Debate contribution: Multi-year Budget

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .

MLA
Mr John O'Dowd
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
25 November 2025
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Opposition Business
Heading
Multi-year Budget
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5258771

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. Since taking up post as Finance Minister, I have consistently outlined my intention to bring forward a multi-year Budget. As the motion rightly acknowledges, the Chancellor's autumn Budget may have an impact on the Executive's Budget. Therefore, it is only right and proper that I await its outcome before I bring the multi-year Budget to the Executive. The spending review that was announced in June set out our day-to-day funding for three years and capital allocations for four years, providing us with the opportunity to set the first multi-year Budget in a decade. Multi-year Budgets will shape the future of our public services for years to come. This will be one of the biggest decisions that the Executive and Assembly will make between now and the end of the mandate, and it is important that we get it right. Agreeing a multi-year Budget in a mandatory coalition will mean that there has to be give and take on all sides. The multi-year Budget will, of course, present challenges, not least because the quantum of funding falls short of what we had hoped for and, in my view, what is needed to provide the public services that our people deserve. We need to be realistic; there is not sufficient funding to do all that we want to do or to provide any Department with the level of funding that it has requested. However, we must also recognise that the multi-year Budget will present opportunities. It will provide Departments with funding certainty, allowing them to plan on a longer-term and more strategic basis, in turn creating the conditions to drive much-needed transformational change in the delivery of our public services. In working towards agreeing a multi-year Budget, we must be guided by our Programme for Government — 'Our Plan: Doing What Matters Most'.

The Executive have shown their commitment to doing what matters most and are working in partnership to deliver for people. Since I took up the role of Finance Minister, my focus has been on securing a fairer funding model. The leader of the Opposition referred to the first republican Finance Minister, Michael Collins, raising £20 million in today's money: I would never compare myself to Michael Collins, but I can go one better. Between me and the previous Finance Minister, we have raised an additional £1·3 billion for public services here as a direct result of our engagement with the Treasury and our pursuit of a full fiscal framework. I think that the leader of the Opposition, even on this last Opposition day of the calendar year, will acknowledge that £1·3 billion does outmatch £20 million.

He is absolutely right: we managed to garner from those who have inflicted austerity — not just this Government but the previous Government — an additional £1·3 billion. I do not see what the problem is with that. Maybe the Member has an ideological opposition to that, and, if he wants to explain that, I am more than happy to listen. The record shows that, through our engagement along with the Executive, public services in this community are £1·3 billion better off. Through the 2025-26 Budget, the Executive have invested in waiting lists, enabling an additional 122,000 patient interventions to be delivered in the first six months of this financial year, surpassing the Programme for Government target of 70,000. The Executive have invested £55 million in early years and childcare, which includes funding to support families with childcare costs through the childcare subsidy scheme, and they have invested in waste water capacity, contributing to the unlocking of waste water capacity for over 5,000 properties across the North, supporting future housing and wider economic development. Those are just some examples of how the Executive are working together to make improvements to people's lives. The leader of the Opposition pointed to issues where DFI could not do the work that it wanted to do. Austerity is a real thing, and the reality is that you cannot do as much as you would like to do. However, the Member did not read out the list of programmes and investment that is going on across all Executive Departments and the differences that that makes to people's daily lives. Are we doing everything that we want to do? No, because we cannot. Are we making a difference? Yes, we are. Despite the financial constraints, much has been delivered, but there is still much to do. It is important that we are honest about the scale of challenges facing us. I have said that many times in the House and around the Executive table. Our finances are significantly constrained, particularly in 2026-27, as the biggest uplifts in day-to-day spending power occur in later years. With demand for services outpacing the funding available, continuing to do what we have always done is not an option. Transformation and innovation are essential to driving productivity and ensuring that public-sector pay remains affordable and sustainable throughout the Budget period. Each Minister must strive to improve efficiency in how our public services are delivered. I know that change is difficult, but we have to do things differently if we are to change our public services for the better. That means embracing technology, it means embracing new ideas and it means embracing looking at areas where we can raise additional finances. No, I am not promoting kicking the working class. I have been in the Executive in one form or another over the past 15 years, and nowhere in the decisions that I have made have I been accused of kicking the working class.

It is worth noting that the Executive already raise somewhere in the region of £1·6 billion through their rates policy. All of the rates policies are open to review, including the one that the Member referred to: rates relief for manufacturing and for other types of businesses in that field. All of those will be reviewed in the next year or so, and Members will have an opportunity to contribute towards that. When I talk about revenue raising, I also add that that should be done in a fair and equitable way. Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the burden of any further increases across the board, particularly any announcements coming from Westminster on tax rises. Those with the broadest shoulders should bear that. There are other ways as well. Last week, I set out proposals in the House that have the power to raise an additional £9 million through the rating system. Those positive and progressive changes could see savings redirected to provide additional support to small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. Those proposals are not seeking additional funding; instead, they are focused on better using what we have. I encourage other Ministers to do likewise. Mr Aiken referred to my comments about Mr Nesbitt. One of the difficulties of complimenting a Minister from a different party is that somebody will remind you about it.

However, when Ministers act cooperatively, particularly in engagement with me and my officials, that is worth acknowledging. All Ministers face challenges, but, if we work in a collaborative and partnership way, we will be able to move through those challenges and secure our front-line public services. That has to be done in cooperation. Turning to fiscal powers, it is vital that the Executive have the funding arrangements and fiscal levers necessary to deliver the public services that our citizens rightly expect and deserve. Mr O'Toole seems to believe that there is some sort of delay or stalling here, but there has been a programme of work to get us to the point where I want us to be and where I need to convince Executive colleagues that we need to travel to. Engagement with the Treasury thus far has been on our level of need. We have had success in relation to our level of need, and, as part of those negotiations, I got agreement from the British Government to continue discussions on a full fiscal framework. Part of that full fiscal framework is discussions around fiscal devolution. That engagement has started. It will intensify after the Chancellor announces the Budget. It would be fair to say that the Treasury goes into lockdown about six weeks before a Budget because of the intensity of the work involved, and I have to understand that. However, I have asked my officials, once the Budget is announced, to increase their engagement with officials in the Treasury on full fiscal devolution on the basis of the findings of the Fiscal Commission. My Department will lead those negotiations. I will have to go back to the Executive with recommendations, and that will require Executive engagement and discussion on the way forward. Progressing that important work will require the agreement of the Executive and the British Government. In Scotland and Wales, that process took a number of years to complete. We can learn valuable lessons from their experiences to help to expedite the process, but it will take time. I want to make progress as quickly as possible whilst ensuring that we get the approach that meets the needs of workers, families and businesses here. Following the Chancellor's autumn Budget tomorrow, I will put forward a multi-year Budget for consideration and agreement by the Executive early next month. Once agreed by the Executive, the multi-year Budget will go out to consultation. That will be an opportunity for everyone to have their say and help us to shape the final Budget and the future of our public services for years to come. As I outlined, the need for transformation and embracing new methods of service delivery has never been clearer. That will require a willingness from all of us across the Executive, the Assembly and society to embrace change. Like all of you, I want to see our funding used for what matters most. We must work together in true partnership to confront our challenges and seize the opportunity that a multi-year Budget gives to create lasting, positive change.

1,689 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.05No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.07No
Controversy escalation0.09No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.92Yes
Overall judgement0.06At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.95
Reports or questions it0.04
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.38
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.32
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)0.13
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.07
Another identity-related subject0.05

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:50 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