Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I welcome the Minister of Finance, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, and her officials: the permanent secretary, Neil Gibson; and Joanne McBurney. Thank you all for joining us. Minister, we are aware that your time is limited, but we appreciate that you are here to answer our questions. We would welcome an opening statement — can I suggest, given that we have limited time and you are a master of concision in the Assembly Chamber, so I am sure that it will not be a problem to you, a short opening statement — and then we will get to questions.

Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance): Thank you for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. It is fair to say that a lot has happened since I was last with you in March, but I know that my officials have been providing regular briefings. I thank them for that and for their support and work over the past number of months, which have been very busy. I also thank the Committee for its interest, support and engagement and, of course, its challenge and scrutiny.

The Department of Finance is a Department that enables others. Its role is to assist, support and advise. As a Department, we are on a journey of continuous improvement, professionalising our services and seeking opportunities to improve performance. We invest in our people, recruiting and supporting civil servants, and provide career pathways and opportunities for people to develop. We are working with others to improve effectiveness across the public sector and to transform the way in which we work. Significant progress is being made on the development of our five-year people strategy. We have made real progress with our legal services, and work is advancing to transform finance and HR services through Integr8. Colleagues in NISRA continue to provide vital information to support evidence-based policy and inform decisions, including preparations for the next census. We collect rates revenue to provide vital funding for public services and, as a Department, we managed to live within budget last year and are on target to do so again this year. In the most challenging of financial contexts, we are working with Executive colleagues to allocate resources to where they are most needed to support the delivery of public services.

I will take a few minutes to set out the context of a number of important issues that I am sure you will be keen to discuss. I will begin by talking about the Executive's finances. Work is now at an advanced stage on Budget 2025-26. I am engaging with Executive colleagues on our approach, and therefore I cannot yet set out the full details. One highlight that I know the Committee will be keen to hear is that we have received a higher number of bids for financial transactions capital (FTC) than has previously been the case.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Will that be discussed at the Executive tomorrow, Minister?

Dr Archibald: There is no Executive meeting tomorrow.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): There is no Executive meeting? That is a straight answer.

Dr Archibald: I intend to launch a draft Budget for consultation, subject to Executive agreement, in early December, ensuring that this Committee, the Assembly and the public can all have their say on what I like to hope will be the last single-year Budget. In May, I signed the interim fiscal framework, securing a commitment from the Treasury to review how the Executive are funded. The interim fiscal framework has resulted in an additional £431·4 million being available to the Executive this year and next, demonstrating the difference that it is making, with hundreds of millions of pounds of additional funding for public services. The framework was an important first step in securing long-term fiscal sustainability to ensure that our public services are fairly and properly funded. We are all in agreement that transformation is essential if the Executive are to put our finances on a sustainable footing.

In May, I secured Executive agreement to the creation of a public-sector transformation board to make progress on the ring-fenced funding included in the financial package for transformation. I know that the Committee has received briefings from the chair of the board and the head of the Civil Service, Jayne Brady, and my officials. That work has been progressing at pace, and, last week, I received advice from the board on the 11 proposals that are through to stage 2. I am considering the next step. The Executive have also agreed the terms of reference for the public-sector transformation board, and I will soon meet the British Secretary of State to finalise those. Following that, I will, of course, update the Committee.

As well as keeping one eye on the future, we need to look at the challenges that people and businesses face today. In May, I reinstated the Back in Business scheme and the rural ATM scheme to assist footfall and cash flow in our towns and cities. My Department also extended the small business rate relief scheme for 2024-25, supporting over 30,000 businesses. At the start of July, the Executive agreed allocations of over £250 million resource and £50 million capital as part of the June monitoring round, including funding for Education, Health and new-build social housing.

July saw a change of Government at Westminster, with Labour taking up office and, unfortunately, soon afterwards, we saw some regrettable decisions, including the changes to the winter fuel payment and then, in September, the pausing of the city and growth deals. Working with the councils and their partners, the Executive and elected Members from across the Assembly Chamber, including this Committee, we strongly made the case for the pause to be lifted, and I believe that our shared common purpose helped to deliver a successful outcome to enable the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West growth deals to progress. I thank the Committee for its support in that.

In October, the Executive agreed the Budget sustainability plan. That sets out the Executive's ambition of longer-term plans and improvements to the budgeting process. I have established a small team to progress that work. It will focus on ensuring better transparency, developing long-term plans for Departments and putting in place the building blocks for fiscal sustainability. While the interim fiscal framework helps stabilise our funding, there are commitments within the framework that need to be met. These include agreeing the mechanisms for how the 124% needs-based factor will operate, settling the relative funding per head methodology and developing the evidence base for negotiating a higher level of need than 124%. My officials are actively engaging with their Treasury counterparts on those issues and, in time, will also progress commitments in relation to increased tax and borrowing powers. In my view, increased fiscal devolution would allow an Executive increased control to manage priorities locally. It would allow us to make different choices, change behaviours, spur economic activity or raise revenue for public services in a fairer and more progressive way.

The end of October saw the British Chancellor's autumn Budget statement. The level of in-year funding that we received reflects the reality of the underfunding of public services following 14 years of austerity. While the autumn statement provided some additional funding, there is still much to do. We need continued investment over the coming years to help transform public services. There are also clear areas of concern stemming from the autumn Budget, including the impact of increased employer's National Insurance contributions, particularly for our small businesses and for the community and voluntary sector that delivers services in partnership with, or on behalf of, government, and the changes in agricultural property relief and the impact that that will have on our farming community. The reduction in the Shared Prosperity Fund is also an area of apprehension and concern for the community and voluntary sector. Following the autumn Budget, my Department worked at pace to progress the October monitoring round, which was agreed by the Executive on 11 November. That saw allocations of £631·5 million resource funding for Departments for pressures and pay, with £68 million of capital being invested in social housing and infrastructure. Even with those allocations, however, Departments still face a shortfall of £180 million. All Departments will have to make savings or reduce what they want to do in order to live within their allocations.

Despite the funding challenges, we must do everything that we can to find the money to cover public-sector pay awards. I remain fully committed to working with ministerial colleagues to find a way forward in respect of the public-sector pay challenges. Our public-sector workers deserve to be paid fairly, given their vital role in the provision of public services, and we will not be able to deliver on our transformation objectives without their support. That is why I continue to ask all Ministers to do what they can to deliver savings, and to identify those as early as possible so that any funding available can be prioritised for public-sector pay awards. All Ministers have a responsibility to weigh up their pressures against our ability and the need to provide public-sector pay awards.

The levers that we have to increase revenue to provide services and cover pay are limited. Our rating system generates some £1·5 billion annually for public services. I am determined to build a progressive rates system that grows our tax base and stimulates our economy. In October, I issued a paper to Executive colleagues outlining my short-, medium- and long-term plans for the rating system. One of the changes that I have been asked about a lot following the earlier consultation pertained to the level of maximum capital value in our domestic rating system. The specifics of the policy proposals pertaining to the cap remain with the Executive. I appreciate that rating matters that affect households and businesses need to be considered carefully. Therefore, I will continue to work with the Executive on progressing policy changes that can be made in the shorter term. I know that officials from Land and Property Services (LPS) will brief the Committee on preparations for domestic Reval2030 next month. My focus will now shift to the medium- and long-term strategic approach. The Committee and the Assembly will be updated on that as soon as possible.

I want to touch briefly on other important work streams in my Department for the time ahead. They include reforming marriage law to put belief marriage on an equal footing with religious marriage, and to increase the minimum age from 16 to 18; introducing a baby loss certificate scheme to allow parents and families who have suffered a devastating loss to feel that their grief is recognised; accelerating the review of our office estate, which is already delivering tangible benefits, enabling £24·4 million of capital to be allocated in October monitoring to areas such as social housing and infrastructure; advancing the Integr8 programme, which will modernise and integrate NICS HR and finance; and supporting our people by developing a new Civil Service people strategy and reviewing HR policies. That is not an exhaustive list by any means.

When I became Finance Minister, I said that I was determined to work with people to deliver for our citizens, and I believe that my actions to date reflect that. I hope that these remarks have provided you with a helpful overview to inform and shape our discussions and address the most pressing issues. There is no doubt that the financial outlook for public services remains incredibly difficult. I have said on numerous occasions that articulating problems is very easy: the challenge for us all is how we address them. Change can be daunting and uncomfortable, but if we keep doing the same things, people will keep getting the same outcomes. As the draft Programme for Government is titled — 'Our Plan: Doing What Matters Most' — so we must all work together to do what matters most.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you very much. Hopefully, we will ask the questions that matter most, and, hopefully, short questions and short answers as well so that we can get through as much as possible, given that our time is limited. Minister, you mentioned on multiple occasions the need to reform our taxation system to make it more progressive and to use more levers or to get more taxation powers. When can we expect to see those proposals?

Dr Archibald: As you will be aware, we signed the interim fiscal framework in May. That, I suppose, codified our needs-based factor of 124%, but it also set out the direction of travel and the way forward in relation to work that needs to be done. In particular, there is immediate work that needs to be done prior to the spending review that is upcoming in the spring. The British Government agreed to review the Executive's funding in advance of the 2026-27 cliff edge that we face in respect of the financial package funding. The relevant spending review for that is now the spring spending review. Officials are working at pace to progress the information that is needed to understand the methodology that is used to calculate the 124%, but also some of the evidence that will be required if we are to try to make the case to look at our level of need being higher than 124%, as the Executive believe we should. Contained within the interim fiscal framework was a commitment to look at the principles of fiscal devolution. The same team of people is doing both pieces of work, and the team's immediate priority is to look at that level-of-need work while also progressing the recommendations from the Fiscal Commission report and the consultation that was done in respect of that. I will bring proposals to the Executive in the near future in relation to that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You will bring proposals to the Executive on further fiscal devolution?

Dr Archibald: To take forward any proposals in relation to that will require the agreement of the Executive. It would be considered a cross-cutting issue that affects our Budget, and therefore we will need to get political consensus from the Executive on the way forward.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Certainly, but when will there be an Executive meeting in which you will say, "My preference is that we seek to get income tax variation powers", for example, or whatever it might be? I am not saying that it will be that. When do you expect to be able to bring those proposals to the Executive?

Dr Archibald: As I have indicated, the Department's fiscal team, which is very small — two or three people — is prioritising the work on our funding level in advance of the spending review, understanding the methodology behind the 124% needs-based calculation and working to firm up the evidence base that will be required to make the case that our level of need should be higher. You will appreciate that that is the immediate priority for the team, but it is also progressing the work in relation to fiscal devolution.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I appreciate that there are capacity limitations on the officials, but you have been 10 months in post, and I think that the Fiscal Commission reported about three years ago —.

Dr Archibald: May 2022.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): What is that, two and a half years? Do you have a preference of tax-raising powers that we should be seeking, understanding that the Executive would have to agree?

Dr Archibald: The Fiscal Commission set out a number of recommendations, and there are principles underpinning the devolution of fiscal powers that will have to be progressed, such as the sharing of risk, for example, between the British Treasury and the Executive. There is a significant piece of work that needs to be done prior to our proposing to the Treasury that we want to get power x, y or z. As I said, we will need the agreement of the Executive before we can go to Treasury to make our proposals. I have a preference — I would like to see maximum devolution of powers — but we have to work through a process in relation to how we take this forward.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is a relatively technocratic answer, but we will move on for now. Finally, from me, before I bring in others, if it is not happening this week, when do you expect to bring the 2025-26 Budget to the Executive?

Dr Archibald: Joanne and her team are working at pace on that. I am engaging with Executive colleagues on agreeing our approach to that Budget. A number of things will have to be bottomed out and agreed regarding what decisions the Executive would like to take in respect of certain issues. I am sure that we will come on to some of those in the course of the discussions. It is our intention that it will be early December, and we have said that from the get-go. There was not an Executive meeting scheduled for this week, but there is one scheduled for next week. We hope to progress it in the very near future. Joanne, do you want to add anything?

Ms Joanne McBurney (Department of Finance): No, other than to say that we are still working at pace through substantive returns from Departments.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Do you think that there will be anything in the 2025-26 Budget around Casement Park?

Dr Archibald: I do not have the specifics of the bids from the Minister for Communities in front of me, but I anticipate that he will have made capital bids in respect of his departmental priorities and that allocations will be made accordingly.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Do you hope that he makes a bid for Casement Park, or would you encourage him to?

Dr Archibald: Yes, of course.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Minister, for being here today to take our questions. I want to ask about the financial restoration package and the interim fiscal framework. Those things were signed under the previous UK Government. Now that we have moved to the new Labour Government, have you engaged with the new Government and Treasury officials about both those matters? What is their feeling about them? Can we pick up on what was discussed? How much of it is open for conversations?

Dr Archibald: The interim fiscal framework was signed on behalf of the Executive and the British Government. Therefore, it is an agreement that will continue even though there has been a change of Government. I have had significant engagement with the new Treasury officials. I have met the Chancellor on two occasions and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on three or four separate occasions. We discussed a range of matters, including progressing the commitments in the interim fiscal framework. They have adopted the same approach to that. We have also had some engagement, as you will appreciate, about the city and growth deals when they were poorly handled and we had to engage with them on it. We will continue that engagement. Officials engage with Treasury officials on a weekly basis, including on the commitments in the interim fiscal framework and progressing the work that is quite urgent to complete in advance of the spending review.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you. When the Assembly was restored in February, one of the first things brought to the Chamber was a collective agreement to look for a further review of our finances. As we move forward, it is very clear that the baseline finances that we have are not enough to sustain our public services and place us to take forward transformation. Has there been, in what they have sent you, any update on how live that is or how reactive they are to re-reviewing our baseline?

Dr Archibald: That is the urgent piece of work that I referred to in respect of our level of need. It is the methodology behind calculating our level of need, and also to provide the evidence base to make the case that our level of need is higher than 124%. As part of the fiscal framework, we had a commitment that we could plan on the basis that we would be funded at or above the 124% level of need as our baseline, but that it would be reviewed at the relevant spending review. Officials in the fiscal team are urgently focused on that at the moment, and we will take it forward in our engagement with Treasury in the near future.

Ms Forsythe: I appreciate that Neil Gibson and Joanne McBurney, the officials who attend the Committee and give us detailed briefings on the matter, are doing their best, but with limited access to more information on the finances, they are very tied with what can be brought forward. I looked at this month's out-turn reports, and it looks like the overcommitments are not coming down; if anything, they are going up a little bit. As well as that, the Budget statement increased the employer's contributions significantly. If we look at some of the figures that have come through from different bodies, the Minister of Health has said that it will be an increase of over £100 million, the Education Authority has said it will be over £50 million, and £20 million for the Civil Service. You responded to me on that as well. Have you had any indication from the Treasury about how much of the increase it is going to fund?

Dr Archibald: We are very concerned about the National Insurance increase from a public-sector perspective, but also because of the impact on our community and voluntary sector and businesses. I have had significant representation from those sectors, as I am sure you have. On the public-sector piece, we have had a commitment from the Chancellor that support will be provided for public-sector employers, but only public-sector employers. Joanne can speak to the engagement that she had with the Treasury about that. There have been some indications about the expectation of the amount of money that we will get. We think that it will fall short of what is required. Certainly, the Scottish Finance Minister was quoted in the media yesterday saying the same thing from her perspective. That is going to further compound the budgetary pressures that we face next year by adding a considerable amount of money to the pressures already faced by Departments. Joanne, do you want to say anything?

Ms McBurney: We have not had a number confirmed yet from Treasury, but the indications are that it will apply the Barnett formula to the allocations to Whitehall Departments. Even applying the 124%, it will not fund all our pressures. The Scottish Minister has come out —.

Ms Forsythe: By how much do you think that it will be short? I see that Scotland estimates that it is only getting three fifths. How short do you think that we will be?

Ms McBurney: A number has not been confirmed yet, and we are still working with Departments to identify the total cost to them. I do not have a figure, but it will fall far short.

Ms Forsythe: When will the Treasury tell you how much of that it is going to fund?

Ms McBurney: The numbers are not usually confirmed until the Supplementary Estimates later in the year, but we will press Treasury to give us as much information as it can at an early date. It is also important to know where it comes from. For example, does it cover local government support in England etc? There is a lot to work through, but we are very concerned, as are colleagues in Scotland.

Ms Forsythe: It was not consulted on, and it came out of nowhere for everyone — the private sector, the voluntary and community sector and the public sector. At a time when we are already under pressure, it is a huge pressure for everyone.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, Minister and everybody, for coming to talk to us. I have two very quick questions. First, you mentioned where we are with the financial situation and where we are looking forward. Will you outline any discussions that you have had about what the comprehensive spending review (CSR) is going to look like, bearing in mind that we are looking two, or potentially three, years hence? Are we getting any indications of how that is likely to pan out?

Secondly, your party leader said, tongue in cheek, that you did not have any "loaves and fishes". One of the real issues, particularly for the agriculture sector, is funding that will no longer be ring-fenced. How is that beginning to look when you start to formulate the Budget for next year? Those are my two questions, Minister.

Dr Archibald: What was the first point again? Sorry.

Dr Aiken: What indications are you beginning to get about the comprehensive spending review? We have already heard from the Deputy Chair the indications that there are concerns about National Insurance contributions and the changes that that might make to the shortfall. The discussion about the main points for the CSR should be ongoing now.

Dr Archibald: I might let Joanne come in and speak to engagement that she has had about that. We have not had substantive engagement at a Chief-Secretary-to-Finance-Minister level as yet. We have been working through the Budget for the next financial year. It is our understanding that the spending review in the spring will be for two years, so it will be a one plus two- or three-year spending review, so to speak. It is our intention to look at doing a two-year Budget from that point. Hopefully, this will be the last of our single-year Budgets. That will give Departments a little bit more certainty in order to plan and manage their pressures.

In respect of agriculture funding, I worked with the Agriculture Minister in advance of the Budget. We made the case to Treasury that the agriculture funding should remain ring-fenced and that it should also be uplifted in line with inflation. Treasury did neither of those things. It will be for the Executive to take a position on all their funding priorities for the Budget, but my view is that we should continue to ring-fence our agriculture funding and give that certainty to our farming and agriculture sector.

Dr Aiken: And just one very small one. Thank you very much indeed for your commitment to public-sector pay. You will know where this question is going. Given the out-turns that we are seeing at the moment, will there be sufficient headroom to pay for public-sector pay across the sectors?

Dr Archibald: Since we came into the Executive in February, we have tried to prioritise our public-sector workers and their pay. I remain fully committed to working with all my Executive colleagues to try to find a way forward in respect of that. Along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, I have met the Health Minister on a number of occasions since the October monitoring round to discuss finding a way forward on that. I wrote to my ministerial colleagues post October monitoring round to ask them all to do what they can to identify savings in their Departments. That will be a challenge because many of them — all of them, I think — are still facing pressures, but there is a responsibility on each of us as Ministers to weigh up our pressures against that need to deliver for our public-sector workers. I have asked Ministers to try to identify those savings as quickly as possible so that we can prioritise putting that towards public-sector pay.

The Health Minister is facing particular challenges, but so, too, is the Education Minister, as am I, as the Minister responsible for the Civil Service. I am committed to doing whatever I can to prioritise that and find a way forward.

Dr Aiken: It is a £127 million problem.

Mr Carroll: On the public-sector transformation board, two projects did not pass to the next stage: the revitalisation of the Housing Executive and Health's warm homes pilot scheme. I appreciate that you are not over all the details, but, certainly, the Housing Executive one is of interest, for obvious reasons. Do you have any information on that? Does it involve possible mutualisation or privatisation? Are there any reasons why both schemes did not move to the next stage?

Dr Archibald: I do not have the details of individual projects. The proposals come from the Departments, are approved by the respective Minister and are then considered by the public-sector transformation board. It is the board's role to sift the schemes to ensure, first and foremost, that they meet the criteria for being transformative and then to make recommendations to me. It has concluded its evaluation of the stage 2 proposals and has written to me about that. I will bring recommendations to the Executive. I cannot comment on all the specifics, but if you want to write to me, we can —.

Mr Carroll: I would appreciate getting more information. I would be concerned if there were any applications to privatise aspects of the Housing Executive, but I would also be concerned if there was a plan to re-fund it through a different measure that was not accepted.

My final question for this round, Minister, is about Fujitsu. Joanne and different officials in different capacities have raised the issue. Obviously, the Education Authority (EA) has effectively halted its contract with Fujitsu for its own reasons. I note that one of the heads of Fujitsu said that he does not know whether one of the programmes is reliable. Given different Departments' involvement with Fujitsu, have you had any conversations with your officials? Do you have the power, under procurement legislation, to intervene in order to stop contracts with Fujitsu? Is it on your radar?

Dr Archibald: Any public procurement in any contract is regulated through the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, and it has to be managed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. It would not be possible to terminate the contracts because of the concerns that you mentioned. The issue, obviously, has been in the media because of the ongoing public inquiry into Horizon. Senior officials from my Department, along with Cabinet Office officials, continue to meet Fujitsu. Once the inquiry publishes its findings, the Cabinet Office will review the findings, provide advice on an appropriate action and set out the way forward.

Neil, do you want to comment further on that?

Mr Neil Gibson (Department of Finance): As the Minister said, we continue to operate under the guidelines, and we will take any advice from the inquiry, as and when its report is published. For now, we continue to monitor any Fujitsu contracts that we have, as we do with any other supplier. Indeed, its ability to bid for any other contracts remains unaffected until we see the fallout.

Mr Carroll: For clarity, do we have to wait for a direction from the Cabinet Office before making any decisions, or can you or the Executive make —?

Mr Gibson: No. We fall under the Procurement Act 2023 and procurement law. We will therefore continue to treat Fujitsu as we treat any other supplier until such time as the inquiry publishes its report.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, Minister, Neil and Joanne, for attending this afternoon. It is good to have you here.

I want to go back to the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. The Committee heard briefly from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) about the concerns of small businesses and the fact that they are already facing cost-of-living and inflationary increases, both of which impact on operating costs. Minister, you mentioned the community and voluntary sector. On a constituency level, I have received queries from GP surgeries — those with their own contracts — and dental practices about how they will pay healthcare staff, given the issues with their remuneration for the work that they are doing now and those increased costs. How concerned are you about the increases, and what impact will they have on the public sector and our services?

Dr Archibald: We are very concerned, from a public-sector perspective, a community and voluntary sector perspective and a business perspective. It is clear that it is going to have a significant impact. I met NICVA and a range of community and voluntary organisations earlier this week, along with the Communities Minister and the Economy Minister. That was one of the issues that they raised with us. Those organisations support government to deliver really important services. Each of them quoted figures for what it was going to add to their pay bill. It is very concerning for them, as individual organisations. We had actually been scheduled to meet about the Shared Prosperity Fund. At the same time as we are seeing a hike in National Insurance, we are seeing a cut to the funding for shared prosperity, so it is a bit of a double hit for some of those organisations. We asked them to share with us their evidence about the cost that it is going to have, and the potential impact on their services, to help us to make representations to the British Government in that regard.

We have received similar representations from business organisations about the impact on small businesses, and, from a constituency perspective, I have received some of the representations that you referred to. Although there will be support for the public sector for the likes of GPs and dentists, we do not understand that that is the case. That case is being made in England as well. I am sure that representative bodies will be very loud in making that case. We will continue to work with our Scottish and Welsh counterparts to understand the impact that that will have on all the devolved Administrations and make representations accordingly.

Miss Brogan: You advised Ministers to try to prioritise public-sector pay in their budgets. We do not have the funding that we want or need from the British Government, but it is important that we prioritise public-sector workers because of the invaluable work that they do. What kind of engagement have you had with other Ministers in the Executive since the October monitoring round announcement?

Dr Archibald: I have engaged with my unions, as other Ministers have, since the October monitoring round took place. I have engaged with Ministers individually, such as the Health Minister, given the challenges that he is facing, and at an Executive level about public-sector pay. We, as an Executive, are all facing challenges in that respect. As I said to Steve, I have encouraged Ministers to look at their departmental budgets to see whether any savings can be found and to try to identify those as quickly as possible. We, as an Executive, are committed to working together to find a way forward on public-sector pay. We very much recognise the need for our public-sector workers to be properly recompensed for their work and to get fair pay. We also need the support of our workers to be able to deliver on our transformation agenda. It is really important that we have good relationships, and that they feel that the work that they do is valued.

Miss Brogan: Absolutely. Finally, I will touch on what Steve mentioned, agriculture funding. Agriculture was previously funded through Europe, with the common agricultural policy (CAP). It was then ring-fenced by the previous British Government, and it has now been baselined. I think that it is over £300 million. That includes payments for farmers, fisheries and rural development, which is a massive issue for me locally, given that I represent a large rural area. It is important to remember that when we are having those discussions. We are all well aware of the issues that farmers are also facing when it comes to inheritance tax. That is another concern for them. You said that you are supportive of the funding being ring-fenced, which I am glad about; farmers need that kind of certainty. Will you explain what the process will be? You said that you have engaged with the AERA Minister.

Dr Archibald: We are in the process of setting the Budget for 2025-26. All Departments will have made their representations to us in respect of what their pressures are and the case for specific items, such as the ring-fencing of the agriculture fund, which the Agriculture Minister has done. It will then be for the Executive to take a position on each of the specific asks.

I anticipate, however, that there will be support for the ring-fencing of agriculture, given the kind of commentary that I have heard from parties in the Executive. I said it is my recommendation that we continue to ring-fence that funding so that our farming community has that certainty. Obviously, with the single farm payment and everything that has to come out of that budget, it is important to give that certainty and clarity to our agriculture community.

Miss Brogan: I agree. Thank you Minister.

Mr Tennyson: Sticking with that outlook for 2025-26, Minister, are you in a position to update the Committee on what the scale of the pressures for 2025-26 may be versus the funding that is available?

Dr Archibald: I will let Joanne come in on the specifics of that. We are still working our way through it with Departments, but, needless to say, the pressures far outweigh the resource and capital funding that we have available to allocate.

Ms McBurney: I do not have the details of the bids with me either, but, as usual, the pressures far outweigh the funding available.

Mr Tennyson: Is there even a ballpark figure, Joanne, at this stage, or are you just not in a position to —?

Ms McBurney: I would not like to give you a number off the top of my head in case I got it wrong.

Mr Tennyson: That is no problem. Obviously, Minister, you had previously outlined that you wanted to bring proposals for changing the rating system in the short, medium and longer term to raise additional funding. It has been some time since you indicated that that was your intention. Can you update us on what the status of that work is and why we have not seen it yet?

Dr Archibald: As I said in my opening remarks, I have brought proposals to the Executive. They have not made it onto the agenda of the Executive as yet. I am keen that we ensure that we have a rating system that is up to date and as fair and equitable as possible. I have been asked about specific things, for example, the max cap, which I was minded to look at raising in some respects to make it more progressive. Unfortunately, the proposals have not made it as far as the Executive table yet, but I will continue to work with colleagues to try to advance some of the medium- and longer-term aspects of it, to take a more strategic look at our rating system and look at the policies and the rating relief measures that we have in place and make sure that they still achieve the policy objective that they were put in place to achieve. I hope to be able to update the Committee in the near future about the way forward.

Mr Tennyson: OK. So, you are not in a position today to outline your priorities in rating policy.

Dr Archibald: Not yet.

Mr Tennyson: OK. No problem.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Can I ask why it has not got onto the Executive table yet? I am sorry, Eóin, I will let you come back.

Mr Tennyson: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Why, if you brought the paper to the Executive, has it not been discussed?

Dr Archibald: The agenda is agreed by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. A number of Ministers have expressed support for my proposal, but it has not yet made the agenda.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Am I to understand, then, that the Executive Office has not agreed to its going on the agenda?

Dr Archibald: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you. OK. I am sorry, Eóin.

Mr Tennyson: You are OK, Chair. Thank you. Sticking with the dynamics within the Executive, if I may, Minister, obviously there was not unanimous support around the Executive table for October monitoring. Did you receive any alternative propositions from any Minister on the October monitoring allocations?

Dr Archibald: I did not receive any alternative proposals. Joanne, you can keep me right, just to make sure that I am not saying anything wrong there. To be fair to Ministers, Eóin, I recognise that every Minister has pressures in their Department that will be very difficult for them to manage. A number of Ministers also have pay pressures, and we want to do the best that we can, as individual Ministers, both for our Departments and for the pay groups that we represent. It has been a difficult year in our budgetary outlook. I do not see it improving by any great strides going forward, but it is important that we try to achieve that kind of collective consensus on the Budget, and I hope we do so in the future.

Mr Tennyson: That is me for now, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Thank you, Eóin. Phillip Brett is next.

Mr Brett: Thank you Minister. You are certainly across your brief. I congratulate you on the work that you are doing.

You submitted proposals to the Executive on your short-term review of rates. What are you looking to do? You talked about removing the upper limit of the cap. Is there anything else that you want to do? Do you want to remove the early payment discount?

Dr Archibald: I do not want to get into the specific details of what is still sitting with the Executive, and I will still be trying to find a way forward in respect of that. Just to clarify about the maximum cap: it was not removing it, it was raising it in a more progressive way. If you remove the cap, which was the proposal from the British Secretary of State, you could end up with some households paying rates of up to £25,000, which I do not think any of us would think of as reasonable, particularly when you look at the equivalent in England, which would be council tax. While they are not directly comparable, the highest bills would be about £5,000 or £5,500. That is a comparison, so it was to have a more progressive look at that.

Mr Brett: How much money would your proposals raise?

Dr Archibald: Again, I do not want to get into the specifics, given that the Executive have not yet considered them.

Mr Brett: I know that the Executive have not agreed them, but you clearly have a position that you wish to see adopted by the Executive. In your position, how much money would be raised?

Dr Archibald: I do not want to get into the specifics, Phillip, given the fact that the Executive have not yet considered the proposals, and it would require Executive agreement to take those proposals forward. As I say, I want to move those forward in the very near future, and I would be happy to update the Committee and talk through them when we have that agreement.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Minister, you have indicated publicly your intention. With respect, you told the media that you wanted to pursue that policy. You have already given some detail that it would be an increase in the cap rather than an abolition of the cap, so I am sure that Phillip Brett would love you to share with him how much it might raise.

Dr Archibald: I am sure that somebody who is better at maths than me —

Dr Aiken: Me. [Laughter.]

Dr Archibald: — could probably back-calculate the increase if I were to say the amount that it could potentially raise.

Mr Brett: In the short term, is there a cut-off point? LPS will have a process to go through before issuing rates bills for next year. What is the hard cut-off for any changes to the rates for 2025-26.

Dr Archibald: It has already passed. I had hoped that we would have considered it before now, because it would have had to go back out to consultation. It would have required only secondary legislation to make the amendments that I was proposing, but it would still have had a legislative process to go through. Therefore, it will not be possible to implement any of those changes for 2025-26, so we will not be able to raise any additional revenue in the incoming financial year from those proposals.

Mr Brett: What is your assessment so far, Minister, of the decisions made by the public-sector transformation board?

Dr Archibald: The public-sector transformation board has not made decisions as such. It has made recommendations to me as Finance Minister. It went through a process, and the feedback that we had in respect of that process is that it was useful and positive for Departments. The board's job is to sift the proposals, make recommendations as to which are transformative and to shortlist and prioritise those. The board wrote to me at the end of last week about stage 2 of that process, and I will consider that and make recommendations to the Executive.

Mr Brett: You do not believe that the decision or the action to sift 47 projects to 29 was a decision by the public-sector transformation board.

Dr Archibald: The public-sector transformation board was asked by the Executive to sift those proposals, to consider them against the objectives of the transformation fund — I am sure that that was shared with you — and, as I said, to shortlist those and make recommendations to me, which I will bring to the Executive.

Mr Frew: On the subject of the transformation board, Minister, you stated in a letter on 30 August that you wanted a clear timeline of when to expect conclusions to be reached. Is that what you got last week with the letter from the transformation board?

Dr Archibald: I cannot recall whether it was last week's letter or a previous letter, but a timeline was included.

Mr Gibson: Yes, there was, and we have more clarity now. Also, with the terms of reference agreed for consultation, the Minister can now engage with the Secretary of State, which also would have to be clarified before any release of money. That was another component of that, but we now have more detail in the letter that has come to you with those recommendations. The parcel — if you like — of doing that consideration and taking it forward to the Executive now sits with the Minister. The ball is in our court for a little bit, until those are considered. As is always the way, it lands in the week in which we are trying to do the 2025-26 Budget, so it probably has not been able to get the amount of time in the diary that we would have hoped for.

Mr Frew: I know that there are priorities. Jayne Brady told us, on 25 November, that the development and agreement of the interim board's terms of reference were a matter for the Finance Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. You alluded to that, Neil. Who is actually in charge?

Dr Archibald: The terms of reference have been developed between the board members. They have come to me, I have brought them to the Executive and the Executive have agreed them from our side. I will engage with the British Secretary of State on the terms of reference.

Mr Frew: Does the Secretary of State make the final call?

Dr Archibald: No. We will agree on the terms of reference that the Executive have recommended.

Mr Frew: What if the Secretary of State is not happy with the terms of reference that have been agreed by the Executive?

Dr Archibald: We would have to look at his specific concerns and at whether they were also deal-breakers for the Executive. It was important for me, in developing those terms of reference, that the decision-making and respect for devolution were captured within them. I feel that they have been.

Mr Frew: OK. Is there a possibility that the money could be withheld — the £200-odd million?

Dr Archibald: It is our understanding that we will have to agree on the terms of reference in advance of the money being released. I do not anticipate us having a difficulty with that. The engagement happened with the members of the transformation board, of which the permanent secretary of the NIO is one. As I said, I was satisfied that the terms of reference properly reflect that the decision-making on how we spend our money and what is considered transformational sits with the Executive.

Mr Gibson: If I may, I will add that we will need, and it is important that we get, the Committee's ongoing scrutiny and support for trying something a little bit different. Most of the transformation that you will be aware of goes on all of the time in Departments. The Health budget is enormous — it is doing loads of transformation. This is an attempt to do something a little bit different to try to tease out transformational projects in Departments. That is why a lot of it has been badged as "interim" etc. We will see how it plays out this year. It is a significant amount of money, but, in the overall scheme of things, it is a toe in the water of the transformation that is needed, for all the reasons that we have talked about.

We will expect and very much welcome the scrutiny of that. We are taking it stage by stage: get the terms of reference agreed; get a set of allocations, hopefully; and monitor and track those and see whether this is a vehicle that could be expanded, and one with which we could do something more in the future. It is about trying to get something fairly small that could work at the beginning, and then seeing whether the different methodology and approach might work.

As the Minister said, and as I can see, now that I have had feedback from colleagues, the process has been quite healthy for officials with regard to presenting and thinking through the benefits realisation and the type of transformation that might be needed. We will reap some significant benefits from that, as a process, even if the bid is not successful, for example. I have certainly learned a lot, being from a Department that did not get any bids through. It has taught me quite a bit about improvements in the way in which we might articulate the journey of transformation as needed.

Mr Frew: May I expand on that, Neil? You are saying that we are doing this completely differently. Are you talking about the NIO being at the heart of the decision-making process, or are you talking about an interim board to move things forward?

Mr Gibson: No, it is a little bit more about the interim board, and the idea of having shortened bid documents and allowing officials to pitch an idea that they think will be transformative, and being quizzed and challenged — other brands are available, so I do not want to mention 'Dragons' Den'. That is different from how we might go about a very long business case process that might be years in gestation. It is about trying to look at concertinaing that and doing it a little bit more nimbly — for want of a better word — but with enough flexibility to allow us to come back and say, "Is the system and approach working? Do we need to tweak it?". The decision-making still lies fundamentally and absolutely with the Executive, but the idea of how we drive out those types of bids and processes is very different in timescale and approach.

I think that there will have been merit — there certainly was for my Department — in crafting each of the bids, even if they were not successful. Indeed, I am looking at some of the bids and trying to find other ways to fund them, because they piqued my interest as ways in which DOF could change as well.

Mr Frew: Where, oh where is the deaths and stillbirths legislation?

Dr Archibald: Sorry?

Mr Frew: Where is the deaths and stillbirths legislation?

Dr Archibald: Sorry, I did not catch what you said. I know that you have been updated by colleagues from the General Register Office (GRO). The legislation is in the drafting process with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC). As, I know, you have also been updated on, we were keen to use that legislative vehicle to bring forward the baby loss certificate scheme. That took a bit more development from what was intended to be in the legislation. I am keen to see that progress as quickly as possible, not least because the baby loss scheme is included in it and because there is huge support for it across the Assembly and from the public.

Mr Frew: We know that the baby loss part will be an enabling clause, so it should not take too much time to concoct that clause. We also know that there is a small number of clauses. When do you anticipate us getting a First Reading?

Dr Archibald: It is my understanding — I will get officials to clarify this for you — that we hope to bring the legislation to the Executive in January.

Mr Frew: January. OK, thank you very much.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for your update. You mentioned earlier that there is more utilisation of FTC money now. Is that across Departments? We know that, usually, DFC and others use FTC more. What are your thoughts on how that could be utilised further to make sure that we maximise the resources that we have?

Dr Archibald: I will ask Joanne to speak about the specifics of the bids, because I have not seen them all yet. Given our very constrained capital position, I have encouraged all Ministers to look within their Departments to see whether there are potential projects for which they could utilise FTC and to be as imaginative as possible in that respect. It is likely that a lot of it was DFC-led, but Joanne can comment on that.

Ms McBurney: I do not have the bids in front of me, but, from memory, the majority was from DFC and, then, there was some from DFE. We are also starting to see the repayments coming back in, so we are looking at net positions at the moment. However, yes, from memory, the majority was from DFC.

Miss Hargey: No worries. Thank you. On the back of the rating system paper that you brought to the Executive, are there any outstanding further information or meeting requests from other Ministers to discuss proposals that have not been placed before the Executive?

Dr Archibald: No. There were some further information requests, but, from memory, all the information has been provided.

Miss Hargey: So, there is no other reason for delay. Thank you.

My other question is about the recent banking round table that you held. The Committee is doing an inquiry into financial services. I am just trying to get a flavour of what was discussed and whether you have identified areas that, as part of our inquiry work, we could work on collectively through making representations to or having a focus of work with the British Government on where financial legislation sits.

Dr Archibald: The banking round table was last week. It was a really useful engagement. In attendance, we had representatives from the local banks, the Financial Services Union, the community and voluntary sector, local business organisations and the Consumer Council. The chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) also came over for that. It was a really useful discussion. The new FCA rules on access to cash came into effect in September. Those rules have been very much welcomed by stakeholders, but, from the discussion at the round table, the feeling is that it is a bit too early to draw any significant conclusions about their implementation. We have a slightly different context in the North in that we have a higher use of cash and because of our rurality, and some of that is captured within the new rules.

Financial inclusion also came up as a significant part of the discussion. That was reflected by the Consumer Council and the community and voluntary sector representatives who were there. There also people who own post offices and credit unions in attendance, so the full landscape was represented. As an outworking of the round table, we committed to writing a report that will be shared with Treasury and other regulatory authorities. I hope that we will get a formal response from them on that. I will be happy to share the report with the Committee given the work that you are doing on the matter.

Miss Hargey: Thank you. We see in the correspondence that annual procurement of services here costs anywhere between £2 billion and £4 billion. We need to make sure that we use that money smarter to get social value and outputs and address some of the challenges in society more broadly. It would be useful to get more engagement on those issues.

That feeds into another point that I want to make about the other work that you have highlighted. What further work is being done on the baseline of need? Well done for getting us to the point that it is baselined at 124%. Going further, as we look at having multi-annual Budgets and funding, has there been any discussion on how we target our resources to address social needs and inequalities? Health trust officials recently attended the Justice Committee, and they said that it is the most socially deprived and disadvantaged people who miss hospital appointments and that people die because of where they live and the deprivation levels in their postcode area. Notwithstanding the budgetary challenges, how we can we, with the money that we have, ensure that we better target deprivation to help those who need it most? Is there any appetite across the Executive to look at those issues, as well as trying to baseline more of the need with the Treasury?

Dr Archibald: On need, departmental officials have been working with other Departments and academics to build an evidence base. I understand that they will meet Professor Gerry Holtham tomorrow. He did a piece of work on the Welsh approach to need funding, and that is what the Fiscal Council's analysis is based on. Officials have been progressing that, and, as I said, we will engage with Treasury on it in the near future.

On how we target our Budget and ensure that equality priorities are identified in what we try to do, it is important to us to have a full 12-week consultation with the public ahead of next year's Budget and that Departments have the opportunity to make their own equality considerations on the draft Budget. That will give us the opportunity to reflect those priorities in the final Budget. As part of the Budget sustainability plan, the team in the Department that is looking at the Budget improvement plan will look at specific equality considerations and how those can be reflected in the budgeting process. The Department is keen to do more work on that and see it properly reflected in Budgets going forward. Joanne, do you want to add anything?

Ms McBurney: As you said, the Budget improvement team is looking at how we can incorporate that into Budgets going forward. We are keen to do the full consultation and build whatever we can into the next Budget. It will probably be an iterative process as we seek to improve.

Miss Hargey: Will that include monitoring the outcomes of equality screening? Are you aware if all the Departments will do full equality impact assessments (EQIAs) on the Budget?

Ms McBurney: It will be a matter for each Department, once it gets its Budget settlement, to do equality screening and EQIAs, but, yes, we will expect Departments to comply fully with their equality schemes. We will engage with the Equality Commission on how we can do things better on the overarching Budget.

Miss Hargey: My last wee one is about the transformation board. It is a new process for everybody, and it is good that we have the additional money. What learning has there been so that it can be made better? What has been the feedback from Departments?

Dr Archibald: As Neil touched on a little bit, the feedback that we have had from Departments has been positive. I wanted the approach to encourage innovative thinking in Departments to help us to take forward the type of transformation that will be needed to ensure that our services are more sustainable and efficient. As part of the process, we encouraged Departments to bring forward more novel proposals. The initial call outlined that risk of failure should not preclude proposals from coming forward. We wanted to encourage creative and innovative thinking in order to maximise the opportunity to get funding proposals that will genuinely deliver on transformation. I certainly encouraged the board to be flexible in the approach that it took to considering the bids and to give feedback. The feedback that we have received from Departments has reflected that that has happened.

As Neil said, it will be a bit of an iterative — to steal Joanne's word — process when it comes to the transformation board. We anticipate that it will adapt for future rounds of the transformation funding. I asked Jayne Brady, the board's chair, to look at how we could widen it beyond just Departments and involve the community and voluntary sector and other public-sector agencies and give them the opportunity to work with the Departments to bring forward bids in which they see potential to drive transformation.

Miss Hargey: Joanne talked about future budgeting and scoping. Will learning from the collaborative approach across Departments feed into a process of doing more things together on Budgets and outcomes?

Ms McBurney: As part of the Budget improvement plan, we will want to look at how we can do things more collaboratively. There is probably a huge body of work to be taken forward in that regard.

Dr Archibald: It is encouraged as part of the budgetary process; we have just not seen great uptake in that respect.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): There may be an opportunity for members to come back in for one or two more questions; we have a few minutes left with the Minister.

I want to press on the position on rates and broader revenue-raising. It would be helpful for us to be clear. Thank you for giving us the indication that your short-, medium- and long-term rating plan was blocked from being brought forward by the Executive Office. Can you say who in the Executive Office blocked it?

Dr Archibald: It has not made the Executive agenda, so —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It has not made the Executive agenda.

Dr Archibald: Not as yet.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. I am freewheeling if I suggest that it has been blocked from being put on the Executive agenda, but it has not been allowed to be discussed yet. It includes a proposal to remove or increase the £400,000 domestic rate cap. I presume that there are other measures as well. Are they part of the broader £113 million revenue-raising exercise?

Dr Archibald: No, they are not part of what was laid out in the Budget sustainability plan in respect of the £113 million, which we are on target to meet quite comfortably. As you will be aware, we will raise £80 million in this financial year, and we are projected to hit that £113 million next year.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): So, it is £80 million this year, and you will make up the balance and a bit more next year.

Separate to that is your view of how you could reform the rating system, albeit that you are not willing — that is fair enough — to say what you think could be the case regarding fiscal devolution in the longer term. On the £113 million, the Budget sustainability plan contains an appendix that sets out a table of uprated charges, including Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) charges for testing and Ordnance Survey fees. Some of the revenue-raising is from an inflationary increase in charges on or the price of products that are sold by different bits of the devolved state. Are all the things in the appendix happening, or are they just options?

Dr Archibald: I do not have the table in front of me, so, if I reflect it wrongly, forgive me, and Neil can correct me. I assume that the things in the 2024-25 column have been actioned and those in the 2025-26 column are potential measures on which Ministers will have to take decisions. It states clearly in the Budget sustainability plan that those measures will be subject to the decisions of Ministers. One of the measures in the table is the regional rate, a decision on which will be made by the Executive. It will contribute to that total as well.

I want to be clear about the £113 million. The grand total of what we do as an Executive to generate revenue is not about meeting the requirements of Treasury's £113 million condition — the Executive did not agree with that condition of the financial package in the first place — but about trying to deliver and fund quality public services. As part of the Budget sustainability plan, we committed to a strategic consideration of income generation, and we will continue to look at that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I personally encourage you to show even more ambition on that, as, I am sure, other Committee members would. One item in that table is, ironically, "Car Parking Charges". It has been calculated that £6 million of additional income comes from hospital car parking charges, which, I think, means simply not proceeding with the legislation that was passed in 2022. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that I am right in saying that part of the £113 million comes from not proceeding with the Hospital Parking Charges Act.

Dr Archibald: It is not the case that the legislation was not proceeded with; it had to be changed to allow its implementation to be taken forward. Somebody might be able to keep me right on this, but the Act was in place for two years.

Mr Gibson: Yes. That is correct.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The revenue from the delay of the Act has been scored as part of the £113 million. Is it your view that those measures should never be introduced and that the Act should never be commenced?

Dr Archibald: The amendments were introduced to allow for implementation of the removal of car parking charges. As regards that being considered as part of the £113 million, I will say that the £113 million ends in 2025-26. It will be a decision for the Health Minister to take, because that income generation falls within his Department.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): This is the point that I am getting to. This is about long-term Budget sustainability. Your Department has said in the Budget sustainability plan, "We are scoring £6 million from not implementing the Act that, for better or worse, we passed". Is it now your view, as a Finance Minister who is planning for long-term Budget sustainability, that we should simply implement the Act in 2026 and therefore lose that £6 million? That might reinforce the idea that we are not really serious about Budget sustainability.

Dr Archibald: I cannot remember the exact terms of the legislation that was used to amend the legislation on the removal of car parking charges, but my understanding is that it was to delay the implementation for two years to allow for the necessary works to be done. It was not intended to go on in perpetuity; it was intended to have an end point.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): My question is more about the contradiction. The Act was allowed to come into force, but, now, not introducing it is part of the Budget sustainability plan, and, then, it will be allowed to be introduced in 2026.

Dr Archibald: It is not that it is part of the Budget sustainability plan; it is part of the income that will be used to meet the £113 million.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is in an appendix to the Budget sustainability plan, but I take your point. I have a couple of other points —

Ms McBurney: Sorry, I want to come in on that. You are right that it is in the appendix to the Budget sustainability plan, but there are two separate issues. There is how the Executive make their Budget sustainable, which is the ongoing review of income charges, and there is the requirement that was placed upon the Executive by the financial restoration package. That appendix sets out how we are meeting the £113 million requirement that the UK Government placed on the Executive. It does not say that that is necessarily what the Executive intend to do going forward — that is part of the wider review.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I think that people will see a contradiction in that, but I respect the position that you set out.

I turn to NI Water. Do you think that NI Water's funding model is sustainable?

Dr Archibald: What I will say first and foremost is that that is a matter for the Infrastructure Minister. He has set out his view on it. We all recognise the funding challenge that NI Water faces. The bulk of that is due to the underfunding of public services and capital infrastructure over a number of years. Again, it is an Executive priority to ensure that our waste water infrastructure gets sufficient funding. As part of the budgetary process and the monitoring rounds, we have tried to put additional funding into NI Water.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): So, you are not endorsing a plan for developer charges? That is one of the things that the Minister has put forward. Has that been discussed with the Finance Department?

Dr Archibald: The Infrastructure Minister said that that is one of the things that he is looking at. He will have to bring forward proposals on it.

I will briefly bring in some colleagues before we release you.

Ms Forsythe: Thanks, Minister, for your answers so far today. Last week, officials from the HR section of your Department were in front of the Committee. Your Department is responsible for core delivery of the Budget and finances, but it also has an oversight role in the wider Civil Service. Will you outline your plans for Civil Service reform?

Dr Archibald: I know that you were briefed by officials on both the one-year people plan and the five-year people strategy. That work is ongoing. Various HR policies are being looked at. I have ongoing engagement with officials on the people strategy. Neil, do you want to add anything on the strategy?

Mr Gibson: Yes. It is a huge underpinning. If we are to have the type of transformation and change that we all recognise is needed, it will have to come from our people. We therefore need to have a strategy that supports them and the type of training and development that they will need and that looks at pay strategies and professions' reviews. I know that you have been briefed on that. Our people — ultimately, our core resource — will be at the heart of the whole reform.

We want to drive that change with our people, so it has involved a lot of consultation, and lots of great ideas have come forward about the ways in which we can be more efficient and effective. Of course, from my side, it means running the HR service as effectively and efficiently as we can, which also requires investment, change and transformation. You heard from some of the people leading that change.

Another important component is the timing of the roll-out of the Integr8 system. We will move into a new phase of that development next year. It is important that we know what type of policy framework we will have by then. There is an urgency in looking at some of the policies and procedures and how we will deal with a number of matters. Many of the concerns about our workforce, including retention, attraction and sickness levels, require significant investment and thought. It is a big programme. I often jest with the Minister that, although the early part of her year was so focused on Budget matters and challenges, fundamentally, transformation of the service will require procurement changes and people changes. All being well, a big focus for us in the year ahead will be driving forward that people agenda. Jill Minne and her team are looking at the five-year strategy, and Catherine Shannon and her team are looking at operational improvements. I am very confident that we will see significant improvement.

Reflecting on Catherine's commentary at the Committee, it is important to say that I hold a responsibility for some of the challenges that we face on the people side. Decisions that I took simply to try to meet the budget pressures when we did not have Ministers in place, such as delaying recruitment and pausing campaigns, had a consequence. You are seeing that, and colleagues in other Departments are seeing a backlog that was partly brought about by decisions that I took some time ago. It is such a long-moving process that some of the challenges are the consequence of decisions that I took.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am conscious that we have only a few more minutes of the Minister's time, so I am keen to get in as many members as possible.

Ms Forsythe: May I ask one more?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes, absolutely.

Ms Forsythe: On the HR piece and hybrid working in the Civil Service, a lot of people have got in touch with me to say that they are concerned about how it has been rolled and about the fact that every Department is doing something a little bit different. I just wonder about the centralisation of it. From the Minister's response to questions for written answer, it seems that it is to up to line management to decide how that is managed. Is anything done systematically and centrally to monitor how many days people are in the office and how many times they log on, and is that fed back to provide oversight and governance of hybrid working, given the public perception of the Civil Service?

Mr Gibson: The hybrid policy is under review. Early in the new year, we hope to bring forward new policy to try to bring some consistency across the system. It is worth saying that my personal reflection from looking at my staff, in a Department that is hugely under pressure budget-wise, is that they are under tremendous stress and strain. With my style of management and line management, I have not felt the need to be able to observe them to ensure that they are delivering; rather, I do that through proper performance management. I have always been a strong advocate of hybrid working and the flexibility that it brings. We are not as competitive in the labour market now from a salary point of view, so it is important to have other things to attract workers. However, it is important to have the right governance and oversight. Business need varies across the Civil Service, and some people need to be in all the time. To answer your question, though, a review of that hybrid policy is going on as part of our policy review, and we hope to bring in new, consistent policy in the new year.

Ms Forsythe: You do not actually record how many days people in different Departments are in and how many days they are out in order to have that information centrally.

Mr Gibson: No. Funnily enough, we looked at technology solutions as to whether we could do that, and we do not have the capabilities at this point.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We have the luxury of being able to hold Neil and Joanne for a couple more minutes, which we do not have with the Minister. Gerry, do you have one final quick question for the Minister?

Mr Carroll: Minister, there is a contradiction in talking about — it has been your directive for a while — balancing budgets and prioritising workers' pay. You cannot do both. I agree about thinking outside Treasury's short-term economics. I have asked you this under different guises, but I will ask you again for the record: have you or your officials proposed to the Chancellor a corporate wealth tax? That could bring in tens of billions of pounds every year. That is an important question.

Dr Archibald: Balancing our budgets and prioritising public sector pay is not a contradiction. We need to prioritise within our budgets, and every Minister has a responsibility to look at how they balance their pressures with that desire and need to ensure that workers are properly recompensed. I do not see that as a contradiction.

We have significant ongoing engagement with Treasury. We do not make the decisions about what proposals the Chancellor takes forward and how she balances her books. Some decisions that were made in the Budget this year were ones that we would not necessarily have made. In my engagement with Treasury, I have reflected that those with the broadest shoulders — those who can most afford it — should shoulder the burden and pay.

Dr Aiken: Minister, about a year ago, when we were all sitting around at Hillsborough, Neil was telling us how bad the financial situation was and that the world was going to collapse in on us. However, the figures that we now have are close on 80% of the funding that you said we would need; we have probably got to that position. Projecting ahead, what is the quantum that we will need over the next couple of years? You were fairly exact on the figures that we had. How much are we going to have to raise over the next two to three years to be able to achieve the level of service that we have? We had very good figures a year ago, so we should be in a position to say what quantum we need to raise and get to.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Steve, are you asking the Minister whether we need additional revenue-raising?

Dr Aiken: No, I am asking what is —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The shortfall between the block grant —

Dr Aiken: Yes. What is the difference? What is the quantum?

Mr Gibson: It took quite a bit of work to produce those kind of estimates back then.

Dr Aiken: They were very accurate, Neil.

Mr Gibson: Well, I have a patchy forecasting track record, as you know, Steve, but —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You should wait until we are off the record to say that. [Laughter.]

Mr Gibson: Yes, perhaps. We have not done the updated work on the precise numbers. We have to balance what Departments ask for from a need point of view. The most difficult and challenging position is on pay expectations. Clearly, at that time, we had some indications of what the implications of that would be, but, now, we do not know what the implications will be.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am going to give members a chance to ask a couple of quick questions of the Minister. The Minister is best placed to answer strategic and political questions. It is not that she cannot do her sums, but we have Neil and Joanne, who are probably better placed to answer such questions.

Mr Brett: Minister, are you working on your Department giving any support, be it through rate relief or otherwise, to businesses in Northern Ireland for the next financial year?

Dr Archibald: As you would expect — I am sure that all of you will have had similar correspondence — I have had representations from various business organisations in respect of the challenges that they face and the outworkings of the Budget: National Insurance contributions; and the increase in the minimum wage, which, I am sure, we would all ideologically support but which will place a challenge on businesses. I have also received representations on rating policy decisions that were taken in Britain. As you will appreciate, we still have a very constrained Budget, and any interventions that can be made will have to be balanced against our need to deliver public services.

I will be meeting various business organisations in the near future to hear about their challenges and what their specific asks might be. Obviously, all that has to be taken in the context of our own budgetary challenges.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, you referred earlier to the fact that there is a small fiscal team of about two or three officials working on relative need and tax devolution. We also know that you did not allocate your own Department any additional resource in October monitoring. Is that not a false economy, given the repercussive impacts of that small team's work for the wider Executive Budget?

Dr Archibald: I do not often reflect on my own Department's budget, but it has been very challenging. Neil and I have those conversations, exactly as you have posed to us. We have a need to live within our own budget, and we have to balance that against all the other departmental asks and budgetary pressures as well. Certainly, we are looking at our resourcing, and we created that budgetary team; both the fiscal team and the Budget improvement team.

Neil, do you want to say something about your personal end of it?

Mr Gibson: We have to balance whether throwing more people at it would have helped. I am not sure that it would. I am very confident in the skills and talent of the people that we have. We also have to have the audience to receive the work, and Treasury has its hands full too. On the idea that we would have been able to open that any earlier or have anything further, I do not think that we have missed out on anything. I would be the first to tell you and to indicate to the Minister in the bids if I felt that, with a bigger team, I could influence more or we could have more information more readily accessible that the Treasury would take on board. There are very few people — we mentioned Gerry Holtham earlier — with the expertise to look at the particular issues. I am confident that, in the service, with Aidan and his team and Jeff and his team, we have the right people. Although I worry about the resource that we have to deliver in many areas — I am sure that we could talk about them — I do not think that that is an area in which, if I had had a cohort of extra people mysteriously, I would have been able to get the ones with the right skill to accelerate the work. It is a very niche and specific type of public expenditure work.

It is a valid question, but, as accounting officer, I am content that, small as the team is, it is the right size for now. That is not to say that we will not need some more people, and we have plans for that with Budget sustainability and the fiscal framework. It is important for me to say that the fiscal framework should not be thought of as an "end date" type conversation. There is one to be signed, but not everything will be agreed by then. Treasury would not have the capacity to deal with all those questions. We will have to have ongoing engagement, and that is why we have set up a team. We intend that to be an ongoing programme of work.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Thank you very much.

The Minister needs to leave now. I thank you for your time, Minister. We appreciate your covering all those areas. We have some things to follow up on. I suggest that we hold on to Joanne and Neil: they will be held in manacles for a little bit longer. Thank you, Minister, for your time.

We will cover one or two other factual points with the officials. Members should indicate if they want to ask a question. You do not have to, but there are one or two other factual things. Obviously, we were keen to get the political and strategic views of the Minister.

Where are we on police holiday pay, the McCloud judgement, and PSNI data breach money, which is floating around in the ether? We asked about that at the beginning of November, but we did not get an answer. Do we know how much that is going to set us back?

Ms McBurney: The Justice Minister is on record as saying what she estimates the cost will be to her Department. The important thing to realise is that the holiday pay issue and the McCloud judgement will impact on many other Departments, and we do not have an overall figure for the quantum of that, nor do we know exactly when that will crystallise. The quantum is as yet unknown. The Minister has been very clear, and I agree with her assessment, that that is something exceptional and we would be seeking a reserve claim for it. Once it becomes clear what the number is and when it will crystallise, we will approach the Treasury. We have made Treasury aware of the issues, and the Minister has said that the response from the Treasury was that we have had a significant amount of money in the recent autumn Budget and should be able to manage it within that. However, when you look at its criteria and 'Statement of funding policy' for a reserve claim, you see that this matches it very well.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We were told at the beginning of this month that it is hundreds of millions of pounds, and that has not changed. It is still hundreds of millions. Is it closer to a billion or zero?

Mr Gibson: We are always very cautious because, obviously, there are discussions to be had as to figures, so we do not like to lead that discussion in that way, but it is of that kind of quantum.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK.

I have to say that the Minister give us an answer that had lots of information. I almost completely understood it, but just so that I understand: the Executive, at some point, will discuss short-, medium- and long-term proposals for the rating system. That is not now going to include 2025-26, because it is too late to change rates, but that does not mean that the regional rate cannot be increased. Indeed, I believe that the Budget sustainability plan and the £113 million being met assumes a 4% increase, as an option.

Ms McBurney: I do not have the plan in front of me, but there are options, and it depends on the revenue that you raise from other sources. That is a discussion that will happen as part of the Executive's consideration of the Budget for 2025-26.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. There is a grand total of £62 million in the options in the Budget sustainability plan. That comes on top of the amount — I have forgotten the number — that was raised this year by various things, including the regional rate rise. There is, therefore, a suite of options to pick from. The idea is that, in order to meet the £113 million, the Executive will pick from those or the Finance Minister will make a recommendation.

Ms McBurney: No. There are options put forward, but things change all the time, so the Executive could make a range of options. From memory, I think that we have to find about £33 million in 2025-26. There is, obviously, a range of options for doing that. While the Budget sustainability plan gives an idea of what those options are, it does not say that it has to be those. There could be other things. It is something that is probably better considered by the Executive as part of their overall consideration of the Budget 2025-26.

Mr Gibson: Very crudely, 1% on rates is about £8 million.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It was said a lot, when we returned in February, that the revenue-raising part of the restoration package was going to be unbelievably penal, brutal and very difficult to find. That is not to say that the rates increase will not have been noticeable. I am not trivialising it, but I do not think that it has been hugely, overwhelmingly difficult. When I look at what is in the table in one of the appendices to the Budget sustainability plan, I see that some of the options are a collection of relatively routine, benign things, such as uprating charges with inflation.

Ms McBurney: At the start, when the restoration package was agreed, it had that happening within one year. It is now being spread over two years, which has allowed different decisions to have been taken. Obviously, there has been ongoing discussion with the Treasury.

Mr Gibson: Certainly, I do not think that anyone would want them to be penal: you would want to do the least that you would need to do. I know that businesses would articulate that any of those pressures have been difficult and challenging. As the Minister articulated at the time of last year's decision-making, you are always balancing the rate or the cost that could be managed without jeopardising the rates base. One of the most positive indicators has been a continued growth in the rates base, which indicates that the level was challenging but manageable. Too significant an increase, such as the type of rates increases that you were seeing in local government councils in England, for example, would be detrimental to the rates base here and, therefore, not generate the income. That is something that we articulated strongly at the time, and the Minister strongly advocated. There is always a balance to strike, but, as it is right to do, we have looked for every potential option that can score against that requirement. However, as Joanne indicated, that is a very distinct and separate thing from the conversation about income generation or revenue raising.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Is there not a slight contradiction, Neil? You did not say that you wanted to do as little as possible; you said that you wanted there to be the least pain possible.

Mr Gibson: We want to do what causes least harm.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is fair enough, but there are different things: there is the £113 million, which will be from revenue raising over two years; and there are broad, aspirational statements from the Minister, officials and some others around broadening the tax base and new fiscal levers. We appear to be stuck on the first part and very, very tentative about even talking about some of that — we cannot even get some of the modest changes to the rating system on to the Executive agenda. By definition, broadening any tax base will involve — shock horror! — taxing people, businesses and organisations that would probably rather not be taxed. Will we ever get to a position where we have substantive proposals around new fiscal powers or more ambitious revenue raising? That is some of what I was trying to get at earlier. I am intrigued to know how that work is happening within the Department.

Mr Gibson: I cannot speak to what makes the agenda. As the Minister articulated, she had proposed a paper that included measures, and other Ministers may well be reflecting on their decisions, too. We, as a team, provide the evidence and research as required. I mentioned that the small fiscal team's focus is currently on the mechanics of the 124%, which are much more complex that we could explain today, or that I could, in fact, do justice to at all, and on making sure that we do not overlook or fail to consider something or get a funding agreement that does not work.

That team will be deployed. There will be options for the Minister to consider. We will provide research or evidence on whatever the revenue-raising or income-generating measures might be, but which of those we pursue will be the Minister's prerogative.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Does that mean that we hope that there will be a discussion about the short-, medium- and long-term rating policy decisions, at some point, but that that is not the same thing as the other, bigger revenue-raising work, which might never happen? [Inaudible.]

Mr Gibson: And not all of it is in the Department of Finance's remit.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK.

Mr Carroll: I did not really get a chance to hone in on this, because the Minister's time was limited. Going back to the procurement of contracts, there is a question to ask specifically about Fujitsu but also about the general powers of the Department. Can the Minister, the Department or you, as officials, overrule, block or intervene in contracts if there is concern about a particular company? Various issues have been raised about Fujitsu in particular, but, more generally, is there a power of that magnitude at the disposal or the Minister or the Department?

Mr Gibson: No. To the best of my knowledge, we do not have a step-in power. Contractors can be excluded from lists of those who can bid for future work. As an example, however, contractors may be involved — as the one that you mentioned is — in providing payroll. They deliver important services from day to day, and we monitor those contracts and ensure performance. In abiding by the regulations on procuring contracts, we do not provide that exclusion, and, to my knowledge, I do not have any power to step in and say that to a specific supplier.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. I would also appreciate it if you could look at that and come back to the Committee. If there are any powers, I would be keen to hone in on that a bit further.

The EA has backtracked on or relooked at its contract with Fujitsu. Is any further work being done on that? My understanding of the Minister's earlier answer was that there is not. There are serious questions about whether that organisation should get any public money, never mind new contracts. I believe that there was also a stand-off with the Department of Health around the time that we last discussed this. Is any further work being done to review the Department's awarding of contracts?

Mr Gibson: At this time, I am not doing anything other than managing the contracts that we have and managing procurement by the regulations. Nothing in the Department of Finance is treating that differently, and I am not over the detail of DE's decisions.

Mr Carroll: OK.

Dr Aiken: Thanks very much indeed, Joanne and Neil. It is good to see that people are making more use of FTC, but I have not heard the Minister mention anything about accessing the National Wealth Fund or looking to GB Energy as a potential source of funding. One thing that has not been mentioned, which the Chancellor has been quite keen to do, is tapping into the local government pensions fund. Are we doing anything along those lines? Are we pushing to tap into those national resources, or are we talking to the local government pensions fund about potential investment in infrastructure?

Ms McBurney: We are engaged with the Treasury on what we can do with the National Wealth Fund and other things. I have not picked up on the local government pensions fund. We can look at that, but I think that it would be very challenging for us to do that. It is different for us to do it than it is for the British Government. We are restricted. Even in the case of the National Wealth Fund, we would need to look at the impact on our budgets. I do not think that any of those will offer a quick solution, but we will look at all opportunities.

Mr Gibson: You touched on an important piece of the work of the Department, which is broadening the funding portfolio. We discussed the 124% figure a lot. There are particular areas that we can look at — justice or other particular areas. Very strong arguments will be deployed against that, too. Let me put it this way: in a region with 1·9% unemployment, that is not a penalty kick that could be argued easily. It was hard to argue for 124%, so we should not put all our eggs in that basket and think that that is the funding solution. We need to think about all revenue, and we are engaged in each and every one of the schemes that could potentially free up funding or provide an alternative source of funding.

All that work is coupled with the transformation work. We need to get the cost of delivering down, as well as looking for other sources of funding.

Dr Aiken: I have a follow-up question. Joanne, when I mentioned the National Wealth Fund, I was interested to see that you winced a bit. You have obviously had —.

Ms McBurney: I was not aware that I had. [Laughter.]

Mr Gibson: You are getting a good reading on Joanne. I can tell when she is cross with me.

Dr Aiken: It is obvious, therefore, that you have already started those conversations. Is there any discussion with the other regions about having a combined approach to look at the National Wealth Fund? GB Energy has approached me and said, "We have to invest in Northern Ireland, but we do not know what to invest in, and nobody has asked us". It seems to be quite a strange position, where we want extra funds and government is looking at methods for giving us extra funds. What are we doing about it?

Ms McBurney: There has not been a great deal of discussions that I have been involved in. We have just touched on the periphery of it. We talk to Scotland and Wales all the time about things on which we could make joint approaches, but there is nothing really to be said at this point about it. My wincing was probably because there have been issues before, with GB Bank and so on, where we were told that it would count against our reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing. We need to be very careful about what we do and how it impacts on the rest of our Budget. There are discussions, and we talk to Scotland and Wales regularly about a range of things.

Dr Aiken: If you have any correspondence on the National Wealth Fund, I would be really interested in it.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is apposite because we have a briefing on that next week.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you for staying on to answer a few more questions.

The overcommitment increased to £831 million during the year, and, as has been said, the monitoring round did not really offset the level of overcommitment. Is there a path to breaking even in 2024-25?

Ms McBurney: The numbers that you are looking at, which are on the most recent forecast out-turn that the Committee has, are for before the October monitoring round that has just happened. I hope that, once Departments have factored in the October monitoring round, the next forecast out-turn that you get will show that reducing significantly. Departments were left with an overcommitment of £180 million after October monitoring, and, of course, each Department was told that it will now have to live within that position. So, we hope that we will start to see that filtering through into the forecast out-turn. What I am saying is this: watch out for the next one coming in. That is the one where we might raise concerns if it has not come down considerably.

Ms Forsythe: Do you expect there to be a path to break-even in 2024-25 from those?

Ms McBurney: There absolutely should be. Unfortunately, a large component of Departments' overcommitment was public-sector pay. While we are all very keen to do what we can on public-sector pay, ultimately, when it comes to breaking even, it is considered a discretionary cost. So, there is a challenge for Departments in balancing their budgets against doing what they can on pay.

Mr Gibson: Yes, the Minister has made a very strong statement, when we think about multi-year budgets and long-term planning, to get away from the idea that pay commitments could be considered residual or a balancing that is disrespectful to our staff. It is the wrong way to run any organisation, so the intention is to move as swiftly as we can to knowing what the pay pressures are as we commence the year. Sometimes that is very difficult because the pay bodies that recommend do not recommend before the year starts. Certainly, in the bits that are in the Minister's control around her own pay bill, she has been very clear with me and Joanne about her intention to get ahead of that in future years and to start to think about that as you consider the regional rate and all of your pressures before the year begins.

It is a terribly uncomfortable position for Joanne and me to be sitting here thinking that the way to the path to fiscal sustainability is based on how you constrain your pay bill, given that people have done all the hard work for eight months. It is not the way that you should operate, and we hope to be in a position where, as we look to multi-year budgeting and better budget sustainability, you consider your pay bill costs right at the beginning. This has been a particularly difficult era for that, with pay body recommendations coming out mid-year much higher than historical ones had been. That is why we are in that difficult position. Joanne is right to say that, from a technical sense, we can see a route forward, but, for many, including the Minister, it is a very uncomfortable one.

Ms Forsythe: With so much moving around with this package and all the reporting for 2024-25, it feels that there are a lot of moving pieces, so it will be difficult to report concisely on the financial restoration package. I agree with you that piecing together pay awards through monitoring rounds is not where anybody wants to be. As we move into 2025-26, we are already under pressure going forward, and we now have the increased National Insurance employers' contributions to be built into that, not knowing how much of that will be funded going forward. I disagree slightly with the Chair, who said that the rates increase last year is not causing huge issues. In some councils, it really did because the council contribution was significant in many of those. I am very conscious that employers' contributions across the councils are estimated to be over £10 million, and councils are facing the pressure to raise that themselves. To be crystal clear, it will be only the central government Departments that the Treasury —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I did not say that they were not significant. Overall, the rates increase was significant. Go ahead. Sorry, Diane.

Ms Forsythe: To be crystal clear, any Treasury support that is provided for the increase in public-sector National Insurance contributions would be only for Departments, not for local government or arm's-length bodies.

Ms McBurney: Yes. With the supports for the public sector, we will get Barnett on the allocations made to Whitehall Departments. Arm's-length bodies that fall within central government would fall within that support, but, again, Barnett is an issue for us. Our public sector is bigger than that in England.

Ms Forsythe: Thanks for that clarity.

Mr Brett: I will go back to the paper that the Finance Minister discussed on reforming rates. Why has the Department not gone out to consultation on that? The Department does not need Executive approval to do a consultation exercise.

Mr Gibson: We are working through that now. It was our understanding and the advice that I had that, given the cross-cutting nature of some of the proposals, that would have been needed. We are now exploring whether it is possible to do so without that.

Mr Brett: When this issue arose previously, the Attorney General's advice was quite clear: the Department of Finance had the ability to go to consultation on the issue. When did you seek advice on whether you could go out to consultation without Executive approval?

Mr Gibson: Based on the fact that it had not been coming on to the agenda, we then started to explore, and, as lead official, I went back and said, "Look, what else can we look at? Are there ways in which we can take it forward?". I had looked at it and thought that that was something that would have been required, so we are now exploring that, Phillip.

Mr Brett: When did you start that exploration process?

Mr Gibson: Once we knew that we were not going to make the time frame that would be required to bring them in for the next fiscal year, and that meant that we needed to think of other ways to take forward that type of consultation. You can understand the interest in wanting to have an Executive conversation about the proposed measures and wanting to go out and consult on things so that there had been a discussion about what was coming rather than bringing it in as a surprise. That was why I provided that advice to the Minister, but we are absolutely looking at whether, thinking ahead, it is now feasible to just consult on whatever measures. I think that the Minister was very keen to have an Executive conversation about the type of measures that she wanted to bring forward.

Mr Brett: Sure, but, obviously, that delay and not going out to consultation, which the Minister was entitled to do, has now meant that we have missed the deadline. Would it not have been better practice for the Department to have sought that advice on its ability to go out to consultation before the deadline for next year had passed?

Mr Gibson: Yes. I take that criticism. I need to think about that. I have to be honest: when providing advice to the Minister, the thought that it would not be discussed had not entered my mind. I am now aware of that, and, next time, I might provide a different approach. I take that criticism.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I have two final points. You may have seen that we had a discussion in the Assembly last week about the potential use of FTC. One suggestion, which was made by me — the Minister had a useful engagement on it — is using FTC to fund regeneration projects. Obviously, there would be different mechanisms. Would it theoretically be possible — I am not asking you to say about one specific project — to create an entity or a corporation that could vest or take hold of a parcel of land, perhaps in the northern part of Belfast city centre —

Mr Brett: In my constituency.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): — in Mr Brett's constituency for the purposes of regeneration? It would not be an impossible thing to do, as long as it was designed in the right way.

Ms McBurney: It would be complicated, and a number of issues would have to be considered in doing that. Would the body be set up simply as a funding vehicle? Would it own or vest the property or the land? It might require the Department to have to purchase the site. Setting up an entity to use FTC is very complicated. It has to be in the private sector, which means that there can be literally no government control over it. It is very complicated. We are always happy to look at all proposals, but I do not think that you should underestimate how complicated it could be. We would also need to look at whether creating such a vehicle would actually solve the issues or whether there are wider issues. Is it the funding that is the problem, or is it something else?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Well, yes. That could be part of the problem, but anyway. "Complicated" is not "no".

Ms McBurney: "Complicated" is not "no". We are always happy to look at proposals.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Of course, we underspend it because it is complicated.

Thank you very much. We hope to hear back from you about —.

Dr Aiken: I just want to make a quick remark. Maybe we could give it to Ulster University. It is very good at using lots and lots of FTC.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Point duly noted.

If there is an Executive discussion on the 2025-26 Budget, we will hopefully get details of that in sharp order and, hopefully, have your colleagues back to hear about that and scrutinise it. There will be lots in that.

Thank you very much, Joanne and Neil. We appreciate you staying to give us further evidence. It is much appreciated.