Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We welcome Joanne McBurney, who is Budget director at the Department, and Jeff McGuinness, who is head of Budget sustainability. Thank you for your patience. Given that we have taken up quite a lot of your time, feel free to make a brief opening statement, but, if you are happy, we could go straight to questions, because we have seen a lot about the Budget. Is there a brief statement that you want to give, Joanne?

Ms Joanne McBurney (Department of Finance): There is a brief statement, but I am equally happy to give it a miss, if you —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If you want to give us a couple of very brief headlines, that would be helpful. That is not me being inhospitable; it is simply that your answers are always very useful, so we want to get to them quickly, and we have held you up long enough. Give us the brief in a precis.

Ms McBurney: There is probably nothing in my opening statement that you will not already know, but I will just summarise it quickly. With me, I have Jeff who will be able to answer any questions around Budget sustainability work. The focus of my opening remarks is intended to be on the financial position for 2024-25 and 2025-26, following the Chancellor's statement last week.

As you will know, in the current year, the autumn Budget provided the Executive with an additional £609·3 million resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and £30·4 million of capital DEL. That is on top of the £308·9 million of additional Barnett consequentials that we received in the spring Budget and Westminster Main Estimates, which have already been allocated. That brings the total in-year resource DEL Barnett additions to £918·12 million, including £184 million from the application of the 24% needs-based adjustment factor agreed in the interim fiscal framework. While the funding is very welcome, it does not address all the pressures that Departments have reported, meaning that they will have to make savings or may not be able to do everything that they wish to do. With the funding envelope confirmed last week, we are now working at pace to provide Departments with additional allocations as soon as possible.

Turning to 2025-26, the Chancellor's announcement last week also reflected phase 1 of the multi-year spending review 2025, which will conclude in the spring. The £609 million of resource DEL Barnett consequentials in the autumn Budget have been included in the Executive's baseline for 2025-26. However, the capital DEL baseline reflected the earlier Main Estimates position. On top of that, the Executive received an additional £601 million resource DEL and £270·8 million capital DEL through the Barnett formula, with a reduction of £4·6 million to the financial transactions capital. As a result of the interim fiscal framework, the needs-based factor has also been applied in 2025-26, meaning that the funding provided is £248 million higher than it would otherwise have been. The capital borrowing limit has also increased from £220 million to £225·7 million. Excluding the borrowing, that brings the total additional funding provided as a result of the interim fiscal framework to £431·4 million. Including the restoration package, the Executive will also receive non-Barnett funding of £668·7 million resource DEL and £91·6 million capital DEL. That brings the Executive's 2025-26 DEL to £18·2 billion, comprising £16·1 billion resource DEL excluding depreciation, £2·1 billion capital DEL and £57·6 million of financial transactions capital. That represents a real-terms uplift of 1·3% resource DEL against the 2024-25 autumn Budget position, but it is important to manage expectations. Given the continuing pay inflationary pressures and growing demands on public services, it still represents a challenge for the Executive.

With the funding envelope for 2025-26 now announced, the Minister's intention, subject to Executive agreement, is to publish a draft Budget by early December to allow time for a full consultation before a final Budget is agreed by the Executive prior to the start of the new financial year. Of course, we need to focus beyond the incoming financial year. The Committee will know that 2025-26 is the last year of the stabilisation funding and the financial package. As set out in the interim fiscal framework, Treasury committed to reviewing and discussing the Executive's funding approach, including concerns about the 2026-27 funding, at the relevant spending review. It will be important to agree that with the Treasury before the spring. Of course, we must also focus on what the Executive can do to make their finances more sustainable.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you very much. Admirably, you got the assignment, as Gen Z says, about a brief overview. Thank you, Joanne.

In year, we have an additional £609 million resource DEL, plus £30 million capital DEL. We still had about £700 million of unmet pressures. What is the position now with unmet in-year pressures?

Ms McBurney: As you will know from the latest forecast out-turn, that has gone up slightly from the £770 million that was reported in the in-year exercise. I expect that to go up slightly again in the October monitoring returns, but there are also other factors to be taken into account. On the positive side, we will have some reduced requirements, etc. The gap is still around £160 million or £165 million. We will have that refined as we work through the October monitoring returns.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Is the current position that you think that that £160 million can be dealt with via January monitoring? What is the plan?

Ms McBurney: That is the hard bit to answer. I do not see it being addressed through January monitoring. The Treasury has been quite clear that the autumn Budget is the final settlement for Whitehall Departments for 2024-25, which means that we cannot expect any significant additional funding to flow after that. Significant funding will not become available in January monitoring unless Departments underspend —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Reduced requirements.

Ms McBurney: — so it is the case now of Departments making decisions to live within the budget that they are allocated after the October monitoring round. It is for the Executive to decide how to allocate the money available, and then it will be for Departments to live within that allocation.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Are you confident that that is going to happen?

Ms McBurney: Which part?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Are you confident that they will be able to live within their means?

Ms McBurney: At this point, it is too late to stop doing anything. Departments have been very clear that they have taken very significant decisions to manage it down to that level of pressure. It now comes down to looking at the discretionary spend that is available and choices between doing things and funding pay. I cannot say with any clarity whether individual Departments will manage it, but the consequences of not managing that budget are extreme. Any overspend this year will be taken off us next year. Although, on the face of it, next year looks as though it is a good, healthy Budget settlement, it will not go far, given the inflationary pressures that we are facing, so Departments really need to manage within their budgets this year. Furthermore, the £559 million reserve claim, which will be written off, will be at risk. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been quite clear that the conditions in the financial package were a balanced Budget for 2024-25.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If there is not a balanced Budget, meaning that you have to make another reserve claim, I presume, that does not preclude the use of the Budget exchange scheme.

Ms McBurney: No, it does not. It basically means that we have to live within our Budget for this year. The Minister mentioned in her statement the potential for a reserve claim or the potential to try to negotiate a reserve claim for exceptional items. If we managed to negotiate that with Treasury, it would still represent a balanced Budget because we have negotiated that. If we overspend without Treasury's permission, that is where the issue arises.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Obviously, it will look at the specific rationale for individual overspends.

Ms McBurney: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): A specific point that I want clarity on is the Barnett formula for business rates measures in England and Wales. I am genuinely intrigued by that. The scorecard shows the Exchequer impact from business rates — the 40% relief. There was previously a 75% relief in England and Wales, and that moved to a more targeted 40% relief. We have never —

— made the decision to extend the equivalent rates relief for businesses here. The way that it scores is a cost to the Exchequer of £1·75 billion in 2025-26, but the Minister said that it is a negative Barnett, meaning that we lose money.

Ms McBurney: We lose money because of the way that Treasury has handled the baseline. As you rightly said, we got money in 2024-25 through the Barnett formula. That was based on the 75%. They have now dropped that to 40%, so it is costing less. Therefore, we have a negative result from that reduction, because it is in our baseline and then has been reduced.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is a negative for 2024-25.

Ms McBurney: No, it is a negative for 2025-26. The Barnett that we have received so far in 2024-25 — sorry, I do not have the figures with me — has gone into our baseline, and then our baseline — as you have said, it was not affordable. I am not the expert on the tax basis.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I did not say that it was not affordable.

Ms McBurney: I am saying that it was unaffordable. I am not the expert on the tax basis. The decision was taken not to do that. I would say that it was not affordable, given that we are still facing £770 million of pressures. We are at the position that we are at in 2024-25. Now, Departments will have pressures on top of that next year, but, while the Barnett was in our baseline at the 2024-25 levels, that has then been reduced in 2025-26 because the support in England has reduced from 75% to 40%. Overall, we got a minus 79·66% reduction in relation to business rates. There will be a number of factors in there, but it will include that reduction from 75% to 40%.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Instinctively, it still feels odd to me. Even with the baselining, I just do not see how they can score, effectively, £2 billion worth of business rates measures in England and Wales — it is actually more because they have the freezing the multiplier measure — and it accrues no Barnett to us at all. It seems odd.

Ms McBurney: It is because the Barnett is already baked into our baseline. It is baked into our baseline at 75%, and then it comes down to 40%, so it is costing them less. It is a different way of looking at the same figures.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I need to go away and study it a bit more. I am still not totally clear on it, but thank you for that.

I have a couple of other points. One of the major changes is agricultural funding. For the first time since, possibly, the 70s, single farm payments or farm payments in general are not ring-fenced. That means that they will be part of the normal DEL Budget process. Does that mean that, for 2025-26, the main source of agricultural funding will have to be funded out of resource DEL, along with schools, hospitals and everything else?

Ms McBurney: Yes. We got the 2024-25 amount into our baseline, so we have the funding, at the 2024-25 level, going forward, baked into our baseline now. However, yes, it will have to be funded alongside all those other pressures. It will be for the Executive to decide on the appropriate level of funding, and it will be competing.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): There is obviously no guarantee that it will then be uprated. It will just be part of the block grant.

Ms McBurney: We will just get Barnett in the normal way for what they spend in England. There was no inflationary uplift between the 2024-25 levels and what went into our baseline for 2025-26. Now that it is in the baseline, we will just get Barnett based on spend in England in the normal way.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I have one final question before I bring in members. When are we going to get an October monitoring round?

Ms McBurney: As I said earlier, we found out the final settlement only last week. As you know, Departments' returns were due on 25 October, so we are now working at pace to get the proposals to the Executive as soon as is possible.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you both for being here today. I want to ask about the overcommitment figure, which was noted as being £770 million. In the Minister's statement, however, she noted that the overcommitment figure did not include the cost of exceptional items such as the PSNI data breach, holiday pay and the McCloud judgement. Do we have an estimate of what the total will be?

Ms McBurney: We do not have a figure for the overall total. The Department of Justice has submitted some rough, ballpark figures — I am saying that they are ballpark figures, but the Department of Justice may say that they are more certain — but McCloud, injury to feelings awards and holiday pay will affect more than one Department. I am reluctant even to talk about the figure that we have been given for DOJ, because there are ongoing legal cases, and we do not want to prejudice them. It will, however, be significant and will be —.

Ms Forsythe: Is it hundreds of millions of pounds that we are talking about here?

Ms McBurney: Yes.

Ms Forsythe: I was concerned, from having read the Minister's statement, in which she mentioned the overcommitment figure of £770 million, that there was £609 million to offset, thus leaving us with £165 million outstanding. If we are going to have another couple of hundred million pounds on top of that, which is not included in the overcommitment, the Minister has said that, if costs were to crystallise in 2024-25, those might be funded through a reserve claim. The Treasury has indicated, however, that that will done be through settlements. Are there any indications of how likely it is that we will see a crystallisation in 2024-25 of any of those figures?

Ms McBurney: I have no idea how likely they are to crystallise. It may be that some will crystallise and some will not. I could therefore not put a percentage on the likelihood of their crystallising. What I will say is that the Minister has said that she will negotiate a reserve claim. I think that they fall within Treasury's definition of something for which we would seek a reserve claim. Given the significant amount of money involved, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the starting point would be that we should meet the costs from within our settlement but that he was open to having conversations. As the Minister of Finance has said, those are conversations that we will have. The Barnett consequential that we have received is indicative of the pressures that Whitehall Departments are facing. Our Departments are facing similar pressures, but those are for things that sit outside of that, so I think that it is right that we would seek a reserve claim for them.

Ms Forsythe: Absolutely. If they are not crystallised in 2024-25, will we expect them to in 2025-26?

Ms McBurney: A number of them have been ongoing for a while, and there is uncertainty around the timing, but we are getting to the point at which they are going to start crystallising.

Ms Forsythe: Absolutely. Thank you. Much has been made of the extra £1·5 billion in 2025-26. As you said in your opening remarks, however, a lot of other things are built into that. Everything has gone up in price. It may be the largest amount of money that Northern Ireland will ever have got, but you would expect that, given that things have risen with inflation. Do you have an idea, once we have taken account of the roll-forward of the increase in public-sector pay and other things that will be built into the baseline for 2025-26, of how much of that £1·5 billion is extra money on top of what we will be committed to at the opening of the year?

Ms McBurney: I have not factored in the pay awards, because decisions have to be made on that. We have, however, compared 2025-26 with the outcome for 2024-25, following the autumn Budget, on the basis that, if that is what Departments have for this year, it seems reasonable to compare the two. Without factoring in the farm payments, resource DEL is £900 million higher, but if you take off the farm payments, it is £600 million higher. On top of that, if you look at what pay awards are likely to be and at the inflationary pressures, plus the cost of other things to which the Executive are committed, such as victims' pensions, historical institutional abuse (HIA) payments, truth recovery and welfare mitigations, we are not going to be long eating through that £600 million.

Ms Forsythe: Definitely not. It is just that people may be thinking that there is an extra £1·5 billion, and it is important that we be clear to and real with them and that we do not be looking at handing out an extra £1·5 billion next year. I appreciate your clarity on that.

Finally, I want to ask you about the increase in National Insurance contributions and the impact on different sectors of employers. Have you commissioned any review, or done so in partnership with any other organisations, of the likely impact on different sectors or on parts of industry in Northern Ireland?

Ms McBurney: The public spending directorate (PSD) has not, and I not sure whether strategic policy and reform (SPaR) has. PSD's focus is on the public sector. SPaR may have done so, or it may be looking at it, but I honestly cannot say. There is no doubt that there will be an impact, however. The contribution amount did not go up as much as was feared, but there will still be an impact on small businesses.

Ms Forsythe: The Minister said that Treasury had offered support on contributions towards public-sector pay. There is concern among the wider arm's-length bodies (ALBs). I spoke to the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) this morning about the community and voluntary sector, and it has already started looking into the impact on its sector. If possible, it would therefore be good for the Department to link with such bodies, which are already commissioning research.

Ms McBurney: The Treasury has said that it will provide support for the public sector, but we do not have the details of that yet. It depends on how that is done, and those discussions are ongoing and will kick on in the coming weeks. There is a risk that if the Treasury applies Barnett to what it gives Whitehall Departments, that will not go far enough for our Departments, because of the difference in size between our public sectors.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you.

Mr Carroll: Setting aside the £1·5 billion or so of extra money, which is non-recurrent, the Budget rise of 1·3% is a real-terms cut, because of the rate of inflation. That is just a comment for the record.

I have two questions for Joanne. I asked the Minister about the change in borrowing rules for capital investment. Her answer on Tuesday was detailed, but my interpretation of it was that we will have to wait to see what comes from the Treasury in London. Is there anything to stop the Executive and relevant Ministers from drafting and submitting relevant plans for approval now to expand water infrastructure and housing by using the new rules for borrowing capital?

Ms McBurney: The 1·3% increase is a real-terms increase, so it does take account of inflation using GDP deflators. What the Minister said about the borrowing rules is absolutely true. The Treasury has changed the borrowing rules at the macro level, so they are its borrowing rules. Unfortunately, we are still dependent on the funding that comes to us through the Barnett formula or on our very limited borrowing powers, which have increased from £220 million to £225·7 million. Although any increase is welcome, it will not make a huge difference.

There is nothing to stop Departments from preparing plans, but it will all depend on the funding envelope that flows from Westminster, and, although it has increased, the amount of capital has not gone up significantly. The Minister said that we will have to wait to see what Treasury does, because it will depend, I imagine, on the next phase of the spending review, when we will see what its longer-term plans for capital are. If it puts money into infrastructure, we will get the Barnett consequential, and that is when we may see the benefit from the change in the rules.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Joanne. This is my final question. Do the 2% productivity efficiencies also apply here? Am I correct?

Ms McBurney: The productivity measures imposed by Treasury on Whitehall Departments do not read across to here. That is a matter for the Executive. When we face constrained finances and want to do more things, we have to look at doing everything more efficiently. The target does not read across, however. Rather, it is for the Executive to decide.

Mr Carroll: It would be completely counterproductive for people to do that. Thanks for your answers.

Miss Brogan: Hello, Joanne and Jeff. Thanks for your briefing and for taking questions. The additional funding and the other benefits from the interim fiscal framework that the Minister secured in, I think, May are welcome. Are you able to give me some details on the additional funding and other benefits from the framework? What difference will those make to the Budget and to the October monitoring round?

Ms McBurney: The application of the 124% needs-based factor included in the interim fiscal framework has, in total, resulted in an additional £431·4 million of funding. That is made up of £59·95 million for the uplift that we have already received in 2024-25, which was allocated in the June monitoring round. There is an additional £123·81 million from the Barnett consequential that was announced in the autumn Budget for 2024-25. We are also getting an additional £247·6 million for 2025-26 as a result. Overall —.

Miss Brogan: Does that include increased borrowing, or is that separate?

Ms McBurney: That is separate. That was just the increase in our Barnett consequentials. At £431·4 million over two years, it is quite significant.

Miss Brogan: That is excellent. Thank you. How useful will it be to have the multi-year spending review? How will that benefit Departments and potentially public services?

Ms McBurney: As you know, our Minister has been pressing for that for some time. It will provide additional certainty, so it is very welcome. It is unfortunate that, owing to the timing, we have only a single-year Budget for 2025-26. We will, however, get information for two years in the spring, which, hopefully, will allow us to do a two-year Budget. After that, there will be rolling Budgets, which will allow us to do three-year Budgets. That is therefore very welcome. It will provide certainty for the Executive as a whole and for individual Departments, which will allow them to plan. That certainty can hopefully then be passed on to the bodies that they fund. Hopefully, that is a positive move.

Miss Brogan: We will therefore have one more annual Budget, for 2025-26, and you hope that we will have a multi-year Budget after that?

Ms McBurney: That is certainly our intention.

Miss Brogan: OK. That is great. I will go back to the point that the Chair made about agriculture funding. I declare an interest, as I also sit on the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Trying to balance the books from the single farm payment for farmers is a concern for farmers and for those of us who represent them. Fisheries also have concerns. As the Chair said, this is the first time in decades that money has not been ring-fenced. We initially lost the EU funding — the common agricultural policy payment — as a consequence of Brexit, but I think that the Tory Government agreed to ring-fence funding until this year. Have you or any of your officials had any engagement with DAERA officials about how you will approach that in the short term and then, beyond next year, in the long term? The loss of EU funding represents a massive chunk out of our Budget. What engagement have you had with DAERA?

Ms McBurney: I have had a quick, initial conversation with the DAERA finance director. Our Supply teams will pick up that conversation with their DAERA colleagues as we go into the 2025-26 Budget year. As far as I am aware, the Finance Minister has also met the AERA Minister. Those discussions will continue as we develop the Budget for 2025-26 and beyond. We will discuss how to approach it with DAERA officials. They submitted their bids for the 2025-26 Budget before they knew about the additional funding, so we will allow them to bid for the additional funding that they think should come their way for farm payments. They are keen to see inflationary uplifts that are not reflected in the money that is now built into our baseline.

Miss Brogan: That is another fair point. Finally, Joanne, what is the consultation process for the Budget? Will individual Departments open public consultations on their bids?

Ms McBurney: It is our intention to have an overarching consultation on the overall draft Budget. That is to be led by DOF, but individual Departments will also have to consult in line with their equality schemes. We will bring those consultations back to the Executive as part of the discussions on the final Budget. There will therefore be individual departmental consultations and an overarching consultation.

Miss Brogan: That is great. Thank you, Joanne.

Mr Frew: If the October monitoring round runs into December, will there be a January monitoring round?

Ms McBurney: Yes, there will be a January monitoring round, because we need to finalise Departments' positions for the spring Supplementary Estimates. Although funding may be limited, there are always some technical adjustments to be made. We intend to have a January monitoring round, but I hope that the October monitoring round does not run into December.

Mr Frew: I am concerned about the National Insurance increase for businesses. The Labour Government have made a really bad mistake. They have promised support for the public sector, but my concern is over how arm's-length bodies and, more notably, GP surgeries will get public-sector support. GP surgeries do not sell wares. They do not sell a product from which they can pass on costs. They provide a healthcare service, and it is a government service. Is any thought being given to how we will support GP surgeries? I am sure that there are other services that are similar to GP surgeries that will need similar support, but I cannot think of any off the top of my head.

Ms McBurney: I am sure that the Department of Health is considering what support can be provided to GP surgeries. We are still waiting to hear what the public-sector support will even look like. Affordability will be an issue for the Executive, but individual Departments will be looking to their arm's-length bodies, to the community and voluntary sector and to people whom they fund to see what support can be given. Our hands are tied on that matter in some ways. Affordability will undoubtedly be an issue.

Mr Jeff McGuinness (Department of Finance): It also an issue for English GPs. If the Government are doing something for GPs in England, they should be doing something equivalent for us.

Mr Frew: I like to see small government, and we have a big third sector that does the stuff that the Government cannot really do well. GP surgeries are part of that, but so are the third sector and arm's-length bodies that we fund to provide that service for the Government. Not to be alarmist in any shape or form, but if there were to be a breakdown in services that help society, we could see a whole raft of GPs handing in their licence. There is already pressure in that regard, but a breakdown in services could tip the scales.

Ms McBurney: As Jeff said, we need to see what happens in England and how that then factors into what we get. At this point, we do not even know whether we are getting Barnett money or whether separate negotiations will take place with us. We have not yet got to that stage. Moreover, we found out about it only last week, so we are still working through the detail. I imagine that Departments will work with all their arm's-length bodies and other bodies that they fund to see what the pressures are and how they can go about providing support.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If any other members wish to come in, please indicate.

I will raise a couple of quick points with you, Jeff, specifically, but, I guess, with you both, about the Budget sustainability plan and where we go from here. We have talked about the Budget sustainability plan. It has been published. What are the next steps? I am not entirely clear what happens next.

Mr McGuinness: We have a relatively small team working on the Budget sustainability plan, but we are making progress in two specific areas: on the Budget improvement plan and on the departmental five-year plan. We are developing road maps for both, about which we will speak to the Minister. Once we have her approval, we will provide the Committee with a copy of the road maps. They will contain some short-term and longer-term measures that relate to the direction in which we are going.

I suspect that I can say that connecting the Programme for Government to the Budget is one of the things that we will try to do in the shorter term. Doing that may prove to be quite experimental and, in some ways, crude, but it is a place from which to start. We will look at how to improve equality around the Budget and at income generation. One thing that we committed to in the Budget sustainability plan is, once we have a finalised Budget for 2025-26, to look at the data provision, at the kind of useful information that we can provide alongside the Budget and at whether we can present that information in ways that make the Budget more meaningful.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Just last week, during recess, there was a story on the BBC about the domestic rates cap. It was not entirely clear, but it appeared that the Minister was signalling an intention to change, lift, raise or taper the cap. Has that been brought to the Executive? Will it be brought to the Executive?

Ms McBurney: Rates matters are not our area, so we really cannot comment on that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The Budget sustainability plan contained information on areas of potential income generation. That is why I ask.

Mr McGuinness: I understand that that work is ongoing and that it could be brought to the Executive in the near future.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): There is a bit in the Budget sustainability plan about potential income generation, revenue raising and changes to the rates system, or, indeed, something more substantial. It is worth saying that the table in the annex shows potential ways in which to make money and raise revenue. They are not committed policy interventions. They are possibilities that range from charging a bit more for Ordnance Survey products all the way up to more substantial changes to the rating system. I am trying to ascertain what the process is through which we will find out whether the Executive are doing any of those things.

Mr McGuinness: When we look at the Budget improvement plan, we look at income generation and take a strategic view. That will be done post-Budget. One of the things that curtail Ministers when making decisions on such things is their having to understand the wider position. It is really hard for a Minister to make very specific decisions about income generation without knowing what their budget envelope will look like. Although those final decisions are published in the Budget sustainability plan as being what might happen, they will not be taken until we are deep into the Budget process, so it may be done after the draft Budget stage or even at the final Budget stage, when Ministers realise what their final overall envelope looks like.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): They would not necessarily make proposals for the draft Budget.

Mr McGuinness: No, not necessarily.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Would that not be the obvious stage at which to do it and then consult on it?

Mr McGuinness: If we were looking at the longer-term pattern, that would help to do that, but, at the moment, we do not know what our Budget envelope looks like.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You know what it is for 2025-26.

Mr McGuinness: At a macro level, absolutely, but it is really important for Ministers to understand what their budget looks like. For instance, the AERA Minister may do something on income generation if he does not get additional funding for farm payments. It is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg situation in that regard. Our first —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is a very constipated chicken at the minute, I am afraid.

Mr McGuinness: Our first port of call is seeing how Ministers make decisions. Let us review that once they have made those decisions, and then determine how we can improve the process so that we can get those decisions made earlier in the process, or we can perhaps provide additional support to Ministers to help them make those decisions earlier in the process.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is not definite that there will be any further measures, based on what is in the annex. Those are just possible decisions that may be made at some point in the future.

Mr McGuinness: Those are possible decisions for 2025-26. They are likely to be made, but we are not sure about the degree to which they will be made. Ministers will make final decisions once they know what their budget envelope looks like.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is therefore an initial tentative options paper.

Mr McGuinness: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. I think that I understand that a bit more, albeit it is an extremely constipated chicken. I am slightly unclear as to whether and when any actual decisions on further revenue raising or rates reform will be made, but it is helpful to understand exactly what the position is. The intervention last week appeared to be a statement of policy intent by the Minister, but I guess that it was something else.

That was a really comprehensive session. Thank you, Joanne and Jeff, as always, for keeping us abreast of everything. We appreciate your coming and briefing us and also for being patient while we conducted the previous evidence session. Your time is very precious, and we appreciate it. We will be in touch with you again, and you will be in touch with us, hopefully, on all the matters raised, including when there is to be an October monitoring round. Thank you very much.