I have received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members in the Chamber that, in light of social distancing being observed by parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement if they wish to ask a question 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, but may also indicate their intent by rising in their place or by notifying the Business Office or the Speaker's Table directly.

I remind Members to be concise when asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate per se, and long introductions will not be accepted. 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 thereafter.

I will update Members on where we stand with a range of budgetary issues. Funding allocations are normally decided by the Executive, so the absence of an Executive following the resignation of the First Minister creates significant difficulties. Having considered the options for progressing budgetary matters and taken legal advice from the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) and the Attorney General, I can now set out the approach that I intend to take.

I will start with the multi-year Budget. In December, the Executive agreed to consult on a draft Budget. That draft Budget provided Health with a 10% real-terms uplift by 2024-25, in the process funding the mental health, waiting list and cancer strategies in full. It provided a solid basis to transform the health service and bring down waiting lists on a sustainable basis. Since the resignation of the First Minister, I have considered all possible avenues that might have allowed me to proceed with a Budget, including bringing it directly to the Assembly. Unfortunately, the legal advice is clear that the Budget must be agreed by the Executive. That means that, on 1 April, the health service will not be able to plan on a three-year basis, nor will it be equipped with additional resources to invest in waiting lists, cancer services and mental health. In those circumstances, rather than improving, the health service will decline. Last week, the Health Minister apologised to people on waiting lists, because, without a multi-year Budget, the opportunity to rebuild the health service would be "cruelly taken away". Sadly, that analysis is correct, although it should be the DUP, not Minister Swann, apologising for the damage that it is inflicting on the health service.

With no prospect of a Budget in this mandate, it will be a new Executive with new Ministers that will have to agree a Budget. In that context, the current consultation is of limited value. I have therefore decided to pause the public consultation for now. A new Executive will be best placed to take further decisions on how the Budget process will proceed.

Members will be aware of my intention to carry over a significant amount of money to ease pressures faced by Departments next year. A total of £100 million of funding resulting from the recently announced council tax rebate in England can be carried forward to 2022-23. We will also receive an additional £150 million in 2022-23 following the announcement of a discount on electricity Bills for consumers in Britain. The Executive can also carry over a limit of £104·3 million in unspent resource. Currently, £95 million is unspent, and I will recommend that at least £50 million is carried over. That means that the Executive, if they were still in place, could allocate in the region of an extra £300 million to Departments for next year on top of the published draft Budget position. That money could be used for various purposes, including skills, housing and the Police Service. I am particularly conscious that a number of community groups need to match-fund money from the European social fund. Those groups help around 17,000 people, including people with disabilities, back into work. At the moment, they do not have funding in place from 1 April, and the tremendous service that they provide is at risk of collapse. The Economy Minister could prioritise that within his own budget, which, under the proposed draft Budget, increases each year. However, I would happily recommend that the Department for the Economy receive additional funds to meet that need. Unfortunately, the legal advice is that that cannot happen without an Executive, so Departments cannot plan to make use of that additional £300 million in funding. Instead, the money will sit idle until such times as an Executive are re-established.

With regard to the in-year position, as I have already said, the Executive can carry over £104·3 million in unspent resource. Currently, £95 million is unspent, leaving little headroom if further underspends emerge at the end of the financial year. In normal circumstances, I would bring a paper to the Executive recommending that £45 million be allocated now. The Departments for Communities, Education and Infrastructure have come forward with proposals to utilise the available resources, and sufficient headroom has been built into their spring Supplementary Estimates.

Having considered the matter at some length and taken legal advice, I intend to proceed to make allocations to those Departments. I wrote to Ministers to ask them for their views on that course of action, and I made it clear to them that the alternative is that funding that could be used to support local people and services might instead be lost to the Treasury.

I have also written to the Economy Minister about the community groups that need match funding for the European social fund. As I said, the Economy Minister could prioritise that from within his budget, and, if the DUP had not collapsed the Executive, additional resources from the £300 million that is being carried over could have been allocated for that specific purpose. In order to ensure the continuation of those vital services, I have asked Minister Lyons to consider another possible solution. Therefore, if the Economy Minister wishes to support those groups, there is no reason why that cannot happen.

Finally, the draft Budget consultation included a proposal to freeze the domestic and non-domestic regional rates for the next three years. That freeze was intended to help with the rising costs that are being faced by families and businesses alike. On the basis of legal advice, I can proceed with that freeze for one year only. That means that households and businesses will not have certainty on their rates for the subsequent two years.

The draft Budget also proposed a £50 million rate relief package for businesses. A Barnett consequential of £50 million arises from the removal of businesses' right to appeal NAVs on the grounds of the pandemic. That £50 million provided a three-month rates holiday for retail, tourism, hospitality, leisure, childcare, newspapers and airports — the sectors that were hit hardest by the pandemic. It also provided all other businesses, except utilities and larger food stores, with a one-month rates holiday. Having taken legal advice, I intend to press on with that rate relief package despite the absence of an Executive.

The Executive should be on the cusp of agreeing a multi-year Budget that prioritises Health, and they should be deciding how to invest an additional £300 million next year on housing, skills, the police and European social fund match funding. Due to the reckless actions of the DUP, that is not possible. Instead, public services will operate on an emergency basis, without the benefits of long-term planning or additional resources, until such times as the Executive are re-established. However, I intend to make £45 million of allocations for this year, and I have set out another approach to the Economy Minister that may provide a solution for the community groups that are seeking match funding for their vital services. I will also press on with next year's rates freeze and the £50 million rate relief package for businesses. I will continue to do my best to support public services despite the damage that is being caused by the DUP.

I thank the Minister for his statement and for meeting the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee and me earlier today in order to discuss its key points.

During the January monitoring round, I expressed some considerable surprise at the levels of reduced resource requirements and capital underspends. It looked then like the Minister might well struggle to get all the unspent moneys properly disposed of before the end of the financial year. The picture now seems to be additionally complicated by two things: the very welcome, if unexpected, additional Barnett consequentials from our nation, associated with council tax and electricity measures in England; and the less welcome and regrettable resignation of the First Minister.

It would seem that there is no shortage of capital or resource projects, including the subregional stadia programme, to which that money could be put, and the Committee understood that the Treasury is to permit a carry-over of some of the aforementioned extra Barnett consequentials. The outstanding problems would seem to be political.

I think that the Committee will welcome the decision to press ahead with the rates holidays and other allocations. I am not so sure about the decision to pause the consultation. That is a mistake. With the added work of the Statutory Committees, that consultation may have been very useful in informing the work of a successor Executive, whenever they might be in place.

My question to the Minister is this: with the amount of capital and resource that is available, particularly the £45 million that he referred to and is looking at, why are we in the position of having the announcement yesterday that the subregional stadia programme cannot go ahead, yet money has apparently been ring-fenced for the Casement Park project, which has no business case or plan and which may equally have to come back before the Executive to check its funding and any additional funds that may come forward?

I will clear up some of what the Member said about additional money. We do not have capital to carry forward into next year. The Executive's latest notification, which came after the January monitoring round, included substantial changes from the previous position of which we had been notified. The changes included £8·2 million additional resource DEL, £18·1 million additional ring-fenced resource DEL, £37·4 million less capital DEL and £10·1 million less financial transactions capital. The picture, therefore, has changed in more ways than the Member outlined, and, of course, carry-over has no bearing on stadia or subregional stadia, as those are capital programmes that carry on into the next Budget. The Executive had two programmes: the regional stadia programme and the subregional stadia programme. The regional stadia programme clearly identified Windsor Park, Ravenhill and Casement Park as the three projects that they wished to bring forward. Two of those have been done and completed, and the Casement Park project was approved by the Executive. As yet, no projects have been approved in the subregional stadia programme. That may be the reason that the Communities Minister has announced that it requires further Executive approval. There is, therefore, Executive approval in one case. It will be a matter for the Department for Communities to consider the business case for whatever cost emerges, and it might be within its gift to consider how it would take that forward. There is no political issue involved. One project has Executive approval, and no identified projects in the subregional stadia programme have received Executive approval.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister. The Minister's draft Budget clearly and decisively prioritised funding for our health service over the coming three years. Our health service and health workers are under immense pressure. Multi-year budgeting is a key part of and essential to making the structural and transformational changes that are needed and are crucial to protecting our health services. What will the DUP walking away from the Executive mean for the planned transformation of health services?

If we cannot agree a Budget ahead of the new financial year, we will get into an emergency situation in which 45% of what would have been the Department of Health's baseline is allowed to be spent in the next financial year. That would not allow the Department to access the uplift that we had planned for it or to fund in full, as we had planned, waiting list reductions, cancer treatments, the mental health strategy or transformation. It will, essentially, be operating on a care and maintenance basis for the next number of months. We will also lose the benefit of the three-year Budget. After about a decade of annual Budgets, the three-year Budget was an opportunity to plan, strategise and try to tackle one of the big public funding issues — how to fund and transform the health service — that has been an issue for all Executives in the past number of years. That opportunity will be lost, because, even if a new Executive come into place, year 1 will be lost. That gives only a two-year opportunity, which is a significant reduction, even if a new Executive were to follow through on the original plan that we had developed.

I thank the Minister for his statement. The Democratic Unionist Party has been mentioned four times in the Minister's statement, but, strangely, there is no mention of his party, which pulled down the entire Assembly in early 2017, when there was no Budget, no health support, no nothing. Surely that is a case of amnesia from the Members on the far side of the House, purely for political gain. Can he and other parties not see the damage that the Northern Ireland protocol is doing to this place? Are they blind to that?

The Member mentioned amnesia: let me remind him of a few facts. The RHI scandal, which was developed and hidden from the rest of the Executive by his party, would have brought down any coalition. Within 10 months of establishing the inquiry, we had a deal on the table for these institutions to be reinstated: it was on the basis of annual Budgets, not multi-year Budgets, which provide the opportunity to plan. It took the DUP a further two years, from February 2018 to January 2020, to take the same deal that had been on offer in February 2018 and to come into the Executive. Two of those years, therefore, were lost by the internal wranglings of the Member's party. We now have an opportunity to plan on a multi-year basis, for the first time in almost a decade, and to put significant resources into health.

His party's decision, made so that the DUP could scramble to save its seats, is having very real consequences, a lot of them apparently unforeseen or not thought through, for the communities that we represent, and his party should own that.

I am almost speechless after the previous question. I am due to ask the Finance Minister a question, but it is worth saying that, if anyone in the DUP is serious about their position, they should go to people on waiting lists who will not be seen when they expected to be seen, and tell them that that will not happen because of the protocol.

Shameful.

No. Your party is shameful, I am afraid. Your party is the shameful one.

Order.

Minister, can you confirm —

Sorry, Mr O'Toole. I remind Members that, as I advised, they have to stick to the issue that is under discussion this morning: the Budget and the statement from the Minister. I have advised Members not to go into long introductions. I want Members to go to their questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be quick. First, Minister, can a one-year Budget be provided in the absence of a multi-year Budget — a three-year Budget — or is it just emergency funding that can be provided? Secondly, have any proposals at all been made by any Department, including yours, around further additional funding to help with the cost-of-living crisis?

The absence of an Executive means that we cannot agree even a one-year Budget. No Budget can be agreed. I have tested this consistently over the past number of days, including up to the level of the Attorney General, and it requires Executive approval. If no Executive can sit, there can be no approval. Essentially, we get into a process where we can include in some of the Budget legislation that I will bring through in the next number of weeks a 45% allocation for Departments into the new financial year. That will be on the basis of their own baseline, so there will not be anything additional, and it will not allow them to plan beyond that. It will not allocate to Departments in the way in which we had proposed the Budget to be allocated. Indeed, it will not allocate the additional £300 million that we now have available for allocations next year, which would go a long way to easing some of the significant pressures across a range of Departments.

I thank the Minister for his statement. To be honest, I feel very angry on hearing the statement. This is the impact on people's lives and livelihoods of the DUP actions. Minister, will Departments not having a budget for next year and being able to spend only that 45% allocation not mean that public services will have to look at cuts, protective redundancies and a halt in recruitment, just when we need to be rebuilding our public services, particularly our health service, whose desperate waiting lists are the worst in the UK?

It will be a matter for each Department to try to manage its budget. If the Executive do not re-form, there will, because of the legislation that emerged through Westminster, be caretaker Executive Ministers. The ability to take significant decisions will also be inhibited and limited, so, yes, it is a bad outcome. The spending review outcome was not what we wanted for public services, but we were trying to prioritise that in a particular direction, one that repeatedly had the support of all Executive parties, going by their statements about prioritising health. The ability to do that over a three-year period will now be lost. I hope that we do form an Executive very quickly. I hope that the Executive will come back to this Budget, and I hope that they will attempt to make good use of that £300 million. The certainty, however, that Departments need now about what they can do in the next financial year is lost to them, and they are, basically, operating in a care and maintenance role.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement on the Budget. As you are aware, many organisations in the community and voluntary sector face great uncertainty. Staff have been on protective notice since December. The sector works with more than 17,000 people, including the long-term unemployed and people with disabilities, trying to get them back into work through reskilling and training. These groups do an enormous amount of really important work, despite the reckless actions, I have to say, of the DUP. Minister, how can this difficulty and uncertainty be resolved for all the organisations and groups that provide that service and for all the individuals who benefit annually?

I had the opportunity in recent times to visit some of those groups and to engage with a meeting that was organised by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), which brought together a lot of the groups. I understand not only the great difficulty that they are in but their valuable services. One thing that I have found to be consistent any time that I have been out in the various sectors — manufacturing, retail, hospitality, services — is that everyone requires more workers. Organisations such as those will help people who are economically inactive back into work, so that is now a vital service for our potential economic growth.

The Minister for the Economy could prioritise that for next year and signal it now, even within the limitations that there are on the Budget. I have proposed another solution to him that could be met from in-year funding to those groups, and I will wait to hear from him about that. There is a case for protection against the potential for collapse, particularly of that vital service that we very much need at this time, and I will certainly do all that is in my power to assist those groups and make sure that they are sustainable into the future.

This is yet another Minister who, in the past week, has been playing silly games, this time with the people's money. The subregional stadia funding for football and the Casement Park funding have both been approved by the Executive. Why have the Finance Minister and the Communities Minister made sectarian decisions to proceed with Casement Park but to halt the football stadia programme?

Clearly, you and your party have not thought through the consequences of what you decided to do. In the scramble to defend your seats, you have not thought through what the impact of doing that would be. The impact will be very real across a range of communities. Sports stadia are one issue; waiting lists are one of the others. In your rush to get out of the Executive to try to generate some electoral support for yourselves, you have not thought through the consequences of your action. Many people will suffer the consequences of your action.

As I explained, the regional stadia programme identified three projects, two of which have already been funded and developed, while the other has been identified and supported for funding. The subregional stadia programme has not identified any specific projects and would be required to go to the Executive for further approval. The fact that you have collapsed the Executive means that all those clubs that are waiting for money will continue to wait for that money until such times as you grow up and start to play serious politics.

Minister, you have addressed part of the question that I was going to ask. It was about setting out clearly the enormously damaging implications of the DUP collapsing the Executive. You mentioned some examples, but I ask in particular about the proposed additional £255 million that could have been set aside for mental health.

Health had identified its priorities, and, as I have said many times in the Chamber, all the parties in the Executive and practically all the parties in the Assembly have, over a number of years, consistently identified health as their priority. We have talked about big issues such as waiting lists and cancer treatment services, but, increasingly, over the pandemic in particular, mental health has very much come to the fore.

The Department of Health identified and costed a strategy, and the proposal in the draft Budget would have funded it in full. It is a matter of deep regret that that will not happen, but it is a consequence of the action that was taken to bring down the Executive. Many people will suffer as a direct consequence of that.

Will the Minister agree that the Budget that he put out for consultation was actually a bad Budget? Others apart from the DUP have raised concerns about it. It fails to deliver on New Decade, New Approach targets such as those on policing, and it cuts huge chunks out of Education and Infrastructure. If it is a bad Budget, it will not deliver on the ground for my constituents, so would it have been approved by Ministers? It does not matter whether it is a one-year or a three-year Budget: people want delivery on the ground from a Budget that provides better roads, transforms our health service and gives proper funding for our children in schools.

I would like to hear the answer from her and her party about how that will all be achieved. The reality is that, under the proposed Budget, every Department got an increase over the three years, but the parties decided — this was the professed priority of the DUP for many years — as the Executive had agreed and as we had discussed prior to the Executive coming back and in the early stages of the new Executive, even before the pandemic hit, that funding transformation and the real challenges in health was our priority.

If you do that, other Departments will not get as much as they would like. However, none of them was suffering a loss; they all had an increase in their budget over the three years. You need to go away and study the Budget proposals to comment on them.

We also had, in effect, £300 million for next year that would have gone a long way. I recognise that the propositions for Health presented a challenge for other Departments. They did not present a reduction, but they presented a challenge. There was an additional £300 million to be allocated next year. That now sits in limbo until such times as the DUP can come back and assist the rest of us in reforming an Executive and taking the necessary decisions for all of the services that you mentioned.

Clearly, there was going to be an opportunity at some stage for people to put their money where their mouth was over the years. Did they support the necessary provision for Health, or had that all been rhetoric and, when it came to putting their hands in their pockets, they would not stand up for it?

When the Minister published the draft three-year Budget, he ring-fenced over £14 million per annum for PSNI staffing costs. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. The question is this: is that money now lost? If it is, the three-year pressures on the PSNI will rise from £226 million to £240 million. I do not see how the PSNI can keep people safe if we choke them of finance.

I will come back to the Member about ring-fencing. From 1 April, the Department of Justice will have access to 45% of its baseline budget, and there will be no additional money. As I said, the Department of Justice raised issues, as did all Departments, as to the consequences for it of supporting the Health budget. That did not mean that it would be impossible, but, certainly, there would be challenges. The £300 million for next year would have gone a long way towards meeting some of those challenges. However, we are now not able to allocate that either. It sits in limbo, as does the Budget decision.

I will come back to the Member about where the ring-fencing sits. In general terms, however, the Department of Justice will have access to 45% of its baseline budget for the next financial year.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. I thank the Minister for his statement. It is clear, even from the statement, that there is deep frustration and agreement that the DUP's decision to collapse the Executive is disgraceful. Will the Minister confirm that the Budget will have a devastating impact on the £182 million that was set aside to rebuild cancer services?

As I said, the Health Department had taken forward a number of priorities. It had costed those and presented them to my Department, and this Budget takes account of that. Even in the last number of days, there have been further discussions about waiting lists and people who are waiting for cancer treatment services. We recognise that it is about not just the general pressure of that but individual cases and the real tragedy that is attached to people who have to wait longer than they should.

There was a proposition to fund that strategy in full. We recognise that, in health service funding, we are coming from a long way back. The 10 years of austerity Budgets and attempts to privatise parts of the health service have taken their toll on the type of health service that we want. This was an opportunity to begin to turn things around, but, unfortunately, it has been squandered.

I am so absolutely furious at the statement. I apologise to the Minister: I know that it is not your fault and that you are the messenger. However, oh my goodness, I am so cross about it. You are telling me that £300 million will sit idle while upwards of 6,000 people are homeless in Northern Ireland. Are you telling me that the families and children who do not have a permanent home will not get help because the DUP has pulled its First Minister out?

[Interruption.]

Order.

We will not be able to allocate that £300 million. I sought legal advice. I would have liked to be in a position where we could say to Departments, "All being well, this is where we would have liked that money to go", so that they could begin to plan.

They cannot have the legal certainty that enables them to do that, however. Accounting officers and Departments can take it that an Executive decision has not been taken.

There is a difference with in-year allocations, in that the Executive recognised that further allocations were going to have to be made, but those can happen only in a very limited way between now and the end of the financial year.

Yes, clearly that £300 million will sit until such times as an Executive are formed again, so that money will not be able to assist all the many worthy causes that Members have identified in their questions on the statement.

Minister, I have been around this place for 20 years, and the Budget proposed by you, which included a 10% increase in health spending, was the biggest socio-economic investment in our society since the Good Friday Agreement. That is the scale of the change that your Budget could have made.

Does the Minister agree that it is not the EU or the protocol that is denying people access to medicines and operations or preventing the recruitment of more nurses and doctors but the DUP? The failure of the party opposite to allow you to pass the Budget will have huge consequences for every citizen in this part of the island.

The issues with the protocol will not be resolved in the Executive. The situation will not be helped by damaging people as a consequence of our not having a Budget to support public services. The issues will be resolved between the British Government and the EU. That is where we want to see them resolved. Issues have been raised about how the protocol is implemented, and we want to see them sorted and resolved so that there is the least possible damage done as a consequence of Brexit for people who live in this part of Ireland. Brexit was always going to damage all the people who live here.

The issues will therefore be resolved between the British Government and the EU. The idea that the DUP should bring down the Executive and inflict more pain on the people whom we represent through an inability to allocate sufficient funding to vital services is, to me, beyond belief. I cannot understand the logic behind it. If the DUP wants to make a protest, it should pull its MPs out of Westminster, where they are not doing any harm anyway.

I thank the Minister for his statement, which I apologise for missing, and for his answers thus far, most of which I have heard.

Minister, the last time that I addressed you in the Chamber, I asked about the £100 million unspent this year and whether there could be an Executive Intervention to ensure that that money could be got into the pockets and purses of hard-pressed people who have not been able to avail themselves of any support whilst we are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Now, a few weeks later, the crisis has got worse. You assured me at the time that work was being done, or could be done, with Executive colleagues. In the absence of the Executive, is it fair enough to assume that that work cannot now be done and that people cannot get the help that they so badly need?

As the Member knows, we put together a scheme. It took some time to get it through the Executive, and I wish that it had been in place earlier. The Minister for Communities and I had identified funding to support people with energy costs and home heating.

I propose to allocate a further £45 million. The Department for Communities is one of the Departments that will bid for that support. In January monitoring, the Executive agreed that I would keep the in-year position under review and revisit potential allocations once the financial position was clear. It is now clear, after the end-of-year accountancy that the Treasury has done, and it is my intention to make further allocations, but the larger sum of money that we have could go a long way in the next financial year to assisting people who are struggling, and who will continue to struggle, as the cost-of-living crisis increases daily and impacts on families.

Minister, in the absence of Executive approval, you are deciding how to spend £45 million and also holding back a potential £300 million. Yesterday, we had the Health Minister announce that he had consulted other Ministers and taken decisions to limit the risk of legal challenge. Will you do likewise to enable more funds to get on to the ground, and will you detail how the £45 million will be spent?

I intend to do precisely that. I have written to other Executive Ministers. In January monitoring, the Executive agreed that further allocations could be made once the financial position was clearer. In the case of the removal of COVID-19 restrictions, the Executive had a position that they should not be in place any longer than was necessary.

On the same basis, there is some cover for me to do that. I will wait to hear from Ministerial colleagues who are still in place on that, but it is my desire to proceed on that basis because I have a very clear view that there are allocations that are necessary and that it will be beneficial to get that support out on the ground. Also, if we do not proceed, the money will be lost to the Treasury at the end of the year, and the ability to support those services will be denied to us.

I do not have a clear picture on the £300 million and identifying where it should be spent in the next financial year. I have sought legal advice on these issues, and it is fairly clear. It seems that the only decision that I can take is on the £45 million allocation. If we can get agreement on getting that done, I will bring a statement to the Assembly on how it will be spent.

The Minister has clearly explained the difficulties faced due to the non-functioning Executive, and I note the financial packages that he intends to pursue despite that.

I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. What is the Minister's assessment of the Fiscal Council's analysis of the severe proposed hit on the Department of Justice's budget, with its obvious impact on policing numbers, neighbourhood policing teams, tackling crime and overcoming the fear of crime? Can that be rectified?

A ring-fenced amount of money was available to the Department of Justice, which was not included in the Fiscal Council's analysis and alters the picture. As I said, no Department suffers a reduction in allocation under the proposed Budget. I recognise that, with a finite Budget, if we are to prioritise and fix the big issues in health, which people have consistently said they want us to, it will mean not giving other Departments as much as they would like for their public services. The £300 million that was available for the next financial year would have gone a long way to addressing some of the most acute problems, including in the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, we are not able to do that now.

Does the Minister accept that the message going out from the House today to those on hospital waiting lists for a consultation or for routine surgery and to NHS staff who are working to their absolute limits is that the promised reforms of the NHS are on hold for the immediate future and the planned and much-needed improvements in the NHS, which were initiated by Minister Swann, will be seriously curtailed?

The Member is accurate in his analysis. Unfortunately, because it was a three-year Budget, there is still a three-year Budget time frame. If we lose even a year of that and just have a care and maintenance Budget in that time, the time that we have to make the transformation will be reduced by a third, which is substantial. We will then run a two-year cycle after that if an Executive are back in place. The ability to begin to plan, fund and carry out that transformation and tackle the big issues that we mentioned — waiting lists, cancer treatment and mental health — is substantially impacted by the fact that we cannot get a Budget agreed. We will not be able to have that in place for the start of the financial year.

The Minister's statement is very disappointing, particularly when we hear people asking questions about football stadiums and the like. Surely the priority has to be issues like cancer services and how our health service is delivered. Those have to be the number one priority in the Chamber.

Minister, I want to ask you about the economy issues that you raised in your statement. You clearly highlighted a number of areas in which the Minister for the Economy has failures to deal with in respect of his budget. It is ironic that it is a DUP Minister who will suffer some of the more difficult issues from the Budget, particularly in relation to the failure of the United Kingdom's Share Prosperity Fund and how we will work around that to ensure that there will be sufficient funds to replace the European social fund.

The Member is correct in that the promise to replace like with like in respect of EU funding has not materialised. We cannot give certainty because, as he will know, money from the European social fund and the European regional development fund (ERDF) was directed to groups in that area. That funding is much needed at any time, but particularly now, when there is a requirement to try to get people into the workforce, as it funds very valuable work to support people and give them the necessary skills to gain full employment. There is now a competition-based approach from Whitehall, and there is absolutely no guarantee that those groups will get the funding that they need to keep their schemes and their staff in place. That is where the loss is.

Over the past year, we were able to supplement the Department's loss in that regard with some COVID money, but we clearly do not have that option this year. There is an opportunity, in more of an emergency situation, for the Department for the Economy to support those groups and keep them going, certainly into next year. I have written to the Economy Minister to encourage him to examine that option, but the loss of the European funding will have an ongoing and lasting impact — possibly in the region of £65 million a year — on the work that the Department for the Economy previously used it for. That will be a real challenge. We cannot predict that groups will get funding from the Shared Prosperity Fund, so we cannot give any certainty. They may get that, and that would be great for them. When it comes to planning the sort of services that we want to see supported, however, we will have to find money from our own budgets.

Despite the Minister's grandstanding, we have been here before. That was not for one year, but three, during which we did not even have a Finance Minister, courtesy of Sinn Féin's politics. Does the Minister not recognise, although he cannot admit it, that we would not be in this position but for the imposition of the iniquitous protocol? If people want to get angry, let them get angry with the protocol.

I recognise, now that he and his party are in an electoral pact with the people who brought down the Executive, that the Member is obliged to get up and try to defend their actions. They are in a very small minority as far as this institution is concerned. I hope that people recognise that.

I am sure everybody wants to make sure that the issues in relation to the protocol run as smoothly as possible, but those issues will not be resolved in this Chamber or by the Executive, and they are certainly not assisted in any shape of form by denying people access to much-needed services. At some stage, when he gets the opportunity, I would like the Member to go out and explain to the public how denying people access to cancer treatment services, hampering those trying to reduce waiting lists and trying to assist people who have mental health issues and denying people those services, somehow impacts on the negotiations between the British Government and the EU. I cannot figure that out at all, and I look forward to the Member explaining that to the electorate in the time ahead.

That concludes questions on the statement, Members.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to take a look at Mr Frew's comments during the questions on the statement. I believe that he accused Minister Hargey of acting in a sectarian fashion. I ask that your office looks at those comments.

I will look at that and come back to the Member. Please take your ease for a moment or two, Members.

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