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 24 of 100.
“A lot of the pressures that people have identified over the last couple of days in debates here could have been dealt with in the next financial year by the allocation of some of those pressures. The reason why we had so much to carry over is because a lot of it came after a very late announcement from the British Government. We got the ability to carry some of that over and to spend some of it. With regard to Mr Allister's point about headroom, over the past two years, we have received a lot of significant allocations, many of them very late in the day. So, we have had to take some more extraordinary measures compared to the normal process.”
“That is the very point that we are continuing to test. We have offered to give some advice to the Committee if and when we receive clarity on that. As I said, if it comes across in the normal fashion as a Barnett consequential and requires the Executive to approve carrying it on to where it needs to go to, we will be in trouble. That will add further problems to the Health Department, which we cannot give any uplift or strategic support to for the next three years in the absence of an Executive to take those decisions. <BR /> <BR />Some other issues were raised. Andrew Muir raised the issue of the £300 million, and, similarly, the plan to carry that over to the next financial year was to ease some of the real pressures.”
“<BR /> <BR />Just to finish the point, the absence of a Budget will not give Health the increase that we had wanted to give it. Even if it manages to get the national insurance contribution, it will not get the uplift that will allow us to do the whole transformation piece and tackle the major issues in Health that we want to tackle.”
“Steve Aiken, the Chair of the Finance Committee, raised the question of the national health funding. I have taken legal advice on the matter and am considering that. Obviously, I have also been in touch with Treasury to get some certainty on the issue. If the money comes across as a general Barnett consequential, generally speaking, it will come across in an unhypothecated way, which means that an Executive have to decide to allocate it even if they were already so minded that it should make a contribution to Health. So, we need to get some clarity on whether that will come across and join the other £300 million that is sitting in limbo, or whether it can go directly to Health, given that that is where it was intended to go. However, if it requires Executive approval, we will be in difficulty.”
“I hope that the LeasCheann Comhairle will indulge me in that as he takes the Chair.”
“I thank the Members who have participated in the debate. I will deal with some of the points that have been raised. There were general themes. Of course, as you quite rightly pointed out, Mr Speaker, we have spent a lot of time debating the Budget that we are not talking about. Nonetheless, I feel obliged to respond to some of the points that were made about the Budget that we are not talking about as well.”
“I look forward to hearing any final thoughts from Members on this important piece of legislation.”
“Unfortunately, the First Minister's decision to resign has prevented that from happening. While the Bill provides a Vote on Account to allow services to continue beyond 1 April, that does not constitute the setting of a Budget that is needed to allow Departments to plan ahead, and it does not provide the additional resources that are so desperately needed by our health service. <BR /> <BR />I conclude by, once again, expressing my gratitude to the Finance Committee, which worked with us to grant accelerated passage to the Bill. I also thank all of the Committees for the level of scrutiny that they have brought to the process. This is the final stage of our financial legislative process for 2021-22, and the legislation has already been subject to considerable debate.”
“Almost £100 million has been allocated to the Department for Infrastructure to help mitigate the impact of COVID, subsidise the public transport network, provide support to the bus and coach industry and mitigate the impact of rising energy costs on Northern Ireland Water. The Executive also agreed to provide over £45 million to my Department to fund the omicron hospitality scheme to provide grants to the sectors that were most affected by the disruption to Christmas trade. <BR /> <BR />As we move towards the recovery phase of the pandemic, we have to rebuild our healthcare system. A first step in that process should be agreement by the Executive on a multi-year Budget to enable the health service to begin tackling the soaring waiting lists and the process of transformation, which we had all agreed were the priorities.”
“It includes over £100 million to the Department of Education to help schools deal with COVID pressures, such as PPE and staff substitute cover, as well as support for special educational needs (SEN). Over £90 million was allocated to the Department for Communities to support local councils and the Housing Executive as well as to fund the energy payment support scheme to help the most vulnerable with rising fuel costs. I understand that the majority of those payments will be in people's bank accounts later this week.”
“Today's Final Stage debate concludes the financial legislative process for the 2021-22 year. This has been another year in which financial management has been made more difficult by the pandemic and by the uncertainty over our final funding envelope. Over the year, the Executive allocated almost £700 million in additional resources and over £90 million in capital. We have provided support to the health service, schools, businesses and individuals who have continued to face difficulties as a result of the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. That support includes over £250 million of additional in-year funding for the Department of Health to meet pressures on hospital services and elective care as well as funding for mental health.”
“I thank the Members who contributed for their comments on the statutory rule, which were generally positive. There is no alternative or non-legislative option to reduce the fees other than a statutory rule approved by the Assembly. If it were not approved in its present form, our current higher fee rates would remain in force until a re-made statutory rule was approved and signed into law. Again, I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. The changes will ensure that the energy performance certificate register can continue to operate on a cost-neutral basis. I commend the motion to the House.”
“The draft regulations serve a specific purpose, which is to reduce the statutory fees that are charged when data is registered for domestic and non-domestic energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports. The reduction in fees for domestic data represents an 8·5% saving; for non-domestic data, there is a 10% saving. I commend the draft regulations to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />We want homeowners and commercial building owners and occupiers to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings. Ensuring that our buildings are as efficient as possible will help us to achieve net zero by 2050. My Department plans to make a significant contribution to reaching net zero through an ambitious programme of uplifts to the energy efficiency requirements of building regulations for new buildings. <BR /> <BR />The Finance Committee considered the draft regulations on 26 January and 2 March 2022 and agreed that they could progress to the next legislative stage. The Examiner of Statutory Rules considered the draft regulations and did not raise any issues in her report.”
“The gap is now significantly smaller than in previous years. <BR /> <BR />The energy performance of buildings register is a key tool in promoting energy efficiency. The register now holds nearly 600,000 local records, with 56,000 lodged since the new register went live. Those records hold valuable information about the energy performance of buildings. An energy performance certificate is required when a building is constructed or, for an existing building, before it is marketed for sale or rent. It gives prospective purchasers or renters the ability to determine how efficient a property might be and to make comparisons between properties. A property owner can consider the recommendations included in an EPC to help to inform decisions to improve the property's energy efficiency.”
“The proposed reductions are from £1·64 to £1·50 for domestic properties and from £1·89 to £1·70 for non-domestic properties. Members may recall that those fees were significantly reduced less than a year ago. That was possible because my Department, in partnership with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, invested in cloud-based digital platforms and moved away from the fixed hardware model that had been in place since 2008. This statutory rule further reduces the fees as further efficiencies from that investment are realised. The modest reduction in fees set out in the draft regulations will ensure that the register is run on as close to a cost-neutral basis as possible. The small differentiation between fees for domestic and non-domestic lodgements reflects technical differences between the classes of data.”
“The draft regulations before the House today are to be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The draft regulations were laid before the Assembly on 18 February 2022 under paragraph 12(3) of schedule 7 to that Act. Equivalent legislation is passing through the Westminster Parliament for data registered for properties in England and Wales. The purpose of the draft regulations is to reduce the statutory fees that are charged when data is registered on the energy performance of buildings register, particularly in relation to energy performance certificates (EPCs), display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports for properties. <BR /> <BR />There are two classes of data registration: one for domestic properties and one for non-domestic properties.”
“Every issue that they have mentioned is a priority, but that means that nothing will be prioritised in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their contributions, but, finally, I put on record my frustration, as Finance Minister, with the situation that we find ourselves in and with how the actions of some are putting at risk the outcomes for all.”
“I would like Members who raise all the areas that they want to see funded to go off and think about how they intend to do that, given the fact that we have a finite Budget. The approach that those Members have been taking is that everything is a priority and nothing is a priority.”
“That is what I had attempted to do in the draft Budget, by prioritising an area that, we had all agreed, required it. <BR /> <BR />I hope that we can come to that position, whoever may be in the Executive and whenever an Executive may be formed, which I hope will be sooner rather than later. As I said, the people who are suffering as a consequence of this are not those who are negotiating between the British Government and the EU on the protocol issues; it is the people whom we collectively represent in this part of the world who are suffering as a consequence of our inability to take decisions on a draft Budget. <BR /> <BR />The debate has been useful, although it is obviously limited, given that we find ourselves without an Executive to take the decisions that need to be taken. I thank Members for their contributions.”
“Some Ministers have struggled to separate that from the Department that they will represent for the next number of weeks or months but, clearly, there was an opportunity to do that. Ministers have responsibility for prioritisation within their own departmental budgets. If those things are a priority for them, they will have to decide which other areas are not a priority for them. They can make that contribution, because that is a part of the arrangement that we have under the Good Friday Agreement. <BR /> <BR />There is a significant degree of autonomy within Departments. I cannot go into Departments and tell people how to spend their money. All that we can do is get the Executive to agree how much money they get and try to bring some broader degree of prioritisation to it.”
“We have said many times at the Executive, and I accept, that the health of the population is not the sole responsibility of the Department of Health. However, one of the factors of the Good Friday Agreement is the autonomy within each Department; that was a part of our power-sharing arrangements. There is autonomy for individual Ministers, whoever they may be. The people who hold the ministerial positions now may not be re-elected, may not be back in the same Department or may not be appointed as Ministers by their parties, but it will apply to whoever holds those positions. <BR /> <BR />One of the factors was that the Executive, in planning their priorities, could do so without individuals wearing departmental hats.”
“We don't know who and we don't know what, but somebody should do something about them anyway." That brings me back to the central point that I have been making since the start of this debate: if we have a finite Budget, we have to prioritise. We have consistently said that Health needs to be the priority but, when it came to prioritising Health, we suddenly recognised that there were a whole range of other pressures that were not being met. That will absolutely be the case. Now, had we decided to roll everybody's budget over and give Health no prioritisation, Departments would not have enough resources anyway because of the impact of austerity over 10 years.”
“There were costed plans for elective care, costed plans for cancer treatment, costed plans for a mental health strategy and costed plans for the transformation of the health service. There was a strategy attached. I absolutely accept the Fiscal Council's criticism that those other strategies and documentation should be in place, but that is outside my responsibility. I cannot wait on that, because I have a legal responsibility to bring a Budget before the end of the financial year. As I said, a strategy was attached to those issues to try to give support. <BR /> <BR />Pat Catney mentioned a number of issues and Departments. It was another case of, "Somebody should do something about these issues.”
“It is clear that the Fiscal Council took an approach that did not include some figures that will go to the Department of Justice. That makes a difference between the Department of Justice having a loss and having a net gain over the three years. There is no spin attached to it; it is a different view of the figures that go into the Department of Justice budget and where they come from. <BR /> <BR />As I said, Matthew O'Toole talked about strategising. I have to say that I would much prefer that a Programme for Government and an investment strategy were in place. In the absence of those, however, I still have to go ahead with the Budget. There was a three-year prioritisation for Health.”
“The British Government promised us replacement funding in full, but they are not replacing EU funding in full. The biggest loss is the funding that used to go to the Department for the Economy to support skills and training. That is very badly needed, and we have to try to find that money from within our own resources. <BR /> <BR />We have had the argument about the Justice budget, and Mervyn Storey raised it again. There are figures that have not been included in the Fiscal Council report, and it is my clear view that, like all other Departments, Justice did receive an increase in its baseline each year for three years.”
“In putting together the Budget proposition, I matched the rhetoric that parties here had been expressing for the last number of years. It appears that, when it comes to standing up to be counted, people are prepared to back off. It is a bit like Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson clapping in Downing Street for the health service workers: when it came to it, they did not put their hands in their pockets and provide money for them. Nonetheless, I believe that, if we had had an Executive in place, we would have reached an agreement on a Budget in the next week or so. <BR /> <BR />Caoimhe Archibald mentioned one of our key challenges being in relation to skills. I accept that, and it is a challenge for the Department for the Economy, but it is a challenge because we have lost EU funding, which is another consequence of Brexit.”
“Yes. I have had that conversation with the Health Minister many times. The Health Department would take more money than we are proposing to give it and spend it, but there is a balance to be struck. The rhetoric that everybody in the Chamber employed over the last number of years was that Health was the priority: Health was going to be the number-one issue and Health needed to be fixed. However, it looks like, when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is, a lot of people are running and saying, "Oh, it is Health, but we need this done, we need that done, we need the other thing done. We need money in Infrastructure. We need money in a lot of very worthy areas". You cannot have it all, particularly when you keep in place a Government that intend to follow through on austerity policies and continue to cut public spending.”
“We would have had £300 million next year to invest in other Departments to enable them to meet pressures around policing and a whole range of other priority areas such as skills, but we cannot do that without an Executive.”
“Health needs the ability to invest in its own staff and to create the possibility of transformation. <BR /> <BR />Of course, all the other Departments will undoubtedly face pressures next year, because, even though they all got an increase in their budget baselines, they did not get anywhere near what they needed. We can go back to a previous discussion. Your party had the opportunity to choose whether to support a Government that were delivering austerity policies or support a Government that intended to invest in public services. You chose to keep the Tory Government in power as opposed to choosing a Labour Government. This is the consequence of some of those decisions.”
“Mr Buchanan talked about all the negative impacts that the Budget would have across a range of Departments. There are a couple of basic truths in all of this. One is that if we decide that the priority is Health — that is the key question, and Matthew O'Toole touched on it in his contribution — and we have a finite Budget, that means that other Departments will not get as much money as they would like. The other option is that we decide that Health is not the priority. I note that, in a recent statement, a DUP Member said that the DUP has a plan to fix Health. That person did not say what the plan was, and, based on Mr Buchanan's contribution to the debate, it clearly does not involve giving Health any more money, so I am not sure how it is intended to work.”
“It is true that in-year resources are given back, and that is why we bring in-year monitoring rounds to the Assembly. It would be good financial management to have opportunities to scrutinise how Departments bid and what they should get. Of course, they should be bidding realistically. It seems to me that, based on the accounts that were given to some Committees about the Budget, there was, as someone said, a difference between what the Departments said they wanted and what they would realistically spend. It would have been up to the Executive to continue to monitor the Budget in the time ahead.”
“It was reflected in the commentary from almost all the Committee Chairs who are here that Departments will always aim to get as much as possible when they make bids.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will address some of the issues that Members raised. Steve Aiken, the Chair of the Finance Committee, raised the point — Matthew O'Toole majored on this as well — about a lack of strategic documents on the process. The difficulty is that it is not my responsibility to bring forward a Programme for Government or an investment strategy. That is the collective responsibility of the Executive. The Budget has a legislative deadline. The Programme for Government and the investment strategy do not. That is why I had to bring forward a Budget in December. Now, unfortunately, we are stuck without an Executive to agree such a Budget, which they should have been doing in the next week or so. <BR /> <BR />Steve Aiken also raised points about Departments bidding for and surrendering funds.”
“Funding-related political agreements and city growth deals were included; departmental allocations were shown alongside the 2021-22 agreed final Budget positions and the departmental baselines; more details were provided of payments under public-private partnership and private finance initiative projects; additional details were provided of the breakdown of principal interest payments for reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing; and the draft Budget identified how much of the RRI principal is being repaid through the regional rates revenue each year. In that regard, I welcome the council's view that there were advances in transparency in the draft Budget document. I also accept that there is a need and scope to do more, and the recent Audit Office and PAC reports on the Budget will be helpful as we seek to improve that process.”
“That is why I set up the Fiscal Council and the Fiscal Commission. It is also why I progressed the financial reporting legislation, which will improve transparency in the Budget and Estimates processes. It is also why I welcome the recent Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports on the Budget. It is imperative that a financial process that supports the delivery of public services is as accessible as possible. <BR /> <BR />In one of its six concluding reflections, the Fiscal Council highlighted the advances that the draft Budget publication made in improving transparency.”
“Do not start spoofing to people about party leaders' meetings to agree a Budget. As far as I am aware, only one person at the party leaders' meeting is a member of the Executive. Be honest with people at least and go off and appoint a First Minister. The protest against the protocol is meaningless, and it is having absolutely no impact on it. The only impact that it is having is on the people whom we collectively represent and who want funding to be allocated. <BR /> <BR />I also want to focus my remarks on transparency, because it was one of the issues that the Fiscal Council and the Committee set out. Indeed, I raised it in my time as Chair of the Finance Committee; therefore, I am the first to recognise that the Budget process and its reporting can be opaque and often complicated.”
“The debate is about the potential for a draft Budget, which has been scuppered by the actions of the Member's party. Having prevented the Budget being agreed, the DUP now says that it wants to rectify the situation and has put forward nonsense suggestions to try to create diversions for people. The solution is very straightforward: appoint a First Minister so that the Executive can meet and agree a Budget. That is a very simple solution, and it could be done tomorrow.”
“You were responsible for two of them. <BR /> <BR />Having prevented —”
“Mervyn talked about short memories. He should remember that, in February 2018, there was a deal on the table that his party leadership accepted. At the time, all the internal wranglings in that party were undercover — they are now obviously much more illuminated in the public sphere — and some in the party scuppered that deal, so we spent a further two years out of an Executive and the institutions before the DUP came back to exactly the same deal. Do not talk to us about being out of the Executive for three years when you were responsible —”
“That figure has been rubbished by any credible economists. It was a back-of-a-cigarette-box exercise that came together across four firms that measured that figure against a "no Brexit" situation. Go off and get a credible economic position before you come back with figures like that. <BR /> <BR />Of course, in an attempt to avoid the disastrous consequences of the DUP collapsing the Executive, I obtained the legal advice that Mr Muir asked about from the Departmental Solicitor's Office and the Attorney General. I asked whether I could set a Budget in the absence of an Executive, and the clear answer was no. Section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is very explicit about this: any Budget that I bring before the Assembly must be agreed by an Executive. So having prevented —”
“It will have no impact on the protocol negotiations, but it will damage public services, particularly our health service, which has so much to lose from financial uncertainty and so much to gain from a three-year Budget.”
“<BR /> <BR />All that has been denied by the DUP's decision to collapse the Executive in protest at the protocol — the protocol that is the result of the DUP pursuing the most extreme Brexit possible in an effort to impose a hard border in Ireland. The DUP, full of hubris from its position as kingmaker in Westminster, overplayed its hand, and the party's negotiation strategy led to the protocol. <BR /> <BR />Initially, of course, the DUP was going to cut its losses and make the best of this "gateway of opportunity", as it described it. However, the opinion polls made the DUP panic that voters might intend to punish the party for mishandling its position of power in Westminster, so the DUP embarked on a campaign against the protocol. Collapsing the Executive was the latest stunt in a cynical campaign.”
“I thank the Finance Committee for tabling the motion for debate and for its report. <BR /> <BR />The public consultation on the draft Budget should be closing today. The Executive should be entering intensive discussions to agree a final Budget. As part of those discussions, the Executive should be deciding how to allocate an extra £300 million for 2022-23 in areas such as skills, policing, schools, homelessness and the cost of living. Departments should then be receiving a multi-year Budget settlement, which the Fiscal Council described as "a golden opportunity" to reform public services. Health should be benefiting from a 10% uplift in its budget, with cancer, mental health and waiting list strategies funded in full. All other Departments should be receiving a budget increase.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are aspects of the Bill that I can support and others that, unfortunately, I cannot. My Department will use the review period to consider the Bill in whatever shape it ends up, along with other developments related to this area. I hope that the end product will be beneficial for those who seek to protect their reputation as well as considering those who wish to articulate their freedom of expression. There may be more work to be undertaken before we reach that destination.”
“The Department of Justice and the Courts and Tribunals Service will be interested if jury trials are no longer required. That will need to be taken into account in their plans. My view is that commencement when all things are ready is preferable, but I will not take issue with the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I have no comment to make on most of the other amendments tabled by the Bill sponsor. My officials met him recently and ironed out some of the technical issues with the Bill and provided assistance, along with the Bill Office, on those. I am keen to ensure that the Bill is legally coherent, even where we clearly differ on policy. My officials will continue that process once Consideration Stage is over and we have a clearer picture of the shape and nature of the Bill.”
“It is good practice to review legislation, and I agree in principle with the new clause. It will provide an opportunity to take account of new thinking on online defamation in particular. My Department will continue its work with the time to properly examine recent developments, including the review south of the border. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 15 seeks to change when the Bill will come into effect. Part of that will depend on whether we agree to keep clause 5 in place. Notwithstanding that, the desire is for the Bill to come into force around the time of Royal Assent. While I am content to see provisions come into effect without undue delay, there are others in the justice system who will have an interest when the new law comes into force.”
“Judges discharge an important and valuable role in our justice system, but is a judge always best placed to determine meaning in certain defamation cases? <BR /> <BR />The subcommittee that considered the issue in 2017 for the civil justice review seemed to argue against the idea of removing juries in defamation cases. The review in the South recommended similar changes, but I expect that recommendation to be challenged. As Finance Minister, I am in agreement with the Committee and believe that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I want to comment on two other amendments tabled by the Bill's sponsor, Mr Nesbitt. Amendment No 7 introduces a new clause that will require my Department to review and report on the law in this area over the coming two years.”
“At the same time, he noted the historical importance of the jury in our local context and that a jury decision might have more legitimacy than one taken by a judge alone. <BR /> <BR />The defamation subgroup, which was part of the review of civil justice, did not want to see the jury trial abolished. It was, in fact, unanimous on that point. It commented that juries were well placed to determine what a particular statement meant in the local context and whether it might be considered defamatory in that context. Therefore, to accept this clause is to accept the end of jury trials in defamation cases. That may mean that, in the future, there is an earlier resolution in defamation cases but, perhaps, at the risk of a loss of legitimacy.”
“It appears that the "or for some other reason" aspect of that provision has not been utilised, and the net effect seems to be that clause 11 would effectively end jury trials for defamation cases. <BR /> <BR />An argument presented by some to the Committee was that the prospect of a jury trial creates a degree of uncertainty over the outcome of a defamation case. Members of the media argued that a jury trial can mean lengthy and costly legal processes. Juries can make high awards to claimants and awards that are sometimes seen as disproportionate, although the current law permits an avenue for such awards to be considered on appeal. Others pointed to the fact that Professor Scott suggested in his report that dispensing with the jury in defamation cases might make for a shorter process, with greater scope for an early resolution.”