Debate resumed on motion:

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £25,255,627,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, for the year ending 31 March 2025 and that resources, not exceeding £28,772,794,000, be authorised for use by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2025 as summarised for each Department or other public body in column 2 of table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2024-25 laid before the Assembly on 19 June 2024. — [Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance).]

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

That this Assembly approves that sums be granted out of the Consolidated Fund not exceeding £397,000 for the year ending 31 March 2017 and not exceeding £45,000 for the year ending 31 March 2019 for use by the Public Prosecution Service; that resources not exceeding £11,409,000 for the year ending 31 March 2021 and not exceeding £10,721,000 for the year ending 31 March 2022 be authorised for use by the Department of Education — teachers’ superannuation; and that resources not exceeding £7,380,000 for the year ending 31 March 2023 be authorised for use by the Department of Education; as detailed in the Statement of Excesses 2017, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 document laid before the Assembly on 19 June 2024. — [Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance).]

I welcome the progress that has been made on a Budget. It has been a long time coming. We understand why it has taken so long, and we understand the procedures that have been followed to get here, not least the 65% Vote on Account earlier in the year that allowed that wee bit more flexibility. I am glad that we will have a Budget Bill before the Assembly tomorrow, before we go into recess. We would have been in a bad place if we, as an Assembly, had not had sight of that Budget (No. 2) Bill until September. I welcome the progress, and I thank the Finance Minister for that progress.

We hear time after time, not only from the Finance Minister and her Department, that this is a challenging Budget and that we are in a challenging environment. I guess that we can all agree with that, and we can all agree that we have not been funded under an ideal model in recent years. We have had success, which I welcome and acknowledge, with regard to a needs-based funding framework, whereby we are funded under relative need of 124%, and that is essential going forward. However, with that figure, we will still hit a cliff edge soon, so I push the Minister to do all that she can in her endeavours to pursue the Exchequer and the new Government, whoever it may be, to ensure that we are funded by need.

One the biggest issues that will face us, as well as how we will build on and improve our infrastructure, is, simply, how we will pay people what they are worth and what is fair. If we do not pay people fairly and appropriately, we will see our infrastructure and our services crumble. We know that pay awards are a massive issue, but there are no recurring moneys coming from Treasury for pay awards. Therefore, we have to fund that recurrently for ever and a day. That is a massive challenge.

Given all of those challenges — having to pay people appropriately, not having enough money in the first place and a crumbling infrastructure — what do we need? It is obvious that we need more money, but we also need better scrutiny and, with that better scrutiny, transformation and reform of our Departments and of how our services are delivered. I have yet to see any real progress in those areas, either so far in this short term or previously. It alarms me that we do not see that.

Worse than that, when it comes to scrutiny, I see a reversal.

In the last mandate, we had the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. I am so interested in that Act because I amended it to introduce a section that adds to scrutiny. It places a duty on all Departments that they:

"must provide the relevant Assembly committee with a written or oral briefing on the department’s submission to each monitoring round no longer than 7 days following submission to the Department of Finance."

From what I can see and hear, many Departments have failed to do that in monitoring rounds. The Finance Committee has also discovered that most scrutiny Committees have not had adequate time or presence from officials to discuss their budgetary bids and positions. With the more challenging Budget, fiscal framework and environment in which we operate, it seems that scrutiny has gone down and not up. That does not bode well for the future. That is when mistakes happen. I worry that mistakes could happen in every Department that is not scrutinised properly or does not afford its scrutiny Committee the appropriate information in a timely fashion to enable it to support and advise the Department.

Of course, with the challenging Budget environment that we are in, we hear the cry endlessly for further fiscal powers. If we have less scrutiny, how will we cope with more fiscal powers? Does it not mean that more things will go wrong, if we have more fiscal powers? I worry about the way forward with regard to further fiscal powers. What will we do with those levers? What will we do with those additional levers of power, if we are in a challenging environment? Those levers will go only up, never down. Whom will that hurt? It will hurt middle-income earners, the people who are just managing to stay above water. That worries me too.

I also worry about the fact that a member of the Executive will not support the Budget. Two pillars of governance are the Programme for Government and a Budget to go with it. If a Minister will not support the Budget, while that is his prerogative, he should consider his position in the Executive, so that they can move on with one voice.

I speak on behalf of the Committee. The Main Estimates indicate that the Department has been allocated a budget of around £186 million of resource DEL. Of that, £105 million is earmarked, so there is a very small amount of baseline funds to play with. In addition, the Department will receive £18 million for capital projects, such as Ebrington, Urban Villages and the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation. The Committee looks forward to visiting Ebrington later this year to discuss the site in further detail and to look at how investment is being used to good effect. The Committee has been particularly interested in regional balance in that regard, so our intended visit to the north-west will be an opportunity to look at how money is being invested in that area.

The Department has indicated that it was anticipating having to make the same savings as in its 2023-24 budget: 10% across the board. Those savings have to be made out of the £81 million of baseline funds that are available, which, as in the last financial year, is likely to be a considerable challenge. Those required savings are in addition to new areas of expenditure for the Department, such as the establishment of an Irish language commissioner, a commissioner for Ulster-Scots and the Ulster-British tradition and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. In addition, the establishment of a central delivery unit for government, the provision of free period products and the progression of the ending violence against women and girls strategy will all have to be paid for. The forecast funding for victims' payments, historical institutional abuse costs and the truth recovery programme has increased by over £30 million since the previous Budget. Truth recovery costs could also increase by a further £3·1 million once legislation is passed to establish an inquiry and redress arrangements. The Committee is eager to look into the detail of that when the Bill to establish an inquiry proceeds to Committee Stage.

The Department has indicated that managing those pressures means that it will have to go into 2024-25 with an overcommitment, which it currently plans to manage to zero during the year. The current Estimate, however, in the absence of June monitoring — sorry, this speech was written before the announcement — represents an overspend in excess of £4 million. The Department made its June monitoring bids, and we are grateful that the Finance Minister was able to make her announcement this afternoon.

It is important that we get the money right. We need to ensure that the groups on the ground that deliver across the service areas for the Executive Office have resources and stability. We look forward to undertaking further scrutiny of the Department's finances in the coming months.

Members who have been here for a bit longer and have been scrutinising our finances for some time as part of the Finance Committee will look at the motions before us with interest. One of the most interesting things is that we are talking about the Northern Ireland Main Estimates and the Excess Votes from 2016-17 on. If there is anything to indicate how badly we have got things wrong since then, it should be that. We are being asked to approve Excess Votes from 2016-17 to 2022-23. There is no doubt that we will, because this is money spent and money gone. There will not be a Division on that. We need to understand, however, how we have got to the point at which we are now trying to ask Westminster to be allowed more opportunities for the devolution of fiscal powers, when this is the first time since 2016 that we are in a position to approve the Main Estimates. That is something that we all should be concerned about.

The point that I now make is not a political one but a point of scrutiny, and other Members have alluded to it. The lack of information and the lack of a flow of reliable data will make it remarkably difficult for us as Members to provide appropriate scrutiny of any of the processes going forward. I am glad to see that the Minister is pushing ahead with the idea of putting the Fiscal Council on a proper statutory footing, but that has to be expedited, because we cannot afford to be in the situation again in which we wait seven to eight years to pass the Estimates.

I will go on to talk about some other issues, but there is another thing that concerns me. I would never want to give a boost to my learned friend the Chair of the Finance Committee, who is also the leader of the Opposition, but there is something off about having the June monitoring round at this stage, when a delay of three to four days would not have made much difference.

A further concern is that I have asked the First Minister and the deputy First Minister a direct question about a Programme for Government, which is essential for what we need to do and what we are trying to do. I asked why we could not bring a Programme for Government forward. The reason that I was given was that we are in purdah and that arrangements were being made that it should not happen. We are being asked to consider a Budget that is not based on need. If it were based on need, the health budget would not be in the position in which it is and we would not be as short of funding as we are. We are grateful for the additional £122 million, but we are still in a catastrophic situation. That point has been underlined by our health trusts and health professionals.

We should look objectively at the need. We spent a lot of time at Hillsborough Castle, as we sat around the various tables, trying to make sure that the British Government realised that there was a definition of need and that improvements were required to the level of need that we have. We have talked about that, and we have seen the level of need increase to 124%; indeed, it may and probably will have to be higher than that. That is a needs-based approach. If we took the needs-based approach, how did we get into a situation where the Health Department has been cut? We have heard Alliance and everybody else say, "Oh no, it hasn't really been cut". Yes, it has. It has been cut by 2·3%, which is £187 million. We cannot deliver what we need to do with the funds that we have. We are in a catastrophic situation.

The Minister might make some remarks at the end about how we get to a proper needs-based approach for budgeting. I do not know how we will do that without a Programme for Government. The one thing I remember is that all the main parties who sat round the table at Hillsborough Castle said that they were committed to making health the number-one priority; indeed, many of those parties said in their manifestos that Health needs an extra £1 billion. Now we are scrabbling for extra moneys. As the Minister said earlier today, the Health requirement far outstrips the moneys that are available. That talks to the need for proper prioritisation and the need to make sure that that happens.

We are without a Programme for Government, and the June monitoring round is now happening in July, but there is another thing that raises my concern: the Minister is taking this at risk. I would also like the Minister to address why she has a degree of certainty that the Treasury, which will probably be under a new Government, will honour the various commitments.

I thank the Member for giving way. He will be aware of the pre-election guidance that was issued by the Executive Office, which said:

"Where a proposed announcement would involve consultation with UK Government Departments, the general presumption is that it should be deferred until the new UK Government is in place."

Given that today's monitoring round was clear that the allocations were made at risk and that there was some lack of certainty over whether the UK Government would agree to the specific allocations, does that not indicate that it is a prima facie breach of the pre-election guidance?

The Member has an extra minute.

That question should be raised with the permanent secretary or the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. There may, indeed, be a case for that. My concern is more fundamental than that, and it is that we are predicating the June monitoring round on moneys that have not been guaranteed. As I said, I would like the Minister to give the House some degree of surety that those funds will actually be there.

We expect that there probably will be a new Government in place come Friday, and there are already indications that we are moving to an early Budget, maybe even in September. If that is the case, what are the plans going forward to make sure that we are able to continue with this process? We will need another monitoring round, and I am beginning to suspect that we will need another Budget Bill. We need to have some kind of assurance that we are top of this, but we cannot get that — I go back to my first point, which others have mentioned — unless we have proper data, proper governance and proper use and flow of information. If we cannot do our job effectively and scrutinise effectively, we cannot help you, Minister, and we definitely cannot help the Departments.

I am pleased to speak on the issue today. We are all conscious that this is an important week in which to consider our public finances, as a new Government will soon take shape in Westminster. I start by saying that we absolutely understand that the money simply does not exist to do everything that we want to see done or to meet the many competing pressures on Departments. None of us is under any illusion at all about the scale of the funding crisis that faces us.

However, that is all the more reason for us to be prudent and strategic about our use of public money. More than ever, the public expect and deserve their politicians to manage public affairs in a way that maximises value for money. Let us be honest: we can afford to do nothing less when our public services are on their knees.

We have all knocked on the doors asking for votes in the past six weeks. We all note that we scarcely pass a door without hearing a harrowing story about an excruciating wait for treatment in our health service and the chronic agony experienced by people as they wait for a life-transforming appointment. The same frustration can be felt when it comes to the housing crisis in Northern Ireland. A couple of weeks ago, I raised the case of a young woman in my constituency who had a cesarean section and gave birth to a beautiful girl but returned home to temporary accommodation in a hotel room with a toddler in tow. That is no way for our people to be forced to live. My staff team do the best they can in supporting the constituency, but, like the public, they feel let down and left behind by politics.

We can also feel frustrated and angry about the levels of poverty in our community. In 2024, it is unacceptable that 18% of children here live in relative poverty before housing costs. That level of poverty has real and deep consequences for well-being and life expectancy, with poor children being four times more likely to develop a mental health problem by the age of 11. The gap in healthy life expectancy is between 11 and 15 years when comparing the most and least deprived areas. That is totally unacceptable, and the gaps are getting bigger.

At last week's Public Accounts Committee meeting, MLAs received a briefing on child poverty and the lack of progress that has been made. The officials were crystal clear that the absence of a Government here has exacerbated poverty. I hope that the parties that collapsed this place — whatever their reasons — reflect on that meeting and on the myriad times since our return that we have been told about the impact of the lack of a Government here: soaring waiting lists, spiralling childcare costs, and more and more children and adults trapped in poverty. Those are the consequences of politicians who would rather pull things down than build them up and would rather walk away than reach a consensus. We cannot allow that to happen again.

In the context of all that, I hope that all parties agree that this mandate should be different from the last one. The Executive simply have to do better when it comes to the strategic planning of our public services. The public understand that not everything can be funded, and they are well used to hard times after the last decade. However, we need a better deal and a more strategic approach that prioritises early intervention and understands that prevention is better than cure. It will require difficult decisions. It will also require the parties to live up to their commitments, to put the plans on the table and to outline how those plans will be prioritised. Such accountability and transparency will give confidence to the public that this Government are serious and understand the gravity of the challenges facing individuals and families in our communities.

As we speak, we have not seen a Programme for Government. The public are asking, "Where is the plan for our public services? Are the Government up to the task of sorting them out? Are they even serious about doing that?". It is time to step up to the plate. I hope that the Executive can do that. We will work with other parties to secure a strong fiscal framework and improved financial settlement from Westminster. We will continue to call for a comprehensive spending review and greater accountability on effective spending to improve public services, including through an enhanced role for the Fiscal Council. That will include advocating a Programme for Government target to meaningfully increase tax varying and borrowing powers for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

In the meantime, the Opposition will closely scrutinise the Executive's approach to public finances to ensure that it meets the needs of our people and aligns with our priorities, with the long-term funding needed to ensure a better future for all our communities. That is the only way in which we can secure the transformation of our public services and the change needed across our region.

I listened intently to Dr Aiken's emphasis on health in his contribution. I am sure that all our offices receive correspondence about waiting lists, childcare and paediatric health issues. Some of the cases could take a tear from a stone. I raised this point earlier in response to the Minister of Health's statement: there is a need for the re-establishment of the cross-border healthcare directive to help reduce waiting lists. We all know and recognise the need for cross-border cooperation on health. We often talk about it in the Chamber. It makes sense. If we can in some way alleviate the problem of our major waiting lists, why not do it? Why not collaborate with the Irish Government and Minister Donnelly to see what can conceivably be done? The health service is on its knees. Day and daily, we hear of cases, and it honestly seems to be getting worse. The required investment would at least help to break the back of some of the waiting lists, which are getting longer and longer.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I do not wish to put words in the Minister's mouth, but I assure you that, had the Minister the funding to continue those initiatives, he would look favourably on doing so. Working effectively together is not just an "all-island" health strategy; it is an "all-islands" health strategy.

Patsy, you have an extra minute.

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

We owe it to our people to do all that we humanly can, especially on health. Nevertheless, I will move on to the scripted speech that I intended to give, but Dr Aiken inspired me to raise that issue first.

The environment and ecological crisis that we face in the North demands long-term strategic thinking and action, but the Executive have repeatedly failed to deliver what is required. The Budget demonstrates that. Nowhere is the absence of long-term strategic thinking more apparent than in the Executive's failure to deliver for Lough Neagh.

It is almost exactly a year since the devastating algae blooms shut down activity on the lough. The stench and sight of the blooms were apparent, as were their effects. We are now back in the summer months, and the blooms are, in fact, recurring on the lough. In some pictures taken by the PSNI last week, the blooms were very visible. They are re-emerging. The Assembly is about to go into summer recess, and the Executive parties have not delivered a rescue plan for the lough. In fairness to the AERA Minister, it is not necessarily because of a lack of ambition on his part.

We know what is needed to address the excessive levels of nutrients in the lough that fuel the algae blooms. All parties and MLAs received the briefings from DAERA about its priorities. The key actions that were recommended at the start of the year included: enforcing existing regulations; reducing the level of phosphorous in animal feed; developing a policy to reduce or eliminate the use of chemical phosphorous fertiliser on grasslands; bringing forward an updated nitrates action programme; and making additional investment in our waste water network. The estimated additional costs for the necessary upgrading of 18 waste water treatment works that have an impact on Lough Neagh was £131 million. If Executive parties are serious about improving the poor water quality in our rivers and lakes, further investment will be needed in the water and waste water network across the North.

The additional moneys for social housing were mentioned, and that is very welcome indeed. Many of our towns are in paralysis because of the lack of investment in the waste water disposal system. Sewage disposal works are at or beyond capacity. That has an effect on the delivery of social and private housing and on retail and commercial developments. Consequentially, there is an impact on the cost of housing. Hopefully, any negotiations between the Executive and, what we hope will be, an incoming Labour Government will render at least some investment in the improvements that are so needed for all our vital agencies.

Another area in which the Executive have not delivered is climate change and, in particular, the just transition to net zero. When the Assembly passed the Climate Change Act in 2022, we set ambitious targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for all sectors of our economy to achieve. Given the delay in agreeing to the targets in the Climate Change Act, we had a short time to start to take action. Due to the DUP's boycott of the Executive, the deadline for setting the first carbon budget has been missed. The deadline for the first carbon action plan has also been missed.

It was recognised that achieving the ambitious targets that are in the Climate Change Act would require advice and assistance in order for it to be available for all sectors, particularly agriculture, yet, despite the urgent need to act, the required just transition commission is not in place. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have not established the office of climate commissioner, and no one has been appointed to the post. There is no just transition fund for agriculture to assist farmers to make the necessary changes in farming practice. It is an absolute requirement to facilitate that transition by way of training and grant aid and to move to new farming and agricultural methods. Those are essential elements of the Climate Change Act that are required if we are to achieve the net zero target by 2050. The longer that it takes to start the process of a just transition, the more difficult that transition will be. It is also vital that we define exactly what that just transition is, yet not only are those elements of the Climate Change Act missing but there is still a lack of clarity about that definition.

I raised those issues with the AERA Minister during his appearances at the Committee, so he is well aware of our party's concerns. As I have repeatedly said, the SDLP is willing to work constructively with the Minister on Lough Neagh, on a just transition to net zero and on establishing an independent environmental protection agency, but Executive parties really need to work together much more constructively on those and other issues. Otherwise, it will be an abject failure.

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leat as cuireadh a thabhairt domh labhairt.

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank you for giving me the invitation to speak.]

Go raibh maith agat as sin.

[Translation: Thank you for that.]

I call the Minister of Finance, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. You have up to 55 minutes.

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.

Will the Minister give way?

Quickly.

Thanks very much indeed, Minister. The question that I was trying to get at was how you can have that degree of certainty from the Treasury. Do we have any correspondence or written guidance from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that states, "These are assumptions that you can work to"?

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.

I can.

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.

Go raibh maith agat as sin, a Aire.

[Translation: Thank you for that, Minister.]

Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £25,255,627,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, for the year ending 31 March 2025 and that resources, not exceeding £28,772,794,000, be authorised for use by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2025 as summarised for each Department or other public body in column 2 of table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2024-25 laid before the Assembly on 19 June 2024.

We now move to the Supply resolution for Excess Votes, which has already been debated.

Motion proposed:

That this Assembly approves that sums be granted out of the Consolidated Fund not exceeding £397,000 for the year ending 31 March 2017 and not exceeding £45,000 for the year ending 31 March 2019 for use by the Public Prosecution Service; that resources not exceeding £11,409,000 for the year ending 31 March 2021 and not exceeding £10,721,000 for the year ending 31 March 2022 be authorised for use by the Department of Education — teachers’ superannuation; and that resources not exceeding £7,380,000 for the year ending 31 March 2023 be authorised for use by the Department of Education; as detailed in the Statement of Excesses 2017, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 document laid before the Assembly on 19 June 2024.

Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly approves that sums be granted out of the Consolidated Fund not exceeding £397,000 for the year ending 31 March 2017 and not exceeding £45,000 for the year ending 31 March 2019 for use by the Public Prosecution Service; that resources not exceeding £11,409,000 for the year ending 31 March 2021 and not exceeding £10,721,000 for the year ending 31 March 2022 be authorised for use by the Department of Education — teachers’ superannuation; and that resources not exceeding £7,380,000 for the year ending 31 March 2023 be authorised for use by the Department of Education; as detailed in the Statement of Excesses 2017, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 document laid before the Assembly on 19 June 2024. — [Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance).]