Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We welcome, from the Department, Patrick Neeson, who is director of supply division in the public spending directorate and a regular attendee at our Committee; Ian Fleming, who is principal economist at the public spending directorate; and Sarah Gibson, who is also from supply division. Patrick, we are looking forward to this. It is a big and really important Bill, and we are pleased to have it in front of us. Do you want to give us an opening statement? Members, as always, indicate if you wish to ask a question. Go ahead.

Mr Patrick Neeson (Department of Finance): Thank you. I am here with Ian and Sarah to brief the Committee on the Bill. The Department last appeared before the Committee to discuss the Bill in September 2024, and we have made significant progress since then.

The Bill was introduced to the Assembly in June 2025 and passed Second Stage in early July. Obviously, we are committed to engaging fully with the Committee to provide whatever assistance we can to support your scrutiny of the Bill. As you know, the Bill addresses many of what are known as black box items, which are areas of spend that rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act. I know that members have been concerned about that issue in the past. Another important motivation for the Bill is the fact that the previous Financial Provisions Act was passed in 2014. Given the passage of time, a range of outstanding issues need to be addressed. That is one of the reasons why there are 20 substantive clauses in the Bill.

I note that the Committee took evidence from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) last week. We found that very useful. We know that the Committee has the RaISe report, which outlines a number of key considerations. My understanding is that those issues have now been circulated to other Committees, and my counterparts in other Departments are working to provide responses on those issues. The Department of Finance will work closely with other contributing Departments to ensure that all the issues raised are addressed. In addition to our role in coordinating the Bill, we are directly responsible for three clauses, which relate to strategic investment funding, advances from the Consolidated Fund and the appointment of the auditor for the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO).

With that, I am happy to take any questions that members have.

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

This is a really important Bill. It is a sort of tidying-up Bill, but there is lots of stuff in there, and, because of that, we need to understand it. Some of the questions might be quite obvious, but this is one of those Bills where it is really important for us to understand the purpose of everything in it. We await the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR) coming back to us on the delegated powers component.

We got a briefing from RaISe last week on the timelines around the Bill. In many ways, the start of the process was January 2024, but I presume that lots of the work on it actually started years upon years ago — that there has been a snowball of things that were on the spike and needed to be added to a Bill like this. Is that true, and could you give us a sense of the departmental thinking in the period from 2014 to 2024? My memory of being on the Finance Committee between 2020 and 2022 is that there was at least some acknowledgement that there needed to be an updated financial provisions Bill. I think that, then, we were just calling it a "financial provisions Bill" rather than "Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill". Could you give us some sense of how long this has been talked about inside the Department?

Mr Neeson: For several years, at the very least. I will give the example of the financial transactions capital (FTC) clause, which gives DOF the power to issue loans and so on. That relates to the Northern Ireland Investment Fund and the need for the Department of Finance to be able to give loans to look after the fund rather than rely on TEO. We have been aware of things like that for a number of years. We knew that there was a need for a financial provisions Bill. It was always the intention to have a financial provisions Bill to deal with those sorts of matters.

I do not remember the exact timing, but I know that we went out to Departments to say that the Department of Finance wished to introduce a financial provisions Bill and to ask them what they might want to include in the Bill. My recollection is that we went out in 2022, but I am not sure of the exact timing. As you say, we went back out again in early 2024 to tell Departments that, with a returning Executive and so on, we hoped to introduce a financial provisions Bill, and to ask them whether there were things that they wanted to include in that Bill. That gathered pace as we started to develop the Bill. Departments came to us during the development of the Bill to say, "We understand that there is going to be a financial provisions Bill. We think that that would be useful to implement this legislative change". That happened until the point that we are at today, with a Bill of 23 clauses.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Was one of the things that delayed the Bill the fact that people kept coming and saying, "Could you add this?", or "Could you add that?"?

Mr Neeson: I would not necessarily say so. One of the reasons why we were able to accommodate those was that development of the Bill was a rolling programme. I do not know how many clauses we started with — maybe a dozen or so. We engaged with the Departments and the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), which was really supportive and helpful in doing its job on the development of the Bill. That process was ongoing, and others came on board. There was a snowball effect — it gathered in size and pace — but I would not say that that delayed it significantly.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Until January 2024, there were things on the to-do list or the to-legislate-for list — there were things in the black box or that were known to be anomalies. One of them was FTC and the fact that DOF does not have the power, by itself, to make FTC loans under the NI Investment Fund, which is an anomalous situation, given that it is the recipient and the NI Investment Fund had to operate. That had to be resolved. I presume that several things will have been added afterwards. From memory, the Victims and Survivors Service was a longstanding anomaly, which had been talked about before 2024. What was added subsequent to January 2024?

Mr Neeson: DFE has a number of clauses in the Bill, some of which relate to DFE's reflections, post-COVID, that it needs greater powers to do certain things. DFE almost wanted its own financial provisions Bill. Those were things that were added. Some TEO issues, for which TEO recognised that it needed greater legislative cover, were added. There were things that came late in the day. For example, the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse (COSICA) came reasonably late in the day, as TEO recognised the need for legislative cover to change the length of term. I do not have an exact list of timings, but I can come back and tell you what things were there when we started, and what other things came on board and when. I can give you those in chronological order.

Mr Ian Fleming (Department of Finance): When we first commissioned returns, in January, we went to the Executive. The Infrastructure Minister wanted to add SmartPass fees. That was added at Executive level.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The Infrastructure Minister wanted to add SmartPass fees.

Mr Fleming: Yes, it was agreed at the Executive table at that stage that SmartPass fees would be added.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Why? What was the reason for that?

Mr Fleming: From memory, they were just a late addition.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Why were they a late addition? There must be a reason why the Infrastructure Minister wanted to add them.

Mr Fleming: I think that it is the same reason that the fees are included now: to help financial sustainability and raise additional funds.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The Infrastructure Minister wanted to do that, but, presumably, if that was part of the financial sustainability work, it would have been submitted, via the Department of Finance, into the Budget sustainability discussions. Did that arise from discussions with your Department or the UK Government?

Mr Neeson: We went out to all Departments and said, "We're developing a financial provisions Bill. Are there any legislative matters that you require to be covered in it?". DFI made an approach. There was a policy choice to look at introducing SmartPass fees, which gave it an opportunity to come to us to say, "Look, we feel that the financial provisions Bill is a useful and timely vehicle to bring in the legislation that we need".

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is not policy yet.

Mr Neeson: No, but it needed legislative change in order to allow it to bring in fees. The financial provisions Bill gave it that legislative opportunity.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That was decided by the Executive; the Executive said, "We want to give DFI the power to possibly bring in SmartPass fees".

Mr Neeson: The Executive agreed to the contents of the financial provisions Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am interested in whether it was made explicit to people that it included things such as the provision to introduce SmartPass charges. That has not been discussed in a policy sense. It is a theoretical subject that occasionally comes up in respect of fiscal sustainability, but I am not aware of its being the policy intent of any Minister.

Mr Neeson: The Bill gives DFI the ability to introduce fees at some point in the future, should it decide to do so.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Currently, would that be subject to negative or draft affirmative resolution?

Mr Neeson: My understanding is that it would be subject to negative resolution.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): This is just to get the details. There has been no policy discussion yet publicly, and no policy confirmation by the Executive, that they want to introduce SmartPass charges. However, the Bill would, effectively, give the Minister the power to introduce those charges, and there would never have to be a vote. There may have to be a policy discussion at the Executive, but we do not know; it could happen without a vote.

Mr Fleming: No, there has been a vote. There was a Second Stage vote before the Bill was brought here. Members had the opportunity then to discuss the principle of introducing SmartPass fees.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am aware of that, but we still have to vote on the Bill, clause by clause. We still have the opportunity to vote in that regard. It is fair to say that we have had an initial vote on the principles of the Bill — I participated in that debate — but that is not the same as a Bill's going through its scrutiny, which is what is happening now. This is exactly the purpose of our scrutiny. I think that a lot of people will be surprised to learn that it is proposed to take that power and then exercise it without a draft affirmative vote, unlike with, for example, a change in the rates order, which would require a draft affirmative vote. The Examiner of Statutory Rules will explain all those secondary powers to us.

How do you foresee FTC being used differently by the Department, as opposed to by the Strategic Investment Board (SIB)?

Mr Neeson: That clause has not necessarily been introduced to allow the Department to do anything differently; in the first instance, it is to address the anomaly that exists whereby the Department of Finance has policy responsibility on behalf of the Executive for administering the financial provisions Bill but currently relies on the Executive Office and SIB for loans to be made to the Investment Fund and for moneys to be repaid. A commitment was given that, when TEO took on that responsibility — when the Investment Fund was first introduced — that was until such times as DOF had the legal vires to issue loans. That is the reason for the clause in the first instance. Having said that, I think that the Minister is keen that, if we have the power, we will certainly explore all opportunities for using FTC.

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

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Patrick, Ian and Sarah, for being here today.

As you outlined, the previous Act was passed in 2014, so, after 11 years, there is a lot to catch up on. Therefore, I understand why there are a lot of detailed clauses in the Bill. Given that it has been so long, I am a bit concerned that there are so many new items that have come through and are sitting in it as being subject to negative resolution rather than draft affirmative. It is quite a chunky piece of legislation. Quite often — we see it across a number of Committees — there are policy areas, and then there is this: the financial element. People just see it as coming behind, whereas it is actually the bottom-line control that we have in place in respect of what is charged to the public and what needs to come back to the Assembly. That is what the Chair was saying. Would you expect this legislation to be updated every year or so and for it to be a live thing? On that basis, should we have more things that are subject to draft affirmative and then move to negative resolution, as we understand how the legislation progresses year-on-year?

Mr Neeson: I do not foresee us having a financial provisions Bill annually or every couple of years. Traditionally, we have sought to do one about every five years, which I think is timely in order to ensure that there is enough to warrant introducing a Bill.

We have spoken about the negative resolution issue with departmental colleagues who are seeking to take through the relevant clauses. Their view is that there will be an opportunity for scrutiny in their engagement with the respective Committees. It could be discussed at the Executive, if there are policy matters to be taken forward. They also want the flexibility to amend fees regularly, perhaps annually, and, if that involves coming back and taking up Assembly time, it might slow up the process and affect their ability to be flexible. My understanding is that that is why their view is that those matters need to be subject to negative resolution.

Ms Forsythe: As the Chair outlined, where there is a clear policy intent in a brand-new area, this is our opportunity to safeguard and ensure that it needs to come to the Assembly. For example, the Infrastructure Minister introducing the negative resolution power whereby there could be a change in the SmartPass is something that we have the opportunity to safeguard against until a clear policy decision is made. That is my view, given that there has not been a substantive piece of legislation for over 10 years. There are so many clauses and so many policy areas, and there are a lot of new Members in the Assembly, myself included. I am concerned that a lot of things will not have that extra safeguard, but we will go through that when we get to our clause-by-clause scrutiny.

Given that so many things have changed over the past 10 years, when this legislation comes in, will any orders, regulations or policies that have happened in the interim be nullified or set aside?

Mr Neeson: I will need to come back to you in writing on that one.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you. Since the previous Bill, bits and pieces of charges and fees have probably come through in different ways, and I am interested to see how that stacks up against the core powers in this one.

I was going to ask about the length of time between Bills. You said that the expectation is that they may come every five years.

This may not be within your scope, but I asked a question last week, on the back of the RaISe paper, about the increase in the percentage advance to the Consolidated Fund. It is perhaps best-placed in the correspondence that has gone out. It is proposed to increase the advance from 2% to 4%, and I am keen to understand why that is. Are we hitting the 2%? Is it based on exceptional circumstances like COVID? When it looks broadly out of line with other jurisdictions, is that —?

Mr Neeson: We can do the work to look at previous years and see whether we came close to or got to hitting the 2% limit. My view is that that is as much to do with timing as cost. As you know, it is often very tight to get the Executive to agree a Budget, do consultation on that, get a final Budget agreed, get a Budget Bill through the Assembly, do the Estimates and all those processes, and then get Royal Assent. All that has to happen before Departments have the legal authority to use that Budget. It is always very tight to get that done in a timely manner. We are usually sweating it out through the summer and keeping our fingers crossed that we can get Royal Assent before Departments start needing excess in that manner.

The increase from 2% to 4% is about trying to have an additional safety net to give us a bit more leeway. Therefore, if there are delays in getting Executive agreement to a Budget, getting a Budget Bill through the Assembly and, ultimately, getting Royal Assent, we will have that additional safety net in place. That is the driving force behind it — it is a timing thing. If Royal Assent were delayed, you could quickly reach that 2% limit.

Ms Forsythe: We raised that last week and sought more clarity on how close we ever come to hitting the 2%. It is 0·5% in other jurisdictions, so 2% seems more than healthy. As my colleague Paul Frew said last week, if you thought that you were going to hit 4%, that is a very high figure to put in as your baseline, when everybody else is sitting at 0·5% and we are at 2%. If you need it in an emergency circumstance, such as COVID, a regulation for it could be brought in very quickly. I am keen to keep the lower number. Even 2% seems a bit high when everybody else is at 0·5%. It is very hard to understand the logic of bringing that 4% through.

Mr Neeson: Another point that it is worth bearing in mind is that it also relates to annually management expenditure (AME), which can be a very big number. That is why I said that, if there are delays in getting Royal Assent, you could very quickly find yourself getting to the 2% limit. Whatever the limits are in Scotland and Wales, we feel that this is an appropriate measure for the Executive, given the way that our budgetary process works and the time that it takes to get agreement on a Budget and so on, as I have described. It is an extra safety net. We hope that it will never be needed, but we think that it is a useful amendment to make to the powers that we have at the minute.

Ms Forsythe: I go back to my point, and I am not trying to be difficult: rather than it being about having a safety net, this is about our financial control. We asked about it before, and I am keen to see how close we come to hitting the 2%. If we are hitting it consistently, the numbers will be there and we will be able to see them. If it is going to move, it would be really good to see those numbers to be able to understand them. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Just to double-check: are you saying that a factor is that there is a greater proportion of AME here than in Scotland and Wales?

Mr Neeson: No, I am not saying that. I just make the point that, when talk about the total supply in the previous year, it is a percentage of that, including AME, so it could be a big number.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Further to what Diane asked, is that part of the argument? Are we already four times the proportion of the other devolved Administrations because we have proportionately more AME spending locally? Maybe you can come back to us on that question, because it would be helpful to know that.

On the SmartPass, there may well be arguments about sustainability, and, clearly, that was a big part of the discussion when this place was restored. However, I do not think that people would think that it clever if a power were taken — not quite a Henry VIII power, but that kind of thing — to effectively —. That charge is not being introduced by the back door, because we are literally scrutinising it now. However, this is not the valorisation, indexation or operation of a charge; it is the introduction of a charge for the first time. That may or may not be the right thing to do. Lots of people will say that it is a terrible thing, and other people will say that there is a fiscal reason to do it, but it is important that there is clarity on it.

Miss Dolan: You might not be able to answer this — it might be a question for the Infrastructure Minister — but, for clarity: is the SmartPass scheme not similar to the baby loss certificate scheme, where you have the power to charge but you might not necessarily use it? Is that right?

Mr Neeson: That is right. The Bill will give DFI the ability to introduce a fee; we are not talking about the introduction of a fee per se.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The baby loss certificate scheme is subject to draft affirmative resolution, so there has to be a vote in the Assembly. Currently, the SmartPass fees would be subject to negative resolution, so there will be no vote. It is different in that sense.

Miss Dolan: I was just looking for clarity on that. Thank you.

Mr Carroll: I know that there are technical differences, but it is strange that, on the SmartPass and the baby loss certificates, the Department will claim that it will not implement charges but then introduce legislation that will allow it to implement charges. The obvious point to make is this: if you are not going to implement charges, do not introduce the legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Just to repeat: they are different. The baby loss certificate is subject to draft affirmative, so there could never be a charge without the Assembly voting for it. Currently, the SmartPass scheme is subject to negative, so it —

Mr Carroll: Yes, I said that there were differences, but the principle is the same in introducing that logic. In the case of the SmartPass, it is trying to change the law to allow for a charge.

Financial stability was mentioned, but what are not talked about or emphasised enough are the societal impacts and benefits of SmartPass travel. It reduces loneliness and the number of people going to hospital, their doctor and so on. Leaving the other argument aside, the principle is worth defending, and the concept of introducing a charge is worth challenging, and I did so in the debate.

Is there concern about the issue in the Department of Finance, given the fact that 54% of respondents to the DFI's consultation are opposed to introducing SmartPass charges? There is debate on and challenging of the policy, and I think that is wrong to charge people for that. It should not happen. In the Department's consultation, 54% of respondents are opposed to charging, so is there not a question of democracy and accountability? I appreciate that it is coming from a different Department, but it is part of a Bill on which the Department of Finance is leading. Is there any concern about that within the Department?

Mr Neeson: Obviously, it will be for DFI to defend its policy, if it brings in fees. When we broached the matter with DFI, it made the point that charges would help to support or enable the continued delivery of the SmartPass policy. It costs DFI around £500,000 per year to administer the scheme. If it decides to have charges for SmartPass applications, renewals and so on, that money would support DFI in being able to meet the administrative costs of having the scheme. That is probably one of the approaches that DFI would take. Under 'Managing Public Money' rules, a Department cannot raise more in charges than it would cost for it to administer a scheme. It is worth making the point that there is that constraint on DFI. In my view, if you ask citizens whether they want to pay more for something, and 46% say yes, that is actually quite a high minority. They accept the need to pay for the SmartPass in order to support the continued provision of the service.

Mr Carroll: The obvious question in response to that, Patrick, is this: what is the point of the public engaging in a consultation if the majority say one thing and the Department goes in a different direction? I know that it is not the Department of Finance's consultation, but it is the Department of Finance's Bill. There is an onus on the Minister, or whoever, to look at the democracy element. We are supposed to be making policy that reflects the position of the public. When the public engage in a consultation, they expect that their views will be taken on board. I have made the point, and I would appreciate it if it could be fed back.

I am not sure whether my next point is for you, Patrick. You said that the clauses and decisions have been some years in the making and are all coming together now. If a certain Department decided now to introduce an additional provision, what process would you have to go through to get it into the Bill or on to the Floor for consideration? Or, has the Department made a consideration that this is the Bill?

Mr Neeson: I imagine, Gerry, that Members can table amendments to the legislation as it works its way through the Assembly stages. If a Department wanted to introduce another clause, it would have that ability. I have to admit that I have not fully thought through that prospect, but I imagine that that would be possible.

Mr Carroll: Thanks.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I will bring in Dr Aiken. You have one minute, Steve, because you have to go in a second. Do you want to come in quickly? We may have lost him.

Steve Aiken had a particular question, and I will ask it on his behalf. Paragraph 27 of the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) suggests that there are no financial effects of the Bill. Steve wanted to ask why that is the case. I presume that it is because the Bill does not legislate to do anything; it just gives powers to do things. He asked that that question be asked.

Mr Neeson: I take the same view that the Bill, in and of itself, does not have any financial implications. It may lead to financial implications, but, obviously, those would be indirect.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Gerry's point about the consultation and, in a sense, the direct democracy element is fair enough, but there is a potential worry that the negative resolution part of the Bill, most notably on SmartPasses, although that is not the only part, slightly undermines public trust in Stormont. Has the Department thought about that? You made the point, Patrick, which is probably fair, that Joe and Jane Bloggs do not particularly like being charged for things that they have not been charged for before but for which sometimes there is a policy need or rationale. That is where political leaders step in. They have been elected to make decisions — sometimes difficult decisions. One of the worries is that, if the Bill is passed as drafted, it will bypass that difficult decision for at least the Assembly. It means that something could happen via negative resolution, which means that it would be laid in the Assembly but there would be no vote on it. That might surprise a lot of people if it happened. That is not to say that it is a good or bad idea in itself; it is just that there is no vote on it. I am putting that on the record, rather than making a comment on it.

Mr Kingston: I am asking this for my own understanding. Some of the things that the Bill refers to are happening, but the legislation will formally confer the power to do them. I would like to clarify what the situation is. There is already a bit of discretion to undertake some powers. I want to understand what will change. Is the Bill about tidying things up so that the provision is there if there is any challenge to what is being done?

Mr Neeson: That concerns aspects of public service delivery that rely on what is known as the sole authority of the Budget Act. They are known as black box items and are items on which the Budget Act gives the respective Departments the authority to spend money. You will see a number of those items in TEO and other places. The Bill is a legislative tidy-up to ensure that those Departments no longer need to rely on what is known as the sole authority of the Budget Act and will have their own legislation. There are constraints on the length of time that sole authority can be relied upon and on the amount of money that relates to those elements. It deals with that. You are right, yes, the Bill deals with a number of those items.

Mr Kingston: There is a bit of tolerance that allows Departments to do things on a temporary basis as required in the interests of the public good.

Mr Neeson: That is right. Limits are set out in the 'Managing Public Money' rules on which you can rely for sole authority of the Budget Act. It is fair to say that we have been stretching those limits up till now. We and the Committee have been very keen to try to address that. One of the benefits of the Bill is that it deals with a number of those items.

Mr Kingston: The EFM states that the Department of Education will make payments to:

The Education Minister announced today some teaching certificate courses in which there is an undersupply. How does that tie in with educational psychology specifically? Has he used his existing powers in that announcement of, I think, earlier today? Is it necessary to list the courses?

Mr Neeson: That is what is known as DECAP, which stands for doctorate in educational, child and adolescent psychology. I think that that was almost an oversight in that, when the Department of Education took on the policy ability for the course, it discovered that it did not have the legislative power to spend money on it. The legislation is seeking to address the anomaly in the specific bursary that is paid to those students, who are, essentially, educational psychologists.

Mr Kingston: Does that power already exist for some other specific courses?

Mr Neeson: I am not sure what those other courses are, but I imagine that the Department already has the legal authority to spend money in whatever area they are.

Mr Kingston: Sciences and some languages.

Mr Fleming: The power transferred to the former Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. It then transferred to DFE when the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) joined DFE. DE is now funding the scheme, but it does not have that power. The Department wants to bring that in so that it can educate those psychologists to deal with special educational needs. That course has been going for a while. The Department realised that it did not have that power, and that is why it is taking it forward. It is specifically to fund that one course. I do not think that it has any implications for the other courses that the Minister announced during the week.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I have one other point about fees. Clause 15 is on allowing Tourism NI to charge. There are two tourism elements in the clause. One is to allow Tourism NI to basically grade visitor accommodation. Fáilte Ireland can say, "This is four-star accommodation", and I think that the Scottish tourism board can too, but Tourism NI cannot.

Mr Fleming: Tourism NI has the power to grade accommodation, but it does not have the power to do so for amenities.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Apologies. Thank you for that clarification.

The other point is on fees. Clause 15 amends the Tourism (NI) Order 1992 to allow DFE to exempt or omit certain fees and to charge new fees. The EFM states:

That is obviously a DFE lead, and it has come to you guys in the Department to ask for it. Did you get an indication of the kinds of fees that Tourism NI might want to introduce?

Mr Neeson: I think that it is for training events, workshops —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): By the way, to be clear, I am not suggesting that those things should be free.

Mr Neeson: — that sort of thing for the industry. It would be sectoral events, such as meet the buyer events. It thinks that there is a reasonable case to make to have a reasonable charge for those types of events.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Those are not necessarily events for the public. It is not as though it will part fund things such as the Open, the Irish Open or the Giro d'Italia, because that is for the organisers. It is about saying that, if you are a hotelier or a tourism provider of some kind, you might be charged a tenner to attend a workshop.

Mr Neeson: That is my understanding. That is the sort of thing that we are talking about here, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That makes more sense.

Ms Forsythe: Following on from the Chair's question on that issue, there have been very significant audit opinions on Tourism NI's accounts for the past two years on the fees for three separate schemes. A lot of concerns have been raised by external audit. Schemes have been frozen, and there have been irregularities in spend and disclaimed audit opinions based on its fees. Do you take account of that past record? I am just trying to go through the details of clause 15. I am unclear whether it will be for negative resolution or draft affirmative. I just cannot pull that out.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Is that on fees for Tourism NI?

Ms Forsythe: Yes. I am just trying to pull out the language on it.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It says "via regulations" in the EFM, but I do not know. It is negative.

Ms Forsythe: It is negative.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is probably slightly less controversial.

Ms Forsythe: As I said, there are a number of issues on fees for Tourism NI. Does that feed into your process, or do you just take the request for the power?

Mr Neeson: We need to investigate that further with DFE to see whether there are concerns about past accounts and opinion and so on. We will obviously investigate whether there is any link between that and what you are proposing, but we are happy to come back to you on that.

Mr Fleming: The Committee for the Economy discussed the Bill this morning and was content with it. It said that it would write to the Finance Committee to confirm that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Sometimes the purpose of us on the Finance Committee is to mark our Committee colleagues' homework, because they sometimes push Budget scrutiny to us. That is fair enough, but neither a Second Stage vote nor another Committee's work absolves us of our right or responsibility to do due diligence.

On that note, I have a couple of additional points to make, if I may, one of which is about consultation. I am not saying that this is the most controversial or hellaciously difficult Bill of all time, but I note that paragraph 22 of the EFM states:

That remains to be seen, but, on the basis of our relatively limited scrutiny of the Bill thus far, it is fair to say that it is not completely technical. Some of the changes are relatively substantial, and I mean not only those that are on the fees side. We can raise this with the Examiner of Statutory Rules, but one of the Executive's huge priorities is, quite rightly, ending violence against women and girls. Clause 9 gives a very sweeping power to the Executive Office to:

That may well be correct — we all want to see everything that is possible done to address violence against women and girls — but it is drafted in such a broad way that means that, at first glance, it appears to be an innovative thing for us to understand. As with the SmartPass, concessionary fees and some other bits of the Bill, my question is this: who made the decision about the Bill that it is only technical and non-controversial?

Mr Neeson: We relied on the Departments to carry out their own consultations. A number of them have done so and may well do so —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): On the provisions of the Bill?

Mr Neeson: — yes, on aspects of the Bill — on their policy intent after, touch wood, the Bill is enacted. We relied on Departments for appropriate consultation and allowed them to be the judge of that. We see clause 10 as a counterbalance to clause 9.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It imposes some limit.

Mr Neeson: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is reasonable for us to ask why that specific form of words is in the Bill. That may be a question primarily for the Executive Office Committee, but, because we have ownership of the Bill for scrutiny, it is right that we read and understand those things.

This is my final question, but the Deputy Chair wants to come back in. It is clear from the EFM that sustainability and, potentially, revenue raising are part of the context of the Bill. Making the power for concessionary fares subject to negative resolution bypasses not just public scrutiny or a vote in the Assembly but a conversation with the public about why an inevitably difficult decision has been taken. No politician ever wants to say to a person who quite likes that provision, "You're going to have to pay a bit more to get on the bus or the train". In doing it by secondary legislation, you are kind of bypassing that issue. My question is this: was there any discussion on the Bill with the UK Government at any stage?

Mr Neeson: No, not as far as I am aware. From the budget sustainability perspective, we are talking about potentially bringing in or increasing charges to meet the administrative costs of delivering a number of services. It is about helping to make the delivery of those services sustainable.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Are you saying that that is policy? You might be talking about sustainability in the sense of introducing a small charge so that a scheme washes its face, but the Executive have not taken the policy decision to do that any more than they have said, "We want to double, triple or quadruple charges in order to raise x millions of pounds to spend on something else". Does that mean that neither policy decision has been made by the Executive?

Mr Neeson: I do not think that the Executive view that as a budget sustainability measure.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You said that there was a budget sustainability aspect to it.

Mr Neeson: There is in the sense that it will make the delivery of services more affordable. It will help meet the gap between the current cost of delivering those services and what Departments have available to meet that cost. It will make the delivery of those services more sustainable. On the question of wider budget sustainability and whether it will help fill the gap if additional or increased fees and charges come in as a result of the Bill, it is like the Tesco approach of "Every little helps". There is definitely a dimension to it — I will not deny that — but it is not the driving force behind the Bill's coming in.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): In conversations with the Treasury, for example, on the fiscal framework or budget sustainability, when Ministers and officials were being asked what they were doing to deliver what was agreed in February 2024, what was happening with x, y and z and what they were doing to meet their part of the deal, did any official or Minister say, "There'll be provisions that will give us extra powers to raise fees. That is coming in a piece of legislation"?

Mr Neeson: Not that I am aware of, but I am happy to check.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It would be helpful for us if we could find that out. Although our initial sense is that the Bill is largely technical and that there is definitely loads of stuff that is necessary, it is also important that we do our due diligence on all elements of it. If the Bill includes substantive measures that will help budget sustainability — I am not saying that they will — or will create flexibility for when Stormont collapses, we need to understand why they are there. The public will want us to understand whether a Bill is being used to cover the blushes of others' political ineptitude, and I do not mean officials' ineptitude, by the way. In the face of constant Stormont collapse and failure to manage resource, the public will want to know whether we are using a Bill to cram loads of stuff in. We need to understand that and to figure it out. It would be helpful if you came back to us on whether those conversations happened with the UK Government and whether they were made aware of the existence of this Bill with its new powers or that it was going to be drafted.

No one else wants to come in. You have been frank. I appreciate that you are corralling a Bill that contains lots of other things, such as marine licensing, and that you have lots of Departments to corral over a three-year Budget exercise.

Mr Kingston: Apologies for coming in late. Clause 8 will provide TEO with the power to provide:

with a view to:

What is meant by "public appointments"? What is the range? Obviously, the merit principle must ultimately apply for appointments.

Mr Neeson: It relates to the boardroom apprenticeship scheme. I am not sure whether you have heard of that. I am not completely familiar with the details, but I believe that it is an attempt to encourage people who are normally under-represented on boards to be members of boards on an apprenticeship basis. The broad thrust of the scheme is to encourage greater representation from those who are not normally represented on boards.

Mr Kingston: Do you mean boards of public bodies? What do you mean by "boardroom"? Could it be a company?

Mr Neeson: No, it means public-sector boards and maybe a departmental board or something like that. We can get more detail on the types of boards that participate in the boardroom apprenticeship scheme. Again, that is one of the measures that is happening at the minute, and the Executive Office believes that it needs legislative cover for the money that it is spending.

Mr Kingston: It happens already.

Mr Neeson: Yes.

Mr Fleming: It happened in the past, but I do not think that the scheme is currently running. The legislation is to increase the representation of people, such as females and so on, who are under-represented on boards.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is board with an "a", not "bored", as happens in this room quite a lot of the time, for the people who are watching.

Anyway, thank you. I am sure that we will have you back at some point to talk about the Bill and other matters. Thank you, Patrick, Ian and Sarah.

Members, I am going to retrospectively get agreement that Hansard report the session. It has been reporting it the whole time, but I am sure that members are happy enough with that. Are members agreed?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We have a few specific things that we asked about and have made notes on.

The Committee Clerk: We have the ESR booked in for 22 October on the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. She will give her usual closed-session legal advice on each of the resolutions that are built into the Bill, so she will give a view on where things will be decided by negative resolution and so on.

This is a DOF Bill. This Committee is leading the Committee Stage. While the Committee has gone out to other Committees where they have relevance and there are clauses that are relevant to the Department that they scrutinise, it is ultimately for this Committee to make a decision on how it wants the scrutiny of the Bill to be done and to satisfy itself that that scrutiny has been appropriate.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It will be us who produce the Committee report. I do not think that this would happen, but if, for example, we had produced a report where we had missed a significant power's being taken in secondary legislation to do something quite significant and then it happened all of a sudden and people were like, "Oh, hang on. I am 66 years old. Why am I being charged money when I wasn't before to get the bus to Derry?", that would have been our responsibility, and we might have missed out on it. That is why it matters.

I am just going to raise a matter of correspondence —.

Ms Forsythe: Just on that point, in the most simple of terms, this is our bottom line financial control in all these pieces. It would be good if we had a simple list of the negative resolution powers, draft affirmative powers and new powers in the legislation all set out in a very simple table so that we have a clear understanding. Ten years' worth of things are getting caught up on in one piece of legislation, and we are the last line of defence in the finance. I would prefer everything to be draft affirmative and forced to the Assembly to make sure that we catch everything and do not end up in a position that we do not want to be in.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): There are certain things that reasonably get operated by negative resolution, but there are other new things to consider. I presume that the ESR will give us all that information, but perhaps it is worth our asking for it in a very simple tabular form.

The Committee Clerk: The delegated powers memorandum is not necessarily laid out in a user-friendly way, so we will break down where those powers apply in particular clauses and what it is and so on. As the Deputy Chair said, that kind of table that is crystal clear would mean that nothing will get missed.

Ms Forsythe: There is a lot in this piece of legislation.

The Committee Clerk: There is a lot going on. You can see from the memorandum that that is worth expanding. As members will recall, as was the case with the previous Bill that we discussed, when the ESR comes, she will go through each provision in turn and give her view. She will have advice for us on each of those.

Mr Harvey: Regarding SmartPass applications renewals, the papers state:

Can we change that to —?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is in the delegated powers memorandum. That is exactly the point. We will be able to question the ESR on that, and she will give us advice on its appropriateness. She will go through every single clause and every single power that is being taken and how it gets taken, such as whether it will be decided by negative resolution where it can just be laid and there is no vote, or whether it will be decided by draft affirmative, where it is laid and there is a full-blown vote in the Assembly.

That was useful. We flushed out a few particular things there.

The Committee Clerk: We will also have evidence from the ESR about the Fiscal Council Bill — we have already had the memorandum through — on 8 October. You will be well versed in anything that the ESR has to say by the end of the process, but, again, that is built into the extension.

While I am on that issue, our motions to extend our Committee Stages have been scheduled for Tuesday 30 September. I assume that they will be taken as one item. I want members to be aware of that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Members, I wish to raise a piece of correspondence from the Audit Committee with you. I have shared a hard copy. The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson, who, helpfully, is also the Deputy Chairperson of this Committee came back to us to ask for reconsideration of one of the things in the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill, which is the provision that gives the Audit Committee the power to appoint the external auditor to the Northern Ireland Audit Office. The Audit Committee appointing an auditor to the Northern Ireland Audit Office seems very complicated, but it is an important issue. Currently, the Bill provides that the Audit Committee procure that service. That was, I think, provisionally agreed by the predecessor Committee in the previous mandate. The successor Committee, however, is now saying, perhaps understandably, that it does not think that that is sensible. The Deputy Chair wants to speak to that, given that she is on the Audit Committee.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Chair. I perhaps should have declared my membership of the Audit Committee at the outset. Jemma Dolan and I were at the Audit Committee meeting this morning at which we discussed the issue. The previous recommendation about the appointment was in the interests of the independence of the Audit Committee. When we got into the detail, however, we noted that, although the Audit Committee is independent, it has only five members. It does not have the staff, budget or capacity to run a procurement exercise, carry out a full-scale competition, including assessing audit firms, and appoint someone. We therefore do not have the capacity to contract-manage.

It is also in the middle of the term — I think that the term is three years — of the procurement of the existing external auditor for the NIAO. Procurement is already being managed by the Department of Finance. The Audit Committee therefore asks this Committee to consider further the practicalities. At this time, the Audit Committee does not have the capacity to take on the practicalities of the process. We ask that the Committee consider tabling an amendment to clause 20 to change the previous recommendation in its entirety or to defer it. I think that that is fair. Jemma, do you?

Miss Dolan: Yes, that has been well covered.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That makes sense. It now seems obvious that a small Assembly Committee is not in a position to run a procurement exercise. To be brutally honest, it seems like an accident waiting to happen. I agree, and we can discuss that as we continue our scrutiny. We can discuss the letter in more detail in the future.

The Committee Clerk: It is a very comprehensive letter. It includes a number of suggested steps.

Ms Forsythe: We can get legal advice on it as well.

The Committee Clerk: We will probably ask members to authorise us to get legal advice as well. Legal advice cannot be shared between Committees, so we will need to get our own. If we bring the matter back as a discussion item next week, members can then have a look at the suggested steps that the Audit Committee has recommended.

Miss Dolan: I probably should have asked this question this morning at the Audit Committee. Does the amendment come from the Audit Committee to this Committee, or does this Committee table it as an amendment to the Bill?

Ms Forsythe: This Committee will lead.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It could be either, I guess.

The Committee Clerk: Anyone can do that. If, however, we follow the process that is already in train, although potential suggestions from the Audit Committee are more than welcome, we have the Bill Clerk, and it would be our Bill Clerk to whom we go. It is this Committee that will be the one that will discuss any potential amendment with the Bill Clerk.

Miss Dolan: That is perfect.

The Committee Clerk: I flag the fact that the Department is aware of the issue. It has been flagged by me and, probably, the Committee Clerk of the Audit Committee. We will discuss it further, and, once the Committee has had a good look at the letter next week, members will probably want to share it with the Department. Its officials will hear everything that is being said now, but the issue has certainly been flagged to them already. No doubt, they will be giving it some thought.

If members are content, we will bring the matter back next week and have a bigger discussion around it.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK.