Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): This is our final oral briefing from the Department of Finance on the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. The purpose of this session is to discuss any outstanding matters before proceeding to informal and formal clause-by-clause consideration next week. We are not doing that today; that is next week. Should we undertake these informal discussions in closed session? Do we have to do that?

The Committee Clerk: It is optional for members if they want to. It just means that we can take advice as well from our Bill Clerk.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): My preference is that we do this in open session. I just think that that is good practice. If we need advice from the Bill Clerk, we will go into closed session. Members may need to take advice from the Bill Clerk on these things. This is an opportunity to put final questions to the Department on the Bill, recognising that while the Department is the pen holder, it is not responsible for all of the precise policy measures in the Bill. Are members content to hold out the possibility of going into closed session, but to start on the basis that we will be in open session?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I hope that the officials are content with that. We are not doing it for any particularly salacious or publicity-seeking reasons. It is purely for the reason that transparency, where possible, should always be the default position. Are you happy enough?

Mr Patrick Neeson (Department of Finance): Happy enough, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Great, thank you. We have not asked you to provide an oral statement. Is there anything else that you particularly want to draw to our attention? Did you want to start with an oral statement? No? I do not think that we asked for one.

Mr Neeson: I have a short statement, if that would be helpful.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Do you want to give us one to start with? Go on ahead.

Mr Neeson: I have a pre-statement, which is to say that the spring Supplementary Estimates (SSE) publication is now with the Assembly's Business Office. [Laughter.]

Better late than never, but we will move on.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I hope that it has a big bow on it. We started off so well, and then we brought it back to the SSE being printed. Go on ahead.

Mr Neeson: Thanks, Chair, for this further opportunity. I am joined by my colleagues Sarah Gibson and Ian Fleming to brief the Committee today on the Bill. This is our third oral evidence session. We were here in September 2024 and September 2025. We have watched your deliberations with great interest, and I express our gratitude to the Committee for the time and effort that you have dedicated to the scrutiny of the Bill. I also want to thank the Committee Clerk for guiding us through the whole process; we really appreciate that help.

It is worth noting that the last Financial Provisions Bill was in 2014, so it has been 12 years since one was passed. Obviously, this Bill is well overdue, but the length of time also means that the Bill in front of us now is a lengthy and diverse one, with 20 clauses compared to seven in the previous Bill. We appreciate that it adds complexity to the Committee's consideration and workload, and I acknowledge that too. Moving forward, we recognise that it is not ideal to leave such a long gap between financial provisions Bills, so we hope to do it in a more timely manner in future.

With regard to the Bill itself, we received a note from the Committee Clerk providing a synopsis of the Committee's deliberations. We note that there are no outstanding queries or issues with clauses 1 to 10, 12 to 16 and 19. There are a few queries in relation to clauses 11, 17, 18 and 20. I will just say a few things about those.

Clause 11 is "Postgraduate qualifications in educational psychology". The Education Minister wrote to the Finance Minister in October 2025 requesting that that clause be amended to reflect the initial teacher education bursary scheme that the Education Minister wanted introduced. That is what that one relates to.

Clause 17 is "Travel concession passes", which is a DFI matter. We are aware from the evidence that Department for Infrastructure officials provided to the Committee that they seem to be content and they intend to change it from negative to affirmative resolution. We have not received confirmation of that yet from the Department for Infrastructure, but I believe that that is the intention.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You have not received confirmation that they drafted an amendment to clause 17?

Mr Neeson: No, we have not got anything in writing yet. We have been engaging with DFI officials, and we understand that that is the intention, but nothing has come formally as yet.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): They have said that their intention is that they will amend it to make it draft affirmative?

Mr Neeson: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK.

Mr Neeson: The letter from the Committee Clerk also mentioned clause 18, which relates to changing the limit for advances from the Consolidated Fund from 2% to 4%. I think that it mentioned amending the Bill or the explanatory and financial memorandum so that it referenced informing the Committee when a change was going to happen. That is in line with our procedures at the minute. We have a Supply Estimates manual that sets out all our processes and procedures. The manual states that, as soon as the Department asks for it and the Minister approves it, we should write to the Committee and others, so we do that already.

Clause 20 is around the Audit Committee. I think that our Minister has already accepted that that can be removed from the Bill. That is about the appointment of the external auditor to the Audit Office.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The point about the Consolidated Fund advance has been the subject of debate. Lots of these measures are not strictly to do with the Department of Finance, but we are scrutinising the Bill, and the Consolidated Fund is about the Department of Finance. The question that we had asked was whether we needed, as it were, to insert the Committee into the Bill — a line just saying, "and shall inform the Committee for Finance". You are saying that that is in guidance that you already have.

Mr Neeson: It is in our own guidance. I can read it out to you, perhaps, if we have it here somewhere. We have a Supply Estimates manual that sets out the process to be followed.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Are you saying that the Supply Estimates have to be printed?

Mr Neeson: I do not think that that —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am tempted to say that that is in the guidance too, but that would be facetious of me.

Mr Neeson: The process is that a Department requires an advance. It comes to ourselves in the Department of Finance. We prepare a submission for the Minister. As soon as the Minister approves that — I think that our guidance says that the Assembly must, wherever practicable, be given advance notice of the intention to use an advance from the Consolidated Fund — DOF will normally authorise an advance only after notification to the Assembly has been made, or at least arranged. There is text in the manual that means that we inform the Speaker, the Finance Committee and, I think, all MLAs.

Mr Ian Fleming (Department of Finance): The Treasury Officer of Accounts as well.

Mr Neeson: So we have processes that we follow.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK.

Mr Neeson: There is an issue around timing. This usually needs to be done really quickly, so a Department wants quick approval.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Of course, yes. It would not be reasonable for us to expect that we get advance notice. Being informed that it has happened is sensible, but not —. Inserting yourself into the middle of a live process is not wise, although others may think that it is. Finding out about it afterwards is certainly advisable, if it is in guidance.

Mr Neeson: There is one slight technicality, which is that some requests for advances do not need Minister of Finance approval. The Utility Regulator, on an annual basis, is an example of that, where it needs an advance in anticipation of receipts coming.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes, I know where this is —.

Mr Neeson: That does not need Minister of Finance approval.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It does not?

Mr Neeson: It does not. It is just one of those things that we need to think about if we are going to insert something into the legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is a regular, predictable advance that happens because of the nature of the way that it levies for its regulation work and all of that.

Mr Neeson: Yes. That is just a slight twist on it. We do not think that the management of that is insurmountable.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I will just ask this question now because it has occurred to me; perhaps I should have asked it before. Perhaps I knew it, and I have forgotten the answer. In the absence of a Minister of Finance — that is, when the institutions are down — to whom does a Consolidated Fund request go? Is it the Secretary of State?

Mr Neeson: It is the permanent secretary in the Department of Finance. They are the accounting officer.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. That is helpful. We raised specific questions over the course of the last couple of sessions, specifically on the Consolidated Fund advance. That is useful, but we will want to discuss whether we are satisfied with that being in departmental guidance or whether we think that a word or two could be usefully inserted without causing undue process. We have also talked about the regulatory power to charge for the administrative costs of travel cards. I will bring in members now who may want to ask further questions.

Ms Forsythe: I was going to make a comment on an amendment that I might bring.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. We will do that later.

Mr Kingston: With regard to the wording in the Clerk's report, what is the potential amendment? The wording here is:

whereas the Bill talks about "Advances out of Consolidated Fund".

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I think that is what it means. I think "drawdown" is just —. Obviously, the block grant is a drawdown. All money that is spent here, apart from —.

Mr Kingston: Money is constantly being drawn down.

The Committee Clerk: Technically, we get that anyway in the documentation, but it means any advance on the Consolidated Fund.

Mr Kingston: We do not need to be told every time. The way that it is worded there makes it sound as though, every time money is drawn down —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): No, that would be a constant thing. This is about advances. Are there any other questions that members wish to ask officials as we close out? This is the last opportunity that we will have, and we are trying to close our scrutiny of the Bill. Are there any other questions that members wish to ask, in either closed or open session?

Since the Bill was introduced, have there been any additional requests from a Department looking for a financial power or some vires or other?

Mr Neeson: There was one recently, although it turned out that it did not need legislation.

Mr Fleming: The first request that came in after the Bill was introduced was around educational psychology, and that is included. Then there was a request to change the term for the appointment of the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse (COSICA), which is also included in the BiIl now.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): There is going to be an amendment from the Finance Minister?

Mr Fleming: None of the amendments that are proposed have been to the Finance Minister. Striking out clause 20 has been agreed by the Finance Minister. Once we get the report from you, we will write to the Finance Minister, and he will write to the Executive. It is cross-cutting, so we want Executive agreement. Following that, DOF will bring forward the agreed amendments. There are a few additional amendments outside of the Committee, but I do not think that we have officially been informed of those.

Mr Neeson: There is nothing over and above what is in the legislation at the minute or the things that we are aware of that have been mentioned by the Clerk.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Are there any other further questions that members want to raise? An important question that came up in the debate on the Budget Bill yesterday is that the Minister indicated that it would possibly be spring next year before this Bill receives Royal Assent, which seems a very long time, given that we are doing our best to get scrutiny closed out in the next few weeks.

Mr Neeson: We are keen to move it forward as quickly as possible, so as soon as we hear back from the Committee, we will want to push it to the next stage as soon as we can. We just did not want to jinx ourselves and try to get it done by summer recess, but that is certainly our target. We have been prudent in suggesting that it will be in the autumn.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes, OK. Even if you did Consideration Stage, for the sake of argument — .You would think that it should not be impossible to do Consideration and Final Stage before summer recess, which would mean that, at the very latest, Royal Assent should be in the autumn time, given that various people will be taking time off in the summer.

Mr Neeson: We do not think that that is impossible.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. So that is a potential, not a target and not an estimate. I think that we are all keen to get this completed sooner rather than later.

OK, members. I do not think that anyone has any further questions. Are there any questions that members believe we need to answer in closed session? No? There is a notice of amendments. It is just worth putting on the record that I have put down an amendment, and there may be other individual Members who will do so. This is not a Bill that necessarily will automatically lend itself to Committee-style amendments, but the Deputy Chair wants to raise an amendment, and members can engage with her separately on that. Go ahead, Diane.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you very much, Chair. I knew that you had your amendment down as well. It is just that there is a wide range of amendments coming through. As I was planning to bring one, I wanted to discuss it in Committee. I have been involved with the Bill Office in the drafting it and, after having discussions with you as Chair, I think that I will probably progress it as an individual. I just wanted to bring it to Committee because it is an important amendment. It is my intention to table an amendment for a new clause following clause 14 to bring in conditions for suspension of public appointees so that, where a person holding a public appointment becomes subject to an investigation for an offence, the Minister or Ministers responsible for that appointment may suspend that person from holding that appointment until the conclusion of the proceedings. The Executive Office has indicated that it has agreement to legislate for that in the future, but I think that this is a good opportunity to bring it in, given that there are some clauses in the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill that discuss issues around public appointments. I just wanted to bring it to Committee. Obviously, I am content to go ahead and table it myself, but I wanted to voice it here as it is a Department of Finance Bill. I hope to get support for that from some Committee members, so I want to flag it at this point.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is certainly fair to flag it up. Since the notice of amendments includes one that is in my name, I suggest that —. Given that we will not have the opportunity to do detailed scrutiny on every amendment —. Sometimes Committees are able to propose amendments themselves, and we may do that in the Fiscal Council Bill. Given the extremely disparate nature of the policy measures, this Bill does not automatically lend itself towards that. We were able to come to a view in relation to the withdrawal of clause 20 but, on this, I think that it is useful. I encourage any member who wishes to seek more information to engage with the Deputy Chair and, indeed, any other member who puts down an amendment via themselves and/or their party.

OK. If members are content, we will move on. By the way, this us not finished with this Bill. We still have clause-by-clause scrutiny next week and, of course, members are still able to ask questions themselves in their own capacity. However, we now have the opportunity to ask any final questions of the Department.

The Committee Clerk: If there are any further questions for the Department, those can be processed as we would expect. According to the timetable, this was our last scheduled briefing. However, the Department will remain open and ready to take any further queries. As the Chair said, we do ultimately have to finish this, but if any questions arise further on, we can deal with them.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I appreciate that this is a really important Bill. It is one of those Bills on which we need to be able to give a clear view. Obviously, we have the view of the Examiner of Statutory Rules on the various provisions. As I said right at the beginning of our scheduled scrutiny of this, it is tricky to do it completely belt-and-braces and completely satisfy yourself about the potential meanings and policy permutations of every single measure, because we do not own scrutiny, nor do you own the policy levers and the policy context for tourism providers or victims' and survivors' services. It is not that you are flying blind but that you are doing your best to find out whether these are appropriate powers that are being appropriately phrased and appropriately mitigated. In broad terms, we have been able to satisfy ourselves that most of the powers are appropriately taken and that, for example, where the language is extremely expansive, such as in the clause on ending violence against women and girls, there are appropriate textual statutory constraints that exist elsewhere, even when it is fairly broad.

All of that having been said, members, scrutiny is not over, and we will being doing formal clause-by-clause consideration next week. The only question that remains for us is of whether we want to take a view on a Committee amendment on the Consolidated Fund advance. We have been told today by the Department that that is in its guidance. Notwithstanding some of my slightly mischievous remarks about other SSE things, it is open to the Committee to decide whether, in clause 18 or, indeed, in the explanatory and financial memorandum, we wish to insert an obligation that either the Assembly itself or the Finance Committee be informed when an advance is made.

Mr Neeson: We can share the wording from our guidance, and you can have a look for yourselves.

The Committee Clerk: That would be very useful.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If we can have that guidance, we can come to a final view.

The Committee Clerk: Next week during the informal clause-by-clause scrutiny.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Are members content that we get that and take a final view on whether —? I think that the only live question for a potential Committee amendment is on whether we want to insert a requirement that the Committee is notified. When I say "notified", it is not my view that we should be informed in advance so that we can ask whether it is appropriate. We should not be inserting ourselves into that decision-making. We should simply be informed as a matter of course. It happens already, but it would be putting it in the legislation, similar to the way, for example, that the PAC is informed when there is a ministerial direction. If we can get that text from you, we can make a better decision next week. Are members content that we close that item out?

Mr Kingston: I notice in the members' pack — I do not think that it relates to your papers — there are references to "Harry Kingston". I think that Harry Harvey and I have been merged there. That needs a correction.

The Committee Clerk: It is a resource-saving exercise.

Mr Kingston: Indeed. Check who said what.

The Committee Clerk: We will reflect on that. We will be doing our grand proofing exercise.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you, Patrick, Ian and Sarah, for coming and doing that with us.