Debate contribution: North/South Bodies: Funding

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 27 May 2025.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

27 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

North/South Bodies: Funding

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4972595

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on additional funding for North/South bodies. As it is a cross-cutting issue and an alternative funding proposal requires Executive approval, I have pressed, and will continue to press, for it to make it on to the Executive's agenda. Proposed alternative funding arrangements have been developed by a North/South institutional working group, which includes officials from sponsor Departments, the North/South Ministerial Council secretariat, the Finance Departments in the North and the South and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The new funding proposals would allow funding for specific programme activities to sit outside the established agreed funding ratios for core activities and facilitate additional funding streams from any source, including sponsor Departments in the North and the South. Given the constrained financial position that the Executive face, to which many Members have referred, the proposals minimise the risk of bodies losing out on funding that is available through their southern sponsor Departments. No cost to the Executive arises from the funding proposals. A number of Members from the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party raised the issue of accountability. This is the important point: additional funding that is received through the new proposal would be included in the annual business planning process. That requires the approval of the sponsor Departments, the Finance Ministers in the North and the South and, ultimately, the North/South Ministerial Council. Therefore, oversight, scrutiny and agreement is required from individual Executive Ministers, the Executive and the North/South Ministerial Council. It is not a free-for-all, as has been suggested.

Those are matters for individual Ministers and scrutiny Committees. My understanding is that a number of financial reports have not been delivered on time due to a number of problems, including this place being down. Those are issues. North/South public bodies should — I have no difficulty with this — be open to scrutiny of their financial accounts, as anyone else should. It is public money that is being spent, and those bodies should be scrutinised by the sponsoring Minister, by the Committees involved and by this House. Yes, scrutiny should take place and financial accountability and value for money should be in place. On the point around accountability and governance of the structures of the Good Friday Agreement and the role of the Executive in them, which has caused concern for a number of Members, any additional funding would be under the scrutiny, and for the approval, of individual Ministers and the entire Executive. It would be counterproductive for bodies to miss out on funding due merely to the different inflexible arrangements that restrict the work of North/South bodies. That is why my Department has asked repeatedly, since last October, for the Executive to consider alternative funding proposals. The new funding model seeks to address the risk of bodies missing out on funding due merely to financial constraints in one jurisdiction. I see Members' calls, in the amendment, for more fiscal powers to be secured as being a distraction from the main motion. Unfortunately, the SDLP wishes to take attention away from the main issue. The DUP — it is open about this — is blocking additional funding from going to North/South bodies. Even with fiscal powers devolved, if the DUP position does not change, it will continue to block additional funding for North/South bodies. The devolution of fiscal powers is not the key that will open up the issue. It has to be recognised that the DUP's stance is blocking it. I believe that the assurance that any additional funding to be managed through the business plan of the body, which is approved by the sponsoring Minister, with the approval of the North/South Ministerial Council and scrutiny by the Executive, should be sufficient to assure anyone that no one can set an agenda that does not receive the approval of the Executive.

The Member makes a valid point: political opportunism is not going to solve the problem, and neither will distracting from the real core issue. It is important that the Executive have the fiscal levers that they need. Members will be aware that the interim fiscal framework signed by my predecessor on 21 May 2024 included a commitment to consider further fiscal powers. However, my immediate focus, as it has been to date, is on progressing the commitments in the interim fiscal framework on the Executive's funding arrangements, which need to be prioritised ahead of the June spending review. It took a number of years to deliver the devolution of further fiscal powers to Scotland and Wales, and it will take time to deliver here, but I am committed to making progress on that matter. It is also important to acknowledge that the failure to fully replace EU structural funds has had a tangible and negative impact on communities across the North. The loss of long-term, predictable funding has left a gap that short-term initiatives cannot fill. It is therefore essential that all resources are strategically aligned. Without coordination on flexible arrangements, we risk fragmentation and inefficiency. We need a joined-up approach that maximises the impact of every pound that is spent across east-west and North/South dimensions. I thank Members for bringing the motion to the Assembly. I assure Members that I will continue to work with colleagues here and counterparts in the South to resolve the current inflexible funding arrangements for the North/South bodies and the opportunities lost to communities across the North.

915 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:37 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