Debate resumed on motion:

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA Bill 14/22-27] be agreed. — [Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance).]

I thank the Finance Minister, on behalf of the Committee, for tabling the motion for debate today. The Committee continues to assist the AERA Minister and his Department to achieve the best outcomes within DAERA's budget allocation. It is worth highlighting the fact that, compared with last year, the Committee can now support and scrutinise the Minister's spending decisions in line with a Programme for Government and the Department's business plan.

Moving to the Budget itself, I will quickly remind Members of the allocations for DAERA and then move on to some specifics that the Committee has been considering with stakeholders and DAERA officials in evidence sessions.

Overall, DAERA has £630·7 million resource DEL, which is a £21·7 million increase on this point in 2024-25. It is significantly lower than the pivotal provisions for 2023-24 at around £764 million. The total net capital budget is £119·5 million for 2025-26 compared with total provisions of around £97·5 million for 2024-25. However, those allocations do not come close to what was bid for by DAERA, so, although any additional resource in June monitoring will be welcome, it will be unlikely to be anywhere near sufficient. Obviously, that will become more evident as we move through the year.

In last week's debate, I gave the example of the capital DEL, where the allocation is £119·5 million, which is £7·1 million less than DAERA's £126·6 million of inescapable and high-priority bids. The Committee recognises that the final budget remains an extremely difficult outcome for DAERA, and, at last week's meeting, we discussed with officials the bids for June monitoring to determine the extent of the pressures. We heard that the Department was asked to provide the Department of Finance with details of reduced requirements, bids reclassifications, technical issues to be addressed, annually managed expenditure (AME) changes or non-budget movements and potential equality impacts for bids and reclassifications. We were advised that DAERA has no reduced requirements, reclassifications, AME changes or non-budget movements and that no adverse equality impacts of its bids have been identified at this stage.

Officials advised of a non-ring-fenced resource DEL bid of £3·2 million for bovine tuberculosis compensation and that current estimates indicate that the existing allocation is not adequate to deal with the issue. The compensation is, of course, a statutory obligation for DAERA. At this stage last year, the Department bid for £28·8 million at June monitoring and received only £5·5 million, which covered half of the £11 million bid for bovine tuberculosis compensation alone. This year, the situation is no better at this stage. We heard from DAERA officials last Thursday that the compensation amount for 2025-26 is estimated to be around £47 million compared with around £43 million in 2024-25 and that the overall cost of the programme is estimated at around £65 million compared with £60 million in 2024-25. DAERA is relying on the fact that it is early in the financial year and that, in the past, the Executive have funded statutory duties throughout the year, through perhaps other monitoring rounds.

Following the review of DAERA's estimated 2025-26 non-cash depreciation and impairment charges, there is a projected £39·8 million requirement against an opening allocation of £31·8 million. DAERA has therefore bid for £8 million of ring-fenced resource DEL as part of the monitoring round. As part of June monitoring, DAERA has bid for £8·9 million in capital DEL as part of managing down the Minister's opening overcommitment. Specifically, that bid is for £4 million for tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI); £2·3 million for the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) and estates improvements; £1·3 million for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's (NIEA) country parks improvements; and £1·3 million for scientific equipment for the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI).

The Committee has held a number of meetings with the Minister and officials on the budgetary pressures in 2024-25 and those going into 2025-26. I highlighted a range of those pressures across DAERA's remit in the Chamber on 19 May.

The Committee remains concerned by the disparity between the resource DEL bids and the allocations for specific statutory functions and projects, ranging from as little as one sixth to around one half of what was bid for. The Committee is, of course, pleased that the Executive agreed to earmark resource DEL of over £300 million for agriculture, environment, fisheries and rural development, which was a really good piece of collaborative work in the Executive.

The Committee has considered the Minister's decisions over the past year to allocate funding towards his top priorities, which include tackling climate change and protecting the natural environment. At its meeting last week, the Committee heard that much of the climate change spend is now mainstreamed into areas such as the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP) and the Lough Neagh action plan. As I said previously in the Chamber, the Committee was pleased to hear that the Executive had also agreed indicative earmarked resource DEL allocations to DAERA at the June monitoring round of £1·4 million for employers' National Insurance contributions and £5 million for Lough Neagh.

I will now look at areas of spending that, I am sure, the Committee will discuss with the Minister in the not-too-distant future. When the Minister was here earlier, we heard about the remediation of the Mobuoy site, on which the legal case has been finalised, and the fact that a consultation is now taking place. The Minister pointed out the colossal amount of money that will be required to clear up the site, which is mind-boggling. In addition, at last week's meeting, we heard from officials about the new horticulture pilot scheme, which has an allocation of £7·7 million. Having recently completed the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill, the Committee was pleased to see development in the horticulture sector and feels that that is an untapped growth area for the wider agri-food sector. We look forward to seeing the uptake of those schemes, but we caution against the total budget being scooped up by larger organisations to the detriment of smaller growers with innovative ideas. Members have recently expressed concern that incentives are lacking to support farmers to play their part in improving the environment. That could lead to approaches with no carrot, just stick. With constrained budgets, there are concerns that the sticks outnumber the carrots.

We have continued our programme of external meetings and of hearing from stakeholders about the impact of funding shortfalls. The Committee looks forward to engaging with the Department on addressing its priorities throughout the year. As a general point, I highlight the fact that, although DAERA is leading many climate change actions, all Members need to be mindful of the relevant cross-cutting expenditure and its effectiveness in delivering the outcomes needed for a just transition for the whole of Northern Ireland. At the Balmoral show, we heard that farmers are committed to playing their part in improving water quality, but the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has warned, and continues to warn, that proposals fail to reflect the costs involved for farmers, the complexity of on-farm decision-making and the risks, potentially undermining environmental progress and farm viability.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Budget (No. 2) Bill. As we all have, I have spoken about the Bill on numerous occasions in the past couple of months. I will say a few words on the Health Committee's important role in scrutinising the health system and the Health Minister.

The Finance Minister has allocated £8·4 billion to the Department of Health. The Health Minister has outlined to the Committee that, even with that sum this year, he still expects to be short by some £600 million. When I look back at previous Budget debates, I see that, in the 2021-22 financial year, the initial resource allocation for the Department of Health was £6·45 billion. That means that, over four to five years, we will potentially have seen an increase in the Health budget of close to 50%. Whilst that shows the Executive's commitment to prioritise health, it is a worrying trend, in that we are seeing more and more money being put into a system that could and should function much better and in which patients are waiting longer and having worse outcomes. At present, we do not see an efficient system. We need to see change in our health system and how it works so that we do not end up, in another four to five years, seeing a similar increase in the budget with similar outcomes. All the money that is invested in the health service must be about ensuring the best possible outcomes for patients and citizens.

The Committee welcomes the £215 million that has been ring-fenced by the Executive to help to reduce our lengthy waiting lists, in line with Programme for Government commitments on health. It also welcomes the Minister's indications that there needs to be a system reset and that we need to see services shift left, out of hospitals and into primary care and our communities. It is worrying therefore that, at the first hurdle, the Health Minister has stopped negotiations with the BMA in relation to funding allocations for GP services. If we want to see a shift of services left, we need adequate resourcing and funding to ensure that all patients are treated equally and fairly.

Given all those challenges, scrutiny of the Health budget is imperative. Scrutiny ensures transparency, holds decision makers and our Health Minister accountable and allows for informed adjustments to allocations. The Health Committee has questioned the Health Minister, and will continue to do so, about whether funds are being used efficiently and the budget aligns with the strategic goals of improving patient outcomes and service sustainability. The Health Committee and the Assembly have a pivotal role in scrutinising the budget. We must ensure that allocations are equitable, justified and conducive to long-term health system improvements. We also see the need for public engagement. Citizens have the right to understand how funds are being utilised and to voice concerns about service delivery.

The Health Committee takes its role in scrutinising the budget seriously. The scrutiny of the Department of Health's budget for 2025-26 is not merely a procedural formality; it is a critical process so that we can determine the trajectory of healthcare here in the North. We look forward to doing that from next year, hopefully in an environment with multi-year budgets, which will really allow our health system to move forward at pace. We will continue to scrutinise the Health Minister throughout the 2025-26 year for the £8·4 billion that he has at his disposal in the Health budget and to ensure that patient outcomes are foremost in all the decisions that he takes.

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

The Committee is due to hear from officials about the Department's budget and financial position in the June monitoring round at our meeting later this week. It is unfortunate that the scheduling means that we will get an update after the debate. I am confident, though, that the key message will be the same regardless: Justice has been historically underfunded over many years and, as a result, despite an increased budget allocation this year, there are pressures right across the Department.

I will say once again what I have said in previous financial debates: the majority of the Department's budget is taken up with services that are demand-led, including, for example, policing, the Prison Service, the Courts and Tribunals Service and legal aid. The Department has little to no control over the level of demand for its services, which is showing no signs of slowing down. The Department received an opening resource DEL budget of £1,503 million, which includes ring-fenced funding of £87·7 million. The PSNI has been allocated £953·3 million of the resource allocation, which equates to over 63% of the total resource allocation. The Department has received a capital allocation of £100 million in the 2025-26 financial year, and the PSNI will account for almost 62% of that.

It is acknowledged that this is the largest ever budget settlement for the Department of Justice. I reiterate that it is welcomed by the Committee and the justice partners with whom we have engaged over the past number of months. However, despite that increase in funding, the Department still faces stabilisation pressures of some £31·6 million. Those include funding for pay, the much-needed PSNI workforce recovery, legal aid pressures and helping the Prison Service to cope with the increased prisoner population. Beyond those more immediate pressures, there are also the exceptional pressures of £227 million that I have mentioned in previous debates, relating to holiday pay, the PSNI data breach and the McCloud remedy.

Engagement continues with the Executive and the Department of Finance, as those pressures simply cannot be met from the Department's existing baseline.

The Committee has repeatedly heard from stakeholders about the impact that the lack of funding is having. Last week, we held an event in the Long Gallery to engage with community and voluntary sector organisations on the Justice Bill. A recurring theme was the need for greater investment in early intervention services to prevent people entering the criminal justice system in the first place. I should point out that that does not rest solely with the Justice Department; other Departments also have key roles to play. People often enter the justice system when other services have failed them, and cross-departmental collaboration across a range of issues is therefore crucial.

Concerns have frequently been raised in evidence to the Committee about the lack of suitable bail accommodation, legal aid funding, overcrowding in prisons and a crumbling courts estate. The PSNI might account for a significant proportion of the Department's overall budget allocation for 2025-26, but, still, it faces significant challenges. A recent report by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services found that continued financial pressures are adversely affecting service delivery. Members will be aware that the PSNI is implementing a workforce recovery plan, which aims to grow the number of police officers to 7,000 and staff to 2,500 over the next three years. It is important that sufficient funding is made available to allow that to happen. Officer numbers must grow.

In written evidence submitted to the Committee in advance of this week's oral evidence session, the Department states:

"difficult decisions ... will be required ... to live within the budget allocation. All business areas will be required to implement cost reductions and efficiencies."

We will explore that further with the Department, but it is a position that gives rise to concern, especially when we know that the justice system needs more investment.

This Budget (No. 2) Bill is about the year ahead, but I want to touch briefly on the provisional outturn for the past year, which has been included in our papers for this week's meeting. The Department had an underspend of £3·02 million, which equates to just 0·23% of its resource budget. The capital underspend was slightly higher, at 3·15%. Overall, however, that illustrates just how tightly the Department manages its budget and how little room for manoeuvre exists. The Committee and, indeed, stakeholders would welcome a move towards a multi-year Budget, which, we understand, is under consideration. The Committee previously heard that that would at least allow the Department and its justice delivery partners to commit to longer-term planning and may help with efficiencies. We all appreciate that the budgetary position is difficult across all Departments, but more needs to be done if we wish to address the long-term and sometimes critical pressures affecting the justice system. We need to equip the PSNI with adequate staffing and resources to keep our population safe and to increase confidence in policing. We need to put more resources into fixing our overcrowded prisons and crumbling justice estate. We need to invest in preventative and deterrent measures to stop people offending and the revolving door of reoffending; to reform legal aid; to reduce the time taken, both for payment and for cases to move through the justice system; and to improve access to justice, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society. In short, we need to invest properly and wisely.

I will now speak in my capacity as an individual MLA. As the DUP's justice spokesperson, I emphasise our support for the PSNI's call for additional resources. There can be no question that the Chief Constable should not have to choose between his legal requirements to keep people safe from harm and his legal obligations, as accounting officer, to balance the budget. Already, our communities are feeling the impact of fewer officers and a reduced presence, particularly in neighbourhood policing, which I know the police have striven to protect as much as possible. However, the reduced numbers are now being felt acutely, internally and externally. It is imperative that that does not result in a diminution of confidence in the police, in the justice system and, importantly, in the public's willingness to contact the police about crime.

Recently, the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) was in front of the Committee to brief us and outline progress on its November 2024 report, 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland: A Strategic Overview'. It is one of the most damning reports that I have ever read. It was clear that, whilst good work is being undertaken, the Department and its bodies are not necessarily pulling in one direction and with one purpose. Silo working is a problem, but not just within the justice system or Justice Department. CJINI highlighted the lack of a collectively agreed vision and strategic priorities shared by the DOJ and key criminal justice organisations. In these times of considerable financial constraints, it is imperative that that be rectified as quickly as possible. The Department and its branches must pull in one direction, and priorities should be aligned and in keeping with the agreed Programme for Government. Collaboration will be key to efficiency. If that cannot be managed within one Department, how do we expect more efficient and effective cross-departmental working, which is fundamental to success, between Health and Justice particularly? Moreover, given that the Department is flagging that it may be required to cut services, we must be careful what we choose to add to the statute books.

The prospect of three-year Budget cycles is welcome. They should provide much greater stability for organisations and people. Annual Budgets are far from ideal for those in the community and voluntary sector. Three-year Budgets should afford them the ability to properly financially plan. As it stands, and through no fault or desire of the sector, there is little job stability; difficulty securing credit for mortgages and loans etc; and employees regularly end up being put on notice and/or spending a great deal of their time chasing funding rather than on focusing on the projects that they are seeking to deliver. That perpetual state of instability is no way to live. Given the extent to which government relies on the sector, we must do better for the service provider and for the sake of service users.

I am acutely conscious that we must provide value for taxpayers' money at every level and cut our cloth accordingly. We have repeatedly been made aware of the consequences for future funding allocations should we not do so. Hence, I want to be clear that my view and that of the DUP is that now is not the time for wasteful spending on niche and pet projects to pursue political agendas. Rather, now is the time to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have access to the fundamentals and basics — the services that they need and use — and that everything that is taken forward and every penny that is spent is for the benefit of all and not the few.

Will the Member give way?

I am nearly finished, Eóin; I am sorry.

Now is the time for wisdom, fiscal prudence, common sense and effective and efficient stewardship of the taxpayers' hard-earned funds.

The Executive Office is an unusual Department in that it has a relatively small budget, as I outlined last week during the debate on the Supply resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2025-26, but a diverse portfolio of expenditure. That ranges from highly sensitive issues, such as victims and survivors of the conflict, historical institutional child abuse and mother-and-baby institutions, to such items as strategic investment and the maintenance of the three overseas offices of the Executive. The diversity of the Department's responsibilities requires enhanced scrutiny to keep track of the different strands of the work that is undertaken by the Executive Office and to ensure that public money is spent wisely and well. That requires detailed planning on the part of the Department and time for the Committee to receive the necessary financial information, subject that information to scrutiny and discuss departmental expenditure in an open and public manner.

Public consultation on and parliamentary scrutiny of Budgets are essential components of any democratic society. Victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions need to know that the resources are there to consult on and initiate legislation to establish a public inquiry into what happened to them and to provide them with the support and redress that they deserve. People working towards peace and reconciliation in our communities need to know when and how much they will be paid to undertake the challenging work that they are engaged in. People living in the north-west or south-east need to know that investment in strategic sites is being efficiently and appropriately spent. How can the public be sure that the money is being spent wisely if the Committee does not have the information in a detailed and timely manner?

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

I will now make a number of points in my capacity as an Alliance Party MLA, including some about the value for money of our overseas offices. As I have said in Committee, I am concerned that we are spending over a quarter of a million pounds every year on our office in Beijing. That office has been operating for 11 years now. I think that the most recent press statement from it was issued in 2018 and that the most recent tweet from it was in 2020. We have absolutely no idea whether the office represents value for money from the public purse. When departmental officials were before the Committee recently, I asked them, "At what point do you say, 'This is not worth it for us'". I can see the value in the Brussels office and in the Washington office, but I am yet to be convinced that we should continue to have an office in Beijing. Minister, your officials should be working with Executive Office officials to assure us that money is being spent properly. If it is not, its closure is something that needs to be looked at.

I also have some concerns about the overall direction of the Communities in Transition funding and some projects that are funded under the banner of good relations. We know that some excellent work is taking place in our communities, but some of the projects being funded that the Committee has been given as examples could, frankly, sit under Belfast City Council's capacity building funding or Public Health Agency grant funding. I am concerned that the money is not being spent as wisely as it could be and not having the desired outcomes of delivering on our shared future, peacebuilding and moving forward as a society as a whole. When I ask questions about, for example, the monitoring and evaluation of some of the programmes, I hear vague answers or get responses such as, "We are looking at that as part of a wider review". When I then ask about that wider review, I am referred to another answer. I am therefore concerned about the best use of public money in that space.

I begin this latest debate on the Budget by highlighting the importance of the British Government's spending review, which will be delivered this week. The decision by the Labour Government to continue with a decade and a half of Tory austerity measures following the party's election victory last summer has left us facing another challenging Budget. This week is an opportunity for the British Chancellor to change course and move away from her policy of cuts, which hurt some of the most vulnerable in society, and instead to choose to prioritise investing in public services.

The Finance Minister has sought to prioritise the delivery of public services in these challenging financial circumstances not only by providing additional money to reduce health waiting lists and for childcare but by investing in key infrastructure projects, which are vital for developing our economy and helping address regional imbalance. He is also pressing the British Treasury to ensure that we are funded at our level of need. I am conscious that this Budget is due to be the final single-year Budget. I welcome the move towards having multi-year Budgets, as they will enable planning to take place on a strategic, longer-term basis. Given the Assembly's limited fiscal powers, however, the spending decisions made in London will continue to have a significant impact on our Budget until we have constitutional change.

I apologise for not being here for the entirety of the debate. Unfortunately, we had to attend the funeral of a very dear member of the Ulster Unionist Party, Pamela Stewart. I think that every member of our party, and the many people who knew her, will pass on their condolences to the family at this very sad time.

Minister, I am glad that the Member behind you talked about the fact that the comprehensive spending review announcement is coming this week. We are talking about the Budget (No. 2) Bill, but we know that there may be some extra allocations coming in our direction in a short time. We also know, however, that those extra allocations are highly unlikely to meet the various challenges that we have across all the Departments. We have already heard from the Chairs of Statutory Committees. It is very clear that there are challenges everywhere, but it would be remiss of me not to point out that the Department of Health is looking at how to deal with a challenge of close to £600 million.

There will be very many questions about capital allocations, particularly to capital projects. Speculation is already beginning over a particular capital project in the sporting field. That seems to be developing at the moment.

There is something that, I think, is important, Minister, and you could maybe comment on it in your closing remarks. I do not expect you to say anything about the CSR, because we will wait to hear what Rachel Reeves says. However, we can note today that she has mentioned the issues with the winter fuel allowance and the fact that she has walked back on that. From that, it can only be surmised that she will walk back on several other issues. Even though some Members have talked about the Labour Government's approach to continuing austerity, there seems to be a general shift away from that direction. The question that I would like the Minister to address is this: bearing in mind the constraints of the Budget (No. 2) Bill and the speed at which we do the monitoring rounds, how quickly will we be able to look at getting anything that comes from the CSR, which is likely to come through on Wednesday? How quickly before the Assembly breaks up for the summer, Minister, can you come here to explain to Members or, indeed, to Departments how those moneys are likely to be allocated so that we can look to the autumn and do some decent long-term planning?

If anything in the media is to be believed, the spending review will probably look at spending that will be spread out over the next three years of the budgetary review process. I again ask the Minister to look closely at that and to engage with Departments on how we can start to plan and profile those moneys over the next three years so that, as many Members said, we can get good value for money.

A Steve, comhbhrón.

[Translation: My sympathy, Steve.]

Very briefly, let me say that I am sorry for your loss and offer my condolences.

Our next speaker is Nick Mathison.

As Chair of the Education Committee, I will speak on behalf of the Committee in the first instance. The Committee was comprehensively briefed on this year's resource budget by officials on 7 May and had a briefing on the capital budget in March. Along with other Committee Chairs, I have spoken extensively on the 2025-26 Budget in recent debates, the most recent of which was last week's debate on the Supply resolution for the Main Estimates. I will therefore set out only briefly the financial position that the Budget represents for the Department of Education.

The Department has received just over £3·2 billion in non-ring-fenced resource and £391 million in capital. Despite that representing an improved budgetary position from last year, officials continue to report inescapable pressures in excess of £300 million in resource spending and £83 million in capital spending affecting the Department. I will not rehearse the areas of pressure in detail again today, suffice it to say that it will undoubtedly be schools and the Education Authority (EA) that will feel the pressures most acutely in day-to-day spend. The most up-to-date school budget deficit figure sits at £180 million. That is a staggeringly high figure that, unfortunately, has been going in the wrong direction for many years. As the budget comes under more and more pressure, it is, in the main, schools that struggle to balance the books and deliver basic statutory services to our children. Regrettably, the Committee fully anticipates future departmental updates to continue to present that crisis picture for school budgets in the year ahead. While that adds substantial pressure on teachers and principals who work in the system, ultimately, it is children and young people who will lose out.

That £300 million in resource pressures should not be referenced lightly, and the Committee certainly does not take it lightly. If the EA were required to find savings of that value, the impact on front-line service delivery and education could be devastating. Special educational needs (SEN) pupil support services; school transport services; catering services; specialist education supports; our youth services; and routine school building maintenance — those are just some of the direct front-line areas where the impact will, undoubtedly, be felt. The Committee will continue to monitor closely the savings and efficiencies that the EA is being asked to make and to prioritise the delivery of work to support SEN learners and SEN transformation and to invest in early years, childcare and measures to tackle educational disadvantage, as those are key strategic priority areas on which the Committee continues to focus.

The challenge to deliver meaningfully on the priorities that the Committee has identified is significant, given that the Budget that is being presented makes delivering basic statutory services difficult, but that is the funding picture that we are looking at across the Departments. The Committee will continue to scrutinise all aspects of the Minister's spending plans and delivery in the year ahead, particularly after the comprehensive spending review. While it recognises the undoubted pressures, the Committee will expect to see evidence of the Department delivering efficiencies where possible while still delivering for children and young people as a priority.

I will make a few closing remarks in my capacity as an Alliance education spokesperson. A Budget position that presents such a level of pressure on all Departments, including Education, is not where any Member wants to be. However, it is clear that — Members have referenced this — the position that we saw last year, with Barnett consequentials flowing into Departments, is not likely to be repeated. Departments across the board have to make difficult decisions in order to live within their means. We are voting to give legal authority for significant sums of money to be spent across our Departments, but that should not obscure the pressure that they are feeling.

It is in that context that I again call on the Education Minister to set out a clear vision of transformation for education. We cannot continue to maintain a cumbersome, bureaucratic, divided and complex education system and not expect those pressures to be exacerbated every year. I am concerned that the budget is often directed at just keeping the system running without questioning whether that system delivers effective services for our children and young people.

We are a year and a half on from the report of the independent review of education, but I have yet to see any real appetite for some of the structural reform that is needed. I will highlight the three key areas of work that, as far as I can see, the Minister and Department need to take seriously. First, we need to take a strategic look at our school estate. We have too many schools, and the schools that we have are often in the wrong places. That creates additional costs in maintaining and delivering the system and in delivering an effective school transport system. Clear steps are needed to establish an independent area planning commission on the long-term direction of travel in order to rightsize our school estate so that we can effectively deliver prudent spending on education that meets the needs of our children and young people effectively rather than unquestioningly accepting that the school estate that we have is the one that we must work with. If we do not start to have those conversations, we will not make the progress that we need to see.

There is too much duplication in the system. Our schools compete with our further education colleges and with one another, chasing pupil funding across school sectors and types. We desperately need an effective 14-19 strategy and an ambition to reform the outdated practice of academic selection in order to deliver a sustainable and fit-for-purpose education system that works collaboratively, not competitively. The fact that conversations are difficult, as those undoubtedly are, does not mean that we should not have them. I hope that the Minister will show leadership in that regard in what is left of the mandate and in the incoming financial year.

Finally, we need to reduce bureaucracy, not add to it. As far as I can tell, the most significant intervention that the Minister has outlined in progressing the report of the independent review of education is setting up a managing authority for controlled schools. In the budgetary position in which we find ourselves, I do not see how the case can be made for another arm's-length body. We need to move towards a single managing authority and the efficiencies that were promised in the establishment of the EA but have yet to be delivered. Leadership and ambition are needed if we are to see change in education. Change is undoubtedly required.

The Budget creates massive challenges for our schools. It creates huge challenges and pressures on the effective delivery of a SEN delivery and transformation plan and of investment in education more broadly. Many Members have highlighted the fact that the introduction — we hope — of multi-year Budgets could play a key part in enabling some of that transformative planning to be brought forward, but that planning and those multi-year Budgets need to be informed by a genuinely transformative agenda. We cannot just do more of the same but with multi-year Budgets. We need an ambition for something better. If we want to move beyond the cycle of cuts and last-minute rescue plans in monitoring rounds in Education, it is time to start serious conversations about the long-term structural reform of our system.

Thank you, Nick. Had I known that you would speak as Chair of the Committee, we would have made arrangements, but we did not know in advance. I just put that on record.

In my role as the Alliance representative on the Justice Committee, I will make some short remarks regarding the Department of Justice's financial position.

The Bill indicates a positive allocation for the Department of Justice, which has been underfunded to a significant degree over the past decade. In this year's Budget, the Department of Justice received the third-largest non-ring-fenced resource departmental expenditure limit alongside £100 million in capital spend. That reflects what I know to be the work that is ongoing in the Department to ensure that the Finance Minister and his predecessor have an understanding that the services that Justice funds, whether they are courts, prisons, police or support for victims and witnesses, are incredibly vital public services that deserve our attention alongside the likes of health and education.

Aside from Justice's core budget, I welcome the additional £5 million of investment in creating safer communities, as driven by our shared goals in the Programme for Government, and an additional £23 million of funding for justice-related transformation. Those moneys will go towards speeding up and transforming our criminal justice system so that we can provide quicker resolutions for victims and invest in electronic tagging to provide real-time monitoring of offenders. All the funding will contribute to the Justice Minister's plans to deliver effective services for victims, keep our streets safe and make access to justice easier, faster and more effective for everyone.

Funding for the PSNI has been much discussed recently in the Chamber. The Minister's commitment to stabilising the police is demonstrated through the fact that the PSNI currently receives approximately 65% of the Department's core budget, alongside the vast majority of the additional safer communities funding. It is to be welcomed that the PSNI recovery business case has been approved as being value for money. The Minister and her officials continue to engage with the Department of Finance and the wider Executive to ensure that the funding needed to fulfil the ambitions of that plan is provided.

This year's positive budget outcome does not change the fact that our justice system has been grossly underfunded for a number of years. While Stormont's block grant has increased by 66% in 14 years to 2025-26, DOJ's budget has grown by just over 25%. As a proportion of the total block grant, the Justice budget is now smaller than it was in 2011, despite the growing demands being placed on our prisons, courts, police service and other parts of the justice system. For example, the complexity of modern cases due not least to the mass and importance of digital evidence can make those cases harder and longer to investigate and process through the courts. Our prison population has risen, and many people arrive with complex or undiagnosed needs. Lack of capacity in health and social services means that the justice system is unfortunately becoming the place of last resort for people who should be supported by other public services instead. The costs of legacy systems have never been properly reflected in our devolved funding model. While critical to providing truth and justice for victims and survivors, they are, undoubtedly, on the capacity of the contemporary justice system. Those are just some examples of the extra demands. We need to reverse the historic underfunding to fully address them. This year's Budget is a welcome one, but it must be the beginning to build something better on a sustained, long-term basis.

Before I wrap up, I will say that it is positive to see the Budget and have a Programme for Government that states:

"A central role of government is to protect its citizens."

Now we have to get on with the hard work of delivery. We need continuity, and we need multi-year Budgets to allow for planning. We need transformation so that the public know that they can trust us to deliver for them.

Every time I open a Budget Bill, it strikes me that even the most nationalist of MLAs in the House must appreciate our place in the United Kingdom and the financial advantages that it brings.

Since coming to the House, we have all — me included — made the case for a more appropriate financial settlement for Northern Ireland based on our unique circumstances. I welcome the appointment of Professor Holtham and look forward to what he has to say ahead of the spending review. However, all that should not blind us to the reality of the eye-watering figure in clause 1(2) of the Bill: £30,772,659,000. Every time a Minister comes to the House and tells us that they have no money for front-line services, that is a figure that every MLA should bear in mind. What did the Executive do with their £30,772,659,000?

I fear that, once the "Made in Stormont" stamp is applied, that is when the squandering starts. We always have to bear in mind and think to ourselves: did we make the best use of that money? Well, my belief, going by the Budget that is before us today, is that we certainly did not.

This Executive are set to continue on their course of squandering money on things that the people of Northern Ireland see no benefit from. In recent days, I have highlighted the fact that the money allocated on page 6, line 11 to the Loughs Agency is of questionable value. That body could disappear in the morning and no one would notice, as its functions could be adequately performed by existing agencies in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The truth, of course, is that this place is not interested in finding efficiencies when it comes to the sacred cows of cross-border bodies. No one in this Chamber questions the fact that this Budget, when cross-referenced with the Estimates from last week, will see the Loughs Agency get £44,444,000. No one asks what better use could be made of £44 million than giving it to a body with a poor enforcement record, almost no prosecutions and excessive spend on PR and money for scientific work that could be done elsewhere. That £44 million would fund between 176 and 220 GPs a year: 200-odd GPs or the Loughs Agency? I know what I would rather the money is spent on.

Let us look at the Department of Health's allocation in this Budget. Minister Nesbitt is constantly telling us about the challenging financial position that he faces. I certainly do not dispute that, but, when I look at his budget, what do I find? In line 8 on page 20, I discover that our Health budget includes money for the Food Safety Promotion Board. That organisation is based in County Cork and does not employ a single person in Northern Ireland, yet we fund it out of the Health budget — according to the Estimates, which we debated last week, to the tune of £2,117,000. That is enough to fund between 47 and 59 band 5 nurses.

Members, I could go on and on, but I will concentrate my next remarks on the Assembly Commission. On page 31 of this Bill, that body is getting funding of £62·6 million, according to the Estimates, so that MLAs can award themselves a pay rise and, while doing so, recruit a media monitoring service to type up the transcripts of anyone who dares be critical of this Assembly on 'The Nolan Show' and other shows. What would Northern Ireland do with £62·6 million if we did not have a Assembly? Well, you could get over 2,000 full-time classroom assistants. Let us think about it. Ninety MLAs and all that goes with us, or a couple of thousand classroom assistants? I know what parents would choose.

I will spend a short time focusing on a few issues related to the Executive Office. As a member of the Executive Office Committee, I have been able to probe that Department a little more. I want to get the Finance Minister's view on how some of the money for ending violence against women and girls is currently being spent. That is a flagship policy of TEO and is referenced in the Executive Office spend on line 13 of page 29, yet, when we on the Committee drill down into how that money is being spent, we find that a lot of it is simply being doled out to councils — bodies that have, at best, a limited role in stopping violence against women and girls. The Committee has asked all councils for the criteria under which they have awarded the grant money. From the responses received to date, it is a bit of a scattergun approach, with no individual themes or criteria, it appears, being set by TEO. It sounds good that we are spending £2 million to tackle that issue, but surely a collective strategy is required to target problem areas and deliver better outcomes going forward. Take a step back: surely, instead of the Executive's Office's current approach, that money could be better spent by the PSNI and women's sector organisations such as Women's Aid

That section of the Bill also deals with the money required for redress for historical child abuse. I want to make two points about that. The House previously passed a Bill dealing with historical institutional abuse. The Committee will shortly begin looking at a Bill dealing with mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. The approach in that Bill is in stark contrast to the approach in Scotland, where they started with the child and looked at how common child abuse was and sought to address the problem from there. In Northern Ireland, we are again looking at the buildings in which the abuse happened rather than at the child who suffered the abuse. As one expert in the area asked me, why should a child who suffered abuse in an institution get redress and the child who suffered abuse in a foster home be excluded? Abuse is abuse. I have a second concern about that upcoming Bill: it cannot make the same mistake as the Historical Institutional Abuse Act, which, again, unlike the legislation in Scotland, failed to build in any provision to require institutions to contribute to compensating victims for the abuse suffered while in their care. We have a farcical situation whereby we have a mediator acting for the Executive Office who, apparently, has the job of sometimes asking the institutions nicely if they would mind terribly contributing —

Timothy.

— something to the scheme.

Timothy, this is a very sensitive issue. I invite you to come back to the Budget Bill, please. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Across the water, the same religious institutions are required by statute to contribute to compensating victims. To date, we do not have that in statute in Northern Ireland. I am passionate that that needs to change. I ask the Minister of Finance, as the guardian of public money, for an assurance that the legislation that is brought forward will have that requirement built in.

On Communities in Transition, we are beginning to fund phase 3, and we are still funding the same areas as we did in phase 1, which were identified in data that was collected in 2016. We are told that new areas have been identified but will be supported only if additional money becomes available. One must ask oneself: when do communities in transition become transitioned? That is a question that none of the Executive Office officials has been able to answer to date.

The next topic that I want to touch on is addressed in line 38 on page 28 of the Bill, which refers to:

"actions associated with Refugee and Asylum Seeker support and integration"

During the debate on the Main Estimates last week, I highlighted the fact that a number of schemes within the scope of the Executive Office rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act. Five of the 10 schemes listed across the entire sector relate to issues associated with migration: the full dispersal asylum seeker scheme, costing £750,000; the Homes for Ukraine scheme, costing £1,965,000; the strategic migration partnership scheme, costing £37,000; the Northern Ireland refugee resettlement scheme, costing £200,000; and the Afghan citizens resettlement programme and Afghan relocation and assistance policy, costing £1,750,000. Taken together, the cost of those schemes comes to a grand total of almost £5·5 million. The Minister's guidance states that the authority of the Budget Act should be relied on only in certain limited circumstances, and normally for expenditure of no more than £1·5 million. Yet, here we are approving a Budget containing more than three and a half times that figure — an amount that is explicitly marked for issues relating to immigration. Quite apart from all the hidden costs, there is no legislation in place for it.

Why is this place, and specifically our First Minister and deputy First Minister, so anxious to avoid debate on those serious issues, which have been caused by immigration? Stormont needs to face the reality that, while immigration policy is not devolved, the task of dealing with it falls largely to the Executive Office.

Mr Gaston, please get back to the Budget debate. We are not having a debate on immigration.

We are not, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I know that that is your point.

It is an issue that is contained in the Bill. I have referenced —.

Excuse me. Thank you, Timothy. I love your references, your page numbers and your line numbers, but I ask you to get back to the Budget debate. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for acknowledging the work that I have put in to ensuring that I am staying within the remit of the Budget Bill and this debate.

I will bring my remarks on those matters to a close. One must ask oneself whether all this money that is being spent is being well spent. Is it delivering? Look at the actions that happened in Ballymena over the weekend. I believe that that is a problem. We are pouring money into strategies that are simply not delivering.

I will move on to my next point and bring my remarks to a close. I want to make some observations about the efficiency — rather, the lack of it — in the Executive Office. Last week, I commented on the fact that TEO has spent over £126,000 on foreign travel, including flying a civil servant out to brief the First Minister when she was on holiday instead of using a video call. I will conclude with some observations on the expenditure of the head of the Civil Service, which is addressed at line 24 on page 27 of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The head of the Civil Service sails around the US in a private car, and the deputy First Minister uses another vehicle, while lowly Ministers such as Minister Nesbitt and Minister Lyons get by using public transport. Last week, the 'News Letter' revealed that the head of the Civil Service's budget has increased from £487,891 in the year before Mrs Brady took up her post in 2021 to a staggering £848,586 in the last financial year.

This Budget wastes too much on vanity, duplication and unaccountable bodies. Too little is spent on things that matter. At the centre of it all, the Assembly absorbs millions while too many working families struggle to access basic services. I began by pointing out the figure of £30 billion in the Budget, but now consider this: if the public ever ask, "Where did our £30 billion go?", what will you say as an MLA or a Minister? They will not find the answer in a hospital ward or a classroom. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Timothy.

Another year, another austerity Budget that fails to deliver the public services that people need and deserve. People are sick to the back teeth of hearing the Executive talk about doing the best that we can with what is handed down from Westminster. It is true that something should be done differently. Not every problem in Health and Social Care, Justice or Education can be solved by more money alone. Injecting a bit of cash into pilot projects here and there without reversing the effects of over a decade of underinvestment in core services is just fiddling while Rome burns.

Every Executive party agrees that this Budget does not provide enough money to meet people's basic needs. The obvious question is this: why are Executive parties hell-bent on playing by the twisted rules set by Westminster and ramming the Budget through? Are over a decade of declining living standards and disposable income, stagnant wages, rising homelessness and health inequalities not proof that the way in which we fund and deliver public services is not working? It does not matter whether it is a Tory or a Labour Government: Westminster is clearly capable only of financial cruelty. It should be a source of shame for the Executive that, with each Budget, health and social care workers are left wondering whether they will be granted pay parity with NHS workers in Britain.

The Health Minister is right to prioritise pay in his Department's budget, but fair pay should not be funded by extremely difficult and painful cuts elsewhere in the system or by stealth privatisation in the guise of tackling waiting lists, which will put more pressure on health workers when they are in work.

Executive parties say that they value strong, resilient public services, but, time and time again, their actions prove otherwise. The Budget will have real and serious consequences. Cutting social security means more families trapped in an endless cycle of poverty and destitution without access to well-paid, stable work. Poverty levels are shooting up, most acutely in my constituency of West Belfast. Cutting funding for youth clubs such as Clonard Youth Club that deliver early intervention and prevention programmes means that there are more people on the streets who are at risk of falling prey to paramilitaries, interface rioting, sectarianism or worse.

One of the few concrete targets in the Programme for Government is the construction of just under 6,000 social homes by the end of the mandate. The target is 2,000 homes a year, but less than half of that target will be met out of this Budget. All the while, private landlords hike rents and evict tenants at will, while spending on temporary accommodation skyrockets.

In all but one council area, at least one in five children is growing up in poverty. In West Belfast, it is one in three children. A small minority, however, are thriving under austerity. The super-rich and the wealthy corporations across the North are raking in profits like never before. This year, the 100 wealthiest companies in the North made pre-tax profits of £2·5 billion, which is an increase of 26% on last year, and the Finance Minister generally supports and applauds that economic approach. Some of those hugely profitable companies pollute our airways and waterways, mistreat workers and abuse animals, yet the Executive reward them with rate relief to the tune of £70 million a year. Last week, it was revealed that nearly 30 employers here, including wealthy hospitality businesses and property management companies, failed to pay the minimum wage to 1,650 workers. Invest NI has handed £19 million of public money to four companies in the North that manufacture parts for F-35 fighter jets, which are the warplanes that are dropping bombs on the people of Gaza.

Enabling the rich to get richer while the poor are bled dry is a conscious political choice, but it does not have to be that way. There is plenty of wealth in our society, and it should be properly taxed and used to fund public services and to protect the poorest. This Budget, however, is business as usual, and I will therefore not support it.

The next Member to speak is the Minister of Finance, Mr John O'Dowd, who will conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the contributions from Chairs, Deputy Chairs and other spokespersons on the Budget (No. 2) Bill. As I have said before, it is useful to hear the views of the respective Committees and of Members on the important financial and economic issues that the Administration face. I have noted a number of issues that colleagues have raised today, and I will endeavour to get through as many of them as possible.

To Mr O'Toole, I say that I welcome the strong working relationship between the Committee for Finance and the Department, despite the odd blip and issues that have arisen of late. I hope that that relationship continues.

A number of Members mentioned the comprehensive spending review that will be announced in Westminster on Wednesday. It is my intention to make a statement to the Assembly on Monday, although a lot, if not all, of the detail will become clear during the Chancellor's statement. I will be here on Monday to present my understanding of the position and to take questions from colleagues. It is also my intention to publish the Holtham report on Monday and put it in the public domain.

The Department continues to work on finalising the five-year plans for the autumn, in tandem with work on a three-year Budget before its publication in the autumn or late winter. The Budget will then go out to consultation so that it can then be ratified within its normal time frame. The next move is then to hold further discussions with the Treasury on the fiscal framework. All of that will become clear as part of my statement on the comprehensive spending review to the Assembly next Monday.

As leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Toole questioned the targets in the Programme for Government and the Budget and how they match up. He gave a figure of £321 million. I argue that Departments will need to see a realignment across their funding streams as we move forward, particularly given a three-year Budget, but a lot of the work that already goes on in Departments can and does align with the Programme for Government. He chose a figure out of those. I would argue that the figure is closer to £425 million. His sums were a wee bit askew. He said that 2% of the £27 billion in funding is going towards the Executive's Programme for Government. He will be acutely aware that the Executive control around £16 billion of that. The other £11 billion is annually managed expenditure and is set for issues such as benefits and other matters. He will be acutely aware of that, but I suppose that imaginative figures are all part of the debate.

The reality remains that the Executive have made steps forward in tackling issues such as waiting lists. There is £215 million to cut waiting lists and improve elective care; £50 million towards childcare; £15 million towards skills; and £5 million towards Lough Neagh. The Executive have stepped forward to deal with a range of other issues and have started to shape the Programme for Government on the basis of the priorities of the people whom we serve. Of course people should challenge us. They should challenge me as Finance Minister and the Communities Minister on the social housing issue. The year is not yet over. The Communities Minister will bring a plan to the Executive. I look forward to hearing his plan for how we will fulfil the targets for this year and as we move forward.

Mr O'Toole claimed that there is no plan for NI Water — I beg to disagree — and for how we will deal with our waste water infrastructure and all those challenging issues. The sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) legislation will, I believe, be before the Chamber in the near future. The current public consultation on developer charges closes on 27 June. The Executive will continue their rolling investment in NI Water, both at the start of the budgetary year and during the year through monitoring rounds.

As part of the transformation projects, £15 million was awarded to the Department for Infrastructure for an urban drainage pilot project to transform the way in which rainwater is managed in our towns and cities, because we send millions, if not billions, of cubic litres of water to waste water treatment works that we should not send. If we can manage that in a different way, let us do so. There is a plan. You may not agree with that plan. As I often say in the Chamber, if you do not like that plan, produce your own and let the public judge it.

Colm Gildernew, as Chair of the Communities Committee, referred to the ongoing welfare cuts and the plans by the current Labour Administration to implement further welfare cuts. Those will have a significant impact on all our communities. Given their change of mind on the winter fuel payment, I hope that the Government will also change their mind on those welfare cuts and reverse that policy.

Diane Forsythe —.

Will the Minister give way?

I will, yes.

Thanks very much indeed, Minister. Apologies for not being here earlier. You just talked about the Department for Communities. One of the key issues in one of last week's debates was the reclassification of the Housing Executive and the ability to do that. Has the Minister had any insight into whether that will be allowed? Indeed, will that be part of his statement next Monday?

In fairness, I will refer to that next Monday in my statement and give details of my engagement with the Treasury in that regard.

Diane Forsythe referred to the need for an improved funding package, which everyone in the Chamber agrees with, apart, maybe, from Mr Gaston. A number of Members raised the importance of a three-year Budget. As I said, that will be a game changer. We will still have a restricted Budget, but the ability to plan for a three-year Budget will allow not only for services to be delivered more effectively and efficiently but for transformation.

Ms Forsythe also referred to the publication of the new procurement policy, which is a strategic step forward. It may not be the most attractive of documents for public debate and discourse, but it is an important policy that will, I hope, provide us with a more efficient and effective way of procuring goods and services for our public services.

A number of Members touched on the issue of taxation on family farms. I hope that the current Government will have a change of heart on how they plan to impose inheritance tax on family farms.

Eóin Tennyson referred to the absence of the Opposition Members during his contribution. Apparently, Opposition Members were absent during that. I have to say that I never noticed, but apparently they were.

I appreciate the Minister's giving way, because it allows me to point out that Mr Tennyson, who was quick enough to point out that I was outside the Chamber — I was out for about five minutes to meet some schools from my constituency — is not here now. What is good for the goose. Anyway, I appreciate the Minister's giving way for me to clarify that point.

I do not want to follow you down into the gutter, but I have to: there are four of his colleagues here.

Mr Tennyson also said that he is looking forward to an announcement on the remaining £109 million in relation to the public-sector transformation board. I hope to be in a position in late summer to make further announcements on that. The Executive have now agreed the terms of reference and the appointment of new board members. I await sign-off on that from the Secretary of State. Once that is achieved, the board can get down to seeking further bids from Departments for the transformation fund, which has been a remarkably successful project.

Robbie Butler set out the challenges facing the Department of Agriculture and how the Committee is working with the Minister and engaging and also exercising the challenge function, which is quite proper. He too referred to the farm inheritance tax.

Philip McGuigan pointed out the trajectory of the Health spend. It is currently at £8·4 billion but has risen considerably over the past number of years. As I have said before, I will work with all Ministers, including the Health Minister, on the challenges that they face, but we cannot continue with the journey that we are on with Health funding. It will consume the entire Executive Budget. That is simply undoable. As I have said, I will work with all Ministers, including the Health Minister with regard to the challenges that are faced in the Health budget and the actions that are required to bring that spend under control.

I turn to Justice again. A number of Members mentioned the PSNI and the challenges facing it and the entire Justice Department, whether it is overcrowded prisons, the crumbling estate or the delay in justice. I am acutely aware of all those things. I will work with the Justice Minister and the PSNI on the workforce recovery plan. The argument has been made about recruitment. However, the PSNI also has to work with us: every time that I sit down to look at funding for the PSNI, I cannot get past the £100 million that we will have to hand out in relation to the data leak. I encourage all organisations not to make our jobs any harder than they are already.

Paula Bradshaw referred to the diverse role of TEO and to the Beijing office. It is not my role to set policy or direction for any of the Departments, whether the office is in Beijing or Belfast. Committees have to continue their challenge and support function with regard to those. It strikes me, as an observer, that having a presence in the second-largest economy — it will be the largest economy — in the world is a sensible thing.

Jemma Dolan called on the Government to make the right choices. I support her on that.

Steve Aiken touched on the issues of the comprehensive spending review and the winter fuel allowance etc.

Nick Mathison said that we need to have an ambition for something better. I assure him that I do and that, as we move into a three-year budgetary process, I want to see that being not simply a 1 by 3 multiplication but a transformation process whereby we deliver better services and support our public-sector workers.

Timothy Gaston thinks that we have enough at £30 billion. As I said, around £16 billion of that is under the direct control of the Executive.

I congratulate him for working for free because, apparently, he is totally opposed to the Assembly Commission's budget. Congratulations to him and all his office workers, who work for free.

[Laughter.]

It is a credit to him, and he deserves admiration for it. Well done on that one. The Member will realise that, to run this place, they have to pay us, all the people who work in this Building and the people who work with us to deliver the services.

He is quite right to challenge — as are all Members, and it was a common theme throughout the discussion — Ministers and Departments to run an effective and efficient service. He is quite right to do that, but to suggest that no money is being spent on Health is incorrect, there is —

[Interruption.]

He has said that when people ask him, as an MLA, "What is my budget being spent on?", he says that none is being spent on hospital wards. There is £8·4 billion being spent in the health service, over £3 billion is being spent in Education and just under £3 billion, or thereabouts, in Justice. It tallies up, but can we deliver an effective and efficient service? We have to make sure that we do, but we also have to remember that, despite our obvious political differences around the constitutional question, I do not wake up every morning and praise the Lord that the British Government are responsible for our well-being and our affairs.

[Laughter.]

You will not be surprised to hear that.

The reality is that I suspect that we are going to continue to live under a British Government that are going to continue to underfund our public services for a variety of reasons, including the fact that their economy is not going to grow, or is not forecast to grow, significantly over the next number of years. Whereas, if you look to our neighbouring jurisdiction, next door, its economy is growing. Look at the surplus that it currently has. I think, in fairness, the people who live on this island can manage this island much better than those who live on our neighbouring island. We may disagree on that point, but I believe that if we are serious about a significant improvement in the well-being and investment in our public services, the constitutional question has to remain front and centre.

Gerry Carroll told us all off — all the Executive parties — but, unfortunately, he did not give us an alternative. I agree with some of the things that he said about economic policies, taxation policies and other matters, but, in reality, we are responsible for the day-to-day support that we deliver to public servants, and I stand by the Budget that we delivered a week ago and are now implementing. It is far from perfect, but we are using our resources as best we can to support public-sector workers and public services while we continue to demand better from the Westminster Government.

I thank the Minister for giving way. How can the Minister stand by the Budget when poverty levels are increasing, and the highest level is in West Belfast? How can he defend the Budget in that context?

In the absence of an Executive and the Assembly, things were actually worse. Last year, my predecessor, Caoimhe Archibald, secured an additional almost £600 million for public services. Here is a challenge for Mr Gaston as well: if the Executive and the Assembly were not here, that £600 million would not be available. When you hear the announcement from the Chancellor on Wednesday and my statement next Monday, you will see the benefits of having an Assembly and Executive. We secure improvements for public services. I am not suggesting that they are perfect; they are far from it. I am not defending the British Government's economic policy: I am totally opposed to it. However, I believe that the Assembly and Executive make a difference.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that any positive changes from the British Government will be more down to the Labour Government looking over their shoulder at the Reform party and feeling the pressure in red wall areas and other areas in England where they have faced opposition to their economic policy, rather than anything that Executive Ministers did or did not say?

Lads — sorry, Minister — this is all very entertaining. The Minister has given way to Mr Carroll twice now, and I appreciate that, but can we get back to the Budget, thank you.

The challenges facing the current Labour Government in England, Wales, Scotland and elsewhere are clear for everybody to see. I stand by my record, and the Executive can stand by their record, of engaging with the Government and securing extra funding for this place, and we will continue to do so. With that, I draw my remarks to a close.

I appreciate that, Minister. Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA Bill 14/22-27] be agreed.

The next item of business —.

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. During his responses to the supplementary questions following the question for urgent oral answer earlier today, the Health Minister stated that he had shared the support and intervention framework with Health Committee members. I have not received it, and I checked with the Committee Clerk, who told me that the Committee has not received it. Should the Minister come down to correct the record?

Yes, he should. It would have been preferable for the Minister to make a statement in the House than for people to have to hear about it through the media or second-hand. I will refer your point of order to the Speaker's Office for further information, Danny.

That concludes the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. As the Bill's Consideration Stage is scheduled for tomorrow, I remind Members that amendments may be submitted to the Bill Office for up to one hour from now.