Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 18 February 2025.

MLA: Mr John O'Dowd
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 18 February 2025
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Budget Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4806502

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I thank the Members, Chairs and Deputy Chairs who contributed to the Second Stage debate on the Budget Bill. It is very useful for me, as Finance Minister, to hear the views of the respective Committees and of Members on the important financial and economic issues that face us as an Administration and, indeed, a society. I noted many of the issues that Members raised, and I will endeavour to respond to as many of them as possible in my closing comments. The debate was opened by the Chair of the Finance Committee, Matthew O'Toole, who welcomed the positive engagement of my officials with his Committee and the work that they were able to carry out. Again, he called for multi-year Budgets. A number of Members referred to them. As I pointed out yesterday, I cannot introduce multi-year Budgets in the absence of a multi-year comprehensive spending review from the Treasury and Whitehall. He challenged me to bring forward an initial programme for spend or give indicative budgets to Departments. He accepts that that work is now under way. However, as I also stated yesterday, that is subject to change, depending on how the wind of the economy is blowing or what decisions are made in Whitehall. I have committed to the House that if, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, the Labour Government live up to their commitments to introduce a three-year resource budget and a four-year capital budget, I will follow that up with a Budget to my Executive colleagues that will then, hopefully, progress to the House. Understandable concerns were raised about the sole authority of the Budget Bill with regard to a number of spends. Several Members raised that issue. We are working our way through that. I encourage colleagues, through their Committees, to raise it with their respective Ministers. Where areas are still in the black box for a period, legislation should be brought forward or Ministers should be engaging with my Department on the financial provisions Bill that we intend to introduce. Mr O'Toole moved on to speak in his position as leader of the Opposition. He referred to the crises in the health service and public services. Clearly, all our public services are facing huge challenges. First, we must recognise those challenges, and, secondly, we must plan a way forward to respond to them. The stability that we have brought to our Budget and political system is a significant advance in taking on the challenges in our public services. The Budget process itself is not a one-off event. Members will be aware from their Committee work that there is constant engagement between Committees and their respective Departments on the Budget and how Departments manage their individual budgets. They are also aware that several Bills have passed through the Chamber on that. On the draft Budget, which is out for consultation, and the lack of debate in the Chamber, I am following, as my predecessor did, the legislative process for the Budget. I am following Standing Orders. I accept that the period between January and March is tight when it comes to bringing forward this part of the budgetary process and that that presents challenges to Members. However, I am following the legislative process for bringing forward the Supplementary Estimates, the Budget (No. 2) Bill etc — all that process is being followed. The important point is that there is a public consultation to allow people to air their views. Philip McGuigan, as Chair of the Health Committee, quite rightly paid tribute to HSC staff and covered a number of areas of concern in the health service. He also recognised the pay deal that was awarded this year despite the challenges that were faced initially by the Health Minister. That pay deal has now been awarded. It is a useful example of how one can look at a glass sometimes. Something can be presented as being a glass half full or a glass half empty. Perhaps, the way in which the pay deal for the health service was presented initially caused undue anxiety to health service workers and the public. However, the Health Minister did deliver the pay deal. That is important. Mr McGuigan also referred to the use of all-island healthcare and how that has assisted people on both sides of the island, ensuring that we are attempting to deliver more effective and efficient healthcare to people at as local a level as possible. I thank Deborah Erskine, Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, for her kind words. When I was Infrastructure Minister, I found the engagement with the Infrastructure Committee to be constructive always and, quite rightly, challenging at times. I thank her and her Committee.
The impact of storm Éowyn, particularly on rural communities, has been recognised. The Member will be aware of the financial commitment that the Executive have already made to various Departments and agencies in that regard. We are assessing the full cost of the storm, and we may have to engage further with the Treasury when we know the full cost.
The Member also, quite rightly, referenced the challenges that are faced by NI Water, DFI Roads, public transport and active travel etc, all of which fall under DFI's remit. It is a crucial area, and I have a lot of knowledge of it. If we do not get our infrastructure right, the rest will not follow behind. It is an area that requires investment and scrutiny. The Chair of the Executive Office Committee, Paula Bradshaw, raised issues within her remit. She referred to the appointment of commissioners and other public appointments. Ms Bradshaw is not with us currently, but much of that is to do with TEO rather than me directly. I have some information to hand, however, which I can forward to Ms Bradshaw in due course. Colm Gildernew mentioned the £12 million welfare payment that is covered by the black box provisions. I hope that the Communities Minister will bring forward the necessary legislation to cover that. He also referred to the role of the Fiscal Council and the need for an evidence-based and needs-based approach to the Budget, which I fully agree with. Steve Aiken raised an issue in relation to the accuracy of the documentation that is before us. I assure Dr Aiken that while 45% is an approximate figure, he will note that it is used neither in the legislation nor in the financial memorandum that is attached to it. Today, we are asking to agree the actual figure, which is above 45%. That came about because not all Departments asked for 45%. Some Departments have asked for slightly more than 45% for specific reasons, and I will ask my officials to communicate with the Finance Committee on that matter. For instance, the Department for Infrastructure has asked for a £103 million spend and a £6 million spend, which brings it over the 45%. TEO has £35 million more over the 45% figure, and the Department of Health has £63 million over the 45% figure. The exact figure is 45·7789%, but the Member raises a valid point. If we are using figures in presentations to Committees or the Assembly, we should give the exact figure. In future, I will endeavour to ensure, in the interests of fullness and openness, that when we are presenting these matters, we present the exact figure for full and complete transparency. I can assure the Member that the financial memorandum and the Bill refer to the actual amount that is being released rather than the percentage amount.
The Member raises a valid point, in the sense that the actual financial figure may be different. We will, however, clarify all that with the Committee. Nowhere in the legislation is the figure referred to as being 45%. We gave a rounded figure during the presentations, but as I said, for the sake of fullness and transparency, we should use the exact percentage point that we are asking Members to release. The legislation gives the exact cash amount that we are releasing, so there is no inaccuracy in that. However, if we are quoting figures, particularly in a Budget debate, let us make sure that they are completely transparent. Tom Buchanan raised the issue of the cost of bovine TB. Again, I work with all Ministers on the challenges that their Departments face. The previous Finance Minister worked with the Agriculture Minister on those matters, and awards have been made recently in relation to the challenges and costs of bovine TB. I will commit to continuing that role. Danny Donnelly referred to ensuring that the Health Department runs effectively and efficiently. I agree, but I apply the caveat that all our Departments need to be run effectively and efficiently in order to ensure that we meet the challenges of our Budget and look for opportunities to improve public services. Jemma Dolan brought some positivity to the debate. She referred to the doubling of the childcare allocation and to earmarked funding for DAERA, so well done, Jemma. It is always nice to hear a bit of positivity. Joanne Bunting referred to the challenges that the Department of Justice faces. I again emphasise that I will be working with all Ministers to ensure that we get the most out of our Budget and deal with the challenges that we face, and I do recognise the challenges that the Justice Department faces. Alan Chambers, I have to say, dutifully defended his Health Minister, as he does, and he is right to do so. If any of my colleagues behind me want to copy his example, they should.
As the old saying goes, there are always two sides to every argument, and he rightly pointed out the challenges that the Department of Health faces, so I will work with Minister Nesbitt. Paul Frew recognised the previous Finance Minister's commitment and work, as did a number of other Members who spoke, and it is only right and proper that they did so. Caoimhe left an important legacy in the Department. I do not want to incur the wrath of the Speaker, but Mr Frew spoke about the wording of Standing Orders, which is a matter for the Committee on Procedures, but I can see his argument. He questioned whether the Budget was linked to the Programme for Government. I would argue that it is, as the priorities in the PFG are well known. The legislation before us is not the place for the clarification that he requires or for further linkages to be made to the PFG. As he knows, legislation is a rather blunt instrument, but, again, I accept his point. It is up to individual Departments and Committees to establish whether there are linkages between the two, however. Sinéad McLaughlin spoke about multi-year Budgets and the role of the Fiscal Council. She asked how we will ensure that our Budget is based on need and that it tackles social disadvantage. I welcome the appointment of Professor Gerry Holtham, who led the Holtham commission in Wales, to conduct an independent review of the North's level of need. That data-driven evidence will allow me to approach the Treasury and Whitehall in a more informed and robust way than simply going along with well-rehearsed arguments. The work of Professor Holtham, who is well respected, will be crucial to ensuring that the Executive are properly funded. Diane Forsythe commended the departmental officials who have been engaging with the Committee for Finance, and I very much welcome that. My officials work extremely hard and are keen to work with the Committee and others. I wrote to the Finance Committee to give it all the information that I can at this stage about increases in employers' National Insurance contributions. The estimated cost to the Executive, to councils and to the community and voluntary sector will be in the region of £200 million. How much we will get in return from Barnett consequentials has yet to be confirmed to me. Members ask how much I am looking for from the Treasury. The answer is that I am looking for it all. I have asked the Treasury to reimburse fully the Executive, councils and the community and voluntary sector. It is an ambitious ask, but that is from where we have to start, so that is how much I have asked for.
Yes.
I am meeting the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on, I think, 27 February, along with the Finance Ministers from Scotland and Wales, as part of the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee. The three of us have already met to discuss how we will approach our meeting with the Treasury, and I believe that we will do so with a combined voice, which will lend more strength to our arguments. Work is therefore ongoing. When will the Treasury confirm its figures? That is a matter for the Treasury. I have asked for the figures to be confirmed as soon as possible. The Treasury is working its way through its processes, and, unfortunately, I have no control over that. Sian Mulholland referred to the need for more social housing and a range of other matters concerning the Department for Communities. Again, I emphasise that I will work with Ministers in all Departments. There will also be a challenge function in that. I do not pick out Communities in that regard: there is a challenge function for me, as Minister, to ensure that all Departments are doing everything within their power to help themselves; that they are using the funding that they have effectively and efficiently; that their further spending proposals fit in with the draft Programme for Government; and that they ensure that public services will be improved effectively and efficiently. I will approach all Ministers on that basis. Timothy Gaston did not miss the opportunity to put the ball in the back of the net. If I leave an open net, why would he not? I can understand why he did that. He made the point that none of the funds that we are talking about in the Bill has been raised by the Assembly. That is factually correct. However, is that not an argument for more fiscal authority and powers for the Assembly? As the Member said, it will be stamped, "Made in Stormont", produced by the Northern Ireland Assembly. If we are voting on it and managing it, let us have more authority and more power over it. He missed this point: the money that we spend has come from the taxes of the people whom we represent. That is an important point to remember in this equation. While it may be held in the Treasury, the taxes that go to the Treasury come from the people whom we represent, so let us ensure that we give them full representation. Mr Gaston rightly challenged the standard of healthcare in the South, but that is not about a lack of money; it is about a lack of political ambition. If we were sitting with a €12 billion surplus, I suspect that Members in the Chamber would challenge me and the Executive to ensure that that money went into front-line public services. I would argue that, in the South, it is about not a lack of money but a lack of political ambition. I ask Members to support the Budget Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2024-25; the Vote on Account for 2025-26; and the Statement of Excesses for 2023-24, as identified by the Public Accounts Committee.

2,601 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