Debate resumed on motion:

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill be agreed. — [Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance).]

I thank the Finance Minister for bringing forward the Budget (No. 2) Bill, particularly given the challenging time pressures that her and her officials were under. Bringing forward a balanced and fair Budget is challenging at the best of times, but doing so after 14 years of British Government austerity, when the bids for funding far outweigh the funding that is available, required exceptional skill.

In addition to dealing with the chronic underfunding that the North has been subjected to by successive British Governments, it must be noted that the Minister had to develop a single-year Budget. That is far from ideal, but unfortunately, as we are in the last year of the current spending review, a multi-year Budget simply was not possible. However, I am hopeful that, as we move into the new spending review period, a multi-year Budget will be developed to give Departments the certainty that they need to plan ahead.

The Budget has been a challenging one for all Departments. Only £1 billion of resource DEL was available for allocation, set against bids totalling £3 billion, and it was a similar picture for capital DEL. In the allocations, Health was prioritised, as it received over 50% of the available funding. Indeed, Health received an additional £1·6 billion, as well as more than half of the funding made available in June monitoring. That underlines the point that Health is a priority for Sinn Féin, even when there are limited resources.

The Budget aligns with the key priorities set out by Executive parties, which are expected to be included in the Programme for Government. They include the £25 million set aside for childcare and the £47 million set aside for transformation.

As a member of the AERA Committee and my party's spokesperson on the environment, I want to specifically mention the £1·5 million that is being made available for Lough Neagh. Earlier today, the AERA Minister updated us on his Lough Neagh report and action plan. I hope that that helps to reassure those who live near the lough that Departments are working together to protect and restore it.

Of course, many worthy and important projects will not receive the vital funding that they need. Unfortunately, the British Government's previous Budget delivered cuts amounting to £1 billion, decimating our public services and having a disproportionate impact on those who were already struggling most with the cost-of-living crisis. The Finance Minister has been relentless in her battles with the Treasury to secure the funding that the North deserves.

The interim fiscal framework that the Finance Minister has secured will go some way to addressing our chronic underfunding by the British Government. The agreement sets the fiscal floor at 124%, meaning that, for the first time in a generation, the North will, in future years, be funded at or above its relative need. That is a radical change to how the North is funded and will help us to mitigate British Government underfunding in the future. The new interim framework also alleviates concerns that we face a cliff edge in 2026, as the fiscal floor will be baselined at the relevant spending review period.

The Minister has done excellent work within the extremely limited powers available to her to mitigate, as much as possible, the effects of Tory austerity. However, in order to provide the Budget stability and security that we require, we must see greater devolution of fiscal powers to the Assembly. The current system gives the Treasury, which is not accountable to the people here, far too much of a say over our finances. Undoing the damage caused by years of British Government austerity and underfunding will require greater flexibility around Budgets, greater borrowing powers and more fiscal devolution.

I rise as DUP finance spokesperson. I will be brief, as much of what we might cover today about our finances was discussed in this place yesterday.

The DUP, led by Gavin Robinson MP, has long championed a new needs-based funding model for Northern Ireland, and, without our work, it would not have been possible to be moving forward on an improved funding basis today. However, we have been consistent in our stance that the current financial position is not sufficient and that Northern Ireland needs a long-term plan for our finances to enable us to move forward on a sustainable basis.

We are in an extremely challenging Budget cycle. It is not ideal that we move once again to a single-year Budget position, but we understand that multi-year Budgets are a shared goal of all in the Executive when we move to align with the new comprehensive spending review. It is not ideal that we are progressing a Budget without a Programme for Government, and the need for its urgent agreement and publication is immense. It is also not ideal that, once again, we are progressing the Budget by accelerated passage. However, in our Finance Committee research, we noted that every Budget Bill that has ever been moved here was taken through by accelerated passage. It is an attractive goal to hope that this Executive and Assembly could set a new first by bringing the first ever Budget Bill forward through a full scrutiny process. Let us hope for that in the future. However, today, we are where we are.

Our public services face incredible challenges. Every Department has been awarded significantly less than it bid for, yet compromise has been found. With Departments under pressure and the potential to run out of funding in-year for outside factors like demand on statutory services under the existing 65% Vote on Account, it is necessary that we progress this Budget through accelerated passage to keep our services running.

Satisfactory scrutiny of the Budget has been noted, but a number of Departments, led by their Ministers, need to be clear, open, transparent and honest with their Statutory Committees on their plans for how they will live within their Budget allocations. Each Committee will speak to its own specific issues, and I am grateful that many of them have shared those issues with the Finance Committee.

Difficult decisions need to be taken. As a country, we cannot afford for any Minister or Department to blanket overspend due to dissatisfaction with their Budget allocation and then expect the Assembly to approve additional resources to continuously plug the gap without plans to transform services. Transformation and the delivery of improved value for money need to be a key priority of the Executive in exercising their functions. We need to see improved cross-departmental working, the removal of siloed working and the removal of duplication of tasks.

The Budget needs to be approved to keep Northern Ireland public services running, but it also needs to be used as a baseline and with a commitment to transform our public services, because the 2026-27 financial cliff edge at the end of the financial settlement period will be upon us soon. We cannot continue to roll forward continuously. We need transformation now. We need a Programme for Government and a plan, and we need to see delivery. Our DUP team is committed to that delivery and to continuing to fight for improved finances and a better future for Northern Ireland. We support the Bill.

Further to Assembly approval of the Supply resolutions yesterday, I rise on behalf of the Alliance Party to support the Budget Bill at Second Stage. I also support the Bill proceeding by accelerated passage in order to ensure that Departments have the statutory authority needed to draw down cash and avoid the risk of reaching the spending limits set in the previous Vote on Account.

The Executive's agreement on the final Budget for 2024-25 has enabled us to get to this point, and, as has been rehearsed on multiple occasions, it has occurred in turbulent and challenging circumstances. The restoration of the Executive on 3 February left an incredibly short time for the Budget to be developed and meant that we are now proceeding in the absence of proper consultation and in the absence of a Programme for Government.

We also come to this debate off the back of a period of sustained underfunding by Westminster, loss of EU funds due to Brexit and a cycle of stop-start government at the Assembly that has left our public services creaking under enormous pressure. That damage will not be undone in a matter of weeks or months or even over the course of this year; rather, it will require sustained effort over many years, underpinned by stable, functioning and effective institutions. The Assembly is as stable today as it was the day before it last collapsed. I may sound like a broken record, but, if we are to create the political certainty and stability that is required to support transformation of our finances and public services, we must reform the institutions and ensure that no single party can ever again hold them to ransom.

We must also build on the progress of the interim fiscal framework, hopefully, in partnership with a new UK Government. That must include a fiscal floor that is appropriately baselined and set at the correct level, recognising our unique policing and justice need and incorporating issues such as taxable capacity and benefit rate sensitivity. Convincing Treasury of those arguments will require strong independent evidence, and time is of the essence ahead of the potential spending review later this year. Aside from the establishment of a Budget sustainability team in the Department of Finance, we are not clear on the timetable of when that evidence will be provided or how the independence of that evidence will be safeguarded. It remains my view that an independent commission should be established at the earliest opportunity to provide evidence on our funding formula.

The devolution of additional fiscal powers should also be on the table, though we are still largely in the dark around the Department's priorities in that regard. A phased and pragmatic approach should be adopted, recognising the risks associated with devolution of additional powers and the capacity of the Executive to take on significant new powers. However, there are obvious contenders, such as landfill tax and stamp duty, that could be levied in a manner consistent with the Executive's priorities and agenda. There are also areas where there is significant consensus, for example, the expansion of reinvest and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing powers, increased Budget flexibility and the ability of the Executive to carry a reserve.

There is also a need for significant public sector transformation, and I welcome the progress that has been made under the Minister in setting up the interim public sector transformation board.

The Executive must finally break free of the inertia that stymied their predecessors, particularly in the two largest-spending Departments. That includes finally setting out a pathway to reconfigure and transform our health service, as envisaged by Bengoa, and taking steps to assess and reduce the costs of division in our education system and in our wider society.

We are aware that, even if all those elements were in place, the state of our finances would still largely be dependent on decisions taken at Westminster. No amount of local revenue raising could mitigate the cuts that have been implemented at Westminster over the past 14 years, nor, I would argue, is it fair that people in Northern Ireland should be asked to pay more and receive less. That is why our engagement with whomever is in government after Thursday's election matters. I hope that there will be a strong team of MPs from Northern Ireland there not just to advocate fair funding but to scrutinise our fiscal rules and to champion a fair and progressive system of taxation that properly invests in our public services.

It is important to say that, despite all the constraints and challenges, progress is being made in many important areas. A £25 million investment in childcare sends an important signal about the Executive's direction and priorities and will provide essential relief to working families. The £40 million announced for the pay and grading review for education workers represents significant progress for often undervalued workers.

There are, however, also areas where more work is required. While the additional funding for Lough Neagh announced yesterday is welcome, it does not match the scale of the problem, the ambition of the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs or, I am sure, the Finance Minister or the expectations of the public. Indeed, I remain concerned more broadly that climate change is not being adequately considered by the Department of Finance when assessing bids and that a fundamental reappraisal of the draft investment strategy does not appear to have happened either following the publication of the climate change legislation or the Economy Minister's economic vision. Again, I understand the time constraints in this mandate. I know that we are just back, but I hope that, when we are talking about future Budget Bills, we will have made significant progress in those areas.

I want to reiterate that, when we debated the Budget in May, we were told by some that we should oppose it. That would have been an enormous act of self-harm, upending our negotiations with Treasury, putting at risk the progress made to date and plunging our public services into even further disarray. The folly of that strategy has been laid bare. If we want to be taken seriously as a negotiating partner and secure the additional funding in our public services that, we all agree, is needed, we must govern responsibly. The passage of today's Budget Bill is an important step in that direction.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Committee is focused on working with the AERA Minister and his Department to achieve the best outcomes within the Department's budget allocation.

It is worth highlighting how the lack of a Programme for Government makes it more difficult to scrutinise and support the Minister's spending decisions. Scrutiny has also been hampered by having had no sight yet of the Department's business plan for 2024-25. I imagine that that business plan may now need a substantial revision after the meagre June monitoring round allocation of £5·5 million, given that the Department's bid was for £28·8 million, including £11 million for bovine TB programme delivery; £7·8 million for farm support and development programme delivery; £3·9 million for an environmental improvement plan, which included the Lough Neagh delivery scheme; and £3·8 million for green growth and to tackle climate change.

It was of concern at the time to hear that the Minister was relying on June monitoring and subsequent monitoring rounds to meet statutory and contractual elements. We were right to be worried. The £5·5 million that has been allocated would cover only half of the £11 million for bovine TB compensation. That is only half of one bid.

Actions to tackle climate change actions and to support agriculture have not been viewed as areas of focus in the June monitoring round, or, indeed, in the main Budget, by the Department of Finance. The Committee will need to see where that leaves the Department, particularly in meeting the statutory obligations that are not covered and the unfunded contractual pressures. There is also still no funding to reverse the decisions that were taken in 2023-24 to help DAERA live within last year's budget.

I will now move on to the Department's budget itself. I will quickly remind Members of the allocations for DAERA and then move on to some specifics that the Committee discussed with officials at its meeting on 6 June.

The total net resource budget of around £624 million for 2024-25 is significantly lower than the total provision for 2023-24, which was around £764 million. The total net capital budget of £95 million for 2024-25 compares with £97·5 million for 2023-24. Those allocations do not, however, come close to what was bid for by DAERA, so, although any additional resource is welcome, it is very hard to be hugely positive about the £5·5 million that was announced for DAERA in the June monitoring round, as it will not even touch the sides of what is needed. The bids for capital funding, including the earmarked bids, were for £155 million, of which only 61·2% were marked as being inescapable and pre-committed. The total allocation is well below the £95 million required.

At its meeting on 6 June, the Committee heard from officials that there are huge challenges for DAERA. The Department bid for £95·8 million of resource DEL, which was against the opening 2023-24 position, and for £155·2 million of capital DEL from a zero base. It received only an additional £15·2 million of resource DEL and £95 million of capital DEL, however. There is also the £332·5 million of Treasury earmarked resource, which is almost 58% of the total resource DEL allocation. That means that only 42% of the Department's resource allocation is funded by the Executive.

The Committee heard that a number of resource DEL issues had an impact this year. For example, the significant in-year funding in 2023-24 for the public sector did not roll forward into this year. We heard about contractual pressures, such as pay and pensions, and unfunded statutory obligations in the Department, such as bovine TB compensation and the Office for Environmental Protection.

On a somewhat positive note — I looked for one — officials advised us that, although less than 16% of its resource DEL bids were funded by the Executive, the allocation of almost £244 million would still allow the Department to take forward a significant amount of business-as-usual work.

However, difficult decisions have been made by the Minister around staffing and operating efficiently to target funding towards its top two priorities of tackling climate change and protecting our natural environment.

Members considered a range of areas in the Budget allocation, and I will mention a few of those now. TB compensation is a statutory obligation, yet DAERA is relying on in-year funding. When it pressed on this matter, the Committee was advised that if the £11 million bid were not met in June, there would be another two bites of the cherry in October and January. The officials highlighted that if bids continued not to be met, TB is a volatile disease and the rates can fluctuate. This does not appear to be good planning to meet a statutory obligation.

The Committee raised concerns about the lack of indication of the costs for potential remediation options for Mobuoy. Officials advised that the business case has not yet been finalised and signed off by economists and that consultation on proposed options has yet to be done. We believed that the financial aspect should also be factored into that business case, which does not seem to have been done.

Members questioned officials on the £5·7 million for tackling rural poverty and social isolation and the rural business community investment programme. We were looking for indication of the likely projects and anticipated outcomes. We also queried the budget for actions around Lough Neagh, including the Northern Ireland Environment Agency additional enforcement team to focus on hotspots in the Lough Neagh catchment, increasing inspections under the nutrients action programme and delivering enhanced water framework directive monitoring. We heard of an additional 14 posts in the environment, marine and fisheries group, partly to undertake strategic policy development in support of longer-term recommendations to tackle blue-green algae. Members also queried the review by the estate transformation division, looking at the 860 buildings owned by DAERA across 240 sites with a view to any potential savings that could be made.

The Committee looks forward to engaging with the Department on addressing its priorities throughout the year. As a general point, although many climate change actions are being led by DAERA, there is a need for all Members to be mindful of the relevant cross-cutting expenditure and its effectiveness in delivering the outcomes needed for a just transition for the whole of Northern Ireland.

I can advise the House that officials from the Department for the Economy, alongside the Minister, have provided written and oral evidence to the Committee on the 2024-25 Budget. Officials have also provided us with follow-up answers, allowing the Committee to track the changes in spending from 2023-24 to the present financial year, and we are grateful to the officials and the Minister for their willingness to engage on that.

The Committee was relieved to note that the opening positions in the Budget for the arm's-length bodies are similar to those of the previous year. Members of the Committee were also pleased to note that funding for apprenticeships and skills has been maintained by the Department. There was £11·8 million of unallocated funds in the Economy budget, but the Minister has today provided an outline of how he intends to allocate that funding in this financial year. Again, I particularly welcome the restoration of the SKILL UP initiative, which my colleagues previously introduced. I also welcome, as I did earlier, the 50 additional places that the Minister said that he will fund at Queen's University for under-represented communities. Report after report has shown that, at Queen's University, those most under-represented are those from working-class Protestant communities, particularly North Belfast, the constituency that I represent. I look forward to working with Queen's to ensure that those who get those places are deserving of them.

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

The Committee has also taken evidence on the need for long-term clarity on the Shared Prosperity Fund, which is being used to support labour market partnership interventions, which continue to successfully challenge the unusually high level of economic inactivity across parts of our economy. The Committee hopes that funding clarification from His Majesty's Government following the general election will ensure that those interventions will continue in the next financial year.

The House has seen some very welcome public-sector pay settlements, not least for further education lecturers. Although those were long overdue and well deserved, public-sector salary pressures may well present a significant challenge to the Department for the Economy. Perhaps the Minister, in her remarks at the end of the debate, will outline how she believes that those pressures will be met as we move forward.

On improved public-sector efficiency, the Committee looks forward to the new model for the delivery of further education contributing successfully to the 10X Economy and 10X skills strategy. Recently, the Committee was informed of the Economy Department's submissions regarding public-sector transformation. We welcome them, particularly those that relate to public-sector apprenticeships. The Department was unable to submit one proposal this time round but hopes that it will be able to make its way to the Department of Finance and the public-sector transformation board at the next stage. The Committee felt that those measures would help to tackle economic inactivity and provide other stimuli for the economy.

The Committee has continued to seek clarity on AME, the revised RHI tariffs and, indeed, the future of the RHI scheme. The Executive's recent statement on their legislative priorities referred to an RHI Bill in the current year. In my capacity as a member of the Finance Committee, it seems to me that continued correspondence between the Department for the Economy and the Department of Finance on the business case is increasing at pace. Perhaps the Minister, when summing up, can say whether the Department of Finance is now satisfied that the Department for the Economy has provided all the information that is required.

That brings to an end my remarks on behalf of the Committee. My party will support the Bill.

The Executive Office is an unusual Department in that it has a relatively small budget but a diverse portfolio of expenditure. That ranges from highly sensitive areas, such as victims and survivors of the conflict, of historical institutional child abuse and of mother-and-baby institutions, to items such as strategic investment and maintenance of the Executive's three overseas offices. The diversity of the Department's responsibilities requires enhanced scrutiny to keep track of the different strands of the work that is undertaken by the Executive Office and to ensure that public money is spent wisely and well. That requires detailed advance planning on the part of the Department and time for the Committee to receive the necessary financial information, subject that information to scrutiny and discuss departmental expenditure in an open and public way.

Public consultation on and parliamentary scrutiny of budgets are essential components of a democratic society. Victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions need to know that the resources are there to consult on and initiate legislation to establish a public inquiry into what happened to them and to provide them with the personalised support and redress that they deserve. People who are working towards peace and reconciliation in communities need to know when and how they will be paid to undertake the challenging work that they are engaged in. While we welcome the June monitoring round's allocation of £0·5 million for central good relations, I have already been contacted by groups asking when they will receive firm letters of offer.

People who live in the north-west or south-east need to know that the investment in strategic sites is sufficiently and appropriately spent. How can the public be sure that the money is being spent wisely if the Committee does not have the information in detail and in a timely manner? How can the Committee receive the information in detail and in a timely manner if the Department is uncertain as to how much it has to spend? How can the Department know the extent of its finances for the coming year in the absence of certainty in Budgets and monitoring rounds?

Next year, the Committee looks forward to a Budget's being decided well in advance, fully consulted on, with the necessary equality impact assessment. The Committee looks forward to receiving detailed spending plans well in advance to be able to fully scrutinise the Department's expenditure. Finally, the Committee looks forward to having the time and space to assist and advise the Department on the challenges of allocating money to its diverse but important areas of work, as it is required to do.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate on behalf of the Committee for Infrastructure. As we all know, the financial landscape in Northern Ireland has presented significant challenges to Departments to manage their day-to-day services. That is likely to continue to be the case. As Members are acutely aware, the restricted Budget settlement means that all Departments are operating within significant constraints, which means that tough decisions will be required to prioritise services and what can realistically be delivered.

Since resuming business, the Committee for Infrastructure has received oral evidence on a number of occasions to try to understand the Department's financial position and the associated challenges that it will face over this financial year. The Department for Infrastructure's overall resource allocation for 2024-25 is £559·5 million against forecast requirements of £676·6 million. The Department submitted bids totalling £1·2 billion for its capital budget and received an overall capital allocation of £820 million. The Committee is fully aware that the Department and its arm's-length bodies (ALBs) face significant challenges across many business areas, which will affect all of our day-to-day lives. Those business areas include the maintenance of our road network and water infrastructure and the delivery of public transport services across Northern Ireland. It is generally acknowledged that some of those key areas have already suffered from years of underfunding. That makes the current Budget position all the more concerning. Our water infrastructure, particularly our waste-water infrastructure, is in desperate need of a significant capital injection.

Through the price control 2021 (PC21) process, the Utility Regulator issued his determination of the financial resources that would be required to allow Northern Ireland Water to fulfil its responsibilities. During oral evidence to the Committee, the Utility Regulator noted that we are in a difficult situation with the lack of funding to achieve the PC21 goals. The Committee was also advised that the Utility Regulator had undertaken a midterm review to evaluate whether the initial determination remained realistic. We look forward to the outcome of that review. However, we must be mindful of the role that inflation will have had since that initial PC21 determination.

Our water system is at capacity in many areas, and, in others, it is in desperate need of being updated. That has social and economic impacts: it prevents the building of social housing, for example, and limits industrial and economic development. Investment is, therefore, essential, not only to support our existing economy but to grow capacity to help our economy to grow. Regrettably, however, the indicative allocation for this year falls short of the requirements identified by Northern Ireland Water.

Translink will also face significant challenges to ensure that it can support the transition towards a decarbonised public transport fleet and reduce the amount of harmful greenhouse gases that it produces. Both objectives require significant capital investment in our infrastructure, so it is essential that we move to a multi-year Budget. That would give more certainty to the Departments that typically incur higher capital spend. Capital projects are complex and expensive, so Departments need to know that funding will be available in future years to ensure that key capital projects can be delivered. Undoubtedly, the lack of a multi-year Budget constrains our ambitions to develop capital projects. It means that there is a lack of clarity on whether there will be sufficient capital funding in subsequent years as projects progress.

The Committee received oral evidence on the 2024-25 Budget allocations at its meeting on 29 May. The Committee was informed that ALBs and various parts of DFI had been asked to respond to their indicative allocations within four weeks, after which a consultation on the equality screening of the indicative allocations would be undertaken. Given that the Budget allocation falls short of the requirements identified by DFI, officials were asked for information on the options or measures that might need to be considered in order to live within budget.

In response, the Committee was advised that no detailed information on the options was available at that time and that that would be developed after responses on the indicative allocations were received from the respective parts of the Department and its ALBs.

The equality impact assessment (EQIA) consultation was subsequently launched on 11 June. It is disappointing that the Committee received no advance copy of the consultation document and was advised of its launch only on the day after publication. Notwithstanding the severely constrained time frames associated with the Budget, the Committee for Infrastructure has a statutory function to advise and assist the Minister. Without sight of the consultation document, the Committee was not aware of some of the measures being considered by the Department to reduce spending, such as the introduction of a concessionary fares application fee, before the document was made publicly available, despite specifically requesting the details of such measures during the oral evidence session. I conveyed my dissatisfaction with the situation when officials attended the Committee last week to give evidence on the June monitoring round.

The timescale for interaction between Committees and Departments details the process for engagement between Committees and their respective Departments in respect of consultations. The Committee expects that to be adhered to as far as possible, regardless of the circumstances. It therefore expects the Department to provide a copy of the report on the consultation, including details of any proposed changes to the indicative allocations, in advance of any final decisions by the Minister. I have previously stated that the Committee is keen to work collaboratively and constructively with the Minister and the Department. However, for that to occur, the Committee has to be extended the opportunity to contribute in a timely manner. The scarcity of resource makes the need for Committees to actively participate to ensure that public money is maximised all the more important.

The Committee will monitor the Department's performance through the in-year monitoring round process and the progress against its business plan objectives and its end-year out-turn. Furthermore, the Committee will wish to engage with the Department on its resource requirements for the next financial year at the earliest opportunity to enable it to engage more widely with stakeholders. It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister could set out when she expects to be in a position to bring forward the next Budget and whether that is expected to be a single- or multi-year Budget.

I will now briefly speak in my capacity as an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. As I have said in the Chamber many times, infrastructure is the bedrock of our society. Providing better road networks, building better capacity in our waste water treatment and aiding better transport networks are key to unlocking more and better jobs, helping our economy, drawing down investment and securing even the most basic right in life: a roof over your head. Therefore, it must be taken seriously. A lack of investment in that area has a knock-on impact on other Ministries. Schools and new homes cannot be built, and, without updated planning policy or capacity in our Northern Ireland water systems, we run the risk of investors pulling out of Northern Ireland.

Delivering high-quality infrastructure will be the foundation of future growth across the United Kingdom of which we are a part. I want to see development of infrastructure projects and the ideas that are contained in the Union connectivity review. I know that my DUP colleagues have been working at Westminster to ensure that Northern Ireland has its fair share of funding to see those projects become a reality. There are clear synergies between the Northern Ireland connectivity review and the all-island rail review. The latter recommended that the Government provide funding and major project expertise for the purposes of delivering specific recommendations for cross-border rail. In particular, I want the Infrastructure Minister to ensure that Fermanagh is included in future rail development plans.

Furthermore, our planning system needs fundamental change. I know of investors who are hesitant about injecting cash into Northern Ireland for major developments or projects simply because of the time that it takes to get applications through the system. In the past few weeks, the Committee heard from the renewables sector, and it was clear that the planning system is hampering applications for wind farms, which could have an impact on our ability to reach our climate change targets. The Planning Appeals Commission, which is sponsored by the DOJ, is in a logjam, and there is an onus on the Justice Minister to look seriously at that. It must all be properly and adequately funded, and there must be a cross-departmental, non-siloed approach to ensure that our government policies and legislation strategies are funded and matched up so that we have delivery on the ground in every constituency across Northern Ireland.

I pay tribute to my DUP colleagues, mainly my party leader, Gavin Robinson, who, for some time, has been raising the need for Northern Ireland to be adequately funded and to see an uplift. DUP MPs were doing that long before others. They often did so as lone voices. My party will continue that work, and, today, I support the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

I welcome the chance to make some remarks on the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Bill provides formal legal authority for Departments to incur expenditure as set out in the Main Estimates that we discussed yesterday. The substance of my remarks will focus on what the Estimates mean for the health service in Northern Ireland and for all the staff working across it. Yesterday, some MLAs tried to skirt over the impact of their decision to support this year's Budget, but the reality is that the stark warnings that were raised in April and May are still valid today.

No one in the Assembly ever tried to suggest that it would be an easy Budget, but many people took some comfort from the fact that, when the institutions were re-established in early February, there appeared to be a genuine cross-party assurance that the health of our people would be put first. Parties collectively committed to prioritising our health service and all those who rely on it by putting our shoulder to the wheel to tackle its many challenges, not least the appalling waiting times. Promises were made, but, unfortunately, through the Budget, those promises are being broken.

This spending plan completely fails to recognise the sheer magnitude of the challenges facing the health service in Northern Ireland. No matter how you assess it, there has been an abject failure to be honest with the public about the real-life impacts that the Budget will have. There has been zero measure of its impacts and zero recognition that a funding shortfall in the health service has significantly greater consequences than a shortfall in many other public services.

I could list countless examples of how the Budget will make things worse rather than better. For example, providing not a penny for pay awards is likely to lead to growing demands for further industrial action in the autumn and all the huge disruption that that would bring. In addition, even after all the public statements about how parties are committed to doing all that they can to tackle waiting times, the 2024-25 Budget did not include a penny extra for cutting waiting times other than the £34 million that had already been announced long ago by the UK Government.

From presentations that the Health Committee received, it is obvious that the Department of Health was asked what additional efforts to reduce waiting times were deliverable this year. Within only a couple of weeks, a costed plan amounting to £135 million was produced. In addition to maintaining time-critical work, the Executive and the Assembly had the opportunity to support almost 70,000 extra patients by delivering greater levels of outpatient activity as well as focusing on those waiting the longest. The Executive and the Assembly also had the opportunity to reinstate a reimbursement scheme, like the previous cross-border scheme, but, again, it did nothing. However, I still hear MLAs brazenly call for the introduction of the very initiatives that they are preventing through their support for the Budget. It is also worth noting, when some try to proclaim that this was the best that could be done with the money available, that the Education, Agriculture and Environment, Justice and Infrastructure Departments all receive proportionately greater increases to their general allocations than the Department of Health.

The fact of the matter is that, before yesterday's belated intervention with the agreement on the monitoring round, the Department of Health's budget had been cut by over 2% compared with where it was just a few months ago. Whilst some still try to refute that, I remind them that that fact was recognised in the most recent report published by the Fiscal Council. That is the exact opposite of prioritising healthcare; indeed, even after yesterday's allocation, the Health budget is still less than what was spent last year. At a time of increasing demand, with annual health inflation rising to 6% and, apparently, a policy, on paper at least, of retaining pay parity, it is clear that something is going to break. Unfortunately, it seems as though it will be patients and staff who will be left at that breaking point.

Having seen how the vote on the 2024-25 Budget went in the Executive at the end of April and in the Assembly at the end of May, I suspect that the outcome of today's debate is a foregone conclusion, but I will still use this chance to urge MLAs who are genuinely worried about our health service, as we should all be, not to support the allocations to be confirmed today. Whilst I absolutely accept that there should be an onus on the Department of Health to make the best use of every penny that it receives, ultimately, MLAs must recognise that, by tying one arm behind its back, the Assembly will make the Department's problems worse rather than better. That, unfortunately, is what the Budget does.

Speaking as a father and a grandfather who cares about the health of the people of Northern Ireland, my conscience will not allow me to support the Budget today. I confirm that that is the position of my party.

I welcome the opportunity to speak as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice, and I declare that a member of my immediate family works in the legal profession.

The permanent secretary of the Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, the Law Society, the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Lady Chief Justice, the Probation Board, the Chief Constable of the PSNI, the Courts and Tribunals Service and the Public Prosecution Service are just some of the people and organisations from whom the Committee for Justice has heard since the return of the Assembly. One common theme was apparent throughout the evidence sessions: budgetary constraints are having a massive impact on the ability of justice sector organisations to deliver vital, essential services.

On 13 June, the Committee received an oral briefing from departmental officials on budget 2024-25. During that briefing, the Committee was informed that the Executive had around £1 billion to put towards pressures of £3 billion. We were told that the Department of Justice had been allocated 9·9% of the available amount, despite its pressures representing 14% of the pressures across the block. That is of concern, especially because, as I said in previous financial debates and as is evident from the Bill, the vast majority of the Department's budget is demand-led. It is taken up by the PSNI, the Prison Service, the Courts and Tribunals Service and through legal aid spend. As a result, there is little, if any, scope to reduce spend without impacting severely on the delivery of vital services.

That message was reinforced to us by the permanent secretary during the briefing on 13 June. He stated:

"Without additional funding ... there is real potential for lasting damage to the justice system".

At the same briefing, a senior departmental official informed the Committee that, under the current Budget settlement, the Department will be facing pressures of £349 million, which, we were told:

"broadly equates to the combined spend across prisons, the Courts and Tribunals Service, legal aid and the core Department".

Such sentiments echo what the Committee has been told in various evidence sessions with justice-sector stakeholders. We have heard many times, for example, that front-line police officers spend a great deal of time, sometimes entire shifts, dealing with people who have mental health issues. There is no doubt that such people would be much better served by mental health professionals. For various reasons, however, it is often the police who are called.

Indeed, we were advised by the Chief Constable that the PSNI is undertaking 500 ambulance calls a month. This is at a time when police officer numbers are at an all-time low of under 6,400, when the recommended number in the New Decade, New Approach agreement is 7,500. The current numbers are clearly unsustainable.

During an evidence session with Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI), the Committee was told that the CJINI budget has decreased by almost 10% in 10 years and:

"if the budget remains similar to what it is at the moment, we will not be able to do a prison inspection in 2025."

That is most concerning, especially given the fact that the prison population continues to increase at the same time, as there are ongoing issues with prison officer numbers. As I have said in previous financial debates, the current staffing levels are for a prison population of 1,450 prisoners, yet there are more than 1,900 people in custody at present, and that number continues to increase.

It is a similar story for victims of crime. During an evidence session with the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, the Committee was told:

"Despite our numerous strategies and fine words, the sad reality is that, when the system is stretched and staff and budgets are under pressure, it is victim care that suffers."

Again, it is deeply concerning that victims of crime are suffering because of the financial situation.

Likewise, during an evidence session with the Law Society and the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Committee was told that slowing down the payment of legal aid fees as a budget management tool has forced professionals to leave the Bar or firms to shift from doing legal aid work. Indeed, it may result in the closure of firms. In no other area of work would a 12- to 16-week payment delay be acceptable for work that is sometimes carried out up to a year previously. We were informed that that disproportionately affects younger professionals and women and that it could threaten access to justice for many across Northern Ireland.

When briefing the Committee, the Lady Chief Justice, Dame Siobhan Keegan, in reference to the Department's budget, stated:

"there is now a significant risk to the ability to deliver services to support the administration of justice, which will have ramifications ... for the provision of fair and expeditious justice for citizens."

In an evidence session with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI), it was highlighted to us how important a partner for the board the community and voluntary sector is. It was stated, however, that, owing to the lack of a multi-year budget, organisations in that sector reach what was described as a "cliff edge" every six months.

The lack of multi-year budgets was another key theme during various evidence sessions. We recently heard from the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) that its budget has not been increased in line with the increased demand for its services. For example, we were told that the impact of new legislation to tackle coercive and controlling behaviour, stalking and non-fatal strangulation has, without an increase in funding, led to more delays in the system. That is unfair on already traumatised complainants, and we were advised that workloads for PPS staff have become intolerable.

As I said at the beginning, it is clear that financial constraints are having a massive effect on justice-sector organisations. Department of Justice officials painted a pretty bleak picture, based on the budget allocations.

The Committee does not, however, see its role as simply being to hold evidence sessions and then come to the Chamber to cheerlead on behalf of the Department. We are determined to consider ways in which the system and service delivery can be improved. That is why, for example, the Committee has commissioned the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) to conduct a piece of research into the interaction between mental health services and the justice sector. That may well highlight areas in which greater collaboration may be necessary or, indeed, identify areas of duplication in services. Furthermore, the Committee hopes to hold a concurrent meeting with the Committee for Health in the next parliamentary session after recess in an effort to consider areas of collaborative working. Hopefully, we will be in a position to update the Assembly on that work in due course.

The £35 million in additional funds that was announced yesterday is undoubtedly welcome, but, as a result of timing, the Committee has yet to learn where and how it will be allocated and prioritised.

From the DUP's perspective, the worries and pressures raised by stakeholders in the sector with regard to the impact on essential services are shared by the Democratic Unionist Party. We are strong believers in law and order and a justice system that is blind and fair for all who find themselves dealing with it. We have lobbied to ensure better and more efficient services for those who come into contact with it in any way. DUP members on the Committee are exceedingly and increasingly concerned about the extent to which Justice stakeholders are alleviating the pressures that should, in reality, properly be borne by Health. That is not sustainable and is far from ideal given the nature of some of the issues at hand. We are far removed from the right person, right care scenario, and the fact that justice is becoming a first resort rather than the last should be of concern to all. The repercussions are not to be taken lightly. It does not merely impact on the person in crisis; there is a consequence for those who witness and have to address grave and difficult situations for which they are neither trained nor equipped. Thus far, we have been unable to fully grasp the extent to which people are put through the justice system when it is neither the right nor the best place for them. I am therefore glad that the Committee agreed to my request to inquire into the matter, and I look forward to exploring and understanding the issues more fully.

Whilst it is right that there should be cooperation and collaboration, it must be strategic and not reactionary. To do otherwise is not always in the best interests of the individual or the person providing the service. On learning from the tackling paramilitarism programme that no single Department even holds a list of all the strategies in Northern Ireland, many of which duplicate each other on cross-cutting subjects, I have repeatedly sought to establish the extent of strategic cooperation and even discussion at ministerial level between the Departments of Health and Justice and at the highest levels in each of those Departments, thus far without success. We have certainly been furnished with lists of ongoing collaborative work, some of which has been under way for a number of years, which is valuable and helpful. However, given the current budgetary status, surely now is the time to refresh the thinking and see what more those Departments can do collaboratively, as they are increasingly interdependent.

We touched on the issue earlier, but I would be remiss were I not to mention press speculation that the Minister is "minded to appeal" Mr Justice Humphreys's recent ruling. On Thursday, the Committee was advised that a decision had not yet been taken, and the Minister confirmed that today in the House. As the matter has been sub judice, we have not discussed it in full. Many current members did not sit as part of the predecessor Committee and are not fully au fait with all the considerations. Speaking on the subject the last time that there was a question for urgent oral answer, I expressed my view that this was a matter of reputational damage for the Minister, her Department and the House. It is now becoming something of a festering wound as we await the decision.

In the aftermath, the Committee will undoubtedly seek to establish what went wrong and how for the Department, the Committee and the House, because there are lessons to learn for all. For now, I will say: when you are in a hole, stop digging. The law has been struck down, and we must weigh up the issues and whether a challenge involving significant amounts of public money is of merit and likely to succeed at a time of essential services being cut to the bone. We are in politics, and none of us likes to be wrong or face criticism, but wisdom and good stewardship are essential. Before there is any doubling down and spending of money that could be used for front-line essential services, the question must be asked, as I asked: is the principle worth it? Is it of greater merit than simply spending money on existing need?

Finally, I will move away from the subject of justice and on to an issue of significance in my constituency: the proposed closure of Belfast Met's Castlereagh campus, or Castlereagh college, as it is known locally. I will not rehearse the arguments that I cited in the Adjournment debate that I secured a few weeks ago, except to reiterate the utter folly and lack of vision of such a proposal. I suggest again that it sends a poor message to inward investors. It begs the question of whether Northern Ireland is really open for business. It flies in the face of the 10X strategy and ill serves those whose skills should be developed and valued just as much as an academic route for education. Moreover, I submit that it is an appalling measure to suggest in that particular area, given the glut of reports that promise to tackle the educational underachievement of working-class Protestant boys and the provision of opportunities for them.

I have heard Minister Murphy say that it is a matter for the Met. In the short term, it may well be, but, in the bigger, long-term picture, to even consider shutting down the college at a time such as this means that it is an issue for Northern Ireland plc and the rebalancing of jobs and the economy. Again, for the good of Northern Ireland, East Belfast and my constituents, I implore the Department for the Economy to step up and step in to prevent such a short-sighted, discriminatory and ill-conceived scheme, and to bid for the money necessary to secure the campus's future.

That having been said, we support the Bill.

During the previous Budget debate, I criticised what I described as a lackadaisical approach to governance. Presenting a Budget without adequate time for scrutiny undermined the democratic process and our ability, as MLAs, to reflect and represent the needs of our constituents. The publication of the June monitoring round yesterday, just three days before an election, does nothing to alleviate my significant concerns about the transparency and accountability promised by, and pontificated about by, leadership parties. Ironically, however, the less transparency, the more people will see through what is going on.

It is worth noting that grabbing pre-election headlines around funding announcements was deemed more important than doing what is right. Funnily, yesterday, a Minister accused me of electioneering for quoting facts that were provided to me by his Department in response to an Assembly question. The Finance Minister has acknowledged that allocations have been made at risk. Essentially, shoehorning a monitoring round in before today's debate not only just about sums this place up but potentially places the impartiality of the Civil Service at risk. It really goes to show that the current leadership will always put political gain before people's best interests.

However, I digress. I will get down to the truth of the matter. The Budget falls dangerously short on the most critical issues facing the North, namely child poverty and homelessness. The Budget document lacks sufficient detail. There are no timelines or anything of the like. I suppose that we are waiting for a Programme for Government. Greater transparency and detailed planning are essential for public trust and the effectiveness of proposed spending. That point was made by my Committee Chair, Deborah Erskine. Speaking, as she did, to the Budget's Infrastructure allocations, I welcome the inclusion of large-scale infrastructure and long-awaited projects, such as the Irish Government's contribution to the A5, although questions still remain — the Infrastructure Minister was unable to answer them this morning — about the small funding contribution from the Executive in this financial year for not only that project but the A6. Is it ever going to be finished?

Once again, the DFI budget does little to alleviate pressures. It threatens the delivery of basic front-line services and safety on our fast-eroding — crumbling — road network. For example, without even dwelling on the Swiss cheese road network around Creggan in my constituency, it is difficult to spot a street in that area that has a road marking intact. We are talking about a very busy community with thousands of homes and with businesses and schools, but the basic ask of line repainting cannot be accommodated.

That top-down approach may lead to a misallocation of resources and fail to address the pressing needs at the grassroots level or, literally, on the streets.

Northern Ireland Water needs £1·9 billion to upgrade its infrastructure. The Committee was told in no uncertain terms that, without adequate investment, the development of 19,000 new homes was at risk. We could see widespread flooding, significant pollution in coastal waters and watercourses, a risk to public health and the likelihood that hospitals, schools and businesses could, if their waste water cannot be treated, have to close. Our rivers are being filled with raw sewage. In the face of such a bleak picture and a bad smell, it is difficult to comprehend a £137 million allocation for this year.

The reform and sustainability of our public transport network are merely a pipe dream. The public has been forced to foot the Bill through mounting fare increases due to the Executive's persistent failure to invest in that key area. Both Translink and Northern Ireland Water have had to plunder their legally required reserves, now dangerously depleted, to keep the show on the road: paying salaries and providing services. In the latest monitoring round, bids from both organisations to plug those gaps were, sadly, unsuccessful.

I turn briefly to housing. It is of deep concern that B&B and hotel non-standard accommodation, once deemed a last resort, has become the norm. I have spoken in the Chamber of the huge cost financially, yes, but, even more significantly, socially of that practice. We welcome yesterday's allocation of £20 million for the building of new social housing. The dire lack of investment from the Budget in that area was notable and is still extremely concerning. I place on record our gratitude for the campaigning efforts of housing organisations. They provided the detail on what that investment neglect would mean for this year's social housing development programme. The Executive owe it to every individual waiting in desperation for a place to call home to detail how many new social homes will be built this year and whether targets can be met.

It is of deep concern that social welfare seems to have been overlooked. The Budget does not adequately address the needs of the most vulnerable populations in the North. With rising living costs and increasing inequality, I hoped to see investment in more comprehensive and targeted interventions to support low-income families, the elderly and those with disabilities. What is notable — I come back to the 'L' word — is the apparently lackadaisical approach to child poverty and the absence of the promised secondary welfare mitigations package to tackle the five-week wait for universal credit, the benefit cap and the draconian two-child policy.

Ms Bunting spoke of the PSNI's bleak budgetary situation, which could see police numbers here shrink to the lowest levels in the service's history. Those cuts would not be acceptable or tolerated anywhere else. Given the sensitive historical and current political and policing situation here, it is even more important to have a sufficient police workforce. That is yet another glaring example of where the Budget falls short, the latest in a long line of Budgets to do so.

I thank the Member for giving way. He has articulated well the challenges and shortcomings. When will he get to the proposed solutions?

I thank the Member for his intervention. I listened avidly to his contribution, which was not exactly replete with solutions. I have also read his party manifesto, which is also quite lacking in such solutions .

The failure to protect the rates support grant has led to a 75% reduction in that budget since 2008. That disproportionately affects less affluent council areas, including my home council area and the council areas of many Members, particularly in the west, which consistently rank highest in the number of households experiencing rates arrears. Once again, I am disappointed but not surprised to see no mention of a rates support grant in the Budget, but I implore the Minister to work with the Communities Minister to seek protections in statute for that lifeline for less well-off councils. The derating grant has received immunity to departmental budget cuts, and the same protections should be afforded to the rates support grant.

The mental health crisis in Northern Ireland is not adequately addressed in the Budget. Despite increased awareness — thanks, in large part, to the stellar efforts of the fantastic community and voluntary sector — and increased demand for mental health services, the allocated funds are insufficient to expand and improve those critical services. The promises of parity of esteem have not been actioned or are not evident in the Budget unless the plan is to underfund Health in its totality so that all services become as bad as the worst.

I thank the Member for giving way. I wonder why he thinks that there would be a policy to undercut Health to such an extent. The concept that he has come up with is an interesting one, and I am trying to think of the theory behind it. If that were the case, it would be detrimental to the whole of community and society here.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not believe that one Department has been singled out in the Budget for swingeing cuts, and I am sorry if it came across that way. That has not always been the case. In the past, Departments, including Health when the Minister was from the Member's party, were deliberately targeted by other parties. That was not because of the Department but because of who was at the head of it. We have seen that happen again and again with Departments that are headed up by Ministers from smaller parties in the Executive. We should all be vigilant about that in the months and, hopefully, years ahead.

The Budget does not tackle the core issues that I have given a flavour of. Let us not be fooled by empty promises and half measures. If the proof is in the pudding, the Budget will leave us with a bad taste in our mouths. Much worse than that, it will, sadly, result in many going hungry.

I welcome the Budget (No. 2) Bill's progression to Second Stage. We should acknowledge the £25 billion that the Treasury has allocated to public services in Northern Ireland, including an annual subvention of around £10 billion. At the same time, we continue to press for an increased allocation and a final fiscal framework that recognises the level of need in Northern Ireland as a smaller region of the United Kingdom.

Yesterday, the Finance Minister announced additional allocations from the June monitoring round of over a quarter of a billion pounds, as agreed by the Executive. Once again, the Department of Health received over half of the available additional resource. Whilst those additional allocations have been welcomed, we note that the resource bids across all Departments were for six times as much as was allocated, and capital bids were for nine times as much.

Notwithstanding those needs, we welcome the confirmation yesterday of funding for the Education Minister to take forward his childcare strategy, for the pay and grading review of educational support staff, for special educational needs provision and for other general educational needs. As a member of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the additional allocation for the Supporting People programme, which supports a range of vulnerable people, including the homeless. There is also additional funding for discretionary support, the cladding safety scheme, the arts sector and £20 million for new social housing, which will enable provision of around 200 additional new social homes. As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the funding for the Communities in Transition programme and for good relations work.

Finance is essential for the delivery of all Executive, ministerial and departmental strategies and programmes. Securing that finance requires effective engagement at Westminster. Therefore, it is essential that the people of Northern Ireland return a strong team of MPs to represent them, speak up for them and vote for them in the House of Commons, and I urge the electorate to do so this week.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Budget debate, and I will confine my remarks to my policy area of health and social care.

As a first step, I reiterate my and my party's priority for our health and social care system. I believe that, despite the political wrangling, all of us across the House want to see a health service that is fit for purpose and serves us and our families in times of need in an efficient and practical manner. It is important to stress those issues when debating the Budget Bill.

In the last few contributions, we have heard political manoeuvring around the Health budget, but, as someone who has been consistently out on the election trail for a number of weeks, I have to warn people: our constituents have little time for this, and they recognise that there is a considerable amount of work for us all to do to sort out what are fundamental issues for the health and well-being of our society.

Will the Member give way?

No, I want to make progress.

I have absolutely no doubt that this is a difficult Budget for all Departments. The Health budget accounts for 52% of the total block grant to Northern Ireland and, in the Budget allocation, was awarded over 50% of the additional funding that was made available to Northern Ireland. In the last couple of years, the Health budget has seen a considerable increase in its allocation, yet some in the House have tried to indicate something different by comparing an end-of-year settlement with a beginning-of-year settlement. I warn Members: our constituents are not fooled by that nonsense and are clear that, whatever the problems in health are, that kind of wrangling is of little use to them. They want the issue sorted, and they are tired of the nonsense.

I welcome the additional £122 million from the June monitoring process. As my colleague said, that represents about 57% of the funding that was available. I look forward to the Health Minister giving an update on the impact of the additional funding, just as the previous Health Minister was so keen to give us his letter on the funding gap. I hope that the new Health Minister will work with Executive colleagues to secure more funding from Treasury and not continue the sham fight on the issue.

As colleagues have said, it was my party leader, Gavin Robinson, who started the work on getting a better settlement from His Majesty's Treasury because he recognised that Northern Ireland was not funded on the basis of need. We now have a more generous settlement, but, if we are to rebuild our public services and really make them fit for purpose, it will take all of us in the House working together to secure that objective of additional finance.

That is work in progress, and I know that the MPs from my party will take it up with renewed vigour after the general election.

Can I just interrupt the Member for one moment, if she does not mind? The speeches are starting to turn into political broadcasts. I know what day it is. I know what date lies ahead, but there is no place for that here. Any vote taken here today will make no difference to the outcomes in that regard, so I ask Members to stick to the Budget debate and not events later this week.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I respect your ruling.

Minister, as you are here in the House, I want you to acknowledge that there is work to do with the Health Department to avoid its continuous underspends. The Northern Ireland Audit Office report published on 24 May records that, in 2018-19, the underspend was £32 million; in 2019-2020, it was £69 million; in 2021-22, it was £25 million; and, in 2022-23, it was £27 million. In total, £153 million that could have been spent on health was handed back. That included £88 million of non-ring-fenced resource DEL that could have been used for the benefit of our health and social care system. We all know that that funding would have made a difference. Therefore, I urge you, Minister, to ensure efficient monitoring so that all allocated funding is utilised for the benefit of those on long waiting lists, waiting for care packages or red-flag cancer patients who have difficulty accessing prompt healthcare.

We all want a Budget that is fit for purpose, and I and my colleagues will not be found wanting in working to achieve that. Having outlined that, I also want to put it on record that funding is but one part of a complex set of problems and issues that require solutions in order to have a health and social care system that is fit for purpose. We need a comprehensive plan for the restructuring of services.

Our Health Ministers have been good at telling us what they cannot do, but they now must tell us what they can do with the 52% of the total budget that is allocated to Northern Ireland. We need to know what those priorities are. On 15 April, in the House, I asked the former Health Minister when he would bring forward his plan for restructuring the health service in Northern Ireland. He told me then — it is on record — that it would be in a couple of weeks' time. We still do not have that plan. We in the Health Committee cannot hold the Department and the Minister to account if we do not see the plan. We need to see it.

In closing, I stress that I acknowledge how difficult the Budget is for all Departments, particularly the Health Department. The Minister said yesterday in the House that health is a personal issue. It is personal to every one of us, to our families and to our communities, and we need to work together to fix a system that is essentially broken. Too many of our constituents are on waiting lists and in pain. We on this side of the House will not be found wanting in working together with the House to ensure that we fix the problem within the term of the Assembly. While this is an extremely challenging Budget, we hope that we will see better times and better funding so that we can direct it towards those most in need.

I give my contribution from the Back Bench only because it is more comfortable back here and for no other reason, in case anybody thinks otherwise.

It has been a good debate. Members have expressed their opinions and concerns, and they have done it well. I noticed that they have pointed out all the problems that we have in regard to the Budget, and then they all said that they would vote for it.

The Ulster Unionist Party will not support the Budget, however, because it is a below-needs Budget that was produced without a strategic plan or a needs-based assessment. There was no scrutiny and no public consultation. That argument was well set out by the leader of the Opposition, but, without a doubt, the Budget is below need for the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for Communities.

Will the Member give way?

I will, if you can give me just a moment.

It is certainly below need for the Department of Health, which needs about a 6% increase each year just to stand still, and it is certainly not getting that. The Budget will create catastrophic cuts for the health service, and the Executive were told that it would before they took a vote on 25 April. They were told not by the Health Minister but by the health providers that it would cause catastrophic cuts to healthcare. The Executive either knew that and ignored it or knew it and did not care, but, after less than two hours of debate on 25 April, they voted in favour of a below-needs Budget. I am happy to give way.

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise that this is a debate on the Budget (No. 2) Bill and not on Budget policy? It is one thing to vote against Budget policy, but to vote against the Bill would mean that Departments had no statutory authority to draw down cash and would have less money as a result rather than more.

Thank you. Yes, I am perfectly aware of what the debate is about. For me, standing here now, it is about the future of our health service. Members talk about what is said to them on the doors, and I will not go much further, but, when I go to the doors, people are interested in what is happening with the health service, and facets of it are not good. Let us be clear: if you support the Budget, you accept the Budget, and we cannot accept a below-needs Budget that will have catastrophic effects. Why would we?

We fully accept that, in working with any Executive, budgets need to be pooled and shared; I absolutely accept that. A baseline is needed for that, however, and, at this moment, the baseline that we have for the budget for our health service is pretty catastrophic. Again, it is health professionals who have said that, not us.

The cry, as always, to us is, "If we're going to give the Department of Health more money, where are we going to take that money from? From which Department are the cuts going to come?". I will answer that in two ways, if I can. First, no needs-based assessment has been done, and we have no Programme for Government, so I cannot say from where the money will come. Nobody can say where the money will come from, because no strategic outcomes have been laid out, because we have no Programme for Government. People can giggle all that they want. The Executive are making it up, because there has been no scrutiny. They are literally making it up.

Secondly, I am asked, "Which Department will give up more money?". I never asked any Department to give up money; I asked Executive Ministers to stand together and say, "This Budget isn't good enough". I asked them to go back to the Government in Westminster and tell them that it is not good enough. That is what I asked for: that Executive Ministers say to the Government, "This is not workable", and then go back to them before we agreed the Budget.

There was supposed to be a meeting of the Executive on 18 April to discuss the Budget to make sure that everyone knew what was going on. That meeting was cancelled, so our Minister found out about the Budget only days before the meeting on 25 April. When that debate, which lasted for less than two hours, was being held at the Executive on 25 April, I rang party leaders and said to them, "Please do not vote on the Budget. Can we delay it for a week just so that we can discuss it further?". They said no, and, on the Executive, they voted for the Budget, while we voted against it.

An awful lot of the time, I hear Sinn Féin say, "Tory austerity. We're in this mess because of Tory austerity", and then it votes in favour of a Tory Budget. Let us call it an "austerity Budget": Sinn Féin voted in favour of it. All that we said to the Executive was, "Don't. Let's go back as a collective and argue the case for more". That was what we asked for: nothing more. I will tell you what: we asked for a week in which to do that, and the Executive said no.

What, do we really think, will happen here when we get a new Government?

Everybody thinks that that Government are going to thrust their hand into their pocket and pull out an awful lot of money and fire it towards our Executive and say, "There you go". Not a chance. Here is what they will do. They will look and say, "We called your bluff, we gave you this Budget, you made do. Well, you can make do again this year". That is what is going to happen. We will be made to make do again next year because we did not stand up to them. It is not just about talking about the allocation of the Budget. The allocation of the Budget is the allocation of the Budget. It is the quantum of the whole thing that has been given to us for the Minister to be able to divvy up, and to divvy up without any strategic outcomes.

When we did this for this below-needs Budget and when we cut Health by £184 million or 2·3%, no more than two weeks later, the same three political parties decided to give themselves an increase of a quarter of a million pounds to run their own party structures. Of course, a quarter of a million pounds will not do an awful lot. That extra £100,000 that has gone to Sinn Féin to run its own party structures here will not go very far, that extra £85,000 that went to the DUP to run its own party structures here will not go very far, and neither will the £45,000 that has gone to the Alliance Party. Of course, I accept that it is not a huge amount of money, but if you are a charity and you rely on micro funding, it is a huge amount of money.

Sometimes, you do have to stand and say, "I do not agree". That is what I am doing. I am standing and I am saying, "I do not agree". There is not a single person in this room, I think, who does not want to do the best that they possibly can with the Budget that has been allocated. I simply do not agree with it.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I have to say, as a DUP representative, that when the DUP took a stand to undo the damage to Northern Ireland's place within the UK internal market, the Ulster Unionist Party was against that tactic. You are now saying, effectively, that we should bring down the Assembly by not approving a Budget and not enabling Departments to make spending plans and to complete procurement. Do you not see the hypocrisy in what you are saying?

Thank you for the intervention. With all due respect, that really is a strange old intervention. I am not asking for anything to be collapsed. I am expressing a disagreement with the Budget, but I will say this. You talk to me about your tactics with the Irish Sea border. Did they work? Is the Irish Sea border still there or has it gone?

Will the Member give way?

I will give way.

Please resume your seat, Mr Kingston. We are not going to have debate by intervention. That is the first thing. Secondly, we are not going to rehearse arguments about sea borders. We are dealing with the Budget Bill, and we will return to that now.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I guess that you are right. I was just answering the point. I am not trying to bring this down in any shape or form. We are taking a stand on a Budget that we do not think is right. We think that it is below need, we think that it handicaps our health service and we think that it will create catastrophic cuts. We will not implement them. That is the point that I am making. If people want to drag me into a different debate, I am happy enough to be dragged into a different debate, but I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I will finish, and I was close to finishing anyway. I thought that all the contributions were good — I think that everyone made their points very well — but the Ulster Unionist Party cannot and will not support this Budget, now or later on.

I will speak in my capacity as education spokesperson for my party. As we have mentioned previously, we are a constructive Opposition, and I think that it is important to welcome things when they are done right. Therefore, first, I take the opportunity to commend the Education Minister on the significant amount of funding that his Department has allocated for special educational needs. It certainly is heartening to see that he has taken this seriously and to see the energy that he has in securing the capital funding necessary to expand our special schools. Both he and Mr Robinson, who is a constituency colleague of mine, have done great work alongside me and other constituency colleagues in looking at the challenges facing Rossmar special school and, of course, Sandelford special school.

On top of that, I welcome that £43·7 million has now been provided for the pay and grading review. There is a serious need to ensure that the staff who work with young people each and every day are adequately paid for the work that they do.

However, while there has been a welcome lift in those areas, serious shortcomings remain in the provision of SEN and other aspects of the Education budget. In real terms, Northern Ireland has seen a decrease in education funding of up to £145 million in the past 11 years. Funding per pupil has seen a decrease of 11%. The 2023-24 budget was down 2·5%. We have seen a planned raise of 6·5% in England over the same period. Evidently, education in Northern Ireland is the least funded across these islands. More needs to be done to ensure equitable funding for young people here and their future.

We have had some really interesting opportunities to engage on the Education Committee. I have really enjoyed it. We had the chance to meet the different representatives from the independent review of education panel, such as Dr Keir Bloomer. The panel said that Northern Ireland has the potential to be a 21st-century success, but only if it invests adequately in its education system. Regrettably, I feel that the Executive have failed to secure the funding that is necessary to build such a system. It also remains somewhat unclear now as to how we can make meaningful progress without such funds.

Each and every Member whom we have heard from across the House has genuine and good intent. We want to work with what we have. However, I fear for how schools will get on. I have spoken to teachers, principals and parents. Schools are really struggling. I will come to that later in my comments. Of course, we have seen the pressure that integrated schools were under after cuts to their funding. It caused severe anxiety. Schools were getting ready to, essentially, have work done and were told overnight that the money, which was initially ring-fenced, was being taken away from them. I will just echo the sentiment that schools can operate only with what they have. When we pull money from them, it is like pulling a rug from underneath them. They cannot plan ahead. That has a detrimental impact on schools, school communities and, of course, students.

The independent review of education panel stated bluntly that an educational crisis is looming. A staggering £291 million is needed each year if that crisis is to be averted. Currently, while great work is being done by the Education Committee to advocate for the changes that are required, there is an obvious limit to what can be achieved in the absence of those desperately needed funds. Whilst it is often said that schools manage well — exceptionally well in some circumstances — despite insufficient funding, the failings are really now impossible to hide and are having a direct impact on our ability to deliver a top-tier education service.

What does that look like? At the moment, the reality in Northern Ireland is that we are seeing increased class sizes, increased pupil:teacher ratios, decreased subject choice and, of course, a narrower curriculum, and acute shortage of available supply teachers. One thing that, I think, we all know is that, in our communities, we have incredibly bright and talented young people who have just qualified as teachers. We see that they have an appetite to go down South or to places such as Canada or Australia. We have touched on that in previous debates in the House. We want to do all that we can to keep them here. It is important to keep that in mind when we talk about future planning in the education system.

As recently as this morning, the Education Committee, in an informal briefing from PlayBoard NI and the Mae Murray Foundation, talked about the regrettable state of play areas in public parks and schools. We are aware that 22% of young people in Northern Ireland have special educational needs. We recognise the urgent demand and dire need for inclusive play facilities to allow children the human right of play. Currently, too many play facilities are designed without considering children with complex needs. In order to remedy that, it is important that the Department considers that when anything moves forward and that adequate funds are provided to ensure that young people, whether it be for their education or education through play, are adequately funded and that inclusive play is a priority.

The Committee also heard about an issue that is on the rise as we approach the summer months. I have spoken to a number of parents in the Claudy and Limavady areas who are rural based and have children with special, complex needs. They feel that there is a lack of investment in inclusive summer schemes that can ensure that a child, whether they have a physical disability or other kind of disability, can be included in play through summer schemes. Today, when we are talking about the Budget, it is vital that we be mindful of disability and the additional money and resource needed to ensure that every child has a good education and can be included in play, as is their right. It is vital that the Department take those concerns seriously and work to secure the capital needed to facilitate those schemes in the future.

Members will be happy to know that I am almost done. The Minister will be aware that there are serious concerns around the mental health and, most importantly, well-being of our young people. We have talked in the Committee and the Chamber about the cutting of funding to Happy Healthy Minds. That has been the most devastating loss for young people across Northern Ireland. We are talking about a service for young people who were in the most harrowing and horrific of situations at home. They may not have had the language to communicate the abuse at home, but, through song, dance, play and conversation, they were enabled to open up and share what was going on. It is undeniable that that has been beneficial for their academic achievements and outcomes. We need to take the ending of that programme very seriously when we talk about a Budget. I have the most deep-rooted concern. There needs to be a serious conversation that recognises that Northern Ireland has the highest suicide rate across these islands. The Budget needs to ensure that we are doing what we can to prevent that from continuing and to ensure that we are building up our young people and providing them with counselling services inside and outside school campuses via investment in our health services.

Additionally, the axing of the holiday hunger food grant stands out as another serious blow to our most disadvantaged families, who are struggling to meet the cost of living this summer. My colleague Mr Durkan, who is sitting behind me, touched most eloquently on the importance of tackling poverty in Northern Ireland. We do not have an anti-poverty strategy, and we in the North need to prioritise that. The child poverty statistics are heartbreaking. It is a failure of each and every one of us if we do not make that an absolute priority. It is important to raise that today, because I worry about how the Budget will impact on children and young people overall. We all share the same hope and desire to build a world-class education system and to safeguard the health and well-being of our young people, but more must be done if that is to be a reality.

As we approach the general election in the coming days, it is imperative that the Department engage with the new Government in Westminster. I urge the Minister to commit to securing the vital funds that are required to mend a system that is approaching collapse.

I call the Minister to conclude and make her winding-up speech.

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

My thanks to the Members, Chairs and Deputy Chairs who contributed to the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. As Finance Minister, it is always useful to hear the views of the respective Committees and Members on the important financial and economic issues that face us as an Administration. I noted many of the issues raised by Members and will endeavour to respond to as many as I can.

Mr O'Toole, leader of the Opposition, raised a number of issues, including some relating to June monitoring. To avoid any doubt, I clarify that the allocations agreed in June monitoring are not included in the Budget (No. 2) Bill that we are debating. As usual, they will be reflected in the Supplementary Estimates later in the year. As I made clear yesterday, having considered the guidance, my view and that of the Department is that June monitoring is normal and routine business of the Executive. Given the financial pressures facing Departments, it was essential to provide clarity on any additional funding as soon as possible. Therefore, I am content that it does not breach the pre-election guidance and that the impartiality of civil servants has not been compromised.

Mr O'Toole mentioned running out of money being used as a reason for the monitoring round proceeding. While the potential of Departments exhausting their cash limits is a real and valid reason for the urgency surrounding a Budget Bill, it is not the reason for the monitoring round. The monitoring round was required to give Departments certainty on the funding available to allow them to plan effectively and avoid unnecessarily harsh decisions being taken.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not.

Mr O'Toole also mentioned that the June monitoring round provided no strategic plan and did not set out how issues such as waiting lists would be addressed. In-year monitoring rounds do not set long-term strategic plans; they allocate any funding that has become available in-year and consider any emerging issues. The June monitoring round provided allocations to help mitigate the worst impacts identified by Departments, and that will provide the clarity that is needed to allow Departments to plan effectively.

Mr O'Toole also highlighted a number of cases where expenditure relies on the sole authority of the Budget Act. I agree that it is important that Departments take steps to ensure that that spend is regularised as soon as possible. I know that the development of a financial provisions Bill, which is being taken forward by my Department, will address a number of the issues listed. Likewise, my Department is working on legislation that relates to the Fiscal Council.

Mr O'Toole referred to RRI borrowing, as did a number of other Members. As the Member will be aware, the Executive fully utilised the £220 million of RRI borrowing available to them in the 2024-25 Budget. The level of RRI borrowing will grow in line with inflation until 2028-29 as a result of the financial package. It will be for the Executive to decide how to make best use of that borrowing in future Budgets in the context of a Programme for Government and an investment strategy.

Mr O'Toole and a number of other Members rightly highlighted the important role that Committees play in the Budget scrutiny process. I encourage all Departments to ensure that they fully engage with their Committees as part of that process.

Mr Tennyson and Mr Elliott spoke about climate change priorities not being reflected in the Budget process. While some Departments had submitted bids for climate change, given the constrained financial position, I did not ring-fence any allocations specifically for that purpose. That is not reflective of the priority that I consider should be attached to climate change; rather, it reflects the intention to provide Departments and Ministers with maximum flexibility to manage their budgets. As climate action is so far-reaching, as Mr Elliott also said, it should be a consideration right across spending areas in Departments. I encourage my Executive colleagues to consider their statutory obligations in the Climate Change Act when prioritising expenditure within the funding envelopes that have been provided to their Departments. Once the Programme for Government priorities are agreed, which may include climate requirements, consideration will be given to how those priorities may be best reflected in the subsequent Budget process. Any decision on prioritising the climate in the Budget will, however, be for the Executive in what will likely be a continually strained fiscal environment.

Ms Bradshaw, in her contribution as the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, asked how the Department could plan effectively in the absence of certainty on its funding. I appreciate that the absence of a multi-year Budget may mean that Departments do not have longer-term certainty on their budgets. Unfortunately, I am constrained by the period of the Treasury spending review, as Members will be aware. I have expressed my commitment to multi-year Budgets where possible. Departments, however, have certainty over their budgets for the current financial year, as agreed by the Executive on 25 April. The funding envelope for each Department has been set. The guidance is clear that that must be regarded as the ceiling, and Departments must plan to live within that amount. Departments may, of course, bid for additional funding through the in-year monitoring process, but they cannot assume that funding will be provided.

Mr Brett, in his contribution, asked how Departments will be able to meet public-sector pay pressures in the coming year. I fully acknowledge the vital role of public-sector workers in delivering public services on a daily basis. As the Member will be aware, I got the agreement of Treasury that £688 million could be used in 2023-24 to enable Departments to meet public-sector pay awards. However, it was clear to all Ministers that, in setting the 2024-25 Budget, Departments would have to manage the cost of any pay awards within the budget allocated to them, because the financial package did not have a recurring amount of money for public-sector pay.

Mr Brett also asked about the RHI business case. The Department for the Economy submitted a business case addendum to my Department in November 2023. The addendum proposed an uplift in the non-domestic RHI tariffs that were set in 2019. Following engagement between my officials and their counterparts in DFE, my Department has approved the expenditure associated with the revised tariffs.

I am aware that the Economy Minister is also working towards securing the Executive's agreement to close the non-domestic RHI scheme. Given that DFE is the lead Department on energy policy and the operation of the non-domestic RHI scheme, responsibility for the business case rests with his Department.

Deborah Erskine asked when the next Budget process will begin and whether it will be a multi-year Budget process. I aim to begin work on the next Budget as soon as possible after the election, once we have clarity around the timing and scope of the next spending review. As the Member will be aware, whether that results in a multi-year or single-year Budget will depend on decisions taken by the new Chancellor. I have repeatedly made the case to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the shadow Secretary of State that our preference is most certainly for a multi-year Budget. I am sure that Members, like me, have been following the media commentary on that. It is not exactly clear whether we will get a one-year or a multi-year Budget. My preference most certainly is for a multi-year Budget.

Mr Chambers made a number of comments about the Department of Health's budget. I put on record again that I wish that I had been in a position to give the Department of Health more money in the Budget and the June monitoring round. It is the same for all Departments. We are constrained by the funding envelope available to us. I must, however, reject the assertion that Health was not prioritised. It got over 50% of the amount of money available to us for allocation in the Budget process, and it got 57% of the money available for allocation in the June monitoring round. Therefore, it is disingenuous to say that the Executive have not prioritised Health. In fact, over the past three years of the current spending review, there has been a £1·6 billion uplift in the Department of Health's baseline.

Mr Beattie's contribution reflected his view that the Department of Health needs a 6% uplift, year-on-year. It got a 6·3% uplift this year. I recognise, however, the huge challenges for all those people who are on waiting lists or trying to access GP appointments and those who work in our health service. It is really important that we, as an Executive and an Assembly, collectively make the case that we need to see proper investment in all our public services. Certainly, I will make that case to the incoming Government as soon as we know who that will be.

Mr Durkan made a number of comments about the level of scrutiny in the Budget Bill process. The Member will be aware that it is normal to obtain accelerated passage for the Budget Bill. It always needs to be taken through the Assembly by accelerated passage, because it must always be written to the Executive's most-up-to-date spending plans. Failure to do so risks Departments running out of cash before the new Bill is introduced. The need for accelerated passage is in line with the approach taken to equivalent Bills in other jurisdictions.

Mr Durkan spoke at some length about the things that have not been funded in the Budget. I am sure that he recognises the pressures facing our public services, which are very well rehearsed at this point. It is easy to say where more money is needed — we could all do that — but it is not so easy to identify where money can be found. We would all like to provide more funding for our hard-pressed public services, but the Executive must live within the funding available to them. The amount of funding is higher than before, due to the agreement of the interim fiscal framework. I intend to build on that as we agree a final fiscal framework. I have also made, and will continue to make, the case for additional funding for public services, as I reflected to Mr Chambers.

I have covered many of the points. Diane Dodds referred to the need to deliver efficiencies in Departments. That point was well made, and many of us agree with that. I have been on record as saying that we aim to put our finances on a more sustainable basis. It is important that we look at all opportunities to deliver efficiencies, generate revenue, look at further borrowing powers and explore further fiscal devolution.

Mr Tennyson also referred to the devolution of fiscal powers. I do not disagree with him about the need to look at that with some degree of urgency. He will be aware — I have said this to him a couple of times today — that I have recently established a budget sustainability team and a fiscal team that will take forward that piece of work. The number of officials in my Department who work on those issues is small, and they have had an awful lot on their plate in the past months, but we are giving significant attention to the budget sustainability plan and to being in a position to negotiate the future fiscal framework. He will also be aware, however, that we, as an Executive, will have to take a position in any negotiation on fiscal powers, so I will bring to the Executive, in the near future, recommendations based on the consultation on the work of the Fiscal Commission.

I will draw my remarks to a close. I have tried to respond to Members on as many of the issues that have been raised as possible. As always, the debate has been useful, with many points being raised, and I thank Members for their contributions. It is imperative that the legislation debated today continues its passage through the Assembly so that public services continue to be delivered to our citizens. I ask Members to support the Budget (No. 2) Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2024-25 and the Excesses identified by the Public Accounts Committee.

Minister, thank you for bringing the debate to a conclusion.

Question put. The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 39; Noes 13

AYES

Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Mr Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Brett, Miss Brogan, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Clarke, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Ms Ennis, Mrs Erskine, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Miss Hargey, Mr Harvey, Ms Kimmins, Mr Kingston, Mr Lyons, Mr McAleer, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mrs Mason, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr Robinson, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Boylan, Ms Ferguson

NOES

Mr Allen, Mr Beattie, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Durkan, Mr Elliott, Ms Hunter, Mr McGlone, Mr McNulty, Mr Nesbitt, Mr O'Toole, Mr Stewart, Mr Swann

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Chambers, Mr Stewart

Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill be agreed.

That concludes the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Adjourned at 5.05 pm.