Northern Ireland Assembly, 2 March 2021

276 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

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

I inform the Assembly that the Harbours (Grants and Loans Limit) Bill has received Royal Assent. The Harbours (Grants and Loans Limit) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 became law on 1 March 2021. It is chapter 1.

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

I inform the Assembly that the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill has received Royal Assent. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 became law on 1 March. It is chapter 2.

Notice taken that 10 Members were not present. House counted, and, there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Deputy Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung. Upon 10 Members being present —

Assembly Business

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the position of the Audit Committee on its scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2021-22, as set out in its letter to the Minister of Finance on 14 December 2020 and laid before the Assembly on 22 February 2021; and agrees the Assembly Commission's budget for 2021-22.

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

The Business Committee has agreed to allocate one hour for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In proposing this motion, the Assembly Commission wishes to highlight the methodology used to set its budget. The Commission notes that it involves the development of a draft budget by the Commission, scrutiny of that draft budget by the Audit Committee and input from the Department of Finance to help to inform the Committee's scrutiny. The motion and subsequent vote enable the Assembly to determine the resource that the Commission needs to enable the Assembly to carry out its legislative functions. The Audit Committee's consideration of the draft budget resulted in the letter, referred to in the motion, that was sent from that Committee to the Minister of Finance. I record the Commission's indebtedness to the Committee for the diligent manner in which it carried out its important scrutiny.

I turn to the figures in the Commission's draft budget for 2021-22. The total presented for resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) is £49·333 million. That figure is split between non-ring-fenced resource DEL of £45·833 million and £3·5 million for ring-fenced resource DEL. There is also a budget proposal of £1·684 million for capital expenditure.

The first category in the Commission's budget is income. Next year, the Commission expects to receive income of £630,000. Just over £580,000 of that total relates to the recovery of the cost of ministerial salaries from Departments. The remaining amount is largely made up of the recoupment of the cost of salaries for the very small number of staff who are expected to be seconded to other public-sector entities for part of the year.

The second category covers salaries and expenses paid to Members. This category of expenditure is made up of a number of distinct subcategories. They include Members' salaries; constituency office running costs, including Members' support staff costs; Members' travel costs; and other costs associated with Members. The level of salary paid to Members, Ministers, Committee Chairs and members of the Assembly Commission was set by the Independent Financial Review Panel (IFRP), and the total cost forecast is £6·676 million. Members should note that the level of consumer price index (CPI) inflation was less than 1% at September 2020, meaning that no increase in Members' salaries is provided for in the 2021-22 financial year.

The amounts that Members can recover to meet the cost of running a constituency office include the cost of Member support staff, office rent and rates, office utilities and other office running costs. These were set by the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) (Amendment) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2020, published by the Commission in August last year, and this subcategory is expected to total £10·461 million. The penultimate subcategory covers payments to Members in respect of the travel allowance set out in the determination. These are forecast to be £294,000 in 2021-22. The final subcategory covers what are referred to as "other costs". These include winding-up expenses, should a Member choose to resign her or his seat in the Assembly, and any ill-health retirements that might occur. These costs are estimated at £75,000 for the incoming year.

The third major category in the Commission's budget covers the salary payments for secretariat staff and the administrative costs that are incurred to deliver the full range of services needed by the Assembly. The first of these, secretariat staff salary costs, is forecast to be £22·026 million for the next year. This reflects similar secretariat staffing levels to those agreed by the Assembly for the current year. Members should note that the Commission has launched a Youth Assembly, and appropriate staff and other resources are already in place to deliver this exciting initiative next year. This category of expenditure also includes the Commission's administration costs, and these are forecast to be £6·131 million in 2021-22, which is the same as the amount agreed by the Assembly for the current year. Administration costs cover a wide range of expenditure items, including Committee expenses; building rates; utility costs, including electricity and gas; repairs and maintenance costs, third-party support for the business-critical IT systems that we use; and the cost of recurring contracts for things like broadcasting, catering and research subscriptions. They also include Member development costs and the cost of drafting private Members' Bills.

The next category is payments to parties under the financial assistance for political parties scheme 2016, or FAPP, as it is universally known. Those costs are forecast to be £800,000 next year, which is £70,000 higher than the current year. Members will be aware of the work that is being undertaken by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to review the statement of entitlements for an official Opposition to potentially include additional funding for parties that form the Opposition. Without prejudice to that review, the Commission is also considering the amounts payable under the FAPP scheme for 2021-22.

The penultimate category is slightly more technical. It covers depreciation and impairment charges. For the next year, depreciation charges are forecast to be £3·5 million. That is mostly made up of the depreciation charge on the value of Parliament Buildings. We also have depreciation charges for such things as PCs and printers, but they are very small compared with the depreciation charge for Parliament Buildings. That makes up the total of £49·333 million for resource DEL expenditure for next year.

The Commission anticipates that it will need to make capital investments of £1·684 million in 2021-22. In its letter to the Finance Minister, the Audit Committee noted that the Commission's capital budget includes items that are badly needed to rectify underinvestment in the preceding three years. The capital plan for 2021-22 includes investment in the broadcasting infrastructure in the Building, Building security measures and a range of IT-enabled projects that are intended to ensure that our information and communication technology infrastructure is up to date and robust.

On behalf of the Commission, I take this opportunity to record my sincere thanks to the Assembly secretariat staff for the considerable effort that they have made to facilitate the work of the Assembly in a safe but effective manner throughout what has been an extremely challenging year. The Commission also thanks everyone who counts Parliament Buildings as their place of work. That includes Members, Members' staff, staff employed by political parties, and our contractors and suppliers. Their professionalism, adherence to the measures that the Commission has put in place and forbearance in the face of challenging circumstances has meant that we have enjoyed a safe and secure working environment in the Building. We thank them.

I commend the Commission's budget proposals for 2021-22 to the House.

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

I call Daniel McCrossan. He has up to five minutes in which to speak.

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

Normally, the Audit Committee would produce a report outlining its deliberations on the draft budget for the Assembly Commission, Audit Office and the Public Services Ombudsman, but, because of the tight time frame for the 2021-22 Budget process, a letter was sent to the Minister of Finance instead. That is referenced in the motion. Before I give detail on the Committee's scrutiny of the Commission's budget, I will outline the background of the Committee's approach. The Committee followed the approach of the previous Audit Committee. To reflect the constitutional independence of the Assembly from the Executive, a methodology was introduced in 2016, similar to that adopted by the Audit Committee for agreeing the annual Estimates for the Audit Office and the Public Services Ombudsman. The intention is that that additional Committee function will be codified before the end of the mandate.

The Committee began its scrutiny of the Commission's indicative budget in October 2020 on the understanding that an in-depth review of every category of expenditure would be carried out to reach the final figures. The indicative budget that was presented for 2021-22 was largely the same as the original budget for 2020-21. That was primarily based on the hope that many of the plans that were in place for 2020-21, such as outreach and engagement activities, would be progressed in 2021-22. However, at the time, members noted that the figures would need to be amended to take account of the expenditure that could arise from the outworkings of the Assembly Members' salary and expenses determination, which the Commission published in the summer. As Members will be aware, the Commission has a legal requirement to meet all costs associated with Members, including salaries, allowances, expenses, Members' staffing costs and pension contributions. Those budget elements are determination-driven and are not under the control of the Commission.

During the October evidence session with Commission officials, members focused mainly on the indicative capital budget for 2021-22. Issues discussed included electronic access control to the Building, the security management system, the audio system in the Chamber, updates to the telephone and television systems in Parliament Buildings and the potential financial impact of roof repairs to Parliament Buildings. The Commission's review of expenditure was subsequently carried out, and it resulted in an increased expenditure of close to half a million pounds in resource DEL and nearly £300,000 in capital DEL.

Officials attended a Committee meeting in December to update members on the scope of the review and the revised figures. The increase in resource DEL was predicted mainly due to MLA constituency costs and party allowances increasing, and it also included an increase for secretariat staff salaries to reflect pay progression and recruitment. In the light of the Chancellor's pay freeze announcement as part of the spending review, it does not include an additional pay uplift for staff salaries.

The increase in capital DEL was, in the main, down to broadcasting infrastructure improvements, remote working solutions and the replacement of TV systems in the Building. Members heard that most of the capital works planned are needed to address underinvestment in previous years in the fabric of the Building and viewed them as being necessary in order to face the challenge of a fully functioning Assembly, especially in difficult times such as these. Indeed, the Committee pressed the Commission to ensure that works are progressed as quickly as possible. The Committee, however, received correspondence from the Minister of Finance asking that the Assembly Commission engage with Enterprise Shared Services (ESS) to determine whether there is a more cost-effective solution to the capital requirements. That matter has not been fully dealt with but is something to which Committee will return.

The Committee sought further information from the Commission on the cost of the remedial work required for the roof of Parliament Buildings but was advised that the matter was still under investigation. No further information could therefore be provided at that stage. There is no cost given for the remedial work in the budget, but, given the potential impact of any repairs on the Commission's future budget and the Committee's role in looking at value for money, details of the cost, when known, have been requested.

In coming to its conclusion, the Committee was mindful of the wider public expenditure position, and, as set out in its letter to the Finance Minister, it agreed that the Executive's draft Budget document should make provision for the Assembly Commission to have a resource DEL budget of £49·333 million and a capital DEL budget of £1·684 million, with the resource DEL broken down into £45·833 million of non-ring-fenced DEL and £3·5 million of ring-fenced DEL.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

As MLAs, we should always be mindful of the very privileged position in which the Assembly Commission operates. Uniquely within these institutions, it has that most favoured of positions, in that the money that it asks for, the Department must provide. That therefore intensifies the need to ensure that there is neither squander nor abuse of that money.

The upcoming Commission budget coincides, of course, with the year of the centenary of Northern Ireland. Given the status of the Commission as the oversight body for how this place functions and presents itself, it is therefore a matter of grave disappointment to me that there is not a single line in the budget that is specific to celebrating that centenary. That is very remiss. There are on those on the Commission who talk loudly about respect, but, when it comes to those who wish to celebrate the centenary, seeking some respect, they get from that party, namely Sinn Féin, the exercising of a veto in order to deliver disrespect. That is quite shameful. We are almost at the end of the first quarter of this year of centenary, yet have we heard a squeak from the Commission about celebrating the centenary? No. Rather, we have had foot-dragging on propositions and a determination, it would seem, by some to make sure that it is disrespect rather than respect that attends the centenary. That is a measure of some on the Commission and of the folly of the arrangement of what they call consensus but which, when it comes to the conduct of these things, really means veto.

We also see it when it comes to the question of the illumination of the Building. Next Thursday is the annual international day of remembrance of the innocent victims of terrorism. One of the victims' groups — the South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF) — and I have, again, made a request for the illumination of this Building on 11 March to mark that significant day. Last year, the Commission snubbed innocent victims; it refused illumination. This year, it is dragging its feet; it has not even, almost within a week of the occasion, issued a decision. That is wholly shameful and disrespectful. It is another illustration of the abuse of veto in the Commission. I call on the Commission, given its disgraceful conduct last year, to at least not compound it, but show some respect to a most deserving cohort of people: innocent victims of terrorism.

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

I remind the Member that we are discussing the budgetary aspects of the Commission.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes, and we are discussing in that, therefore, the work of the Commission. It is important that that is borne in mind.

The Commission brought a Bill to the House some time ago, but we have heard nothing about the Second Reading of that Bill. When is that coming to the House? We are entitled to know.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will not speak for long. The main discussion on the Budget will be later, so I will speak in detail to that. I raise one point in relation to the Assembly Commission budget. People have struggled left, right and centre in the pandemic in the past year. Workers have lost their jobs. Many have lost wages through being furloughed. Small businesses have fallen through the cracks; many are still unable to get any support or financial assistance. It is clear that the politicians in the Executive could not find money to support people in that situation, yet they can increase money for office staff and expenses.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. I hope that he agrees that there is a long outstanding issue of pay and benefits for Assembly staff. Members' staff have been treated very badly. Have the Member's staff taken up the changes to the determination? If so, the Member could be accused of having double standards.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for his intervention. As I said —.

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

The Member has an extra minute if he requires it.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

As I said last year to the Member, one of the first things that the Assembly did when it reconvened was look after its staff and offices by increasing expenses.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

No, I will not give way; you will have plenty of time to speak.

History will not be kind to those who argued for and will pass a Budget today that will tighten the belts of workers, people on benefits and public services, but at the same time looking after their own offices and staff. This motion will allow for that while many workers are struggling and have lost wages. It is a shame that people cannot see the double standards at play today and in the past year. I put on record my opposition to this part of the budget. However, as with many cases in the House, I will probably be unable to force a Division because of the rules in place.

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

Mr John O'Dowd is winding on the motion. The Member has up to 10 minutes.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. As my colleague John Blair noted in his introductory remarks, the Assembly Commission is mindful of the fact that the Assembly should debate the Commission's budget in plenary. That is important because the resources that are made available to the Commission will be used to provide services to the Assembly and all its Members.

In the current circumstances, when we are likely to face significant financial pressures and, in fact, in all circumstances, the Commission is mindful that when it provides the services that are required by the Assembly, it does so in a way that delivers value for money. The point is regularly made that the Commission must provide the Assembly and every Member who is elected to the House with all the services that are required to carry out the Assembly's legislative scrutiny and representative functions. That will remain the Commission's overarching objective as we approach the end of the Assembly mandate.

The Commission considers the Budget for next year as being sufficient without being excessive. It does not include unnecessary sums that cannot be justified, nor is it threadbare to the extent that the services required by Members will not be able to be provided. It strikes a balance for the final year of the mandate, with the anticipation of a heavy legislative programme in circumstances that are likely to remain challenging for everyone in Parliament Buildings. This Budget should enable the Commission to meet the necessary costs that arise in-year in relation to staff costs, Building running costs, the costs of the delivery of effective constituency services for our community, and the ongoing cost of investing in infrastructure to ensure that it continues to meet Assembly needs.

I will respond now to some of the issues raised by Members. Of course, the Budget is scrutinised by the Audit Committee, of which I understand that Mr Allister is a member. The Budget will be brought before the House today, and Members will have an opportunity to vote for or against it. The Commission has adopted the same principles for the upcoming centenary as we have for the decade of centenaries. Indeed, we agreed a paper on it quite recently. The same principles have been applied to all the significant centenaries over the last period.

Mr Carroll is a classic example of, "Do as I say, not as I do". The Commission has provided proper terms and conditions and wages to workers. I do not delineate between workers. If someone works for an Assembly Member, that should not mean that they have fewer rights and entitlements and a lower salary than someone else. You chose to vote against that legislation. In fact — dare I say it? — you followed the path of wee Jim Allister instead of big Jim Larkin. You talk the talk, but you need to walk the walk. When it comes to improving workers' rights, the Assembly Commission has walked the walk.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go ahead.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The Member talks about supporting workers' rights and, indeed, Jim Larkin is a good reference point. Will the Member and his party support my trade union freedom Bill, which aims to increase the rights of workers across society in the North?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The principle of the Bill sounds fine, but I am speaking as a member of the Commission. The party will engage with you on your Bill.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Is the Member not astonished that Mr Carroll did not take the opportunity to affirm his support for his own constituency staff, who are highly skilled and work on complex issues and, yet, because of the previous determination, were left on below-standard wages and with no rights or entitlement to pay if they were taken ill?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am disappointed, not astounded. Rhetoric is cheap; action costs. The Commission, across all its political hues, has decided that it will pay staff properly. Indeed, in relation even to Assembly —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thanks very much indeed for giving way. I must declare that I am a member of Unite. My staff, who are union members, have, in the past, expressed their concerns about the fact that they lack support. Speaking on behalf of my staff and other trade union members, I can say that they, too, are delighted that our staff are being paid what they are worth.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Indeed.

Moving on, I do not believe that lighting is an issue for Budget deliberations. I am sure that the Member will be able to submit questions or other communications on lighting policy to the Commission.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Member must surely appreciate the urgency of this matter, given that we are just over a week away from the event. The Commission has had this request for months. Surely it would be compassionate to those who represent innocent victims to give a positive response to that request at this stage.

The Member says, "Rhetoric is cheap". Indeed it is. Let us have some action.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I understand that Commission members received communication from the secretariat about a lighting paper and the request that the Member refers to. It is now up to Commission members to respond. I am reluctant to go into detail on it because I do not believe that it is necessarily a budgetary matter.

In conclusion, Commission members considered the requirements for the 2021-22 budget. While recognising that a significant element of its budget is non-discretionary, the prevailing circumstances were also considered. The Commission is grateful to the Audit Committee for its work on scrutinising and affirming the 2021-22 budget total of £49·333 million for resource DEL and £1·684 million for capital DEL. I commend those amounts to the House.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the position of the Audit Committee on its scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2021-22, as set out in its letter to the Minister of Finance on 14 December 2020 and laid before the Assembly on 22 February 2021; and agrees the Assembly Commission's budget for 2021-22.

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

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

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

Executive Committee Business

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Members will recall that the Speaker announced a ruling in September 2020 that requires a Minister who is seeking to shorten the passage of a Bill, which is separate to the accelerated passage procedure for Committee considerations, to provide an explanatory statement when introducing the Bill. The Speaker wishes to advise Members that he received correspondence from the Minister that explains why he considers that a short passage for this Bill is necessary, and yesterday he shared that correspondence with all Members.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That Standing Order 42(5) be suspended in respect of the passage of the Budget Bill 2021.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits to the debate.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I explained to the Assembly when we debated the Supply resolution, we face an unprecedented public expenditure situation as a result of the COVID-19 emergency. If the Bill is not passed, there is a very real risk that Departments could run out of cash in the very near future. That would be unthinkable at any time, but it is particularly so in the current situation.

Standing Order 42(5) requires:

"No Bill shall pass all its required stages in the Assembly in less than ten days."

That ensures that the Assembly has time to properly consider and debate the issues. However, the scale, timing and pace of the COVID crisis are such that the usual legislative process is insufficiently agile to provide an adequate response. Therefore, I am taking what, I know, is a very unusual step in asking the Assembly to suspend the Standing Order to allow the Bill to complete its passage in a shorter time.

While it is unusual, a suspension of this Standing Order was also required in May 2020 to allow the passage of the further Vote on Account for the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Members should be aware that it is not the end of the story when the Bill completes its passage through the Assembly as there are a number of steps to be completed before Royal Assent is secured, hence, the urgency involved.

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

In speaking briefly on the suspension of the Standing Order, it is my desire — I am sure that the Chair will also put this on the record — simply to point out that the Committee had a serious discussion about the suspension of Standing Orders this year. It is true that the Committee felt that it had not had as much discussion about a range of budgetary matters as it might otherwise have had. However, we are in a very particular year. As the Minister said, this is the most extraordinary year with regard to public spending allocations. It would have been unthinkable to have provided even the faintest shadow of doubt about agreeing a Budget Bill. That it why the Committee made the decision that it did. However, during the Budget Bill debate that is to follow, I am sure that Committee members will have a longer opportunity to put on the record some of our concerns and broader thoughts around Budget making.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I put on record my opposition to the suspension of this Standing Order. Once again, I am probably unlikely to divide the House. This is probably the second of many times today that I will say this, but we need as much debate and scrutiny time as possible for everything in the House, including the Budget Bill. We need maximum time for scrutiny, for questions to be asked and answered and for new ideas to be looked at, developed and worked into it. Therefore, I put on record my opposition to this change to Standing Orders.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I appreciate the support of the Committee on the issue. I also appreciate the Committee's strong desire for the maximum amount of available scrutiny. I respect Mr Carroll's point, as I understand that Members would wish to have more time to look through these matters. We are, as I said, in extraordinary circumstances, and it is not the way in which we would normally want to do business. The urgency with which the Bill needs to proceed through the Assembly is driven by the critical need to secure access to cash for Departments to continue to deliver services in the face of the COVID-19 emergency.

I am a long-standing Member and have been a member of many Assembly Committees. I fully understand the desire to ensure that proper processes facilitate the ability to scrutinise, question, debate and discuss important matters. However, we are, as I said, in exceptional circumstances that require exceptional steps. Therefore, I ask Members to agree to the suspension of Standing Order 42(5).

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

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

Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Order 42(5) be suspended in respect of the passage of the Budget Bill 2021.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 17/17-22] be agreed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit for the debate.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Today's Second Stage debate follows yesterday's approval by the Assembly of the Supply resolutions for the expenditure plans of Departments and other public bodies as detailed in the 2020-21 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2021-22 Vote on Account.

As Members will, undoubtedly, be aware, accelerated passage of the Bill is necessary in order to ensure Royal Assent by the end of March. If that is not received in time, Departments and other public bodies may not be able to access cash, which would threaten the effective delivery of public services not just in the closing weeks of the current financial year but in the early months of the 2021-22 financial year. That would, undoubtedly, affect the delivery of essential public services and our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I am grateful to the Finance Committee for confirming that, in line with Standing Order 42, the Bill can proceed under accelerated passage.

We all recognise that the situation this year has been extremely challenging, requiring increased levels of flexibility to ensure that we give our citizens, hospitals, schools and businesses the best chance of recovery. While the Executive have had to work outside the normal process this year, the Finance Committee and Assembly still had the opportunity to scrutinise the financial position reflected in the Bill. The 2020-21 Budget was debated in the House, and statements were made to the Assembly on each change to the financial position. Members had the opportunity to debate the further Vote on Account in May and the Main Estimates in October. There has also been significant engagement with the Finance Committee throughout the 2020-21 financial year. I appreciate that this year has been extraordinary in terms of the volume and pace of allocations made, but I have been open with the Committee about the challenges faced and the decisions that the Executive and I have taken through the year. The work of the Committee in that respect is vital, and its importance should not be underestimated.

Standing Order 32 directs that the Second Stage debate:

"shall be confined to the general principles of the Bill."

I shall endeavour to keep to that direction. The main purpose of the Bill is to authorise the cash and use of resources on services on the basis of the Executive's final spending plans for the 2020-21 year and for Departments and other public bodies as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2020-21. The Bill also provides authorisation for the cash and use of resources in the early months of the 2021-22 financial year as a Vote on Account, pending the Assembly's consideration of the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill in June.

Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members today. The 2020-21 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2021-22 Vote on Account were laid in the Assembly on 23 February.

The Bill will authorise the issue of a further £22,220,328,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £25,124,542,000 by Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2021; that is this financial year. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on services listed in column 1 of each schedule. Those amounts supersede the amounts that were previously authorised by the Assembly through the Main Estimates.

For the current financial year, the Bill also sets a limit for each Department on the use of accruing resources, which are current and capital receipts totalling £2,829,984,000. The accruing resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of schedule 2. Therefore, the total resources and accruing resources now provided in the Bill bring the total resources for use by Departments in 2020-21 to just under £28 billion. In addition, the Bill will authorise the issue of a further £10,081,611,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £11,194,733,000 by Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2022. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of schedules 3 and 4.

As I have explained, the Vote on Account does not constitute the setting of a Budget for 2021-22 but merely allows Departments to continue to operate and to provide services in the early months of that year, pending the consideration of the Executive's Budget for that year through the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill in June.

One point that I want to draw to the House's attention is that, while the vast majority of expenditure by all Departments is done on the authority of statutory powers that are provided through legislation passed by the Assembly, there are occasionally some, usually small, functions that may, from time to time, be done on the sole authority of the Budget Act. When a Department makes use of the sole authority of the Budget Act, it will highlight that fact by placing a note in a black box symbol in the corresponding Estimate. The Estimates document now also sets out why the sole authority is being relied on. Additional information has also been provided to the Finance Committee, and, at its request, a supplementary page to the Estimates document has been provided to Members.

Because the Main Estimates for 2021-22 will not be available until June, I want to make the Assembly aware that, until Royal Assent is received for the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Loss of Universal Credit or Housing Benefit) Bill and until the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Extension) Regulations (NI) 2021 have been approved by a resolution of the Assembly, the Department for Communities seeks approval to incur spend under the sole authority of this Budget Bill at an estimated cost of up to £32 million.

Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the temporary borrowing by my Department of £5,040,806,000, which is approximately half the sum authorised by clause 4 for issue out of the Consolidated Fund. I stress to the House that clause 5 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund, nor does it convey any additional spending power. However, it enables my Department to run an effective and efficient cash management regime and to ensure minimum drawdown of the block grant on a daily basis, which is important when contemplating the daily borrowing by our Departments.

The numbers in the Budget Bill are significant, and I am sure that Members will agree that it is not an easy task to translate those figures into the delivery of public services on the ground. The reality is that this legislation is required for every public service, whether it is for a schoolteacher or a nurse, for the building of a new road or for the training required for gaining a new job. All public services need the legislation to operate in each financial year. Whilst it may appear dry and seemingly detached from day-to-day life, it is, in fact, crucial legislation that underpins our public services.

On that note, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will conclude. I will be happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget Bill that Members may wish to raise.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his remarks. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, before I make my remarks on the Second Stage of the Budget Bill on behalf of the Committee for Finance, I would like to briefly comment on the question of accelerated passage.

The Committee for Finance is in a unique position in respect of the requirement for it to provide confirmation to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the public expenditure proposals covered by the Budget Bill. When we were considering the matter, it was evident that the majority of Committee members did not feel that they had been appropriately consulted in respect of the relevant public expenditure proposals. Why, then, did I, as Chairperson of the Committee, write to you in order to indicate the contrary? The answer lies with the use of section 6 of the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. That legislation provides the cover for the Department to make cash advances from the Consolidated Fund.

Members noted with concern that, despite the very significant additional cash that has been available throughout the year, the cash-advance facility had reportedly been almost exhausted by February 2021. Consequently, it was understood that, if accelerated passage had been denied to the Budget Bill, Departments would literally have run out of money before the end of March, thus endangering essential services, possibly including COVID-19 supports. Members had not been warned of that and learned of it, with some alarm, only at the very recent Committee meeting. Members felt that, faced with the possibility of essential services stopping, they had no option other than to accede to the Minister's request for accelerated passage.

The Assembly may find it notable that, whereas some advances had been repaid in 2021, others were not, thus leading to the facility becoming almost exhausted. As one can imagine, that is a highly unsatisfactory outcome, which, to some degree, replicates the experience of this time last year, despite the extra £3·3 billion that was made available from our Exchequer. I anticipate therefore that some Members might seek to remedy the situation either through the good offices of the Committee on Procedures or through a suitable legislative vehicle.

I will turn now to the substance of the Bill. The proposed legislation provides legal cover for expenditure in 2021 and, insofar as it refers to the Vote on Account, also provides legal cover for some spending in 2021-22. For the present financial year, I advised the House yesterday of the unique situation in which the Executive have found themselves. A global pandemic found its way to Northern Ireland. Many people lost their lives. Sadly, many continue to do so. Many others have suffered emotional and financial loss as a consequence of the pandemic.

The Executive received from our Government very substantial additional support, which was most welcome. That enabled the provision of numerous support schemes for hard-pressed individuals, families and businesses. In that regard, there is much to be welcomed in the Executive's financial response to the crisis. There were, however, also issues with Land and Property Services (LPS) effectively retooling itself from a collection agency to a distribution agency. Additionally, uptake of some schemes was much lower than expected, and some important sectors and individuals have, with some justification, felt overlooked. That having been said, the Minister gave us some hope yesterday that that situation might yet be addressed for some.

The upshot of all the additional money, new support schemes and underspending on other, non-pandemic-related services has been a little bit complex, to say the least. We have had multiple allocations outside of the usual in-year monitoring rounds. We have had three — not two — Budget Bills and a significant reconciliation between the Main Estimates and the spring Supplementary Estimates, including around £1 billion of headroom being included in the latter. Unspent resources apparently amount to hundreds of millions of pounds, which has necessitated a special carry-over arrangement with HM Treasury. The Committee still awaits clarity on the unspent resources for the current financial year. I have no doubt that the Minister will furnish us with those details as soon as they are available.

With all of that going on, it is not surprising that the Committee did not feel appropriately consulted. To be clear, the Department and Minister have engaged cooperatively and have genuinely sought to explain. Most of the difficulties were probably not of the Department's making. Instead, they were often the product of circumstances or difficulties at the Executive. Nonetheless, if Standing Orders are to be fulfilled in a manner that ensures transparency in Budget scrutiny, a new approach is definitely required. That may involve a new Budget memorandum of understanding between the Assembly and the Executive and a very clear role for an independent fiscal council. I suspect, however, that, in order to manage what appears to be a perennially uncertain process, new legislation will be required.

As I indicated previously, the Vote on Account provides legal cover for spending in 2021-22, which can include new services. Although no such new services are footnoted in the Vote on Account, I will, as is usual, now make remarks on the draft Budget for 2021-22. The Committee gratefully received feedback from all the Statutory Committees that, despite the short timescale, have done their best to interrogate departmental submissions. The Chairpersons of those Committees will undoubtedly and — I am sure looking around me — eloquently refer to the pressures that their Departments face. I will, therefore, merely give the House the key points.

It is surprising that Infrastructure has received far less capital in the draft Budget than it sought, and that, consequently, it may be unable to fund in full the capital aspects of Northern Ireland Water's draft determination. Some of us had assumed that capital would be used to jump-start economic activity in 2021-22, and that, coupled with a large number of related and currently unfunded Department for the Economy resource bids, is most worrying.

I will now turn to other resource issues. The Department for Communities shortfall in its draft resource budget is projected to be significant. The absence of COVID support schemes and labour interventions for that Department may lead to substantial delays in the receipt of benefits when furlough ends and an unavoidable increase in AME spending on social security. That appears to look like a false economy.

Turning to the Department of Justice, there is an alarming possibility of a cut to PSNI numbers instead of the promised increase. The funding is yet to be determined for the victims' pension scheme that will be administered by the Department of Justice, and the Minister of Finance has advised that the actual estimate may be anywhere between £600 million and £1·2 billion over the lifetime of the scheme. All Members agree that the continuing absence of clarity on that issue is not acceptable.

For Agriculture, there are concerns regarding a number of relatively modest but very important and unfunded bids, including those relating to pillar 2 replacement funding and bovine tuberculosis eradication. For Health, there is the absence of funding to support the post-pandemic catch-up necessary for hospital waiting lists as well as concerns about delayed transformation programmes. For Education, there are concerns about special educational needs and the school restart programme.

Much of the feedback from the Committees refers to unfunded bids and an over-reliance on in-year monitoring. It seems that, every year, the Budget process is different, and it seems that, every year, there is a different reason for that. It also seems that this year will be the same as all the others, despite COVID and the increase in funding from our Exchequer.

The Committee hopes that the independent fiscal council, coupled with a new memorandum of understanding between the Executive and the Assembly, possibly backed up by legislation, may offer us a way out of a process that I cannot believe that anyone finds satisfactory. Whether it be for 2020-21 or 2021-22, there has to be a better way to do Budget scrutiny. The Minister, as a former Finance Committee Chairperson who denied accelerated passage for a Budget No. 2 Bill in 2012, is, indeed, sincere in wanting to find such a way forward. In the meantime, and on behalf of the Committee, I commend the Second Stage of the Budget Bill to the House in the hope that, next time, we will all be able to do much better.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I rise to discuss and debate the Budget Bill. Of course, the Minister is absolutely right that a very important Bill comes before the Assembly today. I agree with everything that the Chairperson said about the Finance Committee's experience over the past year. I place on record that I welcome, thank and respect the officials who have come before the Committee over the past year. They are very informed, at the top of their game. They have grappled not only with the challenges of the health pandemic and the economic crisis but with members of the Committee as well. At times, of course, those sessions can be robust, but that is good and healthy in a democratic society. I welcome the officials' expertise at all times when they come before the Committee because they really help us.

Of course, the Committee is there not only to scrutinise but to support and advise. As Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, I take that role very seriously.

I will turn to the Budget. I agree with the Chair that there has to be a better way of scrutinising a Budget Bill. Having said that, we are a devolved Assembly and not a sovereign Government. We get Barnett consequentials, the block grant and all that that entails. You struggle to think of a more effective and efficient way until you stumble upon one, so whilst we are in this environment, we will do the best we can, as a Committee and as an Assembly.

The Assembly has a vital role, and I am glad that the Chairpersons of all the Committees have a part to play in the debate, as, of course, do ordinary Committee members, if they so wish. It is vital to get that message on record and to get their concerns and fears on record, and I hope that the Finance Minister will listen to those fears and concerns, not only today and through the various stages of the Bill but throughout the year, because there will be information flow today that could well be of some use come the monitoring rounds. That is vital because, as the Chairperson said, it seems that we rely heavily on monitoring rounds, even with a one-year Budget, to move money about, not least in the year of crisis that we have just come through. That is not necessarily a negative, because you do not want Departments to cling on to money that they may not spend. There is a real danger of handing money back to Treasury when it could be spent here in an efficient and effective way when our people are crying out for it and crying out for support. It is important that we spend as much money here as we possibly can for the benefit of our people.

There are some aspects that I wish to go into in detail. This issue seems to recur every time we speak on a Budget debate or a financial motion. There is a real fear that, if we are not standing still, we seem to be going backwards on many issues that were important to our people and to the Assembly last year, the year before that and the year before that. Some of those issues and problems are big beasts. They are massive to grapple with and will take a massive amount of funding.

I am sure that the Chairperson of the Infrastructure Committee will go into this in detail, but I have a real concern — not for the future but for the present day — about NI Water and the infrastructure and capacity, especially in respect of waste water. It is a massive issue, but, for a lot of our constituents and our population, it is under the ground and under the radar, and they do not yet see the potential blockage — pardon the pun — that we will all face.

It is not only about the fact that NI Water is not funded efficiently and effectively — of course, as an organisation, NI Water badly needs reform — but it is about the stopping and blocking up of every construction and every development in our system. It is not just waste water plants but includes housing developments and businesses, and I can see the evidence of that, very much so, in my constituency of North Antrim, where I know of developers not being able to select a certain site because of the waste water issue. That is dynamite for our people when we are looking to attract jobs, investment, employment, business and profit but are being stopped in our tracks because of an infrastructure issue that needs to be dealt with not today, not next week and not next year, but three years ago, five years ago and 10 years ago.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a very valid point and draws direct attention to the exacting issue facing the Department for Infrastructure. Does he agree that the Department for Infrastructure is massively underfunded and that the Minister of Finance should have provided for the bids made by Minister Mallon this year rather than running around at the last minute with a wheelbarrow full of cash saying, "Take it now"?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes. I thank the Member for his intervention. I raised that point yesterday. It is not that I want to see an axe grind between the particular Minister and her party and the Finance Minister, because the Minister and her party can defend themselves. However, it is clear that the Department for Infrastructure made 40 bids last year. Of those bids, 34 were COVID-related and 33% were successful. Having looked at the figures and data, I know that the Infrastructure Department made multiple bids over and over again, which explains some of that. I am not for one moment saying that there should have been a 100% success rate for that Department, because there is a role for it to play and it all has to be attested, but those figures are striking. I see that the Member wants me to give way again.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. I want to point out some of the detail. The outcome for the Department from the 2021-22 Budget was £420·7 million. That is an increase of £2·8 million, which is a 0·7% increase on the 2020-21 opening resource allocation of £417 million. That is proportionally less of an increase than for any other Department and less than the average departmental increase of 6%. That identifies a key issue that needs to be resolved, and the Finance Minister has the wallet to do it.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. That is a point well made, and I am sure that the Finance Minister will tackle and grapple with that in his response.

A Member

Give me strength.

[Laughter.]

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

It is important, and I am sure that, in our constituencies, we are all experiencing and finding issues with NI Water and waste water systems.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Member also agree that that is because of a lack of joined-up government? If you take the small village of Armoy in our constituency as an example, you see that the Housing Executive and planning have approved a modest number of new social housing units, yet they cannot be built because the infrastructure is not there. Is there not a need for a joined-up overview of development that links to infrastructural needs across the Province?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. He made that point well. We have experienced it all in North Antrim, and Armoy is not the only place where it happens. Some people may not be aware that there is now a blockage on investment where they live. If some of those residents looked to open up a business or factory, they would soon find that they would be completely impeded.

It normally affects housing, which is massive for people, but it also affects jobs, employment and prosperity. It affects all those things. It is a massive issue that we need to get to grips with. I believe that it will take the Executive as a whole to sort it out. It cannot be left to one Department in a silo, a number of Departments in silos or a Finance Minister on his own. It will take a holistic approach, and I am not sure that any work, or as much as should have been, has been done on it this year. That might be because of the pandemic and the crisis that we have been in, but that is only an excuse.

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

Will the Member give way briefly?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

That is not a reason not to do those things. I will give way to the Member again.

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

The Member's party has had some influence over the last few years with the British Government. Given the huge problems with infrastructure deficits that we face here in Northern Ireland, surely the Minister and leader of the DUP could persuade Boris Johnson to divert the funds for his beloved tunnel to tackle some of the deficits across Northern Ireland that badly need to be addressed.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Again, he made a valid point about how we can progress infrastructure. Of course, he will know about the DUP's confidence-and-supply arrangement, and I am sure that he will applaud and thank us for that. It brought in a lot of money for infrastructure across the Province, even for internet access. His constituency will benefit greatly from that, and I will take another intervention from the Member if he wants to thank the DUP for that work.

There has to be a balance and cost-effectiveness in every piece of progress that we make on infrastructure.

When I hear about a tunnel or a bridge linking Northern Ireland to GB or Scotland, I do not think only of the physical infrastructure. I think of the opportunities that it brings for trade, mobility and energy supply interconnection.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Members, may I draw you back to the Bill rather than talking about tunnels etc?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will try not to go down a blind tunnel, Mr Deputy Speaker. Members can see where there could be opportunities with the interconnection of our energy supply, which, again, is vital infrastructure. We need to resolve issues with the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) so that it is truly independent.

That brings me to another point about multi-year Budgets. It will be very hard for an Executive, as holistic as they could be, to spend money effectively and efficiently if we do not reach the point of multi-year Budgets. It is vital to get to that point. I do not blame the Department of Finance or the Finance Minister for the issue because it is not his problem. He can work only with what he has been given. It is an issue for our sovereign Government. We should get to the point, sooner rather than later, where we have multi-year Budgets. We can then look at long-term projects, because, let us be clear, when you build a hospital or a school with massive infrastructure or new roads, it takes longer than a year. Therefore, that has to be planned very carefully. It still feels as if we are going backwards.

In New Decade, New Approach and in Patten, 7,500 police officers were promised. Those are peacetime figures, but we are falling short. Even in this Budget, we are told that we could lose police officers; numbers could go down. That is totally and utterly unacceptable. That in itself will add to pressures elsewhere.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way, and I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. I want to put on record that the current police complement is 7,005 officers. The Chief Constable has warned that, on current budgetary terms, he may lose 300 officers. Compared with the commitment in New Decade, New Approach of 7,500 officers, that is a net loss of 800 — over 10%. I hope that the Member agrees that that is not tolerable.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. It is not tolerable at all. It is simply not acceptable, in this day and age with the society that we have, the crime rates as they are, the terrorist threat as it is, to have that number of officers. Nobody who has looked at and studied the police has ever come to that total or established that figure. That is why it is important. If the Executive get to the point of shedding a number of police officers, we have a massive fundamental question about whether we are protecting our people and making sure that they are safe. That is a fundamental aspect of government no matter where you are in the world.

Where is Bengoa's health transformation? What progress has been made? What progress is in the Budget Bill? Where can we see that transformation? Do not get me wrong: health has been in the grip of the pandemic, at the cutting edge, at the tip of the spear and on the front line of this crisis, but we still have to transform the service, even in the midst of a crisis. Do you know something? There will be a crisis next year and the year after that. We will always find an excuse not to transform our health service. It is vital that we grapple with that now because every week that we waste affects our people, not just in death but in the value of living. That is very important.

I will mention the victims' payment scheme and my grave concerns that it is not in the Budget. There is a legal duty on the Executive to cater for and fund pensions for victims of terrorism. It is comparable to the provision in the TEO budget for historical institutional abuse issues. I will tell you why: they, too, are innocent victims who have had injury and pain brought upon them through no fault of their own. If we can make provision for victims of historical institutional abuse, surely we can make provision for victims' pensions.

I know that there is a debate and argument to be had with none other than the Secretary of State, Mr Lewis, who continues to claim that the pension will cost £28 million in its first year. We know that the Government Actuary's Department has estimated that the first year will cost between £70 million and £145 million. The total cost of the scheme could be £1·2 billion. That money must come, and I agree with the Executive that it must come from the British Government. However, we cannot wait any longer to remunerate the victims for the pain that they have suffered and will continue to suffer. They have been affected so badly that they have not been able to work in the way that we have been able to work. These innocent victims of terrorism have not been able to progress their life in the way that they should have been allowed to do.

The party and the Minister opposite — I will support him 100% — will push to get that money in whatever way that they can. However, the truth in all of this is that, while we shout for the British Government to pay up, we have to remember who the victim-makers were. Some 60% of those victims were created by republican terrorists, not least the Provisional IRA, to which the party opposite is linked. Right across society, all those bombs and assassinations had a massive impact on people's lives.

Every party in the House has stated that the religious orders and the institutions that were involved in the historical abuse cases should pay up. If they were to do so, would it be so outwith the bounds of reality to ask the victim-makers — Sinn Féin, the political party of the Provisional IRA — to pay some of the burden of the victims' pension? This is a massive issue. Victims need to be remunerated and compensated for the pain that they have suffered through terrorism.

I see nothing in the spring Supplementary Estimates about such provision or the creation of any headroom. I see nothing in the Budget Bill to give those victims succour as they go forward with the remaining part of their life. The Assembly should not tolerate that. We should no longer tolerate failure in that regard; we should get this money to the victims.

One of the massive issues in the near future will be lockdown damages. There is absolutely no doubt about the impact that lockdown has had on businesses, communities and people. It is important that we recognise that. We will not get daily statistics, as we do with the COVID pandemic, on how people have suffered economically, mentally and physically during lockdown. Nonetheless, the pain and suffering are there. I see very little in the Budget Bill to reflect the reality of what lockdown has done to our people. Many parties in the House, mainly the party opposite, will blame Tory austerity for all the ills that occur over this period. There is no doubt that cutting our cloth to suit our Budget was always going to be painful, but think of the damage and potential damage from lockdown. Will the party opposite, including the Finance Minister, take its share of the blame and bear its share of the burden of the impact of lockdown that the Executive have imposed on our people and businesses?

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

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He talks about lockdown and COVID as if they were two different things. He almost literally said that they were two different things: he said that there were daily COVID statistics but no daily statistics on the impact of lockdown. There are different views on how we handled lockdown and restrictions at different times. I will not go into those or have an argument about whether we should have eased restrictions at certain points. Does he accept that lockdown was a product of COVID and that there was no other way of dealing with the pandemic when the case numbers got so high in our community, as has been the case throughout the world? Sadly, I see that the Isle of Man, where all restrictions had been lifted, has, unfortunately, gone back into lockdown.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I will allow the Member to briefly comment on that, but, again, I remind everyone that this debate is on the Budget Bill.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the Budget Bill, I see no way of supporting people who have suffered due to the lockdown. The Member made a good point on lockdown in his intervention. He suggests that it was the only way to deal with the pandemic. There are many ways to deal with a health pandemic, and there have been many ways used over the last 100 years to deal with pandemics. However, lockdown was not in that book and was not a factor over the last 100 years. There are other ways of dealing with pandemics. I am not saying that lockdown was the wrong way, but, again, let us see the science and the data.

The only time that the Executive published the data on lockdown, they were cut to pieces because it showed that there was no logic to some of the decisions on the lockdown. I want to see proof in the Bill of how we are going to support people. How are we going to support hairdressers who were deprived of earning a living? How are we going to support the single mum of two children who, if it had not been for the help of an aunt, would not have had enough food for her children to eat? That is the reality of today.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. What about support for the families who have lost loved ones as a result of the rapid spread of infection throughout our communities, which, some would say, was due to the Executive's insufficient, slow and protracted action and decision-making that has been far from good?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Again, we await with anticipation information on the speed of the actions that the Executive will announce today on how we are going to get out of this crisis and on the pathway to recovery. Let us see how fast the Executive can operate to support those people.

The Member is right to point out that this has been an awful year for illness due to a virus that we knew very little about this time last year. We knew of COVID, of course, because it is not new, but we knew nothing about COVID-19, and we had to learn quickly. There have been actions taken and mistakes made, and I am not going to be too hard on people who have taken action and made decisions, even if, at some point, they were the wrong ones. That is just the job that we are in, and we have to make sure that we make decisions to try to save people's lives.

It has been a horrendous year when some people have died before their time. I get that — I really do — but there is no point then in putting further pressure on our population and industry when the science and the data is not being published for us all to see. Let us face it: there has been a fundamental weakness, because MLAs only get to hear about what is happening on the news at the same time as the rest of our population. We are not privy to the Executive's actions or to what the data suggests. As I said, the only time that the Executive published the data, they were torn to pieces because some of the decisions had no logic.

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

Will the Member take a brief intervention?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

No, I will make progress, because I risk the wrath of the Deputy Speaker. I have tested his patience for long enough, so I will move on.

Throughout our Departments, it is vital that, maybe for the first time, there is a collegiate approach to Budget-making and that we remove the silos. We are doing this Budget in a vacuum, because we do not have an up-to-date Programme for Government. Really and truly, those two should run line by line, because they are parallel processes that complement each other. You cannot really do one efficiently, effectively and sufficiently without the other, so to set a Budget, even a flat Budget, without a Programme for Government that outlines your priorities is not the most effective and efficient way to do things. We really should have been in a position to publish a new Programme for Government to complement the Budget.

It would have made much more sense, and the Assembly would have been able to scrutinise the Executive's priorities better.

As I have outlined, there are massive concerns around infrastructure and the transformation of the health service, but what about education? The education of our young people has been destroyed this year. They will never make that time up. You cannot be educated at home in the same way in which you can be educated at school. Parents are not teachers, so they cannot provide the same service, especially if they are working eight hours a day from home. It is impossible.

As I said, those children will never make that time up, and I am not even sure that we should be telling them that they are going to make it up. The Executive have to do something about it now. They have to try to rescue the situation for those year groups that have struggled this year, for those year groups that will struggle next year and for those year groups that are looking at pending exams. How will we support them? How will we help them? How will we assist them? I do not see how we will do that in this Budget Bill.

The Member was right to interject about the Department for Infrastructure, but the Department of Education is the same. Education made 56 bids, of which 42 were COVID bids and 14 non-COVID bids, which was the highest number of non-COVID bids submitted by any Department in this place in the past year. Less than 50% were successful. That is no way in which to treat our children. Let us therefore see the evidence in the Budget Bill of support for our children. They are the future of this country, and have we not let them down so badly in the past year? They will never get that year back. In fact, it is more than a year. Who knows what is ahead of us? I do not, however, see any evidence that we will support children with this Bill.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. I feel that it would be irresponsible of me to let that comment go unchecked. We have to have higher confidence in our teaching and non-teaching staff and in our children and young people in Northern Ireland that they will do everything that they can to sustain their learning. The Member's colleague holds the post of Education Minister and has invested in the Engage programme. I will critique that programme, but to say in the Chamber that there has been no investment made, no work done and support provided for our children and young people to maintain their learning is irresponsible.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. At no time, did I utter those words. The Member has to be careful when he makes an interjection that what he says is factful. In his intervention, he did not mention the real, deep impacts that children have suffered this year, not just in education terms but in societal terms, mental health terms and mobility terms: all those aspects. He did not mention all that children gain from being in school with their peers, being taught by teachers, with a principal to guide them. He did not mention other staff, the caretaker and the dinner ladies. All those people are part of a family, and children have been separated from that family for too long. Let us therefore see what the Executive produce today on opening up our schools and allowing —.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

No, I will not, because I think that the Member was irresponsible the last time that he made an intervention, when he tried to put words in my mouth. I will allow anyone to make an intervention in the House, but we need to keep it real, folks.

I went through some of the Departments for which I feel that there is grave weakness in the Budget Bill. That weakness needs to be resolved, if not through the Bill, through monitoring rounds and by getting to grips with the issues and problems that our society faces in the coming weeks and months. They are mighty. They are grave. We need the Executive to step up and support our people like they have never supported our people before so that we can get out of this and find a road to recovery. That should be sooner rather than later.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I will outline the Committee's position on some aspects of the DAERA budget.

I start with our concerns about timing. The Committee requested that DAERA officials provide oral evidence on 4 February. However, at the last minute, DAERA was unable to provide the briefing papers and the evidence session was moved to 11 February. Even then, the relevant papers were provided late, leaving Committee members little time to consider and digest the information provided. The lateness of the evidence session left the Committee with no time to follow up on queries. For example, the written briefing did not cover the budget allocations by DAERA to its arm's-length bodies, and the tight timing meant that the Committee has been unable to cover that aspect. We have requested information in writing and are waiting for it to be provided.

I will outline the Committee's consideration of the DAERA budget proposals. The draft budget proposals provide for £544·2 million of resource DEL and £95·5 million capital DEL. While that includes replacement by Treasury of the funding previously provided by the EU for farm payments, there is still a shortfall arising from the replacement of pillar 2 funding that I will cover later.

In general, the Committee is aware that, in the spending review outcome for here, everyday expenditure is standing still and there is no additional block funding for DAERA.

The Committee heard that DAERA will press the Finance Department for additional resource DEL and capital DEL funding. That is to take forward the important work on the green growth strategy and the bovine TB eradication strategy in particular. The Committee has indicated support for the additional funding.

DAERA has been able to secure additional funding from Treasury for its work on EU exit, as well as water reform and climate change initiatives. The Committee welcomes that additional funding.

Overall, on resource DEL, the Committee is aware that DAERA faces a shortfall of £33·9 million, most of which arises from the shortfall in replacement EU funding. The Committee is aware that the impact of EU exit on DAERA's remit has been wide and far-reaching, particularly in connection with food supply and the agri-food industry. DAERA now has new responsibilities and functions allocated to it, as powers return from the EU. It also needs to implement and deliver on the compliance checks now required as part of the protocol and EU exit.

The Committee questioned officials on aspects of the EU exit. We note that sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks at ports and the international airport are funded through a separate exercise with Treasury and that the details of that funding were not included in the budget documents. The Committee has requested an additional written briefing on that aspect. It is also aware that the relevant local authorities have staff working alongside DAERA officials at the ports of Larne, Warrenpoint and Belfast. We have asked for clarity on the relationship between local authority and DAERA staff, how many DAERA and local authority staff are employed at each point of entry and details of the role, remit and financing of those staff.

I turn to the replacement of EU funding by Treasury, as promised in the manifesto commitment. The Committee has registered concerns regarding the shortfall of about £14·4 million in 2021-22 against pillar 1, pillar 2 and common market organisation (CMO) funding. It has been netted off because it has been carried over from the EU funding sources. The Committee is disappointed by that approach by Treasury.

There is another shortfall of £5·1 million that was obtained by the EU fund for disease eradication. That fund had been used in previous years towards the costs of bovine TB eradication. It is not being replaced by the Treasury and therefore represents a shortfall in its budgetary requirements. The budget for bovine TB has, over the last few years, varied between £36 million and £40 million per year, so to lose £5 million is a substantial shortfall. The Committee questioned officials on that point, and they responded that, in recent years, the incidence rate of bovine TB was downward, meaning that less funding was required, although it is a statutory responsibility and therefore must be funded. Additionally, the Committee heard that it was the intention of DAERA to manage shortfalls either through internal reallocations or the monitoring round process.

The Committee is concerned about the lack of information and clarity on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). It was assumed that it would be the replacement funding for the previous EU structural funds invested in rural development. In October, the Chancellor announced that £220 million would be allocated in the 2021-22 year to help areas to prepare for the introduction of the Shared Prosperity Fund, which is part of a wider investment framework and not devolved to each Administration. The Committee is concerned that there is no detail on the method of allocating the Shared Prosperity Fund between the four Administrations. It is also concerned that it appears that the funding will be administered centrally by Whitehall and that there are no guarantees that the funding allocated to here will be ring-fenced for rural development.

I turn now to another priority of the Committee — the tackling rural poverty and social isolation programme (TRPSI). TRPSI funding is used for a range of initiatives in rural areas to support a range of community-based projects, from developing youth entrepreneurship to assisting farmers and supporting positive mental and physical health. Given the positive outcomes that TRPSI has had for rural communities and the impact that it has had during COVID, the Committee considers that the programme should be a priority for DAERA. The DAERA budget document provided information on the funding allocated to TRPSI and noted that, in 2018-19 and 2019-2020, TRPSI was funded under the confidence-and-supply allocations. In 2020-21, it was funded by the Executive, but the funding was not baselined. Although £1·8 million funding has not been formally allocated at the draft budget stage, it is part of anticipated confidence-and-supply funding that will be allocated to DAERA for 2021-22. The Committee expressed concerns that the TRPSI revenue DEL funding had not been allocated and was not baselined. It registered that it is also a concern for DAERA and that discussions are ongoing on that matter.

The next matter that I want to draw attention to is the bovine TB eradication strategy. I have mentioned the shortfall in funding due to the EU funding not being replaced by the Treasury. The Committee has recently been briefed on bovine TB and is aware of the work of the TB strategic partnership and the Department on a new bovine TB eradication strategy. The Committee has been made aware that the new eradication strategy would cost more in the short to medium term but that, longer term, it should result in a reduction in costs to the taxpayer and farmers. The Committee is also conscious that the current incidence rates, although falling, could become a barrier to trade and agrees with the DAERA assessment that work towards eradication is essential. The Committee is aware that DAERA is in discussions with the Finance Department to secure the additional funding that is required and wishes it to be known that it supports that position.

I turn now to funding for the DAERA arm's-length bodies, such as the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), the Loughs Agency and the Fishery Harbour Authority. The Committee noted its disappointment that there was no mention of funding for ALBs, other than some reference to capital DEL for AFBI. The Committee has requested a written briefing on that aspect of the DAERA budget and hopes to be in a position to report on it during the Budget Bill debate.

Woodland creation is another area that the Committee is concerned about. It noted that £3·4 million of the £95·5 million capital DEL was allocated to woodland creation via the rural development programme (RDP) forestry programme. It is to help landowners plant native woodland, and it is a green growth foundation programme. The Committee has recently examined the difficulties being experienced in the importation of trees and saplings from Britain. I will not go into the technical difficulties, but the Committee has written to the British Government on behalf of the horticulture sector and garden centres on those and other matters. The Committee emphasises that the EU and the British Government should use every means possible to sort out the issues.

The Committee also noted that £15·6 million of capital DEL is to be allocated to the green growth foundation programmes. Those programmes are not yet fully developed, but they will be schemes and projects that will fall under a carbon-neutral programme, with the aim of working towards a target of zero by 2050. The Committee is disappointed that no further information on those schemes was made available.

Climate change is a priority for the AERA Committee. 'New Decade, New Approach' makes a significant commitment to tackling climate change and the introduction of legislation and targets to reduce carbon emissions. The Committee tabled a motion for debate by the Assembly in July 2020 calling for the Minister to bring forward climate change legislation urgently. The Committee was briefed by DAERA on its climate change discussion document before that document went out for consultation. That consultation has closed. The Committee was to be briefed again on 18 February on the initial outcome of that consultation and on the plans and timescale for climate change legislation. That briefing did not happen because the papers for it were not cleared in time by the private office. The Committee has written in strong terms to DAERA on the matter of non-provision of papers.

When questioned about the budget allocation to the climate change priority, DAERA staff referred again to the capital allocation of £15·6 million for the green growth foundation programme. They stated that proposals were being developed and that the Committee would be briefed in due course. That is not satisfactory to the Committee. Climate change is a priority, and, when we ask about the budget for it, we are constantly referred to the green growth strategy, which is still in development and about which there is little detail. Furthermore, reference was made to the funding allocated to existing programmes funded by the EU, but those were developed years ago as part of the rural development programme. They are not new, and there is a lack of specifics from DAERA on what is a Committee priority, which is worrying.

Finally, I want to draw attention to the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP). As well as its reference to climate change, the 'NDNA' document refers to the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency (IEPA). The Committee is also aware of the UK Government's Environment Bill and its provisions for an Office for Environmental Protection. The OEP will have a role and remit that extends to this jurisdiction. On 31 December 2020, the environmental oversight role of the European Commission ceased. It was originally envisaged that the OEP would be established on 1 January and take on that role, but it is not now expected to become fully operational until late 2021. The Committee has expressed concerns that that delay in the creation of the OEP will leave a governance gap in environmental oversight. When questioned about that, DAERA officials referred to the Department's consultation on environmental plans, principles and governance, which was due to close on 26 February. It is also envisaged that a robust economic appraisal would be required, as significant resource would be needed for the UKG Environment Bill.

The Committee also noted a recent announcement by DAERA on 16 February about the establishment of a new body, the Interim Environmental Governance Secretariat (IEGS), on a temporary basis. That is in connection with the governance gap in the environmental oversight role previously carried out by the European Commission. Its key role in the North will be the management of complaints. It will operate until later in the year, when the proposed OEP is expected to be established. The Committee is disappointed that that was not mentioned by officials when answering questions on the OEP on 11 February, and we have now requested a written briefing on it.

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

Today, I would like to reflect on the opportunities for the Executive Office to make a difference in people's lives in the year to come. I would like to talk about the hopes that we have as a Committee to see the good work undertaken through Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) to continue to foster hope and good relations in our divided society. I would like to talk about the dedication of officials and community workers alike, which will be continued into the future. I would like to say how delighted the Committee is that support will continue for victims and survivors of the conflict or, indeed, about those further developments for our minority ethnic communities. I would like to detail how strategic investment will be undertaken in the future, and I would like to talk about the work that arm's-length bodies will do with the money that they are to receive in the coming year. But I cannot. I cannot, because I do not know and the Committee does not know what the Department will spend its money on.

It is true that we can see in the draft budget that the Department is to receive £118 million in 2021-22, and we know from an oral briefing last Wednesday that £58 million will go on the baseline funding for the Department; £46 million on historical institutional abuse (HIA) payments; nearly £7 million for the implementation for victims' pensions; £4 million as match funding for EU programmes; and nearly £3 million in EU exiting funds. In addition, the Department will receive £15 million for capital projects such as Ebrington, Urban Villages and the Maze/Long Kesh development. However, the Committee did not receive any written papers on this at all. I will leave that to fill the air a bit: a scrutiny Committee that was given nothing to scrutinise. It begs this obvious question: what do they have to hide?

The Committee did not have sight of the submission by the Department to the Department of Finance about its financial needs, so maybe the Finance Minister can tell us when he saw it and, given that we have not seen it, what is in this elusive and secret paper.

The Committee did not have input to departmental spending priorities for the coming year.

Financial scrutiny is one of the most fundamental tasks that a Committee undertakes in holding the Executive accountable to the public. Financial accountability is a bedrock principle of democratic governance. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) sets out 10 principles for budgetary governance. One of those is to:

"Provide for an inclusive, participative and realistic debate on budgetary choices."

In this case, we had no debate on the budgetary choices and nothing inclusive, participative, realistic or otherwise. Principles that are set down by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) state that the Executive are to:

"transmit Bills and other documents for parliamentary action for timely distribution to Members."

The Committee has still not seen what the Department is specifically spending its money on, and here we are with a Budget Bill being debated in the House.

Another CPA principle is that:

"Opportunities shall be given for public input into the legislative and Committee process, including the budget".

How can the public provide input if the Committee is not being sufficiently informed to do so? The Inter-Parliamentary Union refers to:

"Mechanisms to ensure effective parliamentary engagement in the ... budget process in all its stages"

but the Committee was presented with a fait accompli. The Committee wants to do its job. We want to ensure that the practice of good financial governance is alive and well in this legislature. We want to demonstrate to the public that the Executive are being held to account. We want to contribute to the process of discussing and developing the financial priorities of our Executive Office. We want to be a conduit for the views of the public — young and old people; women and men; disabled people; people of any social, religious or ethnic identity — in the development of policy and legislation. That is our job.

The Committee is all too aware of the challenges with bringing forward a Budget in the current circumstances, particularly with the financial pressures on the Department. We have heard that the shared future funding that was derived from the Fresh Start Agreement is to run out this financial year.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Chair of the Committee for giving way. As he knows, the role of the Committee is to assist and advise Ministers, but how can you do that if you are not given the information with which to assist and advise?

The Department has form. Mr Lyttle will recall the day when we were in receipt of about 100 pages of financial information five minutes before the start of a Committee meeting. Mr Lyttle, as Deputy Chair, and I, as Chair, decided that we would withdraw rather than take the risk, six months later, of being told, "But sure you were given those papers at a Committee meeting". The Department has form, and the Chair has my sympathy.

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

I thank the Member for his intervention. That is what we are slowly learning: Fresh Start; New Decade, New Approach — yes.

The Committee, as I said, is all too aware of the challenges in bringing forward the Budget. As I said, the shared future funding that was derived from the Fresh Start Agreement is to run out this financial year. From where will the money come for the excellent community relations programmes that we have heard about in Committee? It is not an easy question to answer, but the Committee must be part of that conversation.

I cannot speak about future spending without referring to the pension for people injured in the conflict. The Committee has consistently called for that to be paid, and quickly. The Department now has a duty to do so, but clearly that cannot be provided for in the current Budget. We look forward to working with the Executive to investigate ways in which that commitment can be honoured. As a Committee, we want to work with the Department on so many fronts. However, our work is being frustrated by a Department that will not provide us with papers on time, will not provide us with financial information about departmental spending and is making a mockery of the Committee structure and process.

I wish to make some remarks in my capacity as an SDLP MLA for South Down.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for granting me the intervention. As the Deputy Chairperson of a Committee, I am alarmed to hear of the experiences of the Chairperson and his Committee. Did he write to the Executive Office asking for an explanation as to why the Committee did not receive any papers? I am genuinely interested.

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

I thank the Member for his intervention. I am tempted to say, "Do not make me laugh". When we write, we do not get answers to our letters or, sometimes, they take so long that, by the time that we actually get a response, the question and the issue that we raised have expired. We did communicate and are communicating with the Department. We mentioned it to the officials but, as I referenced earlier, only last Wednesday, they came to the Committee without any papers. We await the response.

I am, of course, conscious that we continue to live under the shadow of COVID-19. The Budget must be viewed through the lens of how we emerge from COVID and the devastating impact that it has had on all of our lives. The last year that we have lived through has often felt like a lifetime. It has taught those of us who have our eyes open some unassailable facts about life here. The first is that, when we need to, we can act quickly. Finance can be found quickly for the places where it is needed most. It can be delivered to the front line and make a difference. Recently, I met council officers, who told me that the speed and agility of the funding processes in the past year helped them to make a difference in people's lives in respect of COVID. We must continue with the type of funding model that responds to people's needs quickly.

If we want the North to work, the Assembly and Executive must act quickly. That is what will define our future. The Sinn Féin Members on my right love harking to the past and trotting out lines about 10 years of austerity. The irony is that they are the ones who hold the purse strings. They are the ones who are capable of releasing funds from the Executive to be the catalyst for change in the North. Do not hark on about austerity while you preside over Departments that are handing back tens of millions of pounds unspent at the end of the year. It is up to the Finance Minister to show us the colour of his money. Should he continue to ensure that the funds that we have are unspent, that will be a clear indication of his failure as a Finance Minister. Maybe it is politically advantageous for the Finance Minister to ensure that the North is seen as not working. Regardless, with this Budget, we must act, and act now, to deliver for people.

Across my South Down constituency, there are many places in which additional funding could be transformative and help the North to work. South Down has earned the privilege of holding the jewel in our tourism crown, with Newcastle being a go-to location. This will only be enhanced this year and in the future as we emerge from COVID. I urge people to try to stay away from Newcastle while the COVID restrictions are in place and to leave it to those who live within a 10-mile radius. South Down is a destination for tourists. We must see funding, including from Tourism NI, which can sell the tourist products that we have, through to funding for tourism infrastructure on the ground.

One of our assets, which has been discussed recently, is the infamous rock pool. One of the last surviving saltwater pools across these islands, it is beloved by countless people. However, it is in need of investment for repairs and renovations. It recently suffered from being used by a DUP councillor as a means of getting cheap headlines, but that might have more to do with next year's Assembly election than anything else. The rock pool has a devoted following crying out for Executive support. I urge the Finance Minister and his officials to invest in the people of Newcastle and support our rock pool.

As we emerge from COVID and schools return to face-to-face learning, we will have to decide how we deliver this. Given that area planning will continue, as envisaged by all parties in the House, further consideration will need to be given to funding those communities who make the move as planned and suggested. Therefore, I urge the Finance Minister that, in instances where we see schools being brought together to make their contribution to reform, they must receive the capital investment that they need as part of that reform process. If communities are going to go the extra mile, the Executive must walk with them.

We have been told that we do not have the required finances in the Budget to address hospital waiting lists. In South Down, we are all too familiar with a lack of finance impacting health. Yes — before Members say it — it is time for me talk about the Downe Hospital. As long as we continue with the status quo of services and funding being stripped away from the Downe Hospital, we will find trust and confidence from people in South Down stripping away from the Government. Further investment in the Downe Hospital and its services is what is needed, not excuses and not services being stripped away at the drop of a hat. COVID is now being used as the most recent excuse to remove services from the Downe Hospital. I urge the Finance Minister to do the right thing and provide the transformative funding that is required for the health service to be able to deliver change and additional services to units such as the Downe.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He must show me where that rock pool is, because I am down in the Mournes quite a bit. On the point about health, he raises a massive issue. Of course, last year, 95% of health bids were successful, yet we have not been able to move forward with transformation, which, to me, is crucial, even in a time of crisis. That shows that something is going wrong with the spend that Health is getting.

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

I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that everybody accepts that there needs to be transformation in the health service. That will require upfront investment. People are prepared and ready to be part of the conversation, but it seems as though that has been going on forever. People want to see transformation take place, and that would undoubtedly see additional services delivered to the Downe Hospital.

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

As someone who originates from his part of the world, I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He talked about the rock pool. There has been a lot of talk in the Chamber recently about the negatives of the Irish Sea and the Irish Sea border. For anybody who does not know what the rock pool is, it is basically the Irish Sea in a pool by the side of the promenade in Newcastle. Perhaps some DUP Members — in fact, all MLAs — could do with a good long dunk in that chilly rock pool full of the Irish Sea. That might serve us all quite well and clear our heads. Does the Member agree?

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

I absolutely —.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. I urge Members not to have excessive debate about a local constituency issue.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, if we are going to have a discussion, be it with Boris or whoever, about infrastructure in the Irish Sea that needs to be supported, we need to include the rock pool in Newcastle. That is what I want to see.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I am just glad that he does not want to put a bridge over the top of it, like you want to do at Narrow Water.

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

As the Member will be aware, the rock pool is a great tourist facility. The bridge that he mentions will facilitate additional footfall, additional visitors and an additional presence and will therefore support the economy in South Down. I would be delighted to see that bridge.

Politics should bring out the best in us. It is the art of the possible, yet somehow we still have many people in the North living in various forms of poverty. As long as one person here continues to live in poverty, I feel like we are failing. Regardless of what the Sinn Féin MP for South Down thinks — the one who abandoned the Infrastructure portfolio a few years ago — we should not take the approach of President Xi in China. President Xi may be committed to ending poverty, but he continues with an abhorrent policy of surveillance, arbitrary detention, forced indoctrination, conversion therapy and a string of other human rights abuses. That is quite the new ally for the republican movement. Regardless of that new stance by some, we need an anti-poverty strategy to be published and, more importantly, funded here.

I therefore implore the Finance and Communities Ministers to deliver that. To go another year once again ignoring the reality that thousands in our community face each day as a result of poverty is an abject denial of the basic function of any Government, which is to look out for those who need help the most.

I am under no illusion that the action or inaction that results from the Chamber will be definitive. For too long, the two parties that head up our Government, Sinn Féin and the DUP, have chosen the path of complacency. They cannot seem to let a day pass in the Chamber without missing the purpose of this place, instead playing to their respective galleries. It is more difficult but ultimately more rewarding to fight for what is right for all our futures. I urge all in the House to set a new course as we emerge from COVID and seek the highest ideals in order to deliver maximum results. If we do that and choose self-determination, nobody — not even the most far right Tory — can take away that which is delivered. If we at long last get it right, if we create the conditions for putting the money in the right place, if we create dignified and sure employment, and if we are willing to do that together, the North will work, and work for all people, regardless of their background, religion or ethnicity. It will simply work for everyone.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Budget Bill's Second Stage as the Chairperson of the Education Committee. I apologise again for my absence from yesterday's Supply resolution debate.

The COVID pandemic has claimed life and livelihood, and it has severely disrupted the education of children and young people. Unlike the DUP MLA for North Antrim, I have faith in the innovation of our teaching staff and in the resilience of our young people to overcome that challenge, if they are adequately resourced to do so.

The pandemic and the unreformed Budget process have made it challenging to assess whether that resource allocation is adequate to help them overcome the challenge. As we have rehearsed today — as, it seems, we rehearse every year in the Chamber — the timings that we work to represent an inadequate budgetary process for proper transparency and scrutiny under any circumstances. As, however, the Chairpersons of the Executive Office Committee and the Finance Committee have said, that is particularly so during a time of this type of challenge and at a time when the education and well-being of children and young people is under such challenge.

Despite that, the Education Committee has done its best in recent weeks to examine the information that we have been provided with by the Department. The additional Budget allocations from the UK Government to help us respond to the challenge that education faces are absolutely essential, but they too have complicated the budgetary process. It has been challenging for the Education Committee to establish precisely what the Department of Education has received and how exactly it has been spent. Again, however, despite what the DUP MLA for North Antrim said, there have been significant allocations made across the education system by his DUP colleague the Education Minister. It feels strange to have to defend the DUP Education Minister from his DUP colleague today, although that appears to be what I am doing. We have had allocations for free school meals during holiday periods to address holiday hunger. We have had allocations to address period product provision and allocations to the Engage programme, although, regrettably, that has not yet been extended to special schools and preschools. We have also had an allocation for the long-overdue emotional health and well-being framework. Those are all issues that the Education Committee has championed for investment. The measures have often been delivered later than is necessary, however, and they have perhaps not gone far enough for the people who need them. It is fair to say that the Education Committee has played a constructive role in platforming the challenges faced by education and the areas in need of investment. We engaged with a wide range of key stakeholders, particularly in the area of special educational needs. We also engaged with teachers, parents and pupils on a wide range of issues, including those that I mentioned.

One of the very few positives from the pandemic is the increasing awareness and appreciation of the importance of schools and the vital role that teachers and non-teaching staff play in empowering the well-being of children. We believe that teachers should be properly remunerated for the job that they do and that families should be adequately supported not only with early years investment but with a comprehensive and well-resourced childcare strategy. Schools must be supported to engage with the educational, physical and emotional development and well-being of pupils and be resourced to provide a unique pathway to support and protect vulnerable children in having equal access to educational opportunity.

The position for teaching and non-teaching pay pressures, contractual costs that will be incurred regardless of whether or not they are funded, remains unclear at this point. When the Committee received its briefing in January, teachers' pay negotiations for 2019 and 2020 remained at an early stage. That pressure was not submitted as a bid in the January monitoring round. However, we understand that the management side of the teachers' negotiating committee recently made an offer in confidence to the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council for 2019-2020 pay awards. The Committee looks forward to an early resolution of that for clarity for all educational stakeholders and hopes that the deal will represent the regard in which teachers ought to be held.

Early in the first lockdown, members of the Education Committee warned about the risks to vulnerable children and their families. We were shocked by the evidence that we received from voluntary organisations and parents regarding the extent of the disruption, and, in a number of cases, the cessation of support during later lockdowns. The Education Committee is adamant that that cannot happen again, and members seek confirmation that adequate resources will be put in place for safe and sustainable childcare, early years and education provision for all children. That means resources to rapidly deliver additional staff cover, additional accommodation space, ventilation, school testing and a special school vaccination programme, now long overdue.

The Committee endorses the view that a holistic approach to Restart is necessary, with a comprehensive and well-supported programme of activities and opportunities to support children to recover.

I noted the language used by the DUP MLA for North Antrim earlier in the debate. The record will correct me if necessary, but it was highly irresponsible language, saying that our education had been destroyed and that children will never make it up. That is language that the Education Minister himself has guided our education sector not to use, so I ask my colleague to reflect on that language and to support investment in recovery for children and young people. That will include educational, emotional and physical recovery. Far too many pupils were not accessing the recommended amount of physical activity before this pandemic. That must be addressed in Education Restart.

Before I move to capital investment, I would like to reference — which, to be fair to my North Antrim colleague, he referenced as well — the issue of multi-year settlement. The single-year budgetary approach is creating real challenge, particularly in the education sector. Indeed, it brings instability and uncertainty for many external organisations that play a vital role in the provision of education services, such as the sports programme delivered by the IFA and GAA, which is responsible for facilitating so much physical activity for pupils. It is clear that we need to move to multi-year settlements as a matter of urgency to ensure stability for that type of programme, which provides vital physical activity for children and young people.

I will move on to capital spending. The Education Department had spent 59% of its entire £143 million budget by December 2020 and anticipated a full spend by the end of the financial year. The Committee for Education received briefings from BlendED NI, the Goliath Trust and the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) on remote learning and digital inequality issues as well as the inadequacy of the C2k system, which is in much need of reform. The Committee hopes that the next capital programme will go quite some way to addressing the significant digital poverty issues that have been exposed by the pandemic and which must be addressed.

There are many other issues that are linked to the Budget that I would like to explore. For now, however, in his response, I ask the Minister to clarify the Department of Education's baseline. It appears that if we extract the New Decade, New Approach money and compare 2020-21 with 2021-22, following the spending review, the baseline has improved by around £200 million. That said, the Department has identified remaining pressures of around £300 million. Perhaps, the Minister will clarify the extent to which Education is, in fact, better or worse off.

I will now add a few comments as an Alliance Party MLA. I have said it before, and I will keep saying it: the former Education Authority CEO stated clearly that without radical investment in and radical reform of our education system, it would be unaffordable, socially immobile and unfit for the 21st century, despite the efforts of our innovative and dedicated education sector staff.

We also know that the cost of separation of education in Northern Ireland is estimated by a Department of Finance-commissioned study to be up to £100 million a year. Yet, area planning, as has been mentioned by other Members, and the rationalisation of the education system, are moving at a snail's pace.

This Budget, however we assess it, does not amount to radical investment in education, so the opportunity that is presented by the independent review of education for radical reform must be grasped by the Education Minister if we are to deliver a more integrated, affordable, socially mobile and fit-for-purpose 21st century system. Most importantly, we must deliver quality educational opportunities and outcomes for all children and young people in Northern Ireland with this Budget.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I will pass on the Education Committee Chairperson's high praise for the Education Minister, which I am sure he will appreciate; long may it last.

[Laughter.]

I welcome the opportunity to outline the Committee for Infrastructure’s consideration and views in today's debate. I would like to quickly outline the Committee’s consideration of the 2020-21 Budget and then move on to how the 2021-22 Budget allocation impacts on the Department for Infrastructure and its ability to carry out its functions over the coming year.

The Department for Infrastructure is one of the Northern Ireland Assembly's largest spending Departments, so the Committee for Infrastructure takes its scrutiny of the Department's budget extremely seriously. The Committee, therefore, regrets that because of the circumstances that we find ourselves in and because of the lateness of the Chancellor’s spending review, the process for budget scrutiny this year has been significantly curtailed. This year’s process has not afforded the Committee the time for a more detailed engagement on the budget allocation and the Department’s proposals on how it will best spend its allocation.

The Committee for Infrastructure received a briefing from departmental officials on the draft 2021-22 Budget on 3 February 2021. The Committee also requested written briefings from the Department’s arm's-length bodies — Translink, the Drainage Council, Waterways Ireland and Northern Ireland Water — on their expectations for the Budget and their allocations.

In considering the January monitoring round, the Department advised the Committee that one resource bid for increased holiday carry-forward was submitted and would be met centrally by the Treasury for the whole of the Civil Service. The Department also advised that it had made the Department of Finance aware of some additional COVID pressures in its January monitoring submission. Those were pressures of £1·9 million for lost parking income in Roads and a small amount of PPE costs in the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA).

The Department for Infrastructure also highlighted to Finance that the DVA used £10 million of its reserves in order to supplement lost income as a consequence of COVID-19 and that, unless that was reinstated, future capital investment might be hampered. To that end, the Department has been successful in securing an additional £12 million to address those pressures, which is, indeed, welcome.

The Department has also advised that, since the January monitoring round bids were submitted, two further bids were made to the Department of Finance to help to maintain the financial stability of Translink and DVA and that it has received an additional £50 million for Translink and £10 million for DVA. That will help to replenish their depleted reserves and provide a degree of financial resilience as we head into another year in which we can expect further impacts as a consequence of COVID-19.

During the briefing on 3 February, the officials outlined that the Department has received a draft resource budget of £420·7 million and a capital budget of £693·2 million, including the £70 million reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing. The Department advised the Committee that the resource budget is an increase of £2·8 million, or 0·7%, on the 2020-21 opening allocation. That 0·7% increase in the resource budget is proportionately less than the average resource increase of other Departments, which is over 6%. The Department advised the Committee that that was a disappointing outcome. The £2·8 million increase that it has received has been allocated to pressures that have been identified by Northern Ireland Water.

The Department advised the Committee that it estimated its total pressures for 2021-22 to be £103 million. It has identified its pressures for next year to be £59 million of COVID pressures, £3·6 million of EU-related pressures and £40·5 million of other pressures. When the Committee questioned what the £103 million that it has sought was for, officials advised that, although the COVID pressure is largely unknown for the coming year, the Department has made the prediction based on research that indicated that it could take several years to get back to a normal level of passenger transport and that that will clearly impact on income. Officials also outlined that, for Northern Ireland Water, the longer people work from home, the more water is used in residential settings, which does not create income for Northern Ireland Water, and the water usage by businesses, which it does charge for, is reduced significantly.

The Committee asked the officials to outline what the impact would be on the Department's work. Officials advised that it would mean that work would need to be prioritised and that the Department's core work, which includes public services such as gully cleaning, street lighting outages, grass cutting, bridge repairs and road markings, all of which are visible and impact on the lives of our constituents, may not be carried out. The officials highlighted that that comes in the wake of a number of years when there was already a limited service in those areas, which is something that we are all very aware of.

The Committee for Infrastructure noted that the increase in the capital budget for the coming financial year is £692 million. That is a £135 million, or 40%, uplift on the opening position for the current year. However, the Department has advised that that still does not meet its estimated capital requirement for next year. It estimates that it needs £888 million to carry out its functions and that £562 million of the budget will be needed for flagship, inescapable or pre-committed expenditure.

The officials advised the Committee that the estimated capital requirement was higher than in 2020-21 due to several large projects having increased spending in 2021-22. In addition, a draft determination by the Utility Regulator sets the capital requirement for Northern Ireland Water at £222 million. The Department has advised that it requires £562 million simply to meet its existing commitments without any further allocations above its top priorities. Those commitments relate to a number of flagship and inescapable projects and to areas of its business that are contractually pre-committed.

In our scrutiny, members were keen to understand the disparity between the increase in capital of 40% and in resource of 0·7%. Officials advised that such a disparity was a disappointment, which means that the Department's resources to deliver on an extensive programme of capital projects would be under severe pressure as both are inextricably linked.

In considering this disparity, the Committee supports the Department’s call for an increase in resource moneys. The Committee has taken many opportunities with the Department and Minister Mallon to emphasise the failure to draw down and utilise the unspent end-of-year finances. The Committee has called on the Department to think creatively and urgently about how to draw down funds into a range of its ongoing funding schemes and has urged it to get road maintenance schemes up and running quickly to take advantage of monitoring rounds. However, the Committee accepts that that takes an adequate resource budget.

To that end, to avoid an underspend in the coming year, the Committee supports an increased resource budget for the Department for Infrastructure to ensure that the resources exist to enable it to manage its capital programme effectively. However, it also recommends that, in the Department itself, there is a more strategic process to ensure that shovel-ready projects are always in place to take the fullest advantage of any future occasions when the Executive find themselves in the position of having an underspend. The Committee does not accept that core aspects of the Department's work should be conditional on excess money during monitoring rounds. However, given the reality of one-year budgets, there should be forward planning so that the Department can avail itself of additional funds.

The Committee had to scrutinise the Department’s finances at pace. That is not appropriate or sustainable. In future, the Committee expects to have more time to consider the budget in detail, to look at more of the figures behind the broad headings and to tease out with officials how money flows around the Department and where our Committee can offer best advice.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I call the Chairperson of the Health Committee, Colm Gildernew. I advise that I may have to interrupt him as we approach lunchtime.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Health Committee. I will outline the Committee’s consideration of current financial pressures and raise some of the Committee's concerns about the Department of Health’s budget.

The Second Stage of last year’s Budget Bill was debated on 25 February 2020, and little did we know at that point of the impact that COVID-19 would have not only on the budget of the Department of Health but on wider society. The Department of Health's dashboard and NISRA figures up to 19 February show that over 2,057 deaths and 112,000 cases later, we are debating the Budget Bill again with our finances and budgets in an unprecedented set of circumstances. Our thoughts are very much with those families who have lost loved ones over the past year and those who are continuing to feel the effects of COVID-19.

Each time I get up to speak on behalf of the Committee, I rightly pay tribute to those front-line health and social care workers who have gone above and beyond what is expected. We hope that the successful roll-out of the vaccination programme and reduction in the transmission rates will allow our front-line staff some well-earned respite. I also thank the Minister and officials in the Department of Health, the board, the trusts and those in back-office roles for all their work over the past year.

I will now outline some of the Committee's concerns about the budget process and the budget for the incoming year. Over the past year, the Committee has understood the need for the Department’s budget to be flexible as it had to be reactive to pressures as they arose. However, the recent publication of waiting lists has underlined the very clear problems that the Department faces in recovering from COVID and in delivering the full range of much-needed services to patients and the wider population. It is not good that we have over 320,000 people waiting for their first outpatient appointment, with over 50% waiting for over a year.

The Committee is due to be briefed on waiting lists at its meeting next week, and it will be good to hear the Department’s plans to recover and address this issue. Waiting lists will require significant resources and highlights the need for the Department to drive forward with its transformation programme. The Committee has concerns that the current funding situation outlined by the Department will not allow the transformation programme to be taken forward with any real scale of ambition.

That only underlines the need for a fully resourced multi-year budget that will allow prioritisation and implementation of projects over a multi-year period. Indeed, a joint submission from the Chairs of all the health trusts and HSC bodies raised concerns about the proposed health budget as it was non-recurrent and prevented long-term planning and prioritisation. I urge the Executive to use the next year to plan and consult on a multi-year Budget, which would allow the health system to recover and make inroads into those increasing waiting lists.

At a recent briefing, the Committee asked questions about the costs of agency staff in the health and social care system. Just this week, the Department responded in writing. It outlined that the cost of agency staff for 2020-21 is expected to be £273 million, with forecast costs for 2021-22 of between £275 million and £300 million. The Committee appreciates that there will always be a need for a level of agency staff to deal with various pressures across the system. However, this is a significant expenditure when we are considering workforce planning and the need for additional staffing and resource in the system. Surely a large proportion of that spend could be allocated to workforce planning.

COVID recovery will be a key factor in the prioritisation of the delivery of services. We are aware of the significant pressures in relation to waiting lists and the need to restart services. There will, no doubt, be additional pressures throughout the year during the recovery from COVID, such as dealing with the impact and reality of long COVID. However, there will also be a need for significant resource to support an increased demand for current mental health programmes and to develop and implement new programmes to support people.

The Committee is here not only to scrutinise the work of the Department but to advise and assist the Minister. We look forward to working with the Department over the coming months and advising it on its work to deliver services to those in need.

If I may, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will say a few words as Sinn Féin health spokesperson. Our health and social care system is in crisis. It has been in crisis for years, and it will be in crisis for many more years until it is properly funded. Austerity has consequences. The COVID pandemic did not cause the crisis in our health service; it simply exacerbated and exposed the stresses created by the political choice of Tory Governments not to fund it properly. As the pandemic took hold here in the North, we found ourselves facing this challenge with equipment shortages and staff shortages. We did not even have the basic PPE when it was needed. We asked already overworked and underpaid healthcare workers to face the dangers while ill-equipped and unprotected, and they did it. We are forever indebted to every single one of them.

One year later, we have unprecedented challenges, among which are waiting lists for elective procedures and life-saving red-flag surgeries. During the height of the third wave of the pandemic, trusts across the North were forced to cancel life-saving cancer surgeries for hundreds of patients. Tragically, we are now playing catch-up, but it may already be too late for some people. All the challenges that we face across the health and social care sector are intensified by our inability to plan because of the budgetary process. Planning requires confidence that there will be money to fulfil those plans. That is why we must have multi-year budgets. We must have confidence that we can fulfil the health and social care needs of our population over the long term and that we will have the funding to do that.

The health and social care sector faces many challenges. One of the longest-lasting and most consequential challenges is that of health inequalities. We live in a society where life expectancy and healthy living are largely determined by postcode. Prior to the onset of the pandemic, I started to look at the problem of oral health here in the North. The inequalities are immense and absolutely shocking. Across the North, particularly in our more deprived communities, large numbers of children are suffering needlessly from the largely preventable disease of tooth decay, with many requiring hospitalisation, a general anaesthetic and multiple extractions. The figures are shocking, with more than 70% of under-15s having tooth decay. In one year alone, more than 5,000 of our children required 23,000 teeth to be extracted at a cost of around £9 million to the healthcare budget. The truth is that we are operating under a strategy that is outdated and increasingly irrelevant. Yet, when the Department was asked to develop a new oral health strategy, it told us that the outdated strategy, which is not working, was enough. Oral health is just one example of where profound inequalities exist in our society today, but the important point is that those inequalities can and must be addressed once and for all.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. This debate will continue at 2.45 pm, after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Paula Bradley.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.00 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Assembly Business

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Before we commence Question Time, I wish to inform Members that I have received a request from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they make a statement to set out how the Executive will approach relaxations as the first step towards a wider recovery process. Being aware of the significant interest from MLAs, the general public and the media on that issue, I have agreed to allow the FM and the DFM to update the Assembly as soon as possible. Therefore, I have agreed, courtesy of the Minister of Finance, to interrupt the debate on the Second Stage of the Budget Bill at 3.45 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

1. Mr G Kelly asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on levels of avian influenza. (AQO 1671/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Two cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N8 were confirmed on commercial poultry holdings in Northern Ireland in January 2021. The Chief Veterinary Officer confirmed the first case in Clough, County Antrim, on 6 January. The second case was confirmed near Lisburn on 11 January. Disease control zones were imposed around both premises to limit the spread of disease. The movement of poultry and captive birds, carcasses, eggs, used poultry litter and manure were restricted and required licences to be moved in or out of the zones. My Department worked closely with the industry, and, following the successful completion of disease-control activities and surveillance in the zones, those restrictions have now been lifted.

Those notifiable avian disease outbreaks in poultry are the first in Northern Ireland since 1998 and the first ever to involve a highly pathogenic strain of the virus. A further 16 suspected cases of notifiable avian influenza have been reported in Northern Ireland since 4 January. Suspected premises were restricted whilst a veterinary investigation was conducted at each site. Following testing at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, all those suspected cases were negated.

Since October 2020, eight positive cases of HPAI H5N8 have been confirmed in wild birds across six different locations in Northern Ireland.

The risk of a notifiable avian influenza incursion in poultry flocks in Northern Ireland is still at the highest that it has ever been, and the avian influenza prevention zone will remain in place until that risk reduces. Veterinary officials will keep those conditions under regular review in collaboration with industry stakeholders. The need for excellent biosecurity to prevent further incursions will continue to be highlighted by my Department as a crucial way to protect the national flock.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer up to now. Given what he reported, it looks like things do not come in ones, and the situation is serious. The Minister mentioned October and the number of cases that have been identified in different species since then. What level of cooperation is in place across Ireland to try to contain the situation in North/South terms?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We are on the same island, so cooperation on the issue is important. I know, because I brought it through the Executive a few weeks ago, that there is a requirement to notify when cases of COVID-19 are found in animals. It has become a notifiable disease. At that time, it was my understanding that there is a process in place whereby, if suspected cases are discovered in either jurisdiction, the authorities north and south of the border can work together to do all that we can to stop further spread and make sure that the authorities, North and South, are aware. I am sure that a similar process is in place for this issue. We want to make sure that the sector is strong and remains strong. It is important to have procedures in place to deal with those issues when they arise. Of course, we hope that they will not.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Minister, you mentioned risk in your response to the first question. With spring now hopefully having sprung and birds migrating on a much larger scale, do we run the risk of those migratory birds bringing in the disease from other jurisdictions? Are extra measures being put in place to deal with that?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

At different times of the year, there will be different implications. The Member is absolutely right to mention the movement of birds, because wild birds are suspected to be the cause of the outbreak in this case. It is the most rational explanation. We need to do everything that we can to stop that happening and take into consideration the time of the year and how birds move about. Additionally, we will take measures to prevent such outbreaks. As I said, avian influenza is a notifiable disease, and disease control zones were immediately put in place around the infected premises. The Department is also engaging with stakeholders to keep them informed of the developments and to amplify the message of enhanced biosecurity to keep those birds safe.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

2. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on his Department's £25 million COVID-19 financial support package for the agri-food industry. (AQO 1672/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The past year has presented many difficulties for the agriculture industry. I am pleased that my Department has been able to provide some financial support to offset the losses caused by market disturbance across a number of sectors impacted on by COVID-19. To date, the Agricultural Commodities (Coronavirus) (Income Support) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2020 has made payments of almost £19·2million to approximately 11,300 businesses in the beef, dairy, sheep and potato sectors. Work is ongoing to assess and process remaining claims from about 20 applicants.

My Department has also announced financial support worth £4·2 million for the pig and poultry sectors. Some £2·2 million has been allocated to pig producers impacted on when Cranswick Country Foods was temporarily closed for two weeks at the end of August, and £2 million has been allocated to poultry producers that were specifically affected by the downturn in the market for hatching eggs. New legislation will be required to enable my Department to make payments to pig and poultry farmers. I plan to bring that to the Assembly in the coming days to enable the schemes to open and farmers to receive their payments by the end of March.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I place on record my thanks to the Minister for his work since taking up post to support those in our farming community and to his predecessor, who rightly focused on and prioritised COVID-19 support for farmers impacted on by COVID-19.

Minister, you elaborated on this point, but perhaps you can go further in updating us on whether you have considered supporting the reduction in the price received for cull sows as a result of COVID-19?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I echo the Member's comments, not just about the job that I have been doing but about the job that Minister Poots did.

As a result of that work, we have the most extensive support for agriculture anywhere in the UK or Ireland, and that is to be welcomed. It shows the commitment that we have to agriculture in Northern Ireland and that we recognise its importance and that we do everything that we can to support our agriculture industry.

Minister Poots and his officials have met industry stakeholders regularly and have met representatives from the pig sector to discuss their concerns regarding cull sow prices. My officials continue to monitor the impact of COVID-19 on the market and are reviewing evidence to determine the loss incurred. However, there are other factors impacting on the market, and I will consider the issue carefully.

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

We have had numerous updates to the Committee regarding COVID support for Lough Neagh fishermen, the most recent of which was that it had been cleared by the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), and the Department of Finance had been consulted and had come back to give it the green light. Can the Minister provide an update on when those payments will be approved? It seems to be an interminable time since they were first mooted by the Department.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

This is an issue of concern, and I understand what the Member says about the length of time. I certainly hope that that can be progressed as soon as possible, but I do not have a definitive timescale for him. I recognise the work that he and many others have done on this and its importance. As soon as we can provide that information, we will.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, I appreciate that you have given some information on pigs and poultry. I welcome that, given the concentration of those sectors in south Tyrone. As well as the financial envelope, can you outline any additional information about the scheme and touch on organic milk producers and whether they are included in the hardship funds?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely. The organic milk scheme, in particular, is an issue that I have been involved in. I recognise the issues with it, the differential loss that has been suffered and the need to provide support. I hope that an announcement will be made soon so that we can get that support to where it is needed.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

What considerations have been given to providing Northern Ireland wool producers with urgent financial assistance? They too have seen a fall in revenue as a result of COVID-19 and will continue to see its effects as we move towards recovery.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am aware of the impact that COVID-19 has had on the global market for wool, although I am pleased to hear that wool markets have reopened and that local wool from the 2019 and 2020 clip is being marketed, albeit at a much reduced market price.

On 15 February, I met representatives of Ulster Wool, British Wool, the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) and the National Sheep Association for an update on the impact that COVID-19 has had on global wool markets and the consequences for local sheep farmers and Ulster Wool. Representatives of British Wool detailed the figures that they had on the financial impact that COVID-19 has had. Those figures are now being submitted in writing to my Department and are being carefully considered.

With markets for lamb remaining strong this year throughout the summer and autumn, the reduced wool price will have a relatively small impact on total profitability, but we want to help where we can. In the longer term, I intend to work closely with stakeholders from the sheep industry and Ulster Wool on recovery and to see what we can do to develop a strategy for sustainable wool production. Meetings have taken place with my officials, Invest NI and industry stakeholders who use wool as part of their business to discuss options for a long-term strategy to increase wool utilisation.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, thank you for your answers so far. As you will be aware, the agricultural shows, which have been used to showcase much of our good agricultural produce in Northern Ireland, had to be cancelled last year and therefore did not have the opportunity to collect gate receipts that are used to pay for various running expenses during the year. Minister, would you have discussions with members of the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society with a view to giving them some financial support?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am more than happy to have those meetings and conversations. I agree with the Member: our agricultural shows are really important, not just for the agricultural community but for the wider rural community. I am sure that many urban dwellers have also experienced and enjoyed what our agricultural shows have to offer. I fully recognise the difficulties that were caused as a result of COVID last year, and unfortunately that is also impacting on their ability to plan for this year too. That is a concern for me, and I am more than happy to look at ways in which we, as a Department, can offer our support. If a meeting would help to facilitate that, I will, of course, find time for it.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

3. Mr Humphrey asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what progress is being made on addressing illegal dumping. (AQO 1673/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Responsibility for dealing with illegal dumping is shared between local councils, which deal with low-level waste offences, and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), which deals with large-scale waste criminality and hazardous waste. For large-scale, serious and/or organised waste offending, my officials continue to work locally and nationally with a range of law enforcement agencies, Departments and district councils to gather evidence, detect offenders and, where possible, report such criminality to the Public Prosecution Service.

My officials also continue to develop inter-agency working on the fly-tipping protocol, which is in the process of being agreed with local councils. That will facilitate quick and efficient responses to smaller cases of reported illegal dumping; consolidate responsibilities for the NIEA and Councils; and maximise the effectiveness of our collaborative efforts to deal with illegal dumping.

Throughout the last year, my Department has been proactive in delivering a multimedia communications strategy that is aimed at combating illegal dumping, fly-tipping and littering. That was delivered via radio, social media and a flyer to 800,000 households in Northern Ireland, and it has led to increased awareness of the impact of illegal dumping amongst the general public, generating more reports for my officers to investigate and more opportunities to target offenders.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you will be aware that dumping across Northern Ireland is happening on an industrial scale. Last year, there was dumping on an industrial scale on the Crumlin Road at Edenderry Industrial Estate, which led to my having to contact the Environment Agency and Belfast City Council. Information from the Environment Agency was slow to come — the response to requests for new information was nil — and Belfast City Council was slow, which was hugely frustrating for the people living beside the site, having to deal with rats, flies and all sorts of noxious smells. Will the Minister assure me, the House and the people of Northern Ireland that he is working more collaboratively with local government, particularly in the city of Belfast, to ensure that the issue is addressed once and for all across government, both regional and local?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for raising that issue, because it impacts so much on the people that we represent. In recent days and weeks, I have had a number of complaints on such issues. It is not just the fact that illegal dumping is unsightly; it is all the other issues that come with that. It is right that we do all that we can to target that. My officials have been working closely with district councils to progress powers for the Environment Agency and for council officials. The agreed position is that the NIEA is responsible for the investigation of large-scale waste criminality and the removal of hazardous wastes, such as asbestos, and other fly-tipped waste that is over 20 cubic metres in volume. District councils take responsibility for deposits that are under 20 cubic metres, which might be more commonly understood as fly-tipping and the casual dumping of household waste by individuals. While there are different responsibilities between councils and the NIEA, it is absolutely right that there is collaboration; it should never be a case of passing the buck. Getting the job done so that we can deliver for the people whom we represent is the priority.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I am sure that all Members will agree that illegal dumping and waste is the scourge of the countryside, and I commend the councils and local communities that have taken control of our roads and byways and have been engaged in litter picking, particularly in the last year, during the lockdown.

The Minister will be familiar with the fact that illegal waste and dumping knows no borders or boundaries. Has he been engaged with his counterparts in the South of Ireland to try to take measures to tackle it?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will be aware that I have been in office for only a short time, so I have not had that opportunity to engage on the issue that he raises, but if there is a cross-border element to waste, it is important that the authorities on both sides of the border work together to try to deal with it. So, although I have had not had that direct engagement, it is absolutely the right thing that it happens where necessary.

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

What recent analysis has your Department done of the materials that are being illegally dumped?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I think that the Member is asking what general analysis has been carried out on dumping. Unfortunately, I do not have that information here with me today, but I will be more than happy to see what, if any, analysis the Department has carried out on types of waste or where it originated from. I am sorry that I do not have further detail for the Member, but if he has a more specific query that he wants to bring to the attention of my Department, I will be more than happy to look at that and to furnish him with any information that we have.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

There has been a substantial amount of illegal dumping in the countryside since lockdown. Frequently, if the owner of the land cannot be identified, there is often an issue between the councils and the Environment Agency about who should be responsible for its removal, to such an extent that the illegally dumped material is never removed. I know that, in an earlier answer, you referred to the fact that there should be no buck-passing, but, in such cases, who does the final responsibility actually lie with?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

As I outlined, that depends on the type and nature of the waste and the dumping that has occurred. It is so frustrating for individuals and for us, as elected representatives, and I think that that is why he is raising it. We have examples in our constituencies, and, at times, there can be disagreements about who is responsible and who needs to come forward to deal with it. I hope that we can get that clarification and that people take responsibility in their own areas.

The most important thing is that the people who are doing it take responsibility, and, where we are able to find out who has been practising and partaking in that illegal behaviour, that they are punished as they should be. The Member will be aware that the legislation has provision for fines of up to £50,000 and a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. It is very important that the responsibility, first and foremost, lies with the people who are involved in dumping when they should not be.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

5. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the monitoring of waste water containing the novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19. (AQO 1675/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My officials have been working with DEFRA, other devolved Administrations and the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) to inform the development of a Northern Ireland programme for SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus surveillance in waste water. In November 2020, DAERA agreed to co-fund a research project with SFI to establish that waste water surveillance and reporting. In Northern Ireland, a team at Queen's University Belfast is leading that work, with collaborative partners in University College Dublin. They commenced their research in December 2020, with an initial scope of work that included sampling two waste water treatment sites in Northern Ireland, with plans to extend to a further six sites: eight sites in total. DAERA agreed a funding extension of the initial research grant award in January, which will enable the capability being established through the programme to process a greater number of samples in the coming months.

DAERA officials are engaging with their counterparts in the Department of Health, the Public Health Agency and the Department for Infrastructure to develop an effective cross-departmental approach to long-term waste water surveillance.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you very much, Minister. That is very helpful. I am pleased to hear that Queen's University in my constituency is involved in this and that there will be cross-departmental working. To what degree will the public be made aware of any of the findings of the research?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will be aware that we are still at the early stages of the research. We have no data or results to share yet. It is right that the research should be publicised and made available to the general public so that they can see the benefits of doing this.

Perhaps the Member is referring specifically to those who will be affected when this is rolled out. Of course, it is right that, if the work is being done and issues are detected, the whole point will be to tell the local public so that they can take precautions as necessary.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Minister, you referred to ongoing monitoring. Has that activity and research determined that there is a need for additional protection for staff who work in waste water treatment works, or is there a need for additional treatment to protect the public against any resulting risks?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

There is no doubt that the staff involved in this take all proper precautions. They always will, due to the nature of the work that they do. I am not aware of any particular impact on the public or extra treatment that might need to be carried out. If there is, I am more than happy to furnish the Member with that information. It is right that we highlight the importance of the issue. It is innovative and very positive to see this collaboration as we try to do more to deal with the pandemic.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

6. Mr M Bradley asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what resources are available to local councils to address animal welfare concerns. (AQO 1676/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My Department fully funds the companion animal welfare service, which is delivered by councils. Some £1·25 million has been allocated to the delivery of the service from April 2020 to March 2021. As part of the service, councils take a range of actions to address animal welfare concerns in companion animals. For example, they provide advice, issue improvement notices, take animals in need into their possession and initiate prosecutions where appropriate.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you very much for your answer, Minister. My office has been contacted by a number of constituents about puppy smuggling. What steps is the Minister taking to tackle puppy smuggling? The problem is increasing across Northern Ireland.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for raising the issue. I have also noticed an increase in the number of people who are contacting me about the matter. It is an issue of growing concern.

My Department has established a multi-agency forum with representatives from the councils, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Harbour Police and departmental portal staff. The forum aims to ensure that the illegal breeding and movement of dogs and pups is addressed on a more joined-up basis. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is actively investigating individuals involved in illegal movements and has been involved in reactive seizures of animals.

My Department is also raising awareness of the matter through its online presence. Messaging includes general advice on how to spot an illegal puppy farm, putting a stop to illegal puppy farming and who to contact on suspicion of a puppy farm.

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

Mr Bradley must have seen my questions on puppy smuggling. The Minister mentioned the multi-agency forum and its aims. What engagement has there been to stop illegal cross-border puppy smuggling, given that we do not have Lucy's law in place in Northern Ireland?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Mr Newton is bringing it in.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Someone behind me has just said that Robin Newton is bringing that in. I am committed to ensuring that the welfare of pets, including pups and kittens, in Northern Ireland remains protected. I am aware that changes to the legislation in England mean that pups and kittens cannot be sold to third-party dealers. There is considerable merit in having similar protections for pups and kittens that are sold in Northern Ireland. I will support legislation on that issue.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

T1. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the work being undertaken by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the owner of Mullaghglass landfill to eliminate the smells that emanate from that site, something about which he has written to him and to a number of elected representatives in the Lagan Valley area. (AQT 1061/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I recognise that there is huge concern in the wider west Belfast/Lisburn area about this. People are contacting me via not only the Department but my constituency office and, in various ways, online. I recognise how important an issue it is, and I am aware of the large number of representations that elected representatives such as Mr Butler have made. There are a number of potential odour sources in the area, including Mullaghglass landfill, which is regulated by the NIEA, and there may be others. The NIEA has been working with the local council's environmental health officers to investigate residents' complaints and, through undertaking a number of odour checks, they have confirmed the continuing presence of odours in the areas surrounding Mullaghglass landfill site. I have instructed NIEA staff to work with the local councils to increase their efforts to ensure that all regulated sites have in place all necessary measures to reduce the off-site odours that are impacting on the wider community.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am thinking of landfill sites in the wider context — not just Mullaghglass — and their environmental impact. What is being done to protect our environment and modernise how we deal with such waste?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It is a priority for us to ensure that we move away as much as possible from putting our waste into landfill. We want to see an increase in recycling, albeit that we have done a good job on that over the past number of years here in Northern Ireland. We are doing well in our recycling take-up. However, we also need to look at the various technologies that come online to deal with the issue. It is important to take a holistic approach.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

T2. Dr Archibald asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given that his instruction to DAERA officials last Friday was, under the terms of the ministerial code, both cross-cutting and controversial, whether he accepts that only the Executive can take such a decision. (AQT 1062/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I have received advice on the issue. There is the opinion that issues that are cross-cutting in this way, as the Member described, should come to the Executive. It is my opinion that DAERA had been given the responsibility for the issue, but I know that others take a different view. However, if it is the case that issues relating to the protocol need to come to the Executive, many other things will require the support of the Executive before my Department can proceed to carry them out.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his response. The Minister said that he was putting a halt to the construction of facilities. Those contracts were awarded by his Department. Is he seriously interfering in contracts and procurement to score political points?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I think that it is interesting that, in all the questions that I have received from Members on the other side of the House, they have never even prefaced their comments with any concern about the people of Northern Ireland. They have never expressed any concern about the damage that the protocol is having on people in Northern Ireland. They have never even acknowledged concerns that there may issues in getting goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. They do not acknowledge that we do far more trade with Great Britain than we do with anywhere else. It is absolutely my concern also that public money is being spent properly, and I think that it is entirely appropriate that, as discussions are ongoing with the Joint Committee and as a result of the uncertainty that is out there in front of us, we are not racing ahead in a way that would be considered unreasonable and inappropriate.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

T3. Mr Newton asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether he is supportive of garden centres reopening in a safe and appropriate way, given the health benefits to the public of working in their garden and, indeed, the need for the businesses to be open at this time owing to their very limited window of business activity. (AQT 1063/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I agree with the Member for a number of reasons. We can look across to other parts of the UK where garden centres are completely open, and I think that even to have opened garden centres on a click-and-collect basis would have been good. It would support businesses that obviously need to have the plants and other materials sold because of the planting season and the nature that we find ourselves in at the minute. These places are normally in open spaces, where people can space out as they queue to pick up whatever they have ordered online or by telephone. While we have a stay-at-home message, it is entirely appropriate that we try to help people to stay at home as much as possible, and that can be via making sure that they can be out in their gardens enjoying them. For all those reasons, yes, I agree that we should find a way to allow them to be open.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, you will recognise, and, indeed, it is well established, that working in the garden can make a very positive contribution to the health of individuals, their mental health in particular. Minister, have you discussed this matter with the Minister of Health?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister for the Economy brought a paper to the Executive, and that included the possibility of opening garden centres. The Executive did not agree to open them on a click-and-collect basis. I argued, at that time, that I thought that it would have been appropriate for garden centres to open, because of the impacts that it could have not only on the businesses themselves but on the health and mental health of all our constituents. Subsequently, I have also put that in writing to the Minister of Health to outline the reasons why I believe that it should be allowed. I take very seriously our responsibilities as an Executive to deal with the pandemic and to try to keep the R number under 1, but it is our responsibility and our duty to look at these issues as a whole; to look at the impact on COVID, on health and mental health and on businesses and the economy. Taking all those things in the round, I think that it would be appropriate to allow click and collect for that, and I will continue to advocate for that.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

T4. Ms Kimmins asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, after stating that she finds it interesting that the Minister and his colleagues are now interested in the impact on the people in the North, given that they were not so interested in that impact when they were pushing through a hard Brexit, whether he can confirm her understanding that there have been no changes to the arrangements at the port since last Friday. (AQT 1064/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It is the case that the work on the checks in regard to the protocol continues.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Can the Minister, therefore, confirm that his decision was based on advice from departmental officials?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

When I made the decision last week, I based it on a number of factors that came to me from within the Department. I hope that the Member has had the opportunity to listen to the explanation that I gave in the Assembly yesterday. There are a number of reasons that I took the decision that I took. One, of course, was the responsibilities that I have under section 46 of the Internal Market Act, which requires me to have a special regard for Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market and customs territory and for the free flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In addition, there are legal uncertainties and practical barriers to some of the things that we might be expected to do. After taking all of that into account, that is why I took the decision that I did.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

T5. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the risks that were identified at a meeting that his predecessor held with some retailers in January. (AQT 1065/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for raising that issue. It is important that we highlight what was said at the meeting. Its minutes are now public. A number of concerns were expressed about rules not changing for export health certificates. There were concerns over food service, hospitality, and the disruption to supply to schools, hospitals and prisons. Issues were raised about the official control regulations (OCR). It was stated that there is a need for clarity at the end of the easement period; otherwise, there will be a sudden and rapid reduction in range. There was also a difficulty with seeing how frozen and fresh food could comply. That is what took place, and that is what was said to Minister Poots at the meeting. He then accurately reflected what was in the minutes, after which other parties accused him of scaremongering on steroids. They were clearly wrong, and they owe Minister Poots an apology.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

You said what I wanted you to say in your answer. You highlighted the fact that the Members opposite and some people in the media criticised Minister Poots. Going beyond Members, will you therefore call on the media to apologise for some of their commentary on Minister Poots's assertions at that time?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely. Everybody who called into question the accuracy of his comments needs to reflect on the fact that what they said has now been refuted very clearly. It is appropriate that people recognise the accuracy of what Minister Poots said at that time. Of course, a lot of people out there do not want to recognise that there will be issues. Instead, they want to put their head in the sand and think that a simple tinkering with the protocol is all that is needed. We face fundamental questions, concerns and challenges, and we need to wake up to them.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

T6. Ms Bunting asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given that we all know the saying, "There are none so blind as those who will not see", which is applicable to some of the warnings that have been issued in relation to the protocol and goods in the internal market, to spell out the full implications for Northern Ireland of the rigorous implementation of the protocol. (AQT 1066/17-22)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I apologise to the Member, but I have only two minutes in which to answer that question. It will not be possible for me in that time to express the impact that it will have on Northern Ireland.

Where should I start? Perhaps with the red tape and the additional bureaucracy that it will cause. Perhaps I should mention the reduction in choice that there could be for consumers. Perhaps I should touch on the issues that hauliers will have and on the issues that have already presented themselves and will only get worse. We also have to take into consideration the barriers that will be placed on the UK internal market and all the difficulties that will come from that. We have to think of the businesses that say that they feel that they will not be able to trade with Northern Ireland because of the extra cost and complexity involved. We have restrictions on the livestock that can come into and go out of Northern Ireland. What about the difficulties in bringing guide dogs in to be trained and the impact that that will have on our citizens? In addition, we have seen issues with the importation of machinery.

That is only a short summary of the issues that we face. It is worse when you take them as a whole. That is why it is so, so, so important that we get an alternative to the protocol. No amount of tinkering will make it work. It needs to go.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. In light of that, what discussions has he had with the DEFRA Secretary of State to highlight and reinforce that this cannot continue for Northern Ireland?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

In my time in office, I have sent a number of letters to the Secretary of State outlining my concerns. I actually had a phone call with him last night. I highlighted the impacts that the protocol is having on Northern Ireland, the impacts that the end of the grace periods will have, and the horrendous situation that we will be in if OCR charging comes in. The Secretary of State represents a Cornish constituency. I asked him, "How would you feel if a border had been put in place between Cornwall and Devon or between Cornwall and the rest of the UK? How would you feel about needing common health entry certificates if you wanted to get produce into Cornwall? How would you feel about the extra paperwork? How would you feel if delivery companies said that they were not delivering to Cornwall?".

Those are the issues and concerns that people in Northern Ireland face. We are part of the United Kingdom, and it is intolerable that we face these problems. It would be intolerable for the Secretary of State to face them as well. That is why action needs to be taken

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Time is up. Thank you for that. Members, please take your ease for a moment or two.

Assembly Business

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 19(5) relates to questions being answered in a timely manner. I have been tabling questions to the Health Minister since September of last year, many of which have related to Muckamore. The Muckamore issues and investigations are well rehearsed. I have asked questions about the fact that some of the cameras have not been working and about the complaints that some of the families have submitted. It is unreasonable that, after five months, those questions remain unanswered. Indeed, I tabled a subsequent question to ask when they would be answered and have failed to get an answer to that as well.

Mr Speaker, through your office, will you liaise with the Minister's Department to get answers to those questions, please?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member is aware that I have very limited authority to address the matter of unanswered questions. However, I am content to allow Members to raise those matters and have them put on the record by way of points of order. I take every opportunity that I can to encourage the Executive to facilitate and respect the scrutiny role of the Assembly and its Members. There are other measures that you should consider: everything from submitting topical questions or questions for oral answer, to tabling a motion, to taking the matter to the Committee on Procedures. As I said, I have limited authority, as the Member is well aware, but it is important to put it on the record. I support your putting your doing so.

(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Stalford] in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The first Member on my speaking list is the Chair of the Communities Committee, Ms Paula —

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

Bradley.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

— Bradley. It was gone. Sorry, Paula

[Laughter.]

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I did not think that I was that forgettable

[Laughter.]

I will never speak to you again.

Almost a year ago in the House, I assured the Minister of Finance that the Committee for Communities would work closely with the Department to achieve all that it could, whatever its budget allocation. However, now that we have had two briefing sessions with officials, on 28 January and 4 February, it is not an overstatement to say that the Committee is dismayed at the allocations for Communities in the draft Budget for 2021-22; in fact, in some cases, the current allocations are so low when compared with the bids that the Committee wondered whether it was the reality or just a worst-case scenario being presented to it to garner support. Sadly, as the briefing continued, it became clear that it was the reality, and the Committee is fully supportive of the Minister as she continues to lobby for additional funding to support the most vulnerable in our society. Any flexibility from Treasury to carry over the significant amount of money that came from it at the end of last year will have no trouble finding a home in Communities. It is worth highlighting that the Assembly's Research and Information Service recently drew our attention to the fact that non-ring-fenced resource DEL for Communities has decreased by over £33 million between 2016-17 and 2020-21; in fact, according to the presentation, over that time, Communities is the only Department to have seen such a total reduction in non-ring-fenced resource DEL.

Before I go into detail, I will take the opportunity to comment on the Budget process. The Communities Committee, like others, wishes to express its dissatisfaction with the nature of the 2020-21 Budget process. Granted there were delays due to the Chancellor's spending review being late, but the Executive also failed to consider the draft Budget in a timely manner and so lost the Committees valuable scrutiny time and opportunity. The Committee understands that the impact of COVID-19 has meant that the plan to provide a full multi-year Budget has had to be reconsidered, so here we are again facing a single-year Budget that makes planning for services and programmes so much more difficult and therefore the scrutiny role of the Committee equally difficult. With only a one-year Budget, it is difficult to align the Budget beyond short-term priorities. However, for COVID recovery, we really need to align spend to medium-term strategic recovery priorities as well.

I will move on to highlight the Committee's concern at the overall draft Budget position for 2021-22 before going into some of the key details for Communities. Overall, the proposed budget of £824 million is effectively £1·5 million less than the budget for 2020-21. As a clear example of the pressures, a basic bid for £18 million for baseline funding for pay and inflationary pressures has not been met. Members expressed significant concern that the overall funding in the draft Budget for Communities to deliver on its NDNA commitments falls significantly short across all areas. Overall, the Department's bids for £149·1 million of COVID-19 funding have not been met. Those bids were for a range of crucial activities help to ease the economic impacts of COVID-19 and support recovery.

At last week's meeting, the Committee was somewhat heartened to hear that, in producing the draft Budget, the Executive had agreed to retain some COVID funding to allow Departments time to refine their pressures. Despite that, the Committee believes that the draft Budget allocation will have huge detrimental impacts on welfare benefit delivery, employment support, support for homelessness, Supporting People, the arts, heritage and sport sectors, community support programmes and support for councils.

The Department bid for almost £330 million of net capital and was allocated almost £225 million. That represents an increase of over £10 million on last year's allocation and will, at least, allow the Department to meet its statutory obligations. The Committee asked officials the hard questions about what efficiencies could be made going forward and was advised that an urgent exercise was being done to look at what could be stopped, paused or done differently in all areas. With the best will in the world, it is unlikely that any creative efficiencies that the Department can come up will be sufficient to meet the drastic shortfall in funding for Communities.

The Committee's concern is being compounded by the continued uncertainty about the Shared Prosperity Fund. We heard at our last meeting that Whitehall's engagement and information on that fund has been severely lacking and there has been a failure to engage on the £220 million pilot programme that was promised in the spending review.

I will take a few minutes to highlight some of the Committee's concerns about the resource allocations for Communities. It is hard to know where to start because there is so much need in our communities, even before COVID.

The Committee acknowledges the welcome COVID funding of over £271 million received by the Department during 2020-21, with over £85 million of that allocated to councils. The Committee has scrutinised closely the COVID funding programmes for councils, charities, sports and the arts over the past year, so members were shocked to learn that the draft Budget meant that the Department was starting 2021-22 with zero for COVID-specific schemes and that many bids had not been met for those schemes at this point.

On welfare delivery, at the last count, the universal credit caseload had increased by almost 130% during the past 10 months and is expected to increase further as the furlough scheme ends, yet a bid for £149 million of COVID funding has not been met in the draft Budget. That will have a significant impact on the plans to recruit 900 additional staff to pay working-age benefits. Never mind the five-week wait: we could soon be looking at a six- or seven-week wait for people who are receiving their first claims for universal credit. Many more families could be left without proper advice as no recurring funding is provided in the draft Budget for independent advice work to support welfare reform change. The Committee was met with frustration from organisations as money from discretionary support schemes was handed back unspent. It consistently asked the Department to consider redirecting money where the Budget process allowed.

The Committee has highlighted on a number of occasions the delays to labour market interventions, particularly the delay to the Job Start scheme for young people. It has expressed concern that Northern Ireland is well behind Great Britain in introducing such a scheme, and, as there is no funding for labour market interventions in the draft Budget, that causes huge uncertainty. The Committee is equally concerned about the knock-on effects on the Department's annually managed expenditure spend, as it will not be able to help people to move into work and to reduce their dependence on benefit in the next financial year.

The Committee has been consistently concerned by the inadequate funding for the Supporting People programme, which supports people to live independently in our community. Although it remains a protected area in the Budget, there has been no real-terms increase in recent years, which, of course, means a substantial decrease in real terms.

On 'New Decade, New Approach' — where do I even begin on 'New Decade, New Approach'? — the Department made bids totalling £139 million, and bids totalling £96 million were not met. Only the bid for existing welfare mitigations has been met in the draft Budget. How will any new welfare mitigations be delivered? Where is the money to support amending the special rules for terminal illness and the removal of the welfare reform two-child policy?

At its meeting on 18 February, the Committee considered the three elements of the Department's proposals on welfare mitigations work. There will soon be a Bill, which will go through by accelerated passage, to provide for the extension of the social sector size criteria mitigation scheme; a statutory rule that will extend the remaining welfare mitigation schemes; and two further statutory rules that will amend the existing mitigation schemes by closing the loopholes in those schemes.

Accelerated passage was agreed by the Executive over a year ago as the end of March 2020 was fast approaching. March 2021 is now upon us. Over the past year, the Committee repeatedly asked the Department to engage with stakeholders and the Committee on the proposed legislation and the review of welfare mitigations. Yet as recently as last week's meeting, it was still not possible for the Committee to be given a definitive list of the organisations with which the Department intends to engage.

Despite being exceptionally busy with the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill, the Committee made time to hold its own informal stakeholder event on 26 January to discuss the review of welfare mitigations, universal credit and the terminal illness rules. Members are very concerned about the pace of action on those issues and their impact on vulnerable people and families.

Prior to Christmas, the Committee was pleased to hear from the Minister about long-awaited plans to reform the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However, the bid for £3·4 million for housing transformation was not met. That impacts on the ability to bring about the Housing Executive's revitalisation programme.

Bids for strategies for the Irish language, Ulster Scots, disability, gender equality, sexual orientation and anti-poverty were also not met. What sort of signal does that send to those groups waiting for a strategy and action in those important areas?

I will move to capital allocations. As I stated, the Department's capital bid is in a somewhat better position as almost £330 million of net capital allocation represents a £10·7 million increase when compared with the Department's 2020-21 allocation. The Committee is reassured that that allocation will allow the Department to meet its statutory obligations, such as housing disabled adaptations and renovation grants, and its social housebuilding target of 1,900 units in 2022.

The Committee fully supports the aims for any additional funding for use in prioritised projects in regeneration, housing, culture, the arts, sports, libraries and other sectors, although I suspect that it will be stretched very thinly, judging by the many necessary projects.

The Committee is pleased to see £38·8 million of financial transactions capital in the draft budget to support the co-ownership housing scheme in 2021-22. The Committee continues to keep a watching brief on the regional stadia and subregional stadia programmes, and was told at its meeting this week that the current cost estimate for Casement Park is now £112 million. The allocation of public funding remains at £62·5 million, with additional committed GAA partnership funding of £15 million. That is still subject to change depending on the conclusion of all matters associated with the planning application. The Committee is concerned that there will be similar cost increases for subregional stadia as there are no final plans for that either.

The Committee is concerned at the impacts that the draft budget will have on section 75 categories. It will impact on young people in particular, given that there will be limitations on labour market interventions. It is likely to impact on people with a disability, who will now be even further from the labour market. It will impact on people with dependants, as households on benefits such as universal credit are likely to experience delays in payments. The lack of funding for the advice sector will also impact on people most in need of financial support.

However, the Committee was somewhat reassured by confirmation at last week's meeting that the Minister has given an assurance that those services will continue next year as an essential element of the Department's budget. The Committee therefore waits, with some unease, on the outcome of the Department’s draft budget equality impact assessment public consultation, which closed only last week.

I will finish by reiterating what I said in a previous Budget speech last October, because it warrants restating: we should not show a lack of ambition in our planning. Regrettably, however, our ambition for our population continues to be tempered by our finances and the ongoing COVID crisis. Thankfully, the Programme for Government draft outcomes framework is now out for consultation, because, without a Programme for Government, we will not be able to scrutinise properly the link between budget bids and allocations and outcomes.

Without that, we stand accused of reacting, rather than planning, and of leaving the most vulnerable in our communities without access to the support, advice and basic financial assistance that they need.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As I have said in previous Budget-related debates over the past year, we are in very strange budgetary times, which has had an impact on the Department for the Economy’s budgeting.

The Committee was briefed by departmental officials at its meeting on 10 February 2021 on the Department’s allocation in the draft 2021-22 Budget. As I indicated in yesterday’s debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account, over the past year, the Committee has engaged regularly with officials on budgeting in relation to COVID and EU exit. The Department has seen vast budget inflows and outflows, making scrutiny extremely difficult for the Committee.

The Committee registered some concern that the Department’s modelling for COVID response schemes has lacked accuracy, leading to considerable underspends on early schemes, including over £50 million being returned to the centre last year. The Committee appreciates the greater flexibility to move funds between COVID relief efforts, which was announced by the Finance Minister. However, the Department for the Economy has continued to make significant returns to the centre as well as making significant bids for urgent in-year funding.

The Committee welcomes the Minister for the Economy’s publication of an economic recovery action plan, which draws heavily on the Committee’s micro-inquiries into energy, skills and rebuilding the economy. The Committee's intention in undertaking those inquiries was to inform the Department’s development of policy, and it is always gratifying to see the Committee’s work featuring so prominently in such a major piece of departmental policy. As I highlighted yesterday, the economic recovery action plan requires considerable in-year funding beyond the draft Budget allocation of almost £300 million. I urge the Economy Minister to engage with the Finance Minister and other Executive colleagues to ensure that that necessary funding is forthcoming.

I turn to the draft Budget for 2021-22. It is timely that I do that and that I indicate the unsatisfactory nature of the Budget process from the perspective of Committee scrutiny. Although the Committee has seen the high-level funding allocations, members would greatly appreciate having much greater granularity in the detail that is provided to the Committee, down, say, to the level of £1 million and above.

The Department’s non-ring-fenced resource DEL baseline remains at £805·4 million for 2021-22, despite the significant pressures placed on its budget because of COVID and Brexit. The Department has indicated that it has already made substantial advance bids for funding in the 2021-22 financial year. However, the Committee has expressed some concerns about that kind of budgeting.

The Department has been allocated a further £15·8 million of non-baseline funding for EU exit, EU match funding and its share of the Executive’s change in A-level policy funding. In addition, the Department has been allocated £12·2 million for operating the protocol. The Committee noted those funds and has requested that the Department provide details on how the protocol-related funding will be spent.

The non-ring-fenced resource DEL baseline budget will be allocated across seven business areas. Committee members expressed concern that the allocations for economic and business development and for InterTradeIreland were static, considering the role of those business areas in providing funding and other support to businesses as a result of COVID and EU exit. Officials confirmed that they had anticipated that the Department’s advance bids for funds in 2021-22 would allow additional resources to be applied in those business areas to supplement the baseline budgets. Officials highlighted that the Department would face £17·8 million of unfunded inescapable resource pressures. In addition, existing COVID relief schemes will mean an unfunded pressure of £31·7 million in 2021-22. Those deficits do not address further requirements to provide support to businesses and other stakeholder groups as a result of COVID and EU exit.

Committee members are concerned that so many vital streams of work do not yet have identified funding streams. The Department’s dependence on additional funding allocations from the Executive and the Treasury does not represent good budgeting. The Department has made an advance bid for £147 million for COVID relief in 2021-22 to cover a high street voucher scheme and a holiday-at-home voucher scheme.

Those schemes are key to the Department's plan to help the economy to recover by stimulating spending. Again, members are concerned about whether funding will be forthcoming and whether those schemes will provide value for money as part of an economic stimulus package.

Advance bids of £167 million for economic recovery funding in 2021-22 were made in October 2020. The Department acknowledged the difficulties around timing with respect to recovery spending; applying funds too early risks their being wasted or underspent, while applying them too late risks their being ineffective or coming too late to support business recovery.

Skills development will be a vital part of building recovery. The Committee has undertaken considerable work on that. The Committee, therefore, supports the Department in its belief that skills will be key to economic recovery and greater prosperity going forward. Members, again, expressed concern when officials highlighted that the Department would require £460 million of additional funding to bring spending back to 2010-11 levels in real terms.

To that end, the Committee has written to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to highlight the need for investment in skills and to advocate that the Executive look favourably on skills-related bids that the Department makes going forward. Similarly, the Committee has written to the Economy Minister to urge her to prepare the necessary bids for submission to the Executive once additional funds have been identified.

The Department indicated that its draft capital allocation of £89·8 million represents 70% of its capital spending plans. However, officials suggested that they were broadly content with that allocation and, again, believe that they will be able to make successful bids for additional funding in-year. The Committee welcomed the allocations for aspects of New Decade, New Approach and city deals and will continue to monitor progress on those commitments.

The Committee is aware of the heavy toll that pressurised working on COVID relief has taken on departmental staff, which is exacerbated by the number of vacancies in the Department. The Committee is concerned that many aspects of the Department's work in key COVID and EU exit response areas are unfunded going into the new financial year, as well as the Department's reliance on advance bids for funding being met in-year. The issues that have been highlighted around the deficit in funding for skills have the potential to derail any economic recovery or development if they are not addressed. With the demands on the Executive's funding, the Committee worries that the Department's needs will not be met.

I will now make some remarks as Sinn Féin's economy spokesperson. Yesterday, as part of my contribution, I reflected my view that groups of businesses and workers still need specific support packages with the funding that is available to spend before the end of the financial year. I will not rehearse all that, other than to say that it is my strong view that, having responsibility for businesses, the Economy Minister, in particular, must look at flexibilities that could be introduced in existing schemes to provide that much-needed support.

As we look forward to the incoming financial year, we know that this is a difficult Budget and that there are constraints on what the Executive would like to do to deliver on the type of recovery that we want and need. That, of course, is not helped by a single-year Budget and the resulting inability to plan spending over the next few years. It is also exacerbated by the way in which funding for COVID support has come to the Executive over the past year — a bit here and a bit there — making it impossible to plan properly how to spend it. It looks like that for the incoming year, too.

The Budget for the forthcoming financial year is still in draft form. Tomorrow, the British Chancellor will announce further allocations. Those allocations will be welcome. However, they show the lack of strategic thinking from the British Government last November, when it was clear that we faced a second wave of restrictions. They have been reactive, rather than proactive, during this crisis. One has only to look at the furlough scheme, which was mooted to cease at the end of October and, subject to a last-minute reprieve, was extended until the end of January and then to the end of April. Hopefully, a further extension will now be forthcoming. EU states, like France, gave certainty months ago that their job support schemes would continue into next year. That would give businesses the confidence to be able to plan going forward. Hopefully, we will see a longer-term stimulus coming from the British Government, because, let us be clear: that is exactly what is needed to reboot the economy when it is safe to reopen.

That brings me to the publication, last week, of the Economy Minister's economic recovery action plan. It was good to see a plan for economic recovery. I do not think that any of us would disagree with the plan's priority areas of skills, a greener economy, trade and investment.

It was a missed opportunity, however, to set out an Executive vision of an overarching strategy for economic recovery that had cross-departmental buy-in and that clearly set out the response to the new trading arrangements post-Brexit. It is really important that we look to those new trading arrangements and deal with the difficulties that have resulted from implementing a major change in trading. We must politically and diplomatically work with businesses to do that and then support them to respond to the new reality and the opportunities that it presents, including the reorientation of supply chains locally and across the island. We can rebuild and strengthen the all-island economy through cooperation that benefits North and South.

It was disappointing that the economic recovery action plan did not include the New Decade, New Approach commitments on workers' rights. We have heard many times in the Chamber, and in commentary over the past year, about the need to recognise our essential workers. Upholding and strengthening their rights, as was agreed by all parties before the restoration of the institutions, will send out a strong signal. I know that the Economy Minister has previously spoken about wanting to have a skills fund and an economic recovery fund. I wonder whether the Finance Minister in his response can reflect on any discussions that he has had with the Economy Minister about funding her economic recovery plan.

Going forward, the Committee wants attention to be paid to particular areas to enable economic recovery, and there is likely broad support for that. One such area is the need to support our young people who have been badly hit by the pandemic. Young people are more likely to have been furloughed. Recent Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) statistics show that there are 26,000 more unemployed 16- to 24-year-olds than at the same time last year. We therefore need to ensure that there is a strategy to provide opportunities for young people, and it is an area in which there is a need for the cross-departmental approach to economic recovery that I talked about earlier.

We also need to support our small businesses, self-employed people and entrepreneurs, who have been badly hit by the pandemic. They are important employers in their own right in all our communities. We need to support them to get back to doing business when it is safe and to rebuild their confidence and capacity, and that will require both practical and financial intervention to help them respond to the new working normal. There is a particular role for Invest NI in that, and its remit needs to support SMEs and microbusinesses as well as those seeking to export. I will continue to raise that matter with Invest NI and the Department for the Economy.

Finally, we need to have a real focus on a green recovery, and, again, that requires taking a real cross-departmental approach. I was glad to see the focus on a green recovery in the Economy Minister's strategy. A clear commitment to a green new deal would have sent out a very positive signal, however. Again, that was a New Decade, New Approach commitment covering infrastructure, skills and job creation. A green new deal can be a major driver for the type of jobs-led recovery that we want to see: infrastructure development to support decarbonisation; training opportunities for our young people; investment in R&D to help with job creation in expanding fields such as renewable energy; and a retrofitting programme to help tackle fuel poverty. Obviously, paying for all those things will be a huge challenge. I have already spoken about how difficult a Budget we face. One reason that Sinn Féin advocates the devolution of greater fiscal and borrowing powers is to give the Executive the ability to plan for the type of recovery that we in the North need: a recovery that is responsive to our local economy and citizens. That is something that everyone here should be able to get on board with, in order that we can have the conversation about what we invest in and how we pay for it.

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

I listened with interest to what the previous contributor said, and, indeed, to what several Members who spoke previously said. Debating Budgets, whether Budget Bills, draft Budgets or spring Supplementary Estimates, can feel a little bit like living in a Beckett play, as we tend to say the same things over and over again. Whether it is about our local pet projects or the need for more longer-term budgeting, more strategy or a more joined-up approach across the Executive and better behaviour from the Treasury, the same things tend to get said again and again, but, unfortunately, they never seem to happen. The stage directions seem to mean that we stay put and repeat the same lines again and again.

Nevertheless, I will play my part today and repeat some of my lines about the need for longer-term budgeting and a more strategic approach. They are vital, and we can do something about them. I hope that, despite what I have just said, the next couple of years — indeed, the next few months — might bring some glimmer of hope for a better approach to budgeting and spending money in this place.

Yesterday, we debated the spring Supplementary Estimates during which I, and others, decried the lack of a coherent plan from the Executive and, indeed, the lack of real proactivity from the Department and the Minister of Finance during the financial year 2020-21 in delivering that joined-up approach.

Today, as we examine the latest Budget Bill, I will focus on the financial year to come and outline what we should be delivering on and where we should be prioritising. I will offer some thoughts on how we might finally wrestle free from the debilitating cycle of short-term budgeting and improvised, unstrategic policy. The past year has shown us, more starkly than ever, what the absence of an agreed Programme for Government means. As I said yesterday, we have not had a Programme for Government since 2016 — before Brexit. It seems like a dream period now, but, before Brexit, it did exist. I waved about a copy of the draft Budget, which referred to the 2016 still draft Programme for Government outcomes that some Departments are still working to in the absence of any other agreed outcomes or priorities. In the absence of those agreed outcomes or priorities, our budgeting process, by default, becomes the de facto Programme for Government.

I recognise and understand and, to an extent, sympathise that neither the Finance Minister or the Department may want to take on that strategic coordinating role in de facto sense, but I am afraid that they have to, and we should all recognise that. The Minister said in the Chamber yesterday that the means by which the devolved institutions receive their funding is a huge determinant of how we do government here, and he is right. How we receive the block grant and how we are funded, not just the quantum or the cash amount or the legal means by which the Treasury sends money to the Consolidated Fund to be drawn down by Departments — the actual structure by which that money is spent determines how we do government here. That is clear from how we debate monitoring rounds and legislation.

We end up, by default, debating the priorities of the Executive, and we have to ask ourselves whether that is a good thing. I do not mean the principle of drawing down money from the Treasury, because that is the system that we have. I am not saying that we should not take money from the block grant and the Consolidated Fund, but we need to ask hard questions about whether that model is leading to bad outcomes for policy delivery here.

I agree with the Finance Minister that the Budget process, where we receive allocations, occasionally in a very unplanned, uncoordinated and peremptory way from the Treasury, leads to negative outcomes. Members opposite will point out that we have received significant support from the UK Treasury — we are taxpayers here, too — over the past year. That is true. No one would deny that that financial support has been critical to supporting public services and businesses. However, it is also true that the way in which that money has been disbursed has not necessarily led to good policy outcomes. I am sure that the Finance Minister would agree. However, the corollary of that is that the Finance Department and the Finance Minister have a huge role to play in setting and executing strategic policy goals for the whole Executive and, by extension, for all the people of this region.

It is not enough for our Finance Department to act as an inbox for departmental bids, a pigeonhole for cash, or, as is often the case, cynicism from the Treasury in London. Our Budget process needs to act as a driver in the absence of a Programme for Government — a critical and dominant driver in setting priorities and delivering policy — but it is simply not doing that at the minute. Yes, COVID has made this year unique, but, even when you strip out the COVID effect, it has, in many ways, been a typical year in terms of improvisation and haggling over allocations.

That is one of the striking factors about this past year. It has been, to use a phrase, same, same but very different. It has been unique and unprecedented in the sense that we have had an unprecedented global pandemic that has shaped how Governments everywhere have had to deliver public services. It has completely shut down our economy in large part, and the Executive, like Administrations everywhere, have had to react to that, but, at the same time, it has reinforced many of the habitual budgeting behaviours that exist in this place.

I am afraid that it starts upstream, as it were, in London, with the haphazard and occasionally slightly thoughtless way in which money is allocated via Barnett. That information is then communicated to officials in the Minister's Department and flows through to the way that we budget here. The Finance Department canvasses bids from other Departments that are worried about retaining their baseline budgets, whether they will be able to spend allocations that come in late in the financial year, what that will mean for their baseline for the next year and, truthfully, what that will mean for the political position of their Minister and his or her party — all civil servants have to think about that, too. All those strange behaviours that are reinforced by our Budget process are not conducive to policy outcomes for the people whom we serve. That is the blunt and hard truth of it. As we go forward, we need to properly acknowledge that and think about how we can change it. I will come to it in a little while, but I think that there are ways to do that and light at the end of that tunnel. It may not be a very bright light, but there is some light.

As I said, COVID has made it an unbelievably strange and unique year, but it has been typical in the ways that I have described and, in a sense, has reinforced some of the bad behaviours — not necessarily "bad" in the sense of being malign or malicious but "bad" in the sense of not being particularly conducive to good policy outcomes. It has also shown the absolute necessity for priorities for this place in the short and long term. Today, we will debate a road map, set of principles, pathway or whatever it is out of the current restrictions. That is something that people throughout society and the economy have been yearning for so that they have some sort of framework to understand where they are going in the short term. They also want something else that we have signally failed to deliver to them over many years: a pathway through the medium term. Whatever — it is always worth saying it in caveat in this place — your constitutional preference, there are clear medium- and long-term things that need to be resolved in this jurisdiction. As I said, we hope to see a road map out of lockdown today, but we need something much more ambitious for this place in the short and medium term as we emerge from the pandemic or, at least, from its most acute phase.

As we emerge, we will enter a new phase in our economic life. We are at a crossroads in more ways than one. What are those crossroads? First and most obviously, we are coming out of a pandemic that will affect the way that we all live and work in ways that we have not predicted yet. We know that it will lead to much greater working from home and to disruption in significant areas of the economy and, sadly, that it has already shut down large areas of retail and hospitality in towns and cities here and everywhere. Our economy and the way that we work will have to adapt to that.

Also, as we know, for good or ill, the pandemic coincided with the UK's departure from the European Union, which has been a subject of much contention over the past five years and over the past couple of months in particular in this place. No doubt it will continue to cause contention with regard to the trading relationships between the UK and Europe, Northern Ireland's trading relationship with Great Britain and, indeed, Northern Ireland's position vis-à-vis the European single market. To come to my point, Northern Ireland is now at the crossroads of the European single market and the UK market. That means that we have something that we have never had before: a potential competitive advantage. In the past, two of the things that have led to us not having the kind of economic performance that our people need are the fact that we are geographically marginal and the fact that we are, in some ways, a hybrid society with, shall we say, contention around national identification and a dual quality, whereby we look both east and south. Those two qualities, which have been hang-ups in the past, might be positive benefits. Because of the protocol, we have access to both markets, so, in my party's view, we need to maximise the benefits from that while acknowledging and dealing with the real consequences that flow from the disruption to trade on the Irish Sea, absolutely, but also to services on an all-island basis.

We would like to see proper budgeting for the potential opportunities in being at the crossroads of those two markets. We would like to see Invest NI, as Caoimhe Archibald mentioned, InterTradeIreland, IDA Ireland and the Department for International Trade work to an agreed set of priorities for inward investment and trade opportunities in Northern Ireland that are based on our crossroads status or our dual market access.

As we leave the acute phase of COVID, we will have to deal with another key priority, which is the devastating effect that COVID and the associated lockdowns have had on our young people. My party has published a list of priorities that it wants to see in the long-term recovery for our economy and society. One of them, as I said, is taking advantage of our new unique dual market access. Another is creating a new deal for young people. From primary schoolchildren all the way up to graduates in their 20s, young people have been hit by the consequences of COVID. We know what the problems are; many were evident before COVID but have been reinforced by it. To be fair to the Education Minister, he is doing some of that work already. We want a proper skills strategy and a strategy that looks at the causes and effects of the brain drain. Uniquely in these islands, we export a very high volume of talented young people who never come back. We want to see action on that.

Finally, the third clear priority that is critical and a long-term priority that we should attach budget lines to is reform of our public services. We have seen in the pandemic the extraordinary effort and commitment of our health service in particular in dealing with the situation, but we know that our health service remains in a permanent rolling crisis. We know that waiting lists are absolutely unacceptable. They are devastating families and individuals. We need a proper commitment to overhaul our health service in a way that properly invests in transformation. Those are three potential priority areas that we think are critical.

I want to briefly talk about how we do budgeting, the fiscal council that has been mooted and the fiscal commission. Work on the three broad areas that I just talked about — a new deal for young people; taking advantage of being at the crossroads of two markets; and reforming and overhauling our public services — is possible only if we have a much better and coherent long-term approach to budgeting. As I said at the beginning of my speech, debating budgeting here feels at times like a Beckett play. We all say that we are committed to multi-year budgets, but no one ever does anything about it. It is a bit like what Mark Twain said about the weather:

"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."

Hopefully, we can do something about it. I believe the Minister when he says that he is committed. I know that he wants to bring papers on the fiscal council and the fiscal commission to the Executive and the Assembly. It is critical that we do something about it, because whatever your view of the big challenges that face us, how we dealt with COVID, Brexit and the protocol or our constitutional future, it is clear that there are long-term structural issues that we need to attack in this society and region. In order to do that, we need to attach long-term Budget lines and spending to them. It is all well and good constantly coming up with reform plans every few years, but, if we do not have the political commitment and the finance attached to them, they will not work.

I hope that, by the time that we come back to debate the next Budget Bill, we will have detail not only on a fiscal council that will properly hold the Executive to account on the sustainability of spending and their commitment to transformation but detail on a one-off fiscal commission that looks in the long term at how we do budgeting and policy delivery in this place and at how our potential new powers can be linked to enable us to do that work better.

Finally, before I conclude, which I am sure people will be delighted about, it is critical that we have the power of economic forecasting attached to both those bodies. It is really important that we, as MLAs, and the broader public in Northern Ireland understand not just why we have individual Budget lines or what we are doing on education policy or skills, for example, but how that feeds into our broader economic forecast over years.

I will conclude my remarks on the Budget Bill. We will be back here, no doubt, in the next few months, and I will repeat my lines, like a character in a Beckett play, calling for longer-term budgeting and multi-year Budgets — or maybe not; maybe we will have some progress.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Mr O'Toole says that we use Budget debates to rehearse our pet loves, pet hates or pet projects, but I will resist the temptation not to do the same again.

I will start by repeating what I said this morning in an intervention on Mr Frew: police numbers are close to crisis. On 8 February, the number was 7,005. The Chief Constable warned that he may need to shed 300 officers because of a budget deficit. That would leave him a net 800 below the 7,500 in 'New Decade, New Approach' and in Chris Patten's recommendations, published all those years ago in September 1999 when he chaired the Independent Commission on Policing. I draw the attention of the House to recommendation 44, because this is the impact of losing 500 or 800 officers:

"Policing with the community should be the core function of the police service and the core function of every police station."

Frankly, that cannot be done if the numbers drop so far below the 7,500 that Mr Patten recommended. He also said that there should be a part-time reserve of 2,500 so that, at any given time, the Chief Constable should be able to deploy up to 10,000 officers. He is well short of that.

My second point — I have only three — is about payments to victims and survivors of the conflict who are suffering severe permanent disability. It took those people years, but they have won the argument. Those payments are in statute. We have not just a moral obligation but a legal obligation to pay them. Yet, we have not made payments because of an ongoing and deeply unedifying squabble about which pot of money they come out of. I understand that, for politicians, it is important to have a debate about the pot of money from which those payments come, but let us look at it from the point of view of victims and survivors. Whatever pot of money it comes from, it is the public purse. Victims and survivors have been told in law that the payment is theirs. They deserve it.

I invite Members to think about the issue from the point of view of victims and survivors. Take yourself back to the early 1970s. Every day, the Troubles are at their most vicious. A young wife, pregnant with her second child, is changing her first child's nappy, when her husband comes in to say goodbye because he is going to work. She is so busy changing the nappy that he kisses her on the top of her head and says, "I'll see you later, love". He never saw her again. He was dead within the hour, murdered at his workplace. Skip forward to the point where that young woman is going for compensation. She made a terrible mistake, a natural mistake. She got dressed, did her make-up and made herself look as well as she could; in her own words, "I got myself all dolled up". The judge looked at her, told her that she was a fine-looking young woman and would have no difficulty in getting another husband and adjusted her compensation accordingly. That is how we treated her.

Let us go up to the north-west. A lovely man from Derry — he calls it Derry so, out of respect to him, I will call it Derry — is on a bus one day going down the Strand Road. As he put it, "A young soldier in the sangar went berserk". The soldier discharged the entire magazine of his rifle. On the bus, the man sitting beside this man was killed. He himself suffered severe injuries in and around his groin, which led to multiple medical processes and operations.

He told me that he felt no ill will towards the soldier, which I thought was remarkably generous. He said, "He was a young fella, scared and a long way from home. He just lost it". The person with whom he was angry was the judge who awarded him the compensation, because, despite having no medical qualifications and the fact that there was a very thick medical file in front of him, the judge told this man to drop his trousers so that he could verify the injuries for himself.

A few years after the Omagh bomb, when I told that story in Omagh, I could see that a woman was getting visibly upset. When the meeting was over, everybody was having a cup of tea, and she came back into the room. She explained that she had been badly injured in the Omagh bomb and had physical scars. Before she went for her compensation, she explained to her legal representative that she was very nervous because she had never engaged with the criminal justice system. He said, "Look, don't worry about it. That's why I'm here". As they went into the office, he said, "Just one thing. At some point, somebody will put a bit of paper on the table. I want you to ignore it because that is the initial offer. It's all part of a game, and it'll be ridiculously low". The woman went in and answered questions, and then the judge invited her to take off her dress — he invited her to take off her dress — despite the fact that he had no medical qualifications and had a medical file in front of him. She was so humiliated that she lifted that bit of paper and settled. That is why we have a payment scheme for the severely, permanently disabled. In the name of God, can we not start operating it?

Thursday will be the forty-ninth anniversary of the last time that Jennifer McNern went for a walk. She had the misfortune to choose to walk to the Abercorn bar to have a drink with her sister. She lost her legs and has been in a wheelchair for 49 years, waiting for this payment. She took us to the High Court to get a judge to tell us to get on with it. Please, Minister, please: get on with it. I will leave it there.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Nesbitt. I am pleased that you were able to finish before the next item of business. I was loath to interrupt you such was the import of your comments.

This debate will be paused to allow the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to make a statement on the Executive's pathway out of the COVID-19 restrictions. I ask Members to take their ease for a few minutes.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker [Mr Maskey] in the Chair)

Ministerial Statement

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have received notice from the First Minister and deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement setting out how the Executive will approach the relaxations as the first steps towards a wider recovery process. I have taken the unusual step of allowing today's business to be interrupted because I am aware of the significant interest from MLAs, the public and the media in this particular issue.

Before I call the Minister, I remind Members in the Chamber that, in light of social distancing being observed by the parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement has been relaxed. Members who are participating remotely must make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called. Members who are present in the Chamber must also do that and may do so by rising in their place, as well as notifying the Business Office or the Speaker's Table directly.

I remind Members to be concise in asking their questions because a lot of Members will want to contribute this afternoon. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions should not be engaged in. I also remind Members that, in accordance with long-established procedure, points of order are not normally taken during a statement or the question period afterwards.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you for the opportunity and for allowing us to make the statement here today and to disrupt the business that was planned. As we all know, this year, we will turn a corner in the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is much more to do, and we are not out of the woods yet.

For some, this year has been the most difficult that they have experienced, and it was a sad milestone last week when we reached the first anniversary of our first COVID-19 case here.

Sadly, we have lost over 2,000 of our fellow citizens, while 112,000 of our people have tested positive. It is, however, time to look to the future with hope, and the conditions for doing that are starting to emerge.

The vaccination programme is a foundation block for building forward towards our recovery, but it cannot take the heavy lifting on its own, especially not at this time, and restrictions in some form will, unfortunately, be a fact of life for some time yet. We are incredibly proud of the vaccines work. The Department of Health has a first-class programme of delivery, and our citizens are responding exceptionally well to the offers of taking the jab. As of 28 February, there had been 558,597 vaccine doses administered here, made up of 525,400 first doses and 33,197 second doses. That is a crucial step forward. We also continue to see good adherence to the current restrictions, and we are very grateful for that too. Consequently, the R number has reduced to between 0·8 and 1·05, and the pressure on our health service has started to reduce.

We believe that now is the time to look forward in a hopeful way, recognising that there is still a huge risk from COVID-19, especially from the potential for new variants. We cannot afford to let the numbers go back up to the point at which the health service is overstretched again. Our colleagues, friends and family members who provide health and social care services deserve our duty of care and ongoing respect. Nor do we want to be in a cycle of opening and closing huge sections of business and society. We must do everything that we can to make this the last lockdown, with the underpinning insurance policy that the Executive will take the steps needed to protect the health service. Taking all those factors together, we can take some tentative preparatory steps towards the lifting of restrictions, but great care is still required. That is why the Executive have agreed today a careful, cautious and hopeful approach to existing restrictions, and we will publish that later today for everyone to see.

We want to outline our thinking in the Assembly first. From the very outset of the pandemic, we undertook to keep the Assembly and our MLA colleagues up to date not only on our decisions but on our rationales, and we are glad to do so again today. The Executive's approach will be a cautious one. We have developed a pathway out of restrictions that builds in time between key steps and relaxations. That leaves time for decisions to be properly informed by the health, community and economic data and to see the real-time impact of the prevalence of the virus. That time will be used carefully to look at the results of the regular modelling and to assess whether it is safe to take the next step.

This is a risk-based strategy and one that, we hope, will be understood in the current COVID-19 context. Our aim is to find a safe, secure, sustainable and understandable way forward for our citizens, sectors and businesses. We will be hopeful, optimistic and realistic in our pathway. We recognise that our citizens need hope and that they will understand that we need to move carefully through the coming months. Hope and care are equally important, and that requires a balanced approach. Our approach is built on some core considerations that I will set out now.

First and foremost, our approach is risk-based and will be driven by health, community and economic data and analysis. We will not be driven by hard dates. We recognise that everyone is looking for certainty, but we do not want to set potentially unachievable dates that will only disappoint. Our commitment is that we will keep restrictions in place only as long as they are needed and that, as and when we build headroom to open a sector, we will most certainly take that opportunity.

Secondly, we will continue to be open and transparent in our decision-making. We will keep everyone up to date and explain our thinking. Keeping restrictions in place will be done only if it is necessary and is proportionate to the threat that we face from COVID-19.

Thirdly, we will continue to look holistically at the challenges that we face. While our focus today is on the pathway out of restrictions, we are also working on our building forward recovery strategy. That is where we will draw together the key interventions and actions that are needed to jump-start economic and societal recovery. We are joining up the collective effort through the Executive's COVID-19 Task Force, and, alongside the protection and recovery work streams, we are building an increased focus on adherence and strategic communications.

Finally, while we set our own course, we do not operate in a vacuum. We work closely with other jurisdictions, with the Irish Government, and with other Administrations on an east-west basis. We are willing to learn from what works best elsewhere and to share our experiences here. Our pathway includes conditions outlined by the World Health Organization.

The Executive will, of course, take our own decisions, and, in our pathway, we have set out the basis on which those decisions will be reached. An evidence base, necessity, proportionality and sustainability will be key to all decisions; we will be driven by health, economic and societal impacts and informed by key data sets in those sectors.

We will work towards the gradual and careful reopening of the nine sectors that are vital for our citizens and their families: home and community; education and young people; worship and ceremonies; sports and leisure activities; work; retail; hospitality; travel and tourism; and culture, heritage and entertainment. The pathway looks at each sector in detail. It sets out a step-by-step process, starting with where we are now and will then take the first cautious steps towards gradual easing, the further lifting of restrictions, and preparing for the future. It also illustrates our hope and aspirations for the practical real-life benefits that that will bring to our citizens. We are keen that everyone can find some comfort in the document and what we hope it means for them, while seeing the cautious steps that we will need to walk through.

In line with our commitments on transparency, the pathway also explains how we will take our decisions and the process for that. It sets out the pathway in the context of our plans for recovery. The pathway does not seek to take us back to where we were before the pandemic, and it recognises that there will be some adaptations in our lives. That will be the case across a number of sectors for some time to come. The Executive are, however, committed to getting education back as quickly as possible for the sake of children and young people and their education, well-being and future aspirations. We will do that for parents too, in partnership with our colleagues in the education system who are working so hard to adapt to the current pressures.

It is vital that all of that is grounded in the reality of the pandemic. COVID-19 continues to impact on every aspect of our lives. The new variants are a sharp reminder of the need for care. Our health responses have developed considerably over the past 12 months, and we owe a debt of gratitude to everyone who has worked in the health and social care sector.

The role that we all play this year will be important. That starts with sticking to the public health basics, which remain vital. We all benefit when we get that right. Washing our hands, keeping a safe distance from others, wearing our face coverings and reducing social contacts as much as we can make a real difference, and we cannot let those good habits go. Adhering to the remaining restrictions and engaging with our communications have played a key role in getting us to the point where we can start to think about lifting restrictions. We say thank you to everyone for that.

There are new variants, and they need to be guarded against. That is part of the reason why travel is so severely limited. We ask for patience and understanding on that point. COVID-19 is a successful virus because of its ability to transmit between people so easily. The new variants are even more so. Therefore the "Stay at home" message remains important. We know and understand that people go out for essential reasons, such as shopping, exercise, necessities and well-being, but we are concerned about crowded places, even outside. Therefore we continue to ask everyone to take great care and to think about the risks. That is why we have set out very clearly in the pathway, for everyone to see, the approach that we are taking to decision-making.

Each week, Departments will meet as a collective to discuss the available information and to proactively consider what steps can be proposed to the Executive. After each step is taken, we will pause and reflect, look at the data and the impacts, engage with the key sectors, and enable them to reopen only if it is the right thing to do. That gives us the best chance of achieving sustainable steps and avoiding another lockdown.

In summary, we publish our documents today, and we ask everyone to take the time to read and digest them, to think about the need for caution in our approach, to continue to follow the public health advice, and, most certainly, to take the vaccine when it is offered. We all have hope for this year, and, together, we will get through this.

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

I thank the First Ministers for their statement. It is a bit disappointing, however, that MLAs got the statement only 30 minutes before this item of business on such a serious issue that is so profound and cuts right across all of society and that we have yet to be provided with the actual plan, even though some journalists have had versions of this from early this morning.

COVID has caused major problems for most in our community, ranging from annoyance and interruptions to matters of financial existence and, indeed, death for many and grief for many more beyond that. It is not an overstatement to say that no one in our community has not been impacted, and managing that has not been easy. The Executive Office has got some of it right and some of it wrong, but today has to be about looking forward and providing positivity and ambition, something for people to look forward to, as it has been a very long, dark and depressing winter.

I want to raise a note of concern because, as I understand it, the Executive Office pathway has nine streams, with five stages moving at different speeds, meaning that there are 45 variables moving at different paces for people to engage with. I can see that causing confusion for people and it not being that easy to follow. Can you give us a commitment today that you will front a substantial information campaign, as part of this, to update people about where we are in each pathway and where we will be going to next? People in various trades and businesses will need advance notice about when they will move from each stage to the next and what that means to them. Are you prepared to go on the airwaves and pledge to people today that this Executive Office plan will be explained at each stage so that people can get the clarity that they need?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for his question. To correct something that he said: this is not an Executive Office plan; it belongs to the entire Executive. It is for us all to work together to get us out of this current phase of dealing with the pandemic. It is for every Department to do the heavy lifting, it is for every Department to engage with the sectors for which they are responsible, and it is for every Executive Minister to work together, to be on the airwaves and to do everything that we can to communicate this to the public.

Obviously, you know that the Executive meeting went on into the afternoon, and that is why we were late in even asking the Speaker to give us the space in the Chamber today to make the statement. Nonetheless, we are here, and I am glad that we are here.

As part of the plan, there is a strong communication and engagement plan, because, when it comes to getting ready for recovery and being able to open things up, it is really important that we work with all the different sectors, whether that be sport, retail or close-contact services. No matter what it is, the Executive have committed, as part of our plan, to work with the sectors, and we have started that process today. As I delivered this statement on behalf of the Executive to MLAs today, there is a parallel process under way to engage with key sectors. That will not just be done today but has to be done the whole way through this recovery, because it will not happen overnight. There is a journey to be undertaken here.

I think that the plan is a good plan in that it is flexible enough to be able to allow us to move at pace where we can and to slow down a little where we need to, if we need to. I think that dealing with every sector in a separate way, through the nine different pathways, allows people to look at what is important for them and see where they fit into the plan. I hope that many people get some comfort from that.

We have not been date-led. We said that we would be led by the data and the specifics of how the vaccine is going, the situation in our hospitals and the pressure on the health service. We have said that we will be led by the transmission of the virus and the roll-out of all these things. With all those things in the mix, it is really important that we take decisions but that we tell people why we are taking those decisions and communicate that.

I hope that the communication plan that we have also agreed on today will allow us to be able to do the very things that the Member has set out.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Before I bring in the next Member to speak, I remind Members that you will not have the same latitude in asking your questions that the Chairperson of the Committee did, and appropriately so.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement to the House after what has been an incredibly difficult year for many, not least those who are vulnerable and, indeed, those whose families have been bereaved and have been unable to process that grief in a normal fashion. Will the deputy First Minister make it clear that the indicators on which the Executive as a whole will take decisions on relaxations will include economic and educational sectors and will not be just about the figures that are produced by the Department of Health?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for the question. We have set ourselves a range of principles by which we will take our decisions: health, the community and the economy. All three things are crucial. It is about the vaccination roll-out, capacity in the health service and the rate of transmission of the virus. Alongside that, it is about the mental health and physical well-being of all our people. This has been one of the most challenging years that many of us have been through. We recognise that, and we want to factor it in to our decision-making. It is about the education of our children and young people. The Executive have prioritised the issue of schools being opened safely. It is about the impacts on the more vulnerable, whom you referred to. Alongside that are the economic impacts, such as the impact on workers and businesses and the availability of economic support to assist businesses. Those three areas will be factored in to all our decision-making.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I genuinely thank the Minister for that really welcome statement. I join the Chair in being disappointed that I have been able to follow this on social media for some time. We really need to fix the leakage from the Executive.

You said something really important, which was that we will move at pace but will move slowly where we have to. That is the right thing to do in the various sectors. However, Boris Johnson made a clear commitment when he said that we will not go backwards. Will you able to make the commitment today that, once we have gone forward to a phase, there will be no going back?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Leaks from the Executive are unfortunate. The media do not have the final version, so whatever was leaked was done in advance of the Executive's final considerations.

Today, we want to give people hope. We want people to know that there is something to grab onto and that we have a way forward. We should also be honest with the public and say that the virus is still among us, it is still spreading at too high a rate and there are new variants. What we are trying to achieve with the plan, if we do it in a gradual and considered way and work our way through it gradually and if we are cautious and take the right decisions at the right time, is to mitigate the risk of going backwards. Nobody wants to go backwards; we want to go forwards. We have deliberately stayed away from giving dates because that gives people false hope and builds up an expectation that they grab onto and then, unfortunately, they can be disappointed. We are trying to do this with the public and with the sectors, gradually easing our way through. We hope and think that the plan is the best way to avoid any slip back into stricter restrictions.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The publication of the pathway to recovery document will give our citizens some sense that there is an end in sight to the unprecedented crisis that we have all had to contend with over the past 12 months.

Given the experience of coming out of previous lockdowns, will the joint First Minister set out how the Executive will engage with each of the key sectors — sport, arts, culture, business and, of course, the community and voluntary sector — so that they can properly prepare for the steps that they need to take to aid the recovery?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for the question. She is right in saying that we have been through this before. This is our third reversal out of restrictions. We are trying to learn from experience and find a way to work in tandem with the sectors where we can. We understand absolutely that people need time to plan and adjust. We want to work with the sectors, which is why some discussions are already happening this afternoon. We intend, as part of our engagement plan, to engage with the key sectors — retail, business, hospitality, sport and the arts — and give as much notice as we can where measures are to be eased. We will do all that in a balanced way in terms of the health, economic, social and family impacts.

The Member may know that, in the past, junior Ministers led a lot of the work on engagement with the sectors. We envisage that that will happen again. It is really important that we put as much information as possible on our decision-making into the public domain. We hope that people can see that our plan sets out how we will make decisions and when we will make decisions and that we will work with the sectors. Hopefully, that gives some comfort to sectors that have been so detrimentally impacted by the pandemic.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I want to say, "Thank you" to all in the Executive. Today, we have light at the end of the tunnel. Society has been struggling for over a year; at least we now have something. People will be looking desperately for a date for stage 2 that is listed in the document. I appreciate that we need to be led by the medical advice. It is mentioned that 16 March will be an Executive review date. Can we give the public something that they can aim for and say when they can look forward to section 2 in the document being released?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for her positive comments. This is very much a day of hope. We are saying to people, "Be cautious, and be steady as you go", but we are also saying that there is a way out and this is where we are headed. We have nine pathways, each of which has five steps. You can move at different speeds across each one. We have set it out that we will review the process every four weeks. The first review date, which we had announced previously, is 16 March, when a paper will come forward from Health setting out, "Here is what we can do". I will caution and be upfront enough to say that we do not expect any sort of major change before Easter, but we hope that there will be room and flexibility on the other side of Easter. The dates for the Executive's comprehensive reviews are 16 March, 15 April, 13 May and 10 June. People will probably compute that to a time frame in their own heads. However, those are review points in time. It does not mean that we can do everything within each step in those periods; it will depend on all the other factors. However, it gives people a bit of an idea of what we are aiming for.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement. Minister, maybe I am reading too much into this, but I hope that the order in which the nine sectors are put down will not be the order of the easements. Number 4 is sports and leisure. Have the Executive placed sufficient importance on sports and leisure when it comes to the mental and physical health of our greater population, especially our young people? We need that easement to happen sooner rather than later.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I could not agree more. This has been such a desperate year for everybody but, in particular, for children and young people, who have not been in school with their peers and their friends and have not been able to go to their sports clubs or do whatever it is that they are interested in. Our priority is to get children back out to the outdoors as quickly as possible. I am glad to say that, in the pathway document, the first step under sport looks at being able to give more flexibility to children and young people:

"Outdoor sports facilities re-open for training and organised group activities".

That is young people getting together for their sports clubs or whatever it is that they are interested in. It mentions:

"Outdoor sport for children can resume with accompanying responsible adults allowed to attend".

Those are the Saturday morning games that many children have been denied for the last year because of the pandemic. In that first phase, another area that we have looked at is the resumption of outdoor competitive sport. Given how important sport is to our physical and mental well-being, that is positive, particularly for children and young people, who can look at this and think, "We are in the first category, so hopefully that is not too far off".

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the joint First Minister for the statement and welcome the publication of the pathway report. There has been much debate, including in the Chamber today, of data versus dates. Does the joint First Minister agree that COVID does not have a calendar or a diary secretary and does not work to dates but does work to human behaviour? That is why it is correct that, in the plan, we operate to data.

Will the Minister elaborate on why it is important that we operate according to the "health, community and economic data", as she outlined, rather than dealing simply with dates?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member. We think that this is the best way to be upfront and honest with people about what we are facing into. We are not out of the woods, and we have difficult weeks and months ahead. There are so many uncertainties with COVID-19 that, at times, it is hard to be definitive. As the Member recognises, we are judging our ability to move forward against the capacity in the health service, our vaccination programme remaining on track and our test, trace and protect strategy doing its job. Also, the Department of Health is to roll out additional testing in different settings. All those things allow us to have optimism. The data-not-dates approach means, essentially, that, each time that we take a step, we will take a step back in our decision-making. We will pause, reflect and look at the impact of the step taken. We will engage with the key sectors and plan what comes next. This approach enables us to move forward cautiously, on the basis of the evidence that we have in front of us and working in conjunction with the sectors.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

People will look at the document and ask this question: what does it mean for me and when? That will be the first reaction. People will then want to understand the parameters by which those decisions are being informed. Data is very important, but it is the analysis of that data that leads to decisions, and that will be the test for the Executive.

Today's data shows that our transmission rates are where they were last September. We have a vaccination programme and are much further ahead than the Republic of Ireland. Scotland, Wales and England will have their children back to school before we do. Deputy First Minister, you say that the plan gives you flexibility to move more quickly. If that is the case, given all that I have outlined, is this not an opportunity to prove, as this party wants, that our children are prioritised by getting them back to school more quickly? The data provides the evidence for that decision to be made.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

You can interpret the data in whatever way you wish, but our position is different from the position in the Twenty-six Counties, England, Scotland or Wales. Our rates per 100,000 are higher than elsewhere. It is really important that we take all those things into account. I remind the Member that his party is also in the Executive and agrees with the approach. We have all signed up to the plan.

Listen, this is not a day for division. This is a day to show a united front: that we want to get to the other end of this as quickly as possible and will pull out all the stops to do that, but that we must be very cautious in doing so. Remember what happened last September, October, November and December and where we ended up in January. Nobody wants to be there again. Health service staff do not want to be there again. Everybody needs to put their shoulder to the wheel. Every Minister in the Executive and every elected representative needs to be responsible.

There will be a temptation to move very quickly and for people to ask, "What about this sector, that sector and the other?" This is a planned way to do it. There is no room to be haphazard about it. It needs to be done gradually and in a sustainable way, because we do not want to go back into lockdown again. Let us take our time and move cautiously. Our priority is to get children back to school safely. That is what the document says, again, today. We have already announced two phases for schools. The document also says that, after Easter, we will commence the next phase, and that is where we should be. The Executive as a whole have prioritised getting children back to school, but it must be safe. There are so many variables right now that we have to be careful and very cautious. Today is a day of hope, and that is what I want the public at home to feel on seeing what we are doing here today.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, joint First Minister, for the statement and for your answers to the questions today. I particularly welcome the document's acknowledgement of the willingness and recognition of the ability to learn from places that have done better in this and previous pandemics. I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the very significant contribution made by the experts and academics who have given evidence to the Health Committee and in other fora.

Despite the enormous difficulties that we as a society have faced over the past 12 months, the strategy for recovery provides an opportunity to do things differently and, indeed, to strive to do things better moving forward, rather than simply returning to normality. As part of that building back after the pandemic, will the joint First Minister commit to ensuring that equal consideration is given to social improvement as to economic recovery?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for the question. Absolutely, yes, I think that we have an opportunity to build. This is only the first step. In our pathway out of restrictions, the Executive have clearly set out that we have three layers of work to take forward. The first is this piece of work on lifting the restrictions, and that builds the foundation for the short- to medium-term recovery. Secondly, in the short- to medium-term recovery, it is about interventions that jump-start the longer-term economic, community and societal renewal. The third phase of that work is around the renewal, the Programme for Government outcomes and the longer-term aspirations.

There has been so much good over the last year, and so many people have adapted what they do, whether that be healthcare students and social workers stepping up to the front line, people who have retired coming back into the health service, business repurposing their businesses or the sports sector, right across the sporting codes, stepping up and helping communities. The work has been amazing, and I hope that we never lose that again.

In building for something better in the future, we have to have a clear focus on protecting jobs and livelihoods. It has to be about a more inclusive and caring society. It has to be about a whole of government and society approach. If there is one thing that the pandemic has certainly exposed, it is the fact that, over this year, the pandemic has disproportionately impacted on those who are more vulnerable in society: families who are living in poverty, living in crowded homes and working for low incomes. It has particularly hit women, who usually shoulder more of the caring responsibilities. Certainly for me, this has highlighted all those things. In building for the future, we need to think about how we build a different and better society. That has to be the outworking of the Executive's pathway for recovery. It is certainly where I will be focused.

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

I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement today. It is disappointing, for a Member of the House, that the pathway document made its way on to the TEO's website before it was circulated to MLAs. The communications strategy with Members of the Assembly urgently needs to change. It is long past due.

It is welcome that we have finally got this document. Deputy First Minister, you are right that it has to be said that it offers some hope to people who have been at home for some time. There are many couples who are hoping to get married. In the last year, many delayed their ceremony because there was uncertainty over whether there would be a reception, which was because of the level of infection in communities. Now that we have this document, can you provide some clarification on when those who are planning to get married can do so with members of their family in attendance, be it 25, 50 or otherwise? If you could provide some clarification, it would be very welcome.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have also spoken with many very disappointed brides this year. The pandemic has been so detrimental in so many ways to the really important times and milestones in people's lives. On worship and ceremonies, last week, the junior Ministers had a meeting with the faith leaders, and we believe that a recommendation will come to the Executive on how we can return services in places of worship, including the ceremony part of weddings, back to where it was previously. You may remember that there was a risk assessment and mitigation. We expect to receive a paper on that, and I think that it is imminent. That will hopefully then give some assurance and clarity to couples who waiting to know whether they can have their wedding ceremony and its size. The reception end of things will obviously be a bit of a period away. If you look to the hospitality piece, you see that it will be a bit of time before you will be able to get back to larger numbers there. However, it is a hopeful day as well, and we hope to give people the clarity as quickly as we possibly can. We will not keep these restrictions in place for any longer than is necessary.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Deputy First Minister, you quoted in your statement the fact that over 2,000 people have died and over 112,000 people have tested positive.

That demonstrates the scale of the pandemic, and today is a day when the thoughts of all in the House will be with those people and their families.

We have something to be proud of with our vaccination programme, and it does offer hope. You acknowledged in your statement, deputy First Minister, that vaccinating on its own will not defeat the pandemic. You also acknowledged the good adherence to the current restrictions and reinforced the need for us all to continue to work together. We owe a huge debt to our medical and scientific experts.

Do you agree that there continues to be a huge responsibility placed on the shoulders of all public representatives who serve in this House and in other places not to say or do anything to undermine the corporate public health messages?