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 61 of 100.
“Therefore, departmental bids have been met in full. Details of the allocations are shown in the tables provided with this statement. <BR /> <BR />Including the £60 million that was previously held centrally, the Department for the Economy has been provided with £154·5 million to provide much-needed support to individuals and businesses in the financial year. That includes further support for tourism and hospitality, small businesses and company directors. The Department of Education will receive £7·5 million to continue the response to COVID-19 in schools and to extend the lost learning programme to special schools.”
“Latest forecasts of regional rate income show that £46·4 million that was previously provided for rate relief measures will not now be required, which reflects a reduced cost rather than a reduction in the support being provided. Taking account of those changes, the total amount of COVID funding available for allocation is now £509·8 million. <BR /> <BR />The £60 million previously held centrally for support to businesses and the £1·6 million held for the transport sector have now been provided to the Department for the Economy and the Department for Infrastructure. In addition, Departments have bid for a further £215·6 million of COVID support. While Ministers are considering what further support can be provided, it is important that there be no delay in delivering the support that has already been identified.”
“<BR /> <BR />Reduced requirements totalling £105·4 million of resource have been declared by the Department for the Economy, the most significant of which is the £93 million that was allocated for the high street support scheme. The Department of Health has surrendered £90 million of the funding that was previously provided for the COVID response. It has been confirmed that Treasury will directly fund pressures arising from an increased carry-forward of annual leave. That, along with a contribution from the Department for Transport for airport support, will free up £66·6 million of previously allocated COVID funding.”
“Shortly before Christmas, the Treasury increased the guaranteed COVID funding that was available to the Executive to £3 billion, which was an uplift of £200 million. Due to the late stage of the financial year at which that was provided, it is anticipated that the Treasury will agree to our request to carry that forward. Therefore, that amount has not been considered as part of this monitoring round. <BR /> <BR />Departments have declared a significant level of reduced requirements in relation to previous COVID allocations, which has resulted in £219·2 million of resource DEL being available for allocation. In view of the additional £200 million now available, which the Executive should be able to carry forward to next year, I have made the £150 million that was previously held for further rates support available for allocation now.”
“I wish to provide Members with an update on the 2020-21 January monitoring round. Members will be aware that, after the October monitoring round, £100 million of COVID funding was held in reserve, all other available resource funding had been allocated and capital DEL was overcommitted by £12·7 million. On 5 November, the British Government announced a further £400 million in COVID resource funding. On 23 November, the Executive agreed allocations that included £300 million of support for businesses. Some £150 million was held in the hope that it could be carried over for rates support in 2021-22, and £26·6 million of resource was held in reserve to meet any unforeseen emerging pressures over the remaining four months of the year.”
“If things are incompatible, I think that they should be complementary. As I say, there is nothing to say that codes and legislation are not compatible, but we have to ensure that it is the right legislation and good legislation. In my view, this legislation is bad legislation, it is unnecessary legislation, and we have had to put a substantial amount of time and effort into trying to straighten out some of the worst elements of it. I hope that those amendments do achieve some success. They will not undo some of the damage that this legislation will do to governance but they will try to mitigate some of the bad effects of it.”
“I was about to finish, but I will give way for one last time.”
“It is our duty to the community, as legislators, not to make flawed legislation, and our responsibility as elected representatives not to undermine the effectiveness of government. Mr Allister made the point that nothing was incompatible in having both codes and legislation. Of course, he is correct, if it is good legislation. What we want, if legislation is required, is legislation that complements codes, not legislation that cuts across and contradicts the intent behind those codes. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the RHI subcommittee will shortly be reporting to the Executive, and I look forward —.”
“Of course, there are bids in every monitoring round that are not met. If we have every single thing coming from every single Department, I predict a much more lengthy and unnecessarily complex process. <BR /> <BR />As we vote on the amendments, I ask Members to remember the value of improving the Bill and the serious consequences of letting the text as currently drafted reach the statute book.”
“It is not beyond your capacity, if that is what you want to occupy yourself with. If departmental officials feel that they are going to be criticised for not bidding for things that a Committee or its individual members might consider important, their likely response, without being too cynical about the Civil Service, will be to put in everything so that they cannot be criticised for leaving something out. All those bids will go to the Department of Finance, and that will lead to a much more lengthy process as a result of officials having to sift through them and trying to draft up a monitoring round proposition. I speak from experience, having dealt with a number of monitoring rounds in the past year, for which we try to get reasonable bids in: bids that have a chance of success and that match the amount of funding that we have.”
“I will. I am just saying that, from a Department of Finance perspective, I expect that the consequence of the new clause that Mr Frew put forward at Consideration Stage is that it will make the monitoring round a much more complex and lengthy process for Departments.”
“If Departments are obliged to justify their bids to a Committee — even if the Committee does not have a say and an approval role, the Department is still obliged to present them — my suspicion is that Departments will put in the kitchen sink to justify their own position. As an unintended consequence, it is one —.”
“Another unforeseen consequence that I see, and that anyone else with ministerial experience will see, is that Departments will now be obliged to put in all bids from monitoring. The question from Committees will be this: why were bids not put in? To keep themselves right, you will find a glut of bids being put in, rather than reasoned bids that have been properly thought through and that have a genuine expectation of being met. In a back-covering exercise, officials will put forward bids for everything that they wish for, and we will have a much more congested monitoring process. I speak as the Finance Minister, who is on the receiving end of departmental bids. There are discussions with officials to make sure that bids are sensible, are reasonable and have a realistic chance of meeting some outcome.”
“Anyone who has worked on organisational change will attest to the fact that changing the rules never works by itself. We certainly need to have the right rules in order to provide a framework for new behaviours, but new behaviours grow in a context in which good practice is expected, encouraged and rewarded. Instead, the Bill creates a context in which good practice is demanded, dictated and enforced in law. It risks making administration a matter of defensive compliance and bureaucratic box-ticking, not that of professional competence and sound judgement. It risks undermining, rather than strengthening, good governance. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 45 to clause 13 is a matter between Mr Frew and the SDLP. Mr O'Toole's argument is that one of the unforeseen consequences is that people will put forward pet projects.”
“Questions were raised about the subcommittee and what else the Executive are doing. I note that Mr Allister wished us well. The work of the RHI subcommittee is all but done. A report will go very shortly to the Executive. In the interim, as they were being developed, we brought a range of policy matters and codes to the Executive for approval, but the final work of the RHI subcommittee is all but done. As with most Executive business, the speed of conclusion has been impacted on by the pandemic. Nonetheless, it has been done in accordance with the report from Judge Coghlin to try to bring those matters to a close. I am sure that it will be a matter for debate in the Chamber in the not-too-distant future. <BR /> <BR />In closing the debate, I want to reiterate the importance of good government.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have addressed quite a few of the points. Our attempt to put a framework around what a Minister may or may not consider to be a lobby is much more consistent than Mr Allister's proposition of inconsequential guidance that a Minister would present and provide. I do not think that that would lead to consistency in any way. Let us cast our minds back to some of the meetings and discussions of which records were even changed. A get-out clause for a Minister to decide what is inconsequential means that there would be too much chance of an inconsistent approach being taken, which, in itself, would be detrimental.”
“It is important that officials are familiar with TRIM and confident in its use, and it is not an obstacle to good record management. Questions were raised about the TRIM system, and we have to make sure that a proper system is in place for the retention of records. <BR /> <BR />Other questions were raised in relation to decision-making as a consequence of meetings. I think that I have dealt with them. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister also asked about the clause that relates to lobbying and, I think, amendment No 28. He asked why it differs from the language of the 2014 Act. The 2014 Act is predicated on the recording of lobbying by registered lobbyists. This Bill places a duty on the Minister to record all lobbying. It is a completely different scenario and has serious consequences for the management of government business.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Allister asked what an "appropriate written record" is. It allows the record to be proportionate to the nature of the meeting. It will be informed by good practice, particularly the guidance of the Information Commissioner and the advice of records management professionals in the Civil Service. If it is based on guidance from the Information Commissioner and the Civil Service records management professionals, that deals with the issue of consistency. <BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Committee asked about the TRIM system. The records management professionals in the Civil Service have initiated an impartial review of its functionality and taken on board issues raised by the RHI inquiry and issues raised in engagement with staff on their experience of the system.”
“Ordinarily, the default position is that a civil servant is present and a record is kept. However, when a political meeting leads to some action by a Minister, that action has to come back into the Department and, therefore, be captured in proper recording processes. A Minister cannot decide to strengthen the Dublin-Belfast railway line and go off and do it on their own. It has to go back to the Department for Infrastructure to be assessed by Translink, for one, and, I am sure, departmental officials, and Iarnród Éireann on the other side. If Ministers meet for a political chat around North/South arrangements and how they might work, and a consequence of that is a decision in relation to a proposal for a decision on the railway, it has to come back through both Departments. It cannot be enacted in any other way.”
“If a decision is taken by a Minister as a consequence of any meeting, that requires that decision to be put into the departmental system and recorded accordingly.”
“Reading the three clauses together should reassure Members that clause 7 does not need to refer to making and retaining a record. It is covered in the additional clauses; it does not stand alone.”
“<BR /> <BR />Any meeting under clause 7 would either be recorded by a civil servant under clause 6 as amended by my amendment or by the Minister and special adviser under clause 8. That addresses the point that Mr Allister raised about wholly doing away with the requirement for records and retention of records.”
“However, there may be instances when a Minister will hold a wholly political discussion at which it would be inappropriate for a politically impartial official to be present. If a ministerial decision is taken at such a meeting, that will be conveyed to a civil servant and recorded under clause 6(2)(b) as I propose to amend it. The effect of a ministerial decision being taken has to be communicated to civil servants because there is no other way in which to implement it other than to put it into the system. The Minister cannot take a decision at a whim in some private meeting that can be given effect without going through the Civil Service system. That is as it should be.”
“It means that the clause would not catch a constituent buttonholing a Minister in a high street about street lights — we talked about some of the examples of how that might be — or tweeting about the coronavirus restrictions that they do not like. It is to ensure that we are clear about what those things actually mean. <BR /> <BR />Questions were raised about amendment No 23, which is to clause 7, and whether records would properly be kept and how those things would go together. I must say that the greater proportion of meetings that a Minister holds with other Ministers and legislators are attended by at least one civil servant. Ministers and officials are well-served by that default position.”
“Others are more substantive and are attempts on my part and that of other Members to mitigate the negative effects of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to address at this stage a number of issues that Members raised. Mr Frew raised a question about what clause 8(4)(e) would actually mean. It would ensure that a member of the public expressing a view to a Minister or special adviser would not be counted as lobbying. "Lobbying" implies that someone is seeking personal or organisational advantage, but a member of the public or community representative setting out their views, which they may share with other members of the public, should not be considered lobbying.”
“We have given close consideration to a very long list of amendments that were tabled in order to improve the Bill. As I stated many times in all stages of debate in the passage of this legislation, I have considerable concerns about the wisdom of legislating in this way. I believe that others in the Chamber agree with that position. Obviously, there is still an opportunity for the Assembly to reject the Bill at Final Stage. That is a matter for the Assembly. In the meantime, it is imperative that we try to improve it as far as we can having not been able to prevent clauses being tabled and agreed at Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Some of the issues that we addressed are drafting matters that might usefully have been identified and addressed before the Bill was introduced.”
“The definition of "department" is unnecessary because the Bill would refer to a Minister's Department, which would, necessarily, be an Executive Department, or expressly to an Executive Department.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 44 captures the drafting in clause 13 and ensures that duties are placed on Departments rather than unidentified individual officials. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 46 addresses the ambiguity in the term "Ministerial" in the original clause 13, as it could refer to approval by the Minister of Finance ahead of a submission to the Executive. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 47 corrects an apparent typographical error in clause 13. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 54 defines "close family members" in clause 15 as required for the purposes of registration of interests. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 55 removes an unnecessary definition in clause 15.”
“As the clause is drafted, any financial benefit, whether improper or proper, would be captured, and that would render the clause wholly damaging to normal government business. Amendment No 40 removes words that add nothing to "any person". <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 41 clarifies the meaning of "civil servant" in the clause, and, in particular, excludes civil servants working in Whitehall Departments within the jurisdiction. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 42 clarifies the meaning of "statutory obligation" in clause 10, and saves officials, when travelling or based in Brussels, Washington or Beijing, from having to rely on the reasonableness defence to justify having complied with local law. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 43 is intended to achieve coherence between the opening words of clause 11 and the words in paragraph (b).”
“It is intended to ensure that Ministers and special advisers are not required to report to the Department every casual remark, every comment at a public meeting and every call to a radio phone-in. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 35 clarifies the meaning of "partner" in clause 9, which is otherwise ambiguous. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 38, 39 and 40 attempt to address the language of clause 10. Amendment No 38 removes the phrase "directly or indirectly" from the clause. It is unnecessary, since the key factor is that the communication is made for improper benefit, however it is made. Amendment No 39 corrects the word order to make it clear that not every financial benefit is an improper benefit.”
“They do so by extending the original list of communications excluded from the requirement on Ministers and special advisers to make a record. I propose that we add communications made in subcommittees of Assembly Committees and the Executive Committee, communications made in meetings with MLAs and meetings attended by a civil servant. Those meetings will be recorded by Assembly staff and civil servants. The list at clause 8(4) would also be extended to include communications already received by a Minister's Department through private offices or otherwise. <BR /> <BR />The final exclusion in amendment No 33 is an attempt to reflect the real concerns of Members about Ministers and special advisers having to report to the Department every comment or approach by a member of the public that would otherwise be captured by the clause.”
“I can see the benefits of his amendment, although it would be challenging for any Minister to decide that an issue of real importance to an individual member of the public was, in his words, inconsequential. <BR /> <BR />I have proposed two amendments likewise intended to limit the damage that the clause would have on good government. Amendment No 28 would remove from the scope of the clause any lobbying on issues that are not about legislation, policy, contracts, grants or licences. The functions of a Minister's Department are so diverse and can cover so many issues close to the interests of so many people that making "lobbying" refer to any communication about any function of a Department is too wide. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 30, 32 and 33 are also intended to narrow the impact of the clause as drafted.”
“It would also ensure that the record of the lobbying was retained in line with the Department's existing policy. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 27 is a technical amendment to clause 8 to reflect the fact that Departments do not make primary legislation but seek it. As Members made clear at Consideration Stage, clause 8 as currently drafted would have an immense impact on Ministers, special advisers and their offices, both departmental and constituency. It would require a huge bureaucratic machine to capture and record every communication on any matter in the Department's remit. It would, without doubt, hamper good government. I believe that the Bill sponsor has accepted that and tabled his own amendment to clause 29.”
“The Bill sponsor has recognised that principle in his amendment to extend the exemption to meetings with MLAs and other parties. My amendment extends that principle so that it is possible but not necessary for Ministers and special advisers to have wholly private meetings of a political nature with other Ministers, legislatures and Assembly staff. It also extends to meetings with the Attorney General and their staff so that legally sensitive matters can be discussed in that context. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 25 is intended to correct the drafting in clause 8(1). <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 26 would change the use of the term "earliest opportunity" in clause 8 to "as soon as reasonably practicable", which allows for appropriate discretion on what is reasonable.”
“That is to ensure that the legislation does not render unlawful a situation in which a civil servant could not reasonably be expected to attend, where no civil servant was available to do so, where IT links fail or where planned travel became impossible. Those circumstances may be rare, but the legislation has to take account of them. <BR /> <BR />The original clause acknowledges that there are occasions where Ministers and their special advisers meet in a wholly political context with their party colleagues. It would not be appropriate for civil servants to attend such meetings, both to preserve the Minister's right to private meetings of a political nature and to protect the political impartiality of the Civil Service.”
“I still believe that the provision would require Departments to erect and police bureaucratic structures rather than encourage good practice and engender professionalism and confidence in the Civil Service. That is precisely why such statutory provisions are inappropriate and counterproductive. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 23 would replace clause 7 and needs to be read alongside amendment No 22 in the same way as clauses 6 and 7 are closely connected. It would place a duty on the Minister and special adviser to ensure that a civil servant attends every meeting about official business. The civil servant would then record that meeting, as set out in the previous clause. The amendment expresses how reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that a civil servant is present.”
“It would risk real problems of data protection and clashes with the principles of good records management. <BR /> <BR />My amendment attempts to make the provision workable. It defines a relevant meeting and a relevant decision in order to capture organised meetings and decisions that are taken outside organised meetings. It would require that an appropriate written record is made, allowing reference to good practice and guidance and to what constitutes an appropriate record. It would ensure that records are kept in line with the existing policy on the retention of records rather than conflicting with existing public records legislation. It would achieve what, I hope, the Bill intends to achieve, which is to prevent ministerial decision-making going unrecorded.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 20 is a technical amendment to clause 5 to use the usual words for amending a definition. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 22 is an attempt to provide a more effective and precise clause to replace clause 6. It would require the permanent secretary of a Department to ensure that that Department has arrangements for recording meetings and decisions and for records to be kept in line with existing policies. The clause that is currently in the Bill applies a blanket approach and leaves the key term "meeting" undefined. As a consequence, it would render unlawful any minutes that did not contain specific details, however irrelevant those details might be, and would render unlawful the actions of an official who failed to record something that might or might not be a meeting.”
“I will take each of the amendments in turn. Amendment No 18 would make a small technical amendment to clause 5 that would amend section 17(1)(a) of the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. It would cover not only complaints but referrals made under Assembly Standing Orders. The amendment clarifies that the amendment to section 17(1)(a) relates only to complaints. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 19 would clarify the reference to the ministerial code in clause 5. The definition of "Ministerial Code" inserted by subsection (6) refers to the existing ministerial code, although section 1 of the code includes the Pledge of Office. There would be questions about what was intended if a future revision of the code were restructured so that a new section 1 was not the relevant section.”
“The Bill would increase bureaucracy and reduce the scope to operate on the basis of professional judgement and good sense. Government, which is often already risk-averse, would become more defensive rather than responsive. Therefore, I cannot support the legislation, but I will seek to ensure that it does no more damage than it must.”
“The second group of amendments is concerned with the role of Ministers, in particular, and administrative matters in Departments, more widely. It is worth reiterating my belief that the legislation is unnecessary. The effect of the Bill becoming law will be that administrative practice becomes a matter of lawfulness and unlawfulness.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. By way of information and for advice, I assume that amendment Nos 48 to 56, which were part of the first debate, will be voted on at a later stage.”
“That did not prevent him becoming a Minister for the party whose behaviour he laments. He was obviously able to put that to one side; indeed, he challenged and advocated his being brought back into a ministerial position at that point. <BR /> <BR />I know that we are coming to a break, so it is probably a suitable point for me to draw my remarks to a conclusion. The idea that the Bill is proceeding in a vacuum is a falsehood. I still believe that the legislation is unnecessary and wrong and will create more problems than it resolves. I have a responsibility, on behalf of the Executive, the Department and any future Ministers who will have to deal with the legislation, to try to tidy it up in some shape or form. That is consistent with my approach throughout the process of the Bill.”
“Absolutely, parties are entitled to change their mind if they feel that public presentation is more important than an effective way to deal with such things. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wells lamented a negative approach. I know that he has created clear blue water between him and the party — maybe the party has created clear blue water between it and him — but that party has blocked more legislation in the Assembly than all the other parties put together. I would love to have seen that open-mindedness in his engagement with marriage equality legislation, against which he continues to fight a lonesome battle, or reproductive rights for women or, indeed, the language legislation that will come to the Chamber. I am sure that he will embrace that in the spirit of being a parliamentarian. He laments the behaviour of spads over a long number of years.”
“I have already said that parties are entitled to change their view. I am leading the debate on behalf of the Department, as an Executive Minister, reflecting the approach that the Executive took and that is agreed by all the political parties. The Executive have never suggested that we should legislate for this. None of the Ministers in the RHI subcommittee has ever suggested that we require legislation. If they do, that will obviously be considered. <BR /> <BR />Of course the Member is entitled to change his point of view. What I was challenging in his contribution was the suggestion that somehow the idea of producing codes as a way to deal with this was a Civil Service view: it was not. It was the view of the five parties that make up the Executive, and that has been carried through in the Executive's approach to this.”
“<BR /> <BR />He gave some rationale for the SDLP changing its view by talking about the importance of legislation as public presentation so that we can tell the public that we are doing something. It may be flawed and may create a mess down the road, but at least we can say that we did something. I am happy to give way.”
“Let me finish my point. <BR /> <BR />It is not fair to suggest that the idea of codes coming forward was almost a Civil Service means of cocooning itself from any real reform and that we went with that. I know that he was not part of it because he was not in this institution or active in the SDLP here at that time, but the parties sat round the table in the working group and decided and agreed that the way forward was an amendment of codes of practice and to enforce those and make them as strong as possible. That work was then carried on in to the Executive. I was given the responsibility of leading it, and the Executive parties agreed that that was the way forward. It is not fair to suggest that the idea of codes is the Civil Service view.”
“He asked questions about that. Others might not give the unions the required attention, role or right to consultation that they deserve, but that is the purpose of the extra six months. I hope that that answers a number of the questions that Members raised about that. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Toole and others in the SDLP outlined their view of the need for legislation. It is not fair to say that it was the Civil Service view that codes are all that are required. It was the parties that agreed that codes are required to deal with the issues coming out of RHI. It was the parties in the Executive that agreed to continue that approach. To somehow suggest —.”
“A senior official would be bound, of course, by the code of ethics, which require objectivity, impartiality, integrity and honesty. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew also raised a question that, I think, Mr Carroll asked about the Bill's sponsor, who engaged with departmental officials with my approval last Friday. I was happy to have them engage with him. We are beyond the stage where we can prevent this, which we tried to do. We are at the stage of trying to tidy up the mess. Of course, the amendment to the handbook is a matter of negotiation, as he outlined, with the Civil Service. The six months, as the Department has said, may be on the longer side, but it is much better to give a longer time in order to recognise the unions and to give them their place. I am sure that that is something that Mr Carroll does not disagree with.”
“The Bill requires that the appointment be ended. That was decided by the Assembly at Consideration Stage, so I am trying to fix some things that the Assembly, in its wisdom, already agreed to. The amendment ensures that termination is not retrospective, which would be very unfair. The senior officer I am referring to is a senior civil servant in the Department of Finance — they are at grade 5 and above — and it would be for that official to examine evidence to their satisfaction. The Bill does not specify a procedure for doing that. The amendment reflects the need to give someone the duty to effect the termination of appointment. The original clause did not place that duty on anyone, which raises the question of whether it could have been effective.”