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 40 of 123.
“I have made a robust case to the Treasury, as have the other Administrations, that its funding mechanism for National Insurance contributions is unsatisfactory. We will continue to make that case. Ahead of the spending review, we will continue to make the case for a needs-based analysis for the Executive. The Executive continue to be underfunded significantly by the Exchequer and the Treasury.”
“The Executive made a conscious decision to redistribute the £158 million extra funding that they had as a result of Barnett consequentials in the way that they did. Around £50 million of that will go to tackling waiting lists; £8 million of it will go to tackling the skills deficit; £5 million will go to Lough Neagh; and £15 million will go to special educational needs. Those are priorities in the Programme for Government. I do not suggest for one second that the challenges faced by the sectors that you read out are not real; they are real. However, the Executive made a conscious decision to direct their limited resources in a certain way, and that was the correct decision. <BR /> <BR />I will continue to engage with the Treasury.”
“I look forward to reading his alternative Budget and seeing how the Member intends to deal with waiting lists.”
“<BR /> <BR />I took the time to read your press release on the Budget, Mr McGrath, which is entitled "Underwhelming". Yes, it is. It is also absent an alternative Budget. I look forward to reading his alternative Budget —”
“Let us be very clear: the Executive have ring-fenced £215 million to tackle waiting lists. Be in no doubt about that. Things are going to be done differently. We cannot continue to be in a position of continually uplifting the Health budget and expecting different outcomes but not getting those outcomes. The Executive have made their position clear: we expect a different outcome from this Budget. We have ring-fenced £215 million of the Budget to start to tackle Health waiting lists. The Health Department has received over £200 million additional funding this year. What the Health Minister chooses to do with that funding is a matter for the Health Minister, but the Executive, in agreement with the Health Minister, have set out quite clearly what they wish to do.”
“<BR /> <BR />As Members are aware, I intend this to be the last single-year Budget, now that the Treasury has committed to undertaking a multi-year spending review. I believe that the introduction of a multi-year Budget will be a game changer, providing Departments with the ability to undertake longer-term planning. The five-year departmental financial plans will play a crucial role in that. Behind the figures of millions and billions of pounds are people and families. It is incumbent on all of us in the Chamber to work together to improve their lives and opportunities for the future. For now, I commend the final Budget 2025-26 to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />Regrettably, it seems likely that the second phase of the spending review, which will be announced in June, will be a continuation of the austerity agenda that the Treasury is pursuing. On behalf of the Executive and the people whom we serve, I will continue to make the case for better funding not just for the Executive but for all public services. It is incumbent on us all to manage our budgets efficiently and effectively. All decisions should be taken with the intention of making things better, and every pound should be treated with the same care as that with which we would treat our own money. I will continue to work with Executive colleagues to support workers, families and communities.”
“There is no doubt that the Executive's finances remain under pressure. While the 2025-26 financial position remains challenging for all Departments, the Budget agreed by the Executive clearly prioritises their Programme for Government priorities, and, excluding earmarked allocations and in-year transfers, provides every Department with an uplift on its 2024-25 budget position. With the indicative allocations included, the Budget provides Departments with £19·3 billion funding. That money will be spent on running our public services and investing in our infrastructure. There will never be enough money to fund all our ambitions, but we can make a positive difference.”
“For the first time, the FTC funding has been oversubscribed, and with the DFE bid exceeding the available funding, an indicative June monitoring allocation of £1·1 million has been agreed to. That reflects the amount that will be carried forward from 2024-25.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Executive gave a commitment to provide funding of up to £20 million capital on an equal basis to Education and Infrastructure, if it became available. Therefore, the final Budget provides both Departments with a general capital allocation of £7·7 million, with a further £1 million each as an indicative June monitoring allocation. <BR /> <BR />The final Budget also sees the allocation of £8·4 million in financial transactions capital that remained unallocated in the draft Budget. The Department for the Economy will receive £6·1 million towards Invest NI capital grants to businesses, and the Executive Office will receive £2·3 million towards interest payments.”
“That pay award has now been agreed, and the funding has been allocated to Departments in the final Budget. <BR /> <BR />Some costs are inescapable, and the Budget provides funding for the costs associated with the Open and for statutory salaries. To provide further support for the health sector and recognise the important role that family health services play, £3·5 million has been earmarked to provide support for the impact of National Insurance increases on GP practices, dentists, pharmacists and other family health service providers. The final Budget also gives each Department a general allocation to be used towards wider pressures, including pay and employer's National Insurance increases.”
“That, together with the £146 million employers' National Insurance contribution support, will be included in the Executive’s DEL totals following Main Estimates in May/June, meaning they will be available for allocation in the June monitoring round. Given the need to provide Departments with the ability to plan, indicative June monitoring allocations for those funds have been agreed in the final Budget. As there is no additional funding for the final Budget, the allocations made were to distribute the funding held centrally at draft Budget and the unallocated financial transactions capital (FTC). <BR /> <BR />Recognising the important work of our public servants, the draft Budget sets aside £26 million to meet the costs of the pay settlement for those on Civil Service terms and conditions.”
“There is also a capital allocation of £12·3 million for the just transition programme, in line with our commitment on climate change. <BR /> <BR />The Budget shows that the Executive are prepared to do things differently and prioritise the limited funding that we have available to make real change for the better in people’s daily lives. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that the financial outlook remains incredibly challenging, particularly given the Westminster Government’s continued policy of austerity. The Chancellor’s spring statement continued the austerity agenda by choosing not to invest in public services and, instead, cutting benefits and targeting those most in need. It provided limited additional resources: £12·5 million resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and £1·6 million capital DEL for the Executive in 2025-26.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Budget provides an additional £5 million to make our communities safer and £2 million towards ending violence against women and girls. It recognises the importance of Lough Neagh and our desire to protect it through a £5 million ring-fenced investment. It supports our agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development with £332·5 million ring-fenced for this, recognising the importance of the sector to our economy and local farming communities. It also provides £21·3 million for transformation projects in health, justice, infrastructure and special educational needs and £100 million to create more social housing. In line with that commitment, we are also investing £105·7 million in water infrastructure.”
“The Budget will mean £215 million going towards cutting health waiting lists and supporting investment in elective care, with £165 million of that earmarked in Health’s final Budget settlement and a further £50 million to be provided in June monitoring. <BR /> <BR />Our children are the future, and we must invest in them. The Budget doubles our investment in the early years and childcare strategy to £50 million, with a commitment to provide a further £5 million in June monitoring to support our children and help hard-working families. It provides an additional £15 million for special educational needs (SEN) and delivers a further £8 million for skills, bringing the total to £15 million to build the skills needed now and in the future to grow our economy.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Budget includes £16·8 billion of investment in public services, plus £2·4 billion in capital spending, with Health receiving £8·5 billion; Education £3·3 billion; and Justice £1·4 billion. That means that those three Departments alone account for some 80% of the funding for the day-to-day spending that is available, providing vital funding for our health service, schools, policing and the wider justice system. It sets out the direction of travel, which shows that the Executive are prepared to do things differently and use our limited resources to do what matters most. <BR /> <BR />We all know someone on a waiting list — a mother, a father, a child or a grandparent.”
“Thank you for the opportunity to make a statement on the final Budget 2025-26. <BR /> <BR />The Executive agreed their final Budget for 2025-26 on 3 April, and I made a written ministerial statement on the same day. Given the pressures that the Executive faced and the limited resources available, the Executive have strived to provide a Budget for 2025-26 that focuses on providing funding for the delivery of our Programme for Government (PFG) priorities. We have considered the consultation responses from our stakeholders, organisations and citizens alike. The Budget reflects our Programme for Government commitments and shows the Executive's determination to work together to deliver.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“I detected no voices against the regulations. Everyone sees the value of passing the regulations and of the common recognition of qualifications, in this case in the legal profession, between Switzerland and here. I have nothing to add other than to commend the regulations to the Assembly.”
“Qualified professionals from here who are looking to practise in Switzerland will continue to have access to a streamlined recognition process. I commend the draft regulations to the Assembly.”
“Respondents were supportive. DBT also consulted devolved Administrations in 2024, including here, in accordance with a statutory duty under section 17 of the Professional Qualifications Act. Our response to the consultation was published on the GOV.UK website. My officials further engaged with the Law Society and the Bar Council before our draft regulations were developed and laid in the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />The regulations will bring into effect the recognition of professional qualification systems contained in the agreement as they relate to the legal profession here. They will ensure that we are meeting our obligations under international law and will provide certainty for regulators and professionals now that the provisions in the Swiss Citizens' Rights Agreement (SCRA) have expired.”
“<BR /> <BR />I assure the Assembly that, under the draft regulations, it remains the regulators' responsibility to set standards for the profession and to decide who meets those standards. Regulators will need to decide whether a qualification from Switzerland is comparable to our qualifications, and they can refuse to recognise a qualification where certain conditions are not met. The regulations prescribe compensatory measures that a professional can be required to take. <BR /> <BR />In accordance with a statutory duty under section 15 of the Professional Qualifications Act, the Whitehall Department for Business and Trade (DBT) carefully consulted regulators about the implementation of the agreement. A formal consultation ran from February to April 2024 that sought views on the implementation approach and on the regulations.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now outline the regulations that give effect to the agreement. They place a legal duty on regulators — in this instance, the Law Society and the Bar Council — to recognise comparable Swiss qualifications that relate to the legal profession. They prescribe the procedures that regulators must follow in recognising Swiss qualifications. They enable regulators to refuse to recognise Swiss professional qualifications where certain conditions are not met. They prescribe compensatory measures that regulators can require a Swiss professional to take in certain circumstances, such as completing an adaptation period. They amend sectoral legislation to enable regulators to meet those requirements, which regulators do not currently have the power to do.”
“The Act's powers were first used in December 2023, when the British Government implemented the recognition of professional qualifications provisions resulting from the UK's free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein through the Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) Regulations 2023. I will hereafter refer to those regulations as the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) regulations. The provisions under the agreement are very similar to those in the UK's free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, with Switzerland since added as a specified state to the EFTA regulations. The draft regulations are subject to the Assembly's affirmation and will come into force tomorrow, 1 April.”
“It is worth noting, however, that there have been no applications in the past five years from Swiss lawyers to work here, and I do not expect there to be a sudden influx of applications arising from the agreement. In parallel, Switzerland has passed legislation that requires Swiss regulators to recognise our qualifications, meaning that professionals from here also benefit, as a result of reduced barriers to their working in Switzerland. <BR /> <BR />I am using powers that are contained in sections 3(1), 3(2) and 13(1) of the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 to make the regulations.”
“The regulations give effect to an agreement on the recognition of professional qualifications that the UK and Switzerland signed in June 2023 that relates to the legal profession here. Supporting regulations have been made in Westminster for a variety of professions. The British Government's regulations place a duty on the Law Society and Bar Council here to recognise comparable Swiss professional qualifications and provide them with the necessary legal powers to do so. They do not, however, make certain required changes to our local legislation, the Solicitors Order 1976, hence the need for the Department to make the regulations. The draft regulations ensure a smooth and transparent system for Swiss legal professionals to have their qualifications recognised, thus providing certainty for those who want to work here.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“Given what I said at the outset about the complexity of attributing cost in the context of a divided society and the broad range of estimates that are in the latest analysis, I do not see the value in updating that highly uncertain assessment. Rather than continuing to reassess the issue, we need to get on with working together to deliver on our Programme for Government commitments, creating positive change for workers, families and communities, which will allow us to create the conditions that will help move our society forward in the years ahead. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for participating in an interesting, if at times predictable, debate from some. Thank you.”
“The draft legislation is being worked on as we speak, and I hope to have the Bill before the Assembly in the near future and certainly before the end of this period of the Assembly. I am working my way through that, and it is important that the council be put on a statutory footing. <BR /> <BR />Moving on, I also note the suggestion from the Members who put forward the motion for:”
“I do not criticise the Members for bringing forward the motion. I disagree with them, which is different, about instructing the Fiscal Council to carry out a specific element of work. The Programme for Government, the Executive and the Assembly have roles to play in political leadership, which is the way to reduce the cost of division. We are a great place for putting ourselves down. We have made great progress over the past decade and a half, and I have no doubt that we will continue to do that, but we cannot be complacent about it. <BR /> <BR />I will give way one more time.”
“The motion calls on the Fiscal Council to be instructed to do a task. That, in itself, is a mistake. The important element of the Fiscal Council is that it is independent. While certain demands or calls on the Fiscal Council may be noteworthy or admirable, it is a mistake for the Assembly or the Executive to interfere in the council's role. We should allow the Fiscal Council to carry out its work and the Executive to implement their Programme for Government and ensure that we all, as political leaders, work together to reduce division in our society and, therefore, the cost of division. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to give way one more time.”
“It is not my intention, nor would it be appropriate, to undermine the council's independence. Including the specific requirement to assess the cost of division in the statutory remit of Fiscal Council is not the way forward. Indeed, I met the Fiscal Council last week, and the chair, Sir Robert Chote, cautioned against that. Rather, I will seek the Executive's agreement to introduce legislation that broadly aligns with the council's current terms of reference, which are to assess and report on the current and future state of our public services.”
“My Department is working to develop an evidence base to demonstrate the need for a higher level of funding to inform the upcoming spending review in 2026-27. I am pleased that Gerry Holtham, a renowned expert in the field of public finances, has agreed to take forward that work, which is now well under way. <BR /> <BR />I note that the Members who tabled the motion call on me to include an assessment of the cost of division as a statutory duty of the independent Fiscal Council.”
“I am pleased to have made significant progress on transformation already by announcing the first tranche of £120 million of funding across healthcare, special educational needs, justice and infrastructure earlier this month. While the total funding available of £235 million will in no way tackle the magnitude of the issues in hand, it will be significant in helping develop and implement a model of delivery to stimulate the wider transformation of public services. Transformation will take time. More needs to be done, and this is a step on the journey. <BR /> <BR />Members are aware that the interim fiscal framework provides new funding arrangements based on a new needs factor of 124%. It is essential that we are funded at least to that level of need in order to enable the Executive to deliver sustainable public services.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Programme for Government outlines the vital need to lay the foundations for longer-term improvements in our society. It sets out three long-term missions — "People", "Planet" and "Prosperity" — which are underpinned by a cross-cutting commitment, "Peace", providing us with a driving ambition for the future and a lens through which to prioritise and ensure that we deliver improved well-being, long-term sustainability and a thriving economy. That is the Executive's cross-departmental plan to tackle the pressing issues to make this a better place in which to live and work and to tackle the big issues facing our society. <BR /> <BR />The reform and transformation of public services is also a Programme for Government priority, with a commitment to establish a new delivery unit at the heart of government.”
“I argue that we need to build relationships not just in the North but across these islands and perhaps in the Chamber as well. We need to manage the change that is coming and work to bring about a more welcoming and inclusive society. Our ambition should be to have a society that is at peace with itself and promotes respect, which would have the added effect of bringing us financial benefits. <BR /> <BR />More critically, in a fast-changing world that is less stable and more uncertain, it is our duty as politicians to provide hope, opportunity and leadership. The Executive Office leads on some of the reconciliation measures. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on all of us to try to heal the divisions in our society and to promote reconciliation, thereby reducing the cost of sustaining division.”
“We agree that we need to deal with division and its root causes. It is also important to recognise that we have come a long way as a society but there is much more to be done in order to continue to reduce division. As a result, policing and justice costs are particularly high. They are significantly higher than those elsewhere on these islands. The process of reconciliation is key to reducing them. <BR /> <BR />The recently launched Programme for Government sets out an ambitious agenda for change. It will take all Departments working in partnership to address what matters most, including the division in our society. I am all too aware that any means for the Executive to release and divert funding to other areas of pressing need will be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />We have ambition to reduce division.”
“The one exception is the cost of policing. The report also stated:”
“The Ulster University report also found that the costs of public service provision:”
“I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate on tackling the financial and societal impacts of division. The 2016 Ulster University Economic Policy Centre study, which Members have been discussing today, suggested a broad range in the possible cost of division of between £403 million and £833 million. The report, however, outlined the significant complexity of the cost of delivering services here: costs that cannot be solely attributed to having a divided society. For example, delivering services in such a small region means that we do not benefit from economies of scale. I add that that is particularly the case when working on an all-island basis. We should be looking for opportunities to build on island-wide service delivery, particularly in border regions, in order to maximise efficiencies and service provision.”
“I beg to introduce the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill [NIA 13/22-27], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to the manner of notification of deaths, still-births and births and the manner of giving particulars relating to them; and to make provision for the issue of certificates recognising the loss of a baby.”
“I thank Members for their contributions; I have nothing further to add. I welcome Members' support during the consideration of the LCM on this short law-reform Bill.”
“However, the Bill does not define the boundaries of a third type of property or determine its legal treatment. It leaves that for the courts to develop via common law. In doing so, it will reduce the time spent by the courts here on questions of the categorisation of objects under personal property rights and will allow them to focus instead on the substantive issues before them, reducing legal fees for the individuals and businesses involved. The Bill ensures that our laws are modern, up to date and future-proofed and that we are an attractive place in which to deal with digital assets. <BR /> <BR />I commend the Bill to the House.”
“Both were positive and highlighted the fact that the extension of the Bill to here will create clarity and legal certainty sooner than might otherwise be the case through the courts and that such a delay could lead to divergence and put businesses in this jurisdiction at a disadvantage compared with those in England and Wales. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the motion under consideration. Essentially, it is a short, technical Bill. It does not create any new rights, obligations or legal duties. It does not remove or dilute any existing rights or obligations or force or encourage the use of digital assets. It confirms in statute the existence of another category of things that can attract personal property rights, thereby seeking to reduce ambiguity in transactions involving digital assets.”
“<BR /> <BR />Following receipt of written and oral evidence in the House of Lords, the Bill was debated in Westminster on 3 February, during which it was amended to include this jurisdiction in its territorial scope. I laid the legislative consent memorandum on 10 February, and the Committee for Finance agreed through its report to the Assembly, which was published on 12 February, that it was content with the proposal to extend the provisions of the Bill to here by way of an LCM. I thank Executive colleagues and Finance Committee members for their support and timely consideration of the matter. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly mention the consultation with local stakeholders. Two responses were received: from the Law Society and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB).”
“<BR /> <BR />The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords on 11 September 2024, gives effect to the commission's recommendation for the introduction of minimal legislation to confirm, on a statutory footing, the existence of a third category of personal property rights capable of accommodating the unique characteristics of certain digital assets in the modern world. The previous Finance Minister accepted the offer to extend the Bill's provisions here. She initiated a short, targeted consultation with local stakeholders, which ran as the matter progressed through Westminster's timetable, in parallel to seeking Executive approval, which was obtained on 21 November. She also referred the Bill to the Committee for Finance. Officials provided oral and written briefings to the Committee.”
“<BR /> <BR />The commission's report concluded that, although digital assets do not fit within the two traditional categories, certain types of digital assets are things to which property rights relate and, as such, should be regarded as belonging to a separate category. The majority of respondents to the commission's consultation were in support of that approach, with the senior judiciary calling on the commission for provisions that would facilitate the most effective development of common law. The Bill provides statutory clarity and will unlock for the courts the opportunity to develop common law principles, with a more efficient focus on the attributes or characteristics of the thing in question and of the legal treatment that should be offered to it.”
“<BR /> <BR />With the emergence of digital assets in the modern world — for example, crypto-tokens — the Law Commission of England and Wales reviewed the extent to which those types of assets challenged the two traditional categories in order to determine whether the law required reform to accommodate them. The commission found that the courts in England and Wales were moving towards recognition of a distinct third category of personal property — things to which property rights relate — and that they have accommodated and protected features unique to certain digital assets. However, there is as yet no definitive judicial position on the matter, and there is no certainty as to when the position will be arrived at.”
“The legislative consent motion (LCM) relates to the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. It is a short Bill, containing just one substantive provision, and the proposal is that it be extended to this jurisdiction. <BR /> <BR />The law relating to personal property rights in this jurisdiction, as is the case in England and Wales, was developed by common law, whereby private law principles and associated rights relating to personal property were traditionally divided into two broad categories: things in possession, which include things that are tangible and capable of being physically possessed, and things in action, which are legal rights or claims enforceable by action, such as debts or the right to sue for breach of contract.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.”