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 37 of 100.
“<BR /> <BR />As the Member says, we very much wanted the ability to plan over three years. We therefore have to ensure that, however we prioritise — and it is a stretch to try to fit in all the priorities that Ministers want — we do so in a way that achieves tangible outcomes for the public that we represent.”
“Over the past week or so, as I said, I have had bilateral engagements with almost all the Executive Ministers; I have a few still to go. As the Member knows, we had the pre-spending review outcome discussion at Executive level about our priorities before we were aware of the outcome of the spending review. We discussed what our priorities would be in the time ahead, how we would plan for them over three years and how we would try to match them to the Programme for Government commitments and ensure that we have outcomes attached to them. That is the challenge that lies ahead for the Executive. We have had that discussion, largely, with all the Ministers. My job will be to bring a draft Budget to the Executive and to seek their approval for it. That will, of course, be a matter for the Executive.”
“<BR /> <BR />The decisions on prioritisation and, indeed, on the outcome of the draft Budget, will be for the Executive as a whole to take. I have spent the past while and will continue engaging individually with all Executive Ministers, as the Member will know from her experience, to hear what their priorities are and what challenges they face, so that we can stretch a limited Budget — although we are pleased that it is over three years, because it gives us the ability to do more planning — as best we can across the range of priorities that the Executive will have. Ultimately, however, it will be for the Executive to decide that.”
“The Member will know, from the outcome of the spending review, that the Budget is certainly not what the Executive require for the services that we want to be able to offer to all citizens here. The situation has forced the Executive, over a long number of years, to prioritise the services that they can afford to provide over those that they would like to provide. Health has been the primary recipient, although Education has always come a close second. I met the Education Minister last week, and I am very much aware of the challenges in the Education Department, as well as those across all public services. The challenges are particularly acute when it comes to children and young people, to whom we want to give the best possible start in life.”
“Legislation constrains the Executive on presenting a draft Budget until at least 14 days after a statement is laid before the Assembly setting out our control totals as notified by the Secretary of State. That statement was formally laid on 4 November. I have undertaken a series of bilateral meetings with Executive Ministers on the Budget. My intention is to bring a draft Budget to the Executive as soon as possible and to present a draft Budget to the Assembly once Executive agreement is secured.”
“I beg to introduce the Non-domestic Rates Valuations (Coronavirus) Bill [NIA 44/17-22], which is a Bill to vary the application of article 39A of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 in consequence of matters attributable to coronavirus; and to confer power to make equivalent provision for other infections or contaminations.”
“Where I and my Department have been able to play a part in bringing forward opportunities to develop skills in the workplace, I have done so. <BR /> <BR />Funding for the economic recovery plan has been provided for the 2021-22 year. As for 2022-23 and future years, the Executive will be considering that as part of our 2022-25 Budget process. I am sure you will agree that the Department for the Economy has been given significant funding by the Executive to take forward plans for economic recovery, including investment in skills. It is for the Economy Minister to use the funding already allocated to his Department to set up that fund and use it for the purposes set out in the economic recovery action plan.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, investment in skills is key to helping our own people to avail themselves of new and better employment opportunities and to have the necessary skills to contribute economically. Setting up a ring-fenced skills fund is not for the Executive as a whole, nor for me as Finance Minister, to lead on. Rather, it is for the Economy Minister to implement. I believe that that has been correctly reflected in the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Recently, Minister Hargey, Minister Lyons and I launched a new operational delivery apprenticeship scheme for the Civil Service that offers the opportunity to develop skills and gain a recognised qualification, with a guaranteed permanent role within the Civil Service on successful completion of the apprenticeship.”
“That money is not being replaced by Whitehall, and whereas we had control over how the European social fund was spent, the Shared Prosperity Fund, as I think Ms Armstrong said, is to be delivered by Whitehall via the financial assistance powers of the Internal Market Act 2020, into which we have very little input. <BR /> <BR />On a more positive note, however, Brexit has not impacted on the PEACE PLUS programme, which is to receive €1·1 billion over the next seven years. The Department for the Economy will benefit by £300 million to £400 million of that. One of the investment areas for theme 2, delivering economic regeneration and transformation in skills, has an indicative budget of €50 million.”
“While health will be the top priority, I therefore expect Budget 2022-25 to include a focus on skills. <BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, as has been said on a number of occasions, as a consequence of Brexit we will no longer have access to the European social fund, which was worth, on average, £26 million per year. That money was used by the Department for the Economy to address skills imbalances and create a culture of lifelong learning. It was also used by the Department for Communities to support disadvantaged people into employment and to reduce economic inactivity.”
“Furthermore, the British Government have made available £15 million over a three-year period in support of skills as part of the new deal arrangement. The Economy Department has advised that that will be used for a skills fund, and that it intends to contribute a further £8 million over three years. <BR /> <BR />Now that we have received the outcome of the British Government's spending review, the Executive are considering their Budget for the next three years. This is the first opportunity in 10 years for the Executive to agree a multi-year Budget, which will enable Departments to make long-term spending plans to deliver on the Executive's priorities. Those priorities include sustainable economic development and tackling inequality, both of which are underpinned by the skills agenda.”
“I can tell Members that the Economy Minister has advised the Executive that the funding provided for the economic recovery action plan will be used to build a higher-skilled and agile workforce in order that we might pursue and secure better jobs and produce a more regionally balanced economy.”
“That was agreed, and allocations of £275·8 million of resource and £11 million of capital were announced as part of the Executive's 2021-22 Budget. Some £145 million of that was for the high street stimulus scheme, leaving £130·8 million of resource and £11 million of capital, over which the Economy Minister has discretion. <BR /> <BR />The amendment to the motion rightly calls on the Economy Minister to ring-fence part of that money for skills. I look forward to an update from Minister Lyons in the Assembly on the actions that his Department is taking forward in that regard.”
“A significant proportion of that was for schemes to help businesses to cope with the restrictions, but it also included approximately £80 million to support students, apprenticeships and further and higher education, in recognition of the impact of the pandemic on the skills sector. In March 2021, when she was Economy Minister, the proposer of the motion brought the economic recovery action plan to the Executive. That action plan set out several of the points raised in the motion, such as a skills strategy, STEM subjects, jobs of the future and the creation of a skills council and a skills fund. As Finance Minister, I made a recommendation that the Executive should fully fund the economic recovery action plan.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I very much welcome the focus on skills in the debate. I spent a lot of the summer and, indeed, much of the past 18 months talking to businesses, primarily about finding support. Over the summer, however, I had the opportunity to visit a lot of sectors, including manufacturing, retail and hospitality, and a consistent theme was the shortage of workers with the right skills. That has been raised time and time again. <BR /> <BR />At the outset, I should say that, as most Members have acknowledged, policy responsibility for skills rests with the Department for the Economy and not with the Department of Finance. I am responding to the debate with a focus on my role as the Finance Minister. <BR /> <BR />Last year, the Department for the Economy received £644 million of COVID funding.”
“In the context of the targeted schemes that are required to remove unlawful discrimination from all similarly affected schemes, the LCM for the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill represents the most pragmatic solution to ensure that scheme members here now have time to access their correct legal entitlements under the deferred choice underpin. It also mitigates the risks to the scheme-responsible Departments of the cost delay and, if the remedy were to be implemented to a more protracted timescale or deviate from the core policy response that has been developed fully to meet the requirements of the courts for the removal of the unlawful discrimination, of a protracted legal challenge. <BR /> <BR />I invite Members to support the motion, and I commend it to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill will implement a remedy solution to remove unlawful discrimination in a way that has been developed in a co-joined policy response between my Department and the Treasury, with input from the devolved schemes. The changes are designed to address the complex requirements of the McCloud ruling as it affects identically constituted and affected public service schemes here and in Britain. <BR /> <BR />The memorandum paper sets out the clear rationale to resolve this issue for all affected schemes using the same remedy design and to the same timescales.”
“A question was raised about primary legislation as opposed to the LCM. I absolutely understand the preference for primary legislation and a full scrutiny process for the Assembly. However, given the time frame and where we are in the mandate, the LCM was the most practical way to resolve this issue. As the Member and others rightly said, further elements of this will come through the relevant Committees for further scrutiny, so we will endeavour to ensure that the Committees and the House get the opportunity for as much scrutiny as possible. However, there are time frame implications, and, given where we are in the mandate, it was more appropriate to down the LCM route.”
“Schemes will be able to provide additional support where they deem that appropriate, and they will be also be able to provide compensation where a member has incurred reasonable additional costs as the result of an agent — a tax adviser or accountant — having to resubmit information to HMRC.”
“The Bill sets out requirements for schemes to provide clear and accurate communications and information to scheme members who are going through that process. For a smaller cohort of individuals, correcting their pension positions over the past 10 years and getting their tax liability correct is less straightforward, and additional guidance will be provided to complement the existing HMRC guidance and scheme processes in order to help individuals with their tax affairs.”
“<BR /> <BR />Schemes are already required to take account of and comply with the requirements for the provision of benefit information in those directions and best practice in the relevant codes and guidance from the Pensions Regulator. My Department will continue to work with schemes and with the Pensions Regulator on any additional codes and measures to ensure that appropriate tools and approaches are made available to scheme members, including on the design of remedial statements and the provision of remedy calculators that are relevant to each individual's decision-making. <BR /> <BR />On the question of independent advice, the decision-making on remedy benefits for the majority of eligible scheme members will be a relatively straightforward choice between two options.”
“The Bill is clear in its requirements that schemes must take steps to provide all members who are eligible for the DCU remedy with remedial statements on legacy and reform pension, lump sums and survivor benefits that are available to them and any other information that is relevant to their DCU option. <BR /> <BR />The information in the remedial statement will be personal to the member, setting out their personal entitlements and allowing them to clearly understand the benefits under the deferred choice process in order to aid their decision. That is over and above the existing requirements for the provision of a scheme benefit statement as set out in the Public Service Pensions Act 2014 and in related Department of Finance directions.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate and the representatives from the Finance Committee for their scrutiny of the legislative consent motion. I also thank the members of the Justice Committee for scrutinising the parts of the LCM that impacted on their remit. A lot of important points have been raised in the debate, including the cost of the remedy and the guarantees in relation to scheme members. <BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Finance Committee raised the issue of information and advice, and Matthew O'Toole raised the issue of independent financial advice.”
“This Bill provides the framework for a remedy that removes that difference in treatment, provides members with a choice in how their service in the remedy period is treated for pension purposes and treats all scheme members equally for service post April 2022. Any delay in legislating for these changes would extend the current disadvantage and risk further costly legal challenge for the scheme and responsible Departments here if the required legislative changes are not in place to address the discrimination to the satisfaction of the courts by April 2022.”
“Any alternative approach that would deviate from that design or cost envelope, or provide a more generous benefits package for any particular cohort or workforce, would inevitably require additional funding from the block grant. <BR /> <BR />Having explained the rationale for bringing the motion to the Assembly, I commend the Committee for Finance for the timely manner in which it considered the report on the motion, and I thank the Committee for its general support for the motion. <BR /> <BR />In summary, the Bill builds on the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 to create an overarching legislative framework for all public service pension schemes. Implementation of the 2015 reforms introduced an age-related criterion that favoured older scheme members in comparison to younger members.”
“If that target date is not met, long-term liabilities may increase by up to £97 million for each additional year that the remedy window is open. The current cost equates to approximately £680 million in total. Any delay in the primary legislation will also impact on the introduction of the secondary legislation by the schemes here. These estimates reflect the expected cost of members receiving benefits from whichever scheme provides the highest value to them for the remedy period. The costs are in addition to those already arising from members receiving benefits from the scheme that they are currently in. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will also effectively set the scheme model and funding envelope for the public service scheme design, which will be funded by the Treasury from April 2022.”
“My Department's consultation on the issue has not identified any justified rationale or realistic scope to deviate from the core policy approach developed in conjunction with the Treasury to address the effects of age discrimination across all similarly constituted schemes. These are targeted and technical changes that will focus on the discriminatory elements of the transitional protections now identified by the courts as unlawful. <BR /> <BR />The main features of the reformed 2015 schemes — career average scheme design with revised pension ages, as agreed by the Assembly in 2014 — are not affected by the court's ruling. Those remain legal, fit for purpose and appropriate for future service. <BR /> <BR />It is imperative that the provisions in the primary legislation for the devolved schemes are passed into law before April 2022.”
“Where Treasury responsibilities will now also exist under the Bill for directions and technical guidance to the schemes in Britain, my Department will retain responsibility for all directions and technical guidance on equivalent matters for the devolved schemes. <BR /> <BR />An Assembly Bill could also be used to implement these changes. However, in the context of the very close timescales now faced to implement the prospective remedy solution by 1 April 2022, a stand-alone Bill would exert an additional strain on Assembly legislative workloads for the remainder of the mandate. If such a Bill were not completed before dissolution for elections, it would fall, and the unlawful age discrimination for the affected scheme members would not be resolved.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill makes provision for each Department with responsibility for a devolved public service pension scheme made under the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 to make its own secondary regulations to implement the remedy on age discrimination for its members. These regulations will be subject to the full requirements of the Assembly under the terms of the negative resolution process and subject to scrutiny by the relevant Assembly Committee in the same way as any other scheme regulations would be made under the 2014 Act. Each Department will be required to undertake full consultation with scheme members or their trade union representatives before the regulations are made.”
“<BR /> <BR />The remedy solution will implement an identical remedy response to that proposed by the Treasury following its own consultation for the analogous scheme in Britain. In the light of the shared policy objectives emerging from both consultations and the time frame to implement the remedy solution by April 2022, an LCM for the provisions for devolved schemes to be included in the Westminster Bill represents the most practical approach to ensuring that the unlawful age discrimination is removed in good time for members here and that scheme members are not disadvantaged.”
“They include reforming the scheme of judicial allowances, increasing the mandatory retirement age for the judiciary from 70 to 75 and widening the scope for judges to sit after they have retired. The Department of Justice has consulted separately on those changes. The Committee for Justice has also been briefed, and I am advised that it is content that they be made. <BR /> <BR />The Bill also introduces an additional UK asset resolution (AR) measure, which will establish the UK AR pension scheme as a new public service pension scheme, defunding the existing Bradford and Bingley and Northern Rock asset management pension schemes. After that point, the Government will bear the cost of paying the pensions directly. There are no impacts for devolved arrangements in that Part of the Bill.”
“Since its introduction in 2015, the scheme already differs from other devolved schemes, in that, owing to concerns around value for money, efficiency and economy of scale, it does not complete its own actuarial valuation but rather applies the outcome of the Ministry of Justice valuation in order to determine the appropriate contributions and cost controls for scheme members and employers. Governance and some administration functions for the scheme are also already linked to or shared with the Ministry of Justice scheme. Under the legislative consent motion (LCM), the devolved judicial scheme would be incorporated into a reformed judicial scheme established by the Ministry of Justice. <BR /> <BR />Other measures for the judiciary are unrelated to pensions.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will address some of the provisions in more detail, starting with the judicial scheme. The devolved scheme contains the same discriminatory transitional protections as the other schemes established under the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. In addition to addressing that discrimination, the Bill enables the provision of a new reformed career average judicial pension scheme. Judicial scheme members will be given a choice to retain remedy period benefits in either a legacy or reformed scheme by way of an options exercise, and all members will also accrue benefits only in the new reformed scheme from 1 April 2022. The devolved judicial scheme has a very small membership. It has only 56 registered members, approximately 30 of whom are affected by the age discrimination scope of the remedy.”
“As well as promoting fairness across scheme members, those changes, legislated for by the Assembly, were and still are necessary to ensure that the schemes remain sustainable and fit for purpose in the future. <BR /> <BR />The proposed provisions in the Bill include closing the legacy schemes from 31 March 2022; affirming the 2015 schemes for all members from 1 April 2022; establishing arrangements for compensation for overpayment and underpayment of benefits, including for tax purposes, during the remedy period; implementing the proposed waiver of any cost-cap ceiling breaches that emerged from the reworked 2016 cost-cap valuations; establishing a reformed judicial scheme; reforming certain terms of office for the judiciary; and establishing new schemes to replace the Bradley and Bingley and Northern Rock pension schemes.”
“It would be unfair and would perpetuate the unlawful discrimination if some members of the public-sector schemes and not others continued to be in legacy schemes after April 2022, as that difference in treatment would still be attributable to an unjustified age-based criterion. <BR /> <BR />It is important to be clear that it is only the transitional protection element of the reform schemes that has been deemed to be discriminatory and must be removed. The case for the 2015 reform schemes, as approved by the Assembly in 2014, to commit to the new career average revaluated earnings scheme design with normal pension age links and a safe pension age for most schemes, in line with their equivalent scheme in Britain, and not to adopt the different approaches here, still remains valid.”
“There will also be cases in which members have already retired and received pension benefits for remedy period service or will do so between now and the introduction of the regulations for respective changes by October 2023. My Department will work with schemes to ensure that those members can exercise a choice at the earliest available opportunity concerning the revised entitlements, where adjustments are required. The Bill ensures that all members of comparable, similarly constituted schemes here and in Britain are treated equally through the scheme design available to them after the discrimination has been addressed.”
“In the case of deceased members, overpaid and underpaid contributions may also arise where a beneficiary of the member elects to take the higher remedy benefits available in the scheme. Again, that is intended to ensure fairness for all scheme members. The Bill, however, also provides scope for the individual schemes to reduce or waive completely any underpayment of contributions in scheme regulations where it deems that to be appropriate: for example, where that might cause hardship.”
“Where both overpaid and underpaid contributions occur, interest will be applied in line with directions by my Department, following consultation with the Government Actuary.”
“As I already stated, that is a complex exercise that will involve adjustments to benefit entitlements for affected members for the period from 2015 to 2022, as well as related adjustments where contributions and tax amounts for that period may have been overpaid or underpaid. The guiding principle is that affected members will be compensated for any overpayment of contributions or tax for that period. To ensure fairness for all scheme members, including those who have already paid the appropriate amount of scheme contributions and tax for the period in question, the Bill sets out processes by which adjustments will also be required where underpayment of contributions or tax liability occurs for any extra pension entitlement due as a consequence of the choice made for the remedy period.”
“An exception to that arrangement is with the judicial schemes, where affected members will make their choice before retirement in an options exercise. The separate consultations undertaken for the local government and judicial schemes reflected scheme-specific requirements for how the discrimination should be removed. <BR /> <BR />The Bill provides the framework for the required changes. However, the scheme-level regulations that are required to implement the changes, remove discrimination and give choice to members for the remedy period will be scrutinised and made by the relevant Assembly process.”
“My Department consulted on options for how the remedy could be delivered from August to November 2020: to make an immediate choice once the required arrangements were in place; or to make a deferred choice, choosing the point at which scheme benefits are paid. <BR /> <BR />The deferred choice remedy solution, which the Bill delivers, represents the preference of the overwhelming majority of those who responded to the Department's consultation on this issue. That option removes the discrimination that occurred, while also providing clarity, control and the choice that is based on the accurate and up-to-date information necessary to inform decision-making. The majority of members will make their choice at the point of retirement, at which point it will be clear which scheme is most beneficial to each individual.”
“The Bill ensures that those who deliver public services continue to receive guaranteed benefits in retirement, on a fair and equal basis, that are among the best available. Perhaps it would have been simpler to return all members to the legacy scheme for the remedy period, but not all members would have been better off from having their benefits calculated in the legacy scheme; many will, in fact, be more advantaged in the reform scheme. Remedy proposals therefore ensure that members receive a choice of which scheme terms available during the remedy period provide the best benefit package for them. That choice also introduces considerable complexity, however.”
“The Bill will provide a legislative framework for each public service scheme to provide members affected by that discrimination with a choice of legacy or reform scheme terms for service in the seven-year remedy period from 1 April 2015, which was the introduction date for the reform schemes, to 31 March 2022. From 1 April 2022, all members will accrue future service in the reform schemes. That date is significant because protected members who were within 10 years of their normal pension age on 31 March 2012 will reach that normal retirement age by 1 April 2022. They can, of course, continue working with the service post April 2022, accruing benefits in the 2015 reform scheme. <BR /> <BR />Pension benefits accrued in the legacy scheme are protected.”
“Legal advice confirms that steps must be taken to remedy that in the devolved schemes, as identical transition measures exist in the reform schemes here. Indeed, many legal cases in this jurisdiction are currently stayed as they await the remedy response to cases in England and Wales. I again emphasise that the issue is with how the reforms were implemented. The case for reform schemes still stands, in that they provide for pensions that are affordable, sustainable, fair and transparent, and they achieve greater fairness between lower and higher earners, as well as greater fairness for taxpayers. <BR /> <BR />The Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill contains provisions to remedy the unlawful age discrimination that was identified by courts in the McCloud judgement.”
“Younger members moved into the reformed career average schemes from 1 April 2015. That transitional protection was not a recommendation of the commission. It was agreed following the Treasury's discussions with member representatives and formed the basis of discussions with member representatives for the devolved schemes. <BR /> <BR />In December 2018, in the McCloud and Sargeant cases — better known as the McCloud judgement — the Court of Appeal in England and Wales found that the transitional protection arrangement unlawfully discriminated against younger members of the judicial and firefighters' pension schemes. In June 2019, the Supreme Court denied permission to appeal that judgement.”
“The recommendations formed the basis for consultations for a policy to reform public service schemes managed by the Treasury and devolved schemes managed by my Department. <BR /> <BR />In April 2015, new schemes were introduced for each of the main workforces: local government; teachers; health workers; firefighters; the police; the judiciary; and the Civil Service. In the devolved schemes, the reforms were implemented by regulations made by Departments with responsibility for a public service scheme under the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. <BR /> <BR />As part of the 2015 reforms, those who were within 10 years of their normal retirement age on 31 March 2012 remained in their legacy pension scheme arrangements of mainly final salary scheme design. That is the transitionally protected cohort.”
“The matter before us is relatively straightforward, despite the complexity of the policy area. There is a legal requirement to address unlawful age discrimination that has occurred as a result of how reforms have been implemented in the public service pensions scheme since 2015 and to ensure that the discrimination is removed for future pension accrual. <BR /> <BR />I will give Members some background information on how we have arrived at the position where changes are required to address the discrimination. In 2010, the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, led by John Hutton, was tasked with undertaking a fundamental structural review of public service pensions provision. The commission published its final report in 2011, setting out recommendations to better balance the interests of taxpayers, employers and members.”
“The First Minister and deputy First Minister joined the Scottish First Minister and Welsh First Minister to challenge directly the British Prime Minister to reinstate the universal credit uplift because he was the person who oversaw that decision.”
“I say again that the Member misrepresents what I said. I said that the maths of the equation were simple. If he feels that we should have taken money from Health and made a proposition to take money from Health to put it to universal credit uplift, that is a different issue and one that, I am sure, he can articulate in public if he feels the need to do so. <BR /> <BR />The Executive are juggling with limited resources and finances. The decision to end the universal credit uplift was taken in London. They made the decision. They own that problem, which they have put on many families who struggle. I recognise entirely the struggle that many families and individuals have as a consequence of the cut to universal credit. That decision was taken in London.”
“Therefore, it is dishonest to take up a public position that is not the same position as they took in private.”