Debate contribution: Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on 20 April 2026.

MLA

Ms Diane Forsythe

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

20 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5493937

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Minister for his comments. I am pleased to speak on the Bill.

As Members have outlined, the Bill is somewhat unusual, and, following a range of somewhat smaller and routine legislation, it is the first quite substantial piece of legislation that has come before the Finance Committee in the time that I have sat on it. Maybe it is because my predecessor, Paul Frew, was on the Committee before, but I really enjoyed working through the detail of the legislation, so his legacy in the Committee lives on.

As has been said, with 20 substantive clauses that deal with a whole range of issues, interpretation and commencement, and involve some seven different Departments, the Bill is wide-ranging. I am grateful to the Department of Finance officials, other Committees and other officials who came to us at the Finance Committee to work through it. One of the main aims of the Bill is to remove items from the black box, so it is good to see that progress. As has been outlined, financial provisions Bills have been brought at semi-regular intervals in the past. There have been so many issues. We have got financial provisions and administrative provisions. You can see how they could have been kept separate, but grouping them has allowed for a lot of things to happen. The leader of the Opposition referred to some amendments that were not selected, but I feel that the creation of five new corporate bodies was quite beyond the scope of the Bill, which is trying to help Departments operate administrative processes and move with their finances. The clauses are wide-ranging, so it was great to get into the detail of them. They have been outlined at length. They cover powers for the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy and marine licensing through DAERA. I, like the previous contributor, am really pleased to welcome the power to do with the spend on ending violence against women and girls. It is important to note that moving the immigration spend from the black box across to TEO does not bring any extra powers; it just moves the regularisation of the spend. Immigration policy remains with Westminster. I turn to the amendments. As the Minister said, the amendment concerning the training of teachers came through from the Minister of Education on the back of his scheme to bring forward a way to provide the bursaries that he had previously announced. The Education Committee looked at it, and we were pleased to see that it can be activated through the Bill in this mandate, as it would have been difficult to activate that policy intention had it not been able to come through in this way. We are happy to support that amendment. I turn to the two amendments to clause 17, which relates to travel passes. When the Bill was introduced, I was quite concerned about that clause. On first reading the Bill, I thought that it was a move to bring in charging and remove the travel passes completely. I appreciated the opportunity to scrutinise the intent of that clause. As a party, we were very pleased when the travel passes were introduced, and we think that they are really important for people in Northern Ireland, especially older people. We were concerned, but when we saw the evidence, it was quite clear that the power was about changing the administrative process, that no decisions had been made and that it was a consideration for the future. We brought forward a proposal because we did not like the fact that it was subject to negative resolution. We felt that, to be fully transparent, any regulation needed to come to the House to be explained and costed. We were grateful that Infrastructure officials came to talk to us about it at the Finance Committee and agreed the amendment with the Infrastructure Minister and the Finance Minister. We support the amendment and the fact that, when changes are being considered, they will be fully costed, explained and brought to the Floor to see what exactly they mean. That will give Assembly Members an open and transparent place to speak about them to the public. Finally, I turn to clause 20. I am also a member of the Audit Committee, so I scrutinised that clause from both sides. It was not a conflict of interest; at times, it helped to have it explained in both places. When the Audit Committee got the legislation, clause 20 looked like a good process piece on paper, but when we got into the detail of it, it was very clear that a Standing Committee that meets once a month does not have the capacity to take on the full operational tasks, such as those in the Bill. The Audit Committee recommended that that not be accepted, and the Finance Committee agreed with it on that piece. I am pleased that the Minister has also agreed with that. Again, we support the Minister's opposition to the question that clause 20 stand part of the Bill. As I said, the Bill is wide-ranging and comprehensive. We have looked at each clause in detail at the Committee and through cross-cutting work with other Committees. I worked with my party colleagues who lead in each Committee area to understand what each clause means. We will support the clauses as they progress, and we will support the amendments. Finance is not often a Department that most people would pick to work in by choice, but some of us did it as a career at one point. In many ways, that is what always happens: the Department of Finance is the catch-all. It comes along, tidies up the admin and signs off the piece to give you the power to spend the money, but it is important that all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. This legislation is really important, and we support it today.

996 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 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