Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I welcome Eileen Regan, a senior officer in the Research and Information Service (RaISe), who is going to give us a briefing. Hi, Eileen. Thanks for coming in.

Mrs Eileen Regan (RaISe): Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Please go ahead.

Mrs Regan: Thank you, Committee. I am here today to speak to you about the Bill paper, which was prepared by a number of people in RaISe. It addresses the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. It looks at particular key policy and public finance considerations. We identify in the paper some potential scrutiny points, but it is not an exhaustive list. The Bill paper is peppered with a lot of hyperlinks for ease of access.

The Committee is very familiar with such Bills. They amend governing legislation and regularise existing practice by prescribing departmental powers so that Departments can undertake and charge for specified activities and modify existing financial governance arrangements. The Executive agreed to the Bill, and the Minister of Finance introduced it in June. It had its Second Stage in early July and is now in Committee. The Bill has been based on engagement with various actors, including the Executive Office, the Office of the Legislative Counsel and the Assembly's Statutory Committees. A number of departmental public consultations that took place in the summer of 2024 also informed the Bill's contents. It was decided that there would be no public consultation on the entirety of the Bill, given its routine nature.

We have covered in the paper the key developments leading up to the Bill. They are there for your reference. In the interests of time, I will concentrate on the section on key considerations on policy and public finance. There are a number of clauses in the Bill. We are not going to concern ourselves with clauses 21 to 23, given their nature. They are on interpretation, commencement and the short title. The focus of the paper is on clauses 1 to 20, which, respectively, concern powers, fees and financial governance. Seventeen new legislative powers are created, which address administration and financial matters for a number of Departments. That makes the Bill slightly atypical, given its scope and coverage.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I do not fully get that point. In what sense is it atypical?

Mrs Regan: Powers for so many Departments are enshrined in the Bill, if it is enacted as proposed. For example, it covers the Department for Infrastructure, the Department for the Economy, the Department of Finance etc. Normally, such Bills are not as wide-reaching. The Bill concerns technical matters, and it is also about the transference of powers —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The number of Departments whose activities are touched on is unusually large for such a Bill.

Mrs Regan: I do not know whether I would say "unusually large", but the Bill is definitely different. There are, generally speaking, more Departments involved than what is traditional with these types of Bills.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The Department did not undertake a consultation on the Bill because it is routine, but such a consultation has not happened in a while. It is a custom more honoured in the breach than in the observance. In previous instances, would a consultation have been undertaken?

Mrs Regan: Not necessarily. I think that it has been about 11 years since we have had a Bill of this nature, so it has been a long time. There are various reasons for that, including interrupted devolution.

If the Committee wishes to learn more about financial provisions Bills, I draw members' attention to a report from December 2013 from the former Committee for Finance and Personnel. It includes some very helpful information so that you can understand these types of Bills more comprehensively.

We know that there are enabling powers in the Bill to incur expenditure and raise fees. At appendix 2, there is a high-level ease-of-reference section. You can look at the paper alongside that appendix to help you navigate it, because, as you can see, the paper is quite comprehensive and long.

I will concentrate on the clauses on which, I think, it would be very helpful for the Assembly, and the Committee in particular, to get more information, either for clarity or to understand better what the future plans are for implementing the Bill.

I draw your attention to clause 1. Clauses 1 to 14 specifically concern powers. Clause 1 concerns financial transactions capital (FTC) and the Northern Ireland Investment Fund. Specifically, it will empower DOF to use FTC through the investment fund in order to invest in transformation in Northern Ireland in the long term, as well as to support economic growth. As the Committee will be well aware, underuse of FTC has always been a chronic issue. I draw your attention to a past paper, dated March 2025, that RaISe prepared for the Committee. It will enable you to revisit the significance of FTC underspend in Northern Ireland. DOF maintains that the clause should help empower it to issue loans to the Northern Ireland Investment Fund using FTC funding. The Department will have the statutory authority to do so under the provision. That will mark a departure from the existing arrangements, whereby the Executive Office and the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) are involved in the allocation of that funding.

I draw your attention to particular scrutiny points in that area. It would be helpful if the Committee were able to learn a little bit more about any modelling that may have been undertaken by the Executive or DOF on how DOF anticipates better future use of FTC in Northern Ireland under clause 1. This may be more relevant to clause 2, but it may be interesting to see the potential implications. Has any kind of assessment been done of the role of Invest NI if the clause as it stands is enacted?

The following is a recurring theme. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) states that there will not be financial implications, but the powers that will come in under the legislation and the provision of services that will be permitted, as well as the funding that will follow, raise questions about the use of any new or additional training or staffing resources that may be required in order to plan for the implementation of the clauses and then to implement them. The Committee may wish to learn more about that. The scrutiny questions for clause 1 are listed in the paper.

Clause 2 concerns financial assistance and limited companies, and it empowers the Department for the Economy. It is an interesting provision, because, previously, before there was Invest NI, the Department had the power to form limited companies. When Invest NI came about, that power went away, and clause 2 is about re-establishing that power. The argument was made that it could reduce lead-in times. Again, clause 2 may enable better future usage of FTC, thus reducing the amount of money that is returned to Treasury under the financial arrangements of devolution.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If I may, Eileen, I have a question on clause 1. I generally encourage members to keep questions to the end, unless there is a very particular question to be asked.

We talk a lot about better use of FTC in general. That is one of the stated purposes of clause 1. The Bill does not mention FTC. It does not expressly state, "You may use FTC for these purposes". Clause 1(1) states:

Is there a reason for that? Is that normal practice?

Mrs Regan: The Committee could engage with the Department on that to seek clarification.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes. I find it interesting that FTC is not specified in the Bill. It may be sensible that FTC is not mentioned, because the UK Government could change the name of that pot. OK. That is it. Sorry. Go ahead.

Mrs Regan: No worries. Is it OK if I continue with clause 2?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I will bring in Gerry. I asked a question, so I should be fair and bring him in.

Mr Carroll: I have some questions for Eileen about clauses 16 and 19, so I am happy to wait.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If you are happy enough to wait until the end, that is grand. Cheers, Gerry. We will come back to you. Sorry, Eileen.

Mrs Regan: I will continue with clause 2, which concerns financial assistance to limited companies and empowers DFE to provide financial assistance, using FTC:

in cases in which DFE believes that that would be:

Such power departs from the current framework, in that DFE would no longer have to go through TEO and the SIB. Of interest in the clause also, and this is highlighted in the EFM, is the fact that a "statement of general approach" or a "guiding statement" would underpin DFE's exercising of the power to:

The Committee may wish to gain some understanding of that. As I said earlier, it is about re-establishing a past departmental power, so the Committee may wish to learn about the implications for Invest NI.

I draw the Committee's attention to page 16 of the paper. The scrutiny questions there are similar to those on clause 1 and are about whether anything can be learned about modelling on future use, about learning more about the "statement about general approach" or "guiding statement" that I referred to and about any kind of assessment that was done to learn what Invest NI's role will be should the provision be enacted. Again, the question arises about the additional resources and training that may be required.

I will move on to clause 3. You will be relieved to know that I will not go through every clause, but there are particular clauses that are worth looking at.

Clause 3 is about FTC loans and higher education funding. Very similar questions arise here. It may be helpful for the Committee to look at what happens in Scotland and Wales. You can see from our paper that we have provided a cursory overview of the arrangements that are in place there. The Committee may wish to look at what the operation of the clause will be, if it is enacted, and what the plans are to implement the provision. The Committee may therefore wish to ask about any modelling that was undertaken.

I will move on to the next clause. There is nothing of particular significance in clause 4. There is, again, the question about additional resources and training that may be required. There is an error in our paper on page 19. Scrutiny point 16 should not be in there. It is a typo that we did not catch in the edit. Apologies for that. We will make sure that it is not included in the printed version.

I will not suggest questions or give information about clause 5, unless the Committee would like me to.

Clause 5 concerns the visitor attraction/experience grading schemes that will be empowered here. Tourism NI will have the power to classify and grade amenities for Tourism Northern Ireland. There is a comprehensive table provided so that you can look across the jurisdictions to see what is happening. Other than training and additional resources, however, nothing of significance is highlighted.

Clause 6 concerns TEO's being empowered to provide services and funding to victim and survivor support services and related funding for historical institutional abuse and other forms of institutional harms. We want to draw a number of things to the Committee's attention about the clause. One is that it empowers TEO to bring regulations in line with the requirements outlined in the clause.

Clause 6(6) states:

That means that they will come into operation automatically unless annulled by the Assembly within the given statutory time. RaISe believes that it is important to highlight that, because negative resolution does not allow for the same scrutiny that would be given to a Bill or even by other forms of procedure under the resolution mechanism. Issues of financial implications arise, again about additional resources and training. The scrutiny points on page 24 raise issues about the type of planning that has been undertaken and the communication that will be undertaken between the Department and the Assembly, whether that be through the relevant Statutory Committee or other. The plans for monitoring the implementation of clause 6 are listed in the paper.

Clause 7 concerns the provision of refugee and asylum seeker services and related funding. It is not about empowering for the purposes of making any changes to the funding for asylum and immigration integration support services. It is purely an administrative function that TEO will be provided with so that it can make the expenditure. We do, however, raise a couple of issues on page 26. One concerns Northern Ireland's implementation of the provision. For example, what will be done to assure the Assembly that TEO will work to protect against any divergence from the definitions applied in this jurisdiction so that there any potential unintended exclusions or inconsistencies will be avoided.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): On clause 7, the upshot is that TEO currently has policy responsibility for refugee coordination and for integration policy more generally. It has the vires for integration policy, and, as an adjunct to that, it is doing other things that it has not formally acquired some of the vires to do. Is that right?

Mrs Regan: Yes. This is about the making of the expenditure and giving TEO the legal authority to do that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That will have been happening within a black box thus far, I presume.

Mrs Regan: On page 26 of the Bill paper, there are questions about the reassurance that the Assembly may seek about the planning and implementation of clause 7 if it is enacted as proposed. Monitoring and reporting to the Assembly would occur thereafter. The Committee may wish to seek assurances as appropriate.

Clause 8 contains nothing in particular of note. Clauses 9 and 10 are provisions concerning victims and survivors and the services and related funding provided to them. The clauses relate to the Programme for Government as well. Clause 9 empowers TEO through its 2024 strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls and includes powers that will help the funding initiatives aligned with that framework's aims. Clause 10 qualifies the exercise of clause 9. It specifies limits on TEO's exercise of the powers in certain circumstances, including where there is other legislation, such as freedom of information or data protection legislation, or where TEO's use of clause 9 will unreasonably duplicate the work of another Department that does not agree to what TEO specifies. It is worth noting that the Department for Communities has completed a full data protection impact assessment.

The EFM makes it very clear that the power under clause 9 will not empower TEO to raise money by levying or imposing any form of tax or charge or by borrowing but that it will not prevent TEO from introducing any reasonable charges for anything that it does under clause 9. It seems that greater clarity would be welcome on the scope of TEO's power in exceptional circumstances relating to the strategic framework and any strategies that may be published therefrom. A few questions arise, and they are listed in the paper on page 29.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): This may be a good thing, but it is strikingly broadly described in clause 9(1), which states:

Clause 9(2) states:

Is that a relatively novel form of words for this kind of legislation?

Mrs Regan: I am not really in a position to advise on that. You may want to ask Legal Services that question. It is a very broad power. Clause 10 qualifies clause 9 to a certain extent, which is why the Committee will want to learn more about the exceptional circumstances envisioned. As the Bill stands, however, there are some scrutiny points that seek a better understanding of the plans for the implementation of the provision, so you may wish to raise some of the questions about the exercise of the power. It is a discretionary power. Clause 10 is not peppered with a lot of words like "reasonable".

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The power is strikingly broad. Ending violence against women and girls is one of the most important and serious issues that we face in this society, but understanding the precise import of the legislation is what we are about.

Mrs Regan: Clause 10 will come into any discussion about that, because there is a qualification provided in it —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It mitigates the power slightly.

Mrs Regan: — but it still begs many questions. Scrutiny point 46 on page 29 is geared towards trying to tease out how the implementation of the power is envisioned.

The other scrutiny questions seek to learn a little bit more detail about the exercise of the proposed power, and the very important point about resources and training, especially when the EFM states that the Bill:

There are three clauses that talk about further regulations, and we do know not know what is going to be in those regulations. Two of them are proposed to be going by negative resolution. There are lots of questions. That is clauses 6, 15 and 17. Clauses 6 and 17 require negative resolution. In clause 15, there is no specification of the type of resolution required.

If the Committee is agreeable, I propose that, in the interests of time and unless anybody has any questions, we move on from pages 30 to 34 and clauses 11 to 14. The issues are identified in the paper.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am content to move on.

The Committee Clerk: So we moving on to clause 15.

Ms Forsythe: I think that Gerry had a question.

The Committee Clerk: That is on clause 16.

Mrs Regan: Clauses 1 to 14 concern power; they are in that grouping in the Bill. Now we are moving to clauses 15 to 17, at page 35 of the pack, and those concern fees. Unless anybody would like to raise a question, there is nothing particular to note on clause 15 other than that regulations will be brought and that there is no specification of what type of resolution they will go by. As a scrutiny Committee, you will be very interested to know that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Clause 15 basically creates the powers for Tourism NI to charge fees.

Mrs Regan: The power to introduce new fees where appropriate and to raise fees for services or events that encourage and improve tourism, and the aim is to safeguard public service provision and improve financial stability in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): This is interesting, because that description of improving financial sustainability must come from the EFM. That is interesting. I am just interested to know where the rationale about financial sustainability comes from. That suggests revenue-raising. A first glance, you would think that Tourism NI fees are simply about, going back to the power that it takes earlier in the Bill to create a rating system — you are a guest house, in order to register you have to pay a fee, and then you get yourself adjudicated as three stars, four stars, five stars or whatever. If it says somewhere in the document that it is about financial sustainability, that suggests that there is a rationale that is broader and to do with broader fiscal or —.

Mrs Regan: In the Second Stage debate, there was reference to financial sustainability.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Do you think that is —?

Mrs Regan: It could beg questions about the outworking of the financial agreements in February 2024 around financial stability and sustainability.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is the thing that we should ask the question about. If there is a desire. I am keen that we be creative about how we do revenue-raising, but, at the same time — I am not saying that this is happening — we need to understand whether we are giving a Department the power to create a fee with a slightly sotto voce claim that it is using it to improve financial sustainability when it is not entirely explicit in the Bill what that might be.

Ms Forsythe: It is good to have all this information. I definitely have a lot of questions on this clause, especially given that Tourism NI's accounts, I am pretty sure, were qualified in 2022-23 on fee charging across three different schemes. It was then raised as a matter by exception in 2023-24, and we are still waiting on the 2024-25 accounts. Given that there are a number of issues in and around fees with Tourism NI in particular, that is one for the Committee to look into in a bit more detail.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes, I think that that is something for us to explore. As you say, it does not make explicit whether any new fees would have to be draft affirmative or negative.

Mrs Regan: It just says that they will bring regulations and that the regulations will, I imagine, speak to that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We certainly need to ask questions about what that means. We need to understand what the read-across is in the Bill. OK, go ahead, Eileen. We were on clause 15.

Mrs Regan: On pages 35 to 36, there is a whole series of questions that the Committee may wish to draw on.

Clause 16 concerns marine licensing cost recovery. Basically, it affords greater power to DAERA when charging fees for activities for which a marine licence is required, introducing powers to charge for pre-application advice and assistance services, monitoring compliance with the conditions of licensing, and dealing with applications for the variation, suspension or transfer of the licences. It would be interesting, given the way in which the power is framed, to learn more about DAERA's plans for how it will exercise the new fees. There is then a question about whether DAERA would bring regulations that would require Assembly approval under clause 16, and whether it would be by affirmative or negative resolution.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am going to bring in Gerry, because he has questions on this clause. We are going to do clause 16 now, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Chair. I agree about getting more information generally, and thanks for that, Eileen. As far as you know, is this covering all fishing licensing? Is it commercial fishing, or at what level or to what extent is the Department considering it? It is quite general, and I am not quite clear about it.

Mrs Regan: It would be about asking more questions to ascertain all of that, along with what else is within the scope and any assessment of the potential costs that would be incurred when providing the additional service for licence applicants under clause 16, and the impact that the charging of the fees and the increased fees for the additional services would have on the number of licence applications. There is a whole series of questions to be unpacked; they are listed in full on pages 37 and 38.

Mr Carroll: Chair, this may have been covered at the start, but are we requesting from Departments the follow-up information that Eileen is talking about?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I will let the Clerk answer that.

The Committee Clerk: We have scrutiny points that are relevant to other Committees so, once the paper is published, we will highlight it to those Committees and indicate to them the scrutiny points that are relevant to their clauses in the Bill and ask them to pursue those. We put a letter out in July to the Committees that are within the Bill, giving them until the end of October to come back to the Committee with their views on the clauses. That will help to give them a bit of shape to the questions that they need to ask. The Committee can be reasonably forceful in saying, "Look, here are the scrutiny points that we need answered". We will seek Committee approval once we have been through the paper to do that, if members are content.

Mr Carroll: Yes, thanks.

Dr Aiken: I need to make a declaration of interest. I have been involved with a constituent who is dealing with DAERA and the Crown Estate, which is relevant to this question. Even though I have raised that declaration of interest, there is a question here about the interrelationship between DAERA charging the Crown Estate. That is something that we might ask. That might be a further question, particularly when it comes to the seabed and maritime licensing.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Right, or we suggest that the AERA Committee asks that question.

Dr Aiken: It is quite complex. Basically, DAERA is probably asking to be able to charge for things that it does not own, which is not the same.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Obviously, we have an overarching scrutiny role, but for some of the detailed policy stuff, it is still for the individual departmental Committees to —.

The Committee Clerk: It is a courtesy to them, Chair. However, the Committee has overarching responsibility. Where they are aware, the Committee may wish to pursue the issue.

Dr Aiken: It stretches into the Department for the Economy as well.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. That is grand. Thanks, Gerry. We will go to clause 17 and bring Gerry in again later for questions. We are now on clause 17.

Mrs Regan: Clause 17 relates to the Department for Infrastructure introducing regulations for SmartPass fees under the concessionary fares scheme. It is for application renewals and replacements. We believe that one of the key points s that regulations will be brought forward by DFI, but we do not know the detail of that. It is proposed that they would be by negative resolution, and we know that there is a much lower level of scrutiny. There is also the recurrent question about resources and training. Given past and recent experiences with Translink, it may be helpful to seek assurances from DFI and/or Translink about what bodies they will consult on those regulations and whether they will advise the Assembly of the responses that they receive etc, just to tease out how it is envisioned in the plans for the exercise of the clause 17 power.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is clause 17. I imagine that there will be some questions on that. I think that Gerry wanted to come in on it. Before that, this again goes back to the questions on the interaction between this and budget sustainability discussions, because this introduces the theoretical power to impose a fee for the issue of a SmartPass or duplicate SmartPass. A little bit like some of the conversations that we were having in relation to the Bill, it is a power that could theoretically allow that to be introduced, but it is by negative resolution, so there would not be a vote in the Assembly.

I will bring in Gerry, who indicated first, and then Paul Frew.

Mr Carroll: I have stated my opposition to this clause before. I have no further questions. I want to come in on clause 19.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Grand.

Mr Frew: You guys are going to be scrutinising this over the next couple of weeks and months.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You can have a go at it for the next hour.

Mr Frew: I will not be there; I will be here only for the next hour. The Committee might want to look at the fact that it is negative resolution. Draft affirmative resolution would allow you to at least amend whatever fee they subject the payment to. We will need to assess it through our party systems, but the DUP has always been supportive of those passes. This is a clause that I worry about. I will leave it there.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That was clause 17. Clause 18 relates to the Consolidated Fund.

Mrs Regan: Did Jemma Dolan have a question? I am not sure.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): No, I do not think so. Did you want to come in, Jemma? No?

Mrs Regan: Apologies. Thank you.

This brings us to the final stretch: the provisions concerning financial governance in clauses 18 to 20. Clause 18 is about increasing the specified 2% cap on the amount of the previous year's authorised expenditure to 4% so that that amount can instead be made available to the Executive for contingencies during a financial year. That is motivated, to a significant extent, by past experience. It is about the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund advances.

A number of questions arise in relation to clause 18. Most importantly, it begs a question. On page 41, we have outlined what occurs in Scotland and Wales in this area. Immediately, the question arises: why does Northern Ireland need authority for a higher statutory contingency limit of 4% in relation to Consolidated Fund advances when there is currently a 2% level, although our experience has evidenced that we are demonstrating that we need more? In Scotland and Wales, it is 0·5%, so the Committee may wish to ask the Department —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We are asking that it be increased from 2% to 4%, whereas the equivalent amount for the Scottish Government is 0·5%. Has it always been that, or are they trying to increase it? Sorry, that is probably outside your bailiwick.

Mrs Regan: The legislation that is highlighted on pages 40 and 41 dates back to 2006, so it has been around for a while. A point that becomes immediately evident is that we are a post-conflict society. We have different institutional arrangements. We do not have collective responsibility in the way that, for example, the UK Government have collective responsibility. That would be the same in Scotland and Wales, but it is worth asking the question just based on the other two jurisdictions, where is it significantly lower. We were already higher than them, and we are looking for an increase of 2%.

Ms Forsythe: Are they hitting the limit that they are asking for an increase in?

Mrs Regan: Apologies, we have not looked into that, but we can, and we can bring a paper back if the Committee wishes.

Ms Forsythe: When they are looking to double it from 2% to 4%, you wonder whether they are actually hitting the 2% when it is already so high.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The argument is basically that it is a prudent thing because of COVID, and also the absence of an Executive. It seems a bit odd to be baking in additional contingency based on the idea of no Executive, but anyway. Put that to one side.

Mrs Regan: Just to clarify, are you asking whether the other jurisdictions have hit their limit, or is it this jurisdiction?

Ms Forsythe: In this jurisdiction. You are saying that we are already at the 2% level, compared with 0·5% elsewhere, which is quite high, and then we are asking to double it from 2% to 4%. I was wondering whether we in Northern Ireland are hitting that 2% and whether there is a need to move it up to 4%.

Mrs Regan: I do understand that there have been incidents. COVID was one of them, and that was extremely exceptional. However, we can see the pattern and the trend, and you can plot that. However, there would be value in looking at what the other jurisdictions are doing in exercising their power in their jurisdictions and comparing that with the incidents when we exercised that power under our legislation at 2%.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We can ask for that information.

Mr Frew: If they are using COVID, and the experiences that we had during COVID, to raise it from 2% to 4%, there is nothing to say that, in an emergency scenario, they would not bring in emergency legislation at that point that would raise it from 2% to 4%.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You are saying, why do it now? The question would be, why do it in normal times?

Ms Forsythe: Blanket allowance.

Mr Frew: Why have that blanket allowance?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We can ask that question about the specifics. I am trying to remember if we were on the Finance Committee back then. It would be useful to know whether, in 2020, for example, they were nudging up against the 2% and that made it difficult for them to do just basic financial management at the time when we were doing, for example, the business grant schemes and the furlough stuff was coming from the UK Government. We can ask those questions. Eileen, that is really helpful. Thank you.

Mrs Regan: Sorry, Chair, if I may.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes.

Mrs Regan: There is one other point wrapped in that, which you referred to earlier: namely, Budget and financial sustainability. If we are trying to move towards that, why are we baking in a measure that, arguably, does not incentivise financial prudence?

Mr Frew: It gives them more latitude.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I suppose that their argument would be that it would be a flexibility, but we will ask the question. Okay, fair enough.

Mr Frew: It is a bit like a speed limit. You drive to the speed limit.

Dr Aiken: No, you drive just below it, Mr Frew — you being on the Justice Committee.

Mr Frew: It becomes a target. You can imagine civil servants, who we had lunch with, all aiming for 4%.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Clause 19 is about petroleum and minerals.

Mrs Regan: There is nothing of particular note other than what is in the briefing. Basically, it is about reducing the statutory requirements and streamlining financial reporting of the receipts so that financial governance can be supported.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If I am understanding this correctly, it relates to organisations that are granted licences for things such as mining and petroleum production.

Mrs Regan: It is about the accounts for petroleum and mineral receipts, whatever is within the scope of accountancy purposes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): There are separate accounts for receipts and expenditure, so why not consolidate them into one document, basically.

Mr Carroll: Just checking: this will require companies to provide one copy of accounts instead of two. Is that correct?

Mrs Regan: This power, from what I read in the clause as well as in the EFM, is about DFE statutory requirements. It is not speaking to the individual companies but to the requirements that DFE must meet in its accounts.

Mr Carroll: I was trying to check the document on my screen while you were talking. It reduces the number of accounts that are required for companies to provide to DFE or the regulator. Is that correct? I think that that is correct.

Mrs Regan: It would have that knock-on effect, you think, because DFE would be compiling its accounts on the basis of what it receives in the form of receipts?

Mr Carroll: Eileen or Chair, I cannot recall what the Department's rationale for that is.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be just a tidying-up exercise in the sense that it is not trying to publish less information. The law says that you can provide effectively one document or one set of accounts. They still have to publish the same information, so they still have to publish receipts and expenditure going in and going out. I presume that these are licences or fees, but it is not about what they can levy or do not levy. It is just about the accounts that they publish and whether they publish two separate accounts rather than one, I think. I think that this is pretty presentational.

Mr Carroll: Can we suggest that the Economy Committee find out what the difference will be? Obviously, there will be a reduction in accounts, and there will be, potentially, less information, which is a bit concerning. I do not know the detail of that, so maybe we can suggest that the Economy Committee look at that. That would be helpful.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The memorandum is quite clear. They are not saying fewer accounts; they are saying that they are to be published in the same document. I think that that is what it is. Diane, who is an accountant, wants to come in.

Ms Forsythe: The paper here says that the clause aims to streamline financial reporting and support financial governance. That was my understanding of it as well. It is just the reporting.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We can certainly flag that so that the Economy Committee is aware of it. It may want to investigate it.

Mr Tennyson: I was having a nosy at the Department's annual report, and, in cash and cash equivalents, minerals and petroleum receipts are laid out separately and very clearly. I have no objection to streamlining so that they do not have to have those accounts audited separately, but I would be worried if the change meant that they did not have to present that line in their annual report at all. Getting clarity that that line will still appear would be helpful.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Those are good points. Thanks, Gerry, Eóin and Diane.

We are now on to clause 20, which is about how the auditor — not the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the external auditor of the Audit Office — is appointed.

Mrs Regan: It transfers the current power to the Assembly's Audit Committee. The existing power lies with DOF. It does what it says. In the EFM, it has also been pointed out that DOF, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Assembly's Audit Committee have agreed and seek to action that change.

Ms Forsythe: I declare an interest; I am on the Audit Committee. We met on that issue this morning. The previous Audit Committee agreed that. It is under consideration by the current Audit Committee. I will flag that it is cited as improving financial governance arrangements. There are practicalities there around how you would go about that process and whether a Standing Committee of the Assembly has the operational capacity to do some of those things. I just want to flag that. Jemma and I were at the Audit Committee this morning, and, while it seems tidy and simple in principle, there is more going on there, and it will take a bit of time back and forward between the two Committees on that one. It is not straightforward.

Mrs Regan: On page 43 of the paper, we say that you need to think about any new or additional resources that would be required in order to enable its exercise.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Clerk, we may want to get legal advice on that at some point during our consideration. There is clearly a question. It might seem tidy-minded, but it is fair to ask whether the Audit Committee has things like the basic resourcing capacity to run ads and do an appointment process, with Assembly Committees not being

and our staff are pretty stretched. We can ask those questions, because that will have a knock-on impact.

We have now gone through them all. Are there any other points that you want to raise with us? The report is really helpful.

Mrs Regan: No, thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Members, that is going to form a considerable part of our consideration of the Bill. We have already flushed out a few initial issues. I will summarise now, for the purposes of a member who has just joined us. We have just had an initial background briefing from RaISe on its research paper on the report. A few specific things arose that we are going to flag. In some cases, we are going to get more information ourselves directly. In other cases, we will make a note to flag to the other Committees that will be scrutinising that bit of the Bill.

One of them relates to FTC. That is probably something that we need to tease out in scrutiny. It relates to FTC in clauses 1 and 2 and why FTC is not explicitly mentioned. We also have the question of proposed new article 29A of the Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which connects to clause 15, which is about Tourism NI. It is worth our asking about any intersection between that and discussions on budget sustainability and that strand of budget sustainability work. It was said in the Chamber that this was part of the broader budget sustainability work. We should understand that and understand what discussions have gone on in the background. If the Bill is being presented as a technical tidying-up exercise, but there is in the background an intent — maybe there is not — to create some of the vires for revenue-raising, even if it is relatively small-scale, we need to understand that and understand what discussions have been had, including, if relevant, with the Treasury. We can ask that question initially of the Department.

In clause 9, there is a relatively broad question that we need to tease out in relation to the powers given to the Executive Office, but that is somewhat mitigated by clause 10. There is also the question, which goes back to the Tourism NI question, around marine fees, and the question on the travel concessionary passes. If that links in with any of the revenue-raising work, that is fair enough. We do not need to ask all those questions now. We can ask them as we go through, but they are things that occurred to us.

The Committee Clerk: Officials will be in next week on both Bills, so that will be a good opportunity to look a bit more into the basis.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): There are a couple of areas where we have discovered and flushed out that significant changes are coming forward via negative resolution. The Committee had a prolonged discussion about powers that were taken in the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill around a theoretical charge. Those were ruled out by the Department, but that would require draft affirmative resolution whereas, potentially, several of the charges in this Bill would be subject to negative resolution and would not require any further vote. It will be important to at least understand what is intended.

Thank you for that, Eileen.

Mrs Regan: Thank you.