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 57 of 100.
“As I explained to the Assembly when we debated the Supply resolution, we face an unprecedented public expenditure situation as a result of the COVID-19 emergency. If the Bill is not passed, there is a very real risk that Departments could run out of cash in the very near future. That would be unthinkable at any time, but it is particularly so in the current situation. <BR /> <BR />Standing Order 42(5) requires:”
“I beg to introduce the Budget Bill, which is a Bill to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of the years ending 31 March 2021 and 2022; to appropriate those sums for specified purposes; to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources for those years; to revise the limits on the use of certain accruing resources in the year ending 31 March 2021; and to authorise the Department of Finance to borrow on the credit of the sum appropriated for the year ending 31 March 2022.”
“The approval of the Supply motions today and the associated departmental expenditure plans laid out in the 2020-21 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2021-22 Vote on Account is a crucial stage of the existing public expenditure cycle. Failure to pass the Supply motions at this juncture would put at risk the smooth continuation of public services and the vital support that our citizens, hospital, schools and businesses require to respond to the COVID pandemic for the remainder of this financial year and into the next financial year. I therefore commend the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2020-21 and the Vote on Account for 2021-22 to the Assembly and ask Members to support the motions.”
“The scheme that the Department for Communities operates for sports and social clubs was designed with the sports organising bodies, so the GAA's Ulster council designed the scheme to support its clubs. If there are issues with that, he should take them up with it. Again, he is very exercised about the possibility of me underspending, and I have to say that I have plans, clearly, to do that. <BR /> <BR />We have dealt with the issues. I am sorry: Gerry Carroll asked a series of detailed questions at the end, and I do not have the time or the ability to get through my paperwork to give him the answers. I assure the Member that I will ask officials to take note of the questions and get back to him. <BR /> <BR />I will draw my remarks to a close.”
“Mr McNulty asked about long-term certainty about Casement Park. Again, he should understand how budgets work. Capital projects get the year's money that they need, and they have got that in full. They got the money that they needed in full for this year, and the money for next year is committed to Casement. That is a flagship scheme for the Executive, and there is a clear commitment from the Executive to the project. To say, "Well, we have the money for next year, but we will stop building after that" is a bit ludicrous. I often wonder why someone who purports to support the project asks questions on it and then creates uncertainties about it. He also mentioned support for the social clubs.”
“There were opportunities and a substantial amount of resource money has been available since January, but no bids came in for that. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to some of the other questions that were asked. Philip McGuigan referred to the strategic plan, and the same answer applies, given the year that is in it. Despite the desire for strategic planning, it was impossible to do that. <BR /> <BR />Mr McNulty asked about the promised finance for Health, but he just has to join the dots. We get the Budget that we get. It comes from Treasury, and it decides how much money we have. That is why we will have a worse budgetary situation next year than we have had this year. At this stage of their experience as representatives in the Chamber, Members should, at least, understand the basics of how our funding works.”
“No further bids were made for road maintenance in October or January, and, as I said, having been the Minister responsible for Roads Service for over four years, I knew that there was a well-established pattern whereby Roads would bid for money at that time of the year because it had the possibility of spending out. That is why I was surprised that no bid for funding came in at that stage. There is absolutely no doubt, as I know from my constituency, that there is a need there, but no further bids came in for road maintenance. That is the Minister's decision, and, of course, she can explain and answer for that. I had not particularly wished to get into this, but I find myself answering press releases and statements saying that I refused to give money to roads.”
“There was a COVID-related funding bid in the June monitoring round. It was vastly oversubscribed by Departments, so, clearly, a lot of Departments were not going to get what they had asked for. The Department for Infrastructure bid for road maintenance and street lighting repairs, but, because of the need to prioritise COVID funding, it was not possible to fund that. The Department got £35·5 million of the available funding in that round, which was about 21% of the funding. Mr McNulty then added on the bid again, because there was another bid for the same thing — street lighting — in October.”
“Pardon the pun, but I have been down this road as a former Minister for Regional Development. It is a difficult thing because it has been under-resourced for many years; I acknowledge that. The road structure that we have would require vast sums of money to bring it up to standard, particularly our rural roads, which were poorly built and have been poorly maintained over the years. We have got into a circumstance where they are partially patched, which does nothing for their structure in the long term. Clearly, that requires a substantial budget, but the Department for Infrastructure got a resource budget of just under £418 million and a capital budget of £558 million, £422 million of which was not ring-fenced and could be allocated as the Department saw fit. <BR /> <BR />Interestingly, Mr McNulty cobbled together two bids.”
“As soon as they got Boris Johnson out the door, they quickly withdrew all the financial commitments. There is a much bigger range of issues, including the funding for increasing policing that we want to see, that have been difficult to address because we do not have the funding for them. Allied to that, we ended up with a flat cash Budget for this year that means, in effect, for the Department of Justice and other Departments a cut in their budgets for this year. As, I think, Linda Dillon pointed out, we could end up in the bizarre circumstance where we lose police personnel in the time ahead. Clearly, that is not what was committed to and certainly not what is deliverable in the time ahead, although we want to do that. <BR /> <BR />I want to return to road maintenance.”
“If the Member can find somewhere to send the bill, I wish him luck with that endeavour. <BR /> <BR />Let us go back to the real world, where we are trying to deal with the issues. Mr Catney asked about multi-year Budgets and the flexibility required to carry money over. He rightly said that that was not a big ask, but, unfortunately, it is not up to us to deliver on that. <BR /> <BR />Members raised issues from a justice and policing perspective about NDNA and PSNI recruitment. I accept that the Executive took responsibility for the delivery of NDNA, but in our discussions with the Government at that time, they took responsibility for providing funding for it. They withdrew that commitment within 24 or 48 hours of the NDNA agreement being reached.”
“I was going to come to your piece in a minute, so I am happy to wait. Do you have more that you want to add?”
“We have arrangements and discussions ongoing with the Government, and we wish to see that quickly resolved. As the Member knows, we have been pressing the Government since last September for a meeting to resolve this. We got one only last week. The provision in it does not predetermine who pays it. Our interest is getting to the point of determining who pays for this scheme. <BR /> <BR />Other issues were raised.”
“Clearly, it has. Have we accurate figures? No, we do not. We have an estimate from the Government Actuary's Department of anything between £600 million, £800 million and £1·2 billion, which is not an accurate figure to go on. We wish to bottom that out. <BR /> <BR />The cost of provision is something that still has questions attached to it. There are estimates for it that are probably as good as we might get in the time ahead, but the clear question is for those who added to the scope and the remit and, therefore, the cost of the scheme: how do they intend to meet that which they have added?”
“It should be recognised when certain criteria are fulfilled. It is an accounting concept. The absence of a victims' payment provision from the Estimate will have no impact on TEO's legal power to make payments to victims in 2021-22. The Executive fully recognise the obligation to make payments to victims. The dispute is about how they are funded. <BR /> <BR />I listened closely to Mr Allister, but I am not sure that he came off the fence to say who should pay for this. As he said on previous occasions, "Somebody should do something about this." The question, of course, is: who designed the scheme and who legislated for it? Was it the policy that parties agreed in the Stormont House Agreement? Clearly, it was not. Has the departure from what was agreed at Stormont House added significantly to the cost of the scheme?”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of Members asked about pensions, payments and funding for victims. An honest mistake was made in the Committee the other day. It was a verbal mistake; it was not a written one. It was one figure in a document of over 300 pages. The mistake was corrected within 24 hours, and the Committee was made aware of it. I hope that people do not set the same standards for themselves that they seem to set for officials who come to the Committee to answer very detailed questions, because there would be very few MLAs left sitting here if that was the case. <BR /> <BR />As I pointed out at the Finance Committee, including a provision in the departmental Estimates and accounts does not predetermine who will fund the cost of the payment. The inclusion of this figure is necessary under accounting rules, which state:”
“The letter from the Minister of Agriculture was very short. There are quite a lot of details behind it as to what processes took place. I have no doubt that the Executive will discuss it again tomorrow. The Committee will want to look at it as well to see what instructions were given. The statement made it clear that instructions were given to stop work. I remain firmly of the view that the Minister did not have the authority to do that because it was an Executive policy matter and required cross-Executive support. Any issues of concern, whether in the port or with the protocol arrangements or any arrangements relating to Brexit, should be brought to the Executive for discussion so that we can take a collective view, particularly given the circumstances and the atmosphere that some people are trying to create.”
“Yes, briefly. I am running short of time.”
“The protocol is only one set of issues, because there are a huge number of other issues that flow from Brexit. The sooner that we get back to the Executive dealing with all the issues that flow from Brexit sensibly around the table, like adults, the better that it will be for us all. In an atmosphere in which others are increasingly trying to agitate and turn it into community tension, every action or word that we say in that regard needs to be very carefully minded to make sure that we do not contribute to any of that.”
“No. We do not anticipate further allocations that will be able to go into our baseline for next year. Additional moneys coming across to us as Barnett consequentials or as indicative spend are a possibility, and, of course, we wait to see what the UK Budget will look like. I sincerely hope that the announcements on Wednesday do not herald a return to austerity policies, but I do not anticipate getting anything that we can add to our baseline. The inclusion of headroom is to do with spending out our existing COVID money rather than anticipating more money being added to our baseline. <BR /> <BR />Andrew Muir also asked about the situation in the ports. My view at the time was that the Minister did not have the legal authority to take those decisions, and any legal advice that I have seen since confirms that view.”
“We also have contingency plans that I intend to bring to the Executive this Thursday to make sure that we spend out the available money. It is not the best way in which to do it, however. It is better to get support out to business and others on the ground to try to assist with the economic recovery than to hand money back. Of course, the money is welcome, but scrambling to get money out is not the best way in which to spend it out. It does not have the strategic direction that others wish to see.”
“<BR /> <BR />I accept that everybody understandably wants to see financial planning so that they can measure over the years what we intend to do, what the priorities are and what finances are allocated against those priorities, but no one can say that this year was anything but extraordinary in its ability not to look ahead, to know what we were getting and to try to spend out the money that we had. Andrew Muir raised the point about spending out our money, while Mr O'Toole's colleague Mr McNulty, who is away, was very exercised by it and was afraid that I would go down in history as not spending out our money. I can say that, first, we pressed Departments to come forward with bids to allow us to do that.”
“On strategic planning, particularly for spending and finance, he knows that we got allocations of COVID funding from Treasury throughout the year that were unannounced in advance. The announcements came with no forewarning. We welcomed those allocations, and I would not be so churlish as not to welcome that additional money, but we were told in the summertime that that was the guarantee that we had ahead, yet we received several tranches of allocations after that. We were told that we could carry over the one that we got pre-Christmas, yet, in January, we were told that we could not, and we have another allocation coming.”
“Confidence-and-supply money was not designed to address austerity. It consisted of a package of ring-fenced, one-off funding allocations for a number of specific projects. It could not go into anyone's baseline as part of the overall spend and therefore could not begin to address austerity. As I said, I found the figures that he came up with quite bizarre. <BR /> <BR />Matthew O'Toole complained about the lack of strategic planning. I share his frustration. I wish that there was a Programme for Government in place and that we had a multi-annual Budget to go along with it. I wished for both those things, but we are in the middle of a pandemic, and we did not get either. I am sure that he will understand, as will his Minister on the Executive, that we have been trying our best to deal with the pandemic itself.”
“Some of the early funding was COVID-related. That was the case in June. Bids were invited for that, and Departments made a whole range of bids for everything, including for things that were non-COVID allocations. Rather than quoting the statistics of how many bids you made for multiple small schemes, it is more important to look at the money that you got. That is of more interest. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew mentioned the confidence-and-supply agreement and made the rather bizarre claim that the moneys from that replaced and, in effect, cancelled out all the years of austerity Budgets. I do not have the two sets of figures to hand, but I can guarantee him that there is a massive difference between the impact of nine or 10 years of austerity Budgets and the confidence and supply money.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is one thing to present the statistics and say that a certain number of bids were made, but the important figure is how much money was given as a consequence of those allocations. Mr Frew highlighted that the Department for the Economy was successful in only 31% of its bids, but it received £644 million of COVID funding — a 79% increase from its 2020-21 opening budget. Some Departments were more selective. Some Departments submitted multiple bids. <BR /> <BR />I come back to the issue of infrastructure. I do not wish to get involved in this barney, but the SDLP Members appear to want to focus on the Infrastructure bid and why Roads did not bid for any money in the latter end of the year. However, some Departments made bids.”
“First, there was a deliberate misunderstanding. I am surprised at the former Finance Minister, who knows about these things. I am not so surprised at some of the Finance Committee members. He will know, of course, that I recommend to the Executive what bids are met and the Executive then decide. This was raised by a number of Members, but, from memory, I cannot remember a single division or any amendment to a financial allocations paper that I brought to the Executive this year, so I could argue, with some degree of validity, that I had unanimous support for all the allocations that were made this year. Of course, the Executive ultimately decide on those.”
“Most people will be aware that we had been planning all year for a multi-year Budget and had hoped for a better Budget outcome, but we ended up with an annual Budget with, effectively, a standstill budget position for most Departments that, in effect, is a reduction in their budget in the time ahead. While the draft Budget provides almost £6·5 billion of resource funding to the Health Department, a single-year settlement does not provide that Department with the platform to rebuild the health service that all of us want. That requires a sustainable multi-year budget to enable effective planning. The Health Minister is aware of that, and he and the Executive remain committed to ultimately working towards that goal. <BR /> <BR />I will go through some of the issues. There were some questions that I found somewhat amusing.”
“I am waiting on one final bid from TEO for travel agents, and we hope to be able to secure some support for them. She also asked about the furlough scheme and whether there will be an announcement. Of course, the furlough scheme runs until the end of April, but everyone will recognise that emergence from the pandemic and the economic impact of lockdown will last long beyond that. We have pressed Treasury on many occasions over the last year for the furlough scheme to continue, certainly specifically focused at least on those parts of business and industry that will struggle to open up in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Health Committee, not surprisingly, asked about health funding issues. As I stated in January, the spending review has not delivered the level of support required.”
“The Chair of the Finance Committee asked for what he called an "epilogue" or a final rundown. It has always been my intention to give a final summation of all the allocations, at the end of the process, rather than bring oral statements to the Assembly on a weekly basis. We have been making allocations fairly regularly, hence the need for quite a lot of headroom. Of course, in doing that, as I have said publicly and in my opening remarks, I would like to try to deal with as many of those who have not yet received support as possible, but that is within the restrictions of the framework under which my Department can make allocations. <BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Economy Committee asked about additional bids, and I have listed some of them.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Today's debate has covered many aspects relating to public expenditure and perhaps a few topics that are not as closely related to the matter in hand. Nevertheless, I will endeavour to address as many of the points raised during the debate as I can in the time allotted. <BR /> <BR />First, I once again thank the Finance Committee for its agreement to take this important legislation through by accelerated passage. That agreement secures the timely transition of the legislation through the Assembly, thereby avoiding any legal uncertainty over the funding of public services for the remainder of 2020-21 and the early months of 2021-22. <BR /> <BR />I listened with interest to the debate, and I will turn to some of the issues that were raised and some of the questions that were asked.”
“<BR /> <BR />For now, the focus should be on the Budget Bill and the associated spring Supplementary Estimates, which are essential for the delivery of vital public services such as schools and hospitals, as well as supporting local businesses and the economy. It is vital that we debate the legislation and pass it expeditiously. <BR /> <BR />I look forward to putting the Executive's final spending plans for 2020-21 on a legal footing through the spring Supplementary Estimates before you today, together with a corresponding Budget Bill, which we will debate tomorrow. I request the support of Members for the resolution for the 2020-21 spring Supplementary Estimates and the resolution for the Vote on Account to allow services to continue to be funded into the first few months of 2021-22.”
“Given the timing of funding allocations and reallocations, and uncertainty around the carry forward of additional Treasury funding, it was not possible to introduce the Bill any earlier. Doing so would have either hindered Departments' ability to use the funding available or resulted in significantly more headroom being included. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that Members are aware that today's debates on the resolution is time-limited, and I encourage them to use their limited time to focus on the issues specifically related to the 2020-21 Supply resolution before us. Members will have ample opportunity to debate the Executive's 2021-22 Budget, not just when it is announced before the end of March but when I bring the 2021-22 Main Estimates and Budget (No. 2) Bill to the Assembly later in the year.”
“On behalf of the Executive, I request and recommend the levels of Supply set out in these two resolutions under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Moreover, as is normal for a Budget Bill, accelerated passage is required for the legislation. Indeed, there is a specific provision for this in Standing Order 42(2). I understand that the Finance Committee has already agreed to grant accelerated passage, and I place on record my appreciation of the Committee's vital role in agreeing this important step in the financial process. <BR /> <BR />In addition, to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent before the end of the financial year, I require the Assembly's approval to suspend Standing Order 42(5) to allow the passage of this Bill in under 10 days.”
“Alongside the SSEs, which are for 2020-21, there is the Vote on Account. The Vote on Account provides authority for Departments to spend in the first few months of 2021-22. I emphasise that the Vote on Account does not represent the setting of the 2021-22 Budget. That is something that the Executive will do in the coming weeks, and I will bring it to the Assembly before the end of March. Rather, the amount for each Department in the Vote on Account is, in most cases, set at approximately 45% of the 2020-21 provision and is designed to ensure that Departments can continue to deliver services until the Main Estimates and Budget (No. 2) Bill, which will be based on the final Budget, are presented to the Assembly for approval in June. <BR /> <BR />There are a number of procedural issues that I must also address.”
“The process needs to be expedited to ensure that Departments do not run out of cash. The Bill is essential to authorise all allocations that have been agreed between the Main Estimates and now.”
“<BR /> <BR />The COVID-19 crisis has necessitated unprecedented, immediate and extraordinary public expenditure.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 15 February, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that a further £327 million would be allocated to the Executive and confirmed that that can be carried forward in full until 2021-22. That £370 million breaks down into £238 million of resource, £75 million of capital and £14 million of financial transactions capital (FTC). <BR /> <BR />Given that Departments have been considering ways in which to spend available money beyond the January monitoring round, it has not been possible to introduce the Bill along normal time frames. The recent decision by Treasury on carry-over has meant agreeing allocations at a much later point in the year than usual. Both accelerated passage and suspension of Standing Order 42(5) are therefore required to secure Royal Assent by the end of the financial year.”
“Even after meeting departmental bids, however, unallocated funding remains, and, in the absence of any further proposals, my Department will take forward work on additional grant support. <BR /> <BR />I had hoped that a broad hardship scheme to support businesses that have not received any support to date would be put in place, but, unfortunately, that has not happened. Once again, it therefore falls on Land and Property Services (LPS) — our rates collection agency — to provide support to businesses. Unfortunately, the rates database held by LPS is not capable of delivering a broad hardship scheme, but, as far as is possible, I will try to incorporate businesses that have not yet received support. I will bring a paper to the Executive on that shortly.”
“Initial indications were that Treasury would look favourably on requests to carry that over to the next year, and it was therefore not allocated as part of January monitoring. Treasury subsequently advised, however, that that flexibility would not be granted. I have therefore urged my colleagues to bring forward proposals to spend that money on further COVID support. <BR /> <BR />To ensure that the additional funding from Treasury was not lost, a number of Departments included headroom in their Estimate to provide legal cover for any further allocations. Allocations have already been made to a number of those Departments, details of which have been set out in my written statements to the Assembly.”
“Since the Main Estimates in October 2020, the Executive have continued to manage the public expenditure position, including the allocation of additional funding received from Treasury, as well as the reallocation of existing resources. To date, the Executive have allocated over £2·9 billion in additional resources. Those are unprecedented levels of allocations. The detail of the allocations are a matter of public record and are published on my Department's website. <BR /> <BR />Before Christmas, the Treasury announced an increase in the amount of COVID funding guaranteed to the Executive in 2020-21 to £3 billion, which provided an additional £200 million of resource DEL.”
“As you have set out, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, this debate covers the Supply resolutions. The first resolution seeks the Assembly's approval for the 2020-21 spending plans of Departments and other public bodies, as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs), which were laid in the Assembly on Tuesday 23 February 2021. Alongside the SSEs, the 2021-22 Vote on Account was also laid. It will be the subject of the second Supply resolution. I will now speak on both of those. <BR /> <BR />The first resolution before the House relates to the supply of cash and use of resources for the current year, 2020-21.”
“I would. I know from my experience of having responsibility for roads that time is moving on. Generally speaking, Roads Service, as it was then, would have been ready to go in January, February and March. We are now approaching the end of February. We had no bids in January monitoring for road maintenance or road improvements generally. However, if such a bid should come in, I would be happy to consider it. I suspect that time is against that now, but I would be happy to consider such a bid if one comes in.”
“We are looking at a further package for hospices from the unspent COVID money to assist them. As he and, I am sure, all Members of the House do, I value the services that hospices provide. I am glad that we were able to offer them some much-needed support. We are working with hospices to secure a further package for them.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Yes. As he said, we have, with the agreement of the Department of Health, provided support for the hospices over this year.”
“Yes, I absolutely agree with him. He mentioned in a previous question the figures for universal credit, the need to get people upskilled and reskilled and the need to give some hope of employment to young people. Those programmes are hugely important. That is why I am exercised about trying to find support for the Minister for Communities and why we have pursued lost European funding, which has a real impact on similar skills programmes in the Department for the Economy. Those will all be vital because we are going to face a significant economic downturn. We are already facing a significant increase in unemployment. If we want to provide support for people to try to get them back into full employment, we need to assist them with skills and re-education opportunities.”
“It is up to the Executive as a whole to decide what to do with any money that comes as a Barnett consequential. It is not for an individual Department. The money comes unhypothecated, as he will know from his time as a Minister. He will also know that the programme has not been shelved but has run into the same difficulties as those that he identified with employing people to deal with universal credit and that the Department is very concerned about that and desires to press ahead with those employment support programmes. That is a discussion that we are having with the Minister for Communities, and it is an issue that we hope to address between now and the final Budget paper.”
“Yes. I am conscious that there is a shift internationally towards self-declaration models of gender identity. The research will examine the legislation south of the border as well. The fact that other jurisdictions have moved first means that we can learn lessons from them. It is also important that transgender people here are not left behind, so we need to make progress on the matter in the next mandate.”
“Yes, I do. I met TransgenderNI last year to talk through the issue and how best to bring about change here. Unfortunately, there is not sufficient time left in this mandate to bring through such legislation. However, I have commissioned research to inform legislation in the next mandate. The research went out to tender in November last year. Unfortunately, no proposals were submitted. Therefore, it has been retendered, with a closing date of 26 February this year. I very much encourage bids for that important work.”
“Unfortunately, I do not have that information with me at the moment. I can undertake to ask the Department for Communities to provide the Member with a written answer.”