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 56 of 100.
“<BR /> <BR />As I have said, it is imperative that the legislation that has been debated today continues its passage through the Assembly so that public services and our response to the pandemic can be delivered without delay or interruption. In conclusion, I ask Members to support the Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2020-21, and into the early months of 2021-22 in the Vote on Account.”
“A fiscal commission will look at issues like spending power and what we could do, and I think that its report will be for an incoming Executive. That is because our intention is that it will take most, if not all, of the rest of this year. Therefore, it will be for an incoming Assembly and Executive to debate and discuss what powers they might seek to use. However, we have never had an exercise to look at what powers might be available and what we might hope to do with them. Perhaps, that would take away some of the uncertainty that we live with, in that we do not decide our funding envelope or the timescale for our Budget, and we do not decide when we know about all of that; it all just lands on top of us and we have to plan as best as we can.”
“Yes. I apologise: he and Clare Bailey raised the issue of the fiscal council. She obviously is not aware, although most people are, that, two weeks ago today, I put a paper on a fiscal council and a fiscal commission to the Executive for approval. I am waiting for that to be dealt with by the Executive. As far as I am concerned, that proposal has been delivered on by my Department, and I want to see it delivered on by the Executive as a whole. Absolutely, both issues feed off each other. People will know the work that has been identified for a fiscal council.”
“When Members address those issues and when they come back to address the final Budget, once we have put out that document, if they have arguments for change, I would appreciate it if they would tell us how we should provide that change. That is a very simple requirement. When you have the same amount of money and something has to change, you have to take money off somebody to give it to somebody else. I would therefore be obliged if Members would follow through on the logic of their arguments and say where that money should come from.”
“OK. I accept that point. I am not familiar with it, but I certainly accept it. I am happy to raise it to see what the issue is with payment. <BR /> <BR />A Cheann Comhairle, I am sure that you and other Members will be glad to know that this is coming to an end. I have tried to respond to as many issues as possible. I have tried to remind Members that we are here to debate the Vote on Account, but I am not surprised that they want to raise the draft Budget, and I do not deny them the opportunity to do so. Undoubtedly, Members will raise that, and I have no doubt that we will come back to debate it all again.”
“Someone else from that corner lambasted me today and said that, if I did not spend all the money, I would go down as a failure. I got that yesterday as well. There was a common thread through the scripts of some SDLP Members; there must be a similar ghostwriter behind them all. I assure them that I intend to spend that, but if the bid is not in at this stage, that is a problem. If it is in and has not been paid, I will happily take it up with the AERA Minister.”
“We have, for next year, given a commitment to the Education Minister on teachers' pay and a commitment to the Health Minister on safe staffing. <BR /> <BR />Last, but by no means least, was the issue of the Lough Neagh fishermen. I am not certain as to why or how that has not been paid, but I will check and come back to you. If it was bid for and has not been paid, that is one thing. However, if it has not been bid for, there is very, very limited time left to put something together for it. My understanding from DAERA is that — we got this response from a number of Departments — it has bid for all that it is going to bid for and is not bidding for any more. That is why we are trying to kick in the contingency plans. I know that it has been a matter of severe concern.”
“We are looking at the issues that have been raised, such as safe staffing for health workers; the independent advice sector, which the Communities Minister said that she will be able to cover; the recruitment of benefits staff; and labour market interventions, which Claire Sugden spoke on, as did Gerry Carroll. We will look to address those issues between now and the final Budget stage. I hope to be able to do something on that. We recognise that that there is a huge range of very pressing issues, but it is vital that we to try to assist particularly young people, support those who have become unemployed as a consequence of the pandemic, and make sure that there is support and advice for such people. The safe staffing issue for health workers is also vital.”
“It was based on that collective decision taken by the whole Executive that we did not have the time to reprioritise, so we basically rolled over the money that we got and had a standstill Budget, with nothing extra for any Department. We have got some flexibilities since making that decision. We have looked, where we can, to additional funding, and we have looked to see what the spend is. In doing that, Departments identified £1·7 billion of unmet pressures, and that is a huge, huge challenge.”
“He listed the costs as being way above and beyond even what the Secretary of State tried to tell us was available to us. He has obviously included the COVID money, the NDNA money and a range of other moneys in the Budget this year that were not in there in previous years. <BR /> <BR />I have dealt with a lot of the issues. To Members who have misplaced their arguments — we will probably have the same debate in June when we come to the actual Budget — I say that what is set out is a draft Budget.”
“That included £26·8 million for payments to families in lieu of free school meals; £18·7 million for holiday hunger payments; £30·6 million to fund holiday hunger payments into the next financial year; £30·5 million for the childcare sector; and £87·4 million for the Education Restart programme. Substantial money has been invested. <BR /> <BR />Jim Allister raised a range of issues. He is no longer with us, and I am not sure whether he is listening from another place: I shudder to think. When he raised this yesterday, we told him that it was an accounting issue. The functions of a Department are itemised. Victims' funding is itemised for both the Department of Justice and TEO. That does not mean that the funding is there for it, not does it mean that the funding is assigned for it. The issue of funding is obviously still to be worked out.”
“We have allocated money for that in the draft Budget. We have also looked to reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing to increase that, because we recognise that the failure over many years to invest in our water and sewerage infrastructure has had a knock-on effect on the ability to develop and invest properly in growth, as well as having created environmental issues. <BR /> <BR />Chris Lyttle, the Chair of the Education Committee, argued for the need to ensure adequate resourcing of childcare in the Department of Education budget. I know that he is not here, but he may be listening in. The Department of Education received £195 million from Executive funds to address pressures related to COVID-19.”
“If Members wish, however, to create the argument, as Members of the Minister's party have been doing for the past while, certainly in the past two days, that somehow there was a denial of funds, I have to say that a huge tranche of funds went to the Department for Infrastructure. It is up to the Minister to decide how to spend the significant budget that she got last year. When we were asked to prioritise bids that came in, there was £104 million for Translink, because it was a priority for the Department for Infrastructure; £20 million for lost passenger income; £36 million for the Driver and Vehicle Agency; £25 million for the bus and coach industry; and £31·6 million for Northern Ireland Water. Mr Frew raised the issue of the lack of infrastructure investment for Northern Ireland Water, which I accept.”
“I made the point to him that I would not measure it against the percentage of the bids but against the percentage of the money that was got. To me, that is more important, because quite a lot of Departments repeated bids continuously throughout the year. He accepted that. <BR /> <BR />It is interesting that DFI was used as an example. I checked the figures: in total, the Department for Infrastructure got £196·6 million of COVID money over the year. That was 95% of its COVID bids, not including repeat bids. Take repeat bids out of it, and it was 95% of DFI's COVID bids. It is important that people see the full picture. I have no desire to get into the issue that there were no bids in October or January for road maintenance and all of that.”
“I absolutely accept it when people say, "Get it sorted"; that is what I am trying to do. You need to come off the fence, however, and say, "I believe that the Executive should pay for it out of their resources" or, "I do not believe that the Executive should pay for it". Some people have said that. Some people have argued the Executive's position, which is that we should not pay for it because we cannot pay for it and that, if we had to pay for it, that would be at catastrophic cost to the public services that we are trying desperately to provide. <BR /> <BR />A range of issues was raised. I do not wish to stay here all night, but I will address some of them. We were taken back to the argument about the percentage of the bids, which Mr Frew introduced yesterday.”
“The Executive are absolutely committed to paying for victims' pensions, but there are people who have played politics with it and added to a scheme that, by their own rules, they are responsible for and yet refuse to engage with us in a serious way to address the issue.”
“Mike Nesbitt talked movingly about victims: we could provide all that money, but, next year, somebody could talk about people who have died on waiting lists or been denied treatment because we did not have the money for those services. We have been desperately trying to have that conversation with the British Government, but all that we have had is bluster and falsehoods from a Secretary of State who, after having accepted at our meeting the Actuary Department's figures for all of that, said the next day, "It's only a few million pounds. They could pay for it out of their underspend". That is not sincerely trying to deal with the victims' payments issue; that is playing politics with it. We have never sought to do that.”
“However, the British Government's position is that we, out of the limited resources that we have to pay for all the services that, everybody has identified, are stretched, underfunded and need to be improved — we cannot get out of that vicious circle because we do not have the money to invest our way out and improve services — should pay for all of that. They say that we should pay for those costs, which we did not agree to or sign up to, out of our money that provides for our services. <BR /> <BR />I do not say that to make the argument that it is services against victims. It is abhorrent to have to make the argument that we have to judge victims' payments against the services that we could provide.”
“We had those discussions; in fact, even with that limited scheme, we had a discussion about who was responsible for paying for it. Quite a lot of that happened under direct rule; it did not happen on the watch of the Executive or even from 1998 onwards. There was a discussion around that. <BR /> <BR />The British Government took that and added substantially to it. They added people who were psychologically injured, and there is an argument for that. They added service personnel from the British military, who were paid by the British Government to come over here and were the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. The injuries and psychological trauma that they might have suffered are the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.”
“However, none of the Members who raised that, including Mr Allister, who is now absent, has ever said that we should pay for it or that the British Government should pay for it. They have said, "Somebody should do something about that. Somebody should sort that out. It needs sorted out. Victims are hanging on". I absolutely accept that. We have been trying since last September to sort the issue out. We did not want to be in a situation where victims would have to hold on and wait. We did not create the scheme that is now in front of us with the massive additional costs. We created a scheme — you, a Cheann Comhairle, were part of it, as were, probably, older Members here — when we were in Stormont House, in which we looked at the physical injuries to victims who were from here.”
“I do not have to do that to prove that the North does not work; it has not worked since its inception. It does not require me to do anything to do that. I have an ambition for a much better outcome for all the people who live on this island. <BR /> <BR />Several Members made arguments around the victims' payments. It is absolutely unacceptable that we are in an argument over victims' payments. We tried to head that off last September by having a sensible discussion with the Secretary of State. I listened carefully to Mike Nesbitt. I absolutely respect his view, and I do not doubt his sincerity. He had that role. He has listened to many testimonies, and, clearly, he has been impacted by them. I absolutely respect his point in that regard.”
“<BR /> <BR />Since I came into this job, I have spent my time fighting battles with Treasury to get flexibility; to get it to honour the NDNA commitments, which were abandoned within 48 hours of being signed up to; to push for confidence-and-supply money that was promised to the party opposite, which we managed to get; and to fight for lost European funding and challenge the decision to hold on to the replacement European funding and use it for the levelling-up agenda in Britain, which will not benefit us at all. I have been fighting those battles every day since I came into office. I found it bizarre that Mr McGrath said, "You might not want to spend this money on people's services because you might want to prove that the North doesn't work".”
“I have a higher ambition than the working of this state; I have made no secret of that. I would like to think that he has as well. I thought that that was very strange. There is probably work for a psychiatrist to analyse that type of approach: that we would punish ourselves to prove a point. I assure him that I and my colleagues on the Executive will try to make absolutely the best use of the resources that we have and to get the most resources that we can. That is what we have been doing.”
“The reality is that we do not have control over those factors. If we did have control over them, we might have a different outcome. Actually, the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office suggested that I was not allocating the unspent money because I secretly do not want this state, the North, to work.”
“That is a very strange mindset, because the reality is that we do not decide what our funding envelope is. We do not have any control over that decision. We do not decide the Budget cycle that we have; the British Government decide that. We did not decide the timing of all of that. We were supposed to know this last summer, and the Government decided, for their own interests and their own priorities, to run that right up to nearly Christmas. In those circumstances, I am not sure how we should say, "Don't stand up and blame the Brits". That was the lecture from about six or seven SDLP MLAs over both days. I thought that that was a strange position. It is kind of a warped colonial mindset where we cannot challenge the source of the problems but have to blame ourselves for these ills.”
“I am not denying that Members have suggestions and arguments to make, but they are not going to significantly impact on what we have to spend next year. Next year, what we have to spend is the same as what we had last year. With additional costs and salary costs, we have, in effect, a cut for next year. I am just laying it out as the Finance Minister for people to see it, and if you want to argue that we should be spending money here and we should be spending money there, you are duty-bound to tell us where we should get that money from, and in a fashion that can actually yield something. <BR /> <BR />I do not want to single it out as a party, but I have to say that there was a strange trend among SDLP Members to say, "Do not be blaming the British Government for this. We are to blame".”
“Of course the Executive should and could work better on everything. I am sure that Committees would all accept that they could and should work better as well, and all of us can always do better. I heard you argue that the education system needs to be changed, but the education system will not be changed in time to improve next year's Budget. It will probably require significant investment, actually, to change the education system. The issue of 50,000 extra desks in schools will not be addressed overnight. Others talked about the cost of division, and those are all admirable long-term objectives, but they are not going to change the budgetary position for 2021-22. That is the point that I am making.”
“I support that and I want to see that invested in", they do not say how it is going to happen. They do not say where it should be taken from. In a finite Budget situation, we have two choices. We either spend what we have and give the Departments what they need, or we decide to reprioritise and take money off Departments to put it towards what Members argue is priority spending.”
“However, nobody said that because we need more police, the money should be taken off Health or the Department of Agriculture or the Department for Communities. In the entire course of about six or seven hours of debate, nobody presented an alternative to what the Executive were faced with. <BR /> <BR />There were substantial criticisms, and we are Executive Ministers. I am the Minister of Finance, and I am happy to take all the criticisms that come our way. Members talked about a lack of strategy and a disjointed nature, and, of course, there are difficulties and there are things that the Executive should do better, but these are the realities of the finances available to us, and everybody here knows that. When Members make their statements and probably write them up and send them to the local press saying, "Money should be spent on this.”
“When you down the list to Infrastructure, Agriculture, Finance, Communities and Justice, and to all the other issues that Members raised, you get into further cuts, so you have less money to spend on the things that Members were saying were priorities. So there is a responsibility on Members who stand up to lecture me. I have listened to quite a lot of lectures today about what we are doing wrong, what we should be doing right and where we should be spending more money, but nobody in those contributions said where we would get it from. Members argued that more money should be given to Justice for policing, which is a very valid argument, and if we are going to lose policing personnel, that will be a huge difficulty for society.”
“That would mean that some Departments would get additional money. Generally speaking, that would be Health — a lot of Members have argued for Health spend — and, probably, Education.”
“So, the entire Executive — all five parties — agreed that we would go for a standstill Budget That has presented a huge range of problems for all Departments. The alternative, if Members propose, "We need more money for this" and "We need more money for that" is a reprioritisation exercise.”
“<BR /> <BR />Nonetheless, today, I read a report by the Ulster University economic think tank that accepts that this is a standstill Budget in the cash available. I think that it was Gerry Carroll who made the point that a standstill Budget is, in effect, a cut. That is what we have been given. It came on 25 November, and then there was the obligatory two-week hiatus for the Secretary of State to confirm it before we could even start to consider allocations. That presented the Executive with two options: roll over every Department's spend so that they all had the same spend as last year; or go for a reprioritisation exercise, which, given the timescales involved, was not doable in any significant sense.”
“We had a sense of hope that it would be a decent Budget, because the Budget that we got this time last year was an improvement, and, for the first time in many years, every Department had received an uplift. We sincerely hoped that it would mean an improved position that would allow us to plan for the time ahead. However, at short notice, we were told that we would not get that. We got an annual Budget. It was a flat-cash Budget. Jim Allister tried to add some fantastical figures to it. The British Government should have employed him, because he did a better job than they did of trying to spoof what was in the Budget and inflate what had been made available to us. He has outdone them in that regard.”
“I was surprised by some of the Members who made that fairly basic, common mistake. <BR /> <BR />The other issue is the common thread that ran through the debate, which was, "We need more money for this" and "We need more money for that", much of which I cannot disagree with. Of the many issues raised, there are very few that I do not agree need more money. I agree that the Executive should spend on all the issues that have arisen from the pandemic. I agree that we should spend to support the vulnerable and our healthcare workers. We should spend on education and invest in skills and training. We should invest in the green new deal. I get all the issues that were raised by those in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />Here is the thing: for the entirety of last year, right up to the end of November, the Executive were promised a multi-year Budget.”
“It has been a long day and a long debate, but that is to be expected when there are a lot of issues to be talked about. I am prompted to go back, because, particularly in the latter stages of the debate, a lot of Members talked about what this Budget will do for next year. The Budget for next year has not been debated yet. This is a Vote on Account: it does not constitute the setting of a Budget for the 2021-22 year; it is merely to allow the Departments to continue to operate to provide services in the early months of that year and will depend on the consideration of the Executive's final Budget through the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill in June. Since the Budget Bill is out there, people have, understandably, referred to it. When Members are voting, they need to be certain that we are not voting on next year's Budget.”
“All public services need the legislation to operate in each financial year. Whilst it may appear dry and seemingly detached from day-to-day life, it is, in fact, crucial legislation that underpins our public services. <BR /> <BR />On that note, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will conclude. I will be happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget Bill that Members may wish to raise.”
“I stress to the House that clause 5 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund, nor does it convey any additional spending power. However, it enables my Department to run an effective and efficient cash management regime and to ensure minimum drawdown of the block grant on a daily basis, which is important when contemplating the daily borrowing by our Departments. <BR /> <BR />The numbers in the Budget Bill are significant, and I am sure that Members will agree that it is not an easy task to translate those figures into the delivery of public services on the ground. The reality is that this legislation is required for every public service, whether it is for a schoolteacher or a nurse, for the building of a new road or for the training required for gaining a new job.”
“<BR /> <BR />Because the Main Estimates for 2021-22 will not be available until June, I want to make the Assembly aware that, until Royal Assent is received for the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Loss of Universal Credit or Housing Benefit) Bill and until the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Extension) Regulations (NI) 2021 have been approved by a resolution of the Assembly, the Department for Communities seeks approval to incur spend under the sole authority of this Budget Bill at an estimated cost of up to £32 million. <BR /> <BR />Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the temporary borrowing by my Department of £5,040,806,000, which is approximately half the sum authorised by clause 4 for issue out of the Consolidated Fund.”
“When a Department makes use of the sole authority of the Budget Act, it will highlight that fact by placing a note in a black box symbol in the corresponding Estimate. The Estimates document now also sets out why the sole authority is being relied on. Additional information has also been provided to the Finance Committee, and, at its request, a supplementary page to the Estimates document has been provided to Members.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I have explained, the Vote on Account does not constitute the setting of a Budget for 2021-22 but merely allows Departments to continue to operate and to provide services in the early months of that year, pending the consideration of the Executive's Budget for that year through the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill in June. <BR /> <BR />One point that I want to draw to the House's attention is that, while the vast majority of expenditure by all Departments is done on the authority of statutory powers that are provided through legislation passed by the Assembly, there are occasionally some, usually small, functions that may, from time to time, be done on the sole authority of the Budget Act.”
“For the current financial year, the Bill also sets a limit for each Department on the use of accruing resources, which are current and capital receipts totalling £2,829,984,000. The accruing resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of schedule 2. Therefore, the total resources and accruing resources now provided in the Bill bring the total resources for use by Departments in 2020-21 to just under £28 billion. In addition, the Bill will authorise the issue of a further £10,081,611,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £11,194,733,000 by Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2022. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of schedules 3 and 4.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill will authorise the issue of a further £22,220,328,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £25,124,542,000 by Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2021; that is this financial year. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on services listed in column 1 of each schedule. Those amounts supersede the amounts that were previously authorised by the Assembly through the Main Estimates.”
“I shall endeavour to keep to that direction. The main purpose of the Bill is to authorise the cash and use of resources on services on the basis of the Executive's final spending plans for the 2020-21 year and for Departments and other public bodies as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2020-21. The Bill also provides authorisation for the cash and use of resources in the early months of the 2021-22 financial year as a Vote on Account, pending the Assembly's consideration of the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill in June. <BR /> <BR />Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members today. The 2020-21 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2021-22 Vote on Account were laid in the Assembly on 23 February.”
“There has also been significant engagement with the Finance Committee throughout the 2020-21 financial year. I appreciate that this year has been extraordinary in terms of the volume and pace of allocations made, but I have been open with the Committee about the challenges faced and the decisions that the Executive and I have taken through the year. The work of the Committee in that respect is vital, and its importance should not be underestimated. <BR /> <BR />Standing Order 32 directs that the Second Stage debate:”
“I am grateful to the Finance Committee for confirming that, in line with Standing Order 42, the Bill can proceed under accelerated passage. <BR /> <BR />We all recognise that the situation this year has been extremely challenging, requiring increased levels of flexibility to ensure that we give our citizens, hospitals, schools and businesses the best chance of recovery. While the Executive have had to work outside the normal process this year, the Finance Committee and Assembly still had the opportunity to scrutinise the financial position reflected in the Bill. The 2020-21 Budget was debated in the House, and statements were made to the Assembly on each change to the financial position. Members had the opportunity to debate the further Vote on Account in May and the Main Estimates in October.”
“Today's Second Stage debate follows yesterday's approval by the Assembly of the Supply resolutions for the expenditure plans of Departments and other public bodies as detailed in the 2020-21 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2021-22 Vote on Account. <BR /> <BR />As Members will, undoubtedly, be aware, accelerated passage of the Bill is necessary in order to ensure Royal Assent by the end of March. If that is not received in time, Departments and other public bodies may not be able to access cash, which would threaten the effective delivery of public services not just in the closing weeks of the current financial year but in the early months of the 2021-22 financial year. That would, undoubtedly, affect the delivery of essential public services and our response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“I am a long-standing Member and have been a member of many Assembly Committees. I fully understand the desire to ensure that proper processes facilitate the ability to scrutinise, question, debate and discuss important matters. However, we are, as I said, in exceptional circumstances that require exceptional steps. Therefore, I ask Members to agree to the suspension of Standing Order 42(5).”
“I appreciate the support of the Committee on the issue. I also appreciate the Committee's strong desire for the maximum amount of available scrutiny. I respect Mr Carroll's point, as I understand that Members would wish to have more time to look through these matters. We are, as I said, in extraordinary circumstances, and it is not the way in which we would normally want to do business. The urgency with which the Bill needs to proceed through the Assembly is driven by the critical need to secure access to cash for Departments to continue to deliver services in the face of the COVID-19 emergency.”
“That ensures that the Assembly has time to properly consider and debate the issues. However, the scale, timing and pace of the COVID crisis are such that the usual legislative process is insufficiently agile to provide an adequate response. Therefore, I am taking what, I know, is a very unusual step in asking the Assembly to suspend the Standing Order to allow the Bill to complete its passage in a shorter time. <BR /> <BR />While it is unusual, a suspension of this Standing Order was also required in May 2020 to allow the passage of the further Vote on Account for the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Members should be aware that it is not the end of the story when the Bill completes its passage through the Assembly as there are a number of steps to be completed before Royal Assent is secured, hence, the urgency involved.”