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 6 of 123.
“My draft Budget states that any Department raising additional finance will be allowed to keep it up to the value of £20 million. I said that Departments that sell off unneeded buildings and other capital assets can keep the proceeds of that up to £20 million. However, there is a responsibility on every Minister to understand their budget and how their budget and public services are being delivered. Where they see inefficiencies, they should drive them out of the system, not only in their core Department but in their arm's-length bodies. <BR /> <BR />Transformation will, at its core, mean changing how we work so that services become more effective, more resilient and more sustainable.”
“Addressing that disparity so that we can provide sustainable services into the future will require adequate funding from London for public services as well as the substantive reform and meaningful transformation of how we design and deliver public services. That must include a relentless focus on driving efficiencies, responsibly generating additional income in a fair and equitable way and being open to new and innovative approaches to delivering outcomes. <BR /> <BR />My response to Mr Kingston's point about what I am doing to drive efficiencies in the Executive is that, in the draft Budget, I gave a sense of direction to my Executive colleagues on how they can support efficiencies in their Departments and help themselves.”
“Relying indefinitely on emergency support undermines financial discipline, weakens long-term planning and erodes public confidence. That is why fair and sustainable funding is essential. Without a settlement that reflects need and the real cost of delivering public services it is not possible to restore credibility, realism and control to our public finances. <BR /> <BR />Evidence presented to the Committee consistently indicates that public services in their current form are not sustainable within existing resources. The need for transformation is central to my draft Budget proposals. I fully recognise the scale of the challenge and pressures that all Departments and Ministers face. There remains a significant, unsustainable gap between our ambition and the resources at our disposal.”
“Achieving a sustainable multi-year Budget requires both collective responsibility in the Executive and continued engagement with London to press for a fairer funding settlement that reflects need and the real cost of delivering public services and supporting the economy. <BR /> <BR />In recent years, pressures have been managed through exceptional and short-term Treasury interventions. They have not addressed the underlying causes of financial instability. The repayment of the £400 million reserve claim over the coming years adds further pressures, particularly in 2026-27, the most challenging year of the Budget period. Analysis by the Committee made it clear that recurring overspends increasingly reflect the gap between service expectations and available funding rather than simple failures of financial control.”
“That is why I continue to make the case to the Government that we need to be fairly funded so that we can deliver the services that workers and families here rightly expect and deserve. <BR /> <BR />I agree with the Committee and the Fiscal Council that the publication of a multi-year Budget is a necessary and important step forward. It enables Departments to move beyond short-term supports, allows for more responsible workforce planning, provides greater certainty for capital investment and creates better conditions for transformation. However, the evidence also makes it clear that multi-year budgeting alone does not resolve deep-rooted fiscal challenges. The underlying underfunding must be addressed.”
“While the interim fiscal framework has prevented funding from falling below the 124% level of need, evidence has shown that we are not funded fairly or favourably when compared with Wales and Scotland. Analysis shows that Wales is funded some eight percentage points above its estimated level of need of 115% and that Scotland is funded some 20 percentage points above its estimated level of need of 105%. Where is the fairness in that? <BR /> <BR />The challenge that we face is not lack of ambition or commitment by those who deliver public services. The answer is not to tax hard-working families and small and medium-sized businesses more. We have a funding framework that does not reflect reality.”
“Real terms erosion is closely linked to the Government's tax and spending decisions. <BR /> <BR />I take issue with Mr Aiken's analysis of the open-book review. The Treasury did not find £3·5 billion of efficiencies; it found £3·5 billion of extra taxes for the people here to pay. If Mr Aiken is now advocating that the people whom he represents should pay £3·5 billion extra in taxes, he should say that clearly but should not hide behind the open-book review. The open-book review did not find that, and neither did the authors of the report claim to find that. <BR /> <BR />Continued underinvestment by the Government means that both resource and capital DEL remain highly constrained.”
“The days of austerity must come to an end, and there must be proper investment in public finances that allows public services to deliver the services that people need and investment in the economy. <BR /> <BR />People here pay their fair share of taxes to London. They do not get a fair return. While the most recent spending review provided the Executive with an opportunity to set their first multi-year Budget in a decade, the funding that it provided falls short of the level of need in our society. Independent analysis considered by the Committee reinforces what I have consistently said: the pressures that we face are the result of long-standing structural underfunding. The funding settlement does not adequately reflect patterns of ill health, economic inactivity or the real cost of delivering services.”
“Public services here have experienced spending decisions taken by successive British Governments that have imposed austerity and prolonged fiscal restraint, resulting in underinvestment and rising demand. <BR /> <BR />The cost-of-living crisis is not some abstract slogan or media headline; it is a daily experience for many families who see their earnings being stretched to breaking point. That is why the British Government must change course. They must properly fund public services and support workers and families against the rising tide of the cost of living. If the election results in England, Scotland and Wales have told us anything over the past number of days, it is that it is not only us blaming the Brits; the Brits are fed up with it as well. There needs to be a change of direction from the Government.”
“I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion and to engage with the detailed scrutiny undertaken by the Committee for Finance as well as the independent analysis provided by the Fiscal Council. Both reports offer a clear and, at times, stark assessment of the financial position facing our public services over the coming Budget period. <BR /> <BR />It is essential that the debate begins with honesty about the context in which the draft Budget was prepared. I have been clear that my proposals in the draft Budget have been developed against an exceptionally constrained financial position and do not provide the level of funding that I would wish to see directed towards public services.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“This may be a moment of enlightenment for the Member: that is an Executive approach, and he has, I believe, a party Member on the Executive.”
“The Member will note — I have said this on several occasions, including in my address today — that I have asked all Ministers to examine their budgets and programmes to see how they can assist the community and voluntary sector. It is perfectly legitimate for any Member to ask any Minister about such matters. I have no difficulty with being scrutinised, I assure you, but I have no difficulty with challenging that when I believe that the scrutiny is misplaced.”
“I am open to ideas and solutions as to how we can continue to support the community and voluntary sector, but tabling motions such as this one, which does not contain any solutions, is unfair to the sector and unfair to the users of its services.”
“I am not sure exactly to what the Member refers in relation to a working group, but a cross-departmental working group that was established at official level has met on a regular basis and has engaged. My officials have regularly met the community and voluntary sector. I also met the sector and had discussions with its representatives. I know their frustrations and anger about the matter. <BR /> <BR />A strange triumvirate of Gerry Carroll, Timothy Gaston and Matthew O'Toole has come here to defend the British Government. Keir Starmer has more friends in this Chamber than he has in his own Chamber, when it comes to certain stages. The responsibility lies elsewhere.”
“"Mishandling" is a somewhat polite term for what the British Government have been involved in here. During my different terms and phases of being a Minister, I have dealt with successive British Ministers and I have never dealt with a more disrespectful approach than to the local growth fund. It was disrespectful not only to me as an individual Minister but to the Executive collectively. Correspondence was ignored for months by the respective Department, and it showed me complete disregard and disrespect, not only to us as elected representatives but to the community and voluntary sector and to the users of the sector. There was a complete lack of respect for or understanding of our situation.”
“I will in a moment. <BR /> <BR />Cuts to public services will have real impacts. They will also impact on the community and voluntary sector and they will have a detrimental impact on service users.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is unfair to the community and voluntary sector to table motions such as this, calling for the ring-fencing of funding and solutions without saying where that ring-fenced funding should come from and what services the Opposition or whoever else supports the motion are prepared to curtail or cut.”
“I expect that, following the NIO consultation, that delivery responsibility will transfer to the Executive. We must not repeat the mistakes made elsewhere. Therefore, it is vital for us to work with and support stakeholders on how we can put that funding to best use. We must maximise impact and focus on opportunities in order to secure positive and deliverable results despite the limitations imposed by others. However, that is the work of the weeks and months ahead. Today, we are faced with a motion that correctly identifies the issue — support for the community and voluntary sector — that prescribes a poor solution and that misses the crucial point of British Government responsibility. The amendment in the names of Colm Gildernew, Declan Kearney and Sinéad Ennis reflects the reality of our current Budget situation.”
“As I have stated before, and as has been said in the Chamber, it is not realistic for the British Government or the Opposition to expect the Executive, with an already extremely constrained Budget, to fill gaps that have been created by others. That is especially the case when a technical change to the capital/resource split by the Government would have improved the situation at no overall cost. <BR /> <BR />The NIO is shortly due to launch a consultation on its local growth fund investment plan. I encourage anyone with an interest to contribute to that consultation. Until the conclusion of the NIO consultation, and until decisions are made on how it will be delivered, the local growth fund remains very much a British Government-delivered fund.”
“There is no point in the Opposition — or any party — coming to the Chamber at this late stage, saying, "Ring-fencing should take place", and not outlining in detail where that funding should come from and what services would be cut as a result of their decision to step away from the unified front that the Executive have had thus far, doing their solo run, being spokespersons for the NIO and the British Government, and raising expectations in a sector that has been let down by too many too often. If you have proposals for where the funding should be ring-fenced from and which services should be cut, I assure you that I will listen to them. <BR /> <BR />The current situation with the local growth fund is the result of a succession of poor decisions by the British Government.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is worth noting that, despite me publishing my draft Budget on 6 January, no other party has published a budget, a draft budget or budget proposals, including the Opposition. The Opposition have had ample opportunity to publish an alternative budget within which they could have shown the community and voluntary sector the other areas of public funding that they would have cut in order to bring forward the ring-fencing that is called for in the motion.”
“My proposals for the draft Budget for 2026 to 2030 have been developed against the backdrop of an exceptionally constrained financial position. In that context, it has not been possible to provide any Department with the funding as requested. It is the responsibility of each Minister to determine how to best incorporate funding for the community and voluntary sector into their departmental decision-making process. I have written to my Executive colleagues asking them to consider what opportunities there are in Departments to support the sector. Continued underinvestment in public services by the Westminster Government means that the available resource and capital funding is very constrained over the Budget period.”
“That provided some level of reassurance for the sector amidst uncertainty. My officials have been advised that it is to be paid to the sector this month. I recognise that it is much less than the sector received previously, but it is as a result of the British Government's decision to massively reduce the resource portion of the local growth fund. I and the Executive have made 19 separate representations in just 12 months to various British Government Ministers, up to and including the Prime Minister, about the local growth fund, calling for a more sensible split, but Westminster has refused to do so. <BR /> <BR />The motion calls for ring-fenced funding in the Budget to address the British Government shortfall and provide stability.”
“We put forward a mitigation plan that, unfortunately, by necessity, saw the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continue to deliver the resource funding for 2026-27 to ensure that money continued to flow. We sought proposals from Departments for the use of the 2025-26 capital allocation, making recommendations to the NIO that led to the funding of the recently announced North City Business Centre project in Belfast. We instructed officials to commence work with the NIO to help it deliver its investment plan for the local growth fund to ensure that, once agreed, it will form a strong basis for the delivery of the fund. <BR /> <BR />As a result of the Executive's mitigation plan, organisations previously funded through the Shared Prosperity Fund will receive continued, albeit reduced, funding.”
“The local growth fund was to be delivered by the Executive and the NIO with a wholly unsuitable capital and resource split. No flexibility was allowed across the years. Delays in its development caused unrealistic timescales, including a capital in-year allocation that had to be expedited and spent by the end of March 2026. The fund actually started in April 2026. That illustrates the poor approach taken on this. <BR /> <BR />None of this was ideal, none of this was what the Executive wanted and none of this was what the sector needed. That led to a focused and determined action from the Executive in the very short time frame available.”
“First, funding must be long-term and sufficient in value. Secondly, there must be co-design with partners. Thirdly, structures must be efficient and accessible. Fourthly, interventions must be in line with the Programme for Government. Fifthly, lessons, both positive and negative, must be learnt from what went before. Sixthly, time is critical, and we needed to be able to move quickly to prevent another funding cliff edge. Those principles were designed to avoid exactly the type of cliff edge that the community and voluntary sector has now experienced. The Executive's position and principles were provided to the British Government but were largely ignored. Very late last year, there was, finally, recognition by Westminster that Executive involvement was needed. That, in turn, led to some detail shared with us in October.”
“Those funds were replaced by the Shared Prosperity Fund, which was controlled and directly delivered by Whitehall. That fund was smaller than the EU funds that it was supposed to replace. As has been said, we went from an average of £65 million a year from the multi-year European funding programme to an average of £35 million a year from the Shared Prosperity Fund. The local growth fund in turn replaced the Shared Prosperity Fund and was designed by the British Government, despite commitments in the Labour Party manifesto that Labour would devolve those funds and their programmes to devolved institutions. <BR /> <BR />In March 2025, the Executive were proactive and agreed a position for the new local growth fund in anticipation of partnership and local control. That set out six clear and reasonable principles for the fund.”
“It simply cannot fall to the Executive to fill the gaps that have been created by the British Government, especially when the proposers of the motion are aware that it is British Government policy that has reduced the Executive's spending power. The amendment in the names of my colleagues Colm Gildernew, Declan Kearney and Sinéad Ennis reflects the real reason for the issues being experienced by the sector, and, for that reason, I fully support that amendment. <BR /> <BR />Before Brexit, the European structural and investment funds, in particular the European social fund, played an important role in the delivery of services to our communities. EU funds were delivered through local Departments, working with stakeholders, and had an agreed matched funding obligation in place.”
“I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. <BR /> <BR />I fully recognise the social and economic value of the community and voluntary sector and the vital role that it plays across our society in supporting and strengthening communities and delivering essential public services. As Finance Minister and as an MLA, I can clearly see the sector's contribution to the provision of services, particularly for the most vulnerable in our communities. The Health, Education, Justice and Communities Departments in particular benefit from the support of that sector in delivering public services. While I welcome the motion's recognition of the value of the community and voluntary sector and the impact that it has across our communities, I strongly disagree with the proposed solution.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“". What do fiscal councils do? The general principle of what a fiscal council does, as accepted by the OECD, is contained in the legislation, but the guiding principle of the legislation is that it the Fiscal Council is independent and can carry out its own work programmes.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He somewhat answers his own question. We are bringing through a piece of legislation to establish the Fiscal Council. The Fiscal Council has a role, and that has to be set out in legislation, otherwise we would just bring in a piece of legislation that says, "We are establishing the Fiscal Council, and the Fiscal Council will”
“I am voting against those amendments because I believe in the independence of the council and in allowing it to set its own work programme.”
“I would argue that it is not legislated against, in the sense that we are allowing the Fiscal Council to set its own work programme. Therefore it can look at whatever area it believes is relevant to its broader principles, and deliver reports accordingly. <BR /> <BR />In fairness, it has been a good debate. There is broad agreement on the general role of the Fiscal Council. Understandably, there will always be different views on how we set its programme of work and what it should be looking into. In that sense, all the amendments are valid, but I want to reassure those who tabled the amendments that I am not voting against the idea that the council should do a cost of division report or should not do a report into the Programme for Government or into the economy.”
“<BR /> <BR />During evidence from the Fiscal Council, the council chair confirmed that any further requirements would not be desirable at this stage because a majority of the Executive's Budget comes from the block grant. That is specifically in relation to the impact on the economy etc. I know, through other proposed amendments, that the OECD principles are core to this for me. Let us learn from best practice elsewhere. Scotland has a slightly different model, which was referred to by a number of Members. Even then, if we are going to have a truly independent body, let it be independent rather than us setting the work programme for it.”
“I will be voting against the amendments because I firmly believe that the council, as an independent body, should set its work programme in line with OECD principles and best practice from elsewhere. That is why I will vote against your amendments, not because I believe that the council should not be carrying out the work that you suggested but because it is for the council to decide whether it carries out that work rather than the Assembly directing it to do so. Therefore, I encourage Members to stick by the independence of the council, ensure that it sets its programme of work, that Ministers, Departments or indeed the Assembly do not interfere with its work. We must allow the council to get on with its work of reporting and ensuring that we have continuing improvement in the transparency and independence of our public services.”
“As Members consider how to vote on the amendments today, we have to ask ourselves whether, at this stage, we are placing directions on the council by supporting amendments that direct what work it should carry out, rather than leaving that to the professionalism of the current council members or those who will be there in the future. <BR /> <BR />I may agree or disagree with various aspects of the amendments proposed by Members on what they believe the council should be interrogating, investigating and reporting on, but that is not why I will be voting against the amendments. I am not voting against the amendments on the issues that Members have raised, be they the cost of division, economic studies or the Programme for Government.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill will enable the council to continue its work, operating independently. That phrase was used throughout the debate by most, if not all, Members, and I will return to that as I proceed through my comments. The Bill will enable the council to operate independently from ministerial, Executive, Committee or departmental interference. Indeed, as Members will be aware, clause 6 of the Bill states:”
“Apologies to the House for my phone going off during Diane's contribution. <BR /> <BR />I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate on this important issue. I also thank the Finance Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the Bill throughout Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />As Members will be aware, the Bill contains provisions that will place the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing. I hope that all Members will agree that the Fiscal Council has made a significant impact on improving the transparency, scrutiny and understanding of our public finances since it was established in March 2021. Its assessments are insightful and highly valued. They make an important difference to improving transparency, scrutiny and understanding of the Budget and monitoring process.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“As I said, if the Member has any concerns, he can contact LPS, and it will carry out due diligence on those matters. <BR /> <BR />I am supporting businesses. We have just talked about the Back in Business scheme. I want to support businesses by allowing them to physically expand and giving rates relief in the first year of their expansion. In the draft Budget, I have proposed providing £10 million in further support to small businesses. I have also proposed that the finance from some of the domestic rate relief schemes be redirected to supporting our small and medium enterprises. I am always looking for opportunities to support our small and medium enterprises.”
“There are assessments by members of staff, when they are available to carry them out. Like other bodies, Land and Property Services (LPS) has a constrained budget and a constrained number of staff, but spot checks can be carried out on request.”
“The Member is aware that the A5 case is before the courts and that there is an ongoing appeal involving the AERA Minister, the Infrastructure Minister and the A5 Enough is Enough campaign. I hope that the appeal is successful and that we then move rapidly to the delivery of all the road schemes to which the Member referred.”
“I have had a number of engagements with the Infrastructure Minister about her Department and her bids to the Budget. It is the responsibility of each Minister to run their Department and its policies. <BR /> <BR />As I said in response to the first listed question of Question Time, the costs of climate change are real and include severe weather events, such as the prolonged rain and the storms that our society has faced. DFI has borne the brunt of those weather events in responding to storms over the past number of years. We have just had the wettest January in over 100 years, which did not help the state of our roads.”
“By and large, the response from the British Government has been, "Tax workers, families and small businesses more". Here is the thing, though: workers, families and small businesses here pay their fair share of taxes, and those taxes go to the Treasury. We are not getting a fair return on those taxes from the Treasury. <BR /> <BR />As I have said on numerous occasions at the Executive table, every Minister has a responsibility to run an efficient and effective Department and ensure that all the public funds that they use are used wisely and deliver real change for the people whom they serve.”
“There is no actual agreement with the British Government for a share of that funding pot. We need to be conscious of that at all times. There is a statement on those matters in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), I think, although I may be wrong — it may be further back than that. We do not have a firm commitment from the British Government on a percentage or amount of money that will be returned to the Executive through the work that the Member mentioned. <BR /> <BR />The Member might not have caught up on the latest press conferences by her party leader, DFM and a number of her party's other spokespeople. It is not a case of blaming the Brits; it is a case of ensuring that the British Government, who collect taxes from all the citizens we represent, fund this place fairly.”
“No update is available. There have been back-and-forth communications with the Treasury on questions that it had on submissions that were made by the Department for Communities. My officials have engaged with the Department for Communities, and information has been supplied back and forth.”
“As I said earlier in Question Time, the eTendersNI portal is used by 147 contracting authorities and has over 35,000 registered suppliers. It is encouraging to note that eTendersNI figures for the 2025-26 financial year show that the vast majority of public spend here benefits local suppliers. Of the total value of the contracts awarded across the public sector, which was £1·93 billion, 65% went to local suppliers, with 62% going to SMEs. The figures for central government for 2025-26 are equally encouraging, with 65% of contracts, of an overall value of £1·25 billion, being awarded to local suppliers and 62% of the contracts benefiting local SMEs.”
“My procurement officials regularly collaborate with InterTradeIreland and participate in its Go-2-Tender programme. It delivered 10 sessions last year and has commenced delivery of the 17 sessions that are scheduled to be delivered by December this year. My Department's buyers engage with SMEs and microbusinesses through those online workshops to highlight opportunities in, and the accessibility of, the public sector. <BR /> <BR />Since July 2025, centres of procurement expertise have participated in 23 supplier events to raise awareness of public tender opportunities. A further 26 events are planned for this year.”