we do business and that we take hard decisions.

The Member's time is up.

We must ensure that our public services are properly funded to carry out the work that the people of Northern Ireland rightly deserve.

I rise to speak to the Supply resolutions. I will do so, first, as the Chairperson of the Education Committee. Since the return of the Assembly in February, the Committee has been engaged in intensive work, hearing from key education stakeholders and, of course, directly from the Department. As other Members referenced, however, the Committee has had less time than it would have liked in order to properly understand the financial position for the previous year and the year ahead.

It is clear that the Department's budget is under substantial pressure. That was the case in the previous financial year and will be in the year ahead, as we look to the Vote on Account. Officials have indicated to the Committee that, in a flat-cash budgetary position, pressures of around £900 million will be faced. That is felt at every level of the education system: school budgets, Youth Services, SEN services and targeted programmes to tackle educational disadvantage and to improve mental well-being in schools.

The Committee has focused on SEN in some detail — rightly so, given the pressure on places that faces us in September. There has been an 88% increase in total SEN spend from £255 million in 2017-18 to £479 million in 2022-23. The Minister has suggested, looking ahead, that an extra £100 million in capital budget will be required to fund the capital works to deliver SEN places, and also that the SEN transformation programme itself needs another £11 million in funding. In this context, the Committee shares the concern of the Children's Commissioner that the cuts in education, over the previous year and years before that, have disproportionably affected our children and young people. The Committee has consistently highlighted that the Department's budget is not sufficiently targeted at early interventions for children with additional needs, for those impacted by social disadvantage or in early interventions in early years specifically. Education has typically survived in recent years on a cycle of bailouts, often via monitoring rounds, and this can only be broken by a commitment to transformation of service delivery.

The Committee has not yet had the opportunity to examine the Department's transformation plans, but it is clear that this work is urgently required, and the Committee will turn its focus to the issue in the months ahead. Early discussions in Committee considered teachers' pay and the ongoing industrial dispute, and we welcome the significant progress made to resolve that. The Committee has also expressed its support for seeing progress and delivery of the pay and grading review for education support staff. However, members are very mindful of the challenges facing us in finding the recurring budget to finance these pay agreements in the years ahead. The Committee will continue to scrutinise the Minister and Department in these challenging financial times to support delivery on key issues but also to ensure that the Department brings forward a meaningful reform and transformation programme.

I will now make some remarks in my capacity as Alliance's education spokesperson and as an MLA for Strangford. It is clear, as has been referenced by many other Members, that we are again in a less than desirable position with regard to our Budget scrutiny in this place. These Supply resolutions should have been laid before the Budget Bill earlier this year, but we are all aware that that Bill passed without the provision of Supplementary Estimates. Departments were facing real risks of exceeding spending limits and running out of cash in some cases, but it was uniformly agreed across the Chamber that the process we were engaged in was suboptimal, to say the least. The rushed Budget, and the less than satisfactory scrutiny process associated with it, is a direct result of the decisions of some to collapse the Assembly. It is vital that we do not find ourselves in this position again and that all parties get behind supporting the reform needed to ensure that the veto is removed from politics in Northern Ireland for good.

As already outlined, this has been an incredibly challenging year for education from a budgetary perspective, and the year ahead looks set to continue in a similar vein. We know that, for many areas, significant additional resources are required over and above what the Department's regular statutory functions cover. A good example of that is the early learning and childcare strategy: something that every party in the Chamber supports, but the resource required to deliver it is still to be found. Ultimately, this speaks to the need to reform how Northern Ireland is funded. It is an urgent necessity that our funding settlement is adjusted to reflect our level of objective need. All parties need to maintain the focus of moving beyond the UK Government's acceptance that we are, indeed, underfunded and to delivering a settlement that genuinely reflects our level of need with an appropriate fiscal floor.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair)

To that, I add that we need our Education Minister to demonstrate a genuine commitment to delivering transformation of our education system. We need a clear plan to both assess and tackle the cost of division in our education system, a system divided both on community lines and socio-economic lines. In that regard, I echo the comments from my colleague, Eóin Tennyson. I was disappointed that the Minister did not begin his tenure by restoring the ring-fencing of Fresh Start funding to allow integrated capital projects to progress. I urge him to reconsider this position. I would welcome clarification from the Finance Minister on what steps she took to consider the possibility of restoring that ring-fencing of the Fresh Start funding.

We need to see delivery reform across many areas, not least for SEN, primarily to ensure that we deliver for the children and families who need and rely on those services, but also to ensure that the large sums of money being spent on those services are financing an effective system that prioritises early intervention, not the expensive late interventions that so often categorise our system in education. We all agree that the financial position we face is extremely difficult. In this context, I will continue to advocate for a properly funded education system where we are ambitious about real transformation to deliver fit-for-purpose education for our children and young people, where the barriers of division are broken down and where all learners, regardless of their level of additional need or socio-economic background, can reach their full potential.

I speak in the debate as a Sinn Féin member of the Economy Committee, and my comments will hopefully be brief. It is important at the beginning of my remarks, however, to state clearly, as others have, that the Executive have been and continue to be substantially underfunded by the British Tory Government. That Tory austerity policy continues to have a detrimental impact on the Executive's finances, our public services, our economy and, ultimately, our workers and families. I do not think that that is up for debate, as it was agreed and made clear in the letter that was sent to the British Government in the first weeks after the resumption of the institutions. We are also in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, with, in many instances, families struggling to make ends meet and businesses struggling with increased costs. Those are the constraints on the Executive and the Ministers in it.

Speaking in my role as a member of the Economy Committee, I welcome the Minister for the Economy's work in his first few weeks in office, setting out the direction that he intends to take in his Department: to grow economic activity in the North; to promote regional balance; to create good jobs to benefit our citizens and to undo some of the damage from austerity; to use the advantage that dual market access offers us in promoting the North as a place in which to invest; and to grow the all-island economy for the benefit of everyone.

When we talk about that work in the context of budgets and Estimates, I have to point out that, over and above the impact of austerity and funding shortfalls, the loss of EU funding as a result of Brexit will particularly hit the Department for the Economy, especially its skills programmes, apprenticeships and business support programmes. The European social fund (ESF) and the European regional development fund (ERDF) were integral to skills provision. The 10X skills strategy identified concerns about the effect that ending the European social fund would have on skills provision. The British Government's Shared Prosperity Fund falls short, leaving the Executive £90 million short of the £195 million that we received when we were in the EU. British Government schemes such as the Shared Prosperity Fund and the Community Renewal Fund gave the Executive little, if any, scope to shape skills funding to the needs of businesses and workers here.

We in the North are often left to deal with the consequences of insufficient funding, bad decisions or inaction at Westminster. Despite that, our Ministers are making meaningful interventions and working to support workers, businesses and families. I commend the Finance Minister for doing just that in a positive way on a number of occasions in her first few weeks in office. It is clear to all of us that the best people to take decisions on behalf of the people living on this island are politicians elected on this island. We need the power, including fiscal power, and the sovereignty to do so.

Members are aware that today's debate is a largely technical exercise to keep our Departments running. The spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account both relate to the 2023-24 Budget. The Estimates are retrospective, and the Vote on Account allows Departments to continue to deliver services as they did in 2023-24 into the early months of the 2024-25 financial year. That does not constitute the setting of a 2024-25 Budget. This is not the way in which we want to debate Supply resolutions: we want clarity, fair funding and appropriate time for scrutiny. In this instance, the lack of certainty about how much funding was available to Northern Ireland played a key part in the delays.

There has been a long-term injustice in the funding of public services in Northern Ireland. We have inevitably fallen behind. Our funding model has not been sufficient. I thank our DUP interim leader, Gavin Robinson MP, for leading on that at Westminster and our DUP peers, particularly Lord Morrow, for securing debates in the House of Lords last year on funding injustice in Northern Ireland and for the real pressure that they have applied on that subject. That continued pressure contributed to the UK Government's recognition that Northern Ireland's funding model needed attention. The package offered in February, however, has failed to address the situation appropriately. It includes allowance to write off prior year overspends of over £500 million yet acknowledges that we were underfunded by more than that amount in previous years, and it then changes how that will be assessed from 2024-25 going forward. Under that logic, Northern Ireland was not overspent in 2023-24; it was underfunded, and the £500 million deemed to be funding to cover that write-off should have been an additional £500 million for that year. That would have gone a long way towards addressing the pay awards that have not yet been covered by the Supply resolutions, such as those — mentioned by a number of Members — for non-teaching staff in schools. They deserve fair pay. Northern Ireland deserves the fair funding to cover that, and I urge the Finance Minister to continue to make that argument in her ongoing discussions with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We missed out on funding in 2023-24, and it should be made available to us from 2024-25 onwards to settle all public-sector pay awards.

I also urge the Finance Minister to continue to fight for an adequate fair funding model for Northern Ireland for 2024-25 and beyond to enable the Executive and the Assembly to be in a position to debate a meaningful Budget and multi-year Budgets, going forward.

Northern Ireland's funding should never have been allowed to fall below need, and, once again, I raise in the Chamber that the UK Government cannot adopt a UK needs formula and agree to intervene to protect one part of the UK to ensure that its funding does not fall below need while not doing so for another part of the UK, allowing it not only to fall to need but plunge well below it. Yet that is what happened in Northern Ireland. In order for Northern Ireland to be treated fairly, the UK Government need to increase, fully baselined, Northern Ireland's funding per head by proportionately the same amount above need as was the case in Wales from 2018-19, in which the uplift was applied, and, from that point, the uplift should be applied to Northern Ireland with the provision of a fiscal floor at the level of need rather than the fiscal ceiling. That is the only fair way forward.

We support the motions out of the necessity of the circumstances. The 2023-24 resolution is retrospective on money already spent. However, I call on the Finance Minister to commit to continuing to fight for a better financial outcome for the 2024-25 Budget Bill in the months ahead, for Northern Ireland public finances to be placed on a sustainable footing and for the Executive to secure the resources that they need to deliver effective public services. We need that to deliver for Northern Ireland and to deliver on our key objectives, such as supporting and boosting our National Health Service; growing our economy; creating jobs; tackling the cost-of-living crisis; securing a better education system; and improving childcare to ensure that no mother or father in Northern Ireland has to choose between caring for their children or going to work. We need fair funding and clarity on Northern Ireland finances moving forward as a matter of urgent priority, and we need a 2024-25 Budget as soon as possible.

Like many Members who have spoken, I am somewhat frustrated at, shall we say, the suboptimal manner in which we are dealing with this business. I imagine that the Minister is also frustrated by that. Multi-year Budgets are a sensible and desirable idea. It is inevitable that those Budgets will come, and not before time.

Part of my frustration is at the way we do business, and I want to use the next couple of minutes to make a plea for thinking about doing it differently, but, before that, I will turn to money already spent. As party spokesperson on the economy, I was on the Economy Committee when the Minister chaired that Committee. We scrutinised the energy strategy. In December 2021, the Department published 'The Path to Net Zero Energy', which, I think we will all agree, is a keynote document on climate change and the need to get to net zero. On page 26, there is a table estimating capital investment and savings. I am sure that departmental officials will say that those are indicative figures, but they are interesting because, in terms of additional capital investment, the table says that the investment will be £1·2 billion per annum starting in 2021 with net savings of £301 million. There is no evidence whatever that those funds were allocated. Of course, not all of that investment would have been public money, but a significant amount would have been, and I can find no indication that I can find that additional funds were made available to meet that £1·2 billion annual investment.

On the Estimates, it seems to me that we are saying, "Let's look at what we've done before and give Departments 65% of that annual figure". I am not sure that that is at all the way to go. Recently, in Committee, we were talking to the Department, and I asked about five of its arm's-length bodies or non-departmental public bodies: Tourism Northern Ireland, Tourism Ireland, Invest Northern Ireland, InterTradeIreland and Northern Ireland Screen. The question was, "What is the return on the investment?"; in other words, "For every pound of public money that we put into those bodies, how much do they generate in return?". Surprisingly, the Department's officials were not able to answer that question. I believe that they are still working on it, but I was surprised that they were not able to say in any detail what the return on investment was. However, they were all certain that Northern Ireland Screen would come out on top. Of course, that makes me think that return on investment is not just about the finances. What about the impact that Northern Ireland Screen has on promoting a positive global image of Northern Ireland? It is more complex than a straight financial transaction, but, if we are concerned about value for money, surely we need to know the financial return on investment from those five bodies.

The other frustration for me is that in May 2016 — nearly eight years ago — we agreed that our Programme for Government would be an OBA — outcomes-based accountability — Programme for Government and that cross-cutting measures would be at its heart. For example, when it comes to educational underachievement, we would no longer point the finger simply at the Minister of Education and say, "That's your problem", because we understand that healthier children do better at school, so the Minister of Health has a role to play with the Minister of Education. We also understand that children in better housing are likely to do better at school, so, suddenly, the Minister for Communities has a role to play. There is then the question of transport, so the Minister for Infrastructure is at the table, as is the AERA Minister, who has responsibility for rural affairs. Tackling educational underachievement is therefore an all-Executive issue, and it needs budget. However, if we look at these Estimates, we see that they are divided up, Department by Department. We know that, when money is tight, Ministers will look at everything that they do that costs money and divide it into two columns: statutory responsibilities and non-statutory responsibilities. If you are in the latter, God help you, because you are more than likely to be cut,. That will affect cross-cutting and outcomes-based accountability government, which will affect how we deliver for our people.

Another issue — I say this as an outgoing member of the Policing Board — is that the police are now looking at the number of events that they attend that are health incidents and not crime incidents. I think that they are also looking at the number of hours that police officers spend in corridors outside emergency departments, waiting to hand over patients, particularly mental health patients, and sign them off to the hospital. That is a cross-cutting thing. The old saying is, "Police officers' response vehicles carry defibrillators; ambulance crews do not carry handcuffs". The police tend to be the responders of first and last resort. It may be that that is the best way to keep people safe. We have to have that debate, and, if the answer is, "Yes, the police are the best-placed service", the second question is, "Is that reflected in the Budget?". Currently, the answer to that is, "Absolutely not". If the police are going to do health duties, we have to have a debate about how the money is divided.

Those cross-cutting things are really important. Unless they are embedded in the Budget, as well as in the Programme for Government, I suspect that we will not deliver as we want to for our people. I know that that is for another day, but we need to have a fundamental review of how we do budgets and align them on a multi-year basis to Programmes for Government.

I support today's resolutions. As was said, this is not the normal process by which these resolutions come forward. We know the reasons why, and, since she came into post, the Finance Minister has been clear on that. The spring Supplementary Estimates give effect to the allocations that were announced when the Assembly returned, and a key element of that was our public-sector pay. Many of us stood on the picket lines with public-sector workers in the lead-up to the Assembly's return. We know that that was a critical element of the Budget that was coming forward. I am glad that, in the Estimates, the Finance Minister has given an additional £100 million to public-sector pay. I am hopeful that a resolution can be reached in each of the Departments as soon as possible. It is important that, here today and in backing these resolutions, we reinforce our support for fair pay for our public-sector workers.

Many in the Chamber have said that part of the reason that we are here today is because the British Government have admitted to underfunding the North for many years. We know that that underfunding over the past few years and, indeed, over the past decade or more has caused deep and lasting damage to our public services. Let us remember that a big part of that was a British Government policy of austerity to rob our public services, which impacted on the most vulnerable in our communities. It was that policy of choice by the British Government that has crippled our public services.

Last year, the Tories continued to impose cuts on our public services. Many of those cuts affected front-line services, as we heard from many contributors today, in Health, Education, Communities and our Justice Department. Those cuts are felt hardest by our most vulnerable people. We have seen and heard about that from the voluntary and community sector, which is often the low-hanging fruit that is cut first. That should be an alarm for all of us.

It is unacceptable that the British Secretary of State chose to inflict so much hardship on the most vulnerable. I am glad that the first act of the restored Assembly was a united call from all parties in the Chamber for a new fiscal framework that would ensure that we were provided funding on the basis of need. Sinn Féin is ready and willing, through our four-party Executive and working with the Opposition and others in the Chamber, to push the British Government to address underfunding in the North and its implications. That should remain our clear focus today and, importantly, in the coming weeks and months. We urgently need to address that underfunding. Of course, we need to look at the redesign and prioritisation of policies, resources and services, but we also need to look at the fiscal levers and the framework in its entirety.

I believe that a fundamental pillar of all that has to be targeting social need and effectively addressing poverty and inequality. Our families, communities and workers deserve nothing less.

I will speak on behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office, and I will be fairly brief, as the Executive Office has a relatively small budget compared with those of other Departments. However, it is an important budget, as the Department deals with some of the most sensitive, contentious and wide-ranging matters that we have to contend with.

To give an overview, the Department has been allocated around £185 million resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and £12 million capital DEL for the financial year. The Department required around £15 million less resource DEL, but that was balanced by an additional requirement for £14 million in capital, which left a balance of a reduced DEL requirement of £1 million.

Payments to victims and survivors of the conflict accounted for £14 million of the money that was not required in 2023-24. Either the £59 million that was allocated to those payments was a considerable overestimate, or there was a significantly lower number of people who did not access the support that they needed. Certainly, the evidence from my discussions with the victims' sector tends, worryingly, to suggest the latter. Likewise, £5 million of the £32 million that was allocated to the victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse has not been spent. I have already carried out some meetings on that issue, and the Committee will be hearing from stakeholders in that area at this week's meeting. We will be enquiring about access to support and other matters. I am sure that Members would be extremely concerned if people who have suffered due to the conflict or because of childhood abuse were still, in 2024, facing barriers to receiving the recompense to which they are entitled or if they were simply not aware that they could submit a claim. I have to emphasise that that very much appears to be the case.

This has financial relevance, specifically because the easements in relation to payments for victims and survivors of the conflict and historical institutional abuse were included in the Department's first-day brief to the First Minister and deputy First Minister but the increased requirement for capital DEL was not. Most of that has been allocated to the Strategic Investment Board, and it is unclear as yet how that amount of expenditure was unforeseen.

Moving on to the Vote on Account at 65% of the £169 million resource and £26 million capital DEL from the previous financial year, the Department is to receive £127 million for those areas in the coming year, pending a formal Budget being agreed. It is acknowledged that this year is exceptional and that Budget processes are unusual, but the Committee looks forward to being fully informed about money that the Department is going to spend. Not least of that expenditure is the creation of four new bodies: the office of identity and cultural expression; the Irish language commissioner; the commissioner for Ulster Scots and the Ulster-British tradition; and the climate change commissioner. All those bodies need to be adequately resourced to do the jobs that they are intended to do. At the same time, the existing arm's-length bodies of the Department need to be able to fulfil their roles. The 10% cut across the board in the previous financial year, which, in many cases, was just the latest of many such cuts carried out in succession, has left organisations understaffed and facing considerable difficulties in carrying out their functions. The Committee will wish now properly and fully to examine how the Department spends its money and the adequacy of sums allocated to it.

I will make a few brief remarks in my capacity as an Alliance Party MLA. Although we have heard that the recruitment process has begun, it is a matter of considerable concern that the Executive Office continues to operate without a permanent secretary and that some bodies associated with it are also operating without key personnel. For example, we have no Victims' Commissioner and no interim advocate for victims and survivors of mother-and-baby homes. Those should already have been acted upon, not least because we want to determine clearly what money is being spent by whom, for what purpose and with what controls.

On top of that, as I have mentioned, we have new bodies due to be set up but, as yet, no clear commitment from the First Minister and deputy First Minister as to exactly when. My concern is that those may be being deliberately delayed. When will those appointments be made? On top of that, we have some areas where additional expenditure may come to be required and, therefore, managed. For example, we still have no clarity of when and how much the institutions responsible for historical childhood abuse will in fact be contributing to redress as they are required to do. Time is of the essence, and we have to face the fact that legal action in that area may be required to be taken by the Executive Office and urgently.

Conversely, we also need to see the Executive Office leading on the shared future strategic framework, as per yesterday's motion. We should see more efficient action across a range of policy areas, including but not limited to reducing the costs of division. There is little point in arguing that we must have funding allocated on the basis of need only then to throw away hundreds of millions of pounds every year on maintaining segregated services. There is a lot of work to be done, and I would like to see more action that reflects the urgency with which we have to do it.

I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession.

When I spoke in the Budget Bill debate in February, I noted that the Committee had not had the opportunity to consider the budget for the Department of Justice in any detail. I did, however, take the opportunity to reflect some of the concerns raised during the Committee's initial oral evidence session with the then permanent secretary. Since that time, the Committee has heard from various directorates in the Department and from a number of key justice organisations, and issues around the Department's financial position have been a recurring theme. It is safe to say that those discussions have done nothing to ease the Committee's early concerns.

With regard to the 2023-24 financial year, as I mentioned in February, the vast majority of the Department's resource budget — around 95%, I believe — is taken up by the PSNI, the Prison Service, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service and legal aid. There is very little scope to reduce spend without impacting on the delivery of vital services. Indeed, we are seeing the outworkings of some of that already.

Over the past year, the Department reduced its projected overspend from £149 million to £35 million. That was achieved by slowing spend across the sector and included, for example, suspending PSNI recruitment and not increasing the number of prison officers. Serious measures such as those come with serious consequences. The stagnant number of prison officers comes when the prison population is almost at its highest ever and is still increasing. That will inevitably impact on the ability to provide effective rehabilitation. Moreover, we are also approaching the lowest number of police officers since the formation of the PSNI, which is contrary to the New Decade, New Approach political agreement to grow the number of officers in the force to 7,500.

Members have also heard from the Bar Council and the Law Society that slowing down the payment of legal aid fees as a budget management tool has forced professionals to leave the Bar or shift away from legal aid work. They advised that that has disproportionately affected younger professionals and women and could threaten access to justice for many across Northern Ireland.

Those are just a few of the issues raised with the Committee, but concerns were also expressed by others, such as the Lady Chief Justice and the Probation Board, about the impact of funding constraints on the delivery of their services. All these matters are likely to affect us all, directly or indirectly, and will certainly impact on wider society.

Turning to the next financial year, the Committee considered the DOJ's response to the Department of Finance on its resource and capital requirements for 2024-25 at its meeting on 14 March. The Department of Justice indicated that a flat-cash budget settlement would mean that it would go into the new financial year with inescapable pressures of £444 million, which equates to 39% of its baseline. Given that a significant proportion of the Department's budget relates to staff and other fixed costs, and that the only flexibility remaining is around 5%, it is difficult to see what further measures it could take in that scenario to live within budget. The scope to manage budgetary pressures is extremely constrained, and members are concerned that important services may need to be cut, or indeed further cut, in order for the Department even to hope to live within its budget.

Having reflected on what we have heard to date, the Committee agreed to write to our home Department and the Minister of Finance to outline members' concerns. In particular, the Committee drew attention to the fact that people often enter the justice system when their needs are not being more appropriately met by other parts of the public sector, such as the health service, due to demand there. Greater collaborative working may help to address some of those issues in a more appropriate and cost-effective manner. Moves towards policy- or needs-based budgeting could also be beneficial in that regard.

Members believe that multi-year Budgets would help to provide a degree of stability, not only for Departments and their bodies but for the community and voluntary sector, which often delivers vital services for the justice arena. Members also raised the work undertaken by the Fiscal Council on the estimate of relative need for public spending in Northern Ireland, including the requirement for it to include additional security and justice costs that do not occur in Scotland, England or Wales. The Committee wishes to ensure that the case for additional funding to meet those unique requirements is being made to His Majesty's Treasury.

That is just a quick summary of the concerns raised during our initial briefings from the Department and key justice partners. The Committee expects full engagement with the Department on its budget and expenditure plans, particularly given the stark picture that has been painted in the evidence that we have received thus far.

I laid out my views and my party political position clearly during the previous Budget Bill debate. They are on the record for all to see and still hold true, so I will not take up the House's time by repeating them.

I support the remarks that numerous Members so far have made about this not being a perfect process — it is far from perfect — in that we are looking at agreeing money that has already been spent. However, given that a significant amount of money is allocated to Departments and that we often just apply flat-cash budgets from one year to the next, in reflecting on last year's budgetary process, which we did not have much involvement in, and looking forward to next year's, I will, as our party's health spokesperson, highlight some of the essential issues that prevail in the health service in the hope that some of that information will trickle down and that we see some help for that sector's budget in the year ahead.

Many of the issues that our health service faces stem from chronic underfunding and from the fact that Ministers work with a silo mentality, as other Members have said. Poor mental health is one of the most important issues that we face. It costs the taxpayer £3·4 billion every year. If we were to put a small amount of investment through our health service and other Departments to address the issues, we could save money in the long run and, most importantly, help people where they need it. I am a bit concerned that, although we have had the publication of the mental health strategy, there is no proper financial structure to go alongside it. There is not much point in having aspirations if we are not helping people. I would like to see that addressed.

We know that waiting lists are far too long. People are being left to languish on them for far too long. It will cost approximately £135 million a year to help clear those waiting lists, so I hope that, as we regularise the financial approaches for this year, we will see, as we look towards next year, some targeted finance to help the people on those waiting lists. Those people are needlessly suffering pain daily, but we can help them if we make interventions good and early.

Primary care faces major challenges, yet, even with those challenges, the Department of Health announced last week that it will withdraw indemnity cover for GP work that is done out of hours. We are the only area of the UK that does not support doctors by giving them cover for indemnity. The only sector here that was lucky enough to receive it was GPs providing out-of-hours services, but that is now being withdrawn. That cost is to be borne directly by GPs. It makes the sector unattractive to them to work in because they have to pay to go to work. That does not have to be done in any other sector or in any other place on these islands. We need to regularise that quickly. We need to make primary care and GP work attractive so that doctors will want to go into it.

The 10-year cancer strategy also needs a funding plan. We were told at the outset that £778 million would be required over 10 years. I am not sure that too much of that has been applied. Just last night, colleagues of mine on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council supported a Sinn Féin motion but tabled an amendment to it. While we support the strategy, my SDLP colleagues asked whether it needed to be funded. I am sure that the Finance Minister will receive a letter from that council asking for the continuation of the cancer strategy with a financial plan alongside it. I am pleased that the amendment achieved consensus among all parties.

There is money in the spending plan for the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO). That essential office carries out its duties with full independence and impartiality. It is becoming apparent, however, that it is struggling to conclude its work fully and in a timely manner. Sometimes, representatives are left for many years waiting for investigations to be completed. A lack of finance can be at the centre of that. It is also carrying an increasing workload. Just a few months ago, an SDLP motion at Newry, Mourne and Down District Council called for an increase in the budget for NIPSO, and, again, it received full cross-party support. We welcome that support from all parties there.

As a constituency MLA, I find that the issues that are presented to my office and, I am sure, to those of other MLAs extend beyond health and the lack of funding. The roads have never been as bad. They are absolutely dreadful. Driving is a really dangerous activity now because of the state of them. There is not enough housing to go round all our constituents. Councils do not have enough money to do their duties. Schools are under-resourced, and I have listed the health issues. The list could go on and on. There is a critical need to have a Programme for Government, yet the response from this place is silence due to the collapse for a number of years or, when I asked the First Minister yesterday about publishing a Programme for Government, I was told, "Let's not be in a hurry".

The public are in a hurry. They are in a hurry to get their loved ones off waiting lists. They are in a hurry to get childcare sorted so that they do not have to fork out more than £10,000 per year. They are in a hurry to get their children's school into proper order. The public are in a hurry. The community and voluntary sector is in a hurry. Healthcare staff are in a hurry, and the Opposition are in a hurry. I hope that the Finance Minister will also be in a hurry to deliver the money to where it is needed so that we can help our communities now.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate as Chair of the Health Committee. The health budget makes up just over 50% of the block grant and has significant implications for the health and well-being of the people of the North. It is crucial that we understand its impact and significance.

First, let us acknowledge the importance of healthcare in any society. It is the cornerstone of a thriving and prosperous community. The allocation of funds within the Department of Health's budget directly affects the quality and accessibility of the healthcare services available to the citizens in our constituencies. We must therefore ensure that those funds are allocated wisely and efficiently.

We are all too aware of the financial pressures facing the Department of Health and the trusts. The Department has indicated that it has an estimated overspend of over £500 million in 2023-24. The trusts have indicated that they all have a deficit of at least £50 million, and the Department has indicated that it would take more than £1 billion to address waiting lists. Those are considerable pressures.

The Committee has heard, in its first set of meetings, about the pressures and stress on the healthcare system. Unfortunately, it is our dedicated and hard-working healthcare staff who are at the end of those financial pressures. I pay tribute to all healthcare staff, who go above and beyond to care for and treat some of the most vulnerable in our society. Those are people in our families and communities. The Committee welcomes the additional funding identified for outstanding pay rises and urges the Minister to continue to meet representative bodies and ensure that pay rises are implemented as soon as possible.

I welcome the ongoing and positive engagement that there has been with the Minister to date and with departmental officials since the Committee started to meet. Whilst some of the information that the Committee received has, to be honest, been frightening, we appreciate the work that is undertaken to address the failings in the system. The Committee understands the difficult decisions that the Minister and the Department will have to take over the coming period to address many difficult and pressing issues, including waiting lists, recruitment, workforce retention and pay. We must recognise that healthcare requires collaboration, innovation and a commitment to prioritising the well-being of all citizens. While the Budget provides a framework for action, it is up to all of us — politicians, policymakers, healthcare professionals, community leaders and citizens — to work together to ensure its effective implementation and to build healthier communities for generations to come. The Committee will look to work collaboratively with the Minister, health professionals and key stakeholders. It will seek to advocate for equitable access to healthcare services, support initiatives that promote health and well-being and hold the Department accountable for the prudent use of resources allocated in the Department of Health budget. My hope is that, despite the pressures in the system, we can work together to begin a journey to create a brighter and healthier future for all.

I will now make some remarks as Sinn Féin health spokesperson. Our Health and Social Care workers have waited far too long for a fair pay rise, and we need to ensure that that can be implemented at the earliest possible stage. Our health service is on its knees, not least as a result of over a decade of Tory austerity, including cuts of £1 billion imposed by the Tories last year. It is the most vulnerable in our society who feel those cuts most acutely. I commend my colleague the Finance Minister for her diligence in working in these challenging financial circumstances and for ensuring that a fair pay rise for Health and Social Care workers has been prioritised at the earliest possible stage.

It is important to emphasise that it is the responsibility of the relevant Ministers, not the Finance Minister, to make bids and determine how budget allocations are spent. Health is undoubtedly a priority for us all, and the allocation of over 50% of the overall Budget signifies that. However, we also have to be realistic, and every Member in the Chamber knows that the total block grant falls well short of what is needed to stabilise our health service. Until it is stabilised, it is almost impossible to fully realise the significant investment and transformation that every corner of our health and social care system needs.

Some of the most basic services that the public rightly expect to have access to are in crisis, with astronomical waiting lists that continue to grow; GP services collapsing; community pharmacy and dentistry on their knees; and funding cuts to vital services such as the Children's Hospice. Those are all strong indicators of the compelling need for our public services to be properly funded. It is untenable that we are expected to continue to deliver public services with the scraps from the Tories' table. When the Assembly was restored two months ago, all parties were united in our call for the British Government to provide funding on the basis of need. Sinn Féin will continue to work to achieve that, and I urge all other parties to join us in continuing to press the British Government so that we can deliver, collectively, the quality of healthcare that all of our constituents need and deserve.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak as a member of the Communities Committee, but perhaps it is inappropriate for me to speak before the Chairperson, if he has not spoken yet.

It is up to you.

I will carry on and speak as a member of the Communities Committee. I recognise that this is a largely procedural debate regarding the finances in the last financial quarter, but it provides an opportunity to make some important points and highlight needs. During my time on the Committee, we have been receiving briefings, catching up on matters and hearing regularly about the consequences of an inadequate departmental budget and the financial pressures that have resulted from that. For example, as many Members are aware, staff employed in neighbourhood renewal partnerships did not hear until 27 March whether their funding would continue into the new financial year. That was, literally, with a few days to go until the new financial year. They have now been given a three-month contract and await a full departmental budget being set. They did not know that until there were only a few days to go, and they have only a three-month contract. They were told that they would get a two-year contract in the last financial year but the second year of that was to be confirmed, so it was not really a two-year budget at all. Also, I am advised that there was no pay increase last year. For the two previous years, the increase was just 2%, so it did not keep up with inflation, and for the 11 years before that there was no increase at all. I am hearing concerns that some staff may be being paid below the minimum wage based on their actual working hours.

Those are staff who are working in many of our most disadvantaged communities. They are trying to promote neighbourhood regeneration, deliver community services, promote community development and capacity building and run advice services. There is concern that those neighbourhood renewal partnerships are losing staff. The situation is demoralising: people are looking to other sectors where they can get paid and have more job security. That is a need that we will continue to highlight on the Committee and with the Minister.

It is widely recognised that the rate of new social housing completion is not keeping pace with housing need. The Department has committed to building around 1,500 new social houses this year, but, at the same time, the Housing Executive's stock is declining by around 500 properties each year due to the right-to-buy scheme. The Housing Executive's stock is now around 83,000. It was once much greater than that — it was once close to double that number. We also know that reliance on temporary accommodation continues to grow year-on-year. It greatly increased during COVID, and it has not declined since. That is another key need that must be addressed.

We also heard about the number of vacancies that are in the Department. A number of issues have contributed to that, but, certainly, finance is one that has resulted in the high level of vacancies, particularly in public-facing services. We have been told, however, that progress is now being made. We will continue to highlight the financial needs of the Department in responding to those societal needs, particularly for services that support low-income households.

The DUP is leading the charge at Westminster for a funding package for Northern Ireland that will be based on the recognised level of need here in the same way that such a package was provided for Wales. Our interim party leader, Gavin Robinson, has been spearheading that campaign, and we will be unrelenting in demanding a needs-based Budget for Northern Ireland.

As the Alliance Party spokesperson on the economy, I will raise a couple of things that are not only important now but essential for future years. I will mention a couple of stats. Innovation levels among Northern Ireland businesses are the lowest across these islands. In the UK, we are twelfth out of 12 regions. Other stats indicate that, unfortunately, we are not seeing the growth in higher and further education enrolment that our economy needs. While it is welcome that we are seeing a little growth in apprenticeships, figures from 2020-22 are likely to be skewed by COVID.

Our economy has not been a net contributor to the UK Treasury since the 1930s but has been in deficit annually since the 1960s, so it is heavily reliant on the public sector. That is completely unsustainable, and the resulting squeeze has been brought into sharp focus by the UK Treasury's below-need funding of Northern Ireland's spending. We cannot afford to view the economy any longer as a side issue. Our economy is central to creating the future that we all want. Our economic success is also central to funding, reforming and improving our public services.

I want to focus on growth, opportunities and some challenges. I have said this before, and I will keep repeating it: we should not lose sight of the fact that it is our business community that creates employment and apprenticeships and brings money into our economy to grow our GDP. It is essential that we work in here to create the conditions for business and that we work in partnership to provide the skilled and trained workforce to give our business community in every sector the best platform so that they can grow.

Alliance absolutely supports the unique position of access to both the GB and EU trade markets. I have said before that it is one thing for us to understand that opportunity but another for the world market to know about it. It is another thing to invest in what is required to exploit the opportunity. That will cost money, and it will not happen without vision and investment. It needs to be set alongside supporting and encouraging our indigenous businesses to realise the potential that that market access can bring for them, including encouraging greater collaboration, partnership and economic trade across this island as well as the rest of the EU. Significant investment is needed to realise growth, but, when we look at the figures, we see that the Department's resource DEL was about £130 million lower in 2022-23 compared with the three-year draft Budget that the Department of Finance prepared in 2022.

There were significant challenges for our economy last year, and those continue into this year: the loss of £30 million in EU funding for programmes; the energy transition, which urgently needs investment if we are to reach net zero targets; the reform of Invest NI and funding for a new direction, which needs prioritisation; and the need for adequate funding of higher and further education, skills and all-age apprenticeships.

I welcome the pay award for teachers in our schools, but our FE college lecturers need to see an agreeable pay award that rewards and values them fully. The Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Finance need to deliver for our lecturers as soon as possible. It cannot be left to the side. If we are to build a skilled workforce, we need the best qualified experts to teach and train the next generation in our colleges. Our further education colleges can no longer be viewed and valued as second class or the back-up option. That starts with how we pay and treat our staff and lecturers. Developing FE colleges into technical universities is something that I will continue to raise. As a minimum, the reform of FE needs to be adequately funded. We cannot continually ask for more but pay and invest less.

It is really important that, moving forward, the Department for the Economy has an adequate budget allocation that enables it to make all those reforms and pay staff appropriately. We cannot afford to miss the opportunity that we have for a short time. We have a window of opportunity to transform and grow our economy. It is important to stress that the growth of our economy is not a single-Department issue. That growth includes not only DAERA but the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for Communities.

My colleague Eóin Tennyson already made the point about reform. The Alliance Party looks forward with hope and to seeing better. Now is the time to draw the line and to end the cycle of collapse so that we can build the economy, see financial growth and create new jobs and the opportunities that all our people deserve.

I will speak on this motion as Chair of the Communities Committee. I also intend to make some brief remarks in my role as the Sinn Féin spokesperson on communities.

Since the debate on the accelerated passage of the Budget Bill and the Vote on Account in February, the Committee for Communities requested and received a number of briefings from officials, including the permanent secretary and all the deputy secretaries in the Department. Those briefings focused on the challenges and pressures of the continued provision of services and support by the Department for Communities. Without exception, each briefing recounted the difficulty that the Department will have to continue to provide services to more people with higher levels of need in what is a very serious cost-of-living crisis within the limits of a budgetary envelope that cannot be reasonably stretched to meet that need. At each briefing, we discussed the budgetary challenges associated with, to name but a few, welfare mitigations; housing benefit; rates; the building of more affordable homes; and the provision of support, advice and relief to some of the most vulnerable in our communities, including the homeless.

The Committee heard consistently about the extent of the gap between what the Department can do or has ambition to do and the lack of available funds and staff to make that happen. Furthermore, we were advised of the extent of the significant resource pressures that the Department has forecast for this coming financial year. It has bid for more than £130 million from the Executive. Those bids do not all relate to funding for the action plans and strategies on which the Committee is seeking updates; they are non-ring-fenced resource bids. It is the money needed to keep paying social security benefit, as well as for the Job Start programme, the Supporting People initiative and universal credit.

The Committee was advised that, as the largest of the nine Departments in the Civil Service, the Department for Communities had a budget of £10 billion for 2023-24. The Committee wants to be able to undertake its statutory role properly and to really get into the detail of following that expenditure, ensuring that the right questions are asked and that every pound is spent in the most sensible way and, crucially, where it is most needed. The reality is that the Department for Communities was one of the Departments that would have run out of cash had there not been accelerated passage of the Budget Bill. The largest Department had reached the stage where insufficient funds were available in February for the Department to continue functioning. The Committee wants to ensure that that does not happen again.

It is clear that the Department is facing a profound challenge to its ability to plan strategically. The fluidity and uncertainty of the financial landscape, exacerbated by the significant shortfall in moneys available to the Executive, will hinder its capacity to forge long-term plans that are not only feasible but ambitious. The unpredictability compromises both the Department and, therefore, the Committee's ability to anticipate and effectively respond to the evolving needs of our communities, thereby impacting the overall quality and reach of the services provided to our communities.

The exceptional circumstances of this year's Budget have necessitated rapid responses and adjustments, often at the expense of more thorough oversight and collaborative discourse. Whilst it is imperative to acknowledge the exceptional nature of the Budget cycle, it is also essential to acknowledge that the unprecedented challenges facing the Department are linked to broader societal and economic shifts and have been exacerbated by the now-acknowledged underfunding of public services here. As we move forward, a more collaborative approach to open dialogue and scrutiny needs to be implemented. The Committee for Communities wants to do what it can to better support the foundations of a more resilient and prosperous future for all our community.

In closing, as Committee Chair, there is no doubt about the challenges ahead for the Department and the Committee for Communities with this Vote on Account. Whilst I reiterate today that the Committee for Communities is interested in and committed to working collectively in its scrutiny and legislative role, the challenging and competing priorities facing the Department in the upcoming fiscal year will remain a substantial challenge for us all.

I will now make some brief remarks in my role as the Sinn Féin spokesperson for communities. What is clear, a chairde,

[Translation: friends]

is that the Budget imposed by the British Secretary of State last April falls far short of what is required to meet the needs of both the Department for Communities and the people it supports. I call, once again, for a commitment from the British Government to address the historical underfunding of this institution. While it is crucial that today's Supply resolution is passed to ensure that the allocations announced in February can proceed, and, hopefully, bring a sense of certainty and stability to the Department going forward, as well as to our hard-pressed public-sector workers, we need to acknowledge that funding gaps remain, and that has to be addressed if we are to make progress on the issues that will make meaningful changes to people's lives in the time ahead, such as tackling the growing levels of poverty, supporting workers and families, delivering more social and affordable homes and protecting private renters. We must therefore, a chairde, speak with one voice and continue to robustly challenge the funding formula used to allocate the Budget in the North.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time with the Minister of Finance, and the next Member to be called will be Cathal Boylan. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.58 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —