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 75 of 100.
“I agree with the Member, which is why, as I said, I put a proposition to the Executive in June. That has not received support yet, but I am still hopeful about it. After meeting a cross-sectoral group from the local newspaper industry, I engaged with the Executive information service on its advertising campaign. It seems that not much of that advertising trickles down to the local newspaper sector, even though it is, of course, vital to business and community life in the areas that it covers. <BR /> <BR />Through advertising, the sector also hits a demographic that social media and electronic media do not, and it gets to some of the people who most need to hear the public health message about protecting themselves and whatever vulnerabilities that they might have.”
“I am very aware that the local newspaper sector is struggling to survive given the significant loss of income that it has experienced over recent months. I confirm that, back in June, I put plans to Executive colleagues to extend the 12-month rate support to the local newspaper industry. That was in line with similar relief that had been provided in Scotland. I remain keen to see the matter agreed by the Executive. <BR /> <BR />In response to representations from the local newspaper sector, I am also seeking an increase in the Executive's advertising in that area.”
“3) Bill — we will debate that tomorrow — will enable services to continue to be funded for the remainder of this financial year together with the resolution on the Statement of Excesses for 2016-17 in order to regularise these outstanding sums.”
“I am pleased to say that the Public Accounts Committee has now carried out its consideration of the 2016-2017 Excesses and has recommended that they should now be regularised through the Statement of Excesses and their inclusion in the Budget (No. 3) Bill. <BR /> <BR />This has been an unprecedented year, and we have had to adopt novel approaches to respond in an agile manner to the impact that COVID has had on our public finances. We are now in a position to bring the Budget legislation back to its normal footing. I request the support of Members for the resolution for the Main Estimates 2020-2021, which together with the Budget (No.”
“With one exception, those Excesses would not have occurred had it been possible for the spring Supplementary Estimates to be passed that year. The one exception to that is an element of £2·22 million related to the health and social care pension scheme. That Excess came about due to an underestimation of current service costs because updated figures were not available at that time. <BR /> <BR />Normally, a Statement of Excesses would be brought to the Assembly the year after the expenditure was incurred, but, to do so, the matter first needs to be considered by the Assembly Public Accounts Committee, and that has been possible only this year.”
“<BR /> <BR />As well as considering the Main Estimates for 2020-21, I am also able to bring the 2016-17 Statement of Excesses to the Assembly. Members may remember that it was not possible for the spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs) to be passed by the Assembly in February and March 2017 following the collapse of the Assembly. One of the consequences of that was that those Departments that received in-year allocations during the 2016-2017 financial year were not able to receive legislative authority for that expenditure. <BR /> <BR />While the Department of Finance was able to use its contingency powers to ensure that the Departments were able to get access to the cash necessary for them to continue to deliver services, those powers do not remove the need for the expenditure to be regularised through a Budget Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Following the Executive's decision and allocations for economic recovery, which I announced on 24 September, the financial position has now stabilised sufficiently to allow my Department to produce the Main Estimates for the Assembly to consider together with the corresponding legislation in the form of the Budget (No. 3) Bill, which I will introduce following the debate. These Main Estimates represent the Executive's up-to-date expenditure plans and include all the allocations that I announced in response to the ongoing COVID situation. Since the COVID emergency began, the Executive have allocated over £1·7 billion in additional resources in capital. Those are unprecedented levels of allocations. The detail of those allocations are a matter of public record and are published on my Department's website.”
“The allocations that were made in response to the COVID-19 emergency vastly increased the planned expenditure of a number of Departments. Any Estimates document that was produced at that stage would have been obsolete before it could be brought to the Assembly. In addition, it could not have passed and received Royal Assent in time. Instead, I sought the Assembly's approval for a further Vote on Account in order to provide authority for Departments to continue to operate through the initial COVID-19 response period. That was passed by the Assembly as the Budget (No. 2) Act (NI) 2020, and it gave Departments the authority to access the cash that they would require to continue to deliver services and to respond to the developing COVID situation until the autumn.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As you set out, the debate covers the Supply resolution for the Main Estimates 2020-21, which is the current financial year, and the Statement of Excesses for the 2016-2017 financial year. The Main Estimates and the Statement of Excesses were laid in the Assembly on Tuesday 13 October 2020. <BR /> <BR />I will take a few moments to remind the Assembly about the unusual steps that we took in May and June that have resulted in the Main Estimates being brought forward. The fast-evolving response to COVID-19 in the first months of this financial year meant that it was not possible to prepare and present the Main Estimates reflecting the Executive's up-to-date expenditure plans.”
“That is not good for long-term planning, and it is not good for making the best use of our limited public funding. It would be much better done in the long term. We will explore with Treasury whether that requires legislation.”
“It would be more beneficial to us in the long term. We have a particular situation this year because we have additional money for COVID-19. I have acknowledged in the Chamber how, from an Irish republican perspective, I feel that the COVID-19 allocations from Treasury have been beneficial. I felt that the furlough scheme was very beneficial, as was the loan scheme for businesses. However, we are taxpayers, so, if Treasury is distributing its largesse around those who pay into the British Treasury, we are entitled to some of it. It would be much more beneficial for us to have that capacity in the long term, because we are in a cycle, particularly with annual Budgets, where we end up having a spending splurge at the end of year.”
“It would be more beneficial to make a long-term change, because, as the Member will know from his experience here and as most Members who have been here long enough will know, we get into a situation from January to March where there is kind of a spending surge. Of course, the dynamic behind that is that we do not want to surrender money to Treasury because Departments are criticised for not spending it. It is right that we are asked whether we are spending it on the right things. Are we planning sufficiently, or are we just spending to get rid of the money because we would be criticised for not spending it? Does that have a proper, positive outcome in the long term? <BR /> <BR />A longer-term flexibility would be beneficial, and we will discuss with Treasury whether that requires legislation. I am happy to take that issue forward.”
“Clearly, the promise that Mr Nesbitt referred to of not only having that funding returned but having much more funding to spend across public services here does not seem to have materialised in any dialogue that we have had with the Treasury.”
“Our business plan is based on what we estimate to be the cost of our implementing the protocol, and there are costs to implementing that. The Treasury has said that it will meet those costs but has not yet committed to agreeing the figures that we sent to it. DAERA is doing further work on the figures associated with its element of that. You are right: there is a cost of implementing the protocol. Undoubtedly, on this island, there will be a cost to the economy from Brexit itself, which is very hard to quantify until we see the final outcome of those negotiations. The cost could be very severe or less severe but there will be a cost.”
“In discussions on the reinstitution of the Executive, there was agreement from all parties that Health would be a priority. We have done that in the Budget allocation, and, in the COVID allocations, we have added significant money for Health. As I said in an earlier answer, we have £600 million held centrally for Health, and it is assessing how to spend that on the COVID response and ongoing support for other health services. We expect to be able to announce fairly soon how much of that Health requires and whether any of it can be returned to the centre for further allocation.”
“The conversations with Whitehall on the spending review will lead to conversations for the next financial year, and, hopefully, the next three years on resource and four years on capital. That is why we want as much clarity as possible. Traditionally, the devolved Administrations have not been involved in the spending review conversations. However, the fact that there is no autumn Budget increases the importance of having early sight of the spending plans, their time frame and the funding envelope that we will operate within. That will give us the clarity to plan in the way that you describe. <BR /> <BR />I cannot make the assessment because that is for the Department of Health. The Executive had prioritised Health even before COVID became a factor.”
“We want to ensure that our understanding of the commitment to the devolved Administrations and the funding principle is met by the British Government and that the power to decide these programmes and allocate the funding is not held in Whitehall. That is a clear contravention of what we agreed.”
“The concerns relate to the principle attached to the level of funding. We were told that we would receive that funding in full. The Internal Market Bill gives the British Government powers to administer those schemes. That directly contradicts the commitment as it was understood by Wales, Scotland and us, which was that the devolved Administrations would get that share of the funding, be responsible for designing and administering those programmes, involving the partners that we chose, and that we would target that money to match Executive and Government priorities here. The powers contained in a clause of the Westminster Bill seem to contradict that. That is very worrying not only for us but for Scotland, Wales, as is clear from my ongoing dialogue with their Finance Ministers.”
“Finance has a role, and we have a role in relation to the SEUPB, which, as the Member will know, is a cross-border body. The Irish Government, through the Department of Finance and other Departments, have a role in that. It is a specific programme that relates to the Six Counties and the six border counties. The shared prosperity fund will probably be more internal to the North. <BR /> <BR />In the first instance, we want to ensure the full replacement of funding and the principle that the devolved Administrations are responsible for the design of the programmes, the allocation of the funding and the partnerships. I look forward to our having as broad a range of partnerships as we can with councils and other social partners in designing and administering those programmes.”
“I am going on the statement that was provided that it would be replaced in full. We were told that the contribution that the British Government make to the EU would be a net gain for the British state in what they could give back to public services. Perhaps we were sold a pup — not those of us who voted to remain — when we saw the writing on the side of the bus. If there is more than a replacement in full, I would be very happy. That is the statement that was given about a replacement in full. <BR /> <BR />The Member asked about who will administer the scheme. We want to ensure that we have the shared prosperity fund, and it will then be up to the Executive to design programmes around it and give it to the appropriate Department to administer.”
“Those are the key principles. The level of support and the engagement with that sector in devising those plans is a matter for the Department for the Economy.”
“The Department for the Economy has responsibility for bringing forward propositions on skills and employment. My job, on behalf of the Executive, is to secure funding. That is why it is not only important that we secure the level of funding that would have come here in other circumstances through Europe but important, as we are being taken out of Europe against our wishes, that we have to try to secure that funding. The British Government have promised to replace it in full. We have a unique set of circumstances, which the Member recognises, in the levels of support. We want to target those levels of support for skills, particularly towards younger people in training, apprenticeships and all those things. We need to be able to manage, allocate and administer our own schemes and to make sure that they go to where they are most needed.”
“We would also be more able to set programmes that are tailored to the needs of the people who live here.”
“Should we want to do specific tailored programmes for our workers, we are restricted by the fact that that data is held by HMRC. In order to devise any scheme to assist people with employment costs, we would have to work with HMRC to verify any claim. It is a challenging exercise to get HMRC to do that, specifically for a bespoke scheme. Other Departments have looked at schemes to support employees. We had the furlough scheme, which is due to run out at the end of the month. There is also an employment support scheme, which, in my view, comes nowhere close to approaching the same level of support for employees and employers, and we will see increased redundancies as a result of that. Undoubtedly, the more data to which we have access, the more levers we would have in raising our own finances.”
“There is a significant resource, but I recognise, as the Member will, that Health is recovering from nine years of austerity. It has been deeply and consistently under-resourced, and we are trying to meet that challenge. We have ring-fenced that money, and the Health Department will come forward with its spending plans for that. That £600 million has to be spent within this financial year. If all the money is not required, some will be returned to the centre for distribution elsewhere. It is a significant amount of money on top of the budget that Health has already received.”
“The Member will know from previous statements that I have made to the House that we have centrally held £600 million for the Health Department. It had been making its own assessments of what it needs for its response to the pandemic, and, obviously, that assessment will have increased given the resurgence in the prevalence of COVID in the community. Another element of that was to try to assist in redeveloping and supporting other health services. There is a significant amount of money. This £600 million is on top of, I think, something in the region of £300 million of COVID money that we have already given to the Health Department and the budget that Health got at the end of March, which was obviously the largest departmental budget of all.”
“The intention of the Internal Market Bill seems to take us in a different direction, which is very concerning, and we intend to press that point with the British Government.”
“The total scale — this is between 2014 and 2020 — is in the region of €4 billion. Some of that falls under our ongoing PEACE PLUS programme, which takes up what would have been the Peace funding and the INTERREG funding, and the proposition for that is around €650 million. That fund will continue to be delivered locally. The rest of that funding is made up of the replacement of CAP, which goes on until next year, and a range of other EU funding that, I am sure, the Member will be familiar with. <BR /> <BR />Our concern is that the promise was that we would have full access to that amount — that is, the funding that we previously had — and that we would have the ability to design the programmes for that and to allocate the funding and work with our own local partners in doing so.”
“These are very high-level issues that face not only our Administration here but those in Scotland and Wales, and we are trying to press home the need for a broad level of fiscal flexibility in order to assist us in managing our Budgets.”
“I will not involve myself in any critique of the Infrastructure Minister's responsibilities. That is a matter for her and her Department. <BR /> <BR />We are making very general arguments about Budget planning and managing the finances that we have. I will talk again to the Finance Ministers from Scotland and Wales at lunchtime today, and we have consistently expressed those messages and others to the Treasury. Our concern about that is heightened by the fact that there will now not be a Budget in the autumn. Our concern about EU funding is heightened by the Internal Market Bill, and that is why we felt that we had to speak today with one voice to reinforce the messages that we have been consistently giving.”
“As I have told the House on a number of occasions, the fiscal council is a New Decade, New Approach commitment, and we will meet it. As with a lot of Departments and the commitments under New Decade, New Approach, things have slipped because of COVID and the necessity for all Departments to focus entirely on meeting the challenges that COVID has presented, but we have already begun again the work on the fiscal council, and I hope to be able to bring a proposition to the Executive on that very soon. I am also looking at the idea of a fiscal commission that can propose things such as additional tax-varying powers for the Assembly, as has happened in Wales and Scotland, and I hope to bring a proposal on both matters in the very near future.”
“That is why we are pressing that issue very hard. <BR /> <BR />I did send a cost for the protocol and EU exit to the Treasury. It said that it would look at the business case for that. I know that DAERA is providing additional figures for some of the costs for which it will have responsibility. The Treasury said that it would meet those costs in full. However, as yet, we have no firm commitment on the costs that we have sent it.”
“What we want, in the first instance, is for the principle of flexibility to be agreed. We have not had that agreed. At the moment, we do not know the level of flexibility that we might need. Some of that is the conversion of capital to resource and some is the flexibility to extend into the next financial year. Departments are very busy trying to spend out their COVID money and budgets. We have an October monitoring round exercise going on. Of course, we have a January monitoring round scheduled as well. When we get to those stages, I think that we will know the degree of flexibility that we might require to transfer money between capital and resource and to carry over into the next financial year. We will have greater clarity. However, the principle of flexibility is one that we need to establish with Treasury.”
“He said that that was the basis on which they were operating, which, I suppose, is certainty of a type, but not the certainty that we want. That is why we intend to engage directly with him — to get that certainty. It is impossible for us to plan ahead if we do not even know the time frame, much less the funding envelope, that we have.”
“That is certainly our hope. With our own Budget spend, we have operated for the past number of years on annual Budgets. That does not give any long-term certainty, particularly for capital projects. We have significant capital projects here that the Executive want to get on with. They are flagship projects that will make a huge difference to economic recovery and regeneration right across the region. The certainty that a three-year resource Budget and four-year capital Budget gives us — not only us but industry, construction and all those sectors — is very important. We had been operating on the basis that that was the case. Then, signals came out of Treasury, because there is a confused picture there, that it might not be the case. The other week, I raised that directly with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.”
“Our concern here is to get certainty around the funding envelope. That comes from London. If that certainty is not there, it makes it difficult for us to plan. That is not unique to us; I am having that conversation with the Scottish and Welsh Finance Ministers. They are experiencing exactly the same problems in giving Budget certainty to their own institutions. That is why we are making the statement collectively today.”
“The Member wants me to provide a Budget in that context. If that is the sort of Budget that he wants, in the hope that we know what we have, it would have to be a made-up Budget. Or, does he want us to pursue Treasury to get the certainty that we need to allow us to plan, hopefully for the next three years for resource and the next four years for capital; to get that as early as we possibly can; in doing so, to go out to consult with his Committee, other Committees and generally on a draft Budget; and to produce the Budget in legislation here in the springtime? That is the normal Budget process. I am not sure why the Member does not understand that; he has been on the Finance Committee for long enough.”
“I am, perhaps, as confused as most people listening to you may be. I am saying clearly that we do not know what the funding envelope is. We are not absolutely certain whether we are going to have a three-year resource Budget and a four-year capital Budget. We have been told that that is the case, but there are other signals coming out of Treasury to say that that might not be the case.”
“When we in Sinn Féin get up and talk about these issues, we are accused of politicising COVID, yet we are constantly lectured about the benefits of the precious Union. Let us see how it works out in the time ahead.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have quite a lot of good words and goodwill about what the shared prosperity fund might look like, but we have no certainty around that at all. We are particularly alarmed by the clause in the Internal Market Bill that suggests that allocating that funding to specific projects here would rest with Whitehall. We have a very clear view, as have Scotland and Wales, and it is the view of our Executive that the shared prosperity fund would be administered and allocated by the Executive through its various Departments and partners, through which we currently allocate EU funding. That must be adhered to. <BR /> <BR />I will not rise to the point that he made as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.”
“I am happy to cooperate, as I have done, with the Finance Committee and provide it with the information that it requires and which we require. The problem is that we do not have that yet. We do not have that certainty around flexibility. Flexibility is always beneficial, but, in the year that we are in, where we not only have uncertainty around COVID and the ability of Departments to spend money that we have supplied to them in the Budget, but we have an additional amount of about £2·2 billion of COVID money, to date, to spend in the financial year, a very significant pressure is placed on Departments to spend, so that type of flexibility would be very helpful. We are not certain yet about what the outcome might look like once we move into the new year, but we want to be prepared to manage any pressures that we have.”
“As Finance Ministers, we represent over 10 million people, and, today, we speak with one voice. We are calling for more fiscal flexibility to manage the implications of COVID-19; we are calling for proper involvement in the spending review so that we can plan our Budgets; and we are calling for lost EU funding to be replaced in full and brought under local control. <BR /> <BR />In normal times, this uncertainty would not be helpful, but the lack of clarity is further compounded as we deal with COVID and Brexit. The Treasury must urgently provide the clarity that we need. I commend this statement to the House.”
“The one significant piece of legislation that the British Government have produced recently, the Internal Market Bill, represents a power grab in areas of devolved responsibilities. Our devolution arrangements are underpinned by the Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty, so this is an extremely serious development. Today, we are collectively asking for assurances that the British Government will provide full replacement funding for EU programmes without detriment to devolution. The issues that I have raised today are integral to the Executive's future budget plans and are issues that urgently need to be resolved. <BR /> <BR />I call on the Chancellor to provide the much-needed certainty that this House requires and that our Scottish and Welsh counterparts need.”
“Planning for 2021 would be challenging enough without the further uncertainty surrounding Brexit — uncertainty that is within the British Government's gift to clarify. Some three months before the end of the transition period, we do not have the clarity that we need on key issues such as implementing the protocol and replacing EU funding. I have written to the Treasury outlining the costs of implementing the protocol and have yet to receive confirmation that those costs will be met by the British Government, as they promised. I also await detail on the shared prosperity fund, the much-vaunted replacement for certain EU funding.”
“Under the current rules, any underspend over 0·6% of our resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) budget or 1·5% of our capital DEL budget is lost to the Executive. That restriction does not encourage good financial management and risks year-end surges of spend as Departments seek to ensure that budgets are maximised. A relaxation of the rules around year-end underspend would allow Departments more flexibility to manage underspends. This is especially relevant in a period when the impact of COVID-19 can lead to a disruption in projects, working practices and supply chains. These are limited and logical requests. <BR /> <BR />The concerns that I have outlined are further exacerbated by Brexit.”
“Today, we collectively ask the British Government to provide the full suite of flexibilities that we need to manage the unprecedented ongoing uncertainty that we face. I recognise that, for different devolved Administrations, that might mean different solutions. For the Executive to be able to respond effectively to the impacts of COVID-19 in this year and future years, it will be necessary for us to have flexibility to transfer capital funding into resource budgets. This will allow the Executive the agility that they need to respond to changes that will materially impact on public service provision. <BR /> <BR />In addition, I call for the Treasury to loosen the restrictions around transferring funding from one year to the next.”
“The delay in the spending review leads to a delay in the local Budget process, making it harder for Ministers to plan effectively for the years ahead. This is made all the more acute by the uncertainty around COVID-19. Today, we collectively ask the British Government for urgent clarity around the timing and scope of the spending review. In a period where future implications of COVID-19 are uncertain, it is imperative that the Government provide as much clarity as possible on the spending review process, the outcome and the flexibility that will be afforded to us to respond to COVID-19 in the current year and within our future Budget envelope. <BR /> <BR />This is not a situation unique to our Executive. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are faced with similar problems in planning for the future.”
“While that move in itself was concerning, of greater concern to the Executive is the continued lack of clarity over the upcoming spending review. Since the announcement of the spending review on 21 July, I have been concerned about the omission of a date by which the process would be concluded. The Chancellor spoke about "autumn" but, going by previous Treasury statements, "autumn" can mean anything up to the second week in December. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly outline why the spending review outcome date is so important to the Executive and the House. The spending review outcome is the first time that we will get an idea of what the overarching Budget envelope will be for the Executive for the coming years. Without that information, it is impossible to plan effectively.”
“This short statement concerns the upcoming Chancellor's spending review and the wider Westminster funding process. My counterparts in Scotland and Wales and I are collectively making statements to our respective legislatures, setting out our expectations for more fiscal flexibility to manage the implications of COVID-19, proper involvement in the spending review so that we can plan for our Budgets, and a fair deal on EU funding. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware that, on 23 September, Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced the cancellation of the autumn Budget. This marks a departure from the normal convention of two fiscal statements a year, which provided a degree of certainty to the financial process.”
“We can achieve those, although it is not ideal, and I would prefer that there were a head of the Civil Service, but my Department is responsible for bringing forward proposals, and we are working on all the areas that the Member outlined. I could go into more detail, but we are restricted time-wise. I assure the Member that we are working on all those areas. We will bring forward position papers to the Executive, and it is for the Executive to agree them. <BR /> <BR />When it gets to the implementation phase, of course, leadership across the Civil Service will be required. Hopefully, by that stage, the issue will have been addressed. I want to assure the Member that the absence of a head of the Civil Service will not delay me or my Department from bringing forward the necessary proposals.”