Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly am 12:30 pm ar 23 Medi 2024.
I beg to move
That the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA Bill 06/22-27] do now pass.
The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.
Today's Final Stage concludes the financial legislative process for the Budget (No. 2) Bill in the Assembly. The debate at the Second Stage of the Bill on 2 July was valuable, and I thank all Members for the contributions that they have brought to the process.
As Members may recall, a 65% Vote on Account for 2024-25 was agreed by the Assembly on 9 April. That Vote on Account provided finance to allow existing services to continue in 2024-25, pending consideration of appropriate legislation to meet the full expenditure for 2024-25 — the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Main Estimates for 2024-25 relate to the supply of cash and use of resources for the current year and are based on the departmental spending plans as set out in the Executive's 2024-25 Budget, which was agreed on 25 April. As Members may recall, demand for allocations far outstripped the funding available for 2024-25, and we did not have the Budget to do everything that we would have wanted to do in order to provide the public services that people deserve.
The 2024-25 Budget was agreed by the Assembly on 24 May following extensive debate. I will not repeat the same detail now, as today's focus is to complete the passage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Main Estimates for 2024-25 were laid in the Assembly on 19 June alongside the Statement of Excesses, and both were debated and agreed by the Assembly on 1 July. The Budget (No. 2) Bill reflects the same position. The Bill provides the vital legislative authority for expenditure by Departments and other bodies, as set out in the agreed Estimates, and authorises the use of resources and sums issued from the Consolidated Fund for previous years, as detailed in the Statement of Excesses.
While the debate is on the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill and relates to the Main Estimates as laid in June, I will talk briefly about the in-year position. I have spoken previously about the difficult budgetary position that the Executive find themselves in at this point, and Members will be well aware of the challenges that we face. The response to the urgent information-gathering exercise that I commissioned from Departments identified a reported £767 million of unfunded pressures. I have said that I am willing to allocate £500 million to Departments to help them to manage those pressures. That £500 million represents the anticipated level of additional Barnett consequentials to the Executive for the rest of the year, a figure that was arrived at through proactive engagement with Treasury on the likely direction of travel on Barnett. Clearly, that will not meet the full level of pressures that are being forecast, but I believe that it is important to give Departments as much certainty as I can as early as I can to enable them to take the decisions to live within their Budget allocations.
The consequences of not living within our Budget are well understood, and I will not repeat them all here, except to say that they include the potential to jeopardise many of the gains made by parties in the financial package that accompanied the return of the Executive, as well as the interim fiscal framework that I agreed with Treasury. The Executive's funding envelope for 2025-26 will not be known until the end of October, but I anticipate that it will be challenging, and any overspend this year will make a bad situation considerably worse. I intend shortly to bring a paper to the Executive with proposals for allocating the £500 million, and I hope to get Executive agreement. It is vital that each Department take the necessary action to live within their budget once those allocations are agreed.
My Department has also developed a Budget sustainability plan that will be presented to Executive colleagues shortly. The plan will be a first step in a more ambitious programme of work that will help to set public services on a more sustainable footing. The interim fiscal framework agreed that the 24% needs-based adjustment factor would apply from the date of restoration. That will have resulted in an additional £160 million for the Executive by year end based on the assumed level of £500 million of Barnett consequentials that I referred to.
I am determined to continue to press the British Government to ensure that public services are sustainably funded. I have begun the exercise of gathering information from Departments to inform decisions around the upcoming Budget for 2025-26. Today, however, is about concluding the Final Stage of our legislative process for the 2024-25 Budget. Members will be aware of the importance of bringing the Budget (No. 2) Bill into law in giving Departments the statutory authority for the total amounts of resource, capital and cash in the Main Estimates. If passed, the legislation will then require Royal Assent, and there are a number of steps to go through before it reaches that stage.
While I do not expect any unnecessary delay until Royal Assent is achieved, Departments will continue to rely on the 65% Vote on Account agreed by the Assembly. Some Departments have already indicated that they are approaching the limit of their available Vote on Account, with DAERA having already received a cash advance from the Consolidated Fund to cover payments being made this month.
As the year progresses, the Executive may make further decisions on the allocation of resources, and I will bring those back to the Assembly, through the spring Supplementary Estimates and a subsequent Budget Bill, at the end of the financial year.
I express my gratitude, once again, to the Finance Committee for agreeing to accelerated passage. I also thank all the Committees and their members for the level of scrutiny that they have brought to the process.
This is the Final Stage of the legislative process for the Bill. I look forward to hearing any final thoughts that Members have on this important piece of legislation.
The first thing for us to welcome today — yes, we welcome it — is that we are actually at the Final Stage of a Budget Bill. Unfortunately, it is not a three-year strategic Budget that will be aligned to the priorities in a Programme for Government. However, it would be unfair to land all the blame for that at the door of the Minister. What we have instead is our tenth single-year sticky tape Budget in a row. We need to recognise that this is not the way to deliver proper or sound fiscal policy, and we really need to overcome that.
We appreciate that this is a tight Budget. It would be foolish to think, or even try to portray, that the amount of money that has been given to us to deliver public services is at the level that we would like to see it at. The amount that we have in our Budget is not enough. That is a fact. However, one has to wonder how long it can be credible for the Executive to have a policy of high-level spending aspirations that are not met by the level of their Budget and simply bemoan that we do not have enough money. While it is accepted that the levels coming from London have not been enough in the past, and may not be enough in the future, I cannot help but wonder whether the Executive and Finance Minister are preparing the inevitable plan B that needs to run alongside such a reality. You need to be honest with the public. Are you prepared to revenue-raise or cut budgets? In the face of insufficient funds from London, one or other of those will have to happen.
I repeat that we cannot lay all the blame at the door of the Finance Minister, but the Budget required accelerated passage, which is not a good form of government. However, the collapse and chaos of the Executive's stability, delivered by Sinn Féin and the DUP, have resulted in stop-start government. That has had an inevitable impact on the finance-planning process and the delivery of Budget Bills over the past decade.
An important process and part of any budgetary cycle is the delivery of the in-year monitoring rounds. Members will be aware that that means that the little cash pot that accrues is divided among Departments at various points during the year to help them with their work. That often brings relief to Departments' very tight budgets, and it enables the delivery of public services that might not otherwise have been delivered. It is well recognised that that is popular with the public because things that may not have happened suddenly do happen. I reiterate the Opposition's perspective: it was shameful that the Executive delivered a monitoring round in the week of an election. That could have been perceived as an abuse of the process of these institutions to win favour with the electorate at election time. It is right and proper that the process for that decision-making, as part of our financial cycle, is fully examined by independent eyes to determine whether it could have been done differently.
The Budget is not what we want it to be. It is not the right amount of money. It is not set against strategic outcomes. It does not look to the long term, and it is wanting in many places. However, the Opposition recognise the specific circumstances that exist. It could have been different. The Executive will deliver stability and be able to set priorities properly with their spending plans. We expect to see the deficiencies in this year's process addressed from next year's Budget onwards.
I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward again.
I do not want to rehash previous debates, but we are in a position that, as a result of Tory austerity, is undoubtedly very difficult, and we see, with the current British Government, that the situation is not looking positive now either. However, it is important to remember that we have to make sure that we work with the financial envelope that we have, particularly from a health perspective, which is the area that I am party spokesperson for and am dealing with through the Committee. We need to see plans, and we need to ensure that the financial envelope that we have is put to the best use so that we can deliver for patients and staff across the North in the short term.
Last week, we had a debate about the transformation of our health service, and that will undoubtedly be hugely challenging in the financial climate. However, there are lots of things that we can do, and one of the key focuses is workforce, because without a workforce — I mean a stable workforce — we will have no services. We see the implications of that every day across our social work services and in nursing, where we see staff shortages and their consequences for services and for delivery to patients and service users. Whilst we appreciate that the Budget is difficult, that the Finance Minister has done an incredible amount of work and that the Health Department has the largest amount from the Budget, we have to ensure that we maximise that to achieve the greatest potential for all our citizens. I will end on that.
We are all well versed in the Budget circumstances. We know that Northern Ireland has long been underfunded, and our DUP leader, Gavin Robinson MP, has been leading the campaign for an improved funding package for Northern Ireland for some time. Whilst the stabilisation package that the Government have offered is welcome, it does not provide the space or financial firepower to take forward the public services transformation agenda meaningfully. The Fiscal Council has said that that extra funding will largely be consumed by recurring public-sector pay pressures and provides little additional spending power for the Executive in the short term. That is why, last December, the DUP insisted that the funding did not go far enough when others were claiming that we should not look a gift horse in the mouth. I am confident in our DUP leader's commitment to continue to fight for a fair and sustainable long-term funding package for Northern Ireland, and we will support him in any way that we can in the Assembly.
That is the longer-term financial objective. We are dealing today with a Budget Bill that has been brought to us in circumstances that are by no means ideal. Given the extreme financial pressures, the Budget Bill does the best that it can in the circumstances. Every Department bid for significantly more than has been allocated in the Budget. Every Minister is disappointed with the allocations, but the Executive and we in the Assembly have a responsibility to ensure that our Departments keep running and keep delivering essential public services to the best of their ability, and, in order to do that, they need the Budget Bill to be approved.
In the absence of an agreed Programme for Government, we know that the Budget was not brought forward in perfect circumstances. The draft consultation on the Programme for Government has now been published, and the Executive priorities have been laid out. However, again, we need to note that, under the extreme financial pressures that we find ourselves in, the Budget is extremely difficult. We also face the backdrop of uncertainty. With the haphazard, unpredictable actions of the Labour Government in recent weeks, our priority is approving an operational Budget in Northern Ireland to keep our public services operating. The Budget Bill contains no big decisions or anything new. It simply brings forward the governance structures to enable our Civil Service Departments to operate and spend money to the limits that have been applied without having to repeatedly request advances from the Consolidated Fund, which increases administration.
We in the DUP have been consistent in our calls for an improved, sustainable financial package for Northern Ireland, and we will continue to be so. In order to make Northern Ireland the best that it can be, it needs to be fairly funded. We need to see delivery for Northern Ireland from the Labour Government. However, in order to allow us function in the current financial year, we will support the Bill today.
The Alliance Party has consistently warned about the scale of the financial challenges facing the Executive. At every opportunity, we have challenged Westminster austerity, championed fair funding for Northern Ireland and called for proper investment in public services. As I said at Second Stage, the Budget process for 2024-25, like so many before it, has been upended by the stop-go nature of the Assembly. The seemingly endless merry-go-round of crisis and collapse over the past decade has meant that this is our tenth single-year Budget in a row. The timing of the Assembly's return meant that the Bill commenced Second Stage without proper consultation and in the absence of a Programme for Government.
(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair)
Notwithstanding the obvious impact on our public finances, on our public services and on public confidence and in spite of warm words about the need for stability and delivery, neither Sinn Féin nor the DUP has shown any willingness to surrender its veto or commit not to wield it during the remainder of the mandate. There is no reason for either party to cling to its sectarian veto, unless it is an intention to use it or the threat of it to block progress. Without action, that inherent instability will continue to cast a long shadow over the Executive and our finances and will stymie our ability to deliver meaningful long-term transformation. That is why Alliance remains consistent and unequivocal in our calls for reform, with proposals that uphold power-sharing and the principles of the Good Friday Agreement but seek to address the fundamental structural flaws and inequalities that have held us back and damaged our services and finances.
Since agreeing to the Budget for 2024-25, we have all become familiar with Ministers coming to the Chamber to outline the enormous challenges facing their respective Departments. We now know that Departments are reporting £767 million in pressures. The Minister has outlined her intention to allocate £500 million in anticipated Barnett consequentials, which I support, but it is clear that even that will fall short of the funding required.
In one sense, it is no surprise that the biggest pressures face the biggest-spending Departments: Health, Education and Justice. A significant portion of the pressures arises from pay review body recommendations in England, and, of course, we all want to see our public-sector workers properly supported. What is surprising, however, is that some Ministers seem to treat their overcommitments more seriously than others. Despite the enormous overspend facing the Department of Education, the Minister saw fit to approve further discretionary spend, including £250,000 for magnetic pouches for just 10 schools, on top of ignoring the recommendations of the independent review of education and the Audit Office and, seemingly, indicating that he wishes to see more duplication in our system in management bodies, rather than less. In my view, those are all bizarre priorities, given the enormous pressures facing that Department and the Executive as a whole.
Compare and contrast that with the Department of Justice's approach. The funding challenges facing Justice have been well rehearsed, and there are specific and historical challenges relating to the underfunding of policing and justice, yet the projected overcommitment in the Department is significantly less. There are clear plans to transform the Department through the speeding up justice programme, and, on the basis of previous debates, I hope that, as bids come through the system, there will be unanimous support for the recovery plan for the PSNI, which will address those overspends.
Will the Member give way?
I will, indeed.
I congratulate the Member for defending his ministerial colleagues. He does a good job of it. On the Department of Justice, which, he says, is staying within its budget, will he say how the £14 million commitment to build a new prison canteen sits with the great words that he has articulated about Minister Long managing her budget?
That is a hobby horse of Members and has been raised in a number of Finance debates, but I think that we all agree that, in a residential setting such as a prison, where we have prisoners in our care, it is appropriate to have fit-for-purpose canteen facilities. No one in the Chamber would argue that that expenditure is not essential or unavoidable where the current provision is not fit for purpose. The Member made an admirable attempt to draw a comparison with the Department of Education's spending decisions, but it does not stand up to any scrutiny.
Sorry. I remind Members to talk about the Budget (No. 2) Bill, if they do not mind. Thanks.
I will do, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but, in fairness, that speaks to why we have deviated from the Main Estimates that were legislated for in the Budget (No. 2) Bill. It is important that we touch on those overcommitments, because that is the legislative authority that the Assembly has given to Ministers, and it is wrong for them to disregard it in a cavalier fashion.
There is no doubt that navigating the enormous challenges that face every Department will require leadership from every Minister. Failure to grapple with the challenges before us will carry potentially grave consequences. The Minister outlined that fact when she spoke of the potential for Treasury to recall the £559 million that had been written off. That could upend our ability to deliver a meaningful fiscal framework for Northern Ireland and disrupt our discussions on the Executive's sustainability plan that provide us with an opportunity to chart a pathway to sustainable finances and to make our case for that revised fiscal framework. The Alliance Party remains of the view that it wants to see the cost of division properly addressed as part of that plan.
There are other areas where significant progress is needed. The Executive have already made strides on revenue raising. I appreciate that the Finance Minister announced today that she intends to bring further proposals for revenue raising to the Executive. Our test remains that any revenue raising must be progressive and fair and must ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. We will judge the Minister's proposals on that basis.
The truth remains that no amount of transformation of public services or revenue raising by the Executive will ever counteract the underfunding of public services by Westminster. We are committed to speaking with one voice, together with the Finance Minister and other parties, to deliver the fair funding that is required. If we are to make that case, we have to be willing to show responsibility and leadership in the Chamber. That is why the Alliance Party will support the Budget (No. 2) Bill. It is not a question of whether we believe that the Budget is sufficient, as, clearly, it is not; it is a question of whether we believe that the allocations proposed by the Finance Minister in the Budget that we are legislating for are a fair attempt to allocate insufficient resources, and we believe that they are.
Consistent with the Ulster Unionist Party's approach so far, we will vote against the Final Stage of the Bill. As a party, we have consistently pointed out that the Budget provisions are insufficient to cover the critical requirements of our health service. It is only nine months since the all-party talks that many of us sat through and at which all parties agreed that Health was the priority, but the subsequent provisions have not only gone against that priority but, when they were originally presented, made a real-terms cut to health resources. While we welcome the additional funding that came in the June/July monitoring round, it is far short of what is required to deal with the critical challenges that we face, and it came before the draft PFG was published. We are aware of the negotiations between Departments and the Finance Minister, but there is no acknowledgement of the level of need or the requirement to prioritise Health and other hard-pressed services such as the PSNI.
The Finance Minister wrote to Ministers and informed the Finance Committee that she was proceeding with spending allocations based on discussion with His Majesty's Treasury, acknowledging that it was at risk and based on likely allocations from the Supplementary Estimates following Rachel Reeves's Budget next month. That additional funding is hoped to be in the region of £0·5 billion, at least £250 million of which we reasonably expect to come to Health. As finance spokesperson and through questions put by party representatives, we have repeatedly queried the confidence that the Minister has in assurances from the Treasury. I wish to make it clear that I am in no way — I mean this — calling into question the Minister's belief or her integrity in reporting her exchanges. However, as MLAs, we must all call into question the assurances from the Government.
Three weeks ago, I attended the British-Irish Association conference in Oxford and heard the Secretary of State wax lyrical about the benefits of major projects in Northern Ireland powered by the city deals, amongst other things. Alongside the Tánaiste, we heard the famous reset being emphasised. Less than a week later, the city deal was paused. Then, parts of it were reinstated. When the issue was raised by the Finance Minister, she was told to discuss it with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I understand that that discussion is yet to happen. That worries our party, as it should worry others. A Budget assuming an additional £0·5 billion on the basis of assurances from a Treasury that will not engage on city deals must, I am afraid, be suspect.
Where are we today? First, even with the current Budget allocations, we do not have the resources for what, nine months ago, was our number-one priority: Health. Secondly, even if we get that additional £0·5 billion and it is hypothecated, the challenges will remain.
However, based on the city deals debacle, what real confidence can there be that that additional funding will be received, especially given that the Government are quite happy to remove the winter fuel allowance while their members cloth themselves in freebie suits? I was going to make a joke about glasses, but I am wearing a pair. I paid for mine, by the way.
Thirdly — I say this specifically to other parties in the Executive — the Chief Constable had to write to the Prime Minister because the PSNI has been starved of resources, and he has raised very serious concerns about his ability to maintain public safety. That, coupled with the very real concerns that we have already expressed about maintaining the health of our constituents, must show that we cannot accept the unacceptable.
Steve, can I remind you that the debate is on the Budget (No. 2) Bill?
You can indeed, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am just coming to the end.
So it would be helpful if you could mention it.
Yes, yes.
Rather than writing letters of censure, we should all join together to reject the Budget, which does not and cannot deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.
As the Budget Bill makes its way through the legislative process, which is now at Final Stage, we are reminded of the intense pressures that the Finance Minister and her Department faced while drafting it. In delivering the Budget, Minister Archibald has done a commendable job in very challenging circumstances, ensuring that vital public services will continue to be delivered and that many worthy community and social projects will continue to be supported. Unfortunately, the cruel reality of British Government austerity and the understanding that their priorities lie elsewhere mean that not all bids could be met. However, the Minister has worked hard to deliver a fair Budget that supports our public services and offers stability.
The Minister has, once again, prioritised Health in the Budget, with more than 50% of the available funding going to health services. That underlines the point that Health is a priority, even with such limited resources. The Minister has also managed to deliver on key priorities for the Executive. Those priorities have been outlined in the draft Programme for Government; for example, the £25 million allocated for childcare and the £47 million for transformation. Today, we have heard how around 12,000 children in the North have been registered for the new childcare subsidy scheme, which has helped many families to reduce the cost of their childcare. There is still work to do on the childcare strategy. We must ensure that all families and childcare providers are offered support. However, those are very welcome first steps.
As my party's spokesperson on the environment and climate, I thank the Minister for her continued commitment to protecting our environment and, in particular, for the funding that has been made available to rescue and restore Lough Neagh.
It has been widely acknowledged, even by the British Government, that the North has been chronically underfunded for decades. Repairing the damage and healing the wounds caused by that will take time. If we are to address those issues, such decisions must be made here, and we need real fiscal devolution. In the meantime, the Minister has sought to deliver a Budget that provides stability and security. I thank her and her officials for their efforts in these challenging times. I support the Bill.
Like everyone else, I recognise the financial situation that we are experiencing. It is not a financial situation that we, as political parties, wish to find ourselves in, but, as a party of the Executive, we recognise, alongside the Finance Minister and the majority of other Ministers, that, where there is a Budget, we must abide by it.
Like many others, I recognise the fact that Tory austerity over the years has cost us a lot in respect of not just our Budget but the health and well-being of all our citizens. Given the Chancellor's speech this morning, hopefully, austerity is not back and will not be back, and we will see the Labour Party puts its money where its mouth is and look after the citizens of the entirety of the United Kingdom. I will continue to play my part in our party, alongside the Finance Minister, in putting pressure on the UK Government to ensure that we receive the funding that we are rightly due.
The key issue for me, as one of Alliance's health spokespeople, is our health service. The fact that over 50% of the entirety of the Budget has been allocated to Health is of enormous significance. We cannot underestimate the fact, however, that, although the Health budget has continued to grow year-on-year, our people are getting sicker and waiting longer.
Something is simply not right, so something needs to change.
We must also recognise the lack of responsibility that the Health Minister's party has taken for the Budget. I will reflect on some of the points that Members have made. In numerous debates in the Chamber and at the Budget (No. 2) Bill's Second Stage, we asked the Health Minister what he wanted. Was it 75%, 80% or perhaps 100% of the current Budget allocation? There would then be even less for policing, for which the UUP Member who spoke previously claims to be an advocate. That is not realistic. We must all live within the current Budget. An all-or-nothing approach to healthcare does not need to be taken. There is no reason that all Ministers cannot prioritise implementation in line with their available budget, but it appears that the Health Minister has no intention of doing so.
I ask that you indulge me for just a moment, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As a member of my party's health team and a member of the Health Committee, I have, many times, brought to the attention of Department of Health officials where there has been a serious lack of spend in line with the budget and where they have taken their eye off the ball. For example, I brought to the attention of the previous Health Minister the fact that payments had been made to third-party providers for respite care but that that respite care had not been provided for well over a year. If Members from the Health Minister's party intend to ensure that we abide by the Budget or even attempt to do so, they must look at their own Minister's Department.
That leads me on to my next point. As Executive parties, we must all work —.
I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does she agree that, if the money in Health were invested properly, we would not have the pressures that there are on some other Departments? For example, we know that many people in mental health crisis end up in a police station or even in prison because their mental health issues have not been addressed. Health needs to take its role under the "Right care, right person" (RCRP) model seriously.
To be consistent, I will remind everybody that we are debating the Budget (No. 2) Bill, Nuala.
[Laughter.]
Other Members were trying to point out inconsistencies, but I am not looking at them.
I absolutely agree with the Member. To be serious about the Budget, we — every party in the Executive — need to work as a collective to hold Departments to account. Indeed, the Opposition also have a role to play. Where an individual Department has a budget, it does not mean that that Department should act alone on matters.
The Member mentioned policing and mental health in particular. Another issue is speech and language development. Young people do not just appear in the criminal justice system with speech and language difficulties; those difficulties have been there from an early stage in their life. Therein lies the argument that the Department of Health and the Department of Education have a role to play. I agree that every Department must play its role in working together.
Another example of working together is for us to ensure that we impress on the Executive and all parties the need for multi-year Budgets. We all agree that multi-year budgets would be the right approach, but we need to ensure that, when we get them, we prioritise our departmental budgets. For example, when it comes to the Department of Health, notable organisations such as the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) welcomed the inclusion in the draft PFG of the priority to cut waiting lists but noted that it would require multi-year Budgets in order to achieve that. While we are living with the Budget that we have before us now, we all recognise that it is not the Budget that we aspire to and that we can and absolutely shall do better. We must do that by working as a collective.
As Members from the Alliance Party and the Opposition have said, one of the most crucial elements in ensuring that we have a stable Budget in upcoming years is not to have the continuing cycle of collapse of the institutions, because that affects how each Department runs its budget. One example of that for Health is that Ray Jones's report on the review of children's social care specifically mentions that such collapses cause "considerable difficulties in sustaining services" in children's social care. I could go on to name many other elements across every Department. I am sure that many others will agree that, while they might not sign up to reform, reform is the best way in which to ensure that we have sustainability.
The Executive were close to agreeing a three-year Budget for 2022-25. Again, however, collapse meant that that opportunity was missed. Our health service cannot afford another missed opportunity. Stable, recurrent funding is urgently needed for transformation, which is why urgent reform of the institutions is crucial. Hopefully, next year, we will not see again what we have before us today in the Budget (No. 2) Bill and can move forward and aspire to much better so that we can deliver for all across Northern Ireland.
The first thing that I observe about the Bill is clause 1(2):
"In that year, the use of resources by the persons mentioned in subsection (3) is authorised up to the amount of £28,772,794,000."
I have not been here long, but I have been here long enough to know that one of the things that Members excel at in the House is complaining about the lack of money that comes from Westminster. The reality is that, without tax-raising powers, all that we can do is divide up the cake that we have been given. Whatever way in which you seek to divide it, the truth remains that £28,772,794,000 is a pretty big cake. That figure is much more generous than what we would have if we were part of the Irish Republic that all those to my left in the Chamber fantasise over. We need to remind ourselves that people in the Republic do not have a health service free at the point of need. People can be charged for calling out the fire service, and they do not have a personal allowance. Thankfully, we do. That is because we are part of the United Kingdom.
That having been said, there is a case to be made that Northern Ireland should be funded even more generously. Shamefully, unionists returned to this place having sold a false bill of goods to the people in terms of what the 'Safeguarding the Union' —
Mr Gaston.
— Command Paper delivered regarding the protocol.
Mr Gaston, I remind you that this is the Budget (No. 2) Bill.
Yes. I have the Bill in front of me.
I see what is in your hand, but I cannot hear any comment about the Budget (No. 2) Bill.
If you give me time to expand, I will mention the Budget (No. 2) Bill —
Yes, thank you. That would be helpful.
— like the rest of the Members who have spoken.
That was a fundamental betrayal of the mandate secured by the DUP at the most recent Assembly and council elections. We also had the nonsense peddled that a financial package had been secured. Let me be clear: I do not believe for one moment that unionists should have betrayed their word to those who trusted them, regardless of how many pieces of silver were on offer. Nor should the public be blind to the reality that, generous as the block grant from Westminster is, it could and should be even more generous.
On two occasions already in the House, I have highlighted the fact that, in 2007, the Welsh Government appointed Professor Gerry Holtham to examine funding from Westminster to the devolved regions. Professor Holtham found that, in order for people in Wales to enjoy the same level of public services as people in England, the Government, because of the higher need in Wales, needed to spend £115 per head for every £100 spent in England. In Scotland, the figure was £105 per head, and, in Northern Ireland, it was £121 per head. Since 2012, Westminster has accepted that block grant funding to Wales should not fall below the Holtham definition of need. Why have the Executive parties not been pushing for the same principle to apply to Northern Ireland's funding?
I have quoted those figures before, but I remind the House that the funding of Northern Ireland was £3 per head below the UK definition of need in 2022-23 and 2023-24. Generously funded as Northern Ireland undoubtedly is, especially when one considers the alternative of an all Ireland in which one would have to pay to visit a GP, pay for a stay in hospital and even pay to get the fire brigade out, we could and should be funded even more generously. It is an indictment of the establishment parties in the Chamber that, in all the crisis talks that they have had with the Government over the years about money, they have failed to make that simple and basic argument. You cannot come here week after week to debate pointless motions complaining about the lack of money for this or that when you have not made the argument for a sustainable, long-term funding solution from which another devolved region already benefits.
Two weeks ago, the Communities Minister challenged MLAs about what we would do differently in order to save the winter fuel payment. I laid out some changes that I would make to how we spend money. This place is prepared to spend £9 million annually for an Irish language Act that will only increase division.
Mr Gaston —.
In the Budget (No. 2) Bill —.
Mr Gaston, please take your seat. I remind you and any Member who follows you that contributions need to be directly related to the Budget (No. 2) Bill. It is not a free-for-all. If you or anyone who comes after you continues in that vein, I will stop you from speaking. Respectfully, I ask you to make sure that the remainder of your speech relates to the Budget (No. 2) Bill, please. Thank you.
I was mentioning the Budget (No. 2) Bill, one line of which says that this place spends £1·6 million annually to maintain prison buildings at the Maze, which, it seems obvious to me, will become a shrine to terror. In the Budget (No. 2) Bill, the Assembly will spend between £35 million and £45 million a year on useless North/South bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council, which operates as normal while border posts are built at Larne, as the noose of the protocol tightens day by day.
When I highlighted those proposed savings, Minister Lyons dismissed them with a smirk, claiming that the redundancies involved would cost us money. Laying off staff who are employed by virtue of money from the Budget (No. 2) Bill in an organisation like Safefood would have a long-term benefit for Northern Ireland, because not one of them is employed on this side of the border.
Minister Lyons even made the bizarre claim that, if we lost the North/South bodies, we would have no one to promote Northern Ireland as a tourism destination. The truth is that, shamefully, no one promotes Northern Ireland as a tourist destination on the international stage. Tourism Ireland promotes the island as a single destination, and it does not make a very good job of promoting the unique tourism experiences of places such as my constituency, which boasts both of Northern Ireland's World Heritage Sites alongside world-class hotels and golf courses. Minister Lyons may be pleased with the crumbs —.
Mr Gaston, you are holding the Budget (No. 2) Bill.
Yes, I am.
That is really good, but the stuff that you are reciting is not in the Bill. Respectfully —.
It is all part of the money —.
No, it is not. What I am saying to you is this: the things that are listed in the Budget (No. 2) Bill need to be part of your and everyone else's speech. I have given everybody a lot of latitude, but you are starting to rip it. Please make sure that your contribution relates to the objects that are laid out in the Bill. Thank you.
I will finish the point that I was making before I move on to my next point about the Budget (No. 2) Bill.
Minister Lyons may be pleased with the crumbs from Tourism Ireland, but I want to see Northern Ireland being promoted in its own right. In 2016, a former head of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board made the argument that we needed our own tourism strategy and that we were getting a raw deal from Tourism Ireland for the money that we invest. Almost a decade on, nothing has changed and nothing has been done to change that sad fact.
When it comes to the achievements of the Executive on financial issues, the reality is very different. This morning, on the radio, the DUP leader and the Education Minister claimed as a great victory the funding package for childcare in the Budget (No. 2) Bill. When we strip back the spin, however, the reality is very different. Last week, in response to my question for oral answer, the Finance Minister had to admit that the Executive received £57·2 million of Barnett consequentials for 2024-25, following the announcement in the spring Budget of the expansion of the 30 free hours of childcare scheme in England. However, Stormont's 2024-25 Budget provides just £25 million to support the development of a childcare strategy. That means that more than £32 million of our share of money that should have gone to childcare has not been committed to that issue. Far from connecting with the priorities of ordinary people when it comes to childcare, Stormont is selling the people short to the tune of £32 million, which it is spending on other things. That is not an achievement; it certainly is a disgrace.
If I may change direction slightly, I will focus a wee bit on local government. When the review of public administration (RPA) finally happened in 2015, we were told that we would see savings. In some cases, three councils merged into one. I argue that, instead of seeing savings, Stormont created bloated organisations without providing any real scrutiny to ensure that our councils provide value for money. Take Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, to which I was first elected in 2014. After the election in May 2023, we were called to a crisis meeting where we were told about the financial turmoil that the council had got itself into and that external expertise was required to sort out the mess. After spending upwards of half a million on external consultants, we were told that the deficit was of the order of £7·2 million and that an additional £1·4 million was required from the 2024-25 rates to complete all the recommendations.
As time passed, my concerns grew. By using the narrative of a £7·2 million deficit in February 2024, the majority of councillors inflicted the worst rates rise in the council's history on householders and businesses, with a rise of 9·78% and 11·8% respectively. In England, such a rise would have incurred a local referendum, whereas in Northern Ireland that increase was agreed after 22 councillors voted in favour of it and 14 voted against it, without any oversight or input from Stormont. Furthermore, it now transpires that the £7·2 million deficit turned into a healthy £1·4 million surplus. With some imaginative counting, the unaudited accounts that the council submitted show that break-even was reached after the reserves were bolstered and a new members' fund had been set up to keep councillors sweet.
I have further concerns about directors being recruited through long-term agency contracts rather than being directly employed, which would make savings for the ratepayer. We have the bizarre position where two directors are engaged through an agency to which ratepayers are paying a daily finder's fee for the privilege. That is insulting. No local authority should be paying in the region of £1,060 and £960 plus expenses per day to any agency worker. Having directors earn more than the chief executive is not a sustainable model for running any business, never mind a council. Where is the oversight from Stormont? Where is the value for money for the ratepayer?
I will vote against the Budget (No. 2) Bill. I ask the other unionists in the Chamber to think about why they will find themselves voting in the same Lobby as Sinn Féin. Why is it that, instead of passing a Budget, you are not all locked in crisis talks with the Government over winter fuel payments? Sinn Féin was prepared to bring this place down over the bedroom tax. Why has it meekly rolled over and accepted the Westminster decision to cut at this time? I will tell you why. Sinn Féin has unionism exactly where it wants it. It has its eye on the bigger goal. We heard at the weekend all this chat about unionist unity and reaching out to other unionist parties, but you need to bear in mind that not having the threat —.
Mr Gaston, that is it.
I am still going on to the Budget (No. 2) Bill.
No. No.
I quoted it a lot more than other Members did. You gave them latitude, but you have not given me the same latitude.
I have reminded you that it is not just a case of throwing in "Budget (No. 2) Bill".
At least I did that more than other people.
You are in danger of challenging the Chair. If you do not mind, take your seat as we go through this. First of all, you cannot use a Budget Bill to attack other parties. Secondly, your remarks have to be related to what is laid out in the Bill.
[Inaudible.]
They have not been, for the best part. I ask you, respectfully, to conclude your remarks on what is laid out in the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Thank you very much.
To bring my remarks on the Budget (No. 2) Bill to a close, I will just say this: once the Bill passes today, those who support it can no longer chime and complain about the Labour Government and what they have done. This is your Budget. You now own it. Any decisions that flow from it are on the heads of those Executive parties that vote the Bill through today. I, for one, will not support it.
Thank you, Mr Gaston.
I will speak briefly about the Budget Bill. It is clear that this Budget Bill, alongside the wider process of Budgets, does not meet the desires and needs of working-class communities across this society. The housing crisis is completely out of control and there is no appropriate funding allocated to tackle that problem in this Budget Bill. Health is continually underfunded, with a rocketing crisis ripping through all of society. There is no appropriate funding for Health. All the while, people cling to the Bengoa scheme, which is designed to cut, dice and reduce our important health service. No thank you. Lough Neagh continues to be strangled and to die, but there is no appropriate funding in this Budget Bill for it.
That just scratches the surface of what this Bill will not do. It is even worse when you see what meagre tax increases on the rich would bring in. I raised that in the Finance Committee in the past two weeks, and it is worth repeating on the Floor. A 1% tax increase on the wealthiest 1% would bring in £25 billion of extra funding for public services, and the black hole would be completely gone. The €13 billion that Apple owed in taxes would transform public services right across the island. Where is the Executive's strategy to tackle those issues, to highlight them and to fight them? They do not have any plan to do so. It cannot be business as usual while corporate profits are out of control. The Budget Bill is definitely business as usual, and, for that reason, I will vote against it.
Thank you, Gerry. I call the Minister of Finance to wind and conclude on the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]
I thank all those Members who expressed their views in the debate, and I thank those who contributed to earlier debates on the Bill and the associated Supply resolutions. I have listened to those contributions, and, while I may not agree with all the arguments that were presented, it is always useful to hear Members' views. I will respond to some of the issues that were raised in the debate before winding up fully.
Mr McGrath raised a couple of points about the Budget Bill's not being aligned with the Programme for Government. I am sure that he will concede that the Budget Bill was introduced before the PFG was published, and I laid out in the Chamber previously that the Executive had a number of priorities that they tried to align funding towards, with Health being one, childcare being another and Lough Neagh another. Those are also now reflected in the Programme for Government, but, obviously, we would like to be in a place where we are setting a Budget that aligns with and funds the priorities that are in a Programme for Government.
Mr McGrath and Miss McAllister discussed multi-year Budgets, and, again, that is the place where we want to be. You will be aware that we are able to allocate funding only on the cycle of years that we have in front of us. We are in the final year of a spending review, so we were able to do only a one-year Budget this year. We understand, and she has been very clear about this, that the Chancellor intends to set a one-year Budget in October and then, come early spring, will set a Budget for the following two years. It is my intention to align with that, and, in planning for it, we have asked Departments for their projections for three years.
Liz Kimmins, Nuala McAllister and Steve Aiken mentioned Health, and, clearly, Health is a priority, with over half our Budget going to that Department. We have sought to prioritise it in the allocations that have been made. Mr Aiken made his point again about the outturn versus the opening of the Budget. I am sure that, come the end of the year, the picture will be very different, but we will wait and see.
Mr Aiken made other comments about the allocations that we are expecting. Obviously, you have a degree of scepticism about some of the actions that we have seen over recent days and weeks. You are right to be cautious. The figures that we are talking about, which are in the region of £500 million, have been arrived at on the basis of discussions that my officials had with Treasury officials. Similarly, we had discussions with officials in advance of June monitoring, and it transpired that that is where we ended up on the numbers that we were expecting. However, it is also fair to say that there are Departments in England that are facing considerable pressures as well and that, therefore, money will likely have to be allocated to them. Also, they have committed to funding the pay review body recommendations, so I think —.
Yes, go ahead.
This is not definitely not a criticism of you, but we have picked up, particularly from across in England and from our friends in Wales and Scotland, similar sorts of concerns about things that have been promised but are not being seen. I think that that should be a general concern, and, if you have the opportunity, you should talk to the Welsh and the Scottish about it to emphasise it, because that is not right.
I thank the Member for his remarks. I will be and have been engaging with my Scottish and Welsh counterparts, and I will meet them, along with the British Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in early October as part of our regular Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee (FISC) engagements.
I accept the point that there is a level of caution to be had. Obviously, there will be a degree of risk attached to those allocations, but it is on the basis of the intelligence that we have as to what we can expect. From my perspective, it is a degree of risk that I am comfortable with to make the allocations on the basis that we want to give Departments as much certainty as we can to help them to be able to plan to live within the budget envelopes that they have.
That brings me on to Mr Tennyson's comments. He spoke about the enormous challenges that budgets are facing. I agree with him that we need to see Ministers taking actions to live within those budgets, because the consequences of not living within them are, from my perspective, pretty dire for next year. I will bring a paper to the Executive in the near future, with proposals around allocating the £500 million.
I also agree with him about the need for Departments to get on with transformation. That is something that we all agree on. Some funding goes towards transformation specifically, but it is quite a small pot of funding, and it will not do everything that we need it to do, so we need to see more wide-ranging actions on that.
There is also an important point to be made, and Diane made it in her contribution, about the financial package not having secured as much as is necessary to deliver public services. That is very clear. We still have more negotiation to do in relation to post 2026-27. In the interim fiscal framework, which is a document that I will perhaps share with Mr Gaston, we had a commitment that we could plan on the assumption that we will be funded at or above the level of 124% in future years. We need to secure that and ensure that that is part of our budget baseline going forward, so that we have our fair share of funding going towards public services.
Nicola Brogan spoke about the need to secure further fiscal powers. That will also be part of those future negotiations on our final fiscal framework.
I think that I have covered most of the remarks that I wanted to highlight. I will bring my remarks to a close. I have tried to respond to as many of the issues that Members have raised in today's debate and in previous debates as I could.
The Budget (No. 2) Bill, as I have laid out, is a crucial piece of legislation that provides Departments with the power to continue to deliver vital front-line services to all our citizens during the 2024-25 financial year. I commend the Budget (No. 2) Bill to the Assembly, and I ask that Members agree its Final Stage. It is vital that the legislation completes it passage through the Assembly as it enables us to keep delivering public services and prevent Departments running out of money during the 2024-25 financial year.
Before we proceed to the Question, I advise Members that, as this is the Final Stage of the Budget Bill, the motion requires cross-community support.
Question put. The Assembly divided:
<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 58; Noes 13
AYES
NATIONALIST:
Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Miss Brogan, Mrs Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Miss Hargey, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mrs Mason, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Miss Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin
UNIONIST:
Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Clarke, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson
OTHER:
Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Dickson, Mr Donnelly, Ms Egan, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mrs Long, Miss McAllister, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Nicholl, Mr Tennyson
Tellers for the Ayes: Miss Brogan, Ms Ennis
NOES
NATIONALIST:
Mr Durkan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin
UNIONIST:
Dr Aiken, Mr Beattie, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Crawford, Lord Elliott, Mr Gaston, Mr Stewart
OTHER:
Mr Carroll
Tellers for the Noes: Dr Aiken, Mr Carroll
71 | Total Ayes | 58 | [81.7%] | |
Nationalist Votes | 27 | Nationalist Ayes | 23 | [85.2%] |
Unionist Votes | 27 | Unionist Ayes | 19 | [70.4%] |
Other Votes | 17 | Other Ayes | 16 | [94.1%] |
Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support):
That the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA Bill 06/22-27] do now pass.
Members may take their ease while we change the top Table for the next item.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)