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 73 of 100.
“Of course, in their response to the pandemic, the priority of the Executive has been to protect and support the health service, and that money was quite rightly ring-fenced for its use.”
“We have ring-fenced £55 million out of £2·4 billion for something that everybody in the Chamber has spent the last two days arguing for: to help those who have been left behind. If propositions are not brought forward very quickly by the responsible Departments to help those people who have been left behind, I will allocate that money elsewhere through the Executive. Of course, they will have to approve that. There is no question of not being able to spend the money. <BR /> <BR />We have received some detail on the money for the health service. It knows the time frame within which the money has to be spent and it will, according to itself, take up the lion's share of that — over £500 million — and release some back for further allocations within the Executive. That is what it asked for.”
“No. We have often indicated that we are for a much more radical approach to taxation and a fairer sharing of the burden. Even though I petition the Treasury for fairness and flexibility in its approach, I do not think that that is its instinct. It has not been the Treasury's instinct to take that type of approach for several hundred years. That is why I primarily advocate constitutional change on the island. I think that we can adopt our own approach to those matters. <BR /> <BR />Mr Muir asked further questions about the money that was set aside and ring-fenced for the health service. We recently received some detail about the spend of that money. I know that other Members raised that, and it brings me to the question about why we are not spending COVID money and are not going to spend it. I do not know where that comes from.”
“The more I listen to these debates, the more convinced I am of that. <BR /> <BR />Andrew Muir and others — including Mr Wells, who made related points — asked about the work to establish a fiscal council. This will also answer some of the points that Mr Carroll made. Of course we want to have tax-varying powers here and to be able to set our own policies. One of the central differences between Mr Carroll and me on this is that he thinks that, if you advocate these things enough, you will get fairness in the system at some stage. I do not believe that we will. I think that the only way that we will ever get fiscal fairness is to create our own constitutional future on this island, not within the current constitutional framework.”
“<BR /> <BR />Matthew O'Toole also raised the issue of a review of financial process. From my opening remarks, he will know that I think that that would be very helpful. I have now been to several Budget debates in the Chamber. It is rare for them to be responded to in the way that they should be. Possibly, the one in March was, as Members recognised that that was the Budget. However, in responding to the rest of them, Members have been telling us what we should not be doing, even though they voted for it back in March. Ironically, as he will remember, back in 2011, when I was Chair of the Finance Committee, the Committee did a piece of work to review the budgetary process to try to streamline it and make it more transparent and accessible. That work needs to be continued.”
“<BR /> <BR />Matthew O'Toole, who is no longer with us, raised a number of issues, one of which was FTC. The Departments are aware of the potential that FTC offers to provide support for the private sector. I have always encouraged all Ministers to consider how best to use funding in that context. Given its nature as financial transactions, it is not possible under Treasury rules to recategorise it as resource or capital. He asked whether I was seeking flexibility from Treasury, particularly on switching unused capital to resource. At the moment, we anticipate full capital spend. However, I am seeking additional flexibility to transfer funding from capital to resource to allow us flexibility within our existing budgets and to respond dynamically to any unanticipated challenges in this year.”
“The Chair of the Communities Committee raised a number of issues in relation to the impact on the monitoring round. It will not be delayed for much longer. We faced into a very busy fortnight in which a lot of emergency activity had to be undertaken. The intention is to do the monitoring round. Releasing financial transactions capital (FTC) is not so much about monitoring; it is more about obtaining a decision from the Office for National Statistics on housing associations. That decision is expected in the coming weeks. That will have a marked impact on improving our access to financial transactions capital. I also recognise the request that was made on behalf of Supporting People and the need to process the sign language strategy. I will discuss those issues further with the Communities Minister.”
“Yesterday, in response to a question or a point during the debate — I am not sure which part of yesterday's proceedings it was — I said to Mr Allister that I accept that there needs to be a consistency of approach to approval. The fact that the amount was put into the Estimates and voted on is, in effect, approval. However, for good practice, we need to ensure that there is a formal letter of approval. There has been a variety of methods of approval — emails, letters and verbal approvals— and all those are included. He asked about the legislative competence. They are all included in the Estimates, so they are, in effect, voted on anyway. However, for consistency and transparency, we need to see that. The Department will put in place that process from here on in, and I thank the Committee for drawing that to our attention.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of points were raised that I wish to address. The Chair of the Committee raised the issue of the sole authority of the Budget.”
“I thank Members for contributing to the debate. I noted down many of the issues that were raised. I know that we are not time-limited, but I do not intend to keep people any longer than I have to. <BR /> <BR />A lot of Members, as is always the case, have mistaken this debate for a debate that is setting a Budget, rather than one that is approving and legislating for expenditure that was approved in the March Budget, which we debated and passed. Indeed, some Members seem to be highly critical now of the content of what they voted for in March. That probably underlines the central point of the necessity for the review of the financial processes, so that people who come into these debates understand what they are taking about and what is in front of them rather than what they imagine it to be.”
“The reality is that the legislation is required to ensure that all public services can continue to be delivered for the remainder of this financial year. This means that we can support essential workers, such as our doctors, nurses and care workers, who continue to be on the front line dealing with COVID-19. It also means support for the businesses that are so vital for economic recovery. It means that all the day-to-day services on which we all rely can continue to be delivered to citizens. <BR /> <BR />On that note, I will conclude. I am happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget Bill that Members may wish to raise.”
“This is necessary to regularise the excess expenditure that was incurred by some Departments and other bodies as it was not possible to bring the spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs) and the associated Budget Bill to the Assembly at the end of the 2016-17 financial year. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) considered these 2016-17 excesses and recommended that they now be regularised through the Statement of Excesses and their inclusion in this Bill. The Bill also repeals a number of Budget Acts from 2016 and 2017. This is a normal process to remove legislation from the statute book once it is spent. <BR /> <BR />The numbers contained in the Budget Bill are significant, and I am sure that Members will agree that it is not an easy task to try to translate those figures into the delivery of public services on the ground.”
“I stress that clause 2 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund or convey any additional spending power. It enables my Department to run an effective and efficient cash management regime. <BR /> <BR />As Members will recall from the debate yesterday, as well as authorising the 2020-21 expenditure, the Bill regularises excess expenditure that occurred in 2016-17. Clauses 5 and 6 authorise the sum of £112,618,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the use of resources totalling £183,290,000 by the Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4 to the Bill for the year ending 31 March 2017.”
“The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column one of each schedule. These amounts are in addition to those previously authorised by the Assembly in the Budget Act (NI) 2020 in March and the Budget (No. 2) Act (NI) 2020 in June. They represent the Executive's up-to-date expenditure plans and include the allocations agreed with the Executive in response to the COVID situation since the 2020-21 Budget was debated by the Assembly on 5 May. The Bill ensures that all Departments will have the statutory authority to spend cash and use the resources required to deliver services for the remainder of the financial year. <BR /> <BR />Clause 2 provides for the temporary borrowing by my Department of £2,378,816,000. This is approximately half the sum authorised by clause 1 for issue out of the Consolidated Fund.”
“The detail of how the cash and resources will be used is set out in the Main Estimates, and that document, together with the 2016-17 Statement of Excesses, was laid in the Assembly on 13 October. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will authorise the issue of the sum of £4,757,631,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the use of resources totalling £4,791,050,000 by the Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2021 — this financial year.”
“That is based on the Executive's up-to-date expenditure plans, including over £2·3 billion in additional resources and capital allocations, which they have made in response to the COVID emergency and for economic recovery. <BR /> <BR />Standing Order 32 directs that the Second Stage debate should be confined to the general principles of the Bill, and I shall endeavour to keep to that direction. The Bill will authorise the cash and use of resources on services to allow Departments and other bodies to operate for the remainder of the financial year, carrying out the functions and delivering the services that are set out in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />We all recognise that the situation this year is unprecedented and, as I explained in the debate yesterday, instead of bringing the Main Estimates to the Assembly in May, it was necessary at that time to seek the Assembly's approval for a further Vote on Account to provide authority for Departments to access the cash that they would require to continue to deliver services and to respond to the developing COVID situation until the autumn. That requirement was passed by the Assembly in the Budget (No. 2) Act (NI) 2020. <BR /> <BR />The financial position now allows me to bring the Budget (No. 3) Bill to the Assembly to seek the legislative authority for the expenditure of the Departments and other bodies for the remainder of this financial year.”
“The Second Stage debate follows yesterday's approval by the Assembly of the Supply resolutions for the 2020-21 Main Estimates and the 2016-17 Statement of Excesses. Accelerated passage of the Bill is necessary in order to ensure Royal Assent before any Departments reach the cash limits for 2020-21 that were set in the Vote on Account. I am grateful to the Finance Committee for confirming that, in line with Standing Order 42, the Bill can proceed under accelerated passage. I thank the Committee for its work in agreeing to accelerated passage.”
“I beg to introduce the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill [NIA 10/17-22], which is a Bill to make provision about liquor licensing and the registration of clubs.”
“I beg to introduce the Budget (No. 3) Bill [NIA 09/17-22], which is a Bill to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of a certain sum for the service of the year ending 31 March 2021; to appropriate that sum for specified purposes; to authorise the Department of Finance to borrow on the credit of that sum; to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources (including accruing resources) for the year ending 31 March 2021; to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of an excess cash sum for the service of the year ending 31 March 2017; to authorise the use for the public service of excess resources for that year; and to repeal certain spent provisions.”
“<BR /> <BR />A Cheann Comhairle, in drawing my remarks to a close, I want to thank you very much for your patience during the debate. The Assembly approval of the motion today on the Main Estimates 2020-21 is a crucial stage in securing the public expenditure that the Departments need to continue to deliver in this unprecedented situation. Failure to pass the Supply resolution would put at risk the continuation of public services for the remainder of the financial year. Likewise, the Supply resolution for the 2016-17 Statement of Excesses will regularise the excess expenditure concerned and close off that outstanding matter. I therefore commend the Main Estimates 2020-21 and the 2016-17 Statement of Excesses to the Assembly, and I ask Members to support the two motions.”
“To try to land that criticism on the Executive is mistaken and unfair. <BR /> <BR />The Member also mentioned some of the spend in the South, where we find ourselves in opposition. One of the things that we have to do in the South, in opposing or criticising a Budget or public spend, is to provide an alternative Budget. That has to be costed, and it has to stack up when having a public debate. I know that, through autumn and into spring, we will have an opportunity to debate next year's Budget, so I look forward to him providing some figures, rather than simply criticising all the spend that we have allocated, and identifying where the additional spend that he would like to see will come from and, as a consequence of the restricted and finite pot of money that we have, where spend will be taken from to address other measures.”
“He raised the question of Executive support for the economy and said that that had been biased in favour of businesses as opposed to workers. Anybody with a cursory observation of this will know that the schemes in support of salaries and workers come directly from London. The Executive do not have HMRC data to be able to pay workers under the job support or job retention schemes that came directly from London. That is why I have consistently lobbied for the continuation of the job retention scheme: to ensure that workers receive salaries. The job support scheme initially was not to assist workers who were put out of work as a consequence of the restrictions, but we argued against that, and it has now been altered. It is, however, still far short of what we require. We have been consistent on that.”
“At times, there has been a letter of authority. At other times, there has been an email of authority. As the Member identifies, in some cases, there has been verbal authority. We want to see, going forward, consistency through the provision of a written letter of authority. I am happy to ensure that that is carried forward. I have no doubt that we will continue that discussion in the Committee. I do not think that there was good practice in the past. We need standard, consistent practice on approval. <BR /> <BR />Gerry Carroll raised the issue of austerity and its impact on public and health services. The impact of austerity has been a consistent theme from this side of the Chamber for many, many years. That is hitting back all the more forcefully given the COVID response.”
“As part of the Fresh Start Agreement, the Executive agreed to put in place schemes to mitigate some impacts of welfare reform, and they provided funding for a four-year period ending on 31 March 2020. The extension of the scheme beyond 31 March was included in the NDNA deal, and £40·3 million was allocated for mitigation payments in 2020-21. The extension of the welfare mitigation scheme requires two new pieces of legislation to be approved by resolution of the Assembly. In the absence of that legislation, the Department has been making mitigation payments, under the sole authority of the relevant Budget Act, from 1 April. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister raised a point about consistency in approval, which I recognise as an issue. I have spoken to officials about that. There has not been consistency in the past.”
“He asked about securing HMRC data to support employment support schemes. We had asked HMRC for assistance in looking at that, and we were told very bluntly that it was not going to provide any assistance to any devolved Administration to do that. The Member raised the issue of European structural funds. Again, we were told that we will have a shared prosperity fund to replace any lost EU funding, and as yet we have had no significant detail from Treasury on that. Along with Scotland and Wales, we will continue to press the matter with them. <BR /> <BR />Jim Allister asked for the out-turn figures, and I will get an answer for him. I am not certain why those have not been provided by this date, but we will respond to him. <BR /> <BR />There were comments about welfare mitigation and the sole authority.”
“I cannot say for sure whether that is the case. I know that a certain proportion of it is COVID-related, and another proportion is for ongoing Health requirements. The Health Committee Chair — he is sitting beside you — might know more about that, but it is in excess of £500 million, which is a very substantial increase in Health spending. There has already been a significant spend on PPE and other matters. <BR /> <BR />Roy Beggs asked a range of questions, particularly about infrastructure, and he is quite right. I know from my time in the Department that it is a victim of habitual underspending, but that has been the way in which budgets have been provided to us. <BR /> <BR />That takes me on to Stewart Dickson's point that austerity has clearly failed. It has damaged public services for a long number of years.”
“Thankfully, the job support scheme, which initially was not intended to assist anyone who was forced to leave work as a consequence of regulations, is now intended to do that, but that will not capture people whose businesses are not obliged to close but will undoubtedly suffer severe financial loss. <BR /> <BR />Paula Bradshaw made some points about Barnett and the spend in Health. Health recently provided us with the detail of how it intends to spend the £600 million. That leaves some return to the Executive, but a substantial amount will be used by Health. People who are involved in the Health Committee, and MLAs generally, will know that that is a very significant amount of money, and it has to be spent in this financial year. I am sure that the necessary level of scrutiny will be provided to that.”
“If we move to a no-deal scenario, as the British Prime Minister has predicted, the potential cost will be much more substantial. It is not possible, therefore, to give an accurate feed at the moment. <BR /> <BR />Other Members raised a number of issues. Pat Catney spoke about proper scrutiny. We recognise that this has been a unique year for doing our business, and the intention is to get back to proper budgetary processes. <BR /> <BR />Maolíosa McHugh quite rightly spoke about the difference between the job retention scheme and the job support scheme.”
“There is still some uncertainty about the protocols and what may emerge from them, particularly with the Department of Agriculture's requirements on ports and other areas. We are coordinating, particularly with the Department for the Economy and the Department of Agriculture, to understand the impact of the protocol. We will then lead the engagement with Treasury and work to encourage the mitigating measures that are required — financial, legislative or otherwise — to alleviate, as far as possible, any negative repercussions locally, and we will seek full recovery of any associated costs from Treasury. <BR /> <BR />We had provided some costs, but those have a tendency to change depending on the outcomes of negotiations.”
“Any delay in confirmation from the Treasury will significantly impact upon the campus's opening date. <BR /> <BR />The Member asked whether the Treasury had confirmed the availability of Fresh Start funding for re-profiling over the remainder of the funding period. I confirm that such an agreement exists to re-profile shared and integrated education and shared housing funding. Work is under way to revise and update the profile for that spend. <BR /> <BR />I think that Mr Lyttle also asked about the establishment of an independent review of education. New Decade, New Approach recommended the establishment of an independent review of education, and, therefore, I support its delivery. <BR /> <BR />Matthew O'Toole asked a number of questions about EU exit costs.”
“<BR /> <BR />Chris Lyttle, as the Chair of the Education Committee, asked questions about the Education Department. The Department has advised us that no significant capital underspend is anticipated between now and the end of the financial year. While construction work has been down on anticipated levels, there is additional demand from ICT and transport, which will balance that reduction. <BR /> <BR />He also asked about the Fresh Start capital. It is disappointing that the Strule campus appears to have been held up. We are fully committed to delivering that significant education programme. Treasury approval is required for the release of Fresh Start funding, and I have engaged with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in order to secure the timely release for this specific purpose, but I have not yet received a response.”
“That was intended to see us through to July, by which time we would have the Main Estimates. However, as the Member will remember, we were unable to bring the Main Estimates, and we had a further Vote on Account. The figures in table 1.3 in the Main Estimates are the sum of the March figure and the July figure. <BR /> <BR />I am disappointed but not surprised at his challenge to the Executive's position on the interventions that we have made with further restrictions. Members are entitled to express opinions if they want, but we have a broader responsibility for the public message. For him to reiterate the view that was expressed by the Agriculture Minister and endorsed in some shape or fashion by the Education Minister is damaging to the public message. I very much regret that he expressed that view.”
“As I outlined, £55 million has been left for other sectors, and £600 million has been held pending an assessment of health costs. It is crucial that the money is spent to best effect, and I urged Ministers to come forward with proposals for that. Of course, the COVID-related money has to be spent within this financial year. It is incumbent on all Members and Committees to ensure that the Departments that they are scrutinising come forward with bids that are made in good time and that can be spent in the available time. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew asked for an explanation of the figures on the Vote on Account, which is shown in table 1.3 of the document. The Assembly passed two separate Votes on Account this year. The first was passed in March in the Budget Act alongside the spring Supplementary Estimates, which is the normal process.”
“Officials responded to the Treasury on a number of queries, and we are awaiting confirmation that it will fund the costs of a lot of the protocol issues that other people raised. We are awaiting confirmation of the funding. Mike Nesbitt made the point about the multi-year Budgets, and I agree with everything that he said about planning and the ability for the community and voluntary sector in particular to plan on a year-by-year basis. The failings of annual Budgets are very evident to all of us who support that sector. <BR /> <BR />A question was raised about the failure to spend all the Barnett allocations. Prior to receiving the additional £200 million as part of the guarantee extension on 9 October, the Executive allocated the available funding.”
“The Department of Justice submitted a strategic outline case seeking approval for the PSNI to proceed to an outline business case for an additional 600 officers at a cost of £40 million a year. My officials are engaging with the PSNI and the DOJ on that strategic outline case. On the basis that it demonstrates value for money, the Executive will consider funding for that in light of the Budget envelope that is available. Obviously, it is for the whole Executive to agree that, but, as I say, given our commitment to New Decade, New Approach, we will want to ensure that the target is met. <BR /> <BR />Mike Nesbitt also asked about Brexit funding. We submitted a bid to the Treasury on 11 September for a number of different costs relating to the protocol, including PSNI costs.”
“I am content to honour all the commitments under New Decade, New Approach. It is important that we do. However, it must not be just the Assembly that does that, and that is why I challenged the British Government about their lack of commitment to the financial propositions that they made in that document.”
“Whilst we do not have one locally, the Department for Communities has established a £10 million food and distribution scheme for vulnerable people, including those who received shielding letters. The spend to date on that is £7·2 million for the food box scheme. That intervention is planned to continue throughout the year. <BR /> <BR />Mike Nesbitt asked about the New Decade, New Approach commitment for additional police officers.”
“The Member who asked it is aware that it is one of the Executive's flagship programmes and that it was funded not only by the Executive but by the Dublin Government. That commitment was most recently made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. I understand that the most recent public inquiry is being considered by the Department for Infrastructure, and I will discuss the required funding with the Infrastructure Minister as part of the Budget discussions. I am not sure whether the Member is in the Chamber, but he will be aware that the Dublin Government have announced a capital programme for the next five years that, I hope, will assist in other cross-border infrastructure developments. <BR /> <BR />Mr McCrossan also asked about the isolation fund.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of questions were asked about the Department of Education. I do not purport to answer on behalf of every Department, and Members are free to scrutinise and ask questions of individual Ministers. A total of £137 million was given to the Department of Education to address COVID-19 funding, including £1·9 million for free school meals during the initial stage of the pandemic in March 2020. Additional costs have been put forward for resource funding, capital funding and the childcare response. Of course, the initial childcare scheme, as Members mentioned, was undersubscribed and, fortunately, a better scheme was later put in place that was more fully subscribed. <BR /> <BR />A question was asked about the A5 road scheme.”
“I am very much aware of that, and I think that the Member made the point about some of the English cities. His colleague Paula Bradshaw made the point that, when the demand comes from England and is then spent in England, it comes across as a Barnett consequential, and that is not necessarily the best way to get funding. Over the course of the debate, a number of Members criticised the bit-by-bit approach, but the Barnett funding came bit by bit over the past six or seven months. It was not the case that we had an allocation at the start and could decide what to do with it; we received Barnett funding at various stages. While additional Barnett funding is welcome, it is not ideal for planning. It would be much better if we had an agreed way to support the expenditure that we need.”
“I continue to press Treasury to ensure that support is available to protect people and businesses, whether in the form of schemes from the British Government or additional funding for the Executive. I am in regular contact with the other devolved Finance Ministers, who keep me appraised of situations in their respective jurisdictions. We have joined forces in pressing the Treasury on those matters.”
“Obviously, it is for the Ministers who have policy responsibility for that area to develop proposals, but I am happy to consider any such bids. I have asked the relevant Departments — in this case, the Department for the Economy — to bring forward proposals to provide support for those affected by the restrictions. As I said, we have set aside £55·2 million specifically to address sectors that have fallen through the gaps. <BR /> <BR />Andrew Muir asked about Kickstart and why we did not have a scheme that, for three months, has been in place in England. I cannot comment on specific timings, but I understand that the Communities Minister is drawing up local plans to introduce a scheme similar to Kickstart. Mr Muir also asked about further funding and engagement with other jurisdictions.”
“My Department is working on the review of the financial process and, while this has been delayed due to the impact of COVID, the Department will be bringing it to the Assembly in due course. It will include engagement with the Finance Committee over the format and process for the approval of the Estimates and the Budget Bill. <BR /> <BR />A common theme that Members raised was in relation to schemes for business sectors that have not yet received any funding. I reiterate the point that I made during Question Time, which was that I have encouraged Ministers to bring forward schemes as quickly as they possibly can. <BR /> <BR />On the question asked by Caoimhe Archibald and Andrew Muir about Invest NI and its role in providing business support, I recognise that there may be gaps.”
“The principal repayment costs are costs against our rates income. They are approximately £120 million for 2020-21. Interest payments are a direct cost to our resource DEL, and amount to approximately £48 million for this year. The costs of borrowing are handled centrally to ensure that there is a consistent approach and to reduce the administrative burden on Departments. <BR /> <BR />Dr Aiken also asked a question in relation to the Public Accounts Committee report on the Excess Votes and the review of the financial process. The Excesses in 2016-17 were unique, due to the fact that the Assembly was unable to pass the spring Supplementary Estimates at the end of that year.”
“These limits hinder good financial management at the end of the year, with underspends that emerge late in the year being reallocated to where money can be spent quickly, rather than to the highest priority. It can result in a loss of funding to the Executive for the sake of a day's delay in contracts being signed. It would be much better to have the flexibility to carry forward our underspent funding so that it can be appropriately utilised. This is not really a call for additional funding; it is a call to have the tools to allow us to manage our existing funds. I will meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury later this week and continue to press for these flexibilities. <BR /> <BR />Dr Aiken also asked about payments being made for reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing.”
“This agreement secures a timely passage of the legislation through the Assembly, thereby avoiding any risk or uncertainty over the funding for public services at this critical time. <BR /> <BR />I listened with interest to Members during the debate, and I wish to respond to some of the points — as many as I can. The Chair of the Committee raised the issue of the Budget exchange scheme and whether it should be reviewed. Members will be aware that I, along with the Scottish and Welsh Finance Ministers, have sought additional flexibilities from the Treasury — Mr O'Toole asked the same question — including an increase in the Budget exchange mechanism, which limits us to carrying forward unspent funding up to a maximum of 0·6% of resource DEL and 1·5% of capital DEL.”
“Supply resolution debates can often cover many aspects, not always related to the Bill under consideration. However, I suppose that on this occasion the background of COVID-19 has helped to focus most, if not all, minds on the importance of public expenditure and the decisions that we debate in the Assembly. I will endeavour to address as many of the points raised during the debate as I can in the time allotted to me. There were quite a lot of contributions, and if I miss some points or do not pick them up, I will ask officials to read through the transcript and see whether such points can be answered in writing. <BR /> <BR />I once again thank the Finance Committee for its agreement to take this important legislation through by accelerated passage.”
“I repeat: I made a number of statements in relation to that, and I stand over those statements. My offer to meet and discuss the issues with the family remains.”
“I do not consider that to be part of the Finance brief, but, nonetheless, I have made a number of statements in relation to that, and I reiterate and stand over those statements.”