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 29 of 100.
“Due to the reckless actions of the DUP, that is not possible. Instead, public services will operate on an emergency basis, without the benefits of long-term planning or additional resources, until such times as the Executive are re-established. However, I intend to make £45 million of allocations for this year, and I have set out another approach to the Economy Minister that may provide a solution for the community groups that are seeking match funding for their vital services. I will also press on with next year's rates freeze and the £50 million rate relief package for businesses. I will continue to do my best to support public services despite the damage that is being caused by the DUP.”
“A Barnett consequential of £50 million arises from the removal of businesses' right to appeal NAVs on the grounds of the pandemic. That £50 million provided a three-month rates holiday for retail, tourism, hospitality, leisure, childcare, newspapers and airports — the sectors that were hit hardest by the pandemic. It also provided all other businesses, except utilities and larger food stores, with a one-month rates holiday. Having taken legal advice, I intend to press on with that rate relief package despite the absence of an Executive. <BR /> <BR />The Executive should be on the cusp of agreeing a multi-year Budget that prioritises Health, and they should be deciding how to invest an additional £300 million next year on housing, skills, the police and European social fund match funding.”
“In order to ensure the continuation of those vital services, I have asked Minister Lyons to consider another possible solution. Therefore, if the Economy Minister wishes to support those groups, there is no reason why that cannot happen. <BR /> <BR />Finally, the draft Budget consultation included a proposal to freeze the domestic and non-domestic regional rates for the next three years. That freeze was intended to help with the rising costs that are being faced by families and businesses alike. On the basis of legal advice, I can proceed with that freeze for one year only. That means that households and businesses will not have certainty on their rates for the subsequent two years. <BR /> <BR />The draft Budget also proposed a £50 million rate relief package for businesses.”
“Having considered the matter at some length and taken legal advice, I intend to proceed to make allocations to those Departments. I wrote to Ministers to ask them for their views on that course of action, and I made it clear to them that the alternative is that funding that could be used to support local people and services might instead be lost to the Treasury. <BR /> <BR />I have also written to the Economy Minister about the community groups that need match funding for the European social fund. As I said, the Economy Minister could prioritise that from within his budget, and, if the DUP had not collapsed the Executive, additional resources from the £300 million that is being carried over could have been allocated for that specific purpose.”
“Currently, £95 million is unspent, leaving little headroom if further underspends emerge at the end of the financial year. In normal circumstances, I would bring a paper to the Executive recommending that £45 million be allocated now. The Departments for Communities, Education and Infrastructure have come forward with proposals to utilise the available resources, and sufficient headroom has been built into their spring Supplementary Estimates.”
“At the moment, they do not have funding in place from 1 April, and the tremendous service that they provide is at risk of collapse. The Economy Minister could prioritise that within his own budget, which, under the proposed draft Budget, increases each year. However, I would happily recommend that the Department for the Economy receive additional funds to meet that need. Unfortunately, the legal advice is that that cannot happen without an Executive, so Departments cannot plan to make use of that additional £300 million in funding. Instead, the money will sit idle until such times as an Executive are re-established. <BR /> <BR />With regard to the in-year position, as I have already said, the Executive can carry over £104·3 million in unspent resource.”
“We will also receive an additional £150 million in 2022-23 following the announcement of a discount on electricity bills for consumers in Britain. The Executive can also carry over a limit of £104·3 million in unspent resource. Currently, £95 million is unspent, and I will recommend that at least £50 million is carried over. That means that the Executive, if they were still in place, could allocate in the region of an extra £300 million to Departments for next year on top of the published draft Budget position. That money could be used for various purposes, including skills, housing and the Police Service. I am particularly conscious that a number of community groups need to match-fund money from the European social fund. Those groups help around 17,000 people, including people with disabilities, back into work.”
“Sadly, that analysis is correct, although it should be the DUP, not Minister Swann, apologising for the damage that it is inflicting on the health service. <BR /> <BR />With no prospect of a Budget in this mandate, it will be a new Executive with new Ministers that will have to agree a Budget. In that context, the current consultation is of limited value. I have therefore decided to pause the public consultation for now. A new Executive will be best placed to take further decisions on how the Budget process will proceed. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware of my intention to carry over a significant amount of money to ease pressures faced by Departments next year. A total of £100 million of funding resulting from the recently announced council tax rebate in England can be carried forward to 2022-23.”
“Since the resignation of the First Minister, I have considered all possible avenues that might have allowed me to proceed with a Budget, including bringing it directly to the Assembly. Unfortunately, the legal advice is clear that the Budget must be agreed by the Executive. That means that, on 1 April, the health service will not be able to plan on a three-year basis, nor will it be equipped with additional resources to invest in waiting lists, cancer services and mental health. In those circumstances, rather than improving, the health service will decline. Last week, the Health Minister apologised to people on waiting lists, because, without a multi-year Budget, the opportunity to rebuild the health service would be "cruelly taken away".”
“I will update Members on where we stand with a range of budgetary issues. Funding allocations are normally decided by the Executive, so the absence of an Executive following the resignation of the First Minister creates significant difficulties. Having considered the options for progressing budgetary matters and taken legal advice from the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) and the Attorney General, I can now set out the approach that I intend to take. <BR /> <BR />I will start with the multi-year Budget. In December, the Executive agreed to consult on a draft Budget. That draft Budget provided Health with a 10% real-terms uplift by 2024-25, in the process funding the mental health, waiting list and cancer strategies in full. It provided a solid basis to transform the health service and bring down waiting lists on a sustainable basis.”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their engagement throughout all the stages, including Committee Stage, and urge them to support the Bill.”
“However, a number of factors in that paper were agreed, of which this is one, so we will be able to conclude that issue and offer rates relief in the early part of the next financial year. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members, but this is not the way that we wanted to do things. It is a response to an extraordinary emergency situation. It is a response that needs to fix something very quickly and make sure that it does not damage public finances and our very scarce resources to try to allocate to things like health, education and other very demanding and worthy public services. It is an attempt to fix that in a way that protects our revenue and local government and to do so at a time when local government can set its own rates.”
“Mr Muir asked about the £50 million in the Budget. When the draft Budget was released, the Executive noted and approved a range of issues. One of those approved was the commitment to provide rates relief in the next financial year using that £50 million. That is secured by way of agreement with the Executive. Unfortunately, from my perspective and, I am sure, from the perspective of many Members in the Chamber, they did not agree or approve the central focus of the Budget, which was to give an uplift in spending on health and to prioritise the Department of Health in the time ahead. That is a matter of deep regret because we cannot do that in the absence of an Executive.”
“It was being done to get a handle on a changing and complex legal position and to make sure that the legislation that we brought forward correctly identified the problems that needed to be resolved and did so in an effective manner, and that is what we have brought forward.”
“The Department has outlined that and provided timelines to the Committee. Our legislation could not automatically follow the English and Welsh model, although Scotland is more aligned to that model. In many ways, it is simpler for Scotland to align its Bills to that model, although Scotland is behind us. The Scottish Government are at the beginning of their mandate and do not have the same time pressures as us. <BR /> <BR />Over the summer, there was an extensive legal back and forward to get the Bill right, as it is a complex area. October was the earliest that drafted legislation could be brought to the Executive for approval, and the Department did that at the time. That was to ensure that there was no unnecessary delay or attempt to run the clock down and then try to bounce the Bill through the Assembly.”
“I thank Members for their contributions. Once again, I thank the Committee for expediting its scrutiny of the Bill. As most Members are aware, I had only one option to expedite the Bill, and that was to ask for accelerated passage. I cannot force the Committee to expedite its work, but the Committee wanted to undertake that, as is its right. I commend the Committee for the approach that it took to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />There were questions about consultation. Of course, this is a fiscal taxation matter that does not require consultation, and that was also the case in Scotland, Wales and England. Nonetheless, there were opportunities during the Committee's scrutiny to engage with people in that regard. <BR /> <BR />The question of timing and why the Bill had taken so long was raised.”
“The Bill secures that objective and preserves the rating system as we know it. I, therefore, commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />We all wish that the pandemic had not occurred and that the public health measures that were taken by the Executive in March 2020 had not been necessary. That, in turn, would have rendered the Bill unnecessary. What the Executive did not intend to do with those public health measures was to destabilise our only devolved tax or to create a massive risk to the tax base and local government income. The Executive share my view. As has already been decided in England, Scotland and Wales, the COVID rates holiday and the supplementary rate relief funding that will be provided upon the Bill gaining Royal Assent at Westminster, together with the array of business grants, is the correct means of dealing with the effects of the pandemic; damaging wholesale valuation reductions are not.”
“The draft Budget laid out a £50 million rates support package for businesses in 2022-23. As COVID has had an impact on all sectors of the economy, the proposed package provides a one-month rates holiday to all businesses, with the exception of utilities and larger food stores, and a three-month rates holiday for retail, tourism, hospitality, leisure, childcare and airports, which are the sectors that have been hardest hit by the pandemic. The Executive have already provided funding in the form of compensatory and mitigating rate relief for business ratepayers who were affected by the health restrictions, through the separate provision of more than £515 million in COVID-related business rate relief for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 rating years.”
“That is why the Bill steps in to act in the public's fiscal interest. That accords with the sentiment in the Committee's report, where it notes that support of the type that has been provided to date, and the £50 million that is to be made available on foot of the successful passage of the Bill, is a much more sensible way to support businesses during the pandemic than a piecemeal unpicking of certain valuations with undetermined consequences for business sectors and the public finances. <BR /> <BR />I can confirm that, following the successful passage of the Bill, the additional £50 million that was announced at the time of the Budget will be used to provide additional support to ratepayers and to further consolidate the tax base for local district councils.”
“In this case, that is the date of impact of the valuation list. To do otherwise, and to only look forward, would render the Bill ineffective in protecting revenues. <BR /> <BR />In most cases, however, the retrospective effect is only notional. Many businesses have not had rates bills since the start of the pandemic, so no backdated rates bills will arise from the Bill. If anything, the Bill does the opposite, in acting retrospectively to prevent the misguided scenario of backdated reductions being processed and awarded to ratepayers who, thanks to Executive support, have had no rates liability at all for the last few years. I would find that situation inappropriate at a time when public finances are so squeezed and we need funding for services such as health and education, which have been at the front line during the pandemic.”
“Nonetheless, I am receptive to the points that are made in paragraph 52 of the Committee's report on the more strategic engagement on business rates as we move out of the pandemic, which will allow the findings from the 2019 business rates review to be reconfigured for the post-pandemic environment. <BR /> <BR />Other issues raised during Committee Stage include the retrospective nature of the Bill. As with the interventions that were made in England, Scotland and Wales, the Bill has effect from the start of the pandemic. It is critical to note that, in our case, that is not only justified but necessary because any change to a valuation following an appeal is backdated to 1 April 2020. For the Bill to have the necessary effect of protecting rates revenues, therefore, it must be retrospective to the same date.”
“Such engagement would, however, have been inappropriate prior to Executive agreement. As I have noted, that Executive agreement was, in turn, sought at the earliest opportunity. <BR /> <BR />The Department may have undertaken a wider engagement on the Bill had it not been faced with the requirement to pass legislation in advance of the close of the Assembly mandate. Consultation, as opposed to mere engagement must, however, be meaningful. It has already been recorded that England, Scotland and Wales did not adopt a process of consultation. Their equivalent Bills were also undertaken as fiscal tax decisions in order to preserve revenue streams. It is a fact that no better policy options for dealing with the issue have emerged in any jurisdiction.”
“On consultation, we have not been in a standard policy environment since the start of 2020. The Bill falls firmly within the brackets of an extraordinary measure, taken in the public interest, during an extraordinary time. It needs to be looked at in that context. Prior to the pandemic, my Department had just concluded a comprehensive review of the business rates system, providing some 32 briefings, soliciting 239 written responses, and conducting a series of innovation labs with stakeholders and academics. That was a model process of consultation, which is what Land and Property Services (LPS) does in a standard policy environment. Following Executive agreement to the Bill, my Department undertook subsequent engagement in order to raise key stakeholders' awareness of the Bill and its objectives.”
“Neither my Department nor the Executive could plan around the timing of the pandemic or the time required to address the complexities arising from it. The alternative, which would be to have no Bill or a delayed Bill, would only make the issues that face us collectively even more difficult.”
“There was also a discussion about the retrospective nature of the legislation and how best to compensate businesses affected by the public health measures and the steps taken both within and without the rating system. <BR /> <BR />On timing, this is an extremely complex issue to arise at the end of the mandate, and Members will note that our Bill has to be tailored to our local needs and rating legislation. Extensive legal advice from experienced counsel underpinned the thinking behind the Bill. For the Bill to be precise in its effect, that process could not be rushed. Despite that, Members will note that the complexity was navigated successfully in a matter of months, enabling the Bill to be brought forward in the devolved context in time for passage before the end of the mandate.”
“As noted in the evidence provided during the Committee Stage, neither the traditional kinds of challenge received by my Department nor the ability to appeal valuations are removed by the Bill. All the traditional reasons for and forms of valuation challenge, such as structural alterations and roadworks, remain unaffected by the Bill. The Bill is solely concerned with the challenges that could lead to a double benefit from the system; namely, a reduction in rates bills due to amendments in net annual values because of pandemic restrictions on top of rate relief and grants that have already been provided to compensate for those restrictions. <BR /> <BR />As the Bill moved through the Assembly, issues were raised about timing and consultation. Those issues were noted in the accelerated passage debate and at Committee Stage.”
“Following Executive agreement, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 came into effect at 11.00 pm on Saturday 28 March 2020, specifying businesses here that either were required to close or were restricted in their operation. That once-in-a-generation public health intervention occurred just three days ahead of the publication of the new valuation list. If the health regulations had been introduced on 1 April or later, today's Bill would not be necessary. <BR /> <BR />Those emergency health steps obviously had to take priority at the time, but Members will appreciate that they were not intended to erode the tax base of a rating system that delivers critical revenue.”
“It mitigates the risk of an appeal brought on COVID-19 grounds to rateable valuations in the non-domestic valuation list. To complement that, the Bill contains a power to allow the Executive and Assembly to respond to any change in the naming conventions surrounding coronavirus or any new pandemic that may arise. The exercise of that power will be subject to Assembly agreement under the draft affirmative control mechanism. <BR /> <BR />In layman's terms, the Bill primarily serves to mitigate an unintended consequence of the Executive's emergency public health measures that were implemented in March of the year before last.”
“Nonetheless, I commend the Committee for expediting its work during the Committee Stage over the Christmas and New Year period so that it could complete the report ahead of the normal time frames in order to facilitate the Bill's progression in a timely fashion. The Committee Chair committed to that during the debate on the motion on accelerated passage, and he has been good to his word on that. As I noted in the debate on the motion on the suspension of Standing Order 42(1) last week, I appreciate his Committee's efforts. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly highlight the detail of this short Bill before touching on some of the key aspects of the discussion on it as it has passed through the Assembly and Committee. In short, the Bill performs one important technical function.”
“The Chair, Deputy Chair, Committee members and the Committee team have all played a pivotal role in ensuring that the Bill has been subject to scrutiny in the time available to the Committee and that it has been tabled for its Final Stage debate prior to the statutory deadline of 15 February for councils to set rates. <BR /> <BR />I originally tabled a motion for the Bill to proceed by accelerated passage. That was due solely to my sincere concerns about the Bill not making it to Final Stage by early February, had the Committee Stage taken the standard 30 working-day period determined by Standing Orders. The Assembly ultimately decided that accelerated passage was not to be used for the Bill, which is its right, and I fully accept that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Article 39A was intended to apply to localised events such as the Primark fire in Belfast in 2018, but, as with many elements of the statute book that have been adjusted over the last two years, it was not intended to deal with the measures required to address a pandemic. Put simply, the Bill removes the impact of COVID-19 as a valid ground for appealing net annual values in the 2020 valuation list. Similar legislation for England and Wales has passed through Westminster, and Scotland has followed the Assembly's lead by introducing a Bill after my introduction of the Bill to the House. <BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to the work of the Finance Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill and for the quality of the report that it provided to my Department on it.”
“The Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill is a short but important Bill. It is important in securing the finances for local and central government; it is important in safeguarding the Executive's only devolved tax lever; and it is important in protecting the source of 75% of the funding stream for councils. In short, it is important to the public interests in funding a range of public services here. <BR /> <BR />The Bill's focus is on correcting an unintended consequence of the public health measures that were introduced in response to the pandemic. It does that by addressing a normal effect of article 39A of the Rates Order 1977. That provision means that events that affect the physical enjoyment of a property and how they affect its rental value have to be taken into account when assessing the net annual value.”
“I will be brief. I thank the Committee Chair and Mr McHugh for their contributions. As I said in my opening remarks, the motion is not about trying to curtail or reduce the scrutiny of legislation. Given the process that has been gone through, the fact that there are no amendments to deal with at Further Consideration Stage and that councils are in the process of striking their rates and the information that would become available as a consequence of the Bill's passing is hugely important to them in that exercise, we are simply trying to expedite the end point and get to a position where we can advise councils in good time. I thank the Members for their contributions and the Committee again for its work on the Bill. I urge Members to support the motion.”
“It is for that sole reason that I move the motion. I do so on the basis of consolidating and complementing the work of the Executive and the Committee in helping me to bring the Bill to this point on an expedited basis. I trust that I will get the support of the Chamber on that basis.”
“The Committee has worked in a committed and dedicated fashion over recent weeks to allow the Bill to be considered on an expedited basis. While I will, obviously, reflect on the sterling work of the Committee during the Final Stage debate, I take this opportunity to commend the Committee Chair, Deputy Chair, members and staff for their work following the decision of the Assembly not to proceed on the basis of accelerated passage for the Bill. <BR /> <BR />That said, as no amendments were tabled for Consideration Stage last Monday or for Further Consideration Stage today, it would be prudent at this point to make the case for suspending Standing Order 42(1) so as to bring the Final Stage forward slightly, thus allowing for a greater period of notice for the councils that wish to see the outcome following the Assembly's vote at Final Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the Bill is being progressed in line with the requirement to provide certainty on the tax base for district councils when setting rates and given that the Finance Committee has faithfully worked on an expedited basis before, during and after Christmas in order to facilitate the Bill's completing its passage for councils striking the rates, I move the motion to suspend Standing Order 42(1) in an effort to ensure that the Final Stage can take place in advance of the date by which councils will set their rates, which is 15 February. Not moving the motion would mean that the Final Stage would not take place until 14 February at the earliest, which is just one day ahead of the final date for council rate setting.”
“Standing Order 42(1) provides that there should be a minimum of five working days between each stage of any Bill. I fully recognise that providing that time between stages serves to ensure detailed legislative scrutiny by the Assembly by providing Members with the opportunity to consider in detail the legislation that is being proposed.”
“The additional changes will promote fairness, stability and enhanced protection for scheme members at future valuations by setting a higher test for any potentially adverse scheme changes and removing the risks associated with legacy schemes of which they can no longer be members. <BR /> <BR />I invite Members to support the motion.”
“As the actuary's report made clear, it does not seem possible for the mechanism to protect the taxpayer unless it considers the wider economic outlook in some way. The symmetrical operation of the economic check will also protect members. Furthermore, the reforms will lead to a more stable mechanism with benefit reductions and improvements becoming less likely, which aligns with the spirit of the 25-year guarantee. <BR /> <BR />The cost control changes that have already been agreed by the Assembly in the first LCM for the Bill will protect public service scheme members from any adverse impacts of the cost of remedying unlawful age discrimination arising in the soon-to-be-finalised 2016 valuations.”
“The Department of Finance is not aware of any indications that the number of retirements will increase across public service schemes directly due to the McCloud remedy. Individual Departments would require their workforce planning to assess the situation on the basis of the relevant pension arrangements and scheme demographic. My officials will continue to monitor that. <BR /> <BR />Maolíosa McHugh raised the 25-year guarantee. The protected elements of the 25-year guarantee are set out in the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. Those are the career average revalued earnings (CARE) scheme design, contribution rates and accrual rates. The amendments do not change the protected elements in the scope of the 25-year guarantee.”
“The economic check sets out a higher bar for any scheme changes that would otherwise occur in the circumstances of a cost floor breach of the 2020 and subsequent valuations. However, it is a measure of good governance and responsible fiscal management that any potential breach now be validated with reference to the additional economic assumptions that continue to affect the costs of providing the pensions. As recommended by the Government Actuary, the economic check will operate symmetrically and set an equally high bar for any proposed reductions in the scheme benefits that would otherwise be required if the outcome of the 2020 valuations indicate a breach of the cost-cap ceiling. <BR /> <BR />Other issues were raised. The Committee Chair, who is now absent, raised retirements and earlier than expected retirements.”
“In that regard, the reformed-scheme-only design will increase stability and intergenerational fairness for members by removing the cost risks associated with the legacy schemes that were previously within the scope of the mechanism but to which members had limited or no access.”
“In this case, the first LCM for the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill was agreed by the Assembly on 1 November last year, so I am grateful to the Finance Committee for its prompt attention in considering the matter and taking evidence from the Department of Finance and trade union representatives in the limited time available. <BR /> <BR />As I advised in my opening remarks, the changes are intended to ensure that the cost control mechanism operates in line with its original objectives, one of which is to provide stability and certainty for scheme members on benefit and contribution levels.”
“The reforms were first proposed in response to the consultation on the matter, and the Department of Finance alerted the Assembly Committee to that on 12 October last year. At that point, the approach to legislating for the required changes had not been determined. The legislative route for the changes was confirmed on the laying of the relevant amendments to the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill on Thursday 6 January this year, and I wrote to Executive colleagues about the proposed LCM the following week. The timing of the laying of the amendments has resulted in challenging timescales for a second LCM. <BR /> <BR />Standing Order 42A(9) provides for an amended process in the circumstances of a second LCM and where the Committee has already considered and reported on the connected LCM proposal.”
“The amendments will make a minor change to that Act to make it explicit that those directions might provide for the costs or changes in costs of legacy schemes to be excluded from the mechanism. That reflects a similar change to the equivalent primary legislation governing schemes in Britain. I can confirm that the Treasury has also given an undertaking that a reformed-scheme-only design will mean that the risk of cost associated with the legacy schemes will be transferred to the Exchequer and that it is now appropriate for the Exchequer to bear that risk in order to reduce intergenerational unfairness. The LCM ensures that that approach is also applied to devolved schemes. <BR /> <BR />I also acknowledge the points that were made about timing, although it was accepted that the Department had little control over that.”
“I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. Some important points have been raised, particularly on the handling of cost risks for legacy public service pension schemes following the change to a reformed-scheme-only design that the LCM would deliver, the challenging timescale for the changes and any potential adverse effects for public service pension scheme members. <BR /> <BR />The Committee Chair and a number of Members raised the issue of the cost risk for the legacy scheme, and I note the concerns that were raised by the Committee. The Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 provides for the Department of Finance to make directions to set out that the cost-cap mechanism can assess costs of both legacy and reformed schemes in a scheme valuation.”
“We have to make sure that what we pay out for is absolutely necessary, and, in that regard, we are looking at how the scheme has been developed in England. They have much more resources to do that, but they also have that level of engagement with financial institutions and others to make sure that the public purse pays where it needs to pay. I hope that we can develop that scheme as quickly as we can and that we continue to work with the Housing Executive. I am sure that the Member's primary interest, as it is for us all, is to make sure that people feel safe in their own homes and that they can afford to continue to live in them. However, we also have to make sure that those who have private responsibilities are obliged to step up to the mark, as we do for our public responsibility.”
“It is also about ensuring that we protect the public purse. Where private landlords or others have responsibility for certain aspects of fire safety, they should carry the burden that they are supposed to carry.”
“Those are some of the details that we are working through. We are looking at the model that has been developed in Britain, whereby a single Department, which has been able to engage with financial institutions that are beyond our responsibility here, deals with it. We need to make sure that people are safe in their own homes and that, if things need to be changed and they need support, we provide that.”