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 67 of 100.
“The Executive were never asked to approve or vote against the Bill formally. The Executive agreed a course of action that they would take in response to RHI. That was around strengthening the codes, the RHI recommendations and the work that your party and four other Executive parties undertook in summer 2019, when they looked at the evidence being given to the RHI inquiry and decided, in advance of its recommendations, the areas that would need to be strengthened in terms of the existing codes, protocols and practices, and they brought forward a series of recommendations. The Executive agreed immediately at one of the first, if not the first, Executive Committee meeting to take forward the recommendation in that area of work.”
“May I finish my point? I took issue with the Member on two points. He said that it was my decision not to pursue legislation when it was clearly the Executive's decision not to do so. No one at an Executive meeting has ever proposed pursuing legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Member then challenged the consistency of my party's approach, even though I am here representing the Executive position. He challenged the consistency of my party's approach in the Dáil, where it is a completely different set of circumstances.”
“In recent weeks, I accused Mr O'Toole of being a great man for an each-way bet, and he has proved that again tonight. He tends to have an each-way bet on all these issues. He is with the Executive and with the Bill at the same time. That is his prerogative and the prerogative of his party. I can deal only with the people who are sent along to the Executive subcommittee and to Executive meetings, and follow through on that course. As an Executive Minister, that is my job here tonight: to respond to the Bill with the consistent approach that the Executive have taken since they were re-formed back in January.”
“It has nothing at all to do with the politics of the sponsor of the Bill.”
“The subcommittee agreed to make recommendations to the full Executive for a couple of minor additions that would fulfil the terms of the inquiry's recommendations. Those amendments have been circulated to Executive members without objection, and they will be formally agreed by the Executive shortly. <BR /> <BR />In summary, the parties in the Executive followed the evidence to the inquiry, committed themselves to act in response through revisions to the codes, and the Executive have followed though on that commitment and satisfied themselves that they have fulfilled those recommendations, including the recommendation to revise the codes. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the Bill. As I said, my opposition to it is in order to be consistent with what my Executive colleagues and I have agreed and to follow through on that work.”
“The Member and I have had many discussions across the Chamber about the nature of how his party does its business. I cannot get into that any further. I can reflect only the discussions around the Executive table, the agreed approach and the follow-through on that approach, and the approval of the codes. At no stage has anyone in the Executive ever suggested that legislation is required to replace, supplement or complement the work that we have been doing in the Executive. At no stage has any Minister ever suggested that over the last nine months. <BR /> <BR />Following the RHI inquiry, the subcommittee on reform conducted the review at its first meeting in July. The majority of the inquiry's recommendations have already been fulfilled by the existing revisions to the codes and guidance.”
“If that was the case, Ministers and the Executive that I am dealing with are still on the same course and pathway that they agreed to take, which emerged from the five-party work stream prior to the resetting of the Executive being affirmed in 'New Decade, New Approach' and which was then followed through immediately by the Executive when they were appointed.”
“If the Member wants to outline some rationale for a kind of duplicitous approach to this, that is fair enough. That is his understanding of it. I had an RHI subcommittee meeting last Thursday, I think it was, in which we progressed further the work that we had already set out to do, with the full agreement of the Ministers who were there. An agreement was made to bring that to a further RHI subcommittee meeting in December, in order to bring it to the Executive for approval in December.”
“It is as if this has appeared out of the ether with Mr Allister's Bill. Our approach to this has nothing to do with the politics of Mr Allister. This is the Executive's agreement, and I am here to represent the Executive's agreement. I think that he overestimates his importance in that regard. The Executive have decided an approach to this, and I have been tasked with chairing and leading that approach and bringing that back to the Executive. Each aspect of this has had full Executive agreement.”
“The pay scales have been reviewed, and Mr Storey said that the Bill will allow us to see what the pay is. The pay was published. The Department of Finance published the pay. That document, published on 14 February, contains the list of all the special advisers; the bands that they are put in; the restrictions, and the cap that has been put on their pay, which is nowhere near £91,000. It has the details of all of them and which band they are on. I say that to correct the debate, because some of it is as if there is a complete vacuum with ongoing activity on these matters. <BR /> <BR />The Executive parties, in fairness to them — all of your colleagues — have filled this with the action that we agreed to do, and they did cap the pay of special advisers. They did publish the names and the pay scales that these people are on.”
“<BR /> <BR />Among the first decisions of the restored Executive in January was, unanimously, the agreement and publication of the special adviser code of conduct, the revised code of appointment for special advisers. It was not my proposition, as Mr Carroll said, but the Executive's agreed proposition. It is not my code but the Executive's code, agreed among all of the parties in the Executive. There are new arrangements for special adviser pay and a revised model and letter of appointment. <BR /> <BR />Interestingly, Mr Storey and Mr Allister — sorry, I meant Mr Wells; I sometimes mix the two — majored on the issue of pay. The pay scales did not, in fairness, prevent him from joining the Executive. He knew all about this and objected to it but decided to take the post when it was offered to him. He set aside his principles.”
“<BR /> <BR />The measures that we agreed included issues addressed in this Bill: making clear the accountability of Ministers to the Assembly; strengthening Ministers' responsibility for their special advisers; publishing details of Ministers' meetings with external organisations; publishing details of gifts and hospitality received by special advisers, of their meetings with external organisations and of their pay; and strengthening requirements for record-keeping and protections for whistle-blowers. The parties also agreed to establish a robust, independent enforcement mechanism to deal with breaches of the ministerial code and related documents.”
“Clearly, the parties — some of whom are the SDLP's sister parties — in the Government in Dublin have not committed to strengthening codes and increasing transparency. As a matter of fact, some of the recent public appointments justify the call for legislation, because clearly some of the appointments are not transparent. If the party beside me wants to get out of or wriggle away from the commitments that it gave and on which its Executive colleague has followed through, let it do that rather than trying to present this approach to opposition to legislation or a different approach to legislation to me and me alone. I happen to chair the subcommittee, and I happen to lead on behalf of the Executive on this matter, and every aspect of anything that I have brought to the Executive has received full support from every Executive party.”
“The Executive were committed, as a matter of urgency, to produce strengthened drafts of the ministerial, Civil Service and special adviser codes to be implemented immediately. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Toole said in his contribution that the Minister of Finance had decided that legislation was not necessary. That is not true at all. The Executive, including your party colleague, decided that legislation was not necessary. The Executive have followed through on every aspect of the work that led to New Decade, New Approach and agreed on every aspect of the work since, without objection as to how that approach has taken place. <BR /> <BR />He also questioned why Sinn Féin, as a party, supports legislation in the Dáil but not in the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />The evidence given to the RHI inquiry directly informed the extensive talks on transparency, accountability and the operation of the Executive in the summer of 2019, and that formed the work stream of the talks that led, ultimately, to New Decade, New Approach. <BR /> <BR />Representatives of the five main parties were involved in the discussion about improvements to the ministerial code, special adviser codes and the NICS code of ethics. The conclusions of those discussions were reflected in New Decade, New Approach. The parties agreed to an ambitious package of measures to strengthen transparency and governance arrangements in the Assembly and the Executive in line with international best practice.”
“I have the task of responding to the Bill because the Executive gave me the task of leading its response to the RHI inquiry, chairing the RHI subcommittee and bringing the matters approved by it to the Executive for approval. Having listened to much of the debate, I could almost think that, perhaps, Sinn Féin is in the Executive on its own; would that it was. However, it is as if the approach agreed for dealing with these matters across the Executive since it was re-formed did not happen at all. The debate today is as if there had been no response at all to the RHI inquiry, no agreed response among the five parties that make up the Executive and no follow through on that response.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I did, in fact, turn to see if I could find the figures for Derry, but I did not have them in my folder. That disproves entirely the Member's point that the question was set up. I had not got the figures.”
“Yes, there are a number of exercises to do with rates. One that we wanted to try to address very quickly was the ability to continue with rates relief — a rates holiday — for some businesses going into the new financial year. We have the Reval and rates exercises, and we are responding to the pandemic in the middle of all that. A lot of people will not have recognised that, in last year's Budget, we introduced a very effective reduction in commercial rates. They went down by almost 18%, which is something that businesses had been asking for. We will continue to do that work, but we are also trying to respond to the pandemic. That is why the focus has been on trying to secure additional money to take a further rates intervention in the early part of the next financial year.”
“There is a range of matters in that. One is the age profile and the ability to recruit a younger cohort. There are also questions about the level at which people come into the Civil Service and the skills and experiences that they bring. There are questions about the ability to recruit people from other jurisdictions into the Civil Service and the experiences that they can bring from working in other jurisdictions as well. Those are key questions, which, I think, have not been addressed in previous reviews of the Civil Service and its practices. RHI highlighted a number of those, but it is not because of just that. There was an impetus, as there should be, which led to an agreement among all Executive parties on a need for a fundamental review of the Civil Service, and that is what we intend to do.”
“I do have not the figures for the recruitment drive that has been ongoing at all levels in the Civil Service. Clearly there is a significant number of vacancies at the lower levels, and that is why we have been encouraging people who are currently employed by agencies to apply for those. We have improved the terms and conditions of agency workers who have been working for quite some time, particularly in Departments such as Communities. There is an ongoing drive on that. <BR /> <BR />One of the areas that our review and reform of the Civil Service will look at is the age profile. It is quite clear that we need a much younger cohort coming into the Civil Service and an influx of new ideas and talent, but that has to be achieved in a managed way, and that will be done through recruitment during the time ahead.”
“Of course it has to be done with fairness, absolutely, and I am delighted that one of the side effects of this pandemic has been the DUP discovering socialism and fairness for all people.”
“Well, first I have not been pointing the finger at anyone. I have been encouraging people to do schemes as quickly as they can, and encouraging my Department to do likewise. I am not interested in the point-scoring that the Member refers to. To be quite honest, I am interested in getting support out onto the ground as quickly as we can. <BR /> <BR />The Member will have noticed the announcement yesterday that the Executive agreed to set aside £150 million for further rates interventions in the first half of the next financial year. We have been consistently hearing from business that those are vital. If we can get that scheme done and the rates intervention scheme done, it will be of great assistance.”
“First, as I have said, the schemes have changed, not only in their scope but in their level of payment, and we have been catching up. I want to see them done quicker. I want to see the rest of those schemes paid out tomorrow, if possible, or certainly in the next number of days, so that all of that money is out where it needs to be. I have to say that if you compare Finance with other Departments and put up a chart, you will find that this scheme has paid out much more quickly and much more favourably than schemes from any of the other Departments.”
“Other decisions came forward that altered it in terms of the amount of money available to us and the additional restrictions and, now, the additional period of restrictions. Those all came in subsequently. It is a matter of trying to catch up with the decisions taken by other Executive Departments.”
“As I said, the initial payment was for a smaller number of businesses, and we increased the payment level. Of course, the payment level to businesses in Derry had to be upped as well because, if you remember, the original lockdown restriction phase of this was for the Derry City and Strabane District Council area only and the level of payment was increased. Of course, there had to be retrospective payment to some of those who had already received it at the lower level. So, it has been quite complex and complicated, but, of course, the objective has been to get that payment up to the right level and out as quickly as we can, recognising that we now have another couple of weeks to go with that. Bear in mind that all these things have changed, midstream, the programme that we designed.”
“The Member will know that businesses in Derry have been closed down for much longer than anywhere else and, obviously, have suffered accordingly. The latest figures that I got yesterday showed that over 70% of businesses had received the support that they had applied for. Of course, that scheme will be rolled on now. It was changed midstream to add additional businesses to hospitality, and it has now been rolled on for further weeks. I want to see that money being paid out as quickly as possible to get it to the people who need it in Derry and Strabane over the coming weeks.”
“It is why the schemes that we talked about earlier as being rolled out have been directed at small- and medium-sized enterprises to try to give them that level of support. That has been consistent right through the pandemic.”
“It is incorrect, given that I have answered the question by saying that it is not a matter of due diligence but a matter of policy for the Department for the Economy on how to target that, for you to respond by saying that no due diligence has been done. Due diligence has been done on the scheme, as I have said. However, it is a matter of policy if the Department for the Economy wants to use that scheme to direct it away from what you describe as multinational businesses and into the local economy. Of course we want to support the local economy. That is why the schemes that will be brought forward are to support local businesses, and it is why the Executive are encouraging people to shop locally and to support local businesses.”
“Deciding that the scheme will pay into certain businesses but will be barred from paying into certain other businesses would be a matter of policy for the Department for the Economy, not a matter of due diligence.”
“The checks and balances that are done on any scheme as it is brought forward are done by officials in the Department. The question that you pose is whether the Department for the Economy can ensure that that money is spent in certain business premises and not in others. Obviously, that is a question for the Department for the Economy. I am not certain that that can be done with such a scheme, and that is why yesterday I encouraged people to shop locally, not just for this scheme but over the whole Christmas period and into the future because it is our local economy that needs support. I encourage and expect all Ministers to do likewise. The question of how the scheme would differentiate in that way is not to do with due diligence; it is a policy matter.”
“Councils may apply additional fees for the attendance of a registrar at an approved venue, and the General Register Office will bring forward legislation to set the fee for years 2 and 3. We will be able to look at that at the time and see what the take-up is like. If the payment of the fee becomes a barrier, I will make an assessment then as that comes forward.”
“It will apply for the first year anyway. This has been a key issue for people who have not been able to have their partnership legally recognised, and it is a great advance that it is now the case that they can. As I say, there is no fee for signing the conversion declaration in the first year.”
“The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which introduce the ability to convert same-sex civil partnerships into marriages and opposite-sex marriages into civil partnerships, come into operation on 7 December 2020. There will be no fee for signing the conversion declaration in the first year.”
“There have been 12,000 applications, and, judging by the figures, more than half of applicants have either been paid or been rejected. The figures are increasing daily, as some of the data issues that affected the scheme early on have been ironed out. Bear in mind that, from the end of this week, a new element is being introduced to the scheme, and that is the non-essential retail scheme. That will put additional pressure on LPS, and I want to see as much paid out as possible before that additional element of the scheme comes in next week.”
“That is how the scheme has been rolled out. The Department wants to see the scheme gather pace as quickly as possible. As I say, however, upwards of £20 million has been paid out to date.”
“The Department for the Economy will have to answer about its own scheme. The Department of Finance scheme is administered through Land and Property Services (LPS) and deals with businesses that have premises closed down owing to the restrictions. There have been 12,000 applications, and almost £20 million has been paid out to over 5,000 businesses. About 2,500 applications have been rejected. Some of the applicants applied to the wrong scheme. Business owners will have heard that money is available for a certain business sector and have thought that is where they go, but they do not have business premises and so need to apply to the Department for the Economy scheme. There is quite a lot of crossover with the schemes, with some businesses applying to the wrong scheme or perhaps to both to make sure that they get on to one of them.”
“The question goes back to the discussion about how we spend our money. I am firmly of the view that we should spend our money as locally as we can in order to support local businesses, workers and the economy. That is why, when I spoke publicly yesterday about the high street voucher scheme that the Member's colleague is proposing, I encouraged families, as we all should, to spend that voucher in local businesses to support our local economy. Anything that we can do on public procurement or that Departments can do with their annual £3 billion of spend has the potential to make a real impact on the local economy and should be used in that way.”
“I am a keen advocate of social value. It has to measure up to being value for money, but, in my experience, and, I am sure, yours, social value can do that in many ways. We want to see social value be very much part of the procurement make-up, and we have been actively looking at the idea of having legislation. There is a limited time left in the mandate for initiating legislation and taking it through all its legislative stages, but, if there is time, I am willing to look at that.”
“In the next meeting that I have with the newly constituted Procurement Board, social value will be one of the main items on the agenda. Like you, I am very much of the view that social enterprises and projects not only provide excellent value for money but have the added value in what they do for people in the community who might otherwise not be employed. They make an added contribution to society, as well as the economy.”
“The responsibility of that board will be to bring policies to the Executive for approval. That is where a lot of these issues can be interrogated, but, of course, as with everything in public expenditure, we want to ensure that it represents value for money.”
“When we were discussing the question, as an elected representative, I anticipated where the question was coming from. The people in procurement, perhaps, were anticipating wider issues. I am sure that all of you are frequently told, "This could have been got much cheaper, if only you had gone to a local supplier". I get all those arguments as a locally elected representative, and I want to ensure that government spend assists local economic growth. Of course procurement, like all other agencies, has to present value for money. We have initiated a series of changes to the Procurement Board. We are bringing in more expertise from outside agencies. The procurement policies that are followed are, obviously, agreed by the Executive, so there is Executive-wide ownership of them.”
“There has to be a balance in making sure that this is good value for money, that it can be got locally if it is below a certain level and that the person or company that supplies it adheres to a certain standard that is recognised by the procurement people.”
“As I said in my answer, there is a level at which there can be a degree of discretion. Of course, there has to be accountability for all these arrangements. We need to make sure that work provided by contractors is up to the standard required for a school or any other public building, because it has to serve that building for some time. Of course, standards have to be applied and there must be a level of accountability and transparency in how the money is spent so that it is not going to some favoured contractor or supplier. I am not making any reference to the school that you mentioned, but, in general terms, that should not happen.”
“The Executive's public procurement policy requires public bodies to process procurements under a service-level agreement with Central Procurement Directorate (CPD) or a relevant centre of procurement expertise (COPE) to provide a coordinated and strategic approach to securing best value for money. Recognising that it can be more cost-effective for public bodies to carry out their own procurement of low-value goods and services, the service-level agreement allows for public bodies to do this, if they use established procedures that maintain accountability and transparency in expenditure decisions.”
“We hope to receive that tomorrow. That is the date that we have been given, and I have a call scheduled with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tomorrow. I anticipate knowing that, and I am happy to come back to the House when we get a handle on it. There have been a series of Budget discussions with other Ministers. A couple are still outstanding because other business has overtaken them, and we need to have those discussions and understand what the budgetary requirements of the Departments are for next year. However, it will depend on the amount available to us. I am happy to update the Assembly and the Member's Committee when we get some answers on all that.”
“There have been discussions with Treasury right up to recent days, and I intend to speak to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tomorrow. As the Member may know, we expect an announcement on the comprehensive spending review tomorrow that might give an indication of the finances that will be available for next year's Budget. We have pressed consistently for flexibility. In particular, if we are to receive further Barnett consequentials early in the new year, that will add to our case that this kind of drip feed of money, with no long-term planning attached to it, is difficult for any devolved Administration to manage. It reinforces the general point that we have been making about the need for flexibility in the management of public finances.”
“Of course, the Member will know that the January monitoring of the general departmental spend will be coming through as well, and we may well receive further Barnett consequentials early in the new year. It has been a challenge to manage all of that additional money and deal with the stripped-down resource available to the Civil Service because of the pandemic. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on us to make sure that it is spent wisely in the right areas and spent out before the end of the financial year.”
“There is and has been a clear understanding among Ministers and Departments that, when they are asked to submit bids — that is how the process works — this is COVID-related money, so it is to be spent in this financial year and directed towards the three broad pillars of the Executive response to COVID: supporting vulnerable people, supporting the health service and supporting business. Bids must meet one of those criteria. We require Departments to demonstrate the area in which they want to spend the money and that they fully understand the requirement to have it spent out by the end of the financial year. We will continue to monitor that.”
“Yesterday, 23 November, the Executive agreed allocations of £338·1 million of the £500 million that was held centrally. There is also £150 million that has been set aside for the consideration of longer-term rates support. A further £26·6 million is being held in reserve in case there are further requirements later in the financial year.”
“Yes. Clearly, if there were a misdemeanour of some sort, it would depend on the level of judgement attached to that. The question that Dr Aiken posed outlined that that should be looked at. I am not sure that there is clear policy on that or an analysis of what level of misdemeanour would merit disbarment from particular future appointments or roles in public life. It pertains in other jurisdictions in these islands, so we should certainly look at it. Setting aside the RHI experience, I think that there should, in general terms, be a policy for the Civil Service and ongoing public appointments.”