Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I welcome to the Committee from the Department of Finance Patrick Neeson, assistant secretary in the public spending directorate, and Angela Ross, Supply officer in the public spending directorate. Please make your opening statement.

Mr Patrick Neeson (Department of Finance): I apologise that you do not have hard copies of the spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs). We are not happy either, frankly.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You wrote them, so you should know what is in them.

Mr Neeson: We do. Hopefully, you all have electronic copies, but the printers were meant to deliver hard copies to Parliament Buildings this morning. We have been on to them wanting to know why that did not happen. We will definitely be taking it further.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I hope that, through your correspondence, you and DOF procurement will be having very stern words with the people who have the contract about how they seemingly cannot print the documents year after year. I hope that they are not paid or that their contract is looked at. Anyway, we will move on. Go ahead, Patrick.

Mr Neeson: Thank you. I will give a brief opening statement, after which Angela and I can hopefully answer any questions that Committee members may have.

As you know, the previous Finance Minister wrote to you, Chair, on 17 January to say that she planned to introduce the Budget Bill in the Assembly next Monday, 17 February. The Bill is needed in order to authorise the 2024-25 spring Supplementary Estimates, the 2025-26 Vote on Account and the 2023-24 Statement of Excesses, following the Public Accounts Committee's report on Excess Votes 2023-24.

The Bill provides the statutory power for Departments to incur additional cash requirements and to use resources as a result of in-year changes, as set out in the 2024-25 SSEs, if you had them in front of you. Officials in the Department of Finance have worked diligently alongside colleagues in other Departments to finalise the detailed figurework that is contained in the SSEs. As I said, the Bill also provides the statutory power for the 2025-26 Vote on Account, which allows Departments to continue to draw down cash and use resources into the early months of 2025-26, pending the Assembly's consideration of the 2025-26 Main Estimates and the associated Budget (No. 2) Bill. In addition, the Bill provides the statutory power for the PAC's report on Excess Votes 2023-24 and hopes to regularise the Excesses incurred by the relevant public bodies, as set out in the report.

To make sure that the Bill passes all its legislative stages and receives Royal Assent by the end of March, we are seeking the Committee's agreement to proceed under the accelerated passage procedure before any Department reaches the cash limit imposed by the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2024. Standing Order 42(2) enables the Budget Bill to proceed by accelerated passage, provided that the Committee for Finance is content that it has been appropriately consulted on the Bill's proposals.

To help with the Committee's consideration, members have been provided with a briefing paper and copies of the draft Bill, the spring Supplementary Estimates — an electronic version, at least — the Vote on Account and the Statement of Excesses. Hopefully, members will also have seen the Estimates memorandum for each Department, which I know that the Committee was keen to have. It compares the Budget position of the SSEs with the Budget position of the Main Estimates, as well as the final out-turn for 2023-24. We think that it provides a good summary of the main reasons for any changes. It also shows the trends of the past few years and provides information on where sole authority has been used. Hopefully, that memorandum has been useful for members. You have also been provided with a separate, more detailed paper on sole authority.

Members will be aware that the previous Budget Act provided cover for cash and resources based on 65% of the previous year's position. That reflected the timing of the Budget Bill in that year. For the Vote on Account for 2025-26, we intend to revert to 45%.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): To clarify, you are talking about the Budget Bill for 2025-26. I think that, for the Budget Bill for 2024-25, we voted through an unusual 65% for the full year. That was in recognition of not the Executive restoration package but the unusual circumstances.

Mr Neeson: Yes, that Budget Bill was introduced later in the year than normal.

Finally, details of the Statement of Excesses have also been forwarded to the Committee. That is a short summary. We are now happy to take any questions that members may have.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you, Patrick. As always, members, indicate should you wish to ask a question.

This is not necessarily totally in your wheelhouse, Patrick, but you may be able to give some indication of the planning that the Department is doing. We have been having conversations with the Department about how much the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) needs in order to pay for additional employers' National Insurance contributions. Do you know? Is any additional headroom being built into departmental expenditure limits (DELs) in order to pay for the additional contributions?

Mr Neeson: That will be for next year, 2025-26. They are not in the 2024-25 SSEs.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): They will, however, be reflected in the Vote on Account for 2025-26.

Mr Neeson: Employers' National Insurance contributions are one of the pressures that Departments will face next year. The Vote on Account is intended to help Departments meet costs until the Main Estimates come through.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Can you therefore give us any sense of whether Departments are having to build in any additional headroom to meet the cost of the additional contributions, compared with what they built in for 2024-25?

Mr Neeson: No headroom is being built into the Budget for 2025-26. We are not at that point yet. We are talking about the 2024-25 SSEs and the headroom that is being built into them. If your question is about costs that relate to employers' National Insurance contributions, I am not sure what information has been provided to the Committee at this stage.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The short answer is not very much. We have received a bit but not enough. In any case, I will returns to the SSEs and the variances. We have had a lot of abnormal years over the past four or five years. In fact, it feels as though every year has been an abnormal year. Is this more of a normal year?

Mr Neeson: Yes, I think that that is true. It was different at the start of the financial year. The process was quicker. We had a 65% Vote on Account, and a lot of money came through in-year from additional Barnett allocations. Some of the figures that were added in-year were probably more than is typical. That is reflected in the in-year allocations. You will have seen some of the uplifts that Departments got between the Main Estimates and the SSEs. Those were a bit more than in a typical year. For processes and so on, I would characterise this year as being a reasonably normal year. It is still a bit of a rush to get from the January monitoring round to the SSEs being published and then getting the Budget Bill through. The Bill always requires accelerated passage. Unfortunately, that is pretty normal.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Has the mini-monitoring round — the reallocation of just under £20 million — affected the SSEs much?

Mr Neeson: We needed to build headroom into the spring Supplementary Estimates in order to take account of that, again because of the time at which we were producing the SSEs. When we were pulling them together, we did not know what Departments were getting through that mini-monitoring round, as you describe it.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You knew that one was happening, though.

Mr Neeson: We knew that one was happening. We were able to liaise with Departments to understand what headroom they needed in their Estimates so that, if they received any additional allocations, they would have cover to spend that money. We dealt with that by providing additional headroom in the Estimates.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Normally, you write the spring Supplementary Estimates as the January monitoring round is happening. This year, you wrote them as the January monitoring round was happening, but you were also aware that there was going to be another post-January monitoring exercise. When did you become aware of that?

Mr Neeson: I cannot give specific dates. I think that the Executive announced those additional allocations on 6 February.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That was last Thursday. That was when the written ministerial statement was issued.

Mr Neeson: I think that that was when the Executive made the decision on the additional allocations. It was probably during that week, a few days before that or maybe the previous week; I cannot remember the specific date.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It was only last week, then, that someone said, "There's going to be an extra £20 million handed out here, so you need to write the Estimates to a slightly higher level than you were going to".

Ms Angela Ross (Department of Finance): We had commenced the Estimates. We were champing at the bit, ready to go with the Estimates, but we were hampered by a few things. January monitoring needed to be completed by 3 January, but we also needed to wait on Executive agreement, which we hoped was going to be on 9 January. We tried to timetable everything through to those dates. That did not happen; the Executive did not agree the Budget until 16 January. We then went full on to try to get the Estimates pulled together. We were almost near completion, and then we had the headroom —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You said that the Executive agreed the Budget. Are you talking about the 2025-26 Budget?

Mr Neeson: The January monitoring allocations.

Ms Ross: Yes, the January monitoring allocations for the SSEs. The headroom came in after that, so there was a bit of a scramble: everybody had to work with Departments and get all that information together as quickly as possible. The turnaround, from the Executive agreeing the Budget on 16 January to working towards those figures and then the headroom coming in after that, was less than two weeks. The documents were all completed by 2 February, which is incredible.

Mr Neeson: There was confirmation from the Westminster Supplementary Estimates process of the additional funding that the Executive would receive. The point at which that came was when —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is relatively abnormal. Normally, there would not be another mini-allocation just a few weeks after a monitoring round.

Mr Neeson: No. Final confirmation of how much we were getting out of the Westminster Supplementary Estimates process came late, and there were some amendments after a more detailed examination of programme levels.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It was significant enough for the Minister to do, effectively, a further mini-monitoring round, and for you to have to make a subsequent change to the spring Supplementary Estimates. That is not a usual thing to happen at this stage of the financial year.

Mr Neeson: What is normal or usual in the context of the past few years?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is not. It arose from Westminster's Supplementary Estimates, but has the Department been told what specific bit of Westminster or Whitehall spending gave rise to the extra £17 million?

Mr Neeson: I am not aware of the detail. I do not know whether it is linked to specific —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Fair enough.

Mr Neeson: — Westminster or Whitehall spend. It was final clarification of what we would receive in resource and capital, and the net result of that was that around £17 million of additional resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) could be given out. We then had the storm, of course, to which the Executive responded.

Ms Ross: We really tried to capture everything in the Estimates, in order to present the most up-to-date position.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): This might not be for your bit of the Department to answer, but that money was allocated for the storm. I am sure that lots of it is needed; it is, clearly, a good thing that there was money to allocate for the storm. However, it sounds as though it was just coincidence that there was an additional bit of money from Whitehall to allocate for the storm response. Do you see what I mean? There would not normally be a mini-monitoring round in February after the January monitoring round, so there would not normally have been an opportunity to spend that £20 million, including for storm recovery. I am trying to figure out where the money came from.

Mr Neeson: The Department would have been given an indication earlier in the year, perhaps around the time of the autumn Budget, of how much additional in-year money it could expect to receive in order to allow it to do January monitoring. By the time the figures from the Westminster Supplementary Estimate process had been clarified and we had got them in detail, it turned out that an extra £17 million of resource DEL was available from that process. That clarification came, I think, post January monitoring. The Executive could then decide whether to carry that into the next financial year through the Budget exchange scheme or —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): To spend it more quickly.

Mr Neeson: — to spend it, particularly in light of the storm damage and the urgent need for further allocations to Departments to deal with some of the outworkings of that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Obviously, when we talk about Budget Bills — we are going to debate a Budget Bill next week — we always come back to the sole authority question. We have a fairly vague indication of when we are going to get the financial provisions Bill. I know that you are not drafting the Bill, but it will affect what you do with this stuff. Do you know when we will get a draft financial provisions Bill?

Mr Neeson: It is still going between the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and Departments for its final drafting. That is all that we can say. We are keen that the Bill be progressed as soon as possible. There are provisions that impact DOF and other Departments, so we are very keen for it to progress as soon as possible. At this stage, the draft revisions are being finalised between OLC and the relevant Departments. That is where we are at. We hope that it will be finalised soon, but I would be speculating if I were to give a date on which that will happen. We want it to happen as soon as possible, however.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. I will bring in colleagues.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you both for being here today. There are a number of different issues. I declare an interest: I also sit on the Public Accounts Committee. We were briefed on the Statement of Excesses, and we went through it in detail. I am satisfied that the three items are very specific and that they have been explained. I am, therefore, comfortable with the Statement of Excesses on 2023-24 items.

To allow us to move forward into next year, the Vote on Account is 45%. I note that, as you said, it is down from 65% to 45% this year. How far into 2025-26 do you expect that 45% to take us?

Ms Ross: I am not sure.

Mr Neeson: Usually, we anticipate that the Main Estimates will happen around June or the start of July. We expect that 45% will be sufficient to provide Departments with enough cash and resources until the Main Estimates happen and the Budget Bill goes through the Assembly.

Ms Forsythe: You noted in your response to the Chair that the 2025-26 Budget does not take account of the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions for the Vote on Account, because it takes 45% of the 2024-25 provision. We know that we are looking at those increases, which will potentially cut that a lot shorter. We had the late bid in January for the storm response and other pressures. I find the disparity in bids between the different Departments to be very unusual. Some were very specific, as they bid, as part of the storm response, for things that were damaged. Some Departments have bid to fund other pressures. The Department of Finance has not bid for anything to help it face the potential increase in employers' National Insurance contributions so that that can be rolled forward for the Vote on Account. What were the parameters of the bids to the late monitoring round in February, which, as Angela said, was quite unexpected?

Mr Neeson: First, the 2025-26 draft Budget is out there. Departments will get their allocations, and they will have to deal with the pressures that face them, be they National Insurance contributions or others. That is the first thing to say about 2025-26.

I do not have the details to hand about what Departments asked for in relation to the additional allocation that was due to happen. I know that they were asked for bids related to the storm damage, but I do not think that the bids were limited to that. I will need to come back to the Committee to say exactly what was in the letter that went to the Departments.

Ms Forsythe: I am keen to get that detail, because, in the allocations awarded, the Department for the Economy got money to address additional pressure from its apprenticeship programme, which is a different pressure. Some Departments only bid for storm damage and things that were very related to that, some bid for a mixture of both and the Department of Health put in a bid for its pressure with pay parity. The bids from each Department were very different, but the written ministerial statement made them all sound storm related. When we got into the detail, I found the parameters to be very confusing. I would like to see a copy of what the Departments were asked to bid for.

Mr Neeson: I will take that away and come back to the Committee. My recollection is that the funding was not limited to storm damage, but I do not have the papers to hand.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you. Across the board, in the Department of Finance and some other Departments, there continue to be unquantifiable contingent liabilities. What is the policy or rule of thumb for the value of liabilities that needs to be disclosed?

Mr Neeson: I cannot answer that. There is lots of detail in the Estimates memoranda. Lots of Departments will have referred to contingent liabilities. I cannot comment on each Department's contingent liabilities other than on what is in the Estimates memoranda.

Ms Forsythe: Was there guidance on the Estimates? For example, if you know that something will cost so many millions of pounds, or if there is a fair expectation that the cost will be significant, should it be included in these papers?

Mr Neeson: The guidance is always there on Supply Estimates, and it has not changed. It is always reflected in the Estimates. This year, we put together the Estimates memoranda, which is an attempt to summarise that information and make it more palatable and meaningful. The memoranda are a first go at doing that. If we need to tweak that because we need more detail and explanation, we can look at that, but the information that Departments should include in their Estimates has not changed. The memoranda just captured the information in a particular way.

For contingent liabilities, as I said, if you want more detail on what each Department has set out in its Estimates or memorandum, we will need to go to each Department and get those details. Each Department will also have briefed its Committee on what was in its Estimates memorandum.

Ms Forsythe: That is an important point. As a Committee, we go back to the Department of Finance to discuss its Estimates memorandum. I just wondered whether there was a rule across the board.

My final question, which the Chair touched on, is about expenditure resting on the sole authority of the Budget Act. We have updates with actions and indicative dates. Some of the updates are on the status as at 31 December, one of which was for the Fiscal Council. We have had updates up to December on a number of things. Do you have more current updates on legislative timetables and on when we can expect actions to come to the fore? A number of the updates refer to "early 2025", which is, obviously, where we are now. We are not only bringing forward the spring Supplementary Estimates but looking into next year. It is important to understand where those things, including the Ukraine scheme, the Fiscal Council and others, are. We only have the updates on the positions up to 31 December.

Mr Neeson: This year, in the Department, we adopted a different approach to the items that lie under the sole authority of the Budget Act. At the start of the year, we wrote to Departments to say that we would be coming for regular updates on those things. The information that you have, which is provided quarterly, reflects the fact that we asked Departments for accurate updates. The information that is provided in those updates is the most up-to-date information that we have from Departments.

Ms Forsythe: It is really good to get that information. I appreciate that, and I appreciate that it is a new thing. The tabular format is good to have. That was December, however, and this is February. We are looking to this Budget cycle. I am asking whether there is anything more current at this point, given that we are in February and are looking at the new Budget.

Ms Ross: We knew that the Committee was very interested in sole authority items. That is why we pulled together the table. We wrote to Departments and said, "You know what? It is time to get these down now. We will be monitoring them". We asked for updates, and we do that quarterly. The Estimates return date was around 23 January. If we had gone back to Departments 23 days later to say, "Give us another update", they would just have said, "Here is what we have". If that is what the Committee would like, however, we can get the detail up to the wire.

Ms Forsythe: I appreciate that. The format is really good and transparent.

Ms Ross: The fact that it is being monitored really prompted people. What gets monitored gets done. We will progress that and provide those figures next time.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): On the table itself, one thing that some of them will say is that getting it down will be helped enormously by the financial provisions Bill, which will take some of them out of the sole authority category entirely.

Ms Ross: It already did.

Mr Neeson: Lots of the Executive Office elements will be in the financial provisions Bill.

Ms Ross: The same goes for the DFI elements..

Mr Carroll: I have a couple of specific questions about a reduction in projected spending for each Department. I do not know whether it is worth going through that with Angela and Patrick. I appreciate that it is a big document. Is it worth asking the questions and you can answer by saying what you know? I am happy to be guided on that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Is your question about what is and is not appropriate to ask about the various —?

Mr Carroll: Yes. I have a lot of detail here. I am looking through the tables. I think that everything that has been reduced, in terms of what was expected and what Departments are likely to spend, is resource DEL.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is fair enough. It may be that the officials are not able to give chapter and verse on why there is a particular variance, but it is fair enough for you to ask the questions. If the officials have a good excuse as to why they do not know the detail, they can refer us elsewhere and we can take the requests for information to those places. Within reason, it is totally fair for you to put the questions on the record.

Mr Carroll: OK. I will be as quick as I can. There has been an overspend of, I think, £5 million, maybe more, by the Assembly Commission. Is there any projected further overspend by the Assembly Commission, given the possible or expected pay increase for MLAs?

Ms Ross: Where is that figure from?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It relates to the Statement of Excesses on the Assembly Commission.

The Committee Clerk: I think that it is £0·5 million.

Mr Neeson: Are you talking about the Statement of Excesses, Mr Carroll?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Do you have a page number, Gerry?

Mr Carroll: Give me one second.

Mr Neeson: Are you referring to the Statement of Excesses or the Estimates memorandum for 2024-25?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Hold on. We will just clarify that —

Mr Carroll: Give me one second. Sorry.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): — because it is his question.

Mr Carroll: I think that it is in the Statement of Excesses.

Mr Neeson: That equates to 2023-24 spend. What we are talking about there is an Excess Vote. In other words, the Assembly Commission spent more than what was in the voted total. Its explanation was that, at the very end of the year, there was a reassessment of the cost of roof repairs in Parliament Buildings. That brought it above what was in its budget, essentially, for that year. It was a provision for roof repairs. It was a higher number. My understanding is that it relates to that.

Mr Carroll: That is fine. I was asking whether there is any projected overspend or whether there has been a request for additional funds for the Commission. Obviously, there has been a debate about a possible increase in MLA pay. Has that been factored into the figures?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I assume that it would not have been because we are not looking at the budgets going forward and, of course, said putative change has not been signed off yet. I do not know whether the officials have anything to add.

Mr Neeson: I concur with that. We are talking about 2024-25 budgets here and recognising the differences between Main Estimates and where we are at now. I do not know when the Assembly pay rise will commence. I assume that it will be in the next financial year. I do not know when that will happen.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I think that Mr Carroll is talking specifically about the media reports of the new entity that may be created by legislation. I do not think that that will be reflected in any of these documents. Go on ahead, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: I am not in favour of accelerated passage because there are a lot of questions. Maybe we will get answers to some of them today, but we might not going forward. We were being told earlier by officials that this is normal, but the obvious question, then, is why we are being asked to use accelerated passage, with a limited form of scrutiny, for the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Budget Bill. There are massive questions as to why accelerated passage is being sought and why the process is being rushed through.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. We will come on to accelerated passage. Go on ahead, Patrick.

Mr Neeson: I guess that it is a necessary evil. We cannot write the SSEs until we have January monitoring allocations. This year, that did not happen until midway through January. We need to do the Budget Bill in sufficient time to allow for Royal Assent to be achieved by the end of the financial year. That is our ultimate deadline; we need to get Royal Assent before the end of the financial year. That can take five to six weeks. If you bring that back, you are into the middle of February, which is where we are in terms of going through the stages of the Budget Bill. That Budget Bill has to relate to the spring Supplementary Estimates, which can only be completed post the January monitoring outcome. After January monitoring, it is a huge undertaking to get the spring Supplementary Estimates document, which some of you have on your desks, out. That involves engaging with Departments and the printers — when they are doing their job properly.

I am trying to illustrate how condensed the period is, which is why we need accelerated passage and why we always need it, unfortunately. It is just down to the time available between January monitoring being agreed by the Executive and the end of the financial year, and the period between the Budget Bill being passed by the Assembly and getting Royal Assent before the end of the financial year. That is why accelerated passage is typically required.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that your answer is a pretty technical one, but it does not allow for any accountability whatsoever, nor does it allow the public to get their heads around the process. We had a discussion earlier about financial inclusion and including people in the financial process, which is complicated at the best of times. The fact that this is being rushed through with a day to look at procedure and process makes a mockery of accountability. I will be opposing that request.

I want to turn to the spring Supplementary Estimates for DFC. I am happy to be corrected if I am not right, but by my reading it looks as though there is a reduction in requirements for local government and housing and regeneration under the resource DEL heading. I appreciate that that concerns a different Department, but there seems to be quite a sizeable reduction in what is being sought by DFC. Can you shed any light on that?

Mr Neeson: Unfortunately, I do not think that I can.

Mr Carroll: OK.

Mr Neeson: There is a bit more detail in the memorandum but I do not know whether that goes into detail on the spend that you have mentioned. I am happy to go to the Department to try to —.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. I have some other questions like that, which proves my point that more time is needed for scrutiny. I want to make two other quick points, Chair. It looks as though there is a reduction of £30 million, if I am reading it correctly, in working age benefits. Again, if there is no information available on that, that is OK. If I am reading that wrong, I am happy to be corrected. Can we get some further information on that?

Ms Ross: Is that in the Estimates memorandum?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is in the spring Supplementary Estimates for DFC.

Ms Ross: I reiterate that the Departments own the Estimates. Our role here is simply to pull those together, combine them and present them.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. I appreciate that you cannot go into every detail. From my end, however, being from a smaller party and as an individual MLA, I am being asked to vote on stuff and to speed through this process. There are questions that you do not have the answers to, which I appreciate — in some ways, I do not expect you to have them — but you can appreciate the difficulty from our end and from our constituents' perspective. We are supposed to be scrutinising this stuff. It may be that these are valid questions for other Departments, but that speaks to my point about why we should not be rushing ahead with accelerated passage. Thank you for those answers.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I will make a couple of comments before we come on to accelerated passage. It is worth saying that these are spending Estimates. They are not quite the same as initial allocations to Departments. First, the Supplementary Estimates are Departments' returns, effectively, on adjustments of spending that they either need or do not need. It is a bit more technical than the headline stuff, but that is not to say that we do not need to scrutinise. That is why we are here, and that is what we are doing here.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Patrick and Angela. I have a few technical ones. Obviously, we are going through this, and the rest of it as well. On the sole authority, first of all, well done on getting it down from a billion quid, even though it really should be no more than a million. Getting to £24 million is probably not a bad thing, but we are getting somewhere.

Ms Ross: We do our best.

Dr Aiken: There is £13 million in the Executive Office out of the total. I can understand the welfare reform mitigations. From the Public Accounts Committee, Chair, you will have been briefed on that, so I get that. There is half a million pounds for the Fiscal Council. I get that. I just do not really get where the vast majority of this is coming from. Is this because it is money that has not been applied for or because we have not had enough migrants coming through or there has not been enough asylum? Why is this a particular thing? It all seems to be UK Government funds coming in, so I am not quite certain how that figure has come up.

Mr Neeson: You are right that a large number of different things are captured in that total. There is the Homes for Ukraine scheme, dispersal, refugee integration and so on, as well as some other things, including ending violence against women and girls. It is a range of things. Some of those things, such as Homes for Ukraine, are UK Government money that is coming across. Obviously, the Department feels that it needs legislative cover to be able to spend that money.

Dr Aiken: Have all the Ministers signed off on the Budget?

Mr Neeson: Do you mean the 2024-25 Budget?

Dr Aiken: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Do you mean the 2024 Budget? Which Budget are we talking about?

Dr Aiken: This Budget has come through, but Ministers will have to have signed off on this process to be able to get to this point. Has everybody signed off on it?

Mr Neeson: Do you mean signed off in terms of agreeing the 2024-25 Executive Budget?

Dr Aiken: Yes.

Mr Neeson: I do not have the answer to that.

Ms Ross: The Executive will have signed off the Budget on 16 January, and we have built in headroom. That is just headroom, because they do not have authority to spend yet. That is just built in.

Mr Brett: That is 2025-26.

Mr Neeson: The headroom relates to 2024-25. You are talking about 2024-25. As Angela said, the Executive agreed the 2024-25 Budget.

Dr Aiken: So everybody has agreed to it, and the Finance Minister has not imposed budgets on any Department.

Mr Neeson: The Executive agree the Budget, and the Executive agree the allocations within the Budget.

Dr Aiken: As far as you are concerned, everybody signed off on it and everybody is happy.

Ms Ross: The Executive agree the Budget, and then the Departments go and write their SSEs to the agreed Budget. We compile them, and then we have built in the additional headroom.

Dr Aiken: Does that include the Executive Office?

Ms Ross: In the SSEs for 2024-25?

Dr Aiken: Yes.

Ms Ross: Yes. Is there something that I do not know?

Dr Aiken: No. We are still looking through the data and trying to get to the point here.

Ms Ross: Each Department signed off its own Estimates.

Dr Aiken: OK.

Ms Ross: They finalise and sign off all Estimates before they are combined.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): As far as I am aware, the Executive agreed last year's Budget, and the Executive have provisionally agreed next year's Budget. There are then various legal authorisations, which we are debating today, that are supplemented by updated spending Estimates. Have I made a misstatement there? I think that that is broadly right.

Mr Neeson: That is it. The 2024-25 allocations are reflected in the Main Estimates. What we are dealing with here is the Supplementary Estimates, following in-year allocations and other changes to the 2024-25 Budget.

Ms Ross: The bit of headroom is built in, should it become available. We have the legal cover with the Budget Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): For the purposes of clarity, in the same way that the Assembly is asked to approve the Supplementary Estimates and Budget Bills on an ongoing basis, they are agreed by the Executive before they come to the Finance Committee and then the Assembly, or are they not?

Mr Neeson: The Executive will have got a copy of the SSEs.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes. They might not have had a substantive discussion on the exact line of the SSEs.

Ms Ross: The Executive were circulated with a copy. Everything went last Friday to everybody.

Mr Neeson: The Minister will have written to Executive colleagues and shared the SSEs.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I think that it is worth clarifying that, because I was not entirely — to clarify Dr Aiken's point.

Ms Ross: Everything was issued last Friday.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Good. That is helpful.

Dr Aiken: All will become clear over the next week or two.

Mr Frew: He rubs his hands.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Through the Chair, Members. [Interruption.]

Order, folks. We are in the middle of an evidence session.

Ms Dolan: Thank you both for coming in. I have one question, which is on headroom. Do the Departments that were allocated funding in relation to storm Éowyn have sufficient headroom to spend that funding?

Mr Neeson: As we discussed, yes. We engaged with Departments and made sure that there was sufficient headroom in their Estimates so that, if they got any additional funding from what we could call the storm Éowyn allocations, they would have cover to spend it. The timing of the production of the Estimates meant that we had to liaise with Departments in advance of allocations being made to them. That means, essentially, that the answer to your question is yes, sufficient headroom was built into the Estimates in order to make sure that those Departments that got that money could spend it.

Ms Dolan: That is great. The rest of my questions have been asked by other members.

Mr Frew: Let me first go to the section of your paper on sole authority of the Budget Act and the black box, which, famously, we have scrutinised over the years. I was not aware of this, but Steve Aiken raised the point that you got this down from an amount that, I think, was £1 million.

Dr Aiken: It was £1 billion.

Mr Frew: Sorry, £1 billion.

Dr Aiken: Sorry; through the Chair, it was £1 billion, which is now down to —.

Mr Frew: Down to £24·5 million.

Dr Aiken: It should be no more than £1 million.

Ms Ross: It is down to £24·5 million.

Mr Frew: Before hearing that dialogue, my question was about what changes there have been to that sole authority since last year in subheadings and specific measures. Is there anything new? Has anything been taken out? Is it just reduced volumes?

Ms Ross: DFI has been removed. In the detailed document that the Committee has, you can see that the updated figures have come down in some of them. That is information provided by the Departments. We write to them to say, "Give us an update, please". As you can see, the figures have come down in some areas since that was initially sent out. Two have been removed —.

Mr Frew: Sorry. For clarity's sake, do we know exactly where that is in the Committee pack?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Page 692.

The Assistant Committee Clerk: It is on page 689. Scroll up.

The Committee Clerk: It is on pages 689 onwards.

Mr Frew: Got it, thank you. It would be great if you could speak to that now.

Ms Ross: Two have been removed. Those referred to DFI.

Mr Neeson: Two of the DFI ones fell out. You can see for yourself that there are movements in some of the other figures. A few have gone down, and one has gone up.

Ms Ross: The left-hand column shows the figures from when we started the exercise. In the right-hand column, the figures are starting to reduce. In the far right-hand column, you can see the latest update. The header of that column denotes that it indicates when they expect to have it. You will see that quite a lot of them refer to 2025. We expect to see less again in the Main Estimates, but, when we are here this time next year, I would like to have seen a lot of them.

Mr Frew: Excuse my ignorance at this early stage, but should the financial provisions Bill do away with that completely?

Mr Neeson: The financial provisions Bill should take care of lots of the items that are using sole authority, particularly those on the Executive Office side. The DFI SmartPass will rely on the financial provisions Bill. The Fiscal Council is taking forward its own legislation on welfare mitigation measures. I understand that there are plans for legislation in 2025. The financial provisions Bill will deal with lots of the Executive Office ones in particular.

Mr Frew: OK. This question is slightly similar to Steve's. This document that we have in our packs was given to the Executive, but it is also true to say that each Department has ownership of its Estimates. What is the benefit of the Executive Committee getting the document? Is it so that a Department or a Minister can look across other Departments, or is it just that it has to be mechanically ratified by the Executive?

Ms Ross: You say "Executive Committee". When the SSEs are completed, they are circulated to all MLAs.

Mr Frew: When I say "Executive Committee", I mean the Executive themselves.

Mr Neeson: Ultimately, it is the Assembly that will give legal authority to the spend. I guess that Ministers would share this with colleagues for information and to outline the legislative timetable that was coming up and the processes and so on. However, the Assembly will give authority to the spend.

Mr Frew: It is always going to be the Assembly that gives authority to the spend, but I am just trying to clarify the role of the Executive in the spring Supplementary Estimates.

Ms Ross: Approving the Budget so that we can write them to the agreed Budget.

Mr Frew: So it is the actual movement of that.

I want to go back to the fact that we are going back to a 45% Vote on Account, as opposed to 65% last year. It is not so much about how much Departments will spend, it is how quickly we can get the Budget Bill through. Are we sure that, with the issue around National Insurance contributions, which we cannot quantify as yet, Departments will not start running out of money? Some Departments here employ a lot of people, so are we sure that there is enough headroom in a 45% Vote on Account and that we can get our Budget Bill through on time?

Mr Neeson: The Budget Bill that is coming through relates to 2024-25 and the spring Supplementary Estimates. If you are talking about next year, as I said, increased National Insurance costs will be an additional pressure that Departments will have to manage. Those pressures will be spread throughout the year. The 45% is to give Departments sufficient capacity to keep services going until such time as the Main Estimates come forward and the Budget Bill gets Assembly approval around June/July.

Ms Ross: This is just signing off the 2024-25 financial year. For 2025-26, we are in a better position this year because we have a draft Budget approved, and I think that the final Budget will be on 13 March. That means that there is less of a rush to get these Estimates done on time. This time, it was a concertina to get these out on time, it really was. Now, however, we know. We are in a much better position than we were in last year, so there is nothing to stop us. Very soon, we can kick off and commission the Main Estimates and hopefully have the lovely timeline that we all would love to have, get them processed, and get them to everybody in good time. We would like to think that they will be through well in advance of the 45% Budget in respect of the Vote on Account.

Mr Frew: I am sure that I asked this question last year. How do bodies such as the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, which is a government body that does not sit in a Department, come to their Estimates?

Mr Neeson: In the same way, essentially. In the process of arriving at Estimates, they are treated in the same way as other Departments.

Ms Ross: Their budgets are agreed separately.

Mr Neeson: Yes, a budget is agreed separately, but the Estimates process is the same.

Mr Frew: Estimates are just a matter of fact, I suppose, and are just written up. However, going forward with regard to a budget settlement, who actually fights for them?

Ms Ross: The Budget itself?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Ms Ross: The Budget process?

Mr Frew: Yes. Who in the Executive actually fights for the Utility Regulator with regard to how much money they think it needs?

Mr Neeson: It is for the Utility Regulator to determine how it makes its representation to get the appropriate budget for what it needs for the year ahead.

Ms Ross: Basically, it bids.

Mr Frew: What have been the differences between, say, the Utility Regulator's bids over the past six years and what it actually got in a budget line? Has there been a trend?

Mr Neeson: I do not have the detail. We could come back to you on that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That might be information that could be provided if people specifically want that. However, that is in relation to one body in the Department for the Economy.

Mr Frew: Again, that question would still lie with all the other bodies and authorities that lie outside the actual framework of the Executive itself.

That is OK. I am fine.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): No other members have indicated that they wish to ask a question. I want to clarify, because we talked a lot at cross purposes about things today. Anyone watching this might be slightly baffled as to the different meanings.

There is an Executive Budget, which is a Budget statement that gives allocations. It is currently in draft form for 2025-26. Consultation on it will close in about a month's time. That is the Executive Budget for 2025-26. It is separate from the Budget Bill, which is the legal authorisation of spending that we pass via legislation, including via Votes on Account and Budget Bills. Those bits of legislation, the Budget Bills and the Supplementary Estimates are brought before the Executive, who implicitly agree them. However, my understanding is that the Budget documents are what the Executive have to agree and sign off. That is the way that I have always understood that this works, but the average person or punter who is watching this might be slightly confused, so it is worth clarifying those terms. Those are two different things. There is a Budget statement, which is in draft form. It sets out headline allocations for the next financial year, which I think is what Dr Aiken was talking about.

Dr Aiken: No, he was not.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You were not? Were you talking about the final plan for 2024-25?

Dr Aiken: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. You were talking about the final outcome for 2024-25. OK, fine. I think that it is important that we clarify for people watching what we are on about.

Dr Aiken: They know exactly what I am talking about, Chair. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Thank you for your evidence, folks.