John O'Dowd
Upper Bann · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“As I set out in response to the previous question, we have in place the vacant property rate relief scheme and the small business rate relief scheme, which are very successful. I set aside £10 million in the draft Budget for small business rate relief to be invested.”
“I am particularly keen to hear from those impacted by vacant commercial units and especially about how any phased increase can be implemented in a sustainable way that is fair, proportionate and sustainable within the tax system.”
“I outlined my intent to take that approach in my statement on 18 November, alongside the fact that reform of rating policy should support growth, make better use of property and ensure that the system is fair, proportionate and aligned with wider economic objectives.”
“The accelerator will operate alongside our highly successful Back in Business scheme, which has helped to bring over 100 vacant high street properties back into use since May 2024. Those issues have been the subject of considerable interest and comment in the Assembly, and it is right that we grasp the nettle now.”
“There are no circumstances in which a hard border would be good for the people of Ireland; it would not be good for anyone. Those who suggest that are being naive at best and dangerous at worst, in the sense of not understanding this society. <BR /> <BR />Rural communities along the border are one and the same.”
“This announcement represents the next step in that. That said, I also put on record my intention to strengthen support for small businesses. In that vein, £10 million has been set aside in the draft Budget to broaden the impact of the small business rate relief scheme in order to increase the number of businesses that can benefit from it.…”
The complete record
Every one of 6,140 lines we hold for John O'Dowd, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 123.
“I thank you for your help with progressing the Budget Bill. <BR /> <BR />Standing Order 39(2) requires:”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“That should be the way forward in ensuring that we have proper funding for this place. There is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that that money is spent wisely and accounted for. <BR /> <BR />I will continue to debate those issues, but I will draw my remarks to a close. I tried to respond to as many individual issues as possible and the broad thrust of the debate. It is imperative that the legislation that we debated continues its passage through the Assembly so that public services can continue to be delivered to our citizens without delay or interruption. I ask Members to support the Budget Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2025-26 and the Vote on Account for 2026-27.”
“The Department of Education handed back £24·8 million throughout the year from the Strule project. Again, that is a reflection of the challenges in delivering major capital programmes. <BR /> <BR />The scale and size of the Civil Service and the need for work on that issue was raised. During Question Time, I was asked about the Audit Office report. The Department will respond to that report in due course. Work is ongoing on all those matters. <BR /> <BR />I think that I have covered the generality of the issues that were raised in the debate. I welcome the fact that there seems to be unanimity among Members, apart from Mr Gaston, on a unified approach to the British Government's need to properly fund this place. Pat Sheehan summed it up well when he said secure proper funding and "spend it wisely". That should be the strapline for us all.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of infrastructure issues were raised, and it is understandable, given the amount of money that was handed back in relation to the A5, that that matter came up regularly. Mr Kingston raised it and questioned why the money was not used earlier in the financial year. The reality was that there were significant, complex legal issues to overcome before the Department for Infrastructure could return the moneys to me for redistribution. The Department was dealing with land compensation etc. It was not clear until very late in the day exactly how much money would be handed back in this financial year. That is the reason for those delays. <BR /> <BR />The Department for Infrastructure is not the only Department to hand back significant moneys.”
“While we are on the subject of the Department of Health, I turn to Colin's comments on the AME funding. I think that it was around £820 million. As the Member will know, that funding is not used for day-to-day spending. The reduction was mainly due to two accounting adjustments in Health, as there has been provision in the Health accounts for two items that are no longer required due to court cases having been successfully litigated in the Department's favour. I will get the Member more detail on that. <BR /> <BR />I have spoken about the infrastructure issues. Understandably, a lot of issues were raised. A lot of them fall within the role of individual Ministers and Departments. I do not think that it is appropriate for me to go through them. It is not the role of the Finance Minister to mark the homework of individual Ministers.”
“I assure the Member that I take an interest in the matter and share her frustration at the costs and delays. It is not only about the costs and delays but about the very fact that patients and staff are not getting into the premises to enjoy the modern facilities. I am just pointing out that I do not have any direct role in holding the Department of Health to account on that matter. I do not have any direct control over it. Collectively, the Executive, the Committee and others should play a part in ensuring that there is a proper return on public investment in a timely manner and that, where mistakes are made and where faults lie, accountability kicks in.”
“However, I do not have a direct pathway by which to intervene on those matters.”
“I know that the Minister has raised his concerns, and there has been protracted engagement with the Belfast Trust both at ministerial level and by the Committee, which has played a huge part in that as well. I will continue to raise my concerns about that. <BR /> <BR />In my opinion, there is a broader aspect here with regard to capital delivery etc. A direct question was put to me about CPD's signing off costs that it knows will have to be changed. CPD and the Department of Health estates should not, will not and do not — I have been informed — submit costs that are known to be out of date. As the Member will know, the costs of capital programmes can change very quickly and rise very dramatically. There is definitely a scrutiny role across that for the Committee, for the broader Executive and for me as Finance Minister.”
“Those are three tangible programmes of work that are making a real difference. If you get into the mindset of saying, "We have no money, so we cannot do anything", then you will not do anything. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to general comments from other Members. Obviously, Health has huge challenges. Mrs Dodds set out how she believes the Minister should be held to account on that and what can be done. I share her concerns about the capital programme in Health, particularly with regard to the mother-and-baby hospital. It is not justifiable in anybody's mind. However, the challenge that was put to me was what I was going to do about it. I do not have any direct powers to do anything in that regard other than to raise my concerns with the Minister.”
“Let me put it in this context: if DFI had simply accepted that NI Water needed more money and could not progress without significant amounts of money, 5,300 homes would not have been unlocked for future connection. The Infrastructure Minister has said, "I accept that NI Water is underfunded. What can we do to make progress?", and she has brought in the three-pronged approach. That approach is working. The very fact that more homes have been unlocked than were in the Utility Regulator's plan proves that it is working. The Infrastructure Minister will bring her recommendations in relation to developer proposals in due course, and we will see where that brings us. As I understand from the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, the sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) Bill is in front of the Committee.”
“Just one second. <BR /> <BR />— our funding, but we can still do things. However, the strategy that is known as shroud-waving does exist and can colour and cloud a debate about setting budgets. My role as Minister, and that of my officials, is to try to get underneath that. There is certainly a role for scrutiny Committees. I am not saying that they do not do it, but the point that I was making about arm's-length bodies and others needs to be driven home. It is not the role of a scrutiny Committee or a member of a scrutiny Committee to come here and simply echo what they have been told. They have a role to interrogate what they have been told.”
“There has been a practice in the past, which continues, in relation to how budget challenges are presented. No Department comes forward and says, "I need less money". That is maybe unfair to Departments, because who is going to do that in the current climate? This is where Ministers, Committees and individual Departments come in. Ministers sign off on all bids, so they have to scrutinise them and be more realistic about what is achievable in the period ahead. As I said, our ambitions far outstretch —”
“<BR /> <BR />That brings me to Andrew McMurray's comments, although this point does not specifically relate to him. It is not the role of Committees to simply echo what arm's-length bodies tell them and then come to the Chamber and say, "Arm's-length body A needs this, arm's-length body B needs that and arm's-length body C needs the other". It is the role of scrutiny Committees to scrutinise what arm's-length bodies are saying to them and to challenge, if need be, the figures that they are presenting to Committees; how they are spending public moneys; how they intend to move forward; what transformation programmes they are involved in; and how they are taking on the reality of the financial challenges that we face and trying to do things differently.”
“I would take on those powers, but I am not so sure that your Ministers would be as keen as you are to give me them. We have regulations, legislation, codes of conduct and Standing Orders that relate to how the Executive do their business and what role each Minister has. I have a role in setting the Budget, but I do not mark Ministers' homework. That is not my role, but I will tell you who does do that. I have said before in the Chamber that the media and others do not pay enough attention to the role of scrutiny Committees in this place, which mark Ministers' homework and scrutinise them and their spends. That is where a lot of the challenges that were presented to me today need to take place. In many cases, that is taking place. The Committees deserve much more credit than they are given beyond the realms of this place.”
“If the DUP expects that from the Health Minister, whose duty, and whose Department's role, is, at the end of the day, to save lives, it is only right and proper that we expect those same standards from all Ministers. When colleagues on the opposite Benches are challenging me — they have a right to do so; it is part of their role — about what I am or am not doing for their Ministers, I ask them to reflect on Diane's comments about what is expected from the Health Minister. I expect that from all Ministers. <BR /> <BR />We are making significant progress on alignment with the PFG, both in this year's Budget and in the three-year Budget. I think that there are Members — this comes across regularly in the Chamber — who want to give me more powers when it comes to how I govern other Ministers.”
“My proposals for the three-year Budget are £444 million over three years, plus the Department for Communities has a general allocation over those three years of £570 million. Again, the Communities Minister can, if he so wishes, provide more funding for social housing. It is about prioritising, within your Department, what you decide to do. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to the comments from Diane Dodds on what the DUP expects from the Health Minister. These rules should apply to all Ministers. If you expect something from the Health Minister, let us apply those expectations to all Ministers. She asked him not to be continually asking for more money but to prioritise his budget; to deliver value for money; to provide greater transparency; to adopt a duty of candour on the Department's spend; and to bring about transformation.”
“There is an issue relating to the proposed rent that can be charged on those properties, and discussions with Treasury are required to resolve it. My officials are actively pursuing that matter with Treasury, as are officials in the Department for Communities. I hope that that matter can be resolved quickly. <BR /> <BR />According to Mr Frew, I am refusing to properly fund social housing. In 2025-26, between reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) loans, direct funding and top-ups from the monitoring rounds, the Department for Communities received £234 million for social housing, and there is always the option for the Communities Minister, whoever that might be, to provide further funding.”
“His contribution and Diane Dodds's contribution were interesting — in fact, in some ways, they overlapped. Diane had a go at the Shinners as well, but she put it in a different context. I will put this into context. Paul was, understandably, defensive of his party's Ministers and their Departments. Towards the end of his comments, he claimed that I was blocking a couple of initiatives — neither of which I am blocking, by the way. In relation to housing, he suggested that I am blocking Housing Executive proposals to purchase homes that could be used to house those who need temporary accommodation etc. That is simply not true. I am aware of the proposals, and I believe that there is merit in them, not least making sure that those who need emergency accommodation can receive it.”
“I do not know whether he got a text from on high, or whatever, saying, "Don't forget to have a go at the Shinners", but he dutifully responded and had a go at the Shinners.”
“A lot will depend on the issues that are raised as the Bill goes through Committee and in the next stages of the legislative process. Officials have indicated that it is their aim to have the Bill completed by autumn, but a lot of that depends on getting Executive agreement on amendments etc, and on the will of the House, obviously. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew was going along quite smoothly. He was making his points, arguing his case, and then, as we say in Lurgan, he went off on one.”
“It is essential that the Executive grasp the opportunity presented now to set a multi-year Budget that provides Departments and public-sector organisations with certainty and the ability to make long-term plans and to enable strategic investment that delivers lasting benefits for our economy, environment and society. <BR /> <BR />I will go through some Members' comments on how we are moving forward. Mr O'Toole referred to the Financial Provisions Bill. I thank the Finance Committee officials for their work on the Bill. Once the Committee Stage is completed, my officials will be working at pace to bring the Bill through its further stages. The provisional timetable is that the stages will be completed before the autumn, but, of course, every effort will be made to progress that work more quickly, if possible.”
“As Members know, I have brought forward my proposals for a multi-year Budget. It is clear that a significant gap remains between our ambitions and the resources at our disposal. Bridging that gap will require adequate funding from Westminster for our public services — despite Mr Gaston's view that we are properly funded — as well as reform and transformation in how we design and deliver public services. The open-book process in which we are currently engaged with Treasury provides an opportunity to strengthen our case for further funding for public services and to present to the British Government a fuller understanding of the significant challenges that we are facing.”
“That shows that, despite the financial challenges faced, we are making progress and delivering real change that creates hope and brings about tangible improvements in people's day-to-day lives.”
“For clarification, when I mentioned a figure of £49-odd million for that project in yesterday's debate, I was including the additional £39 million of funding for social housing that had been secured in-year: the actual figure for disability adaptations is £10·5 million.”
“There has been enough investment in waste water capacity to unlock more than 5,000 extra properties across the North, which is more than were in the Utility Regulator’s plan for the same period. That and the other achievements have to be acknowledged. <BR /> <BR />Pay awards have been delivered for health workers, teachers, the police, civil servants and NI Water workers. Some £100 million of funding in the 2025-26 Budget is earmarked for the building of new social homes, and there is an additional £38·9 million of in-year funding to supplement that work. I will come back to the issue of housing. There was a further £10·5 million to help people with disabilities adapt their homes.”
“I thank the Members, Chairs and Deputy Chairs who have contributed to the Second Stage debate on the Budget Bill. <BR /> <BR />In yesterday's Supply resolution debate, I said that, while the Executive faced many challenges, it was important to note the achievements since restoration in 2024. Over £1·4 billion of extra funding for services has been secured. Some of that funding has been invested in health service waiting lists, as I mentioned yesterday. Over 200,000 additional elective care activities have been delivered. Some 19,000 families have benefited from the childcare subsidy scheme, which has generated £19 million of savings for those who take part.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“The Member may not have been in the Chamber yesterday when I made the point that NI Water and the Department for Infrastructure have unlocked 5,300 homes as part of the programme of work that he says is failing. That is more than the Utility Regulator's price control period would have unlocked.”
“I am engaging with my officials on the matter, and I am satisfied that actions are afoot to delve into the level of sickness absence; to put support in place, where necessary, for staff on sickness leave; and to ensure that managers at all levels in the Civil Service understand their role and are there to support colleagues on sick leave and, where possible, work out strategies and pathways for them to return to work.”
“The matter has been the subject of yet another Audit Office report, and my Department is analysing that report. It covers a range of issues in the Civil Service, sickness levels being one of them. We will respond in due course. <BR /> <BR />It is a very complex area. We are a huge employer with over 25,000 staff. Sickness levels reflect wider societal issues, given in particular that a high proportion of sickness absences are related to mental health. As the Member knows, poor mental health is an issue across our society, and that is reflected in the Civil Service figures.”
“As the Member says, it is not a devolved matter, but I either have made or am in the process of making representations to the Treasury on that matter.”
“Local businesses have similarly been in contact with me to raise concerns about the matter. I will ask my officials to engage with the Treasury to ensure that it is fully aware of the new challenges that the scheme brings to small businesses.”
“<BR /> <BR />We continue to engage with the NIO and others to make our case heard, but, at this stage, there has been no positive response.”
“I will supply the Member with the details so that he receives accurate information. However, in my engagement on the matter and my pursuit of the cause, I have been hugely frustrated with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in Whitehall. It has been completely dismissive of this place and has been dismissive not only of me, as a Minister, but of the Executive. The Executive wrote to it in January — I do not have the exact date in my head — but we are still waiting for a response. When the Executive write to a Whitehall Department, the courteous thing would be for it to respond as quickly as possible and to take on board their observations and concerns. Dealing with that Whitehall Department is hugely frustrating.”
“I do not have in front of me information about the exact number of meetings, but I must give credit to the members of my team who have been working on the local growth fund. They have been extremely proactive in their engagement not only with the sector but with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in Whitehall and with the NIO. In fairness, without their energy behind it, there are those, particularly in Whitehall, who would be wishing for the local growth fund just to go away. My team, as well as the community and voluntary sector, have made sure that their voices have been heard, however.”
“Over 2,300 small businesses in the Derry City and Strabane District Council area already benefit from the small business rate relief scheme, with over £2 million of support being delivered. Through the Back in Business scheme, six businesses in the same council area have been granted support of over £102,000 to bring vacant properties back into use by putting businesses in them. As I said in my response to the Member's original question, I hope to expand that support in order to sustain existing businesses and, hopefully, to create new businesses.”
“The consultation is now closed, and my officials have presented me with a report on the way forward. There is a huge opportunity for us to broaden the amount of support and to increase the number of businesses that receive it. Additional finance will be required, but it will be finance well invested. I set aside around £10 million for the small business rate relief scheme in the draft Budget. The question is whether I try to move on it ahead of the Budget or wait until we fulfil the Budget obligations before making the investment. I will give that consideration over the next period.”
“Yes. It is a new pilot programme from Civil Service colleagues who recognised the frustration that there was across the Executive and among MLAs at the length of time that it was taking to recruit into posts. They implemented a new process that has significantly sped up the time from advertising to placement. It is around 12 weeks, which represents a significant change. As I said in my response to a previous question, I unfortunately did not make it up to the hotel over the two days that the programme was being run, but the atmosphere in the hotel was a testament to the fact that, when we are able to deliver something new, the public will respond to it. The initiative enthused not only the applicants but my Civil Service colleagues.”
“I am very keen on achieving regional balance and am proactive in supporting it through engagement with my Executive colleagues on where and how they invest their budgets. A standout example is the recent recruitment process in the north-west. It was hugely successful. There were around 900 applicants, with 200 posts being filled. Other posts will come along as they are required. That represents tangible change for the area. I have also made priority investments in the Magee campus and elsewhere.”
“The stabilisation fund is part of the answer to the challenges that we face. Transformation has been taking place across Departments. That transformation will be welcomed or objected to, depending on a person's view not just on the nature of politics but on life. I have already announced a significant amount of money for specific projects as part of the formal transformation process, and I will announce further projects in the coming weeks. I have also set aside chunks of money for transformation in my draft Budget.”
“The Budget is not the place to devolve more fiscal powers; it is about setting your financial priorities for the years ahead. In tandem with that, I will engage with the Treasury around devolution of more fiscal powers and make recommendations to the Executive as those discussions proceed. However, the Member has to accept the point that we keep ending up in the same place because the fundamental issue has not been resolved: this place is underfunded by the British Government. We have done great work in getting the level of need to where it is, but steps remain to be taken.”
“Changes have taken place across Departments, but one of the challenges of decades of austerity is this: Departments find it difficult to move from the position that they are in, because they do not have the funding to make the changes that are necessary. In my view, the stabilisation fund would allow Departments to make the necessary change.”
“Let us go back to the talks in Hillsborough Castle: it was emphasised during those talks that that £520 million stabilisation fund should have continued for much longer than it did; in fact, it should have been brought into our line of spend rather than simply being a transitional payment. If we are continually underfunded, we will continually end up in the same place. <BR /> <BR />Transformation has been working across the Executive at a scale that is possible, given the funding that we have in hand. You need funding to perform transformation. I have already announced £120 million of transformation funding projects, and I hope to be in a position in the coming weeks to announce further use of that transformation funding on some exciting transformation projects.”
“My colleague will understand that I do not deal well with finger-wagging, and so he will also understand that I will not sit somewhere if someone wagging their finger at me. What has or has not changed over the past two years? That is the fundamental question that is at play here. Despite the Executive's best efforts to deliver front-line public services, we remain with a financial challenge at hand. In my opinion, that is because the place is underfunded. <BR /> <BR />I have just mentioned the stabilisation fund to the Member's colleague Mr Durkan. The ending of that £520 million fund has left the Executive in a very difficult position.”
“They will have to understand that it has been underfunded for many years. Even the successful work that was done around the Holtham report brought us to a level of funding need. However, there was no recognition from the Treasury that we were still playing catch-up and that achieving the level of need of 124% for one year would not allow the Executive to fund services and have transformation. <BR /> <BR />We have a very strong case in a number of areas, and the ending of the stabilisation fund is a very strong argument. The £520 million stabilisation fund came to an end abruptly. If you are going to have a stabilisation fund, it has to give the Executive time to stabilise public services and have a transformation programme in place.”
“The open-book process is not a formal process. There is not a document sitting on a shelf in Treasury or in the Department of Finance that says, "This is an open-book process". The exact nature of the process is open to interpretation, and we, with the Treasury, will set the terms of reference. There may have been similar projects in the past under different titles or frameworks. I am not overly concerned about the title of the programme. Obviously, the terms of reference will be vital, but, as I said to Miss Hargey, there will be no undermining of Executive or ministerial roles. <BR /> <BR />As for future and ongoing discussions around fiscal devolution, this strengthens our hand, because the Treasury and the British Government are going to have to understand the uniqueness of this place.”
“There is already an agreement with the Government, as part of ongoing discussions in relation to the full fiscal framework, that the Holtham report will remain on the table and that further investigation into its findings will continue in relation to our level of need.”
“I can give that assurance. I have been clear in my responses to the Treasury and others on this matter that that is non-negotiable. There will be no undermining of the institutions, the authority of Ministers or the authority of the Executive in relation to how we govern this place. That is how the process will be conducted.”
“We need to go through the open-book process, working together and with Departments, get to the point where we have an informed document, and then enter the necessary political negotiations, ensuring that this place is funded properly by the British Government.”