Debate contribution: Autumn Budget

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 1 December 2025.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

1 December 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statements

Heading

Autumn Budget

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5268672

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Chancellor's Budget was last week, and the Executive have not met since then. I will bring a multi-year Budget once I have had the full opportunity to analyse the implications of the Budget and all the returns thus far from my Executive colleagues. I will bring that Budget to my Executive colleagues before the Christmas break. They will then have to decide whether they agree with the draft Budget, and it may require more analysis, because it is the most important decision that the Executive will take. The Member talks about revenue-raising measures. The Member keeps raising the matter, so which revenue-raising measures would he like to bring forward? Whom does he want to tax and how? Whom do you want to tax?

Do you want to follow the example of

Do you want to follow the example of your sister party, the Labour Party, and tax low earners? That was the Budget that you welcomed last week. The Budget that you welcomed last week taxes low earners.

Yes. I have already presented a paper to my Executive colleagues on that, and I intend to intensify engagement with the Treasury on it. If there is one thing that the Budget made clear to me it was that the Executive, the Assembly and this society will have to take greater control of their taxes. I will use the simple example of VAT. The rate of VAT has been set elsewhere; it does not meet the needs of the business community and workers in this society. For example, hospitality here will lose out as a result of the difference between a higher rate of VAT here and a lower rate across the road in the border communities. We will have to get serious about it. I have, as I said, brought a paper to my Executive colleagues, and my engagement with the Treasury will intensify. There are differences of opinion across the Floor on the issue, but we have to reach agreement on it.

Some of us agree that it was a bad Budget for those who work. Others were out welcoming it last week, so they were.

There is a business case with the Treasury with regard to Minister Lyons's proposal. The Treasury has not yet agreed that business case. My officials will continue to work with Mr Lyons's officials and the Treasury on that. When the Treasury responds to the business case, I will respond in due course to Mr Lyons.

My understanding is that the Treasury has undertaken to work with the Executive, in particular the Department for the Economy, to see how it can support the Executive in relation to the scheme that was announced, which largely covers England and Wales. We have a different energy scheme here, so that is my understanding of it. There will be ongoing engagement between the Treasury and DFE on how we bring forward a support package, if one is available.

I will bring proposals to the Executive in the near future on a multi-year Budget, setting out, primarily, the spending amounts for each Department. After that, it will be up to each Department how it uses those moneys to support the sectors within its areas of responsibility. A number of weeks ago, I made a statement to the Assembly about how we could support businesses further, and I intend to launch a consultation on that pre-Christmas.

As the Member is aware, we are responsible for our own rating policy. If the proposals that were announced recently as part of the Chancellor's Budget were to apply here, they would apply to only about 19 properties. However, I have a paper that sets out how we should increase the cap in relation to rating policy and bring more and more people into a higher level where they pay more rates, particularly for properties over around £485,000. There is merit in what has happened in England, but it would affect only around 19 properties here, and I think that my proposal is a fair way forward.

My understanding is that the Treasury has said that there will be a requirement for discussions with the Executive, primarily the Department for the Economy, though my Department is the conduit for discussions between the Executive and Treasury and vice versa. There has been a commitment to start those discussions.

Yes, that is a previous Executive commitment that I intend to honour when presenting my next monitoring round paper to the Executive.

I want to see the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission report as a starting base for discussions between the Executive and the Treasury on the matter. The Fiscal Commission recommended, as the most suitable for devolution, income tax partial, stamp duty land tax, air passenger duty, landfill tax and the apprenticeship levy, if income tax was devolved. That is a good starting base for the Executive and the devolved institutions here to work our way through. We have to approach this with our eyes wide open. There are challenges and opportunities with this. I am not saying for one second that it is a panacea for all our problems, but the Executive, the Assembly and this society will have to take the challenge on.

First of all, we have to get it devolved, and then, at that moment in time, the Executive would collectively have to consider our economic position, understand the figures and decide what to do with it. There is no point in me standing here as Minister of Finance, perhaps a couple of years away from any of that being devolved, and saying, "We should do a, b and c", because that would be nonsensical. You would have to make decisions based on your economic position at that time, and that is when you would decide what to do with it.

There is always ongoing engagement between my Department and the Treasury at an official level. The most recent correspondence that I have had with the Treasury in relation to the Budget was immediately after it to discuss the local growth fund. I am concerned that there has been a change to the Budget breakdown given to a number of local authorities in England in relation to the capital/resource split, and I have written to the Minister for Housing and the NIO to ask why the same provision was not offered to our local growth fund.

I have now received all the returns from my Executive colleagues. We now have the autumn Budget figures in front of us. I will bring a paper shortly to my Executive colleagues on the December monitoring round.

I am not sure that you can ever satisfy a Finance Minister in that regard, and perhaps you should never be able to do so. I am on record as saying that all our Executive colleagues face significant challenges in the delivery of their mandate, whichever Department they are in. I have commented on the ongoing cooperation and work between me and the Health Minister and my Department and the Health Minister, and I urge other Ministers to show the same level of cooperation.

It will be for the Department for Communities to bring forward a report to the Executive and, I assume, to the Assembly in regard to that. I can confirm to the Member only that I and my party colleagues support the removal of the two-child cap here.

I have raised that matter directly and in correspondence with the appropriate Ministries and made my views clear. I gave an update to my Executive colleagues as recently as last week in the Executive meeting. As I said to a Member who asked me a question previously, one of my first actions following the Budget was to write to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the NIO and the Treasury raising my concerns that changes have been made to the budget for a number of local authorities in England but have not been replicated here.

How education is delivered is a matter for the Minister of Education. In relation to his budget, I have met him, had significant correspondence with him and engaged with him at the Executive table. I remain open to further engagement with any Minister. As I said, the greater the cooperation between Ministers and me and at official level, the more effective the delivery of the Budget will be. I have always said that it is a hugely challenging task for all Ministers, but we have to work in partnership to achieve common goals.

My Department is not projecting an overspend. I lead by example in that regard. As I have said to a number of the Members who have asked me questions today, I will work with all Ministers to assist them in delivering their budget, and I recognise the challenges that they face.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each Minister, but all Ministers must work with their Executive colleagues. If one Department overspends, that will impact on all Departments, because it will come off next year's Budget.

The monthly out-turn from each Department will give us the latest figure, but the most recent returns gave a figure of around £440 million for the estimated overspend.

1,536 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:02 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