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 25 of 100.
“In practice, it would mean the de facto abolition of trial by jury in defamation cases. That has been its effect in England and Wales, where there has not been a single defamation case involving a jury trial since the advent of the 2013 Act. In this Bill, akin to the position in which England and Wales found themselves, the removal of the presumption of the relevant part of the Judicature Act 1978 would have the effect that section 62(4) of that Act then applied. That provision means that having a jury in a defamation case can take place only in very restrictive circumstances, mainly where the court is of the opinion that there has been an:”
“In Committee, six members voted in favour of that position, with only one member against and two abstentions. That conclusion was based on many weeks of review, during which evidence was heard from a range of witnesses, including lawyers, academics, media representatives and officials from my Department. I agree with the Committee's decision and note in particular the Committee's opinion that the clause might have the unintended consequence of further reducing the liability of social media operators. I welcome the fact that the Bill sponsor has also decided to oppose clause 5. It is an area on which we need to take time to reflect on how best to proceed and develop a bespoke solution appropriate to modern circumstances. <BR /> <BR />Clause 11 would end the presumption in favour of trial by jury.”
“Professor Scott thought that the original wording in the Defamation Act 2013 was too limiting, as it allowed a defendant to rely on a fact published before the allegedly defamatory statement but not at the same time as it. The Committee concluded that the amendment should stand part of the Bill, and I agree. <BR /> <BR />I will now turn to clause 5. One of the reasons that I favour a bespoke Bill and not simply a replication of the 2013 Act is because of the advances in social media since then. Addressing the challenges for defamation law in a world where social media is thriving is perhaps the most pressing challenge when it comes to defamation law. I note the decision of the Committee that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.”
“It is claimed that people will come here to take advantage of our supposedly more lax defamation law. If that were the case, we would have seen a rise in libel actions after England and Wales changed their law in 2013, and we have not seen that. I therefore have reservations about clause 1 and agree with the Committee that it should not stand part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I am content to support amendment No 2 to clause 3 and the clause, as amended. The amendment, tabled by Mike Nesbitt, the Bill sponsor, flows from a recommendation from Professor Andrew Scott in his 2016 report on defamation law reform in this jurisdiction.”
“The first is that it will remove what has been called the "chilling effect" of our current defamation law, and we have heard about that this morning as well. The chilling effect occurs when a news story, for example, is withheld because the author, publisher or editor is threatened with legal action. No journalist should be afraid to print a story if it is true. We have a defence in our law for that already, and it is given certainty and clarification in this Bill. Furthermore, there is no evidence that that defence causes more of a problem in this jurisdiction than in England and Wales, where the serious harm test has been in place since 2013. <BR /> <BR />The second argument is that, if we do not bring our defamation law into line with that in England and Wales, we will see a rise in libel tourism.”
“I will now turn to the specifics of the Bill. Clause 1 seeks to introduce the serious harm test. The clause has provoked much debate, including this morning. My concern is that people who do not have a public profile would find it more difficult to prove serious harm. The clause would make it more difficult for ordinary people to protect their reputation. My concern is clearly shared by the Committee. Having discussed the Defamation Bill over many weeks, and having heard evidence from a range of witnesses, including lawyers, academics, media representatives and officials from my Department, the Committee decided that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Two arguments have been made in support of clause 1.”
“I have expressed my preference for bespoke legislation on defamation rather than simply replicating the law of England and Wales from 2013. The Irish Government have just published a review of defamation. I have asked my Department to examine that report, as well as the experience in England and elsewhere, so that we can take forward modern legislation in the next mandate. That said, we have a Bill for consideration before us. There are aspects of the Bill that I have no difficulty with. The statutory codification of the defences, for example, is a measured and appropriate step in the development of our law.”
“We could have a different rates debate in the years ahead; one that measures what we do against some other potential fiscal levers that may be of use to us. <BR /> <BR />Mr Muir mentioned the Reval exercise. Of course, that is ongoing. I know that he does not sit on the Finance Committee, but I would be very happy for the team to engage with him, if he wishes, in the future. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their contributions. The order is a necessary step. It will be a welcome step for businesses and households. I trust that Members will show the necessary support for the order.”
“In the longer term, for as long as that is the only fiscal lever that we have, an Executive, or, indeed, a Finance Minister, will always have to strike the balance between getting enough revenue to support overstretched public services, which have been subject to austerity policies for over 10 years, and ensuring that we target whatever reliefs that we have and supports that we can to make sure that the businesses and households that need support the most can get it. That is why the work of the Fiscal Commission is a very long overdue exercise in this part of the world. It has happened on a number of occasions in Scotland and Wales by looking at what other financial levers could be available.”
“I thank all the Members who have spoken in the debate. I thank the Committee Deputy Chair, the Chair, the Committee members and staff for their work on the order and in the debate. <BR /> <BR />As I stated, the order aims to strike a balance between the needs of the ratepayers during what remain challenging economic times and ensuring that the public finances are sufficient to cover the priorities of an incoming Executive. That speaks to the point that Matthew O'Toole raised; I know that he had to leave.”
“<BR /> <BR />Article 1 sets out the title of the order and gives the operational date as the day after it is affirmed by the Assembly. Article 2 provides that the order will apply for the 2022-23 rating year through to 31 March 2023. Article 3 specifies 27·9p in the pound as the non-domestic regional poundage and 0·4574p in the pound as the domestic regional rate poundage. <BR /> <BR />I look forward to hearing Members' comments, and I commend the order to the Assembly.”
“It is added to that funding to facilitate expenditure on our health, roads, schools and other essential public services. The rating system contributes over £1·3 billion each year to Executive and district council funding. The contribution to the Executive comes to approximately £690 million. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to more technical matters covered in the draft order. Its main purpose is to specify the regional rate poundages for 2022-23. It will do that by fixing two regional rates in the pound for 2022-23: one for households and one for business ratepayers. The rates in the pound will remain exactly the same as last year for households and businesses to continue my commitment to ensuring that household and commercial budgets are protected, given the continuing economic difficulties being faced across the board.”
“The crucial 18% reduction in the regional rate in April 2020 was the Executive's first step to dealing with that. For all commercial ratepayers, today's order will continue with that important policy direction into the 2022-23 rates year, as we head towards revaluation in April 2023. Likewise, the freeze in domestic poundage will be vital to domestic ratepayers, many of whom have seen a considerable squeeze on their household budgets as a result of the pandemic and the current surge in inflation. The measure will supplement steps taken in recent weeks by my Executive colleagues, such as the £55 million energy payment support scheme for vulnerable people who are struggling to meet energy costs. <BR /> <BR />The revenue raised from the regional rate supplements the Executive's block grant.”
“For the second year in a row, I seek the Assembly's approval of a freeze in the non-domestic regional rate, consolidating the 18% reduction implemented in 2020. This year, the order takes its place alongside a £50 million rates holiday provision agreed by the Executive in December. That measure will start by providing a one-month rates support to all businesses with a few exceptions, such as utilities. It will also apply a further two-month targeted rates holiday to the sectors of the economy that were most impacted by the pandemic. As I stated, today's order serves to hold the existing regional rate multipliers by freezing the current poundages. <BR /> <BR />In the 2019 business rates review, many consultees highlighted the high level of business rates here as a major issue.”
“As Members will be aware, the order is brought forward annually and normally stems from the Executive's agreed Budget. Although the Executive have not agreed the draft Budget, they agreed in December the approach to be taken on regional rates, with freezes in domestic and non-domestic rates. Therefore, in order to provide certainty for households and businesses, I have brought forward the regional rates order to implement the poundage freeze and retain the regional rates at their current level. <BR /> <BR />For the third year in a row, I seek the Assembly's approval of a freeze in the domestic regional rate to help households cope with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and inflation.”
“The Public Accounts Committee has produced valued and valuable reports, and I am pleased to respond on behalf of my Department on some of the matters that we are dealing with and on behalf of some of the other Departments. Having been a member of the Public Accounts Committee on a number of occasions, I know that it will continue the work of engaging with Departments to ensure that, when reports are done and recommendations made, the recommendations are followed through in a timely fashion. <BR /> <BR />I thank all those who contributed to a good debate. I hope that we can all work collaboratively to meet the challenges that, no doubt, lie ahead and, in turn, help our public sector to meet those challenges.”
“That is being overseen by a multi-agency programme board, which has representation from the key justice organisations and is chaired by the Minister of Justice herself. The Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill will, among other things, help to speed up some of the more serious cases in the Crown Court. The Bill has passed its Final Stage in the Assembly, and officials are working with justice partners to discuss its implementation. In response to the Committee's report, the DOJ is seeking to build on reporting opportunities to help to gain a better understanding of the impact of delay in the justice system. <BR /> <BR />I have covered a number of the points that were raised.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Irwin focused on the report on renewable energy and raised points about future schemes, consultation and ensuring that matters were got right. The Department for the Economy has assured my Department that any future schemes that are developed with appropriate stakeholder engagement will be done with particular regard to the information and evidence provided by vested interests and that it will ensure that they have access to appropriate costs and rates of return to ensure appropriate value for money. <BR /> <BR />Mr Hilditch raised points about the report on speeding up the justice system. The Department of Justice has informed us that it is working with the justice organisations to deliver a programme of work aimed at speeding up the criminal justice system.”
“<BR /> <BR />Andrew Muir also touched on some of the capacity issues in the Civil Service and on ensuring that there was a joined-up approach to dealing with them. As I said, the Department of Finance is working with the Executive Office, the head of the Civil Service and a reconstituted Civil Service board to provide strategic leadership, delivery focus and governance. An MOU setting out the respective roles of TEO and my Department creates a platform for the joint working between us. We are also developing proposals with the Executive Office to enable delivery and continuous improvement of HR services, as well as delivery of a range of organisational development commitments such as workforce planning. As I said, we need to review the operating model for people management.”
“The lack of delivery of projects has been a consistent theme from Members, specifically in relation to the Procurement Board, which falls under my Department. It has commissioned work to determine the root causes of delay in major projects and to quantify their impact. That information will be used to inform proposals for changes to systems and processes. The Committee is aware that the Department developed and introduced new business case guidance in November 2020 designed to improve the business case development process and ensure that relevant specialists are involved throughout. Work has begun on an interim review of the implementation of the guidance, with a full review to be undertaken after 36 months.”
“I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee will continue to engage with the Department of Education, the Department for the Economy and other Departments. However, in relation to capacity in the Civil Service, a review is under way of the operating model for people management within the Civil Service, and a report is expected by the end of March. I do not underestimate the programme of work required to address the full range of recommendations. We are working with the Executive Office, the head of the Civil Service and the Civil Service board to prioritise interventions that will make a real difference. I am pleased to say that there has been progress across all the areas identified by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Mr McHugh also touched on capital projects. He mentioned specifically his frustration at a range of projects.”
“It will therefore be important that we — Departments, the Audit Office and the PAC — continue to work together to deliver an effective public audit process that adds value whilst ensuring a balance between constructive criticism and point-scoring or unfair criticism. <BR /> <BR />On lessons, I will address some of the main reports that the Committee dealt with as part of the debate. A number were touched on by Members. <BR /> <BR />The Chair, Mr Humphrey, touched on the one that a number of Members mentioned: the 'Major Capital Projects' report. My Department acknowledges the need to strengthen the capability in the Civil Service to commission and deliver major contracts and projects overall. We are working on reform in project delivery and commercial capability. Some reports are more specific to other Departments, of course.”
“Civil servants need to understand the principles behind those policies and practices and to abide by them. That is why the inquiry report states that its recommendations for the Civil Service require sustained system-wide change and will take time to implement effectively. Importantly, change needs to be driven at a political level, particularly by Ministers. <BR /> <BR />Learning from the past is where the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee can continue to deliver real added value across the system. It is that retrospective look, shining a light on areas where things could and should have been done better or where they have gone wrong, that helps us to continually learn and improve.”
“We are all familiar with the issues that came to light not only through the various PAC evidence sessions on the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme but through the RHI inquiry itself, and many lessons have already been learned and applied. However, top-line messages for the Civil Service from the RHI inquiry are that officials need to understand their role as civil servants; be confident and competent in fulfilling that role; and uphold the ethical standards of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. <BR /> <BR />Corporate policies and processes need to make it easier to do the job well, so there has been some revision of policies and guidance. The Executive's response to the inquiry is about making sure that things are done better, and that is not just a matter of changing the rules.”
“We are making good progress but must not underestimate the programme of work required to address the breadth and depth of the Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee's recommendations on long-standing issues, such as recruitment, skills, performance etc. Department of Finance officials are working with the head of the Civil Service and trade union colleagues on the interventions that will make a real difference. <BR /> <BR />What I have talked about so far are ways in which we are trying to improve how the public sector operates in order to improve outcomes for the citizen. However, another key element in improving for the future is learning from the past.”
“Finance officials are opening doors for a whole-systems approach, facilitating cross-government working groups, agreeing governance on structures and delivery models, championing a consistent approach to city and growth deals and continually engaging and collaborating with councils and delivery partners. <BR /> <BR />We are working to get our organisation, relationships and leadership right and focusing on more joined-up thinking and working across Departments. We must also focus on our people, and getting a diverse range of people with the right skills in the right job at the right time is crucial to a well-functioning, modern civil service.”
“However, now is the right time to refocus efforts and progress the full implementation of the action plan. That will help to rebalance relationships and facilitate a move towards a true partnership-working arrangement. <BR /> <BR />As we move forward, it is not just about working well in partnership with our arm's-length bodies to deliver public services; we need to think of a whole-systems delivery model to achieve our outcomes. We need to break down barriers and work as a joined-up Government across Departments and sectors, including the local government sector. A good example of that in my Department is how we are managing the delivery of city and growth deals. My Department is leading on a joined-up, cross-Civil Service approach to that £1·3 billion capital programme.”
“It will be of interest to the Committee, therefore, that my Department has been taking forward work in the area over the last few years to improve and rebalance those relationships. That work kicked off with an innovation lab, at the start of 2018, that was attended by key stakeholders and partners, including the chairs forum, the chief executives forum, the Audit Office and representatives from a range of Departments. My officials have continued to work in collaboration with those key stakeholders, and, up to early 2020, good progress was made and a number of products and guidance were agreed on. However, with the onset of the COVID pandemic in early 2020, unfortunately, progress on implementing the new arrangements slowed down as we all focused on responding to the unique challenges presented by the pandemic.”
“In June 2021, the Executive agreed that a two-part approach should be adopted to the review of the arm's-length bodies with legislation to be brought forward to facilitate the rationalisation of bodies, informed by an efficiency and effectiveness review. It is for each Minister to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of their ALBs. My Department is, however, working with other Departments to enable and support the process. <BR /> <BR />Given that almost three quarters of our Budget is spent through ALBs, it goes without saying that there needs to be a good working relationship between Departments and arm's-length bodies. They need to work in true partnership to deliver the best outcomes for the citizen.”
“Several strands of work are going on that contribute to the transformation of how we deliver services. As well as tackling operational challenges, the transformation that we are embarking on needs to address the Executive's longer-term aims and identify and develop innovative and cost-effective ways to deliver high-quality services to the public. <BR /> <BR />It is key to have the right structure and balance in place between central government Departments and their delivery partners or arm's-length bodies (ALBs). After all, around 70% of the Executive's resource DEL Budget is spent on services delivered through our arm's-length bodies. Members will therefore be aware that a review of arm's-length bodies is a priority in 'New Decade, New Approach'.”
“<BR /> <BR />As we move forward and into recovery from the pandemic, we must try to get back to our more normal processes and ways of conducting business. Our public sector has been under enormous financial pressure, as it had to react to the unique circumstances that COVID presented and put resources towards dealing with the health emergency. Without a multi-year Budget, we lose a significant opportunity to put plans in place to provide for longer-term stability and create a platform to transform our public services. Nevertheless, with regard to service delivery, it is essential that we do what we can to continue to transform how services are delivered in the future. It needs to be driven not only by the budgetary position but by the need to improve how we develop, design and engage in the delivery of all public-sector services.”
“Because we had to react at pace, decisions had to be taken outside the normal processes for ensuring value for money and without having the right controls in place at the outset. Many departmental accounting officers, mine included, had to seek ministerial directions on a range of issues due to the abnormal operating environment that we were in. As I said, we must be held accountable for those decisions, and I welcome the scrutiny of the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee in instances where ministerial directions are sought and given. In particular, I have to mention and welcome the new enhanced openness and transparency with regard to ministerial directions, as driven by the Public Accounts Committee, whereby they are now published on the Department of Finance website.”
“I hope that the Committee recognises that, as we continue in the time ahead to embrace new ways of doing things, applying innovation and creativity where possible, it will not be without risk. It is, therefore, important for the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to play their part in ensuring that Departments, agencies and other public-sector bodies can embrace change and take appropriate risks without the fear of criticism being foremost in their minds, overshadowing them or, worse, inhibiting the changes and transformation that are needed.”
“I acknowledge the good work undertaken by the Committee and the Audit Office. <BR /> <BR />The financial context has changed dramatically over the last two years due to the pandemic. We have had to change how we conduct our business and take risks that previously we would not have contemplated. We have had to react at pace and radically change how we do things. There were new challenges and risks to be taken. In that unprecedented context, we did not get everything right, but risks had to be taken as we acted at pace. Schemes that previously would have been developed, tested and refined over many months were turned around within weeks. <BR /> <BR />While there must be accountability for decisions taken, the focus should be on learning lessons from that period. It is important that we do not become risk-averse.”
“It is imperative that the legislation that has been debated today continues its passage through the Assembly so that public services and our response to the COVID pandemic can be delivered without delay or interruption. I ask Members to support the Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2021-22 and in the early months of 2022-23 in the Vote on Account.”
“If we are told that we need to spend money on wage increases in the public sector — something that I fully support and would love us to have the resources to do — we have to say where that will come from in our finite Budget. Perhaps the Member has some answers to that. If so, I look forward to hearing them. <BR /> <BR />We could continue the debate, but I am sure that people would not thank us for doing so. As usual, the debate has been informative and lively. Some of it was even related to the matter in hand, which is always a benefit”
“I respect his right to do that. Of course, it is last year's Budget that he is talking about, not future Budgets. However, the reality with a finite Budget is that, if you want all of the things to be done that, you say, have to be done, you also have to say what will not be done. That is a basic requirement. I realise that that requires resource and support that a single operator here would have difficulty in obtaining, but that is the basic premise if you disagree with what we propose to spend in order to support people. I talked about welfare mitigations, and we have brought in the standard living wage and taken measures to support vulnerable people with the limited resources that we have. We do not have the resources that we want: we would do much more if we did.”
“Those choices would have been made by an Executive in the coming weeks, because that is what we are required to do. We would have found some level of agreement, however we found it, because that is what we are required to. To say that we have been done a favour by the fact that we have no Executive is to stretch the truth beyond any recognition whatsoever. <BR /> <BR />Mr Carroll made a range of points about all that we are doing wrong and gave the reasons that he does not support the Budget Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of other very valid points were raised about many matters of challenge that Departments have. Pat Catney, for example, raised one. He said that lack of a strategy is our problem, but, really, lack of finance is our problem. Of course we could strategise better, plan better and certainly do things better. That is always the case. No system of government is anywhere near perfect, and ours is no different. We could do all those things better. The central point, however, is the impact of austerity on public services. <BR /> <BR />We are now trying to invest in a way that will stop the health service continuing to exist at crisis level, but that impacts on all other Departments, because we do not have the resources to spread money across all public services. We therefore have to make choices.”
“Interestingly, I was walking around Newry today, and I had a discussion about development. Newry is very fortunate, in that it has not just one but two waterways going through the centre of the town: the canal and the Clanrye river. The Department's solution to potential flooding is to build the walls higher, so we will end up not being able to see the rivers in the centre of Newry. The cost of that, as opposed to that of restoring the peatlands and wetlands to stop the flooding, seems quite crazy. Not only would it be a cheaper option to spend money up there on the mountains but it would be more environmentally sustainable than building higher walls around the rivers going through our town centre. There is clearly a need for joined-up thinking that is focused on climate change.”
“People can make their electoral speeches, as Mr Weir did in the hustings that we are currently having, but the reality is that it is not a unique position for anybody in the Western World that a Government that have resources are able to provide them. The fact that our health service is in crisis, and has been for over 10 years, is because the Government have not been providing resources. They have cut public spending, and the DUP kept such a Government in power when it had an opportunity to remove them and put in a Government that promised to increase spending on public services. <BR /> <BR />Among the additional points that were made was one about peatland conversion. I agree with Mr Blair. I had the opportunity to visit Cuilcagh mountain over the summer.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of other points were raised, again by Mr Weir and by Mike Nesbitt, who has left, about additional COVID funding. Every time during the pandemic that we got additional money, I stood up here and absolutely welcomed it. We were not unique. Every Government in the Western World that had additional money spent it on trying to protect people from the pandemic; so it was not something that happened only in London. It happened in every other system. We all pay taxes, and, when we are in a crisis, we expect the Government to which we pay those taxes to support us in that crisis. If that issue is advanced in support of the Union, however, it is fair enough.”
“Members are making a conscious decision to attack students and support for students. Departments were getting a real-term increase year-on-year, but Members have decided to misrepresent all of that, just as the DUP is now misrepresenting its refusal to sit in the Executive and take budgetary decisions as doing us a favour because the Budget was flawed anyway. It is such absolute nonsense. The DUP would be as well being honest with people. As I have said, there has almost been a tag team of Members advancing the same flawed analysis and the same complete misrepresentation of the legal position of the Budget, taking a page from the Trump playbook, whereby if you tell a lie often enough, people might believe it.”
“I have no doubt that we were in a negotiation phase on the Budget. That is why the £300 million that we could have ploughed into the finances next year would have been important. There were undoubtedly Ministers and Departments that had difficulties with the consequences that the Budget was throwing up. <BR /> <BR />None of them faced a cut, by the way. The claim that Departments would face a cut has been advanced by a number of Members here today. It was said of the Department for the Economy, but that Department has had a real-term increase year-on-year, so why Invest NI is not able to offer people money, I do not know. Why Members are telling universities that student places are being decimated, I do not know, because universities are getting more money.”
“Now it seems that health is not the DUP's priority and that all the bumf about supporting our front-line services, nurses, doctors and other health staff was all hypocrisy and rhetoric from it.”
“Its priority was supporting business, or putting support wherever it happened to have interests in the economy. <BR /> <BR />We did a strategy session for the Budget. It has not been bounced on people in the last while; it has been in planning since last summer. We got everyone together, and we brought in a facilitator. The DUP's contribution to that session was absolutely minimal. Only two of its Ministers spoke: the First Minister and the AERA Minister, who spoke briefly at the end. From memory, the Minister for the Economy and the current Minister of Education did not speak during the strategy session that we held to try to carve out a three-year Budget. Therefore, we had to operate on the basis of what the Executive had told us and what all the parties had stated publicly.”
“We planned on the basis that health was the priority, because that is what the Executive told us. That is what the parties told us even before the Executive were reformed. Mr Weir has expressed a degree of surprise that the economy was not the number-one priority, but he sat on the Executive that decided that health was the number-one priority. <BR /> <BR />It seems that hanging around with the Tories has introduced a degree of cynicism to the DUP. It could stand outside, like Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson in Downing Street, and applaud the health service every Thursday night during the pandemic, but, when it came to putting money behind that and actually saying that what it had told us for the past two years was its priority is indeed its priority, that was not the case at all.”
“Mrs Cameron offered one yesterday, and Jonathan Buckley offered one today, saying that we should not be doing the Budget ahead of an election. The DUP knows, and Mr Weir, who is a former Minister, knows, that we have to do it within a time frame. That is a legislative requirement. They keep repeating it, almost like the Trump playbook that says, "If you say something often enough, people will start to believe it". We had to do it within the time frame. <BR /> <BR />The process of setting a draft Budget began last summer, when we asked for planning. We talked to Departments about likely Budget scenarios. People will be aware that we do not know what amount we will get until the comprehensive spending review is complete in the autumn, but we planned for a number of scenarios.”
“That was nothing to do with it; the protocol was the reason given for their bringing down the Executive. <BR /> <BR />I have to say that, in my observation, we rarely get a mention in the negotiations on the protocol. It is important, the DUP says, that unionism is listened to. We have listened to it and listened to it and listened to it, but it is also important that the people are listened to. The people are the only ones who are suffering as a consequence of your action. It does not impact at all on the EU negotiations, which will trundle on to the other side of an election. Our ability to allocate spending and to do the things that we need to do is impacted by the fact that you have withdrawn from the Executive and cut down our opportunity to take decisions. <BR /> <BR />A number of rationales for that were advanced.”
“It was not just about tackling the big issues in health; it was a case of transforming it. The draft Budget provided funding over a three-year period to meet in full the Health Minister's bid for elective care, cancer and mental health rebuild strategies and to help transform our health service and reduce waiting lists. Some £147 million of NDNA transformation funding was also to be provided over that period, giving the Department of Health a 10% real-terms budget increase. <BR /> <BR />I listened to Mr Weir and Mr Buckley. They were obviously sent out today as a tag team to defend the position that the DUP has now taken. Pam Cameron took on that role yesterday. They have presented almost as fact the position that the DUP has done us a favour by bringing down the Executive, because the Budget was flawed anyway.”