Debate resumed on motion:

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

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

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

We now move back to the motion on the spring Supplementary Estimates, and I call John Blair.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am speaking as Alliance spokesperson for agriculture, environment and rural affairs, and I will talk about how the Supply Estimates and draft spending proposals impact on pollution remedies, climate obligations and a number of other DAERA responsibilities.

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

There is no doubt that the absence of a Government for the past two years impacted on how our Departments are being funded. That includes the scrutiny of figures, which needs to be improved. It has resulted in a need for transformation in the work of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in particular. The Department oversees one of our largest carbon emitters, but it also has ample opportunities to deliver on our climate change targets. A truly just transition requires funding of those opportunities. I hope that the Minister can reflect on that when she speaks later.

In order to achieve that delivery, the Department must be in a position to formalise the many overdue policies and strategies that remained stagnated alongside the Assembly's collapse. Those include the biodiversity strategy, the marine strategy, the peatland strategy and the clean air strategy. It is also, quite frankly, disgraceful that, in 2024, according to the most recent RSPB 'State of Nature' report, 12% of our species are being threatened with extinction and the area of certified woodland has continued to decrease despite increasing in England. In addition, around half our protected areas are in unfavourable conditions. That situation demands investment. Northern Ireland has many natural assets, but if we continue that trend, we will cause lasting damage.

There are many opportunities for restoration and recovery. The Department must seize on those immediately, but it can do that only if it is properly funded. That is not to mention how the Department has been working on reduced budgets for animal welfare, including welfare in veterinary services. Those areas must, instead, be increased and improved upon. That is also true of the rural affairs aspect of the Department, which brings its own demands on connectivity, rural isolation, access to services and addressing the urban/rural divide.

Separate from all those statutory commitments, the Department is well placed to engage with the community and maximise opportunities for the public to avail themselves of the facilities in forests and fisheries in order to help those who wish to be outdoors and active, assist in healthy lifestyles, appreciate nature and, whilst doing that, reach some of the most disadvantaged and isolated members of our community. It would be a shame if such outreach were ever seen as low-hanging fruit when it comes to budgetary pressures and budget cuts.

Those budgetary pressures must be addressed in the context of the motions. In short, the required processes brought by Brexit, the environmental challenges that I outlined, change in support mechanisms for our agriculture sector, those climate action commitments and the required resource for all those means that DAERA funding must be protected and awarded in a more meaningful and targeted way. Ring-fenced funding is required for climate, environmental protection and governance, which would include, for example, Lough Neagh, an environmental improvement plan and animal welfare. It hardly needs saying that rectifying the problems at Lough Neagh will come at a considerable price.

I want to put on record my thanks, however, to the AERA Minister for his work in his new role to date, particularly in his commitment to tackling the Lough Neagh blue-green algae issue and broader issues surrounding water quality in Northern Ireland. That is something that I highlighted in detail in my Member's statement this morning. I will continue, with others, to work closely with the Minister and alongside Committee colleagues to achieve the necessary positive outcomes, hopefully delivered through appropriate funding streams.

I wish to reiterate the importance of cross-departmental collaboration in achieving the change necessary for our communities as well as our planet. Such contributions across Departments are vital to ensure that initiatives are future-proofed and receive sustainable funding. Ultimately, the current momentum within the sectors governed by DAERA must be sustained and built upon to achieve a greener and cleaner future for us all.

Today's motion is an annual Budget procedure, and I welcome the opportunity to speak on the matter.

In 2023, when the North had already suffered years of chronic underfunding, the Tories imposed cuts of up to £1 billion to our public services, including vital front-line services. As spokesperson and as a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I will focus on the impact that such cuts have made within the Infrastructure Department.

The remit of the Department is vast: from major capital projects and road safety to planning policy and water and waste water infrastructure. It also includes our public transport network and community transport, which is key to providing equal access to services and protecting people from social isolation. Many people depend on those services for getting to work or school and for connectivity. It also has a huge role to play in tackling the climate crisis and making our society greener and more sustainable.

Meanwhile, our roads are vital to our everyday lives. People deserve to be able to use our roads safely. Unfortunately, as it stands, our roads are not up to scratch. On that matter, I welcome the swift response taken by Minister O'Dowd, when he assumed office, to invest over £9 million in road repairs to help tackle the problem across the North.

Those are just a few examples of the importance of the Department. It is clear that those services are essential to our day-to-day functioning; so too are the staff who work vigorously to deliver them. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber agrees that we need to properly fund such essential services in order to deliver what people need and deserve. It is important to note that we are being underfunded, a sentiment recognised by the Fiscal Council.

Despite the difficult financial situation, I commend the work undertaken by Minister O'Dowd so far, including securing additional investment for road repairs, announcing measures to improve MOT services and progressing important schemes such as the A4 Enniskillen bypass.

On the issue of funding, I welcome the Irish Government's investment in important cross-border projects, including the A5, Narrow Water bridge and improving the Dublin to Belfast rail line.

Whilst positive developments have been made, it is clear that we are still in very challenging times. Sinn Féin is ready and willing to work with other parties in pressing the British Government to address their underfunding of the North. We need to rid ourselves of the devastating cuts and to properly fund our public services. It is important that we make our opposition absolutely clear to the British Government and make it clear that their harmful Budgets, which inflict harm on the most vulnerable, must come to an end.

I speak not only as justice spokesperson for the Alliance Party but as an East Antrim MLA and a member of the Justice Committee.

The past year has presented unprecedented challenges for the Department of Justice, making it one of the most difficult periods of its recent history. While I welcome the announcement of security funding and funding for the tackling paramilitarism programme, it rather pales into insignificance when compared with the underfunding that our justice system faces on all fronts. The stark reality is that our justice system is teetering on the brink. Despite the efforts of Ministers past and present, the unprecedented cost-saving efficiencies delivered by officials, which were further impacted by the demands of the Department of Finance and the Secretary of State, coupled with the shameful failure of those who brought down the Assembly for the past two years, mean that there is simply no financial room left. Since the devolution of justice powers, there has been a glaring disparity in the allocation of funding. While the Department of Health's budget has surged by 68% and that of Education by over 35%, Justice has been left behind with a meagre 3% increase that, amid escalating demands across the board, from policing and legal aid to prisons and youth justice, the impacts of new and important laws, coupled with inflationary pressures, has the potential to cause effects that will be felt at every corner of society that is impacted by our justice and police systems.

The Department's budget is stretched thin. It is consumed almost entirely by staff costs and statutory commitments, which relegate discretionary spending to less than 1%. Over the past decade, the Department has been squeezed tighter and forced to do more with less until, now, there is simply nothing left to trim. The growth of our prison population, which has seen a 30% increase since January 2021, has further strained our facilities to breaking point. That spike, driven by judicial delays and backlogs exacerbated by the pandemic, necessitates not only the doubling up of prisoners in cells but the reopening of outdated facilities, which, in turn, require more staff. That pressure-cooker environment jeopardises the stability of our prison system and the success of rehabilitation and resettlement programmes. I am keen to delve into those cornerstones of public safety in the future in the Justice Committee. The ripple effect extends to legal aid, a cornerstone of access to justice, yet, again, one that is chronically underfunded. The systemic underfunding and resultant delays corrode the very foundation of our justice delivery, affecting legal professionals and, ultimately, the timely and proper delivery for all.

Furthermore, it is crucial to recognise the demand-led nature of our justice system. Unlike in other services, we cannot predict who comes in or why. Often, those who enter the justice system have slipped through the nets of other support services, such as family support services and education, especially in cases of mental health issues or substance abuse. I have seen recently at first hand on a number of prison visits the shocking failure of those services and the impact that that has on the lives of people who would otherwise never be in prison. Our Department of Justice acts as the ultimate safety net, and this situation therefore demands from the Department of Finance a budget that is not only sufficient but forward-thinking and ready to tackle the issues directly.

In closing, the erosion of the Justice budget to funnel resources elsewhere poses grave risks. The services delivered by the Department of Justice are not merely line items but the bedrock of public protection: from community safety to policing and from our Courts and Tribunals Service and all the many and varied roles and responsibilities of the Department of Justice. While today's debate is about looking back on the finance of the Department, without a significant realignment of the Justice budget to reflect its critical needs, we will face, and we stand to face, profound consequences.

Minister, this is another long one for you today. Thank you very much for sticking with us; there are a lot of us contributing today. We are here to vote on the spring Supplementary Estimates, and I appreciate that it is a technical matter that completes the financial year that has just gone past. We should also look forward to when we will consider the Vote on Account that enables the Executive to spend money to keep this place afloat until such time as a Budget for 2024-25 is created.

This is the perfect opportunity to discuss the impacts of the 2023-24 Budget, as so many who have spoken before me today have done. As communities spokesperson for the Alliance Party, I get to see how difficult the lack of a progressive Budget is for the people who live in Northern Ireland. The Department for Communities recently reissued its 'Northern Ireland Poverty and Income Inequality Report, 2022/23'. It confirms that we have more children and more working-age adults living in absolute poverty. I expect that, when the updated report is issued for 2023-24, the numbers of people living in poverty will increase again, and that is shameful.

In response, an emerging group of 14 organisations called Cost of Living 24 that includes Inspire Wellbeing, Housing Rights, South Tyrone Empowerment Programme (STEP), Advice NI, Carers NI and the Healthy Living Centre Alliance will launch an online, updated cost-of-living response based on the Inspire Wellbeing website that was launched during COVID. Cost of Living 24, on the Community Wellbeing NI website, will be aimed at people accessing support for the first time, which is a trend that we see across our food banks in Northern Ireland. It is not just people on benefits but people who are working who can no longer afford to heat their home and eat. The website will offer advice on money and debt, food and energy costs, benefits and grants, and housing, including what help may be available for people who are in rent or mortgage arrears. It will offer support for people with disabilities, carers, older persons and those with pet expenses and provide details of local advice centres across Northern Ireland.

The reason that the group has stepped up is that the Trussell Trust reported in February 2024 — this is looking back at the financial year that we have just come through — that 55% of people receiving universal credit in Northern Ireland ran out of food in January 2024 and could not afford more. Some 14,000 people claiming universal credit in Northern Ireland have needed to use a food bank in the past month. More than half of the people claiming universal credit in Northern Ireland — 62% — are either behind on bills and credit commitments or find it a constant struggle to keep themselves warm. Four in 10 people — 62,000 people claiming universal credit — have fallen into debt because they could not keep up with essential bills.

The 2023-24 Budget was, as we know, set by the Secretary of State because there was no Executive and no Assembly. It was only when this place was finally able to get back to work that moneys from the agreement could be released to take some pressure off the people who live in poverty, people whom we are supposed to help. Additional money was able to be spent on discretionary support, which is a lifeline to the people whom the Trussell Trust talked about.

In the past year, we did not have enough money to build enough homes. We have the worst waiting lists for social housing and the highest ever number of people who are homeless. Our partners in the community and voluntary sector, on whom we depend to deliver so many social interventions, including supporting people and access to employment and training for those who are furthest from employment, need the financial confidence of multi-year Budgets. Having worked for many years in that sector prior to becoming an MLA, I am fully aware of the pressures placed on those organisations. Their staff face the constant threat of redundancy; in some cases, it is an annual threat. The freeze on Northern Ireland Civil Service recruitment means that the Department for Communities is under significant pressure to deliver large programmes of work, including the move to universal credit.

Looking forward, we need to change how this place works. We need a Programme for Government that is underpinned by previously agreed strategies such as the anti-poverty strategy, which should include targeted actions to ensure that no child here lives in poverty. Social strategies, including the disability strategy, the racial equality strategy and the investment strategy, are all listed as key supporting strategies, and we have already agreed them in the House.

We also need to improve our timing to ensure that the Budget works to deliver the Programme for Government. That is not what, I suspect, will be the case in 2024-25, where the Budget will determine and limit actions. I therefore challenge the Minister of Finance to confirm how she will ensure that such a large Vote on Account is not needed again in this mandate. I ask her to give a commitment to the House that the 2024-25 Budget will be the last Budget in this mandate that is brought to the House before a Programme for Government is decided.

As I said, we need to look forward and change how this place works. We need to commit to upholding a working Government to ensure that we never again leave people in Northern Ireland to suffer under a Budget introduced by a Secretary of State. We can do that through reform, whereby every Member in the Assembly has an equal vote and vetoes are no longer the shadow hanging over this place or the people whom we are supposed to support. Minister, I hope that you can give me that commitment today.

I speak today as the Alliance spokesperson for health, and I will highlight some of the priorities facing the Department of Health.

As my colleagues have indicated, we will support the motion, and I thank the Finance Minister for tabling it. As we have heard many times today, there is no question that every Minister and Department are facing severe financial pressures, and Health is no different.

In the Health Committee on 14 March, the Minister indicated that additional significant investment would be required to deal with some of the key issues facing the Department. We can see some of those pressures throughout our health service. We have previously discussed waiting lists in the Assembly, and it must be an urgent priority of the Department to tackle our unacceptable waiting lists. Too many people across Northern Ireland are suffering as they languish on waiting lists, getting sicker, losing mobility, having mental health issues and, sometimes, not even getting the surgery they have waited for.

We will all have heard the shocking statistics over the last few months and years, but a recent report on the performance of Northern Ireland's healthcare highlighted that 60% of patients had waited for more than a year for in-patient treatment at June 2023, compared with just 5% of patients waiting more than a year to complete the entire pathway from referral to treatment in England. The report starkly describes a system operating at the very edge of its capacity and capability, highlighting that it is not fit for purpose and needs to evolve considerably in the coming years.

Domiciliary care is another area that urgently needs to be addressed. Many people cannot access domiciliary care packages to ensure that they can be cared for in their home. In November 2021, Minister Swann invested £23 million to improve the terms and conditions of domiciliary care workers in the independent sector. That was welcome at the time, but we need further protection and support for our domiciliary care workers. It was also welcome that the first Adjournment debate of this Assembly mandate was about domiciliary care packages. It affects many families in East Antrim, and I am sure that that is the same for all MLAs across the Chamber.

As mentioned in that debate, the timely provision of domiciliary care packages lessens the pressure on hospitals and therefore on waiting times by allowing people to be supported in their own home. Being able to safely discharge patients when they become medically fit makes more beds available in the wards for patients who need to be admitted for care and improves patient flow throughout our hospitals. People are arriving at A&E departments in ambulances, waiting outside in an ambulance and then waiting in crowded A&Es for a bed for further treatment. Further investment is required to continue to alleviate the pressures on the domiciliary care sector.

Another crisis in our community is our community pharmacy sector. The Department of Health has taken a number of measures in recent months, such as the authorisation of £4·8 million by the permanent secretary in November 2023 and £10·1 million authorised to help stabilise the service by the Minister in February 2024. Those were helpful but cannot resolve the long-standing funding deficit that has been building for over 15 years. In addition to resolving the £15 million shortfall, immediate policy changes are required, such as a reviewed community pharmacy contract and a drug tariff specific to Northern Ireland that recognises our unique factors.

The challenges facing our GP surgeries are also evident. We will all be very aware of the impact they have had on GP appointments. Every day, we hear from constituents about how difficult it is to access their GPs. The conditions simply are not there in the practices to meet demand. Chronic underfunding, a lack of proper workforce planning and the impact of the COVID pandemic have provided a perfect storm of conditions to lead the service to this breaking point. The findings of a recent Audit Office report include that almost one in three GP practices have sought crisis support services in the last four years; 13 practices handed back their contracts or gave notice of doing so between March 2022 and March 2023; and 39 practices were assessed as being at risk as of March 2023. That speaks to a full-blown crisis.

Primary care has become more difficult and challenging, particularly in rural areas, and I have seen that at first hand in my constituency of East Antrim. The year 2023 was the worst to date for GP surgeries having to hand back contracts. We must take steps to address the challenges facing general practice in Northern Ireland. That should include an indemnity solution for GPs in Northern Ireland, who are disadvantaged in comparison with the rest of the UK due to the higher personal cost of indemnity. We must also urgently recommence the roll-out of multidisciplinary teams that began in 2018 but has effectively stalled since then. As with so many of these issues, funding will be key.

The wider transformation of our health and social care service must be an overarching priority for the Department. The Bengoa report has been sitting on a shelf since 2016, and we have missed opportunities for genuine reform through the lack of progress on that. It was envisaged as a 10-year programme, but we are now more than three quarters of the way through that 10-year period with almost no progress. The main reason for that has been wider political instability. The absence of a functioning Executive and Assembly for five out of the last seven years has resulted in the absence of financial decisions and scrutiny. With last year's Budget, we saw the devastating impact of that stalemate, with an unaccountable Secretary of State making decisions over which we, as MLAs, had no say. Until we see genuine reform of our political institutions to ensure that never again can one party prevent the Assembly and Executive from functioning, we will not be able to commit to the transformation that is required to fix our health service and ensure the best outcomes for our people.

The importance of having an Executive and a Health Minister in place has been reinforced by the positive steps towards a pay settlement for the health and social care service in Northern Ireland through the proposed consolidated pay uplift and the non-consolidated payment. Minister Swann rightly identified pay as a priority. It is clear from the previous restoration in 2020 that progress can be made on such essential workforce issues only with a Minister and a full Executive in place. We must never again allow our valued healthcare staff to go without the fair pay that they deserve. Without the workforce, there is no health service and there can be no transformation.

While those pressures are significant and further investment is clearly needed, we must also assess the effectiveness of what we spend on the health service in relation to outcomes. We will continue to push for transparency on health spending to ensure that we get as much as we can for the money that is spent. The Minister must be clear on how investment is addressing the pressures and improving outcomes for the huge number of people who continue to suffer ill health, be that on waiting lists or in crowded wards or dangerously overcrowded A&E departments.

The Member's time is up.

Thank you.

This is, essentially, a farcical debate, because the first Supply resolution that we are discussing is for a financial year that is over. The whole purpose of the processes of the House is to sanction expenditure before it happens. Today, however, we have spent three or four hours debating expenditure that is already closed: a Supply resolution that refers to the 2023-24 Budget year.

When we had the debate on the Budget Bill a few weeks ago, the Minister came up with the lamest of excuses: she did not have time to prepare the Supplementary Estimates. That just does not bear scrutiny. These Estimates are not compiled by the Minister; they are compiled by her civil servants, who were not away for two years. They were working and had all the data on their system to produce this at speed. Yet, the Department chose not to produce it for the Budget debate and to have us debate the Budget blind to the figures. Then, belatedly and retrospectively, they produce a document that they could have had before us at the proper time, because it is the document that supports the Budget Bill.

We know, however, not least from today's Question Time, just how cavalier the Minister's attitude is to the law. When she was asked why she had broken the law at section 64(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which says that the Minister must lay a draft Budget Bill before the close of the financial year, she had no answer other than to pathetically say, "We must consider the circumstances that we are in". I am sorry, but, when I read section 64(1), I do not read, "The Minister of Finance shall, before the beginning of each financial year, lay before the Assembly a draft budget, unless the circumstances prevent it": it is a mandatory requirement. When I asked her what the legal consequences were for her and for the Assembly and the Executive of failing to live up to that statutory obligation, there was no answer. Perhaps there will be an answer to that question — perhaps I expect too much — in the round-up to the debate. I suspect not.

Here we are, debating something for which the money has been spent. It has all passed. Of course, some of the money was spent in a way that totally disregards the processes of the House, because almost £24 million was spent on black box, meaning that there was no statutory authority other than the Budget Bill, which has long since gone. The Department for Communities spent £11 million and the Executive Office spent almost £11 million on no statutory authority other than the Budget Bill. The advice is that you cannot spend above £1·5 million, if I recall correctly, other than on statutory authority. Yet the House spends £24 million without statutory authority, but, then, we seem to live in an environment where spending money is not a concern.

Look today at the 'Belfast Telegraph' article on the squandering on excessive salaries in the upper echelons of local government. We discover that every chief executive in local government in Northern Ireland is paid more than the First Minister or the deputy First Minister. Indeed, one of them, who did not do one day's work in the year in question because she was on suspension, was paid £188,000. The former chief executive of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, Anne Donaghy, was paid £188,000, and, in the same council, we have the scandal of a director, employed through an agency, getting paid over £1,000 a day. The council, in its foolishness, has just extended the contract for another 18 months. For two and a half years, instead of employing somebody through regular procurement processes, somebody has been employed at over £1,000 a day as a director in Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. Then we wonder why we are short of money.

If you look at all those chief executives, you will discover that some of them are paid almost as much as the Prime Minister. Some of them have not covered themselves in glory, like the chief executive of Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, Mr David Jackson, who has been the object of a number of adverse findings and whose council has been subject to a special audit adverse findings. I declare an interest as one of the complainants against him. He was found responsible for a number of issues, not least the infamous £1 land deal of that particular council. Yet he is paid £146,000 a year. Where is the accountability? We need not look to Stormont for accountability, but Stormont and a former Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs told us that the reform of local government would save £400 million. Where is it? It seems that the big savings that were promised turned into big salaries and big rate rises for our ratepayers. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, which I have been referring to, had a council rate rise of 10% this year. That is maybe no wonder, given that it is paying a non-attending chief executive more than the Prime Minister is paid and paying a director over £1,000 a day. Where is the financial accountability in all those things?

Then we come to the Vote on Account. Of course, that is at the huge level of 65%. No doubt, that is because the Executive have no confidence that they will be able to produce a Budget before the end of July, which is when the normal Vote on Account would run out. Therefore, they have given themselves the greatest possible headroom.

The Member's time is up.

We will get a Budget that will have no alignment with the missing Programme for Government —

The Member's time is up. Please take your seat.

— such is the farce and the shambles of this place.

Yes. OK. Great.

The Finance Minister is today effectively asking us to endorse a new round of Tory-mandated austerity. Once again, the Executive are allowing themselves to be constrained and directed by a Government who are intent on destroying our public services and imposing a fresh round of pay cuts on public-sector workers. When a Budget Bill was rammed through the Assembly some weeks ago in the absence of spring Supplementary Estimates, my party warned that the Government were pulling the wool over people's eyes. We warned that the lack of scrutiny would suit the Executive's nefarious short-term agenda but have wide-ranging and harmful implications for people across the North. Absurd as it is, we are not just retroactively approving the spending of money already spent, and the Finance Minister is not asking us to simply let Departments keep spending or avail themselves of the theoretical headroom that some Members alluded to. She is asking us to hamstring Departments at the behest of the Secretary of State and to sign up to a fresh round of cuts that will decimate our health service, schools and communities across the board when the time comes.

The motion refers to information that was provided to the Finance Committee on 20 March. Let me read something from that. The Finance Minister said:

"All Ministers have committed to constraining their Department's expenditure, including pay awards, to the budget allocation agreed by the Executive and not by the amount of headroom included in the SSEs, if it is higher."

There is talk about Tory austerity, but that is a commitment from Ministers, once again, to implement it. The Finance Minister said that she would work to ensure:

"the amount of Treasury funding required by any draft Budget does not exceed the amount notified by the Secretary of State".

What are those who bemoan Tory cuts saying when they agree to do their dirty work for them? What are they saying to the workers whose pay awards are outstanding? It was said earlier that pay awards were gratefully received by public-sector workers. First, it must be said that most of those workers were given a real-terms pay cut of about 6%. Secondly, we know that further education workers, transport workers, junior doctors and others are still in dispute and waiting for a pay rise. They will be due a further pay rise when all is said and done from today.

It does not take much to scratch the surface and see the Executive's regressive economic agenda. I say this to MLAs who will speak tomorrow of the need to fund this or that programme or service: think hard about what you are signing up to today. Think of the hypocrisy of bemoaning Tory cuts that your colleagues have agreed to endorse. How can you stand here with a straight face and talk about hospital waiting lists, educational underachievement, poverty and poor pay when you are foisting those very things on people and making them worse? If you truly believe that the money provided by the Tories is not enough, at what point do you stand up to them? Will you stick to the spending set out by the Secretary of State or will you invest in our health service, schools, housing or workers' pay — the future of our people? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you oppose Tory cuts while explicitly saying, as the Finance Minister has, in black and white, that you will adhere to their budget and their economic agenda.

I thank the Member very much — I nearly gave you a Minister title there — for giving way. Where will he get the money to spend on all that he talks about?

The Member has an extra minute.

The Member knows that I am not a Minister. Her party is in the Executive. The Member will know, if she listens to my speeches or to my comments in the Finance Committee, that I have repeatedly talked about the bulging corporate profits in the North. I believe that the Alliance Party still wants to cut corporation tax in the North. You do not? You have changed your position. OK, that is positive. We need to make those corporations pay more, but I have not heard your party talk about raising corporation tax. I am talking about your party clamouring for those organisations to pay more in corporate wealth taxes. If you are for doing that, I support you, and I am glad to see that you have changed position, but you are still for cutting corporation tax — you can clarify or challenge that if you want — or maintaining a corporation tax cut.

Will the Member give way?

I will give way again; sure.

I am interested to tease out with the Member that business about where the additional funding would come from. Given that the vast majority of businesses in Northern Ireland are small or medium-sized businesses that struggle to pay their employees and their tax bills, where exactly would that funding come from?

The Member knows that that is not who pays corporation tax; it is large organisations. Corporate profits have increased in the past two years, so there is plenty of money to be paid up. If you tackle corporate taxes, increase them, tax corporate profits and put them into public services, there will be plenty of money to fund our services. I note that the party opposite is opposed to that and wants, once again, to give tax breaks to corporations. We will not be endorsing this farce or this farcical economic strategy today. Workers and working-class communities deserve a lot better, and I do not think that we should accept that.

I call the Minister of Finance, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, to conclude the debate on the motion. The Minister has up to 40 minutes — sorry, 35 minutes. It is a big difference.

Thank you, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

I will delight Members by telling them that I do not intend to take that amount of time.

I thank Members, Chairs and Deputy Chairs, and all those who have contributed to today's debate. It is always helpful to me, as Finance Minister, to hear the views of respective Committees and Members on these important financial and economic issues that face all of us. I have noted the issues raised by Members, and, as I close the debate, I will endeavour to respond to the comments that have been made. Throughout the debate, a number of Members referred to this being a less than ideal process. I recognise that and have been very clear that it does not set a precedent for us going forward.

I will address some of the specific comments made by individuals. Matthew O'Toole, the leader of the Opposition, asked about the timescale for the outcome of the Executive's Budget. Obviously, he is quite correct that, in normal circumstances, that work should have been completed before the start of the financial year. As I have said on a number of occasions, we are not in normal circumstances. I have engaged with my ministerial colleagues over recent weeks to discuss the budget pressures facing all Departments. I will bring recommendations to the Executive shortly, and, subject to the Executive's agreement, it will be my intention to bring the Budget for 2024-25 to the Assembly before the end of the month.

The leader of the Opposition also criticised the absence of a multi-year Budget, and a number of Members referred to the desire for multi-year Budgets. Obviously, that is something that I would like to see as well. It is largely outside the Executive's control. Section 64 of the 1998 Act, which has been referred to during the debate, requires me, at least 14 days before laying a draft Budget, to lay a statement before the Assembly specifying the amount of funding for that year notified by the Secretary of State. I laid that statement on 26 March. It only covers the 2024-25 year, as that is the last year of the current spending review. Therefore, the Secretary of State could not tell me how much funding will be provided in the following two years, and, without that confirmation, I could not lay a Budget for those years. I can only budget according to the funding that has been notified to me, so it is not possible, at this point, to have a multi-year Budget.

Mr Brett asked about the EA non-teaching staff pay and grading review. I am pleased to confirm that, on 3 April, my officials provided expenditure approval for the proposed implementation of the non-teaching staff pay and grading review. It is now for the Department of Education to consider its affordability to ensure that neither the Department nor the Executive as a whole are at risk of overspending against the Budget. I understand that initial implementation costs are expected to be approximately £180 million, with recurrent costs in future years ultimately expected to be in the region of £93 million. That will form part of the consideration of the Budget for 2024-25.

Phillip also asked about the enhanced investment zone. The financial package that accompanied the restoration of the Executive included £150 million for the enhanced investment zone. That now combines the free ports and investment zone programmes into one enhanced investment zone. Treasury has indicated that that funding will be open to flexible use between spend and a range of tax levers. The policy prospectus was published on 26 March, and work is now being led on the enhanced investment zone by the Department for the Economy. I will work closely with the Economy Minister, and I look forward to further collaboration between our respective Departments as the policy and programme develops and given my lead role in liaising with Treasury on taxation and spending matters. As an Executive, we will ensure that we develop an enhanced investment zone that will deliver for people and businesses here.

Funding for shared and integrated schools was raised by some Members during the debate, including Eóin Tennyson and Nick Mathison. The Members quite rightly stated that, although ring-fencing on some of the former Fresh Start funding has been removed, the funding itself has not been removed but is available to the Executive to prioritise.

As I mentioned during Question Time, that funding has been provided to the Executive as resource, not capital. The Member will be aware that the Education Minister and I recently announced the Executive's commitment of £150 million to take forward the Strule Shared Education Campus. The Education Minister has also committed to taking forward the further 10 shared and integrated education projects through his Department's capital budget programme.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I would like some clarity on the issue. The 10 integrated education projects are at a very different stage of development from that of Strule. As I understand it, Strule does not yet have a business case, so why has the decision been made at this juncture to allocate the money to Strule now? Is it a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Is there a risk that all the schools will be disappointed as a result of the approach that the Ministers are taking?

The Member will appreciate that the specific issue with those projects falls to the Education Minister. A proposal was put to the Executive to earmark £150 million for the Strule campus. That is profiled over a number of years and is not a case of its receiving £150 million in one year. The Education Minister will have to prioritise the programmes that he takes forward as part of his capital budget programme.

Mr Tennyson, Joanne Bunting and Stewart Dickson raised issues with the Department of Justice budget and expressed concerns about the level of funding for that Department. Allocations agreed by the Executive for 2023-24 provided the Justice Minister with £75·3 million. That included some additional funding to address pay and other financial pressures in areas such as policing. There is still much to be done, and I, along with Executive colleagues, am working on the Justice budget for 2024-25.

The financial pressures that we face, however, far outstrip the funding that the British Government have provided. I continue to have robust conversations with counterparts in Treasury. As Members will appreciate, difficult decisions on the Budget will have to be made in the coming weeks. Mr Tennyson also raised the issue of revenue raising. That is an issue that all Departments are considering, but some have more ability than others to raise revenue in their area, and the Department of Justice is not one that has activities that lend themselves to revenue raising.

Mr McGrath raised the issue of health service waiting lists. The Member felt that applying the 65% Vote on Account across all Departments is not necessarily appropriate. I agree that waiting lists are unacceptably high. In February of this year, however, in responding to some of the latest waiting list statistics, the Health Minister indicated that some small gains had been made on the number of people waiting for inpatient and day-case admission. That is to be welcomed, and we all hope that that improvement continues. A small amount of money — £34 million — is available from the financial package for 2024-25 to tackle waiting lists, but it is clear that much more significant investment is needed if we are to achieve the transformation in the delivery of health services that is required. That is one of the reasons that I continue to press the case for the Executive's resources to be put on more of a long-term sustainable footing.

Mr McGrath also mentioned GP indemnity. I know and understand that the arrangements for clinical negligence indemnity are a matter of concern for GPs locally. It is my understanding that the Health Minister is considering a number of options to deal with those concerns. We can consider proposals when the Health Minister brings them forward.

Kellie Armstrong made some comments about the Vote on Account and the Programme for Government and asked me to confirm that I would not bring a 65% Vote on Account to the Assembly again. Earlier, I explained why I took the exceptional decision to set the Vote on Account at 65%. It was as a result of the timing of the restoration of the Executive, which came at such a late stage in the financial year. I can assure the Assembly that I will be doing everything that I can to ensure that the Budget-setting timetable for future years will follow a more normal timetable and that the Assembly will have the time that it needs to consider its Budget allocations. Kellie also asked me to confirm that no Budget would be brought to the Assembly in advance of a Programme for Government for the rest of the mandate. I fully agree that the Budget and the Programme for Government should go hand in hand. Although it will certainly be my intention not to have another Budget in advance of a Programme of Government, that is not entirely in my gift. I can, however, make the commitment that it is my intention that it will not happen.

Mr Allister mentioned the timing of the SSEs and asked why the documents could not have been produced earlier. He will be very well aware that the SSEs cannot be produced until the Executive have decided on their Budget and expenditure plans, to which the SSEs are written. That work could not be carried out until we had an Executive. Given the size of the documents and the detail that is required to be set out, Members will appreciate that they take some time to produce and publish.

There are a lot of issues that we could continue to debate all day, but I will draw my remarks to a close. I have tried to respond to issues raised by Members and, as always, the debate has been wide and varied, and significant points have been made. I thank Members for their contributions and attention. I ask Members to agree the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2023-24 and the Vote on Account for 2024-25.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

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

Resolved:

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

The next item of business —.

On a point of order —.

I am not finished yet. The next item of business is a motion to approve a statutory rule. Before we do that, however, I will take Mr Allister's point of order.

Thank you. Is it not a requirement of Standing Orders that financial votes are on a cross-community basis? I have heard no finding that that was so.

If you read Standing Orders, Mr Allister, you will see that that is required only at the final stage of financial —. I appreciate your point of order.

I ask Members to take their ease.

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