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 28 of 100.
“Yes, I had a discussion with the Law Society last week, I think it was. It outlined the pressures that it faces because of that matter. It was a very useful discussion for me as Finance Minister. My impression was that the difference between what it needed and what the Department was advising it is available is not a huge amount in the overall sum of the Department's budget. Of course, it is for a Justice Minister, whoever that may be in the new mandate, to prioritise according to their needs, but I hope that the gap can be bridged between what the Law Society has said is needed in order to allow people who are struggling to access legal services and what the Department can afford to give them.”
“It is of what would be expected to be their baseline for this year. It is 45% initially up as far as 95%, and that is if no Executive is formed by the summer. Some ring-fenced moneys are associated particularly with the Department of Justice, which that Department would have access to as well, but the extra £300 million, which I have talked about and which could have been spread to help ease pressures on Departments, and, of course, the bigger Budget itself are now not available. It will really be a care-and-maintenance Budget that Departments have to work with over the next period of time until such time as an Executive is formed.”
“<BR /> <BR />It was my intention to consider the public consultation responses and to bring forward final Budget proposals in March; however, with the resignation of the First Minister, that is now not possible. Without an Executive, there will not be a Budget, and that creates greater difficulties for Departments in delivering public services. On that, it is imperative that we come back together as an Executive and work collectively in order to find solutions to the financial challenges that we face, produce a final Budget and ensure that all the funds that we have available are effectively utilised.”
“Minister Long wrote to Executive colleagues and me advising that the Chief Constable, Simon Byrne, intends to defer the March 2022 PSNI recruitment intake as a result of the draft Budget proposals. <BR /> <BR />As Members will be aware, the Executive had prioritised the health service for financial support during the next Budget. My draft Budget is reflective of that. That said, the draft Budget provides DOJ with an increase of 2·9%, 3·9% and 3·3% over the baseline in each of the respective Budget years. Additionally, it makes specific provision of £14·8 million in each of the Budget years in order to maintain police numbers at 7,100.”
“That would have been very important for justice and policing to supplement their budgets, certainly for next year, but we will not now have the opportunity to do that either, and that is regrettable.”
“The Fiscal Council did not get into making any recommendations on the Budget. It noted that the Department of Justice was particularly pressed, and I recognise that, if we were going to make the big commitment that we wanted to make and given that all parties agreed that Health should be the priority, that would put strain on other Departments. None of the Departments were receiving a reduction; they were all to receive an increase, but that increase was not at a level that Justice would need in order to do all the important things that it does. We had about £300 million additional to take into next year, so we had the opportunity to take that and allocate it to try to ease some of those pressures.”
“There was the opportunity now, after a long number of years, to do that by getting the Budget agreed and by giving that certainty not just to the Health Department but to a whole range of Departments and other bodies that rely on funding through Departments. The fact that that certainty is not going to be there is, I think, a huge wasted opportunity. <BR /> <BR />I could see some logic in the decision to pull out of the Executive if that were actually influencing the protocol negotiations, but they are going on regardless of what is happening in this institution. Surely, the logic is to come back in, get the Executive working and try to ensure that it is not the case that the only people who are being punished as a result of the standstill are the people whom we collectively represent.”
“We have long recognised that the health service needs support in dealing with big issues such as cancer treatment, waiting lists and mental health provision. We have also recognised that transforming health services, as we have long wanted to do, would require multi-annual funding, and that recurrent funding is needed to allow us to employ the staff required to do that.”
“I agree that we need a Budget. We need to ensure that there is an Executive in place to achieve that. I have taken advice on whether the Assembly can proceed with the Budget, but I have been advised that that is not possible. I agree with the Member that we need to ensure that communities are safe and protected. I have paused — not terminated — the consultation on the Budget. There is still a facility in the Department to receive input if people want to continue to make their views known on it, but there is no point in putting the Department and other public bodies through the process of responding to a Budget when the Executive are not in place to do anything about it. I hope, however that sense will prevail and that we will return at an early opportunity to deal with the Budget properly.”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome the views of the Fiscal Council and, indeed, all respondents to the draft Budget consultation. Those will be fully considered as and when the final Budget proposals are developed. It will be imperative that the Executive work collectively to find solutions to the financial challenges faced.”
“Further to that, DOJ would continue to receive security funding, which provides £31·2 million per annum for the three years outlined in the Budget. <BR /> <BR />Of course, many pressures remain, and, throughout the Budget process, I have highlighted the significant financial challenges that we face. Simply, it remains the case that the funding available to us falls well short of what is required. As such, we must prioritise expenditure. On that issue, the Executive have consistently indicated that the priority is Health. The draft Budget reflected that, with the Department of Health receiving additional funding significantly above that received under Barnett. To do that, savings from other Departments, including the Department of Justice, were necessary.”
“I did not have the opportunity to be in the Chamber yesterday, so, before I answer the question, I want to add my condolences to those offered to the family, friends and colleagues of Christopher Stalford on his very sad loss. We will all be poorer for his passing. <BR /> <BR />I have noted the views of the Fiscal Council and its view that the Department of Justice has done less well than other Departments when considering the combined impact of the required 2% savings and the general allocations provided. It is, however, worth noting that the Fiscal Council’s assessment did not take into account the other significant funding that was proposed for DOJ in the draft Budget, namely £44·4 million for the PSNI and £10·7 million for work on reducing and preventing domestic and sexual abuse.”
“At some stage, when he gets the opportunity, I would like the Member to go out and explain to the public how denying people access to cancer treatment services, hampering those trying to reduce waiting lists and trying to assist people who have mental health issues and denying people those services, somehow impacts on the negotiations between the British Government and the EU. I cannot figure that out at all, and I look forward to the Member explaining that to the electorate in the time ahead.”
“I recognise, now that he and his party are in an electoral pact with the people who brought down the Executive, that the Member is obliged to get up and try to defend their actions. They are in a very small minority as far as this institution is concerned. I hope that people recognise that. <BR /> <BR />I am sure everybody wants to make sure that the issues in relation to the protocol run as smoothly as possible, but those issues will not be resolved in this Chamber or by the Executive, and they are certainly not assisted in any shape of form by denying people access to much-needed services.”
“When it comes to planning the sort of services that we want to see supported, however, we will have to find money from our own budgets.”
“Over the past year, we were able to supplement the Department's loss in that regard with some COVID money, but we clearly do not have that option this year. There is an opportunity, in more of an emergency situation, for the Department for the Economy to support those groups and keep them going, certainly into next year. I have written to the Economy Minister to encourage him to examine that option, but the loss of the European funding will have an ongoing and lasting impact — possibly in the region of £65 million a year — on the work that the Department for the Economy previously used it for. That will be a real challenge. We cannot predict that groups will get funding from the Shared Prosperity Fund, so we cannot give any certainty. They may get that, and that would be great for them.”
“The Member is correct in that the promise to replace like with like in respect of EU funding has not materialised. We cannot give certainty because, as he will know, money from the European social fund and the European regional development fund (ERDF) was directed to groups in that area. That funding is much needed at any time, but particularly now, when there is a requirement to try to get people into the workforce, as it funds very valuable work to support people and give them the necessary skills to gain full employment. There is now a competition-based approach from Whitehall, and there is absolutely no guarantee that those groups will get the funding that they need to keep their schemes and their staff in place. That is where the loss is.”
“The Member is accurate in his analysis. Unfortunately, because it was a three-year Budget, there is still a three-year Budget time frame. If we lose even a year of that and just have a care and maintenance Budget in that time, the time that we have to make the transformation will be reduced by a third, which is substantial. We will then run a two-year cycle after that if an Executive are back in place. The ability to begin to plan, fund and carry out that transformation and tackle the big issues that we mentioned — waiting lists, cancer treatment and mental health — is substantially impacted by the fact that we cannot get a Budget agreed. We will not be able to have that in place for the start of the financial year.”
“A ring-fenced amount of money was available to the Department of Justice, which was not included in the Fiscal Council's analysis and alters the picture. As I said, no Department suffers a reduction in allocation under the proposed Budget. I recognise that, with a finite Budget, if we are to prioritise and fix the big issues in health, which people have consistently said they want us to, it will mean not giving other Departments as much as they would like for their public services. The £300 million that was available for the next financial year would have gone a long way to addressing some of the most acute problems, including in the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, we are not able to do that now.”
“If we can get agreement on getting that done, I will bring a statement to the Assembly on how it will be spent.”
“On the same basis, there is some cover for me to do that. I will wait to hear from Ministerial colleagues who are still in place on that, but it is my desire to proceed on that basis because I have a very clear view that there are allocations that are necessary and that it will be beneficial to get that support out on the ground. Also, if we do not proceed, the money will be lost to the Treasury at the end of the year, and the ability to support those services will be denied to us. <BR /> <BR />I do not have a clear picture on the £300 million and identifying where it should be spent in the next financial year. I have sought legal advice on these issues, and it is fairly clear. It seems that the only decision that I can take is on the £45 million allocation.”
“I intend to do precisely that. I have written to other Executive Ministers. In January monitoring, the Executive agreed that further allocations could be made once the financial position was clearer. In the case of the removal of COVID-19 restrictions, the Executive had a position that they should not be in place any longer than was necessary.”
“It is now clear, after the end-of-year accountancy that the Treasury has done, and it is my intention to make further allocations, but the larger sum of money that we have could go a long way in the next financial year to assisting people who are struggling, and who will continue to struggle, as the cost-of-living crisis increases daily and impacts on families.”
“As the Member knows, we put together a scheme. It took some time to get it through the Executive, and I wish that it had been in place earlier. The Minister for Communities and I had identified funding to support people with energy costs and home heating. <BR /> <BR />I propose to allocate a further £45 million. The Department for Communities is one of the Departments that will bid for that support. In January monitoring, the Executive agreed that I would keep the in-year position under review and revisit potential allocations once the financial position was clear.”
“The idea that the DUP should bring down the Executive and inflict more pain on the people whom we represent through an inability to allocate sufficient funding to vital services is, to me, beyond belief. I cannot understand the logic behind it. If the DUP wants to make a protest, it should pull its MPs out of Westminster, where they are not doing any harm anyway.”
“The issues with the protocol will not be resolved in the Executive. The situation will not be helped by damaging people as a consequence of our not having a Budget to support public services. The issues will be resolved between the British Government and the EU. That is where we want to see them resolved. Issues have been raised about how the protocol is implemented, and we want to see them sorted and resolved so that there is the least possible damage done as a consequence of Brexit for people who live in this part of Ireland. Brexit was always going to damage all the people who live here. <BR /> <BR />The issues will therefore be resolved between the British Government and the EU.”
“They cannot have the legal certainty that enables them to do that, however. Accounting officers and Departments can take it that an Executive decision has not been taken. <BR /> <BR />There is a difference with in-year allocations, in that the Executive recognised that further allocations were going to have to be made, but those can happen only in a very limited way between now and the end of the financial year. <BR /> <BR />Yes, clearly that £300 million will sit until such times as an Executive are formed again, so that money will not be able to assist all the many worthy causes that Members have identified in their questions on the statement.”
“We will not be able to allocate that £300 million. I sought legal advice. I would have liked to be in a position where we could say to Departments, "All being well, this is where we would have liked that money to go", so that they could begin to plan.”
“This was an opportunity to begin to turn things around, but, unfortunately, it has been squandered.”
“As I said, the Health Department had taken forward a number of priorities. It had costed those and presented them to my Department, and this Budget takes account of that. Even in the last number of days, there have been further discussions about waiting lists and people who are waiting for cancer treatment services. We recognise that it is about not just the general pressure of that but individual cases and the real tragedy that is attached to people who have to wait longer than they should. <BR /> <BR />There was a proposition to fund that strategy in full. We recognise that, in health service funding, we are coming from a long way back. The 10 years of austerity Budgets and attempts to privatise parts of the health service have taken their toll on the type of health service that we want.”
“I will come back to the Member about ring-fencing. From 1 April, the Department of Justice will have access to 45% of its baseline budget, and there will be no additional money. As I said, the Department of Justice raised issues, as did all Departments, as to the consequences for it of supporting the Health budget. That did not mean that it would be impossible, but, certainly, there would be challenges. The £300 million for next year would have gone a long way towards meeting some of those challenges. However, we are now not able to allocate that either. It sits in limbo, as does the Budget decision. <BR /> <BR />I will come back to the Member about where the ring-fencing sits. In general terms, however, the Department of Justice will have access to 45% of its baseline budget for the next financial year.”
“We also had, in effect, £300 million for next year that would have gone a long way. I recognise that the propositions for Health presented a challenge for other Departments. They did not present a reduction, but they presented a challenge. There was an additional £300 million to be allocated next year. That now sits in limbo until such times as the DUP can come back and assist the rest of us in reforming an Executive and taking the necessary decisions for all of the services that you mentioned. <BR /> <BR />Clearly, there was going to be an opportunity at some stage for people to put their money where their mouth was over the years. Did they support the necessary provision for Health, or had that all been rhetoric and, when it came to putting their hands in their pockets, they would not stand up for it?”
“If you do that, other Departments will not get as much as they would like. However, none of them was suffering a loss; they all had an increase in their budget over the three years. You need to go away and study the Budget proposals to comment on them.”
“I would like to hear the answer from her and her party about how that will all be achieved. The reality is that, under the proposed Budget, every Department got an increase over the three years, but the parties decided — this was the professed priority of the DUP for many years — as the Executive had agreed and as we had discussed prior to the Executive coming back and in the early stages of the new Executive, even before the pandemic hit, that funding transformation and the real challenges in health was our priority.”
“Health had identified its priorities, and, as I have said many times in the Chamber, all the parties in the Executive and practically all the parties in the Assembly have, over a number of years, consistently identified health as their priority. We have talked about big issues such as waiting lists and cancer treatment services, but, increasingly, over the pandemic in particular, mental health has very much come to the fore. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Health identified and costed a strategy, and the proposal in the draft Budget would have funded it in full. It is a matter of deep regret that that will not happen, but it is a consequence of the action that was taken to bring down the Executive. Many people will suffer as a direct consequence of that.”
“The subregional stadia programme has not identified any specific projects and would be required to go to the Executive for further approval. The fact that you have collapsed the Executive means that all those clubs that are waiting for money will continue to wait for that money until such times as you grow up and start to play serious politics.”
“Clearly, you and your party have not thought through the consequences of what you decided to do. In the scramble to defend your seats, you have not thought through what the impact of doing that would be. The impact will be very real across a range of communities. Sports stadia are one issue; waiting lists are one of the others. In your rush to get out of the Executive to try to generate some electoral support for yourselves, you have not thought through the consequences of your action. Many people will suffer the consequences of your action. <BR /> <BR />As I explained, the regional stadia programme identified three projects, two of which have already been funded and developed, while the other has been identified and supported for funding.”
“I have proposed another solution to him that could be met from in-year funding to those groups, and I will wait to hear from him about that. There is a case for protection against the potential for collapse, particularly of that vital service that we very much need at this time, and I will certainly do all that is in my power to assist those groups and make sure that they are sustainable into the future.”
“I had the opportunity in recent times to visit some of those groups and to engage with a meeting that was organised by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), which brought together a lot of the groups. I understand not only the great difficulty that they are in but their valuable services. One thing that I have found to be consistent any time that I have been out in the various sectors — manufacturing, retail, hospitality, services — is that everyone requires more workers. Organisations such as those will help people who are economically inactive back into work, so that is now a vital service for our potential economic growth. <BR /> <BR />The Minister for the Economy could prioritise that for next year and signal it now, even within the limitations that there are on the Budget.”
“The certainty, however, that Departments need now about what they can do in the next financial year is lost to them, and they are, basically, operating in a care and maintenance role.”
“It will be a matter for each Department to try to manage its budget. If the Executive do not re-form, there will, because of the legislation that emerged through Westminster, be caretaker Executive Ministers. The ability to take significant decisions will also be inhibited and limited, so, yes, it is a bad outcome. The spending review outcome was not what we wanted for public services, but we were trying to prioritise that in a particular direction, one that repeatedly had the support of all Executive parties, going by their statements about prioritising health. The ability to do that over a three-year period will now be lost. I hope that we do form an Executive very quickly. I hope that the Executive will come back to this Budget, and I hope that they will attempt to make good use of that £300 million.”
“Indeed, it will not allocate the additional £300 million that we now have available for allocations next year, which would go a long way to easing some of the significant pressures across a range of Departments.”
“The absence of an Executive means that we cannot agree even a one-year Budget. No Budget can be agreed. I have tested this consistently over the past number of days, including up to the level of the Attorney General, and it requires Executive approval. If no Executive can sit, there can be no approval. Essentially, we get into a process where we can include in some of the Budget legislation that I will bring through in the next number of weeks a 45% allocation for Departments into the new financial year. That will be on the basis of their own baseline, so there will not be anything additional, and it will not allow them to plan beyond that. It will not allocate to Departments in the way in which we had proposed the Budget to be allocated.”
“His party's decision, made so that the DUP could scramble to save its seats, is having very real consequences, a lot of them apparently unforeseen or not thought through, for the communities that we represent, and his party should own that.”
“The Member mentioned amnesia: let me remind him of a few facts. The RHI scandal, which was developed and hidden from the rest of the Executive by his party, would have brought down any coalition. Within 10 months of establishing the inquiry, we had a deal on the table for these institutions to be reinstated: it was on the basis of annual Budgets, not multi-year Budgets, which provide the opportunity to plan. It took the DUP a further two years, from February 2018 to January 2020, to take the same deal that had been on offer in February 2018 and to come into the Executive. Two of those years, therefore, were lost by the internal wranglings of the Member's party. We now have an opportunity to plan on a multi-year basis, for the first time in almost a decade, and to put significant resources into health.”
“After about a decade of annual Budgets, the three-year Budget was an opportunity to plan, strategise and try to tackle one of the big public funding issues — how to fund and transform the health service — that has been an issue for all Executives in the past number of years. That opportunity will be lost, because, even if a new Executive come into place, year 1 will be lost. That gives only a two-year opportunity, which is a significant reduction, even if a new Executive were to follow through on the original plan that we had developed.”
“If we cannot agree a Budget ahead of the new financial year, we will get into an emergency situation in which 45% of what would have been the Department of Health's baseline is allowed to be spent in the next financial year. That would not allow the Department to access the uplift that we had planned for it or to fund in full, as we had planned, waiting list reductions, cancer treatments, the mental health strategy or transformation. It will, essentially, be operating on a care and maintenance basis for the next number of months. We will also lose the benefit of the three-year Budget.”
“One project has Executive approval, and no identified projects in the subregional stadia programme have received Executive approval.”
“The regional stadia programme clearly identified Windsor Park, Ravenhill and Casement Park as the three projects that they wished to bring forward. Two of those have been done and completed, and the Casement Park project was approved by the Executive. As yet, no projects have been approved in the subregional stadia programme. That may be the reason that the Communities Minister has announced that it requires further Executive approval. There is, therefore, Executive approval in one case. It will be a matter for the Department for Communities to consider the business case for whatever cost emerges, and it might be within its gift to consider how it would take that forward. There is no political issue involved.”
“I will clear up some of what the Member said about additional money. We do not have capital to carry forward into next year. The Executive's latest notification, which came after the January monitoring round, included substantial changes from the previous position of which we had been notified. The changes included £8·2 million additional resource DEL, £18·1 million additional ring-fenced resource DEL, £37·4 million less capital DEL and £10·1 million less financial transactions capital. The picture, therefore, has changed in more ways than the Member outlined, and, of course, carry-over has no bearing on stadia or subregional stadia, as those are capital programmes that carry on into the next Budget. The Executive had two programmes: the regional stadia programme and the subregional stadia programme.”