Debate contribution: Public Expenditure: Outcome of Chancellor's Statement

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on 4 November 2024.

MLA

Dr Caoimhe Archibald

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

4 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statement

Heading

Public Expenditure: Outcome of Chancellor's Statement

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4625321

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I agree with the Member. There is unanimity across the Executive on the need for additional funding for our waste water infrastructure. Obviously, the amount of additional funding that we have this year will not go a very long way towards meeting that. The Executive will have to take decisions on how to allocate the capital that they have for this year in October monitoring and into our Budget-setting process for next year. As I said in response to Dr Aiken, we will look to the Programme for Government to guide us on where we prioritise our funding. It is really important for a number of its key targets that our waste water infrastructure underpins their delivery. I have worked and will work with Executive colleagues. I have met, specifically, the Infrastructure Minister in relation to what he is proposing to bring forward. The Executive, collectively, are looking at the issue of our waste water infrastructure and how we are able to invest in it.

The Executive committed their funding allocation in relation to the city and growth deals when the funding from the British Government was under question. In recent weeks, I brought a proposal to the Executive to reaffirm our commitment to our proportion of that funding, and the Executive unanimously agreed that. Clearly, there are many challenges facing the Executive in our capital budget, as with our resource budget, and so it will be for the Executive to collectively prioritise the capital projects that they wish to take forward. However, as I said, our commitment to the city and growth deals projects has been affirmed.

I heard some of the commentary over the weekend in relation to GP surgeries, as well. I would be happy to work with the Health Minister on anything that he would be looking at to support them.

In advance of the Budget statement, I had worked with the AERA Minister to press upon Treasury the need for that funding: for it to continue to be ring-fenced and for an inflationary uplift, given that there had been no inflationary uplift over the previous couple of years. Unfortunately, the amount that has been baselined does not include an inflationary uplift, in the first instance. That means that there will be further pressure on the Executive's resources. However, the baselining of those funds means that it will now be for the Executive to decide how much funding DAERA will receive. That will, obviously, be weighed against other competing priorities. All of us in the Assembly will, however, recognise the importance of our agri-food and farming sectors and the need for them to be properly supported. I am committed to working with the Agriculture Minister on that issue, and, indeed, I have already spoken to him about it.

As I said in my statement, and as has been widely reported on in the days since the Budget statement, Treasury has indicated that it will impact on only 500 agricultural estates across Britain and the North. It has argued that it will ensure that small family farms are protected. We need to see the proof of that, and we need to understand the basis for those figures. My officials have already been in contact with Treasury counterparts to try to get an understanding of them. They have not been able to provide us with specific figures for how many farms will potentially face a higher bill locally. I have spoken to the AERA Minister about agricultural property relief as well, however, and I am clear that the changes cannot jeopardise our small family farms. My officials will continue to engage with Treasury and with DAERA colleagues to get a better understanding of what the change means and what options will be available to farmers who may be impacted on by it. We need to understand how the allowances that will be available compare to the typical value of farms here, which are passed down from generation to generation, what the resulting tax bills may look like and how the payment of those bills can be managed or profiled. In the first instance, however, we need to get a better understanding of what the impact is, how many farms are likely to be impacted on and who the people affected are.

In my remarks, I recognised that there is additional funding for the Executive, but I have to emphasise that the Executive will still be in a challenging position when trying to meet the pressures that they are facing this year and in future years. We still have further work to do on our funding arrangements post 2026-27. I would therefore not get overly excited about our being flush with cash. We certainly have additional funding, and it is very welcome, but there are still many challenges facing the Executive. There is, of course, already a ring-fenced budget for transformation. We have a £235 million pot that was part of the financial package that accompanied the restoration of the Executive. I appointed an interim public-sector transformation board, which is currently assessing bids that have come in from all Departments. I am sure that the Department of Health is reflected in those bids, and I am happy to work with the Health Minister on addressing the Programme for Government priorities, which include tackling waiting lists.

As the Member will be aware, Casement Park is an Executive flagship project, and it will be delivered. We need the British Government to honour their commitment to providing a funding element towards it. I will be working with my Executive colleagues in the immediate time ahead to ensure that we make progress on the delivery of Casement Park.

I did not catch the start of the Member's question, but I understand that he is asking about discussions about our level of need. The interim fiscal framework that I signed off on behalf of the Executive in May codified the level of need as being 124%. That was based on the work of the Fiscal Council, which identified a range of levels of need, of which 124% was somewhere in the middle. The Executive have clearly articulated that we believe our level of need to be above 124%. As part of the final fiscal framework negotiations, we continue to pursue the evidence base needed to support the fact that there is a higher level of need than has currently been agreed. That work is ongoing, and my Department is working with other Departments to provide the additional evidence that it will use to negotiate with Treasury.

The changes to the fiscal rules allow the British Government to borrow for capital investment in a different way. Essentially, we will have to wait to see what additional money they decide to invest in capital infrastructure. I am hopeful of there being additional investment. We have a little bit of additional capital funding for the next financial year: £270 million more than we anticipated. That is welcome but does not go very far to address the huge pressures in our waste water infrastructure and the need to build more social homes. We need to see the outworkings of those changes and where that investment is targeted.

I have proposals for a more strategic approach to our rating system with the Executive at the minute, and those would ensure that our rating system is fair, progressive and equitable. It is important that our rating system supports our economic vision, creating an economic environment that supports businesses to start up, grow and thrive, thus creating jobs. It is important that we ensure that all the reliefs that are in place meet the policy objective that they were put in place to meet and that they continue to achieve that. I want to look at that strategically over the next number of years. It is for the Executive to take a position on that, and I cannot pre-empt what they will say about any particular proposed measures. It is a really important piece of work, but I require the cooperation of my Executive colleagues to take it forward.

As I have responded to others, we do not have the full detail or a full understanding of that.

My officials are engaging with Treasury officials to get a greater understanding of exactly who and how many farms here will be impacted and answers to all the questions that you have posed.

As I mentioned to Mr Gaston about the work that is being undertaken to support the negotiations on our level of need, one of the elements of that work is the really important role that farms and agri-food businesses in the North play in delivering food security not only for us but for people across Britain. That has to be part of those discussions. That work is ongoing.

1,468 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:27 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