Debate contribution: Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2023-24 and Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Estimates: Vote On Account 2024-25

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on 9 April 2024.

MLA

Dr Caoimhe Archibald

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

9 April 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2023-24 and Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Estimates: Vote On Account 2024-25

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4482235

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

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.

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.

1,630 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:57 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