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 69 of 100.
“It is perhaps not a case of providing further funding but a case of getting some support to them. I know that travel agents have been particularly badly hit. Not only have they lost business but deposits that they were paid have had to be paid back to some customers. I had a meeting just a few short weeks ago along with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, at which we met representatives of their group. It was agreed that they would provide further information on their specific request for support that they want to see from the Executive. My officials have been engaging with them to collate that information and provide me with some guidance. Once that has been put together, it will be provided to the responsible Department to make sure that we can include travel agents in the support given.”
“— to get support on the ground where it is needed and to get Executive decisions taken, and not only taken but supported by Ministers. All of that is a challenge, but we will meet it, regardless of what goes on in your party.”
“We are trying to manage as best we can to get all those schemes done —”
“Those battles are affecting not only your party but the entire running of the Executive, because of the dysfunctionality that they cause.”
“The scheme is designed to pay out to the sorts of people whom you reflect: those who own a hairdressing salon. If they have not already received money, they should be getting it in the very near future from Land and Property Services (LPS). Perhaps the Member can take the matter up with LPS rather than grandstand here in the Chamber. Most other MLAs are taking up individual cases and pressing them for people. The Member is saying that an allocation of almost half a billion pounds, when you add in the intent that I have for rates holidays to continue into the new financial year, is not to be living in the real world, but it is largely all of the money that the Executive have at their disposal to provide support. That is what we are doing. I understand the battles that are going on in your party.”
“It is really a stimulus to high-street spend rather than support to the household.”
“Obviously, we have been working on this over the weekend, but I will get up-to-date figures before Question Time tomorrow so I can advise Members where that is. <BR /> <BR />The voucher scheme is being operated by the Department for the Economy, which will, I am sure, expand on the detail as time goes on. It is not meant to support households; it is meant to stimulate the high street. The primary focus of it is to stimulate spending and growth on the high street and to give certainty to businesses. I am told that it is likely to roll out in the new year, because it takes about six weeks for such a scheme to be put in place. I believe that you are correct that it is about £200 per household, and it is intended to be sent out in the months when the high street is at its leanest — in January and February.”
“That data is not just the LPS data; other data can be required to verify that people are in certain businesses that are entitled to receive support. More focused restrictions from the Department of Health add complexities to the paying out of the schemes. We do not know what the Department of Health restrictions are until they arrive with us and the Executive agree to them. That said, we want to see the schemes get out as quickly as possible. They have been slower than I would have liked or the Executive or, I am sure, all MLAs would have liked. We will continue to encourage that. Certainly, the support scheme that LPS is rolling out has gathered pace and has started to pay out. LPS was well through those payments last Friday when I got the last figures.”
“I thank the Chair for his comments and questions. Of course, the balance has always been between getting payment on the ground as quickly as possible and ensuring that — it is not two or three weeks since we had a debate in the Assembly about payments that had gone awry and the consequence of that. It was a very small proportion of the £10,000 and £25,000 grants, but it draws particular attention and reminds us of the necessity to ensure that public money goes to where it is designed to go to and gets to those most in need. It is a balance of getting payments out quickly. Also, the more focused or selective, if you like, the payment is, the more data is required to isolate it from other, broader groups to make sure that it gets to the right person.”
“Previously centrally held allocations, including £6 million for taxis, buses and coaches, £8·8 million for airports and £60 million for Department for the Economy-led schemes, remain pending. I will continue to keep the Assembly informed of funding for further measures as they are agreed.”
“That includes vital funding to ensure that the families of young people who are entitled to free school meals will receive food grants during school holidays. <BR /> <BR />From the £10 million set aside for support for airports, the Department for Infrastructure has been allocated £1·2 million to provide further support to the City of Derry Airport. The Department has also been allocated £26·3 million in relation to lost income across it and its arm’s-length bodies. <BR /> <BR />Today’s allocations total £338·1 million. An additional £150 million has been set aside for the consideration of longer-term rate support, and a further £26·6 million is being held in reserve.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department for Communities has been allocated £71·5 million, £44·3 million of which will enable a one-off heating payment of £200 to disabled people on higher rate allowances and older people in receipt of pension credit. That recognises the additional cost imposed on those vulnerable groups by the COVID-19 pandemic. It also includes a further £10 million each in support for councils and sport, £2·25 million for social enterprise support, which will allow the oversubscription to the social enterprise fund to be funded, and £5 million in respect of charitable grants, which will ensure that no charities are left unsupported for the remainder of this financial year. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Education has been allocated £20·6 million for COVID response measures and £5·8 million for COVID Education Restart measures.”
“Five million pounds will top up the tourism and hospitality scheme, reflecting the extraordinary costs for some businesses that have been forced to close. There is £4·1 million for bed and breakfasts, which is aimed at approximately 953 certified accommodation businesses that were excluded from previous support because they paid domestic rates rather than business rates. There is £3 million for the extension of digital selling capability grants to help local businesses to grow their online sales. The allocations are in addition to the £60 million previously provided by the Department for the Economy-led COVID restrictions business support scheme.”
“<BR /> <BR />A £95 million high street voucher scheme will give people a prepaid card for use on the high street, which has been devastated by COVID. The Department for the Economy is finalising the details of the scheme. Twenty million pounds has been provided for company directors, a group excluded from previous support. Twenty million pounds has been allocated to extend this financial year’s 12-month rates holiday to manufacturing businesses. That will bring the sector into line with what has already been offered to hospitality, tourism, leisure and retail. An allocation of £10·6 million has been made to what are known as "wet pubs". That will support approximately 1,000 licensed premises that are experiencing additional financial hardship as a result of the heath protection regulations.”
“The grants are taking longer to issue than I had hoped, but officials are working as fast as they can to process payments. <BR /> <BR />Today, the Executive have agreed to provide a further £213 million of business support. The Executive provided a full year's rates holiday to the sectors worst affected by the pandemic: retail, hospitality, tourism, leisure, childcare and airports. I appreciate that those sectors will continue to suffer stress into the next financial year. I fully understand this, and my Department is considering options for how best to deliver further rates relief. Therefore, today, I am setting aside £150 million for that purpose while the work is completed as a matter of urgency.”
“I understand the frustrations of businesses at the speed at which payments are being made. It is important to understand that schemes that would usually be designed and implemented over many months are being turned around in days. Many Departments have repurposed themselves to provide grant support. Land and Property Services (LPS), for example, which is in my Department, is a rates collection agency. It has transformed itself into a grant-making agency and taken on new powers to do so. Similarly, the Department for Communities has stepped up to deliver a scheme for social enterprise and charities. The Department for Infrastructure has done likewise for taxi drivers. Designating a Department, devising a scheme, checking applications and issuing payments takes time, and we have a duty to minimise fraud and error.”
“COVID is, first and foremost, a global health crisis. However, it has created a global economic crisis, and extensive support to businesses and workers has been provided to protect people's livelihoods. The extension of the current restrictions means that there is a requirement to extend the current support measures. An additional £55 million is being allocated to extend the localised restrictions support scheme operated by my Department. That will be expanded to include the non-essential retail, leisure and entertainment businesses that are required to close for two weeks. The Department for the Economy’s COVID restrictions business support schemes will also be extended.”
“The proposed restrictions were discussed by the Executive throughout the day and agreed on Thursday night. It was only at that point that a financial package could be finalised, and my officials and officials in other Departments worked over the weekend to put it in place.”
“I requested urgent proposals from Executive colleagues to use the funding to support businesses, public services and vulnerable people. <BR /> <BR />Some Members have asked why that funding was not disbursed immediately. Had we, as an Executive, allocated it immediately, we would not have been able to take into account the new restrictions agreed by the Executive last week. It was my view that it was right to have a plan in place to take us to the new year before making the allocations. <BR /> <BR />It has been argued that the financial package that I am announcing today should have been made at the same time as the new restrictions were agreed last Thursday. The first indication that I had of the restrictions being proposed was that Thursday morning.”
“I wish to provide Members with an update on the further allocations of COVID-19 support funding for the financial year 2020-21. I offer an apology for the statement being slightly late going into Members' pigeonholes, but, as Members will know, the Executive met this morning and ran on beyond 12.00 noon. <BR /> <BR />The COVID crisis has created a highly uncertain financial context. We have not known what course the virus would take or what the health experts would recommend in response to the virus, and we have not known how much money we would receive from the Treasury. That uncertainty has made financial planning difficult. The background to the allocations that I am announcing reflects that financial reality. Just over two weeks ago, Treasury provided a further £400 million to the Executive to support our response to COVID-19.”
“The current programmes are to run their course. Allowance has been made to make sure that they are not interrupted by Brexit. On the more capital side with INTERREG, the EU has also allowed an extension to the completion and declaration date of programmes that have been interrupted by COVID and had undue delays. I do not think that you were in the Chamber for my first answer to the Chair of the Finance Committee. There is an overcommitment in funding, but the expectation is that there has always been an underspend. From the discussions that Minister McGrath and I had with the SEUPB at this meeting, we know that it fully expects to spend out the programmes. The SEUPB expects to meet all the programme costs that it has committed to. We will want to continue to monitor that in the time ahead, but those are the assurances that we were given.”
“We, from the European, Dublin Government and Executive sides, want to see these commitments being met. We want to see the funding expanded and being available over the next number of years. I am happy to talk to council groups about that.”
“I have no difficulty with that. I meet the councils frequently. I have met NILGA and others. The 11 council chief executives generally come together through the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE). I am absolutely happy to meet them. The commitment is there to spend out the Peace IV and INTERREG Va programmes. Even with Brexit and all the uncertainties, the commitment is there for €650 million for PEACE PLUS. We want to see that increased to much more. As I said in response to a previous question from your party colleague, despite all the uncertainties that come from Brexit and the negotiations, the posturing and the stands that have been taken in relation to some of the issues, we have to hold to that commitment. We have to be vigilant to make sure that that remains.”
“Yes, absolutely. The consultation should be wide and accessible. All those who have issues to put forward or suggestions to make need to make sure that their voices are allowed to be heard in that consultation. That consultation should begin in the not-too-distant future. I encourage Members, particularly those who have a link to community groups, to make sure that, if those groups are not aware of that information, they know when the consultation is happening and how to access it and that they get the opportunity to make their case to it.”
“There is always that balance, but I have been discussing that with the SEUPB, because there is a sense that, over the past number of programmes, the balance in the burden of bureaucracy has shifted somewhat to those who access the programmes. I have had conversations with the SEUPB about how to ensure that we get that balance right. As I say, it will go out to consultation. I encourage all groups to come forward with their views, because we want to make sure that we get that balance right and that the money gets to exactly where it is needed and will have most benefit.”
“We would like to see that. Of course, there is a comprehensive auditing process for the EU, as the Member will understand. The EU is keen to ensure that the money it allocates and approves through the overall programme is spent in the way that was intended. There is always a balance between meeting auditing requirements to ensure accountability for spending of public funds and making sure that they are accessible, in particular to small, grass-roots community organisations that the initial Peace funding was intended to benefit. It was originally to bring benefit to communities and areas that previously had not received support from government or other programmes.”
“The original commitment was for €650 million, and we are operating on the basis that that will be honoured. There is an opportunity to increase that amount. The Government in Dublin have indicated that they will make their contribution, and that creates a multiplier effect on the British Government's contribution and contributions from the Executive and the EU. The key to that is the British Government adding to their contribution, and I hope that they do so, because the overall effect will be to create a much bigger pot for PEACE PLUS — an extra 350 million — which, obviously would be very welcome for the communities that can access that funding. The commitment for the initial amount is there: we are trying to secure expanded funding to allow us to generate a much bigger pot across the board.”
“The EU has extended the final declaration date in order to allow projects to fully spend their allocated funding, and that is to be welcomed.”
“There has been recognition that COVID has caused some interruption to delivery, although, given our discussion with the SEUPB, it seems that it may not have been much as we had expected. Programmes have rolled on. However, as I said, the uncertainty around that has been dealt with, because we have some guarantee that the EU has recognised the impact of COVID and has allowed some headroom, if you like, to make sure that original time frames for spending the funds have been stretched somewhat. That will ensure that people can continue to spend on programmes held up by reasons genuinely beyond their control. <BR /> <BR />There is recognition that COVID has had some impact, though, thankfully not the impact that we expected.”
“Peace programmes were designed to get down to the grass roots, to communities on both sides of the border that had suffered as a result of the conflict, and a lot of projects achieved that. If PEACE PLUS is to be the last programme we receive, we need to ensure that it gets to where it is needed, and accessibility is something that I will continue to raise with the SEUPB. It will go to consultation, so I encourage all elected representatives and community groups to make sure that those issues are raised with it as well.”
“We assume that, each time one of the programmes comes in, it may be the last one, so it is important that it leaves a valuable legacy and that there is accessibility to the programme.”
“That is certainly one objective that I have raised consistently with the Special EU Programmes Body, and it has assured me that it will endeavour to do that. I have been about long enough to have been involved in the original peace and reconciliation fund that was developed and delivered through councils back in the 90s. That funding was very accessible to grassroots community projects. I have had engagements over the last number of months with people who work at the coalface of the community and voluntary sector, and their view is that the funds have progressively become more inaccessible to small and grassroots community organisations and that you almost need to be partnered with a local government organisation or some substantial organisation to access the funding.”
“We have not got that certainty, and, as I say, we are very concerned about developments with that legislation at Westminster, because the programmes have been delivered successfully locally by people who know the local issues, know the communities that will benefit most from the programmes and can get that support on the ground. Administering these things, allocating them and applying to programmes in Whitehall will not work for us. Scotland and Wales have the same opinion, and, equally, I am sure that it will not work for them. We certainly want full replacement, and we want the ability to allocate and design the programmes that will replace the EU funding.”
“Yes, the Member is quite right that we are still waiting for clarity on the Shared Prosperity Fund. There is a commitment from the European Union to replace like with like, but we were also operating on the basis, as were Scotland and Wales, that the devolved Administrations would develop the programmes, allocate the money and do all that. There is huge uncertainty because of the legislation that is currently passing through Westminster, and that casts a significant doubt on that. <BR /> <BR />We have a lack of certainty on two fronts. One is that we have no firm commitment, other than a general one, on how those funds will be replaced, despite repeated requests from me and the Scottish and Welsh Finance Ministers, and a number of meetings where we were to seek clarity on that have been postponed in recent times, which is frustrating.”
“<BR /> <BR />The programme has delivered so much to communities that were so challenged over many years and affected by the impact of partition and then conflict, and that funding was one of the key contributions from the European Union to this part of the world, so we hope that that funding continues and is able to deliver projects that have made such an enormous difference. Both the Peace and INTERREG projects have made such a huge difference in the border area, and we want those to continue. We have to constantly be vigilant and keep a close watch on how these things develop.”
“There is always a worry in relation to that. I think that we are right to be cautious, because the process of exiting the European Union has been anything but straightforward with regard to the British Government, and many things that have been — this goes across the whole issue that the Executive have to deal with — committed to and promised by the British Government have been abandoned or there have certainly been threats to abandon them at various stages. While we have the commitments, which were part of that withdrawal agreement and were agreed to, we have to be vigilant and continue to hold the British Government to account in relation to them.”
“A financing and administrative agreement that will set out the legal, financial and governance frameworks for PEACE PLUS and, in turn, the SEUPB is currently being negotiated by the EU and the British Government.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is obviously an initial uncertainty caused by the prospect of Brexit, but the guarantees included within the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration confirm the joint commitment of the EU and the British and Irish Governments to the continuation of the current Peace IV and INTERREG Va and the successor PEACE PLUS programme. Those guarantees will allow the current programmes to continue as normal and to be financed from the EU budget until their formal closure dates. In light of the coronavirus outbreak, the EU has also extended the final declaration dates for projects to fully spend their allocated funding as some recover from delays enforced on them.”
“I share the Member's view on the delivery of that, as a border dweller myself. The prospect is of a very significant delivery through the PEACE PLUS programme, which incorporates, as he will know, Peace and INTERREG as well. We always operate on the basis that this could be the last Peace programme, and I think we need to ensure that it has that impact in those border communities in particular, where some of the issues of the conflict were felt, and that, given the peripheral nature of communities there on both sides of the border, they are supported. Obviously, good work has been delivered, and I look forward to more good work and consultation with all of the stakeholders to ensure that we get the best possible value and outcome from PEACE PLUS.”
“I will have to get the Member the actual figures; I will ask officials to forward those to him. In terms of contributions, there is a percentage worked out between the Executive, the Dublin Government, the British Government and Europe. The spend always has been largely in the six counties in the North and the six border counties, and I do not believe that there is anything untoward in the breakdown of all that, but I will be happy to get the Member the figures for all of those projects.”
“If there is an additional commitment from London — there is a discussion ongoing between Dublin and London in relation to this — and the multiplier effect of that commitment is there from Dublin, then, if they match the percentage of that, it will take the figure for PEACE PLUS up to £1 billion, which will be very welcome in the time ahead. That discussion has not yet concluded, but I hope that the British Government will come forward and match the offer that has been made by Dublin.”
“I thank the Chair of the Finance Committee for his questions. There is an overcommitment on both of those. From our discussions with the chief executive of the SEUPB, I think that that is based on the normal expectation and practice that there has always been an underspend. SEUPB is content that it will manage the overcommitment in terms of the final expenditure on the programme without having to seek additional funding to supplement or complement it. <BR /> <BR />In relation to future funding, PEACE PLUS currently sits at £650 billion — €650 million, sorry; if only it was £650 billion.”
“In closing, Ministers noted that the SEUPB’s governance structures continue to operate effectively. The Council agreed that options for an independent organisational review of SEUPB will be considered by sponsor Departments and that draft terms of reference will be submitted to the NSMC for consideration prior to the commencement of any review. <BR /> <BR />The Council agreed to hold its next Special EU Programmes Body meeting in early in 2021.”
“The final PEACE PLUS programme cooperation document will be submitted to both Administrations, the NSMC and the European Commission for approval. <BR /> <BR />Ministers noted that the SEUPB had produced draft corporate plans outlining the SEUPB key objectives for 2017-19 and 2020-22, and draft business plans for 2017-2021. The Council then approved those corporate and business plans and noted the budget provision for each. Ministers noted the SEUPB annual reports and accounts for 2016-18. Those were certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General in both jurisdictions and laid before the Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas. Ministers were advised that the 2019 SEUPB annual report and accounts will be submitted to the Council and laid before the Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas in due course.”
“Some 96 projects worth €277·9 million, which represents 103·1% of total programme value, have been approved for Peace IV, and 34 projects worth €291·1 million, which represents 103·2% of total programme value, have been approved for INTERREG Va. The Council noted that the SEUPB continues to facilitate participation in the INTERREG Vb and Vc regional and transnational and interregional programmes. To date, approximately €16·5 million has been secured by 64 partners under those programmes. <BR /> <BR />Progress was outlined on the development of the future PEACE PLUS programme. Work will continue in order to deliver an agreed programme. A public consultation will be undertaken to provide for further stakeholder engagement. The Council noted that further discussion with Departments and Ministers will be required to reach an agreed programme.”
“The Council noted the commitments and guarantees agreed and put in place as part of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration to allow for the current Peace IV and INTERREG Va programmes to continue until completion, and for a successor PEACE PLUS programme to be funded. Those were recognised and welcomed. The impact of COVID-19 on the current Peace IV and INTERREG Va programmes was noted, and the Council welcomed the actions implemented by the SEUPB to assist project delivery and the measures put in place to ensure the continuation of programme implementation. It is noted that the PEACE PLUS programme will incorporate COVID-19 recovery actions and that the programme development process is continuing. <BR /> <BR />The chief executive of the SEUPB updated the Council on the progress of programme implementation.”
“In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I make the following statement on the twenty-first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in special EU programmes sectoral format, which was held in the NSMC joint secretariat offices in Armagh on Friday 30 October 2020. <BR /> <BR />As Minister of Finance, I represented the Executive and was accompanied by the Minister of Education, Peter Weir. The Irish Government were represented by Michael McGrath, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. <BR /> <BR />At the outset of the meeting, there was a broad discussion on the implications of the EU exit and the impact of, and response to, the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“I am very conscious of our responsibility not just to the next generation but to the one beyond that. I ask Members to continue to support the legislation so that we can address all of the key issues, not only now but into the future. I ask Members to support the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will finish with this point, which is probably a more optimistic note. Mr Nesbitt referred to children who might be born today: as I was answering questions in the Chamber earlier, I learnt that I had a grandson born today”
“A centre, yes. I remember him playing. Mr Nesbitt characterises the difficulties that we have in the Executive as being simply the product of the DUP and Sinn Féin. That is fair enough; he is in a different party. A lot of parties here present themselves as being in opposition and in the Executive at the same time. I always think that the danger of trying to ride two horses is that you fall off in between. I was prepared and ready to have an Executive meeting at 9.00 pm last night. My party or the other parties in the Executive did not call off an Executive meeting at 9.00 pm last night. I have been prepared all day, even though I have been on duty on the Chamber, to go into an Executive meeting. I have not been able to get an Executive meeting. I am ready to do business in the Executive any time soon.”