Debate contribution: Budget Overspend

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 10 November 2025.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

10 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Questions for Urgent Oral Answer

Heading

Budget Overspend

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5224842

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Early last month, I said that I was confident that the issue would be resolved. The Executive collectively, working in partnership, have resolved it. I urge all Ministers, when they are looking at their budget allocations at the start of the year, to have pay at the top of the list rather than at the bottom. That is the way to deal with those matters. I understand that the Health Minister has made a commitment that, in future years, he will set aside funding for pay at the start of the year. When pay awards come through in Britain and there have to be increases, he will undertake to make those awards. That is how it should be dealt with. No worker should have to threaten strike action in order to achieve the pay award that they are entitled to. I welcome the fact that we have resolved that matter. As I said, I believe that it should have been resolved at the start of the year, but we are where we are. The three-year Budget will give colleagues an opportunity to plan over a three-year period rather than year by year.

It is worth noting — it is, perhaps, understandable — that when finance issues or Budget allocations come up, people will sometimes, quite rightly, look towards or point fingers at the Finance Minister. Let us, however, look at the history of how a Budget is set. I bring a draft Budget to the Executive. The Executive discuss it, and they either vote in favour of it or vote against it. In this instance, the Executive voted in favour of the Budget, and it was passed by the Assembly. It is now the Budget Act; it is a piece of legislation. All Ministers, and those who supported the Budget in the Assembly, have their fingerprints all over it. When it comes to living within budgets, it is vital that the Executive act collectively and in partnership with each other. If one Minister does not take the decisions necessary to live within their budget, that has direct implications for the ability of all the other Ministers to deliver public services across the board. We have an agreed Budget Act, and it is important that that Act is adhered to.

The Executive have agreed to the ministerial direction for the Department of Health, but part of that agreement was that the overcommitment would come off the Health Minister's budget for the 2026-27 year. As I said in my initial remarks, my Department and the Department of Health have done considerable work at ministerial and official level in order to fully understand the challenges and opportunities for the Department of Health around its savings plans. The Department of Health has done a considerable amount of work recently. That shows what can be done when a Minister is prepared to make decisions and give directions to officials on how a savings plan can be achieved. None of those decisions is easy. In the case of the big-spending Departments of Health and Education, the quantum of money is huge. However, similar percentage savings plans have had to be achieved in all Departments, and behind each of those is a very difficult decision for the Minister, the officials and everyone else who is involved. If we are to work to a plan, however, and that plan is the Budget Act, we must make those decisions and deliver in conjunction with that and with our Programme for Government.

As you know, I was Minister of Education during difficult financial times, and my budget balanced each year. It is difficult and, at times, unpleasant for all Ministers, but that is why they are paid the big bucks. There is responsibility in that, and Ministers are paid the big bucks to make the decisions. As for how things move forward, people should have been discussing budgets and what we should do on 10 January, 10 February,10 March and 10 April, instead of on 10 November. Decisions should have been made in and around then, and statements issued from boards at that stage. I have been clear with ministerial colleagues from the outset that I did not expect there to be any significant Barnett consequentials this year. That is not because I am some financial wizard. Anybody watching or listening to events in London — to the Chancellor or to those who debate and discuss the Chancellor's views — would have known clearly that there were not going to be major Barnett consequentials this year.

Yes. Collectively and individually, Ministers are going to have to do that. As I said in response to one of our colleagues, it is better if Ministers identify pay awards early in the financial year, rather than later in the year. If there then needs to be a top-up as part of a broader award, that has to be done. There is now an opportunity for Ministers to look at a three-year pay award programme. That will give them and workers certainty in planning.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:43 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