Conor Murphy
Newry and Armagh · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“More detailed consultations with individual childcare providers and parents are taking place this month and into February. The group agreed that the research would conclude in March 2025. The work is on schedule; there has been no delay. Childcare is an excellent example of various Departments coming together to deliver for our people.”
“The Bill looks at the issue of flexible working, but at every meeting that we have had with employers, we have made a point of talking to them about the need for them to be flexible, particularly in relation to women who are returning to the workforce, and to offer people arrangements that entice them back to the workforce and give them t…”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. <BR /> <BR />Although the Department of Education leads on childcare, it is a priority for the Executive as a whole. When setting the Budget for this financial year, the Executive earmarked an additional £25 million for childcare.”
“As a matter of fact, I publicly launched the scheme and the courses in the Met last summer. My officials are also working with our six further education colleges to develop childcare microcourses for future delivery. <BR /> <BR />I also offered to assist Minister Givan's Department as required.”
“The group identified the need to better understand the business models for childcare, what type of support is needed to ensure the sector's financial viability and how support should be targeted. Given my Department's business expertise, we volunteered to take that work forward.”
“No tensions or obstacles have been placed in the way of any of that work, and I hope that that continues to be the case, because the issues are much more important than party political exchanges across the Chamber. We will continue to work in that manner.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,975 lines we hold for Conor Murphy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 100.
“As I said, I will be making a statement to the Assembly, I think, next week in relation to all these matters, and I will expand on that further. Of course, we take that responsibility very seriously, and I have made no secret of the fact that I do not believe that there has been regional balance, particularly in areas like the west, the north-west and even the south, and where I come from in south Armagh, which have suffered from a lack of investment. That goes for Newry and other areas in south Down as well. We want to see that corrected in the time ahead, and we will work to see it corrected. <BR /> <BR />In relation to this particular question, I appreciate that, in an area that has seen underinvestment, such a substantial potential loss of jobs would be very devastating.”
“However, we will do all in our power to ensure that we sustain and maintain as many jobs as we can and that we get the proper spread of those jobs when we are creating them right across the entirety of the jurisdiction.”
“As I said, regional balance will be a particular focus of mine. I have made no secret of that, and I intend to give a statement to the House next week in relation to the broad approach to the policy across the Department for the Economy. Invest and the Department have a role to support business, to try to ensure that we sustain the jobs that we have and to attract and create more jobs, and to try to ensure, as I will into the future, that there is a regional balance approach to all that. <BR /> <BR />Some of the decisions are taken by commercial companies in their own business interests. They are global companies, and they take global decisions outside the direct influence of the Executive or, indeed, the Department for the Economy.”
“Yes, they have been doing that and will continue to do so. As I said to the Member who asked the original question, I appreciate that potential job losses anywhere are to be regretted, but, in areas that do not have a good level of investment, such as the rural west, it is a matter of particular concern for entire communities. Of course, we will engage with BT as to what the possible outcome of its review might be and try to offer all the support that we can to the people of Enniskillen.”
“Again, I find myself hamstrung by the fact that I am responding to an announcement of a review rather than to an announcement of a decision, but the question for urgent oral answer was taken, and here we are. I am not aware of what estate BT is looking at currently, other than that it is part of a global review of its operations and estate. My officials in Invest NI are dealing with BT and will be meeting representatives from it tomorrow. If there is any further update, I will be able to inform the Member.”
“Rather, it is a global exercise that BT has undertaken concerning its operations and its estate. We will, of course, endeavour to do all that we can to ensure that jobs are kept in Enniskillen and that those people who may, at some future date, become subject to a decision taken here get all the support that they can. In the first instance, however, the priority is to ensure that jobs are kept where they are needed.”
“I thank the Member for her question. I am at a slight disadvantage, in that, if I were responding to an announcement about those jobs, I might have more to say, but I am responding to a statement that announces a review, the outcome of which we do not know, although I agree with her that it raises a very significant concern. The rural west is an area that has largely lacked investment, both in its economy and in its infrastructure, which leads to economic investment. As a rural dweller and a border dweller, I get the urgency around the matter. As I have said, officials have already spoken to BT and will engage with its senior management tomorrow. This is part of an estates review, so I am not aware that it is a search for a different type of premises.”
“BT has announced that, as part of a global review of its estates provision and operations, it intends to undertake a review of the future of its customer services site in Enniskillen. I appreciate that the announcement of the review of the Enniskillen site will have caused great anxiety and concern for many of the 300 staff who work there. BT, however, has stressed that no decision has yet been taken on the future of the site. That decision is pending the outcome of the review. My officials in Invest NI were in contact with BT last week and are meeting BT senior management tomorrow. Invest NI will work closely with the company over the coming weeks and explore all opportunities to influence a positive outcome for the staff who may be impacted on by any decision taken.”
“I affirm the terms of the Pledge of Office as set out in schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
“Tá mé sásta, a Cheann Comhairle, agus tá mé toilteanach glacadh leis an oifig.”
“There was £160 million for the scheme that they gave us in February.”
“That is the £160 million that they gave us for the home heating scheme.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I will correct him on two points. First, when he talks about the three years, he knows that he and I agreed a deal in February 2018 to put the Executive back in place, and he knows that his party scuppered that over the following weekend and would not announce the deal. He knows that. <BR /> <BR />Also, as I pointed out in my contribution, it was for the Executive to decide what to do with that £300 million. They could have put it all towards dealing with the overspend of Departments, which was caused by the fact that we had no Budget in place, or they could have used some or all of it to deal with the cost of living and fair pay awards. Crucially, it was for the Executive to decide, and, crucially, the DUP has prevented that from happening.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have been told that the IT systems needed to make the payment of the £600 discount are ready to go. If that is the case, the Executive could meet today, agree to the discount and transfer that money to the energy companies. I therefore ask the DUP to stop looking over its shoulder at those who want to live in the past and to start looking after our people, who face a really tough Christmas. While you go back to the comfort of your warm homes tonight, many of your constituents will be freezing. Let us work together to help them.”
“It kept up that fiction for months, while the money sat idle. <BR /> <BR />Eventually, at a meeting in August that the Economy Minister and I attended, the British Government finally agreed to take responsibility for delivering the scheme. They did so reluctantly and only because the DUP had made it clear that it would continue to block an Executive from delivering the scheme. The British Government made it clear that the payment might not be made until after Christmas, despite the fact that people in Britain were starting to receive that money in October. I was honest with the public about that, but the DUP falsely promised people that they could expect that payment in November. Now, the British Government have confirmed only that payments will be made over the winter, whenever that may be deemed to end. That delay is unacceptable.”
“The fact is that the Government had agreed and decided that we were the ones to deliver an energy scheme. Just as we did on many occasions during COVID, the Executive received billions of pounds of additional payment and distributed that money quickly and directly to those most in need. Had an Executive been in place, they would have instructed you, as the Economy Minister, to get a scheme in place quickly to distribute that money. Despite the false promises, there is no ducking that issue. The fact that the DUP collapsed the Executive meant that the funding could not be allocated. To cover up its culpability for blocking the payment, the DUP made the false claim that the payment should have been delivered by the British Government, regardless of whether an Executive were in place.”
“Because the DUP went on strike — on full pay — public-sector workers now have to resort to industrial action to get the pay rise that they deserve. <BR /> <BR />As well as walking out of the Executive in the middle of a Budget consultation, the DUP downed tools in the middle of a deepening financial crisis, when we all knew that families would need our help to heat their homes and put food on their tables and that businesses would need help to keep their shutters up and their workers in a job. We had the means to help people. The first tranche of money for the energy support payment — around £160 million — came to the Executive in February. The funding was given to the Executive to deliver the scheme because it was the responsibility of the Economy Minister and his Department to do that. Energy is a devolved matter. Given the urgency —.”
“In the absence of an Executive, health and other public services went from day to day not knowing what their spending limit was. That financial chaos led Departments to overspend. <BR /> <BR />During the year, the Executive received millions of pounds of additional money. That could have been used to help with departmental pressures, give public-sector workers a pay rise and help people and businesses with the cost-of-living crisis. Crucially, it would have been for the Executive to decide how to use that money. Instead, the Tories are imposing a Budget that will mean a £330 million reduction in our finances next year, and there is no Executive to set a public pay policy that could have offered a fair pay rise to nurses, teachers and other public-sector workers who stepped up during the pandemic.”
“As with any new trading relationship, there are issues that can and should be sorted out, but the boycott of our Assembly and the Executive by the DUP is having absolutely no impact on the negotiations, which are between the EU and the British Government. Instead, the boycott is doing huge damage to our people, our businesses and our public services. <BR /> <BR />When the DUP collapsed the Executive in February, the draft Budget was out for consultation. I have no doubt that a final Budget would have been agreed and would have provided the health service with an extra £1 billion. Just as importantly, it would have provided the certainty of a three-year Budget, which would have allowed the Health Department to plan services properly, recruit more doctors and nurses and give staff a pay increase.”
“I had thought that the DUP was out of dead cats at this stage, but it seems that we might need to alert the RSPCA in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />Let us get away from distraction politics and get real. In challenging circumstances during COVID, the parties here worked together in the Executive to help people through that crisis. We should be working together now to help our people and businesses through the cost-of-living crisis. The DUP boycott of the Executive is preventing that, and for what? We did not choose Brexit. The majority of the people of the North rejected Brexit, but it was imposed on us by the Tories and the DUP.”
“That is what we need to do. That is what the people elected us to do.”
“I do not want to hear chirruping from the would-be First Minister on the other side of the Chamber.”
“I have just repeated it, so there you go. <BR /> <BR />We sat for two full years, from February 2018, with the same deal on the table that the DUP came back to in January 2020. So, two years. You trot out the lie about the three years, but those two years were on you. The two years were on you. We sat waiting for you to come back to exactly the same deal when, eventually, you got your MP team in line in order to get the deal done and over the line. <BR /> <BR />None of us wants to be in this position. I have better things to do than to argue with those people across the way. I would prefer that we were sitting around the table with those people, working on the issues and trying to deliver support for the people whom we represent, to get money into the health service and to fix the cost-of-living issues. That is what I would like to see.”
“You talk to the UDA all the time, and you talk to the UVF. The reason we know that is that they scuppered the deal. Therefore, we sat from February 2018”
“Thank you very much. That was not a point of order, for starters, but I will let it go. <BR /> <BR />The reason we know that is that the DUP told us that. You say that it is shameful to say that you talk to the UDA, but you talk to the UDA all the time”
“I think that I should have an extra minute, Mr Acting Speaker.”
“We said, "Let's go out and announce it"; they said, "Give us the weekend to get it fixed"; and, by Monday, its MP team had scuppered the deal by rallying round the Orange Order, the UDA and all the others in order to spook the horses. That is an absolute fact.”
“Mr Allister has gone, but he was not in the Chamber at the time, so I will at least give him some credit for that. When the Assembly went down over RHI, every single party in the Chamber asked the then First Minister to resign in order to allow an inquiry to be set up — every party, with the exception of the DUP. She refused to do so. Martin McGuinness had to get off his sickbed to come in and hand her a letter of resignation because that was the only way that we could take action to try to deal with that scandal and get an inquiry set up. We then went into an election. Within a matter of months, in February 2018, there was a deal on the table, which the DUP signed up to. Its Members sat in rooms upstairs with us and signed up to that deal.”
“We then had a disagreement over the draft Budget, but, ironically, the DUP took the position of the draft Budget, which was to give an extra billion pounds to Health, and made it part of its election manifesto. There was no additional £400 million allocated to Health, however. The Health Minister is acting at risk, because that is the only way that he can try to get support to the people whom we, including your party, collectively promised to support in the time ahead. We are all acting outside and are trying to stretch the boundaries of our limited ministerial authority in this time in order to undo the damage that the DUP is causing on a daily basis. <BR /> <BR />I will just say something about what Mr Givan said. He and others trotted out the usual thing.”
“I am not sure who provides the script for the DUP, but its Members all try to spoof about this part of the issue in a kind of Trump-like fashion, which is that, if you tell a lie often enough, people believe it. The big issue is the Budget. People in the Chamber argued and clamoured for the past number of years for a multi-year Budget, and we finally got one. Part of the initiative with the draft Budget was to match the priority that we had all spoken about. All the parties declared, even before we came back into the Executive, that we were going to make Health a priority and that it would not really matter, in that sense, who took the position, because we would all support the Health Minister and would ensure that the funds were allocated.”
“There is no certainty about that whatsoever, because the first hurdle that we have to overcome is the fact that we do not have an Executive in place to take the decision on it. Nonetheless, we will continue to work. <BR /> <BR />The big issue is the £435 million — it is heading towards half a billion pounds — that we have sitting, which could go out of the door today as support for people here and now, but we cannot allocate it. We have to sit on it. The pot actually grows and has grown. Today and tomorrow, that money could be going out to households to assist those who are struggling to meet the challenges that they face with the cost of living and in trying to provide support for their families and others. <BR /> <BR />The big issue is something that Mr Kingston got entirely wrong, and I will come to him in a minute.”
“My colleague Deirdre Hargey has to work with DWP in London in order to ensure that those payments, which will come through the benefits system, actually reach the people for whom they are intended: the people who are, and will be, most in need as the cost-of-living crisis bites deeper. <BR /> <BR />I will work with the Treasury. It fully understood — I had dialogue with it last week — the position that we are in without an Executive. Its representatives know the legal advice that we have. They fully understood that we cannot take decisions on that £400 household support for people. I will, of course, work with my Department as best I can in order to try to ensure that that money goes to people. Let me be very clear, however. There is absolutely no certainty that we will be able to get the £400 per household out by the autumn.”
“I heard it talk about its five-point plan and how it was going to fix all the problems that we face. I do not believe that many of those Members, as far as I know, want to implement a mandate that, effectively, punishes people. The position that they have taken today is this: to punish the people whom we represent. It does not punish us — we can turn up here as long as we want and go off and do the work for our constituents — but it punishes the people whom we represent. <BR /> <BR />Last week, there were welcome interventions from London on cost-of-living issues, but we now have to find a way to work in order to make sure that those supports get to people.”
“The party opposite has said that it has a mandate for the position that it takes today. Like the Member who spoke previously, I never heard that party, over the course of the election, advocating that it would block a Speaker from being elected and the Assembly from being able to carry out its functions. I did not hear it say that it would continue to withdraw from the Executive for any lengthy period either.”
“They have held discussions with counterparts elsewhere and will take particular note of the call for evidence that has just launched in England and Wales, as well as continuing their liaison with the officials in Dublin responsible for the consideration of SLAPPs there. <BR /> <BR />Despite my concern about the shift away from jury trials, I do not intend to oppose the Bill. My continued preference is that this law should be an interim law for defamation and that my Department will review the law, in line with the requirement placed on it in this Bill, with a view to developing further legislation for consideration in the next mandate.”
“That will draw on up-to-date research, including the recently published review of defamation law in the South of Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Mr Nesbitt raised the issue of strategic lawsuits against public participation — SLAPPs, as they have come to be known. I know that he was keen to have something in the Bill to deal with them, and I am sure that that can be considered in the context of the departmental review that appears in clause 11 of the Bill. I accept that they have the potential to be a relevant development in law, and I note the recommendations of the Dublin Government. I understand that the issue may be looked at elsewhere in these islands. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that the Department will properly consider SLAPPs as it commences a review of the law over the forthcoming period. Indeed, my officials have already begun that process.”
“Some of the content that I had concerns about from the start, most significantly the serious harm test, have been addressed. I remain concerned, however, about the removal of jury trials. Mr O'Toole said that it is not a removal but a raising of the threshold. However, the actual experience in England and Wales since 2013 is that there has not been a single jury trial in relation to defamation since the legislation was passed, so, in effect, it has had the same outcome. In my view, ordinary people whose reputation is destroyed as a result of falsehoods would be better served if their case were judged by their peers. <BR /> <BR />However, I do not intend to oppose the Bill. My preference and current intention is to develop bespoke legislation, to be introduced in the next mandate.”
“The Bill does not deal with these issues, but I accept that there are parts of it that will be useful.”
“The Defamation Bill that has reached its Final Stage is the product of scrutiny by the Finance Committee and, latterly, of cooperation between the Bill sponsor, Mike Nesbitt, and my officials, who were supported by the Office of the Legislative Counsel. While there have been disagreements on aspects of policy, the Bill is, nevertheless, legally coherent thanks to that work. <BR /> <BR />I made no secret of the fact that, when I learned that the Bill's sponsor sought to bring a private Member's Bill to the House, I felt that it would be preferable not to simply copy a law from 2013 in England and Wales. Practice and policy in that area of law has moved on from 2013. We live in an age where people can be defamed every second due to social media. Therefore, we need to adapt our laws to meet that challenge.”
“<BR /> <BR />I accept that there is a need for fundamental reform of the Civil Service. RHI drew attention to a lot of inherent flaws there, but let us not lose sight of the central role of the DUP at every stage of the scandal right up to today, when it failed to close the scheme in line with 'New Decade, New Approach', creating a potential £600 million threat to the block grant.”
“Unfortunately, when they were advising people that it was a good scheme to promote, they were not advising people of the "Fill your boots" mentality that pertained in the Department for the Economy. <BR /> <BR />Undoubtedly, there were flaws in relation to that, and undoubtedly there is much work to be continued. I understand the Committee's reaction to the fact that only one civil servant was disciplined for RHI. That process was put in place before the return, and it was not appropriate for me to become involved in that disciplinary process. Following that outcome, however, I commissioned a review of the disciplinary process, which Mr Muir asked about, and that is ongoing and, undoubtedly, will report in the next mandate on what that review has found.”
“They then compounded that by failing to take the decision to close it down when the problems were identified and informed no other Executive colleagues until such times as the thing had blown up in all our faces. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew tried to hide his blushes on that by suggesting that other Ministers were out promoting the scheme: that was on the basis of advice that it was a sound scheme. That is the way in which departmental issues work. If there are schemes that a Department has stood over and its officials and Minister have signed off on the basis of due diligence, other Ministers do not go into that detail themselves; they take it on good advice that the scheme has had its bona fides tested and validated. That was done by his colleagues in the Department for the Economy.”
“Mr Frew spoke on behalf of the DUP. I notice a sparse population on the Benches opposite for the matter, perhaps understandably. His focus was on discipline for the Civil Service. Undoubtedly, that raised issues, and I have undertaken to conduct a review of that. However, the reality is this: where were the consequences for the DUP Ministers who had the "Fill your boots" strategy — the people who were neither accountable nor responsible? Where were the consequences in terms of disciplinary issues for them? While the Member may well get outraged by the issue in terms of the civil servants, he appears to be giving a blank card to his party colleagues, who undoubtedly were at the source and whose decision-making and lack of attention to detail in these matters created the problem that was RHI.”
“Only a number of Members have drawn attention to the political origins of the report and the issues that led to it, but the Audit Office capacity and capability report will be a feature of reform of the Civil Service, because it is a very important report, and, though its analysis, it did a significant service.”
“As such, the expenditure remained irregular, and the Audit Office was advised. <BR /> <BR />The lessons from RHI have clearly not been learned, as the Economy Department has continued to submit business cases to my Department with a request for urgent approval without adequate time being provided for proper scrutiny and appraisal of the use of public funds prior to granting approvals. That brings with it the risk of vital information being missed and public funds being spent on programmes and schemes that do not deliver value for money, as has been the case with RHI. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to some of the issues that have been raised in the debate. There has been a particular focus on the Civil Service.”
“There are clear roles for both, and, where there is overlap, that can undoubtedly cause some confusion, but someone has to stand in the Chamber and be held to account by the MLAs in it, and that cannot be the head of the Civil Service, because of her role. There therefore has to be crossover and a clear understanding of the particular related functions. <BR /> <BR />The approach from the Department for the Economy has meant that we have not been able to fulfil our proper scrutiny role as the Department with responsibility for public finances. Although retrospective approval has been sought on numerous occasions, there have been cases when my Department has not been content to provide retrospective approval, owing to concerns about control weaknesses and poor governance in the Department for the Economy.”
“The reality is that the Department of Finance has responsibility for the Civil Service, and the head of the Civil Service also has a role. When it comes to accountability, however, I am sure that the Member will understand that, if the Department of Finance were to abdicate all that responsibility to the head of the Civil Service, there would be no one to stand in the Chamber and be held to account for those matters. There therefore has to be an agreement between the head of the Civil Service and the Department of Finance as to how that reform is managed. That is why agreement on a memorandum of understanding was reached.”
“There have been too many cases over the past number of years in which expenditure has been incurred by the Department for the Economy and its arm's-length bodies without seeking the appropriate approvals or in which the request for approval has been submitted at the very last minute.”
“For example, in the 2020-21 financial year, the Department for the Economy used £7·2 million out of a potential budget of over £33 million. That is £26 million of funding that was lost because there was no alternative scheme in place. <BR /> <BR />I also want to highlight a comment made in the recent Audit Office report on the progress of implementing the public inquiry recommendations. Andrew Muir also referred to this in his contribution. The report highlights a culture in the Department for the Economy of failing to get the required approvals from my Department for expenditure. That corresponds with my Department's experience with the Department for the Economy.”
“Two years on from the restoration of the Executive, the DUP has failed to deliver on that commitment. It has not brought to the Executive a recommendation on how to close the scheme. In fact, instead, the Economy Minister recommended that the tariffs be increased. Having been responsible for the scheme's design and implementation, the DUP is now making a mess of its closure. If it loses a judicial review of the scheme, having failed to close RHI in a legally sound and orderly manner, payments could be restored to their original levels and backdated at a cost to the Executive of £600 million. <BR /> <BR />The Economy Minister has also failed to develop an alternative use for the annually managed expenditure (AME) money available for schemes that promote renewable heat.”