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 76 of 123.
“They have, but I remind you again that 125,000 people have died. They cannot be replaced. Jobs can be replaced. Businesses can be replaced. Mental health can be treated. I accept that it is a huge challenge for our society and has to be part of our recovery. However, when you look at the scale of what we faced, it was the right decision to close down. We now have to decide what we have to do to create a new economy. Our economy was in trouble before COVID-19. It was in trouble as a result of the pending Brexit and in trouble even before Brexit was mentioned. <BR /> <BR />As a society, we have the lowest-paid jobs on these islands. We have the lowest economic output on these islands. We have the lowest standard of living on these islands.”
“I heard Members say that it has cost x amount of pounds to keep the economy closed, so I checked the latest figures for deaths across these islands. Across these islands, in the last year, 125,000 people have died as a result of COVID-19. Imagine if we had not closed the economy down. Imagine if we had not, in response to the third wave, which has been devastating, closed the economy down.”
“Facing Brexit on its own would have been bad enough for any devolved Assembly with limited fiscal powers, but to face COVID-19 and Brexit and, possibly, an accompanying world recession will be a huge challenge for all the political parties involved in the Executive, and those that are not involved in the Executive as well. We need a united front, and that is why I think the amendment is important. <BR /> <BR />Members on the opposite Benches have said — to a degree, they are right — that the economy has been ruined as a result of the lockdown. Yes, that is true to a certain degree, but it is COVID-19 that has ruined the economy. Nobody set out to close down the economy. Nobody's ambition was to close down the economy.”
“I will speak in support of the amendment. The proposer of the original motion, Sinead McLaughlin, spoke about solutions and tackling inequality. I would not dream of arguing against either of those things, but if we are to find solutions to the economic devastation that is possibly facing us as a result of a number of elements, it is crucial that the Executive work as one and that all Executive Ministers play their part in producing an economic recovery plan that creates well-paid jobs, leads to an end to inequality and gives our society and our people hope for the future. <BR /> <BR />The consequences that we face are the result of, almost, the perfect storm.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, will the Speaker's Office look at how Members use points of order? Some Members use them to issue press releases and snapshots for the evening's news.”
“The petition has 3,313 signatures. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, there is cross-party support for the petition and the work of the NUS-USI. It is particularly unfortunate that full-time students studying in further education colleges, who are most likely to come from a lower-income background, have not been afforded this grant. Mr Speaker, I support the student movement in its work and in its continued call for this payment to be made to others. I will present the petition to you in due course.”
“I wish to present this petition on behalf of the National Union of Students-Union of Students in Ireland (NUS-USI), the student advocacy movement that speaks on behalf of our students who live locally. I will read out the wording of the petition:”
“I have no problem with anyone ensuring the safety of their workers. My concern is that, while it is a fact that there was no credible threat, as stated by the PSNI, and a lie got halfway round the world before the truth got its pants on, those workers being removed suits your political agenda. Rather than dealing with facts, Minister, you are allowing non-existent threats to carry forward a political agenda, contrary to your statutory duty and the ministerial code.”
“Please have a copy of Hansard with you so that you can quote me correctly.”
“I am actually thinking of organising guided tours of Connolly House just to show you around it, because it is not as mysterious a place as you seem to think it is. <BR /> <BR />It is not a case of people saying that nobody got it wrong or, "You got it wrong and this got it wrong". The Executive agreed a strategy to deal with this issue. We are adhering to the Executive strategy.”
“— will be the less for it. I have finished.”
“'Only Fools and Horses'; that is right. Trigger sits with his friends and tells them that he has got a medal from the mayor because his broom has been in existence for 20 years. His friends are intrigued and ask, "How can your broom be in existence for 20 years?". He says, "I've only changed the shaft 17 times and the head 20 times". His friends say, "How can it be the same broom?". Of course, it is not the same broom. The Bill that Mr Allister introduced last February is not the Bill that is before us today. Eighty-two amendments were tabled to it. It has gone through a number of changes, but it is still not fit for purpose. Unlike Trigger's broom, which was fit for purpose, the Bill is not. Unfortunately, I suspect it will pass today, and our government —”
“Members will be familiar with a TV show with a character called Trigger. The name escapes me.”
“<BR /> <BR />I respect Mr Wells in many ways, believe it or not, because he stands up for what he believes in. I listen to Mr Frew and others talk about what they think of me and my party. If I was in his position and believed half of what I said, I would be sitting in Mr Wells's corner. I would have the courage of my convictions to sit in one of the corners of the Chamber. I respect Mr Wells for having the courage of his convictions and Mr Allister for having the courage of his. I reach out and I respect them for doing that. I do not agree with them, but at least they stand up for what they believe in. When others get up on their soapbox and start on a ramble, it goes over my head. I will not allow the mandate of my party to be insulted. <BR /> <BR />Coming back to Mr Allister's BilI, I will end on a light-hearted note.”
“We have an unnecessary, unwieldy piece of legislation before us, which, if passed, will make the functioning of government more difficult. It will not make it impossible, but it will make it more difficult. When we need a flexible and responsive Civil Service and Executive, as we will, parts of this legislation will make that more difficult. I have no doubt that Mr Allister, and others, will seek every opportunity to invoke sections of the Bill to prevent the Executive doing what needs to be done to help our economy and society to recover in the wake of COVID-19. So, watch this space. I accept that many MLAs made genuine contributions to the debate and want to challenge the wrongdoings of RHI, but this is not the way to do it. It will not achieve the goal.”
“Furthermore, the Executive, on which five of the parties here are represented, agreed to implement the recommendations of the RHI report to bring forward a strategy to ensure that, as far as possible, the RHI goings-ons were prevented from happening again. If someone is so minded, they will find ways round codes of practice or legislation, for instance, to corrupt the system for financial, political, or other, gain. There was, therefore, an agreed strategy. Unfortunately, that strategy has been reneged on, for a variety of reasons. I have my views on some of those reasons, but that is not important. The fact of the matter is that agreements have been broken.”
“Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Bill, its authors and those who have been so supportive of it do not have a great track record when it comes to reform. They do not have a great track record of inclusive politics. They do not have a great track record of trying to make the constitution of this place — the Good Friday Agreement — work. It is in that context that I make my comments. <BR /> <BR />We have, throughout the passage of the Bill, said that it was unnecessary, that it was not called for in the RHI inquiry and that there were other ways of dealing with the outstanding issues of the RHI inquiry.”
“I will not. When the Member tells me that he is in favour of reform, I take it with great scepticism because —.”
“I would like you to find it within yourself to recognise that the continuing insulting of my party's mandate by Mr Frew and others is not good form. It is not in good spirit and does not set the tone for a good debate. You should keep that in mind. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is allegedly about reform. The Bill is allegedly about good government. Mr Frew has a habit of telling us that he is all for reform, but, of course, Mr Frew comes from a political tradition that would still have the 1921 Northern Ireland Parliament in place. He would still have legislation in place that would have a foot on the neck of the Catholic community. He would still be opposed to civil rights reform. He would still be opposed to every reform that has taken place to create an equal society.”
“I will come to you in a minute, Mr Wells. You have me in the form now, so I might as well continue.”
“It is as well that Mr Frew mentioned the IRA army council in his speech because there was nothing else in it that was worth remembering. I know that some Members are running a competition to speak the longest during a legislative debate and bore the rest of the institution to tears. The competition has now been won. You have that badge, Mr Frew. Hold that badge proudly. I have heard you speak on a number of occasions on the Bill —.”
“Will you direct me to the clause that refers to how we are directing the operations of the IRA army council or anything to do with the IRA army council in this Bill?”
“Minister, COVID-19 has accelerated and will accelerate many changes in our society. We now enter the second year without high-stakes examinations in education. Perhaps it will accelerate the debate about the purpose of high-risk examinations in education, but I do not want to test the patience of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle at this moment. <BR /> <BR />What consultation have the Minister, his Department and CCEA had with the teaching unions in regard to the changes that he is announcing today?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. On the issue of travel restrictions across the island, which has been rehearsed many times, and the specific issue of hotel quarantine for incoming passengers, when that, hopefully, arises, does the Minister agree that that should be coordinated on an all-island basis as part of the two-island approach to tackling COVID-19?”
“The Minister will be aware that failure is an orphan and success has many guardians. With regard to another group that has been left behind in terms of support, have any bids been received to reopen the microbusiness fund?”
“Did you listen to the warnings that the British Government would sell you down the river? No, you did not. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past so that we do not repeat them in the future. <BR /> <BR />The issues with the protocol can be resolved. No one is starving, as Mr Allister claims, and the economy has not been strangled as a result of the protocol. Those are myths and mistruths. They are provocative terms, so let us calm ourselves and work with one another, the Dublin and British Governments and the EU to ensure that whatever outstanding issues there are with the protocol can be resolved. However, I appeal to you: calm your language, stop sabre-rattling and we will get through this.”
“Whatever the motivations and however it came to that decision, it was wrong. How was it ensured that that decision was not implemented? Through diplomacy. Diplomacy brought us to the point where sense reigned in the EU Commission and it did not trigger article 16. It was not angry words, foot-stamping or statements from this one or that one about what might happen in the loyalist community: it was diplomacy. So let us use diplomacy. <BR /> <BR />If there are genuine concerns in the unionist community, we are prepared to listen to them and to work with you to overcome them. Be sure of that. However, as I have said in the House before, when you drove Brexit through, did you listen to any concerns from the nationalist and republican community? Did you listen to the concerns of the 56% of people who voted against Brexit?”
“From the outset of this debate and from other commentaries — whether in the media or in halls up and down the country — people have to keep calm heads. People have to reflect on the implications of their words. Only recently, we have seen the events in Washington, where Mr Trump made a passionate speech to his supporters, marched them up to the top of the hill and left them there. Many in this society have seen the inside of courtrooms, police stations and jails because of the loud voices of people who marched them up to the top of the hill and left them there. No one in the Chamber will get angrier than Jim Allister, so let us not try to. Let us be calm, measured and look at exactly what is going on. <BR /> <BR />The EU Commission was wrong. It was wrong, simply wrong.”
“I thank the First Minister for her statement. It is quite a harrowing report. <BR /> <BR />Minister, on an island that has faced more than its fair share of torture and abuse, it never ceases to shock me when I hear reports of the abuse and violence that our women and children faced when they were supposed to be under the care of the state or states and the Churches on this island. Does the Minister agree that what was behind that was state-institutionalised misogyny and that the victims of that abuse, torture and those human rights abuses are completely blameless?”
“However, a substantial amount of money will have to be bid for, because students and their hard-pressed families cannot afford another false dawn. Minister, will you commit to ensuring that the package that you bring forward is fit for purpose and compensates our students? We also have to remember our further education colleges.”
“I thank the Minister for her answers thus far. Minister, you will be aware that, over the last number of months, I have been raising this issue with you on behalf of Sinn Féin. The student hardship fund is not fit for the purpose of compensating our students over the COVID pandemic. I note your comment that you do not want to replicate the system but that you want to get the money out the door. If the student hardship fund is going to be used, you will have to ensure that it will compensate our students for rent for accommodation that they are not using. <BR /> <BR />I welcome that you are engaging with the Student Loans Company and that students will now, hopefully, be compensated for their fees.”
“The Minister touched on some of the points that I wanted to raise with him. Can he go into greater detail on the areas of work that the Executive Office is carrying out?”
“Minister, students have had an awful year. They are paying rent for accommodation that they cannot use and their educational experience is less than optimal, despite the best efforts of the tutors and their colleges and universities. Would you look sympathetically on a bid from Diane Dodds, the Economy Minister, if she were to come forward with one to compensate our students for their rent and tuition fees?”
“Minister, in your statement, you rightly point out that many people in our prisons are vulnerable, suffer from mental health issues and, indeed, if you had a different system, may be in different centres of care. With tye high levels of sick leave for prison officers, what is the Minister doing to ensure that staffing levels are right to ensure that the vulnerable are looked after and that there is not more pressure placed on the prison officers who are present, so that we have a service that is about care and rehabilitation?”
“Again, the Member tries to cite an example as a blanket response to all scenarios. There will be scenarios in which codes or legislation, or a hybrid of both, are enough. You cannot say, "You said a, b or c once, so that is a definitive position on all". Mr Allister, the point is that it was not Sinn Féin that said that codes were enough; the Executive said that codes were enough. A Bill to improve the functioning of government that is based on breaching an agreement from that Government is surely not getting off to a good start. I will end on that point.”
“What does that do for the confidence of the parties sitting around the Executive table and working together if the legislation is in breach of an agreement? Think of the consequences of that, if you are not thinking of the consequences that this legislation will have in trying to administer good government.”
“In the Minister's winding-up speech on the last debate, he pointed out an important issue. The Bill, from the point of view of the sponsor and others, is about improving the functioning of government. Right? The Minister pointed out that there is an agreement in NDNA on how to deal with the recommendations in the RHI report, which is not to legislate. The Minister revealed that there is an Executive agreement — apologies if I am putting words into the Minister's mouth; he can correct me later if I am not exactly right on this — on how to deal with the RHI recommendations, and it did not involve legislation. To those supporting the legislation, tell me this: how can the functioning of government be improved if an agreement is breached?”
“I tip my hat to the Member's knowledge of the Copyright Act. If you pay another barrister enough, I am sure that he or she would argue that point with you, hence the reason why we have so many barristers. <BR /> <BR />On the statute books, there are laws that are good, bad or unwieldy, but do we need to add other legislation that is the same? I will use this amendment as an example. Those who are genuine about the process are attempting to pass legislation for good governance, but the Bill will not achieve that goal because there are so many different aspects to it.”
“It seems a bit extreme, but perhaps the most extreme circumstances would go to the courts. <BR /> <BR />It strikes me as poor legislation. I know that the Minister tabled amendments for the same clause in an attempt to tidy it up, but it shows that legislating for every incident is, if not impossible, almost impossible.”
“Perhaps they did not declare that they were the chairperson of the local residents' group and were making a representation on behalf of the group in that area, or they did not declare that, as a result of poor street lighting in the area, someone had been knocked down and killed. The Minister, however, has made the decision in his or her head that it is not important so has not registered it. Six months later, the Minister might be pulled up on it and told, "Minister, you have breached the legislation. You were lobbied on an important issue — street lighting — and a person died as a result of poor street lighting. You did not register it". Who decides who is right or wrong there? The legislation does not give an arbitrator for that. Perhaps it is the courts; maybe that is Mr Allister's intention.”
“If you look at amendment No 29, you see that it relates to clause 8 and, as we discussed at Consideration Stage, when a Minister is lobbied. How do you define that lobby? How do you manage what is and is not an important lobby? There was some discussion back and forth on that. We have now reached a point where Mr Allister has amended his Bill to say that it is a matter for the Minister to determine whether a matter is "inconsequential". Previously, we used an example of a Minister coming out of a supermarket, so I will stick with that. That Minister might be lobbied about street lighting. The Minister may walk away and say, "That's not important to me. That should not be reported". However, the member of the public thinks that it is important.”
“I do not know how it comes across to the Member. I have no strong personal feelings about Mr Allister either way. I am politically opposed to him. Like the Member, I try to make friends. I know that you spend a lot of time in Committees trying to make friends. I try to make friends too. I am maybe not always as successful as you are, but I do my best. <BR /> <BR />I want to give an example, and Mr Muir touched on this: we are making legislation, not passing a motion in the Assembly. Legislation has consequences, and the consequences of passing legislation here could have a very detrimental impact on the functioning of government. The purpose of the Bill is to — allegedly — improve the functioning of government. <BR /> <BR />How will the clauses be implemented?”
“If the Assembly passes the Bill, it will go down in history as Jim Allister's private Members' Bill, but it is no longer Jim Allister's private Members' Bill; it is a Bill that has been brought together by a variety of resources and individuals who are trying to make bad legislation workable.”
“The amendments that are before us once again prove the weakness of the original piece of draft legislation. The original, as published by Mr Allister, had 15 clauses in a seven-page Bill, which is a very short piece of draft legislation. As a collective, we have tabled a total of 81 amendments to that 15-clause, seven-page Bill. That is 81 amendments to a piece of draft legislation that was published with great gusto as something that was going to cure all the ills of the Assembly and Executive and resolve the issues in the RHI report. Clearly, it was not capable of doing that in its original format.”
“First, can the Member clarify whether he includes himself in those whom he considers "reasonable Members of the House"? That would be an interesting confirmation or denial. <BR /> <BR />I doubt that the spads who caused problems with RHI ever set foot in Connolly House. They spent a lot of time around DUP headquarters, though.”
“Today, we are going to try to mitigate the worst aspects of another piece of legislation that is being supported by Members opposite. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, we are supportive of a majority of the amendments before us. We still think that the Bill is unnecessary and that its sponsor's motivation is to create problems in the functioning of government. It is always worth remembering that, if someone wants to break the rules or go around the legislation — if that motivation is there, it does not matter how thick the rule book is, because they will continue to do it.”
“I will get back to the Bill before us. Spads are a political appointment, as they are in all institutions that I can think of in Western-style democracies. The Minister is responsible for the appointment of the spad. To try to equate spads fully with the Civil Service is a mistake and will not allow for a good, functioning Government. Let us not try to create a scenario in which government is not working, which I think is Mr Allister's intention. The amendments before us allow for mitigations of the worst aspects of the Bill. It is unfortunate that, many times in the Chamber, we have to spend our time mitigating the worst ideas from Members of the opposite benches. We spent a long time trying to mitigate Brexit.”
“Amendment Nos 3 and 4, and the other amendments tabled by the Minister, allow for proper accountability mechanisms for special advisers. Connolly House was certainly not the problem. The problem was those who were prepared to fill their boots with public money. Those who were prepared to fill their boots with public money were sitting over there on the other side of the House, were employed by Members sitting over there or were encouraged by Members sitting over there. Let us not try to deflect responsibility for that.”
“I think that it will make it more difficult. That may not become immediately visible to members of the public, who see their public services being delivered, but it will make the work of Ministers, the Executive, spads and civil servants much more difficult and much more complicated. Everyone has to work to the rule book, but the rule book as it was during the RHI scandal should have prevented spads sending emails to their fathers-in-law, cousins and others on how to make a quick few pounds off the public purse. It should have prevented spads from filling their boots and Ministers coming into the Chamber and presenting legislation that they had not read or of which they were not over the jot and tittle.”
“You can try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but it is still a sow's ear at the end of the day. <BR /> <BR />The question that Members have to ask themselves of the Committee, and of those who have been cheerleading the Bill, is, first, what is the motivation of the Bill's sponsor? Is Mr Allister a defender and supporter of the Good Friday Agreement? Does he want to see government function well here? In my opinion, he does not. He is an opponent of the Good Friday Agreement and the Executive. He has told everybody who is prepared to listen to him that this place is unworkable because it is built on a foundation of sand. Why would he therefore want to improve the functioning of government? Is it not the case that the legislation, as originally drafted, was going to make the functioning of government more difficult?”