Debate contribution: Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2024-25; and Supply Resolution for Excess Votes for 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on 1 July 2024.

MLA

Dr Caoimhe Archibald

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

1 July 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2024-25; and Supply Resolution for Excess Votes for 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4499495

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The debate has covered many aspects of public expenditure and, perhaps, a few topics that are not quite related to that. I will, however, endeavour to address as many of the points that were raised during the debate as I can. First, I again thank the Finance Committee for its agreement that this important legislation be taken through by accelerated passage. That agreement secures the timely passage of the legislation, thereby avoiding risk or legal uncertainty about the funding of public services. I listened with interest to the debate. I will turn to some of the issues that Members raised. Matthew O'Toole indicated the need for a multi-year Budget that is aligned with a Programme for Government. For once, I do not disagree with the Member. I have stated my commitment to multi-year Budgets many times. As the Member is well aware, I am tied to the period of the Treasury spending review. I have expressed my desire and the need for a multi-year spending review to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and to the shadow Secretary of State. The prioritisation of funding should be driven by an agreed Programme for Government, but, as with many things, it is important to get that right rather than to just do it quickly. To be clear, neither a multi-year Budget nor a Programme for Government will remove the financial pressures that all our Departments face, nor does the absence of a PFG mean that funding is not being prioritised. Every time that I bring recommendations to the Executive, they are prioritised for the allocation of the finite resources that are available. The leader of the Opposition again made clear his view on agreeing the June monitoring round, which is, I reiterate, a view that I do not accept or agree with. Having considered the pre-election guidance, my clear view and that of my Department is, as the Member well knows, having had briefings from my most senior officials in the previous two Finance Committee meetings, that June monitoring is normal, routine Executive business — it happens every year — and that this Westminster election should not prevent business being done in the Assembly and the Executive. Given the financial pressures facing Departments, it was essential that they be provided with clarity on any additional funding as soon as possible. Knowing that funding was available for allocation, I could not stand by while Departments took decisions with potentially adverse impacts on services that could have been avoided if additional allocations had been agreed.

It was important to give Departments certainty to plan. It was also important to give certainty to the people who rely on the services that are delivered by those Departments and to the workers who deliver those services, whether in our schools, our hospitals or our universities. I considered the guidance, and I was satisfied that we could continue to act.

Ms Forsythe noted that the Department of Finance did not commission Estimates memoranda from Departments. The purpose of the memorandum was to provide users of the Estimates with greater understanding of the information in them. However, given the review of financial processes and the increased detail and clarity now included in the Estimates, including on contingent liabilities, items relying on the sole authority of the Budget Act and so on, it was felt that the production of a separate Estimates memorandum would no longer be needed and, indeed, would represent duplication. However, if the Committee would find a memorandum helpful for its scrutiny of Departments' spending proposals, officials would be happy to commission such a document. Mr Elliott raised issues relating to the budget for the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. He indicated that it was lower this year than it was last year. Mr Elliott compared the net resources required, which include both annually managed expenditure (AME), which is outside the Executive's control, and ring-fenced non-cash items such as depreciation. It is not appropriate to compare those two figures. Within the 2023-24 figure, for example, is an AME provision of some £118 million, the majority of which relates to a requirement for remediation works at an illegal waste site by the Environment Agency. DAERA's non-ring-fenced resource DEL opening budget is, in fact, 6·1% higher than the non-ring-fenced opening budget for 2023-24, when earmarked items are removed. That is a more meaningful comparator of a Department's ability to fund day-to-day services. Eóin spoke about the sole authority of the Budget Act. I expect that that will begin to be addressed in coming months. Obviously, the absence of an Executive and an Assembly prevented the Assembly from legislating for some of those functions in the normal way. Mr Frew and, I think, Diane Forsythe, referenced the pending cliff edge at the end of the 2025-26 financial year. Thankfully, in the interim fiscal framework that we agreed with the Treasury just before the general election was called, there was a commitment that we could plan on the assurance that we would be funded at or above the 124% level of need. We will want to firm that up with the Treasury in our negotiations on a final fiscal framework. Mr Frew also mentioned the need for transformation of our public services, with which, I think, we all concur. He will be aware that we have established the public sector transformation board, which has received and is considering bids. We are in a position to allocate up to £47 million per year over the next five years. Hopefully, that will instil some innovative thinking and produce transformation projects that will make progress on the issue. Obviously, Mr Frew and I disagree on the devolution of fiscal powers, but I am sure that we can get into that debate in more detail at another point. Paula Bradshaw referred to the Executive Office's challenges. We are probably all well versed in the challenges across the Departments. We have tried to alleviate some of those relating to Communities in Transition and the central good relations fund in the June monitoring round. Dr Aiken raised a number of points. He highlighted concerns around how June monitoring could proceed without certainty over the funding. It was important that we made those allocations, including the £122 million to the Department of Health, in June monitoring. Dr Aiken compared the figures for the end of the year with those for the start of the year for the past two financial years and indicated that, in his analysis, there was a shortfall of £187 million. However, in June monitoring alone, the Department of Health received an uplift of over £165 million. That shows that you cannot compare the end of a year with the start of a year. We will return to that at different points.

Quickly.

We had an indication from Treasury that £185 million of Barnett consequentials would come across from Westminster's Main Estimates. We also had additional funding of £41 million in Barnett consequentials that came very late in the previous financial year, and additional money that came across because of the 24% level of need that was applied to the spring statement. That brought us to the total that we were able to allocate. I do not believe that there will be a rolling back from Treasury on Westminster's Main Estimates. I do not see how Departments' pressures will have disappeared during the six weeks since Treasury indicated that to us. Whitehall Departments face similar pressures, particularly in respect of increased pension contributions. The Finance Committee was briefed by my officials in the past two weeks; it indicated that it was content for us to proceed on the basis that we have. It is reasonable to anticipate not only that the Westminster Main Estimates will move forward but that additional funding may be provided to Westminster Departments, and that we will receive additional Barnett moneys in-year. That is a reasonable assumption in respect of the additional funding. The Member set out his concerns about June monitoring shortly after he pressed for additional funding for the Department of Health. You cannot have it both ways in respect of making the case for additional funding and then criticising us when we move ahead to deliver that funding.

Well, you can try. Patsy made some comments about Lough Neagh. It is important that we see the publication of the plan for Lough Neagh as soon as possible. I am pleased that we were able to allocate some money to Lough Neagh: in capital, which was allocated in the Budget but confirmed in June monitoring; and in the £1·5 million of resource that we have allocated and ring-fenced specifically for the environmental improvement plan to deliver actions relating to Lough Neagh. Sinéad McLaughlin made some comments about the need for us to have a Programme for Government that improves outcomes. Of course, I concur with Sinéad's comments in that regard. Nicola Brogan referenced the need to progress the negotiations on the fiscal framework. We will seek to do that very quickly, once the new Government are in place after the election on Thursday. I will draw my remarks to a close. I thank Members for their patience. Assembly approval of the motion today on the Main Estimates for 2024-25 is a crucial stage in securing the public expenditure that enables Departments to continue to deliver services during the 2024-25 financial year. Failure to pass this Supply resolution would put at risk the continuation of public services for the remainder of the financial year. I, therefore, commend the Main Estimates 2024-25 to the Assembly, and I ask Members to support the motion. In addition, Assembly approval of the Statement of Excesses is required to regularise Excess that has been incurred. I, therefore, commend the Statement of Excesses for 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, and I ask that Members also support that motion.

1,645 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:57 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