Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on 19 February 2024.

MLA

Dr Caoimhe Archibald

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

19 February 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Budget Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4223731

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I put on record my thanks to Members, Chairs and Deputy Chairs who contributed to the debate on the Second Stage of the Budget Bill. It has been very useful to me, as Finance Minister, to hear the views of the respective Committees and Members on the important financial and economic issues that face us. I will endeavour to respond to as many of the issues raised as possible in the closing moments of the debate and, hopefully, without another coughing fit. However, before I do that, I want to be clear again about the speed of the Bill's passage and the effect of that on the scrutiny of it. This is not the way in which we would choose to do business, but I am asking Members today to ensure that Departments get the funding that they need to continue to deliver public services until the end of the year and to deliver fair pay for public-sector workers. The Chair of the Finance Committee, Matthew O'Toole, made the point, as did a number of Members, that the Bill legislates for cuts. I agree that the starting point for the Bill should not have been a Budget that was set by the Secretary of State; it should have been a Budget that was set by the Executive. There is no doubt that the decisions that Departments had to make to live within the Budget set by the Secretary of State have caused harm, and I will make it clear to the Treasury that the Executive's funding needs to be put on a sustainable footing and that that needs to include funding based on need. The Bill provides significantly more funding, obviously, than was in the Secretary of State's Budget, and, last week, the Executive agreed to allocations of £1·067 billion resource DEL and £83·5 million capital DEL. That included the £688 million for public-sector pay. Mr O'Toole also referred to an amendment that he intends to table following this Second Stage debate. I will not go into that in detail until it is accepted, if it is accepted. Work is ongoing, with legislation being drafted, to place the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing. Given the Member's role as Chair of the Finance Committee, I know that he will be aware of the Department's plans in that regard, as those plans were detailed in the first-day brief provided by the Department. Mr O'Toole also asked for a timescale for engagement with the Treasury on the financial package. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to me on 13 February setting out the details of the financial package. I have a number of significant concerns about the package as set out in the letter, and, on receipt of that letter, I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to highlight those concerns. I await a response to that letter, although I understand that last week was recess in Westminster. I also continue to seek an urgent meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Diane Forsythe asked some questions about the package for pay awards. The Member is quite right: Departments identified around £700 million of pay pressures in 2023-24. The financial package provided £584 million specifically for pay, and I sought flexibility to put some of the £559 million that was originally provided for overspends towards pay pressures. As a result, the Executive were able to allocate £688 million for pay. Unfortunately, the funding provided by the financial package did not go far enough to fully address the pressures that Departments had identified, although we allocated as much as we could towards the pay pressures. The allocations agreed by the Executive provide funding envelopes for Ministers to begin negotiations with all the pay groups identified. Individual Ministers are now in the process of engaging with trade unions to negotiate pay awards for the various groups of staff. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the detail of those negotiations, including the funding for individual awards and individual staff groups. A number of Members referred to particular groups of workers. Those negotiations continue. Eóin Tennyson talked about the need to address the underfunding and, specifically, about our level of need. I do not believe that the 124% needs-based factor that has been proposed by the British Government represents a fair estimate of our need. There is a wealth of evidence, from the Fiscal Council in particular, that that could — in my view, should — be higher. Those options remain unexplored. Whether it should be a job for the Fiscal Council or another independent commission to look at that, the issue can be debated further. However, it is clear that the British Government need to revisit the issue. As all Members will know, I have written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury seeking an urgent meeting, and I will discuss that point with her. Phillip Brett mentioned year-end underspends. In normal circumstances, the Executive would be able to carry forward a limited amount in year-end underspend under the Budget exchange scheme. That will still be possible this year for capital DEL. However, as the additional funding that is provided in the financial package is provided from a claim on the reserve, no carry forward will be permitted for resource DEL. I have made my Executive colleagues aware of that and have asked them to seek to avoid underspends. I also asked that Departments engage immediately with the Department of Finance should any issues emerge between now and the end of the financial year. Mr Chambers and Mr O'Toole had an exchange about the role of the Audit Committee in setting budgets for independent bodies. In the absence of the Assembly, the Secretary of State set the budgets for those bodies. I appreciate that they were not happy with that. I agree that that is far from ideal. However, we have only a few weeks left of the financial year and limited funding available, so there is little scope to change that now. However, going forward, it will, once again, be for the Audit Committee to set the budgets for those bodies. I ask that, in doing so, obviously, the Committee take account of the wider public expenditure position.

I thank the Member for the intervention. I am sure that officials will make a note to pick up that particular point. Nick Mathison asked about the impact of the Bill's not being passed. As I explained in my opening remarks, Departments are operating on the authority of the Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Act 2023, which the Secretary of State legislated for and which was based on his Budget that was set back in April. There is a risk that a number of Departments, including the Department of Education, could reach cash limits if the Budget Bill is not passed and does not receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. The impact of that would be that my Department would be unable to pay money out of the Consolidated Fund to any Department that has reached its cash limit. Obviously, that is not a situation that any of us want to risk happening. Nick raised the non-teaching staff pay and grading review, as did a number of other Members. The business case to support the proposal for the implementation of the pay and grading review is still undergoing scrutiny and has not yet received expenditure approval. My Department has raised a number of questions about the original business case and is working through updated information that the Department of Education recently provided in order to ensure that such questions have been adequately addressed. I also understand that, in parallel, the Department of Education is continuing to engage with the Education Authority to review its cost estimates in order to ensure that they are accurate. That work is ongoing. As such, although I fully appreciate the importance of the role of the workers in that staffing group, which Mr Butler, Mr Carroll and others highlighted and which cannot be overstated, we need to ensure that appropriate scrutiny is completed. Nick also raised the Department of Education's capital position. The £150 million Fresh Start funding package for shared education and shared housing has been repackaged into the funding that is available for allocation by the Executive. I understand that some shared and integrated education projects that were initially being considered to progress using Fresh Start funding have not yet become contractually committed, and it is now a matter for the Executive to determine allocations for Departments. Mr Aiken raised a number of points. He raised concern about the use of the sole authority of the Budget Act, often referred to as the use of the black box. I covered that somewhat in my opening remarks and set out the range of services that that is being used for. He is absolutely correct: sole authority should be used only for items of expenditure that are to last for a short period or for which the level of expenditure is relatively small. It is absolutely correct that significant services involving significant expenditure should be legislated for properly by the Assembly. The Member will be aware, however, that it has simply not been possible for us to do that for the past two years. Looking at some of the significant areas that are being delivered under sole authority, we see that, at the top of the list, is our mitigation of the British Government's welfare reform measures.

If the sole authority of the Budget Act is not used for this, our mitigation measures will cease, and that would obviously plunge some of our most vulnerable people and households into crisis. Absolutely, this needs to be put on a firm statutory footing now that the Assembly is functioning again. However, until that can be done, we must ensure that the most vulnerable continue to be protected.

Yes, sure.

I thank the Member for his intervention. We have discussed at length today the extraordinary circumstances that we are in with this Budget. Dr Aiken also expressed his dissatisfaction with the level of information that the Assembly has been provided with in relation to the amounts in the Budget Bill and the Vote on Account. It is regrettable that the timescales involved mean that it has not been possible to provide spring Supplementary Estimates to accompany the Budget Bill. That is purely down to timescales. Until I received a letter from the Treasury last Tuesday, I had no certainty on the funding available for 2023-24. The Executive allocated that funding on 15 February, and a statement was issued to the Assembly later that day. That statement showed the resource and capital DEL allocations to each Department. I set out in the statement that that included £388 million for overspend and £688 million for pay. As the Member will know, the spring Supplementary Estimates document is long and complex and not something that could be turned around in a matter of days. Therefore, while it is regrettable that that document did not accompany the Bill, if the Bill is to obtain Royal Assent before the Departments exhaust their cash limits, it needs to proceed on the timescale outlined. The Vote on Account is quite simply a percentage of the provision in the 2023-24 Budget. It is intended to ensure that Departments can continue spending until such times as a Budget Bill, based on the Executive's 2024-25 Budget, obtains Royal Assent. As I explained in my opening remarks, the Vote on Account is intended to last until after the summer recess to ensure that not only the Executive but the Assembly have sufficient time to consider the Budget for 2024-25.

Yes.

We hope that those two timescales will align to allow that to proceed in relation to the 2023-24 Budget Bill that we are discussing. Joanne Bunting and Stewart Dickson raised issues around the budgetary pressures facing the Department of Justice. I welcome the points made by both Members regarding the budgetary pressure on the Department of Justice. I took account of those funding pressures in my written ministerial statement, in which I confirmed that the Executive have provided a further £75·3 million to help DOJ meet the remaining needs for 2023-24. That additional funding will provide the Justice Minister with funding to address outstanding financial pressures in areas such as policing, including pay. I look forward to discussing the Department of Justice's financial position with the Justice Minister as part of the Executive's consideration of the 2024-25 Budget. Mr McGrath and Mr McCrossan spoke about what this Budget does. The Secretary of State put in place a Budget last April that caused damage across our public services. Many of us had been critical of that Budget as being deeply punitive. This Budget Bill secures the funding for Departments for the final few weeks of the financial year and delivers fair pay for public-sector workers. It will not undo the damage of that Budget, and no one claims that it will. This Bill is not setting the Budget for 2024-25 and future years. The Executive are now beginning the process of considering the 2024-25 Budget. Indeed, the Vote on Account in this Budget Bill is intended to allow the Executive and the Assembly to carefully consider the Budget for 2024-25. Finally, Mr Nesbitt talked about our needing to have an outcomes-based Programme for Government, and I completely agree. It is important that that is the case, because it will help us prioritise how we spend our money.

Mr Speaker, we could all continue to debate these issues for some time, but I will draw my remarks to a close. I have tried to respond to as many issues as possible. As always, the debate has been wide-ranging and many significant points have been raised, and I am thankful to Members for that. It is imperative that the legislation debated today continues its passage through the Assembly so that public services can be delivered without delay or interruption. In conclusion, I ask Members to support the Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments for 2023-24 and into the early months of 2024-25 through the Vote on Account.

2,371 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:38 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification