Debate contribution: Executive Budget

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 22 June 2026.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

22 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Executive Budget

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5637945

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said at the outset when I made my point of order, it is disappointing, if not entirely surprising, that the Opposition have chosen to approach the issue in the way in which they have, rather than by engaging seriously with the substance of the Budget and the very real challenges that are involved in funding and delivering public services here. They appear to be far more interested in chasing headlines and securing sound bites. That was plain to see from the fact that, rather than give the House its place, the Opposition issued a press release yesterday in advance of the debate. Perhaps most telling of all is that the figures on which the Opposition have based their case are, by their own admission, merely illustrative, yet that important qualification was tucked away on the final page of the briefing paper. The foundation of their argument is illustrative figures that have been selectively presented for political effect. The need for stable funding is real and widely shared across the Chamber. The motion, however, presents a narrative that is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, fundamentally misleading. Indeed, if I were to sum up Mr O'Toole's contribution to the debate, it would be in this fashion: he spent 75% of his time telling me that he agreed with me, with the Executive and with the point that the British Government have been underfunding this place and that he would support us in our bids to the British Government for more funding. He then spent the remaining 25% arguing against that point by trying to construct an argument that the Executive and the Finance Minister were in the wrong. We are either right on the issue or we are wrong. I know that there will always be party politics at play in the Chamber. That is OK, as it is part of the debating culture. I am not arguing or pushing back against that, but when the leader of the Opposition, by his own admission, argues that the British Government are underfunding this place and that the Executive are therefore right to engage with the British Government and push them on the issue of receiving proper funding, it seems an ill-thought-out argument to make when he comes to the Chamber with a motion that calls on the Executive to finalise the Budget ahead of any conclusion of discussions with the British Government. I have to say that this is part of the shambles that is having to deal with Westminster, but I expected, and, indeed, was scheduled, to have intense engagement with the British Government this week on the need for the Executive to be funded fairly and sustainably. Unfortunately, we have seen that a Prime Minister has stood down again in Downing Street, which, I suspect, will delay that engagement. It will certainly have an impact on it in some way. I had hoped that, if not by the end of this week, certainly by next week, we would have reached some sort of conclusion on an offer from the Government, a proper funding package would have been put in place and then I would be able to bring a further draft Budget to the Executive for discussion and future agreement. We are not in that position as a result of antics elsewhere. It is clear that, when you have a debate where the leader of the Opposition, Timothy Gaston of the TUV and Gerry Carroll of People Before Profit are generally in agreement with one another, we are in a very strange and wonderful land. It brings me to my point that party politicking and gamesmanship are at play here. I will certainly not be bringing Timothy Gaston along to any engagement with the British Government: he has swallowed their line hook, line and sinker. He is now their spokesperson. He was a spokesperson for the Tories. Now he is a spokesperson for Labour. I know that his ambition is to be a spokesperson for the Reform Party. He certainly will not be coming along as part of any delegation that I will bring to see the new Chancellor of the Exchequer when they turn up because, from his point of view, this place is properly funded; we need to suck it up and get on with it. The only solution that he had

— this is your solution — is to stop Fenians playing football in Casement Park. That is your solution to everything. No matter what debate we have in the Chamber, you bring up Casement Park. It is truly a sectarian argument coming from you as regards that matter, so you will not be coming on the delegation. If Mr O'Toole works out what his position is on support: whether he supports the 75% of his argument that he made today or the 25% of his argument against us, he will make a useful ally if he comes along. At this stage, Mr Carroll appears to be the only person in the Chamber who wants to support the original motion, which sets out a position that is not in favour of further funding for the Executive; is not in favour of funding for public-sector workers, does not support teachers, does not support healthcare workers and does not support doctors, but he is in support of it.

I will in a wee second. I cannot understand that position. As I said at the start of my contribution, I can understand party politics at play, but you also have to, from time to time, have a collegiate approach to these matters and accept the reality of the stark figures that are staring out at us. Scotland is funded well above its need to the tune of somewhere in the region of £3 billion. Wales is funded above its need to the tune of £1 billion. I, as Finance Minister, am calling on the British Government to fairly and sustainably fund our Executive.

If you support the original motion today, that is contrary to your position. It is absolutely contrary to your position. All I am asking for across the Assembly Chamber is unity of purpose. The unity of purpose is that we send out a message with a united voice to the Government, or whomever the new Prime Minister and Chancellor will be — I suspect that there will be a change of Chancellor — to fund this place fairly and then allow the Executive to make decisions on their Budget. Then, there will be a challenge in the Chamber on what the priorities are and on what people believe should be funded over and above other things.

I will in a moment. I look forward to that debate, because challenges will remain with regard to how we deliver our public services, and I look forward to hearing the alternatives from colleagues. Yes, I will give way.

1,155 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification