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 8 of 123.
“The Audit Committee recommended that my Department retain responsibility for approving the external auditor for the Audit Office. I have considered that advice and am content to proceed according to its wishes. I will now oppose the Question that clause 20 stand part of the Bill. I trust that Members will support the advice of the Audit Committee on the matter and will likewise oppose clause 20. <BR /> <BR />I have no further comments at this stage.”
“I and my Executive colleagues are content to support the Infrastructure Minister with her request. I trust that the Members here today will also lend their support to those amendments. <BR /> <BR />I draw Members' attention to clause 20, which I now intend to oppose. Clause 20 concerns the appointment of the external auditor for the Audit Office. My Department originally proposed the clause following previous Audit Committee recommendations that the responsibility for the appointment of the external auditor for the Audit Office should transfer from the Department of Finance to the Assembly's Audit Committee. Following the introduction of the Bill, the current Audit Committee wrote stating that it does not have the capacity or the resources to take on that responsibility.”
“<BR /> <BR />On amendment Nos 2 and 3, clause 17 proposes to provide the Department for Infrastructure with the power to introduce a fee for SmartPass applications, renewals and replacements, with the details of the fee scheme to be set out in regulations. The fee will help to recover the costs incurred by DFI in administering the scheme. As currently drafted, the Bill provides that those regulations will be made by the negative resolution procedure. Both the Finance Committee and the Infrastructure Committee indicated a strong preference for the regulations to be instead subject to affirmative resolution. In light of those views, Minister Kimmins wrote to me on 4 March confirming that she is content that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply and asking that I table the necessary amendments to give effect to that change.”
“The clause will provide a bespoke power, with express provision for bursaries covering tuition fees and living costs, and will therefore further strengthen DE's position. Minister Givan therefore requested that this amendment be accommodated in the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. I and my Executive colleagues were content to agree the request, and, as such, I bring forward the amendment. I understand that Mr Givan intends to begin a pilot of the initial teacher education bursary scheme in September. It is an important scheme, and I trust that Members will lend their support to the amendment.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now turn to the first amendment that I have tabled. Minister Givan wrote to me in October 2025 detailing a new policy initiative — the initial teacher education bursary scheme — that is to be implemented by the Department of Education. The new bursary scheme aims to increase applications and enrolment in subjects that are experiencing the most acute post-primary teacher shortages in key subjects such as mathematics, chemistry, physics, ICT, and technology and design and in Irish-medium education. The Department of Education has the necessary legal cover to establish bursary programmes through article 66(2)(a) of the Education and Libraries Order 1986, which gives the power to pay grants for the training of teachers.”
“First, I thank my Executive colleagues for their contributions to the Bill and their agreement that I bring forward my proposed amendments. I also thank the Finance Committee and, indeed, the other Committees that have undertaken detailed scrutiny of the Bill. I believe that it is worth taking a moment to recognise that, as it has been no small undertaking. The previous Financial Provisions Bill was in 2014 — some 12 years ago. The Bill is well overdue, which is reflected in the number of diverse clauses that have been sought by Departments. Indeed, there are some 20 clauses in all, which is significantly more than the seven included in the 2014 Bill. I appreciate that that has brought with it a degree of complexity to the workload of Committees — a challenge that they have risen to meet.”
“That is already covered in the Marriage Order 2003, and there is a power in the Bill to bring in qualifying requirements, which we may introduce. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the comments that have been made today by Members, including the Chair of the Finance Committee and Committee members. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“Of course, forced marriages in any culture or capacity are wrong, in my opinion. <BR /> <BR />There was also the question of why the Bill is not raising the age of consent from 16 to 18. There is no necessary connection between the age of consent, which is a criminal law matter, and the minimum age for marriage, which is a civil law matter. There was a time in the past when the age of consent was 17 and the minimum age for marriage was 16. The age of consent is 16 because it is the age at which a person is deemed sufficiently mature to consent to sex. There is no requirement to seek parental consent to that decision as there would be if they wanted to marry. In any case, the age of consent is a matter for the Justice Minister. <BR /> <BR />The final issue relates to marriage not being for profit or gain.”
“There is talk of lowering the voting age, but no formal policy proposals or draft legislation have been introduced, as far as I am aware. Deciding to marry is a different type of decision from deciding who to vote for in an election. It is much easier to change who you vote for than it is to change who you are married to, although both have lasting repercussions. <BR /> <BR />The next issue was whether the rationale for raising the age of marriage was linked to cultural practices and the issue of forced marriage. There is very little evidence that forced marriages are an issue here, and the Bill is not being driven by that. It is a much broader issue. I refer to my opening remarks on the potential for a 16- or 17-year-old who marries to miss out on such opportunities as education, training and the final years of childhood.”
“We are keeping an eye on those proposals, but, as yet, concrete plans have not been put forward, and they remain proposals. As I said in my opening remarks, I do not have a closed mind on it, but I believe that it would require carefully thought out policy, and it could have unintended consequences if we removed our law on profit and gain. I do not want to delay the progress of the Bill to do that, and there was a mixed message from stakeholders on the issue in the consultation. <BR /> <BR />Timothy Gaston raised a number of points that I will deal with in turn. First was the disparity between the age of voting and marriage age — why should children be able to vote at 16 but not be able to marry at that age? That is not comparing like with like. It is not unreasonable that different types of decisions have different minimum ages.”
“I support the principle and outlines of moving that forward, but we require DUP agreement to have it tabled at the Executive. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the comments from the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, Diane Forsythe, including those about the points that she will raise during the scrutiny of the Bill. Consideration will be given to the issues as they arise. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the comments from Jemma Dolan and Deirdre Hargey. I fully agree that the Bill will bring us into line with best practice on child marriage and provide the necessary equality for belief marriages. <BR /> <BR />Eóin Tennyson, on behalf of the Alliance Party, raised the issue of independent celebrants. England and Wales have only consulted on independent celebrants.”
“I welcome the support outlined by Matthew O'Toole and look forward to my officials working with him, as Chair of the Committee, during the Committee scrutiny stage. Matthew asked about no-fault divorce. To clarify, that was never part of the proposals in this Bill. No-fault divorce was to be introduced through a separate Bill in this mandate. He will know that we have consulted on no-fault divorce. Around the same time that I brought a policy paper on this legislation to the Executive, I also introduced a policy paper on no-fault divorce. I have not got agreement from the DUP yet to table that Executive paper. Time is running out for the Executive to deliver legislation in this mandate. If we are to deliver that legislation, agreement needs to come forward very quickly in order for the no-fault divorce paper to move forward.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their welcome contributions to today's debate on the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. As I said at the outset, the Bill has been developed through a process of research, analysis and public consultation. Its proposals on the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership reflect the recommendations of respected specialists and local and international opinion and have been overwhelmingly supported by those who replied to our consultation. Its proposals on belief marriage reflect the judgement of the courts in 2017 and temporary arrangements that have been working well for close to a decade. <BR /> <BR />I will now turn to the points raised by Members today.”
“Once again, a clear majority — close to 100% — of a diverse group of stakeholders agreed. <BR /> <BR />There is clear and diverse public support for the changes, a legal imperative that we make the change in respect of belief marriage and a strong ethical case for making the change in respect of minimum age. I ask, therefore, that you support the Bill, and I commend it to the Assembly.”
“However, I do not wish to delay progress of the current changes, and, among other things, the impact on civil marriage and the role of registrars would need to be considered carefully. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I commend the two main changes that the Bill will make. Amending the law to put non-religious belief marriages on the same legislative footing as religious marriage is essential for equality. The courts have pointed to that, and a clear majority of the organisations and people we consulted agreed that it was a necessary change. As for minimum age, international opinion is that, as long as we allow people aged 16 and 17 to marry or form a civil partnership, there is a risk of forced marriage, of coercion within marriage and of young people losing out on key opportunities in areas such as education.”
“Independent celebrants provide marriage ceremonies that are not legally binding for people who, for whatever reason, want a ceremony. They are typically profit-making sole-trader businesses that provide ceremonies for a fee and, sometimes, offer in addition a wedding planning service. During the consultation, some stakeholders suggested that we legislate to enable independent celebrants to provide legally binding ceremonies. To do so would require a lengthy consideration of the current arrangements, in particular the part of the 2003 legislation that prohibits marriage with the sole aim of making a profit. The question of independent celebrants and the implications of any change to current law that might benefit them are things that we will keep in view.”
“<BR /> <BR />I recognise that NI Humanists, the largest of the local humanist groups, has articulated concerns about how the system is likely to operate. I believe, therefore, that it is prudent that our statutory framework can reflect an agile manner if the evidence shows that practices are getting out of hand. The Bill, in several relevant places, allows my Department to bring forward regulations to set qualifying requirements that would apply to both religious and belief groups. My officials are already undertaking early preparatory work, engaging with colleagues in the General Register Office (GRO) and taking note of current consultation on the issue in Scotland. I will reflect on that work as the Bill proceeds. <BR /> <BR />I want to touch on the issue of independent celebrants, which was consulted on during the process.”
“With the Bill we are now making formal and official the temporary arrangements that have operated successfully for several years. That is what clauses 1 to 4 of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill set out to do. <BR /> <BR />One change that, some said, they would like to see is a stricter system of approving belief groups to perform marriage ceremonies. It was suggested that a group should, among other things, have a minimum number of members or have been inexistence for a specific number of years before it can be allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies. If we did that, we would have to apply it to belief and religious groups. That would be major change to a system that has been working well for more than 20 years. That is one reason why I am not currently minded to introduce it.”
“<BR /> <BR />There have been more than 5,000 belief marriages since the temporary arrangements were put in place. The 5,000th was in October 2025, which means that more than 5,000 couples have been able to have the type of ceremony that they wanted — a type of ceremony that was not available prior to 2017. It is clear from those numbers that a sizeable share of the population wants that type of marriage. Additionally, in my view, and despite concerns raised by NI Humanists, the main humanist body in the North, about other smaller groups, our temporary arrangements have been running smoothly. The ongoing temporary inclusion of belief marriage has not disrupted the functioning of marriage law; in fact, belief marriage has slotted into it easily.”
“They claimed that, because humanist ceremonies were not permitted as a result of the 2003 marriage law, which recognised only civil and religious marriage ceremonies, their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. The courts took the view that a humanist celebrant should be able to conduct the marriage, paving the way for further belief marriages. Since 2017, we have therefore been permitting belief marriages but always on a temporary basis. That was the only way in which we could address the issue raised by the courts until we were in a position to legislate. Temporary arrangements were put in place on the clear understanding that legislation would follow to create a more permanent and satisfactory solution. The Bill does just that.”
“The opportunity to have a marriage ceremony reflects their particular and sincerely held outlook on life. While not all of the 330,000-plus people in the 2021 census who stated that they had no religious beliefs will want a non-religious marriage, it is likely that some of them will. Given that, it seems reasonable and proportionate that the law be amended to give them that option. <BR /> <BR />Nearly 10 years ago, the inequality in our marriage law was brought home to us. In 2017, a humanist couple successfully challenged it in the courts. They wanted a humanist wedding ceremony: a ceremony that reflected their humanist views and that was presided over by a humanist celebrant.”
“That has meant that humanists and others who have deeply held but non-religious beliefs could not have marriage ceremonies that reflected their beliefs until the courts intervened a few years ago. The 1991 census was the first to enable people in this jurisdiction to state that they had no religious belief. In 1991, there were about 60,000 people or around 3% of the population with no formal religious beliefs. In the most recent census, in 2021, that total had increased more than fivefold to more than 330,000 or 17% of the population. In other words, there is a large and growing community of people who have no religious beliefs. The current marriage law does not take proper account of that community and does not give it the same opportunity that it gives to religious believers.”
“The way in which it will affect them is that they will have to put off their marriage plans for about 12 months on average. That is a small inconvenience, given the wider and long-term benefits of increasing the minimum age. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the second change that the Bill will introduce. As I said earlier, my view is that the marriage legislation from 2003 has been operating well in the two decades since it became law. Its principal drawback and the only aspect of it that motivated a successful legal challenge is that it permits two forms of legally binding marriage: civil marriage and religious marriage. The statutory framework has not catered for belief marriage.”
“In the South, the minimum age for marriage was raised from 16 to 18 in 2019. In England and Wales, that was done via legislation in 2022. Scotland is consulting on the issue. With this Bill, we are bringing our law up to date. <BR /> <BR />In the past five years, most of the 16- and 17-year-olds who got married here came from outside the jurisdiction. The majority of them came from jurisdictions on these islands that had already increased their marriage age. It is likely that they came here to get the marriage that they could not get closer to home. I am not comfortable that people from jurisdictions that have ended child marriage can come here and marry because we have not ended child marriage. The Bill will close that loophole. In doing so, it will affect the plans of only a few young people who live here.”
“We tolerate the risk that some people will be coerced into relationships that they do not want. We tolerate the risk that some people will end up in a relationship that they soon regret. By raising the minimum age to 18, we immediately reduce those risks. Those are the principled reasons behind clause 5, which raises the minimum age for marriage to 18, and clause 7, which does the same for civil partnerships. <BR /> <BR />I draw Members' attention to clause 6, which amends the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (NI) 2015 by extending the forced marriage offence to make it a criminal offence for a person to cause a child — someone under the age of 18 — to enter into a marriage here. Many jurisdictions have already raised the minimum age to 18.”
“Virtually everyone who responded to our consultation online wanted to see the minimum age raised. Most of the written responses were also supportive. Support came from faith groups, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and other children and young people's stakeholders, the Youth Assembly and legal specialists. <BR /> <BR />Relatively few people here marry at the age of 16 or 17. To date, no civil partnerships have involved people of that age. Most marry in their thirties. Only a few dozen each year are aged under 18, but even a few dozen a year add up to hundreds over time, and, each year, we tolerate the risk that some young people may miss out on the opportunities that could shape the rest of their lives.”
“Those missed opportunities can adversely affect the rest of a person's life. <BR /> <BR />It is also the case that, where people under the age of 18 are permitted to marry, more girls than boys marry. That is certainly the case here. Every year, decade after decade, markedly more girls than boys marry. In 2024, for instance, 37 girls married here compared with just seven boys. That was in step with all the previous years. That is one of the reasons why the risk of potential adverse consequences of child marriage falls disproportionately on girls and why there is a greater equality aspect to the changes that we wish to make to the minimum age. <BR /> <BR />When we consulted on reforming marriage law in 2021-22, it was interesting to see how much support there was for increasing the marriage age to 18 and how diverse that support was.”
“I will give one high-level example: the UN Committee responsible for the Convention on the Rights of the Child has long advocated that all jurisdictions set 18 as the minimum age for marriage. It has advised that 16- and 17-year-olds are children and that, if they are legally entitled to marry, that is child marriage. The UN also says that where under-18s are allowed to marry, there is a risk that they may be forced into marriage or become trapped in a marriage that they regret. Moreover, even if there is no direct coercion or regret — even if under-18s marry entirely of their own volition — a 16- or 17-year-old who marries may, by the very fact of being committed to an official, long-term relationship, miss out on opportunities, particularly in education and training, or they may simply miss out on the final years of childhood.”
“It has allowed couples much greater choice and freedom over how and where they can marry, but it is more than 20 years old, and, over that time, there have been changes in the way that we live. As I mentioned earlier, teenage marriage was common at a time when young people moved quickly into adult life. Today, the teenage years are more about preparation, education, training, work experience and personal development. We actively encourage 16- and 17-year-olds to stay in education or training or to enter work that develops their potential, and we support those who are not in work or learning. <BR /> <BR />Allowing marriage or civil partnership at such an age now sits uneasily with that approach, particularly given the respected strong and evidence-based international opinion on permitting marriage under the age of 18.”
“A belief marriage is a marriage ceremony for people who follow a particular non-religious philosophy, such as humanism. The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill will amend the law to place belief marriage on an equal footing with religious marriage, giving statutory recognition to the temporary arrangements currently in place. In doing so, it delivers equality between religious and non-religious believers. I want to set out why I, along with the two previous Finance Ministers, Conor Murphy and Caoimhe Archibald, and my Executive colleagues believe that those changes are necessary. <BR /> <BR />The current marriage law dates back to 2003, which is when it brought in several important innovations, notably the creation of a single preliminary process for civil and religious marriage. In my view, the 2003 marriage law has worked well.”
“The first of those changes relates to the age at which a person can marry or form a civil partnership. Our law, as it stands, permits 16- and 17-year-olds to marry, subject to the relevant consent, usually parental, being in place. In the previous century — indeed, well into it — it was not that unusual to see marriages take place where one party, or sometimes both parties, were aged under 18, but times have changed. It is important that we reform our law, not only to reflect modern life but, even more importantly, to safeguard children. The first aim of the Bill will therefore be to raise the minimum age of marriage and civil partnership to 18. <BR /> <BR />The second change proposed relates to non-religious belief marriage, more commonly referred to as "belief marriage".”
“I am pleased to move the Second Stage debate on the Bill. The changes that it includes will be beneficial for our citizens and make important reforms to the current law on marriage and civil partnerships.”
“The A1 is the major economic highway from Belfast to Dublin, and it is vital to our economy. The need for those sorts of projects to move ahead quickly cannot be overemphasised. Delay causes heartache and more financial consequences, neither of which can be measured against the other, but both need to be taken into account, and we need to be able to deliver our infrastructure projects much more quickly than we currently can. <BR /> <BR />The Executive, rightly, come under scrutiny in these matters, but this is not exclusive to the Executive. If you look at what is happening down South, in England or elsewhere, you will see that Governments are facing up to the challenge of protecting their major infrastructure projects. We have to start moving in that direction.”
“I am not talking about that issue, specifically. Major projects are susceptible to judicial review, because they are such complex, multilayered projects that require significant amounts of work and research and data. Within all that research, data, policies etc, someone can find a flaw. When that flaw is exposed, the project is set back. Executive projects, which are being carried out for the betterment of the people whom we are elected to serve, deserve and require greater legal protection than they currently have. <BR /> <BR />That is particularly the case in road infrastructure projects. Look at the A1 project. It is about road safety and ensuring that people can travel the road more safely than they do at present. Eóin referred to the 40 deaths over the past number of years. Each one of those deaths was a tragedy.”
“We are nearer to the completion of the journey. I hope that the court case on the A5 goes the way that it should and that that project moves forward and opens the way for the A1 project. <BR /> <BR />There needs to be greater legal protection for Executive projects. We have to start considering how we as an Assembly and Executive consider how we protect Executive projects that are being brought forward for the common good of the people.”
“We do not want to go back to a public inquiry, environmental impact assessments or any of those things, because they take time and considerable amounts of money, and you are not always sure about where they will end up. <BR /> <BR />We have certainty about a number of elements of the A1 project. We have been through the public inquiry and a number of other elements. We know where it is. The Minister has extended the restricted list, which can be picked up almost immediately, moving forward. I can understand that the campaigners, the people who are listening to the debate or those who may read about it are not interested in what I call Civil Service terminology, or government terminology, but these are important steps, and they are important reasons why the Minister has taken the decisions that she has taken, thus far.”
“However, no one could have foretold what was to happen next: how a judgement in another case would impact on a wide range of infrastructure projects in which the current Infrastructure Minister is involved. <BR /> <BR />I understand the call to treat the A1 differently from other projects, but, as the old adage goes, act in haste and regret at your leisure. The step that the Minister has taken — to extend the restricted list — is the correct way forward. The last thing that we want to happen is for the Minister to take a different action, only for a ruling in a court elsewhere to have an impact on that decision and knock us back a couple of steps in respect of the A1 junction.”
“For the record, I am speaking as an MLA for Upper Bann. I thank Eóin for bringing forward the Adjournment debate this evening. I also pay tribute to the many A1 campaigners, including Monica and Ciara, who have kept the issue on the agenda, despite their heartbreak. I am sure that it has been very difficult for them to continue to drive that agenda, but they have done so with great courage and dignity. Any time that I have met them, I have always been impressed by their dignity and commitment, and with the forthright way in which they presented their case. I commend them for that. <BR /> <BR />I am very familiar with the project. As has been pointed out, in July 2024, when I was Infrastructure Minister, there was hope that we could move quite quickly on it.”
“I encourage Ministers, where they have powers, to ensure that their arm's-length bodies are being run effectively and efficiently. Our arm's-length bodies spend the vast majority of our public funding, so they require careful scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />Efficiency is essential to protecting front-line services and ensuring that public money is directed to areas that matter most. Real and lasting reform will be achieved only if we embrace it together with a shared purpose and shared accountability to drive meaningful change.”
“I am committed to driving efficiency and tackling unnecessary bureaucracy. I have already simplified procurement processes and reduced red tape and low-value procurement in grant funding. On the example that Mr Burrows used, I have changed the procurement process for schools. My concern is that that information has not been filtered down to schools. There is an urgency for the Department and the EA to ensure that schools are aware of the new procurement process, because it removes bureaucracy and has the potential to save schools significant amounts of money. <BR /> <BR />The motion raises concerns about the levels of spending by Departments on arm's-length bodies. Scrutiny in that space is not optional. It is essential, as ALBs represent 74% of our total resource budget and employ the majority of our public-sector workers.”
“<BR /> <BR />I note the concerns raised by the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee on cost overruns and delays in major capital projects here. Those issues are not unique to public-sector projects. We see examples of major projects across these islands that have been disrupted due to inflationary pressures, legal action, planning issues and other factors outside the direct control of the relevant Department or arm's-length body. Having said that, I believe that we have become too risk-averse and spend too much time on processes and bureaucracy rather than focusing on delivery. For example, many reports have outlined that we spend too much time developing a business case and submitting it to multiple layers of checking, which is not improving decision-making.”
“My officials have provided and continue to provide support and guidance to all Departments as they seek to put in place their five-year plans. Departments are being encouraged to identify and set out clear proposals for efficiencies and transformation initiatives that can be taken forward over the five-year project, with the aim of driving down costs, improving service delivery and ensuring that resources are targeted where they are most needed. The implementation of mandatory targets, as proposed in today's motion, will not, however, necessarily deliver any additional efficiencies beyond those that are already being delivered or have been identified for delivery. In addition, it would potentially introduce a further layer of bureaucracy.”
“That is why I am seeking Executive approval to earmark a further £135 million in the multi-year Budget to continue driving forward the transformation of our public services and build a system that truly works. Delivering our Programme for Government priorities will require the Executive collectively, and individual Ministers, to take challenging decisions to prioritise the available funding in order to deliver the desired outcomes. <BR /> <BR />One key strand of my Department's transformative budget sustainability work is the development of five-year departmental plans to set out each Department's strategic direction over the medium term, outline the cost involved and identify efficiencies and other opportunities to reduce spending.”
“That means designing services around citizens, not organisational structures; cutting duplication and unnecessary complexity; planning our workforce better so that skills are used where they add the most value; using data wisely to guide decisions and support early action; focusing on prevention, not just managing demand; and making sure that every pound we spend delivers the greatest possible impact. That kind of reform is not optional. With pressures continuing to grow, doing more of the same is simply not an option. <BR /> <BR />The Executive recognise the need for transformational change across many of our public services and the need to fund that transformation.”
“The strategy will deliver clearer roles and career paths, faster targeted recruitment, stronger workforce planning, more consistent people management, better employee experience and well-being, and stronger leadership and inclusion, including rights for all employees based on our equality legislation. All those will, I believe, lead to better outcomes for public service delivery. <BR /> <BR />The multi-year Budget is an opportunity to provide the certainty needed by Departments for long-term planning and to create the conditions to drive transformational change. At its core, transformation is about changing how we work so that our services become more effective, more resilient and more sustainable.”
“Indeed, when we look at the Education Authority, for example, whose workforce is more than double that of the Civil Service, we see an 18% increase in full-time equivalent staff over the five years to April 2025. That is an extra 8,900 people who have been employed in the last five years, which is a growth rate far above that of pupil numbers. <BR /> <BR />I am fully committed to Civil Service workforce renewal. In that regard, the people strategy 2025-2030 is my Department's key programme. Launched in April 2025, it focuses on three priorities: skills and capacity, experience and environment, and leadership and inclusion.”
“Members have a choice between continuing to shadow-box and role-play and getting down to the real work of making politics work for all our people, giving leadership and hope in what is, at present, a very worrying world. <BR /> <BR />The work of managing Departments and driving effective, efficient government should be happening as a matter of course in Departments. If the Ministers in the party that tabled the motion support the scale of cuts suggested by their party members, I expect that they have taken steps to control spend and workforce numbers in their respective Departments. Perhaps the sponsors of the motion can spell out how that has been done. The reality is that the scale of bids that my Department received in the recent Budget process indicated that Departments wanted more money, not less, and more staff, not less.”
“It is their job to manage their Departments, including their finances. <BR /> <BR />On finances, I have argued consistently that the policies of previous British Governments and the current British Government have created this situation. They have consistently cut finances to public services in real terms. I have made the case and will continue to make the case for more funding for our public services. That may upset some in the Chamber and some in the media, but I will continue to do it. Let me be very clear: the best chance of successfully getting proper funding from the Government lies with everyone in the Executive and the Assembly working together to consistently send that message to the British Government. Sound bites, point-scoring and calling the Executive to bail out British Government-funded programmes does not cut it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Perhaps the Members opposite are suggesting that an alternative would be to pursue sweeping reductions in estate costs, meaning the closure of regional offices and public amenities and the limiting of local access to public services, with a disproportionate impact on rural communities. It is easy to talk, but it is much harder to deliver the painful cuts that the motion would require, or, indeed, for those Members to face their constituents, whose access to essential public services would be limited by those cuts. I would welcome clarification from the Members opposite on what practical actions they propose. <BR /> <BR />Let us turn to what we can do and to what is, in many cases, already being done. Ministers do not need a motion like this, or targets from me, to drive efficiencies in their Departments.”
“No, no, no. I suggest that the Member goes back and reads the responses to his questions for written answer. I am the one who signs off on them, and I can assure him that those figures are included in the responses. <BR /> <BR />Based on a figure of 20%, the sponsors of the motion are proposing up to 47,000 job losses. They may be comfortable with that. Their former leader was comfortable with 40,000 job losses resulting from Brexit, and they may be comfortable with 47,000 job losses, but that is for them to defend. Do they suggest that we make redundancies on that scale across the public sector, removing jobs from our local communities at a time when demand for services, particularly front-line services in health and education, continues to grow?”