Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 18 February 2025.

MLA: Mr Paul Frew
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 18 February 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Budget Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4806281

Text

That must be the earliest ever intervention, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I may now hold the record. I start by paying tribute to the previous Finance Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald. We on the Committee for Finance worked well with her. She was always approachable and she was always there to answer questions. We did not always like her answers to our questions, but, nonetheless, she was always available. She performed her role very well. I give credit where credit is due. I also wish the new Finance Minister well. He has moved from one Department to another. It takes time to get to grips with a Department and its functions, so I wish him well in his endeavours. I believe that we all want the same thing in this place. Whether a Member of the Assembly or a member of the Executive, we all want to do our best for the people whom we represent. I also pay tribute to my colleagues on the Finance Committee. Together, we are working well and doing scrutiny well, even though we do not always get the information that we desire in a timely fashion and even though we have to ask the same question on several occasions. We work well together, not least the Chair and the Deputy Chair. The vast knowledge and experience that those two individuals — Matthew O'Toole, the Chairperson, and Diane Forsythe, the Deputy Chairperson — bring to the table are clear. All members of the Committee value their expertise and life experience in this field. I will address the issue around the accelerated passage. We have always granted accelerated passage for the Budget Bill, and I understand that there are good reasons for that. What I take grave exception to is the question that is put to the Committee, because I do not believe that we can truthfully state that we have had "appropriate consultation" when we do not have a Committee Stage. We guard, religiously and hard, our Committee Stage in every other Bill, but not with the Budget Bill. I understand why that is: I understand the fast-moving nature of the Budget Bill and that it needs to be imposed so that things can continue to be paid. However, I think that there is merit in looking at Standing Orders and changing the question that is put to the Finance Committee in which the Committee has to state that there has been "appropriate consultation". I am sure that we can find a form of words that changes that so that we do not feel uncomfortable with answering that question in the affirmative. To answer with a negative would put us in dire straits regarding our finances, and it would hurt people. We do not want to do that. I ask — I plead — that the Assembly looks at Standing Order 42(2) and the wording of the question. It comes from paragraph 20 of strand one of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and section 64(1) of the Northern Ireland Act.
OK.
Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. You will be glad to know that I will not need to speak on the next item of business. I have put my views on record. It is very important — it has always been — that our Budget Bills and our Programmes for Government, albeit in draft, are aligned completely, but that has never happened; that has never been the case. It is not right to say that it is the case today, simply because we have a draft Programme for Government, high level as it is. That draft Programme for Government may change following the consultation. We need to make sure that the Programme for Government informs the Budget Bill. Remember that the Budget Bill gives authority for 45% of the spend in next year's Budget. I cannot see any evidence on these blue pages of where the Programme for Government has informed the spend, the areas of spend and who gets what, where and when. I do not see that. There has to be some way to align and state in the clauses on the blue pages of the Budget Bill the Programme for Government's aims and objectives. That would make it easier for the MLAs who are not on the Finance Committee, or leads on other Committees, to understand the Budget Bill, what it does and the rationale for the millions here and there, or, as Timothy Gaston highlighted, the "trillions" here and the "trillions" there. That is a very important point. It is important that all Executive members support the Budget Bills; there is a collective responsibility. I am glad to see that there will be support across the Executive table for the Budget Bill. I will wait to see what happens in the Budget (No. 2) Bill, which is a completely different animal. It is regrettable that the Ulster Unionists did not support the Bill in its primitive form, because it is basically the outworkings of it that are in this Budget Bill.
I will also speak about Health, because it represents a massive amount of spending in the Budget Bill: nearly 50% of the Budget. In fact, in this Bill, it is over 50%. As other Members have suggested, it is simply not good enough to give more money to the Department of Health when it refuses — refuses — to reform. The Health Department is absolutely ignoring its symptoms. If it does not seek wise counsel on those symptoms, it will collapse and, with it, care provision in this country. That is why it is important that we do not just give in to the relentless pressure to give more money here and more money there when the practices have to be reformed so that spending is more efficient. That is the same for every Department, not just Health. I see evidence of that reformation in other Departments: I see none in Health. That might be because they are so under the cosh or because our waiting list times are growing rather than shortening, and they cannot lift their heads. It is about time that the Health Minister realised what the symptoms are and dealt with them before they become much worse. It is also clear that the Assembly and our people face unprecedented times. The Labour Government are being reckless with their employers' National Insurance hike. It is absolutely reckless, and I am being mild. The inheritance tax on the farming community is a ticking time bomb that could even lead to food shortages in some areas. Certainly, increases in the costs of doing business are rife. The Budget Bill authorises 45% of the spend in the next year, so I want to see where we are trying to rescue the situation and support our employers, our businesses and those who provide a service, not a product. Those who provide services cannot put the cost of the National Insurance burden on to a product: how are we supporting them? A lot of the voluntary and charity organisations support government. If they were not in place, the Government could not do their job. How does the Budget Bill support the organisations that provide a service on which the Government rely? I do not see it. It is important that we raise those issues. We also talk about infrastructure. My colleague Deborah Erskine raised the fact that it is vital that we have appropriate investment in our infrastructure. It is not just about our roads and waste water infrastructure: if we do not spend adequate sums of the money in the Budget Bill on our infrastructure, people will die. That is why we need to take a more strategic look at how we spend money in Health. It has always been the cry that, if we do not spend more money on Health, people will die. However, if you do not spend more money on infrastructure, people will die. If you do not spend more money on the Department for Communities, people will die. It is as stark as that. It is important that we get to grips with the strategic vision and direction that the Budget Bill will take. I have been through so many Budget debates, as have other Members across the Chamber. It seems that we do this robotic thing: Committee Chairs and party leads record in Hansard their gripes, complaints and concerns. Valid as those are, we just go through the motions. When will we see strategic thought and vision coming from the Executive? I will mention, as I always do, the issue of sole authority. I am glad to see that we are making progress and that the amount is coming down. However, even the £24·5 million that is based on sole authority could be quickly reduced by Departments bringing forward Bills. Where is the legislation? That is a very important point because we have a Fiscal Council Bill sitting there to put the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing: where is it? Where is the financial provisions Bill from the Department of Finance that would do away with all the Executive Office's sole authority black boxes. Of course, the biggest one is the welfare reform mitigations, and the Minister has promised that a Bill will be forthcoming this year. I must applaud the progress that has been made. It is because of the pressure that the Finance Committee has placed on the Executive over the past number of years that we have got the level of black-boxing of expenditure under sole authority of the Budget Act down and could see an end to it. I am sure that we need to keep the black box facility and spending under the sole authority of the Budget Act for things that happen, especially on welfare reform mitigation and everything that comes with it, and emergencies that come to the fore in-year. I am not talking about getting rid of the sole authority of the Budget Act or the black-box system, but I want to see their use reduced further. It is not right that the Department of Finance has relied for so long and for so many millions of pounds on black-box authority. The DUP Ministers have stepped up with legislation: where is the legislation promised by other Ministers? We ain't seeing it. It is certainly not happening in the Department of Finance. We were promised Bills last July, and we are still waiting for them. It is important that we raise the issues, because, while the Budget Bill is a lot to do with the money that we get, there is also the element in the Budget that relates to the rates base. There is always a cry — mostly from the Opposition but also from Sinn Féin — for more fiscal powers. We should not get more fiscal powers to supplement Budget Bills when we can see, as was raised yesterday, that there is a £2·45 billion overspend on major capital projects. That is shattering. That money could be spent in so many ways; for example, on new schools and new hospitals. We have a state-of-the-art, brand spanking new hospital that cannot even be opened and used. We have £119 million in unpaid rates that we cannot get in. We have had £65 million in rates written off. What could that £65 million do? There are still major issues in the Executive and the Department of Finance that need to be resolved before we can even have a grown-up debate and conversation about taking on further fiscal powers. We cannot deal with the powers that we already have: why would we need more? It is important that all Ministers get to grips with their Departments and ensure that they are performing properly. I heard the Minister of Finance defending his Department yesterday. I take exception to that. The Minister has been in his Department for five minutes. I am not sure that he will have got to grips yet with the performance of the Department of Finance.
I will, yes.
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will again bend to your ruling and try to — will keep to the Budget Bill as much as I can. It is important that, with the Budget Bill, we ensure that we have strategic vision and direction. I just do not see that happening well enough. I do not see the Civil Service functioning well enough to produce that, perform it and play it out and to spend the millions of pounds that we have appropriately and efficiently. It is not just about the Department of Finance or the Department of Health; it is about many other Departments. Whilst we see millions here, there and everywhere in the blue pages of the Bill, I want to see greater alignment with the Programme for Government. I want to see greater efficiencies in our Civil Service, and I want us to get a bang for our buck every time we pay tax and rates. I want to see that money used wisely. For the life of me, I cannot see it yet.

2,193 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification