Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 24 February 2026.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

24 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Budget Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5404581

Read the official Assembly record

Text

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

I thank the Members, Chairs and Deputy Chairs who have contributed to the Second Stage debate on the Budget Bill. In yesterday's Supply resolution debate, I said that, while the Executive faced many challenges, it was important to note the achievements since restoration in 2024. Over £1·4 billion of extra funding for services has been secured. Some of that funding has been invested in health service waiting lists, as I mentioned yesterday. Over 200,000 additional elective care activities have been delivered. Some 19,000 families have benefited from the childcare subsidy scheme, which has generated £19 million of savings for those who take part. There has been enough investment in waste water capacity to unlock more than 5,000 extra properties across the North, which is more than were in the Utility Regulator’s plan for the same period. That and the other achievements have to be acknowledged. Pay awards have been delivered for health workers, teachers, the police, civil servants and NI Water workers. Some £100 million of funding in the 2025-26 Budget is earmarked for the building of new social homes, and there is an additional £38·9 million of in-year funding to supplement that work. I will come back to the issue of housing. There was a further £10·5 million to help people with disabilities adapt their homes. For clarification, when I mentioned a figure of £49-odd million for that project in yesterday's debate, I was including the additional £39 million of funding for social housing that had been secured in-year: the actual figure for disability adaptations is £10·5 million.

That shows that, despite the financial challenges faced, we are making progress and delivering real change that creates hope and brings about tangible improvements in people's day-to-day lives.

As Members know, I have brought forward my proposals for a multi-year Budget. It is clear that a significant gap remains between our ambitions and the resources at our disposal. Bridging that gap will require adequate funding from Westminster for our public services — despite Mr Gaston's view that we are properly funded — as well as reform and transformation in how we design and deliver public services. The open-book process in which we are currently engaged with Treasury provides an opportunity to strengthen our case for further funding for public services and to present to the British Government a fuller understanding of the significant challenges that we are facing. It is essential that the Executive grasp the opportunity presented now to set a multi-year Budget that provides Departments and public-sector organisations with certainty and the ability to make long-term plans and to enable strategic investment that delivers lasting benefits for our economy, environment and society. I will go through some Members' comments on how we are moving forward. Mr O'Toole referred to the Financial Provisions Bill. I thank the Finance Committee officials for their work on the Bill. Once the Committee Stage is completed, my officials will be working at pace to bring the Bill through its further stages. The provisional timetable is that the stages will be completed before the autumn, but, of course, every effort will be made to progress that work more quickly, if possible. A lot will depend on the issues that are raised as the Bill goes through Committee and in the next stages of the legislative process. Officials have indicated that it is their aim to have the Bill completed by autumn, but a lot of that depends on getting Executive agreement on amendments etc, and on the will of the House, obviously. Mr Frew was going along quite smoothly. He was making his points, arguing his case, and then, as we say in Lurgan, he went off on one.

I do not know whether he got a text from on high, or whatever, saying, "Don't forget to have a go at the Shinners", but he dutifully responded and had a go at the Shinners.

His contribution and Diane Dodds's contribution were interesting — in fact, in some ways, they overlapped. Diane had a go at the Shinners as well, but she put it in a different context. I will put this into context. Paul was, understandably, defensive of his party's Ministers and their Departments. Towards the end of his comments, he claimed that I was blocking a couple of initiatives — neither of which I am blocking, by the way. In relation to housing, he suggested that I am blocking Housing Executive proposals to purchase homes that could be used to house those who need temporary accommodation etc. That is simply not true. I am aware of the proposals, and I believe that there is merit in them, not least making sure that those who need emergency accommodation can receive it. There is an issue relating to the proposed rent that can be charged on those properties, and discussions with Treasury are required to resolve it. My officials are actively pursuing that matter with Treasury, as are officials in the Department for Communities. I hope that that matter can be resolved quickly. According to Mr Frew, I am refusing to properly fund social housing. In 2025-26, between reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) loans, direct funding and top-ups from the monitoring rounds, the Department for Communities received £234 million for social housing, and there is always the option for the Communities Minister, whoever that might be, to provide further funding. My proposals for the three-year Budget are £444 million over three years, plus the Department for Communities has a general allocation over those three years of £570 million. Again, the Communities Minister can, if he so wishes, provide more funding for social housing. It is about prioritising, within your Department, what you decide to do. That brings me to the comments from Diane Dodds on what the DUP expects from the Health Minister. These rules should apply to all Ministers. If you expect something from the Health Minister, let us apply those expectations to all Ministers. She asked him not to be continually asking for more money but to prioritise his budget; to deliver value for money; to provide greater transparency; to adopt a duty of candour on the Department's spend; and to bring about transformation. If the DUP expects that from the Health Minister, whose duty, and whose Department's role, is, at the end of the day, to save lives, it is only right and proper that we expect those same standards from all Ministers. When colleagues on the opposite Benches are challenging me — they have a right to do so; it is part of their role — about what I am or am not doing for their Ministers, I ask them to reflect on Diane's comments about what is expected from the Health Minister. I expect that from all Ministers. We are making significant progress on alignment with the PFG, both in this year's Budget and in the three-year Budget. I think that there are Members — this comes across regularly in the Chamber — who want to give me more powers when it comes to how I govern other Ministers. I would take on those powers, but I am not so sure that your Ministers would be as keen as you are to give me them. We have regulations, legislation, codes of conduct and Standing Orders that relate to how the Executive do their business and what role each Minister has. I have a role in setting the Budget, but I do not mark Ministers' homework. That is not my role, but I will tell you who does do that. I have said before in the Chamber that the media and others do not pay enough attention to the role of scrutiny Committees in this place, which mark Ministers' homework and scrutinise them and their spends. That is where a lot of the challenges that were presented to me today need to take place. In many cases, that is taking place. The Committees deserve much more credit than they are given beyond the realms of this place. That brings me to Andrew McMurray's comments, although this point does not specifically relate to him. It is not the role of Committees to simply echo what arm's-length bodies tell them and then come to the Chamber and say, "Arm's-length body A needs this, arm's-length body B needs that and arm's-length body C needs the other". It is the role of scrutiny Committees to scrutinise what arm's-length bodies are saying to them and to challenge, if need be, the figures that they are presenting to Committees; how they are spending public moneys; how they intend to move forward; what transformation programmes they are involved in; and how they are taking on the reality of the financial challenges that we face and trying to do things differently.

1,468 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:02 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