Debate contribution: Public Expenditure: Provisional Out-turn 2024-25 and June Monitoring 2025-26

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 30 June 2025.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

30 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statement

Heading

Public Expenditure: Provisional Out-turn 2024-25 and June Monitoring 2025-26

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5043424

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Yes. Since the establishment of the public-sector transformation board, significant progress has been made. In March this year, I announced in the Assembly the first tranche of successful projects, allocating over £129 million in funding across projects in healthcare, special educational needs, justice and infrastructure. Last week, I announced the appointment of two new members, Gareth Hetherington and Professor Helen McCarthy, to the public-sector transformation board. Their skills and expertise complement the existing board and will enable us to continue to deliver positive transformation in the way that we deliver our public services and change people's lives for the better. The board's expansion comes about after the confirmation of its terms of reference. Last week, a second call was made to Departments for projects to utilise the £102 million of funding that is there for transformation. I also want to see the three-year Budget as a transformation Budget. As I said earlier, it is over a decade since the Executive had access to a three-year Budget. We have an opportunity now to plan ahead, with limited resources — I accept that — and to do things differently in the time ahead. It can be a game changer, but it will be so only if we take the opportunity. I am going to work with my Executive colleagues and my officials will work with their counterparts in other Departments to use the Budget for transformation.

As I understand it, the Minister for Infrastructure will be writing to the landowners who are affected by the quashing of the orders. I will also say this, however: a judicial statement and decision is a very important moment, but that also deserves consideration. I do not think that it will be the end of this journey. Let us see what decisions the DFI Minister has yet to take and what she brings forward to the House and to other places on what, she believes, is the best way forward. If we come to the position where redress or compensation are required, that is a conversation that the Executive will have to have, moving forward. Where funds will be or have been surrendered as a result of the delay in delivering the A5, all those moneys, apart from the Irish Government's moneys, have to come back to the Executive for further allocation according to whatever decisions the Executive take. As I said, however, we are not at that point yet. A lot of consideration is yet to be taken on the next steps on this journey.

I share the Member's frustration about the use of the £5 million. It is right and proper to give it to the PSNI and to support it in that regard. However, that money was literally wasted. That £5 million could have been used to start the recruitment of extra PSNI officers. It could have been used to recruit nurses, teachers or classroom assistants — you name it, and that money could have been used for that. It is very frustrating that a minority of thugs have cost this society £5 million, at least, because there will be extra Justice consequences, as well as compensation costs and the cost of lost opportunities, as a result of their thuggery. They have cost this society a lot in reputational and financial terms. I have always said in the Chamber that one of the first questions that I ask a Minister when they meet me is this: "What are you doing to help yourself?". That is about having efficient and effective management of budgets, at ministerial and departmental level. I have also said that the Committees play an important role. Committees scrutinise Departments, and the scrutiny of departmental budgets is probably one of the most important tasks that a Committee can take on. I encourage the Committees to continue their good work in that regard.

The DFI Minister will finalise her budget allocations. In previous years, however, that Department has allocated around half a billion pounds to NI Water, which is a significant investment. I heard the clamour last week for the privatisation of NI Water, the introduction of domestic water charges and the placing of further financial burdens on working families through the back door. For those who have not heard it yet or do not understand it yet: we are not introducing domestic water charges; we are not privatising NI Water. Hear what we are saying and move on from that agenda, because it is not going to deliver what you want it to deliver.

There are many reasons why you want to have a properly resourced police service. One of the areas that has suffered as a result of the understaffing of the police is neighbourhood policing. From the experience in my area, I know that neighbourhood policing can change entirely a relationship between a community and policing that, in the past, was far from good. A shortage of policing damages the way that the police can operate on the ground. As you pointed out, it also means more overtime, which means more stress for the officers who are doing it. It can lead to higher sickness levels among police and to an inefficient policing service. It was only right and proper that, after analysis of the business case that was forwarded, it was signed off. The Justice Minister and I have had good discussions, and I am committed, as stated in this paper, to supporting the police in this financial year. I am committed to bringing forward proposals to the Executive, as part of the three-year budgetary period, to fulfil the business case and recruit to policing to the required level.

The Member is correct. The later that you allocate capital, the more difficult it is to spend. The investment in housing is an important investment, and we have committed to a further £2 million at least in future monitoring rounds. As I have said to others about the A5, there is a process to go through. We have had an important judgement — a disappointing judgement, it has to be said — but that judgement has to be analysed. The Infrastructure Minister will advise on the way forward. If there is to be a slippage in that funding, it will be surrendered to the Executive, and the Executive will decide on the way forward. We commit to doing that, and I am sure that social housing will be high on the list of priorities. I noted that, last week, an article on a Construction Information Services (CIS) report on construction in the North, which was not given the prominence that it perhaps should have been, said:

"While housing delivery has been challenged by infrastructure constraints — particularly around waste and water systems — CIS predicts 2026 will be a 'pivotal year', with residential starts increasing by 46% in 2026 and a further 8% in 2027."

I saw another report in a similar vein. Quite rightly, in the Chamber, we challenge each other and go back and forth about what is not going right, but, if the analysis of that report is correct, we are on the brink of a significant uplift in the construction industry, not only in housing but in public investment in major projects. From reading that report, it seems to me that it is not all doom and gloom in the construction sector and that there are some good news stories. I am broadening the answer, just as Members sometimes broaden their questions. There are perhaps brighter times ahead for the construction sector than some would have us believe.

I am not aware of any legislative barrier or procedural barrier or protocol that prevents any Minister from sitting down with another Minister and asking, "What can we do together?". It is there. They can do it. In some instances, that engagement may not necessarily be at ministerial level. It could be at agency or arm's-length body level. As I said in response to a question earlier, arm's-length bodies spend considerable public funds, so there is definitely a possibility there for coordination across arm's-length bodies in the delivery of projects and funding. However, as we move forward through the budgetary process, I will urge Ministers to look at all opportunities to use the limited resources that we have more effectively and efficiently. That includes more working together, whether at macro level or micro level. If there is a way to do things differently, let us do them differently.

Other parts of the equation have to be answered first before we know what will happen financially. The Infrastructure Minister has to analyse all options on the way forward to deliver that project, and she is already on the public record about that. If there are delays, any funds that will not be spent will have to be surrendered to the Executive, and the Executive will make a decision on the way forward. It is a hugely disappointing decision. It is a complex issue and area. I am the Minister who was responsible for making the decision that was overturned by the judge, and I accept my responsibility in that. However, I approached the matter with the utmost seriousness. I acted, at all times, in relation to the advice that I received, including the advice of a senior barrister who is now a High Court judge. I do not know what the advice would have been after a contest in court — there is always different analysis of this — none of those decisions were made in isolation from the most senior advice that I could receive at the time, and I am satisfied that I acted responsibly in delivering that decision. None of that matters to the families who have lost loved ones on the A5. I have no doubt that the judgement has retraumatised them and has been a major blow to the people who use that road and the communities that have suffered as a result of that road. However, I assure you that the determination is there to deliver the A5, and, when we set aside all the petty politics, the understandable frustration and the understandable anger, we will map a way forward to build the A5.

The challenge for anybody making a decision on a major construction project is this: there are multiple ways to challenge it legally. I could fill the centre of that floor with the paperwork and documentation that had to be read, agreed, scrutinised, challenged and legally proofed before I could sign off on a project such as the A5. We have that amount of documentation, procedure and policy, and it is not all procurement; it is legislation that we have to go through. It is primary legislation and secondary legislation. There has been much discussion around the Climate Change Act 2022, but there are other environmental and human rights implications etc. You try to get all of those in the place where you need them with your best intentions in mind and the best advice that is available to you — and it was the best advice. I am talking about a barrister who was at the top of his game and is now a High Court judge who was advising me every step of the way. You can still go into court and another person can take a different view of all the advice that you have been given, and you are back to square one. We have to dust ourselves down. We have to look at the broader issue of infrastructure and our construction projects and how susceptible they are to judicial review. In relation to the A5, the Infrastructure Minister will come forward with the next steps.

1,951 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 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