Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Final Stage

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 10 March 2026.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

10 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Budget Bill: Final Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5436857

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank all Members who expressed their views during today's debate and those who contributed to earlier debates on the Bill and its associated Supply resolutions. To clarify, we are debating the finalisation of the Budget for 2025-26 and the Vote on Account; it is not the multi-year Budget that we are voting on. I listened to Members' contributions with interest. Although I may not agree with all the arguments that were presented, it is useful to hear them, and it is only right and proper that we scrutinise the Bill and other legislation relating to the Budget. I will turn to some comments from colleagues. I find the Chair of the Committee to be much nicer than the leader of the Opposition. He is much more helpful, I have to say.

I jest; the leader of the Opposition is a lovely person.

In fairness to Matthew, he knows fine well that the British Government are underfunding this place and that the Executive face huge challenges in trying to balance the Budget and deliver front-line public services moving forward, but he just cannot help himself on occasion. Given his role, I suppose that he has to say that. The Executive are, quite rightly, open to challenge and scrutiny. I note that they have now dropped the term "constructive Opposition"; it is now just "the Opposition". A constructive Opposition would have been much more beneficial to us all.

Mr O'Toole raised, in this case, a valid question about where the Budget process is at. The public consultation closed on 3 March. The responses are now being scrutinised. The open-book process is taking place as we speak. I emphasise the fact that it is not the case that Treasury is involving itself in devolved decisions. It has no authority to do that, and the terms of reference that the open-book process is operating under do not allow it to do so. I hope that that programme of work will be finished around 20 March. That will allow the Executive to enter into detailed discussions on the way forward. In tandem with that, and as part of the open-book process, there need to be discussions with the British Government about how this place is funded and how we bring forward a Budget that we will be able to balance over the next three years. It is worth noting some figures on that. There has been a lot of good work done on relative need, including in the Holtham report, and Assembly colleagues are aware of all those things. We now have 124% relative need, which means that, as I often say, we get a fairer slice of the cake but the cake is not big enough. Members will also be interested in these figures. In 2025-26, the Executive were, generally, funded 0·6% above need. Wales was funded 8·6% above need. Scotland was funded 20·5% above need. When the Treasury and others say to me and my Executive colleagues that we have received a fair funding settlement, that we are being funded to the level of need etc — all the lines that you have heard before — I will push back. I wish Scotland and Wales well in that matter — I am not suggesting for one second that the Budget for either Administration should be curtailed or cut back — but the Executive need to be funded in a fair way as well if we are to achieve the common objectives of good public services and an economy here that benefits the people whom it is there to serve. On the Barnett consequentials, Members will be aware of the figures for SEN and business rates elsewhere. The Executive will decide as part of the Budget discussions how that funding will be allocated. There is demand across a number of areas. As I said in a previous debate, the Executive's pressures reflect the pressures in England on health and education. If you look south of the border, you see that it has pressures from SEN as well. How the reserve claim will be dealt with has been well recorded and well announced. That will form part of our discussions with Treasury and the Government. I hope that the Executive finalise their three-year Budget in the near future. It is worth noting that it was 3 April last year before we finalised this year's Budget, so we still have time. The leader of the Opposition asked me to clarify my comments on "shroud-waving". Let me be very clear about that. If I stood up in front of the Speaker and said, "We have achieved everything we wanted. I believe that the Executive are now being properly resourced and funded, and Departments have achieved the funding that they require to deliver public services", I would still expect Ministers to run an efficient and effective service and to scrutinise their spend. I have no doubt that the scrutiny Committees here would continue to scrutinise the role and spend of Ministers and Departments and to ensure that there is efficient, effective expenditure of funds. I would also challenge any Minister or any senior civil servant who came to me and said, "I need x amount to do z", and I would ask them to justify that. That is what good financial management is about.

It is not about simply accepting that every argument or every public pronouncement that is made is based in fact or is the basis on which a Budget should be set. It does not work that way. Diane spoke about the local growth fund. It is not included in the draft Budget because it is a British Government responsibility. I concur with the remarks that Gavin Robinson made last week at the NI Affairs Committee, where he robustly challenged the Secretary of State on the matter. The British Government need to step up and fund it properly. I will continue to lobby them on that. I have written to my Executive colleagues to ask them whether any of the programmes that they are running could be used to complement the local growth fund. I have asked them to work with the community and voluntary sector to see whether they can support it through their programmes and, if so, to move in that direction. I agree with Eóin Tennyson about public-sector pay. It should be front-loaded into all future Budgets. I have made such a recommendation in my draft Budget. The Chair of the Committee for Communities outlined opportunities and challenges for the Department. He also spoke about the scrutiny work that the Committee is doing. I have said it before and will say it again: the role of Assembly scrutiny Committees is often undervalued beyond the walls of this place. Through their forward work programmes, their inquiries, their reports and their scrutiny of Departments, they do excellent work. It is invaluable and deserves much more public attention than it receives. Apologies if I have missed out anyone. Finally, I turn to Gerry Carroll's call for an end to industrial derating. I have said that I will review the industrial derating policy. Just under 4,500 properties are currently in receipt of industrial derating. Some 54% of those properties have a net annual value of £15,000 or under, which is the current net annual value threshold for the small business rate relief scheme. That means that they are very small businesses. They are businesses operating in your constituency, Gerry, that are providing services and support to the local community and to the wider economy. They are providing employment in your constituency. If you want me to bring industrial derating to an end, you will need to consider that.

I will in a second. Some 81% of those properties have a net annual value of £50,000 or under, so they are by no means large businesses in the context of the rating system. As well as providing support to small manufacturers, industrial derating provides support to large manufacturers. Such businesses are an important source of employment. I do not agree with a number of them, and my views on them are known, but we have to deal with such matters through the ongoing review. For you to stand up in the Chamber and simply say, "Do away with it. These big capitalists are doing this and that" might be right in a small minority of cases, but there are many businesses in your constituency that are benefiting from industrial derating. There are many people in jobs in your constituency who are benefiting from the scheme, so before we do something, let us establish all the facts . Let us review the policy and see what the best way forward is.

Those unions will be able to make representations to the review when it is complete. We are working our way through a range of reviews, and I will make an announcement in due course. All that I am saying to you is this: consider what you are calling for and the implications that there would be for many small to medium-sized enterprises, including those in your constituency, and for the many workers who live in your constituency. It is easy to make the rallying call to take on the capitalists. Great: let us take on the capitalists. The implications of what you trying to do through your rallying call would, I suspect, lead to the closure of many of the small businesses in your constituency.

No, you had your chance. All that I am asking you to do is think through what you are calling for and, rather than make calls from the corner of the Chamber, allow the process to play out in a measured, responsible and informed way. What you are calling for may make for good headlines on social media, but it makes absolutely no sense. As I said, we are dealing with the 2025-26 Budget, the Vote on Account, etc and finalising that process. The debates over the past number of weeks have been useful, informative and, at times, challenging, as they should be. However, when it comes to the challenges that we face, we need a united front from the Executive and the Assembly in challenging the British Government to fund this place properly in order to allow the Executive to deliver the public services that our public deserve, and to invest in the economy to create good, well-paid jobs and support families and workers out there. There will always be challenges and differences of opinion on these matters, but, for the next number of weeks, we need a united front to present a case to the Government on how we fund this place.

1,783 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:12 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