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 62 of 100.
“I said in an earlier response that, if parties change their position, that is entirely a matter for them. They are entitled to change their position and decide that legislation is now required. Mr Frew made the point during his contribution, which was allowed, that the Department should have brought forward reform. However, not only did the Department bring forward reform but the Executive endorsed it. The Executive as a whole brought forward a number of pieces of reform of code. To try to suggest that this legislation appears in a vacuum of no other activity is incorrect and misleading. I just wanted to put that point on the record. <BR /> <BR />He raised some points and questions about amendment No 8. A termination would be the fault of the appointing Minister through neglect, error or deliberate intent.”
“I have been consistent about not only my position, which I outlined, but the position of the Executive.”
“However, suggesting that there was a vacuum and that there was no proposition of reform is not just to deny what I, as Finance Minister, have done; it denies what his party colleagues have done in the Executive. The Executive subcommittee and the Executive approved all of those things. His party's fingerprints are on those pieces of reform, which were the agreed Executive approach to dealing with the outcome of the RHI inquiry. What Mr Allister has brought forth, which you now support, was not that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Frew said that he supported the Bill because it was reform and that I should have carried out reform. He is the Deputy Chair of the Committee, and we have put all of the documents to the Committee. Maybe they bypassed him. We have reformed the ministerial code of conduct, the guidance for Ministers, the spad code of conduct, the code for the appointment of spads, a letter for the appointment of spads and enforcement arrangements. They have all been brought forward. He and others have tried to create an impression that there has been a vacuum and the only thing that can fill it is Mr Allister's Bill. Mr Allister is entitled, in any circumstances, even had we brought forward what he might have considered to be the most robust codes and guidance, to introduce his Bill.”
“First, that is his political viewpoint, but I think that, if he reads Hansard, he will see that he suggested that I should have facilitated my party colleagues on the Finance Committee in engaging with the Bill. Of course, it is not the role of a Finance Minister or, indeed, any Minister to use departmental resources to inform a party political approach. <BR /> <BR />Far from failing the Bill, as I have said — the Member chooses not to listen, and that is his prerogative — I have been consistent in my approach. That is not just in my personal approach; I have been consistent on behalf of the Executive and the Executive parties, who agreed that the way to do this was through amending the codes, which we have already done. That is the way to achieve this.”
“That is the Department's information, and that is why I, as Finance Minister — not as a member of Sinn Féin — have come forward at this stage to try to fix what has already been passed by this legislature. I took a consistent position of opposition to the Bill throughout. However, I now have a duty and obligation on behalf of the Executive to make sure that this flawed legislation that the Assembly, in its wisdom, has voted for does not become so damaging as to absolutely prevent the proper functioning of government. I am happy to give way.”
“It would have been inconsistent to try to fix what we considered flawed legislation, so I am aghast. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew, showing, I think, that some lessons have not been learned from RHI, went on to suggest that I should have somehow used my Department's resources to feed information to my party colleagues on the Finance Committee to allow them to engage with the Bill. I am sure that I would have been before the Committee to answer questions about why that was the case. You cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot insist that, if I was not going to engage with the Bill, I should have given Sinn Féin Committee members information to engage.”
“Now that the legislation has been voted for at Consideration Stage, it can no longer be opposed, unless the entire Bill is brought down at Final Stage, which is still the prerogative of the House and one that I advise it to consider. We now have a responsibility to try to fix the bad legislation that the Assembly voted through at Consideration Stage. It is an entirely consistent position, and it is a fundamental misunderstanding of my role to suggest that the Department, as led by me, had some responsibility to come in at an early stage, after we had opposed the legislation, stated that we opposed it and outlined the reasons why we opposed it. We were true and consistent to the agreed position of the five parties that make up the Executive and their Executive colleagues who sit on the RHI subcommittee representing all five parties.”
“They want to see legislation coming forward in whatever form, through a private Member's Bill or otherwise. However, the Chair and Deputy Chair have assumed that the Department, having opposed that — I was leading on the agreed Executive position on how the issues should be addressed — has a responsibility to fix flawed legislation that we opposed at an early stage and to make it better. I expressed at every opportunity, as the Member has acknowledged, opposition to legislation being brought forward, but Members opposite, including Mr Wells and others, assumed that I would come in like a knight on a white horse over the hill to fix the Bill and make it good legislation. I had argued that it should not be brought forward, and I opposed it at Consideration Stage.”
“People who are part of Executive parties are very much entitled to change their view. Obviously, the SDLP has: at one stage, it agreed that legislation was not required; now, it does not.”
“It comes on the back of a process agreed by all Executive parties for dealing with the issues that came from the fallout of the RHI inquiry, a process that was talked through by the parties before the Executive were reformed. The course of action that the parties agreed did not require legislation. It was translated to the Executive, who also confirmed that legislation was not required, and the Executive agreed a course of action. Having taken up the post of Finance Minister on the restoration of the Executive, I was given the responsibility of leading on that course of action and bringing forward significant reform of the codes. I will get back to that area of work in due course. <BR /> <BR />That was the context in which the Executive and Executive parties agreed to approach this.”
“I am sure that private Members from all parties will bring forward legislation, so I am not sure where the notion that private Member's Bills should not be brought forward has come from. It is not part of the opposition to this particular legislation. Nor do I have any particular issue with the sponsor of the Bill bringing it forward. He is perfectly entitled to do so, and that does not in any way reflect my view of the Bill itself. However, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee have advanced a notion about my opposition. <BR /> <BR />This Bill does not come in a vacuum, although some, including its sponsor, have tried to create that impression.”
“I thank the Members who contributed to the debate and gave their attention to the extensive list of amendments, some of which make significant and important changes to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As Minister of Finance, with responsibility for most policy areas covered by the Bill, I am interested in ensuring that the legislation, at the very least, does not prevent the effective work of Ministers and civil servants, including special advisers. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to respond to a number of points raised by Members. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of my role as a Minister, and therefore the role of the Department, in a private Member's Bill. I absolutely encourage all private Members to bring forward legislation. I have no difficulty with that.”
“Whether or not we can agree on the need for legislation, I hope that we can agree that the making of any legislation in this place is orderly.”
“Rather than leaving a question mark over whether the powers had actually been repealed, I have tabled these amendments to ensure that the Bill sponsor's intention is delivered. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 48 extends the commencement of clause 1(3) to allow time for the review and revision of the Northern Ireland Civil Service handbook to enable it to be applied sensibly to special advisers. I am allowing six months, given the need to engage with the Civil Service unions through the Central Whitley Council. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 50 is consequential to the proposed amendment in clause 3. Amendment No 52 removes the unnecessary definition of the Executive in clause 15. Amendment No 53 adds to the drafting in clause 15. <BR /> <BR />I hope for a sensible debate on the proposed amendments.”
“The amendment to clause 8(3)(a) also addresses how the services of a special adviser could be made available to junior Ministers in the Executive Office. This is consistent with the Bill's provision to remove the power of junior Ministers to appoint a special adviser of their own. The Bill sponsor has made it clear that the removal of that power was primarily aimed at limiting the number of special advisers in the Executive Office to six in total. This amendment does not change that. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 14 and 15 address problems with the drafting of clauses 2 and 3. As originally drafted, these clauses repealed the legislation that amended the Civil Service Commissioners (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. They did not, however, repeal the amendments to the 1999 Order itself.”
“I doubt that the courts would thank us for spending their time and resources on adjudicating on such questions.”
“appointing Minister, either directly or indirectly. That clause is unworkable. First, it does not make it explicit where the duty lies to prevent such a thing happening; whether on the Minister, the special adviser or some other person. Secondly, it is unclear what it means to indirectly report to another person. That could be interpreted to mean that special advisers cannot liaise with their party, which is a crucial part of their job.”
“It takes no account of the fact that special advisers may, quite properly, be accountable to another person. In particular, at clause 8(4)(a), the amendment would allow a professional organisation, for example, or membership of an organisation or church, to discipline a special adviser for something that they do as a special adviser if that special adviser cannot be disciplined for doing the same thing if employed in a different role or in the course of their private life. Amendment No 13 also removes the provision that a special adviser must not:”
“They also seek to put the emphasis on the duties of each individual special adviser's post rather than on duties of the kind that may be undertaken by special advisers and may or may not also be undertaken by other civil servants. Amendment No 12 further ensures that the Bill does not inadvertently catch Whitehall Departments that operate within the jurisdiction, such as the NIO, and thereby render the Bill outside the vires of the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13 is an attempt to address some of the potentially problematic consequences of the current drafting of clause 1(6). At present, clause 1(6) states:”
“The amendment also makes it clear that the responsibility would lie with the Department of Finance for terminating employment and that that termination would take place only if a senior officer of the Department is satisfied that the criteria are met. <BR /> <BR />Clause 1(4), as it appears in the Bill at present, would terminate the appointment because the appointing authority had failed to adhere to the code. However, the 2013 Act does not require the appointing authority to adhere to the code; the statutory duty is to "have regard to the code", so that amendment has been made to the text. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 9 to 12 make small textual changes to clause 1(6) to reflect the fact that there are multiple Ministers and special advisers in the Executive Office.”
“Amendment No 8 would insert a new clause intended to address some difficulties with clause 1(4). That clause, as it appears in the Bill, would render the appointment of a special adviser of no effect if the appointing authority does not adhere to the code for appointment as set out in the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Act 2013. <BR /> <BR />Retrospectively invalidating an appointment in that way would raise difficult issues about the recovery of pay and would, in turn, leave the employer open to legal challenge in respect of remuneration for work done. Instead, the amendment provides for immediate, rather than retrospective, termination, without prejudice to the right to payment in lieu of notice where summary dismissal cannot be justified.”
“It has been my concern that, by applying Civil Service disciplinary procedures to the discipline of a special adviser, the Bill might remove the discretionary power of the Minister, as the appointing authority, to end the appointment forthwith. That power may rarely, if ever, be needed, but there may be an occasion where the relationship breaks down entirely, and, in those circumstances, there must be the option to end the appointment immediately. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 removes clause 1(4) to pave the way for amendment No 8, which I will deal with in turn. Amendment No 6 is a technical amendment to clause 1(5) to make it clear that the inserted text is to go into section 8(3)(b). Amendment No 7 is a small textual amendment to clause 1(6) to reflect the fact that grade 5s have a pay band rather than a single pay rate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 follows from the earlier provisions in clause 1(3), which prevent the interference of a Minister in the disciplinary process as it applies to special advisers. The amendment sets out that the ban on ministerial interference does not prevent the proper involvement of the Minister in a defined role under the disciplinary code. The Minister is the appointing authority for the special adviser, and, as such, has responsibility for discipline. That responsibility cannot be removed or delegated in its entirety to an official, so the Minister must have a role. <BR /> <BR />The amendment also makes it clear that the ban on interference must still allow the immediate dismissal of a special adviser by the Minister.”
“Amendment No 1 is a technical amendment to clause 1(2) to insert the usual wording for a textual substitution. Amendment No 2 is a textual correction to clause 1(2) to reflect the fact that section 7(2)(b) of the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Act 2013 mentions certain powers but does not confer them. Amendment No 3 is intended to ensure clarity in clause 1(3) so that, where the Northern Ireland Civil Service disciplinary code has rules for special advisers that are different from the rules for other civil servants, it is the former, and not the latter, that must be applied to special advisers. The current drafting of the Bill leaves that ambiguous. Although it would be perfectly sensible to interpret the clause in that way, we are looking at primary legislation, so we need absolute clarity.”
“I have a responsibility to ensure that Ministers, special advisers and other civil servants are not fettered in their ability to serve the community and perform their functions effectively. <BR /> <BR />The first group of amendments is concerned with the role of special advisers, and I will address each of the amendments in turn.”
“I am very grateful for the opportunity to open the debate. I have tabled a number of amendments. Some of these amendments address flaws in the original drafting, whereas others seek to mitigate the negative consequences of the clauses of the Bill, whether those consequences were intended or unintended. However, in opening, I underline that, by tabling these amendments, I am not endorsing the Bill. I still believe that this legislation largely deals with administrative matters that should be contained in codes and guidance. However, if there is any risk that the Bill will reach the statute book, it is important that it does not remain in its flawed state and that the damage that it may cause to the effective functioning of government is limited.”
“We will continue to make those arguments in London for a fair allocation and a fair approach to government spending, but I have to say that I do not have a huge amount of confidence, given the Government that are currently in position there, that those arguments will fall on any willing ears.”
“I share the Member's opposition to the way that policies are framed in London. We have always made clear that that is the case. Of course, taxation matters are a matter for the Treasury and not the Secretary of State, and when we cannot get a meeting with the Secretary of State in relation to victims, I suppose it would be a bigger stretch to get a meeting in relation to taxation issues. We continue to raise the unfairness of this approach of deciding to cut public services in the first instance whenever any financial squeeze comes on and spend vast amounts of money in other areas that do not benefit people in their everyday life.”
“Well, 2021 is an important year for me as well, because it represents 100 years of partition on the island. Of course, there are those who would like to celebrate that, and the budgets for it will be included in TEO's overall spend.”
“I am disappointed by the outcome, as you should be, but I never supported them in the first instance.”
“It is very hard to prioritise and plan how to spend money when you do not know how much you have, when you do not know the period over which you are to spend that money and when you get an announcement about that at the very end of November and confirmation of it on 8 or 9 December. I am disappointed with the Budget outcome. I did not campaign for the Tories to be in government; you did, and they brought austerity policies with them. That was nine years ago. You might remember the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists — New Force (UCUNF): that incarnation of the Ulster Unionists and the Tory party. David Cameron was over here, and you wanted to get him elected to replace Labour, and he brought with him nine years of austerity policies that continue to affect us.”
“We have a five-party Executive, and we have the ability to have input from all the parties, with the exception, of course, of the Green Party and PBP, which are not in the Executive. That allows, going forward, for a broad approach in the Executive to prioritising spending in a more strategic way. I hope that we are in a better Budget scenario in the financial year beyond the next one and into a multi-annual Budget to allow us to be able to do that.”
“I accept that there were consequences of the pandemic in London as well as here. If things had gone according to plan this year, we would have had a comprehensive spending review over the summer, we would have had a multi-annual Budget, and we would have had a process to enable us to do strategic and longer-term thinking and prioritise Executive plans over a number of years. That, however, did not happen, and we ended up with an announcement at the end of November, confirmation in December and an annual Budget scenario yet again. Of course, over this coming year — the next financial year — we want to plan again for the ability to set more strategic priorities.”
“I have no reason to believe that that commitment will not be met. It certainly will operate on the basis that it can, should and will be met by the Secretary of State. We got recent correspondence from the Treasury on the Strule campus, which you know is a key shared education project for the Department of Education, with some clarity in moving forward, and that is good news. We wanted and should have been able to include in our Budget the figures for the money that the NIO has authority for. Those did not come through in time to do that, but our intention is to have them cleared and in the final paper.”
“In light of a very disappointing Budget allocation, we have to examine what additional measures we have to kick-start economic recovery and some of the RRI borrowing issues. We will examine ways to utilise the full level of RRI borrowing up to £200 million. There is financial transaction capital available to us, and we will be encouraging Departments to make bids that will utilise it. It is our responsibility to utilise all the options we can to support public services and to kick-start economic growth coming out of the pandemic. That will be a challenge; nonetheless, it is a challenge that we have to meet.”
“The Health Department, as I can remember, has always had, over the last number of years, even prior to my being in the Department of Finance, a first call on moneys throughout the year in recognition of the particular pressures that the Health Department faces. That prioritisation of the Executive will continue into the new financial year, and those issues will be addressed. They would be much better addressed if we had a Government in London that did not continue to follow austerity policies in relation to public finance pressures.”
“To do so, I would have to ask another Department to surrender money because the Government in London — supported for nine years while they delivered austerity policies upon us by elected Members from this part of the world — have decided to give us a flat-cash Budget. In order to meet increased demands on pay, we would have to take consequential resources off another Department. <BR /> <BR />What I can commit to, and what I have committed to the Health Minister in recent conversations with him, is that the money will be found to do those things. The Executive, as part of this paper, have committed to find money for safer staffing levels and those issues in the Health Department.”
“That is, unless we were to reduce that over the lifetime of the victims’ pension. If it was against the high-level estimate that the Department of Justice brought, we would be taking £0.5 billion off the health service and £150 million off the Education Department over the lifetime of the scheme to match that. Clearly, it is not sustainable for the Executive to continue to provide public services and do that. I hope that the Secretary of State will engage in the times ahead. If he does not, I will ask Executive colleagues that we press whatever buttons we can to get this issue resolved in time for the final paper.”
“We have no official estimate or figures attached to what the British Government legislated for, but, according to some of the estimates that the Justice Department has brought forward, it would be beyond the scope of the Executive.”
“The Secretary of State has been tasked with the responsibility of sorting the issue out, so, in the first instance, we want to talk to him, but he is not the British Government. I talk to Treasury regularly. We will continue to raise this and other issues where funding arrangements have not been finalised. He is quite correct that it adds to the pain and anguish of victims when, on an issue such as this, what seems like an unseemly squabble over finances has not yet been resolved, even though the administration has been put in place by the Executive to make sure that the process can continue. It clearly needs to be resolved.”
“However, the Treasury seems very intent on a different direction, one that, I think, will be damaging to the people here because we will not have access to funding that, over the years, was vital to supplement a lot of departmental budgets and to provide much needed support on the ground.”
“Secondly, those allocations are not set by the Executive against our priorities and the priorities to suit the people who we represent here. Therefore, I do not believe that we are going to receive anything like the same level of funding that this Executive received as part of EU funding and spent down through its Departments. We will continue to fight that battle to see whether we can change Treasury's mind. The Executive have an agreed position that we want to access the funding that we got previously and be able to allocate, prioritise and distribute that according to our own priorities.”
“The shared prosperity fund may well replace the funding that came from Europe, but it will not replace it in the way that we are used to receiving it. There is a clear indication, particularly in the most recent communication from the Treasury to the Scottish Finance Minister, which was shared with me over the weekend, and in the legislation that is passing through Westminster, that they intend to hold that fund centrally with people having to bid in. They have now gone further and said that they intend to use it as part of the levelling-up process. Of course, the levelling-up process, as announced by various Government Ministers, including the Prime Minister, is really about the north of England. <BR /> <BR />First, I think that our chances of receiving the same allocations are very limited.”
“The Member is correct that that has also been vital. That is not in this because it is not within our remit or our control. However, yes, we continue to talk to Treasury in relation to all the schemes that it runs. Obviously, the furlough scheme was essential to keep workers paid over the course of this. The VAT scheme was a great contributor to an awful lot of businesses as well. The furlough scheme will now go up to the end of the financial year, which is good news. We will encourage Treasury to consider extending the schemes and protections that have been built in into the new financial year, and I hope that we have some success in doing that.”
“In recognition of the particular challenge of spending that out and the challenge of having a poorer Budget next year, we will try to carry over as much as we can in order to try to ease pressures. It is a combination of trying to spend out what is available and seeking as much flexibility from Treasury as we can possibly get to carry over money into the next financial year.”
“As I said in answer to the Chair earlier, we have gone back to Departments to try to ensure that they will spend out. We wanted an early return if that was not going to be the case, and we have had some returns. As I said, I will be bringing a paper to the Executive on January monitoring plus COVID. Clearly, the larger element of the underspend is from COVID allocations. We want Departments to come forward, because there is still a very significant and continued need out there from businesses, communities, hospices, farming communities and other sectors. We want to see whether we can allocate more of that money ahead of the end of the financial year.”
“There has been a substantial capital allocation made to the Department for Communities for usage, but, obviously, it will be up to the Minister to prioritise. I am sure that the Committee and its Chair will be in dialogue with her and her officials about the priorities that they think that they should be following. The additional £70 million that we earmarked was an unmet bid. The Department for Communities therefore has quite an ambitious capital programme for next year. We identified £70 million of RRI funding to try to contribute towards that, particularly to meet the NDNA commitment on social housing. It will be up to the Minister for Communities to identify where the rest of her capital budget will go to once the final Budget paper is agreed. I am sure that she will consider issues such as those that you have raised.”
“Hopefully, if the vaccination programme rolls out and the pandemic begins to recede, a lot of businesses will re-emerge and be back trading again in the new financial year, but they will continue to struggle with bills. <BR /> <BR />Rates is a particular bill. The business community has argued in all of our dialogue with it over the past year that the one measure that has had the most impact, by providing it with a level of support, is the taking of the rates bill off the table. That has also assisted councils, as it has given them a guarantee for their rates income. It is something that we very much want to do, and we have earmarked money to be set aside into the next financial year to do that. The earlier that we can give businesses the advice that that is what we intend to do, the more that they can plan and budget for next year.”
“I thank the Member for his question. I am conscious that the Chair asked me that as well, but I neglected to deal with it, as I was trying to get through the number of questions that he had asked. Yes, businesses have made it very clear to us that the thing that they would like that would benefit local businesses — small, medium and large — most is a continuation of the rates holiday that many of them have experienced over the past 12 months. Some of the carry-forward COVID money that we have bid for and argued for is intended to provide some level of rate relief into the next financial year, and hopefully as much as we can possibly provide.”