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 27 of 123.
“I have engaged with my officials on that on a number of occasions, and I am satisfied that the target that we have set is comparable with other regions when you look at all the facts and at what you are measuring. <BR /> <BR />The process of valuation, assessment, billing and applying reliefs is complex and evolving. There are necessary elements of process that, together, combine to make the administration of collecting revenue challenging. We must recognise that there is a cost in money and time in recovering rates, and we need to accept that there are times when it is uneconomical to do so. Many Members will have first-hand experience of asking Land and Property Services to provide support for constituents who are struggling to balance household and business bills.”
“However, regrettably, that prospect is not realistic. During the debate, several Members alluded to why that is not the case. <BR /> <BR />The current target that I have set of 93% is a considered position, setting a standard that measures collection performance against all collectable rates and strikes a balance between ambition and deliverability. The process of valuation, assessment, billing and applying reliefs is complex and evolving, and I have to say that comparing our collection rate to that of England and elsewhere does not necessarily simply match. It is a very complex process to match both over and go back on forth on those.”
“That is an important distinction to make. Broadly, there are two sets of people when you come to rates debt: those who cannot pay and those who will not pay. We have to pursue rigorously those who refuse to pay, and we have to support and work with those who cannot pay to find a way for them to deliver their liabilities. That is the broad breakdown of where people are at. <BR /> <BR />Going back to the collection figure of £1·63 billion last year, the significant efforts by my officials to collect and recover rates owed should not be underestimated. Calls have been made to increase the Department's collection rate, with one previous point repeated here today: the mooting of 100% collection targets. The prospect of collecting the full amount of rates revenue owed is one that we all support.”
“On the figure of £82 million in write-offs over the past six years, 80% of the amount written off — that is, £67 million — was due to what is referred to as "legal reasons". Those are not discretionary decisions but are obligations under law that prevents further recovery, often involving businesses that have ceased trading or have gone into receivership.”
“Within that balance, there are rates that are not suitable for legal recovery, such as rates pending valuation appeals or settlements of probate on estates following bereavement. <BR /> <BR />It is important that I am clear on this point regarding write-offs: the writing off of rating debt is a legitimate provision that accepts, under certain prescribed circumstances, that collection is simply not viable. My officials cannot simply decide to reduce debt balances through write-offs. There are agreed checks and balances in place to ensure that any such action is in accordance with the legislation and good governance. Write-off is the final step taken after all recovery options have been pursued.”
“Some of the language in the motion referring to "law-abiding businesses and households" who pay is disappointing. Others who are law-abiding find themselves in difficulties where they cannot pay, so let us not paint everybody with the same brush. The challenge for LPS is that it has to deal with each individual circumstance on its own merits. That can be complicated, convoluted and difficult, at times, as Mr Gaston pointed out in relation to one case, which, I believe, is ongoing, so I will make no more mention of it. <BR /> <BR />It is important to understand that the approach contributes to the overall amount of rates still outstanding. The remaining balance of £73·5 million is under review to obtain payment or progress through legal action within this rating year.”
“<BR /> <BR />It would be useful to Members if I broke down the £145 million figure further: £59 million has already been subject to legal recovery action, enabling further legal action to be taken while rates continue to remain unpaid; £12·8 million is currently being repaid through active payment plans or agreed arrangements with Land and Property Services. That money is being collected over an extended period, reflecting a flexible approach that supports ratepayers. I am confident that no Member of the House disagrees with the principle of allowing ratepayers who want to pay the additional time to do so. <BR /> <BR />As was pointed out by Linda Dillon, many of those people who find themselves in difficulty are honest, hard-working people who want to do the right thing.”
“For context, the value of uncollected rates of £145 million, as mentioned in the motion, represents less than 2% of the £8·261 billion collected over the past six years. So far this year, we have collected almost £1 billion and driven down arrears from April by 20%. Whilst good progress has been made, I am, of course, focused on the balance remaining. Recovery of the £145 million remains a priority. Significant efforts are ongoing to ensure that as much of the revenue owed is paid as quickly as possible.”
“I assume that the Members who write to me are not suggesting that I do not show compassion to the people for whom they make representations. <BR /> <BR />Last year, my Department collected £1·63 billion in rates revenue, the highest ever amount of rates that was collected in a single year, which represented an increase of over £90 million from the year before. Even with that level of performance, of course, there will be outstanding rates that have not been recovered, including unpaid debt that has accumulated over a number of years and is carried forward. We have faced, and continue to face, extreme fiscal pressures in our society and economy, yet my Department continues to strive to increase the amounts that are collected year-on-year.”
“In a very straitened financial operating context, the revenue from rates is key to the provision of much-needed public services, such as health and education, not to mention the many services that are provided by councils to support local communities. That is why, as Minister of Finance, the issue of the collection of rates is high on my agenda. Land and Property Services has a strategy for improving rates collection that is focused on making it easier to pay while balancing compassion for those who are struggling to pay. Indeed, Members write to me asking for such compassion for their constituents. The constituents for whom they write to seek compassion are included in the rates figure that is before us.”
“We are adopting the approach that other devolved institutions and Whitehall Departments adopt when making requests to access the reserve. All those bodies take the same approach. It is not helpful to bandy figures around and say, "It might be this or it might be the other". It might not be any of those figures. It might be more. I have to deal with the reality that is in front of me, as do the Executive. There is ongoing mediation between representatives on both sides, and I will wait until those mediation processes are complete and a figure is given to me as Finance Minister or to the Justice Minister. The Executive will then have a job of work to do.”
“The only bid that I made as a reserve claim was for the PSNI data breach. There was no broader bid regarding other elements and pressures facing the Executive at this stage. The only response that I got was to the question that I asked, which was this: can I access the Treasury reserve to pay claims resulting from the PSNI data breach? Thus far, the answer is no.”
“However, if the Executive have to find the funding, that will lead to significant challenges for other public services. We will have to work our way through that and see how and when we can deliver the funding.”
“I will continue to press the Treasury on the matter. I will also engage with Executive colleagues on contingency plans.”
“That is part of the process of discussions that I and my Executive colleagues will have to have once the figure crystallises. I am conscious that it is coming at us. I am engaging constantly with my officials about what we can do and what options are available to us, but we first have to wait for the figure to crystallise.”
“The Treasury position is that we should have set aside moneys for the claim on the basis that we knew that a claim had been lodged. That is somewhat contradictory to the rules under which we operate, because we cannot hold a reserve. Given the financial constraints that all Departments find themselves under, I and the Executive thought that it was only right and proper in May to issue a monitoring round and help Departments to face the pressure that they are under. That is the rationale that the Treasury has given me for not supporting the bid, although I believe that it is simply in such stringent times that it speaks volumes about the state of the economy in Britain. <BR /> <BR />How will we find the funding for it?”
“It is the best estimate at this moment with the business case that we received from the Department of Justice. I simply do not know when it will crystallise. Engagement is ongoing at a legal level. My understanding is that there is another court hearing on these matters in November. Colleagues will be aware that, when legal engagement takes place, it may take more time than was expected around these matters. I will await the crystallisation of the figure and then continue to engage with Executive colleagues on how we find the funding for it.”
“We submitted an application to the reserve claim that contained substantial information as to why we believed that it met the criteria for the reserve claim, setting out the unexpected nature of it and the uncertainty as to when the costs would crystallise. I am of the view that it meets the criteria. Unfortunately, I think that it is a financial rather than a procedural decision in the Treasury, because it is in such a stringent position, some of it through its own making and its own rules, which it has been sticking to rigidly. A strong case has been made to the Treasury in writing and verbally.”
“The Justice Minister and I have discussed the matter on a number of occasions in person, in correspondence and at the Executive table. There have been ongoing conversations and discussions between me and the Justice Minister and at official level in my Department.”
“I have had no direct conversations with the Justice Minister in that regard. My understanding is, however, that the Chief Constable has admitted liability in this case. I am not directly involved in the legal proceedings, but mediation is ongoing in relation to the scale of the compensation for each officer, as well as for PSNI staff. I assume that that will take into account all the issues that the Member has mentioned in considering the impact that the breach has had on PSNI officers and staff.”
“Given the fact that the claim has been turned down, what we are witnessing is further proof of the significant economic pressures that the British Government are under. Some of that, it has to be said, is of their own making. They are operating within defined Treasury rules. The margins are so tight that I am incredulous that a sovereign Government cannot access £119 million in this instance. I am not expecting any increase in spending in any area from the current Government. We will have more information in that regard when we approach the Treasury. There may be examples where it will improve funding, but, at the moment, the situation in the Treasury is so bad that we should not be optimistic about anything in terms of increased funding.”
“The figure of £760 million in the Treasury letter refers to the provisional out-turns from Departments in relation to the pressures that they face. Those pressures will rise and fall as the financial year goes on. Executive colleagues and I, as Finance Minister, have a responsibility to manage those pressures, and we will continue to do so. <BR /> <BR />It was unfortunate that the Treasury took that angle of approach as part of its response to me. The PSNI data breach claim stands on its own and is exceptional. It is simply not possible for us to manage that in-year at this stage. That situation has not yet crystallised, however, and I will continue to engage with Executive colleagues and make the case to the Treasury for that reserve claim to be met.”
“I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that the PSNI was included as part of the Executive's discussions and decisions on public pay last Thursday in order to help meet the PSNI pay bid. I have also indicated and made it clear that it is my intention, as part of the three-year budgetary cycle, to make a recommendation to the Executive as part of that Budget that the PSNI's sustainability plan is fully funded. That will amount to around £200 million over a number of years. The Department of Justice submitted a business case to my Department, and it has been cleared. It meets the required criteria, and I hope that Executive colleagues will support me in that bid to fully fund the PSNI's sustainability plan.”
“I was conscious that I was meeting the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Friday in person, and I wanted to make sure that I engaged with him then. It was my intention to inform all members of the Committee on Monday. The fact that it got into the press is not of my making. That is for others who leaked the letter. I do not know who leaked the letter to the press. That is for them to respond to, but let us have a bit of political maturity about this one and keep focused on the objective.”
“What is required from the Chamber today is unity of purpose and a unified approach to sending a clear message to the Treasury from the Chamber and elsewhere that the Executive should have access to the reserve, that the bid meets the requirements of a reserve claim and, given the substantial pressures that the Executive are under, the reserve claim should be met. There will always be a bit of party politicking in here — it is the nature of the game that we are all involved in — but, if we have a unified voice today, it will be much more beneficial to the Executive and broader public services in ensuring that the claim is met. <BR /> <BR />I informed my Executive colleagues on the day that I was informed of the Treasury bid, which was 1 October. I have been working since then to get the decision overturned.”
“<BR /> <BR />As recently as last Friday, at the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee (F:ISC), I pressed the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on that. I will continue to press the Treasury to reconsider the decision. Executive colleagues have been kept informed of the position and remain committed to working with all Ministers to consider how that financial pressure will be managed. It is not clear when the cost will crystallise, given the ongoing legal proceedings. Once those are concluded, I will be able to consider the budgetary implications along with my Executive colleagues.”
“It is regrettable that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has declined the Executive's request for access to the reserve for costs associated with the PSNI data breach. It remains my view that the exceptional, unavoidable nature of the costs meets the conditions of our reserve claim. <BR /> <BR />People and families have been impacted by the data breach, and we all need to be mindful of the effect that it has had on them. Significant information was supplied to support their case for access to the reserve. That included outlining the extremely challenging budgetary position that the Executive face and how having to meet the costs will add further to the pressures that public services are currently under.”
“If the British Government do not provide us with clarity, flexibility and more resource funding, we risk losing front-line jobs, vital services and the infrastructure that connects our most vulnerable citizens to opportunities. That is not an acceptable position. <BR /> <BR />I stand firmly behind the motion. I encourage fellow Members to do likewise and send a united message to the Government that the time for dithering and delay is over. Clarity is needed, and needed now. Our community and voluntary sector and our communities deserve better.”
“During our meeting, Hilary Benn undertook to seek a joint meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. As a result, I will meet him and Steve Reed tomorrow. I will be pressing Mr Reed to work towards a sensible outcome. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, the Assembly can today send a clear message to Westminster that our communities deserve better. The community and voluntary sector has proven its value, its reach and its impact. It must not be left behind due to Whitehall indecision and funding redesigns that ignore local realities. Our local communities deserve local solutions that are aligned to local challenges and local priorities.”
“<BR /> <BR />When I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, James Murray, on Friday, I raised the issue of lack of recognition across Whitehall of the different needs in the North compared with those in Britain. I also spoke about our different governmental landscape and how that requires bespoke arrangements. I outlined the need for resource funding to achieve local growth and pressed him for flexibility to allow the Executive freedom to spend the local growth allocation in a way that best meets our needs. Earlier this month, I met Hilary Benn and stressed the urgency of the issue. I was very clear that economic inactivity is a significant barrier to local growth here and that resource funding is needed more than capital funding to tackle it.”
“The same principle applies here. Decisions about spending are best made by people who live here. <BR /> <BR />A fully local fund would have been the optimal solution, but Whitehall has run down the clock. What comes next must be managed carefully to mitigate, as far as possible, negative impacts on the community and voluntary sector. That will require hard work, good faith and close cooperation here and in London — the partnership that we were promised. Frankly, it does not make sense for Whitehall Departments to implement, manage and run such funds here. It creates duplication, adds a further layer of bureaucracy and does not align well with our priorities. It is not the way to get best value for money, especially when the Treasury itself tells us that money is so tight.”
“I found myself in full agreement with the Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens, when she stated:”
“Resource funding is needed to deliver interventions, including for economic inactivity, through the community and voluntary sector. That shift will disrupt or potentially end the very programmes that have employed 650 staff and helped thousands into work and training. Co-design and proper, meaningful engagement are vital, and the British Government need to engage contingency arrangements. <BR /> <BR />I note the recent announcement that the Welsh Government will be provided with the spending power to use the local growth funding according to an investment plan delivered by the Welsh Government. That is a good outcome for Wales. It clearly shows that there is no structural barrier to fulfilling the commitment made in the Labour Party manifesto: to restore control of this funding to devolved Governments.”
“Despite months of pressing the Government, I still have little information about the local growth fund. The scant information that I have does not paint a promising picture. The £46 million a year will be heavily skewed towards capital funding. The Shared Prosperity Fund was three quarters resource funding, but the local growth fund will be only one third resource funding. <BR /> <BR />Earlier this month, I met representatives of the community and voluntary sector. I listened to their concerns, and their message was clear. The significant reduction in the resource budget for this funding will severely impact on the community and voluntary sector's ability to deliver vital services, particularly for those furthest away from the labour market.”
“I secured an Executive position on the future local growth fund in March this year. We explored some of the shortcomings in the Shared Prosperity Fund approach and how the local growth fund could be better. That position detailed a number of principles: funding must be long term and sufficient in value; there must be co-design with partners; structures must be efficient and accessible; interventions must be in line with our Programme for Government; importantly, lessons — positive and negative — must be learned from what went before; and time is critical. We needed to be able to move quickly to prevent another funding cliff edge. <BR /> <BR />Those principles were shared with British Ministers in March but have not been factored into decisions taken in Whitehall.”
“The lack of clarity from that Ministry regarding the local growth fund is creating deep uncertainty, particularly for the community and voluntary sector, which faces another impending cliff edge in funding due to the lack of certainty and the reduction in funding. After the spending review in June, it was announced that we would be allocated £46 million a year over three years. We were also told that the Executive would be a partner in delivering the local growth fund. Unfortunately, that partnership has not materialised nor have the Labour Government honoured their manifesto commitment to restore control over structural funds to local representatives. <BR /> <BR />Despite sustained efforts, we are back to a situation that has been deeply depressing and all too familiar in recent years.”
“Those projects focused on those furthest removed from the labour market, those with disabilities, health conditions and caring responsibilities, older people and young people facing multiple barriers to employment. The figure of almost 24,000 people is not just a number: it represents lives changed, futures rebuilt and communities strengthened. The funding also supported 650 staff who delivered person-centred, wrap-around support in every council area. <BR /> <BR />The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government implemented a transition year in 2025-26 so that the vital services that were funded under the Shared Prosperity Fund could continue, while, supposedly, a replacement programme could be developed.”
“The Shared Prosperity Fund — the intended replacement — was a reduction of, on average, £35 million a year, with centralised Whitehall delivery. That did not respect our unique system of government or our equality legislation. <BR /> <BR />Despite its limitations, it provided vital support, particularly to our community and voluntary sector. Through its interventions, it also supported the work of the Department for Communities, the Department for the Economy, the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. From data gathered by NICVA, we know that, over the 2022-24 period, that funding enabled 18 projects to deliver economic inactivity interventions in every council area, and 64 organisations to deliver tailored community-based interventions and support to almost 24,000 individuals.”
“<BR /> <BR />Although there have been some benefits from it, the Shared Prosperity Fund has failed to match the ambition and scale of the EU programmes that it replaced. There was a reduction in scope and funding. We received an average of £65 million a year of European funding, with local delivery coming via Departments.”
“I fully support the motion and welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. Many Members have rightly recognised the positive contributions that the European social fund and the European regional development fund made in supporting the community and voluntary sector over many years. Those EU funds were central to tackling economic inactivity, promoting inclusion and building resilience in our communities, as well as to supporting local businesses and rural development. Their loss in the aftermath of Brexit was deeply felt, particularly in the community and voluntary sector. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government presented the Shared Prosperity Fund as a replacement fund for those lost EU funds, but it was never an adequate solution.”
“Maybe you were just thinking it. I also thank Mr Frew for his contribution to the Committee. He always had clear views on the use of the Coronavirus Act. I share some of those views. We have to move beyond the Coronavirus Act in that regard, and the legislation is now in place to do so. <BR /> <BR />I commend the order to the House.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, that will be part of the legislation. It is only right and proper that we do that. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, a number of Committee members thanked Mr Frew. I thought that you were going to say that you were thankful that he had moved on.”
“<BR /> <BR />As many Members commented, it is fitting that, as we enter Baby Loss Awareness Week, we are moving forward with legislation that will help families in those awful times to mark the loss of their baby.”
“I thank the Members who commented on the order, and I welcome their remarks. I also thank the Chairman and the members of the Finance Committee for scrutinising the order. <BR /> <BR />As Members reflected, our objective in bringing forward the order is to continue to provide a registration service that meets the needs of the public and allows time for the permanent legislation, in the form of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, to replace existing Coronavirus Act provisions. The Chair asked when the Bill's next stage will take place. I expect Consideration Stage to take place later this month. How we move forward will then be in the hands of the Assembly, but, with a fair wind behind us, I hope that the Bill's legislative journey in the Assembly will be completed around December.”
“Relatives would again be required to attend registration offices, irrespective of their personal circumstances, and to transport paper forms between doctors, registration staff and undertakers. As set out in earlier debates on those matters, that would be a retrograde step that is not in the interests of the public, the registration service or funeral directors. I hope that the Assembly will concur. <BR /> <BR />I consequently recommend a further extension of the powers included in the order. They have enabled the provision of a modern, empathetic registration service over the past five years. By extending the provisions today, we will be able to continue to provide that service, which has been welcomed by stakeholders and creates space for permanent legislation to be put in place. I commend the order to the Assembly.”
“Today's extension order will consequently provide the time required for the Assembly to consider the Bill and, I trust, make permanent the temporary powers of the Coronavirus Act. <BR /> <BR />In bringing the extension order, I recognise that it is not desirable to continue to depend on the powers of the Coronavirus Act. However, I hope that the Assembly will be reassured by our determination to end the use of the orders by the work that is under way to make the relevant powers permanent, and that they will look favourably on the motion. Should the extension not be approved today, the existing powers will fall, requiring a return to pre-COVID death and stillbirth procedures.”
“In short, although the powers were introduced as the pandemic took hold, they have become the established means by which deaths and stillbirths are registered, and they have helped the registration service to become more empathetic, more modern and more efficient. <BR /> <BR />Given the positive effect of the provisions, it is right that we should make the temporary powers permanent rather than continue to depend on the Coronavirus Act. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which recently completed its Committee scrutiny, will provide for the electronic transfer of documents between stakeholders and for the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone. The Bill will also enable me to progress a baby loss certificate scheme that recognises the suffering of families who endure the pain of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the five years that have passed since the start of the pandemic, those arrangements have become the normal means by which the vast majority of registrations take place. They have helped the registration process to be more empathetic and efficient, and they carry the support of stakeholders. Most important, the provisions ease the burden on grieving members of the public. When someone is coming to terms with the death of a loved one, it is right that we should not burden them unnecessarily. While offering them a choice about how to register a death and conducting some of the paperwork electronically might seem like a small thing, it can make a big difference.”
“Secondly, the powers enable participants in the registration process to exchange important documents electronically between doctors and the registrar and between the registrar and the undertaker. Those exchanges can happen electronically, lessening the burden on family members. <BR /> <BR />It will be clear to the Assembly why the provisions were important in the context of the pandemic. The temporary changes to the registration process reduced the need for face-to-face contact for grieving and, sometimes, vulnerable members of the public and for registration staff. They enabled the registration system to continue to operate even when their services were, sadly, under significant pressure.”
“As Members will be aware, the order seeks to extend powers introduced in the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the registration of deaths and stillbirths for a further six months from 24 September 2025 to 24 March 2026. <BR /> <BR />The specific powers included in the order concern the way that the registrations are conducted. First, they enable individuals to choose to register a death or stillbirth remotely. Although they can opt to come to a registration office in person, the provisions give the next of kin a choice to do it over the telephone in their own environment, recognising that it can be a hugely stressful and distressing time for family members.”