Northern Ireland Assembly

Here is where I have real difficulty. I shall take the example of the Department for Regional Development as I know it best. When deciding to spend money on roads, I cannot say "I am the Member for East Belfast; East Belfast needs a new road around the harbour, so let us put our money in there". That would be entirely wrong. People might have done that in the past. However, one must have objective criteria; one must determine how one sets priorities. All Members think that the roads in their constituency should take priority, and I do not doubt their arguments, but we must have criteria when decisions are being made.

In taking decisions on roads we should consider the number of accidents, the volume of traffic using the road, the benefits to major hospitals and to schools along the route and the age and state of repair of the road. These are all objective criteria in determining priorities. That is what we do. A Department will set the objective criteria and prioritise its programme on them.

I shall take another example: the Toome bypass proposal was announced before the proposal for a road to Newry. As I expected, the Deputy First Minister argued the case with me for the Newry road in his constituency. I would have done exactly the same had I been Deputy First Minister. Objectively, however, I determined that the Toome bypass was more important.

Let us look at the new circumstances. Infrastructure expenditure is now contained in the programme funds. Will the Deputy First Minister prevail on the Executive by telling them that "Newry is the priority; its road must go ahead. We shall allocate the money out of the Executive programme funds"? In that case, despite objective criteria, the less urgent road would be given precedence over the more urgent. That cannot be right. It may even be legally suspect. The basis on which the Executive programme funds are allocated should be questioned and clarified.

I am delighted that money is available for the improvements outlined by the railway task force in A D Little's report - vital work for the railway infrastructure. There is now a draft regional development plan. An important part of transport strategy is to encourage people to use public transport. When devolution was introduced I had no doubt that the railways were finished; railways in Northern Ireland would close - with the exception, perhaps, of the Belfast to Dublin line. That was the agenda. That has been reversed under devolution, but it can only continue to be reversed if the money is available. This Budget is a start.

I am delighted that there is an increase of £14·5 million in spending on water services. That will help to deal with the all the problems, including raising health standards, particularly in light of the cryptosporidium outbreak, which is much on our minds.

I commend the amendment moved by my Colleague, Mr Dodds. The amendment seeks to recognise that the regional rate is a significant burden on householders and on businesses. An increase of 8% - more than twice the rate of inflation - is unacceptable. I usually challenge people's actions rather than question their motives. However, the motive here is fairly clear. The regional rate is being increased because ultimately the Assembly will not be blamed. The poor councillors will be blamed, since the rates bill comes from the council, does it not?

The Minister can increase the regional rate substantially, and the boys and girls in the councils will get a kicking for it from the electorate. No matter how prudent they might have been in their local authority - even if they have reduced their district rate - the Minister's whopping 8% rise in the regional rate will remove any advantage, and councillors will get the blame.

The regional rate is merely an additional form of taxation. There was once a link with water services, and the public believed that it was paying for water and sewerage improvements. That is no longer the case as that link has been broken. This is the Durkan tax; it is direct taxation. We were not given tax-raising powers under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 but we have adopted them in the form of the regional rate. Business people in particular, who have great difficulties in making a living, must now deal with a significant increase in the regional rate.

There is no doubt about the community's view on this increase. The Minister could have addressed it with very little difficulty. As he did not, we have taken from his Budget the most useless items of expenditure - the squandering and wasteful "North/Southery", the so-called Civic Forum and other elements that amount to about £20 million. He would have to take £12 million from this - his figures are not very precise - to reduce the regional rate to the rate of inflation.

He has rightly said that some of the work of the bodies that we named would be done anyway. We have left £8 million for this to be done in the relevant Departments. This amendment should commend itself to the Assembly, as I know it will commend itself to the public.

I draw attention to the fact that I am the first Member of the Opposition to speak this morning. All previous speakers have been from parties that are in the Executive. I have never seen so much wriggling, squirming and so many would-be Pontius Pilates. "This is not our document. Oh no, don't blame us, don't tarnish us with this". They have not dipped their hands in the bowl for ablution - they have immersed their whole bodies in search of salvation. However, it must be remembered that the Budget has been agreed by the Executive. Let everyone remember that the Executive consists of the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin.

Can the Member please tell us when the Democratic Unionist Party agreed this Budget?

Those with ears, let them listen. I am stating - [Interruption.]

Order. Members will address their remarks through the Speaker.

I have difficulty in getting my message across, but the members of the Northern Ireland Executive - and I shall repeat them in case there is any doubt - are the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. The public recognises and accepts that. To pretend otherwise is to treat the people of Northern Ireland with contempt. The people know for whom they voted and whom they put in the Executive, and the members of the Executive must accept that.

I should not criticise that. I am trying to win a case, and the case is that the regional rate should not be increased by 8%. Two parties of the Executive are already scrambling to get in behind this justifiable premise. They are even prepared to turn their backs on the Executive of which they are members and come scrambling over to the Opposition. Imagine if the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered his Budget only to find that his Colleagues had scrambled from the Government Benches to the other side of the House. Like Pontius Pilate, they do not want to touch his Budget. "That is not our Budget", they say, "Oh, no, no - save us from this terrible, terrible Budget".

When the Minister was speaking -

You have stated your case.

And I have a big case to state.

In his statement the Minister referred to the revisions that had taken place and he used the words "as a result of scrutiny". With the greatest respect, I must correct the Minister. No scrutiny of this Budget has taken place at any stage. Yes, there has been consultation, and, yes, there has been talk of scrutiny. However, scrutiny, as laid down in the Northern Ireland Act, means "close examination of", and there has not been that necessary close examination of either the draft or the revised Budget. Do we need proof of this? The proof is that two of the Statutory Committees did not even have time to submit a written response on the draft Budget to the Finance and Personnel Committee.

The Finance and Personnel Committee did not have sufficient time to do its sole job of advising the Minister of Finance and Personnel and of assisting him to introduce the Budget. That has given us a Budget that is in many respects shallow and superficial. As Dr Birnie said, it does not allow us to get behind the figures, and we are still being promised public service agreements in January.

We have not seen the public service agreements for setting targets and benchmarks for public expenditure and its results. That is a fundamental flaw. In many respects, our approach is a hand-me-down from previous regimes with some changes that I accept. Lack of time for proper scrutiny has resulted in the job's not being done properly.

Mr Maskey's contribution almost reduced me to tears. I visualise him, arm up his back in excruciating pain, moving his amendment to reject an 8% increase in the regional rate with great reluctance, in spite of his party's being part and parcel of the Executive. I was nearly crying; I was reaching for my handkerchief. The Democratic Unionist Party once again moved an unadulteratedly party political amendment that was clearly calculated to cause as much damage as possible to the Good Friday Agreement. The DUP is consistent, I will give it that. The amendment calls for the removal of North/South institutions and of the Civic Forum. "Let power lie totally in the hands of politicians", says the DUP. Nevertheless, it says that it had to do this - for honourable reasons, of course, - to find the £8 million to £11 million.

I find it very strange that when the DUP studied the figures - and it obviously did because it was able to cost what it called "North/Southery" - it missed one glaring figure for the Departments for Regional and Social Development. It seems to have ignored the fact that between the draft Budget and the present one the departmental running costs for the Department for Regional Development have gone up by £2·1 million while those for the Department for Social Development have gone up by £6·3 million. That is a massive £8·4 million between the two Departments. As every 1% increase in the regional rate equates to almost £2·2 million, lo and behold, 4% has been diverted to these Departments.

I am interested in the Member's argument. If he feels so passionately about this matter why did he not move an amendment rather than lecture the rest of us? Could he not be bothered? Is rhetoric his only contribution?

The impatience of the Gentleman! This is only a preamble, yet his party is already jumping at me to hear why I did not move an amendment. Do not get excited; calm down. Some Members seem to forget that during the take-note debate of 14 November, I stated clearly that the Alliance Party would not support a Budget funded, even in part, by an 8% increase in the regional rate. We gave absolute responsibility to the Executive to do the decent thing and amend it. We hoped that the Executive would heed the views and concerns of Members, of the Finance and Personnel Committee, of local authorities and of the people.

To date, they have not done that. I would not usurp their authority. I am proud to be a Member of the Opposition, and it strikes me that many people and one or two parties in the Executive would like to join the Opposition. We shall consider their applications, but I question some Members' behaviour. We may have to stand alone.

Why did we say that we would not support a Budget that was based on an increase of 8% in the regional rate? We did that for sound economic reasons but also for reasons of principle and consistency. It strikes me - and this has been brought home to me even more this morning - that inconsistency is one of the greatest scourges of politicians. We have the privilege of representing people. What do the people say? They say that some politicians will say one thing one day and do the opposite the next.

They promise the sun, the moon and the stars, but what do they deliver? Absolutely nothing. Politicians produce manifestos to fight an election. However, as soon as the election is over the manifestos are consigned to oblivion. They no longer matter, because the politicians are now in power.

On 14 November I pointed out that consistency was very important, and that we, along with councils and councillors throughout Northern Ireland (and over 60 Members of the House are also members of local authorities), had consistently opposed a large increase in the regional rate. On the same date I asked how anyone could possibly oppose a large increase in the regional rate when a member of a local authority but when in power ape the Tory overlords who foisted this on us for years. How can anyone do that and then face the electorate? For saying that, I was criticised and accused of being adversarial - note: adversarial. When I appealed to Members' social consciences to recognise that increases in the regional rate and in Housing Executive rents that were above inflation would hit the poor (specifically pensioners) and would drag people into the poverty trap, I was accused of indulging in - wait for it - populist stunts. This quarter also accused me of being a poor mathematician and in the next breath accused me of being a magician - just like that.

What is the justification for these indefensible hikes in rent and rates? The justification is responsibility. Members of the Executive claim that they have such a responsibility. Some politicians will hide behind any fig leaf. Those of us not in the Northern Ireland Executive have no responsibility. We should sympathise with those in the Executive because they do. We poor people outside the Executive can indulge ourselves because we have no responsibility.

If being consistent, if having a social conscience, if protecting the poor, if democratically fighting for fairness is irresponsible, I stand guilty as charged. I shall submit to the people's verdict; but of what shall I be accused? Shall I be accused of being populist? I remind those Members who say that I am a reject that this "reject" topped the poll in his constituency in the Assembly election. Members of the Gentleman's own party stood in that election, so he should be very careful about the stones he is casting.

I appreciate that the Executive have a very difficult job to balance the books. I appreciate that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has limited resources. I repeat: money was available in the system to provide the services without an 8% increase in the regional rate. Eight million pounds or £9 million would reduce the increase to 4% and approximately £11 million would reduce it to 3%.

That is less than a fifth of 1% of the whole block. Therefore it comes down to priorities. I stress the importance of "bottom-up" economics. By removing people from the poverty trap we give them a sense of pride in society, and economic benefits will accrue. Large rent and rates increases are completely against that principle. They increase poverty; they drive more people into dependence on the state, and that results in an ever- increasing benefit culture.

Mr Cobain touched upon that on 14 November when he referred to the cynics who say that 80% of Housing Executive tenants would not have to pay the increase in rents because they receive housing benefit, which is not paid out of the Northern Ireland block.

Even a poor mathematician like myself recognises that all money comes from one cake - UK taxation - and the more that is spent on social benefits through the social security arm of UK taxation, the less will be available even for the Northern Ireland block grant. The same applies to the commercial sector. The more small retailers must pay in rent and rates, the less opportunity they have to grow. The regional rate, which is spread across Northern Ireland, constitutes approximately 66% of the entire rates bill.

The retail sector, particularly its service side, must grow. The Assembly should do its utmost to promote that growth rather than impede it. Large rates bills equal less employment. We must use any opportunity we have to increase employment in the service sector to catch up. I am thinking in particular of tourism. We must attract people to Northern Ireland; that will return the money by more than tenfold to the Exchequer or, I should say, to the Northern Ireland Executive.

I recently studied the family expenditure survey figures for Northern Ireland. They show that the average weekly income here is £102 a week less than in the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, we have the lowest average weekly income of all regions in the United Kingdom. I may be a poor mathematician, but most people will agree with me that the lower one's average income, the less one has to spend.

People in Northern Ireland must spend 25% more on electricity, 20% more on clothing and footwear and 8% more on food than the average person in the rest of the United Kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland therefore spend a disproportionate amount of their disposable income on the bare necessities.

In spite of that, the Northern Ireland Executive are proposing to add to that burden by increasing the regional rate by 8%. The Budget proposes that Housing Executive rents be raised by more than 2% above the rate of inflation, reducing our people's disposable income. We spend about £12 a week less on leisure services than the rest of the United Kingdom.

If we are to get Northern Ireland's economy right we cannot ignore those lessons, and it saddens me that so far the Executive have ignored them. The Minister compared our proposed increases with England's. That misses the big picture, and we cannot afford to do that if we are to make the necessary changes to the Barnett formula, for example. These arguments must be presented to the House and to the Treasury. Need and relative incomes are fundamentals that cannot be ignored in any society.

The reallocations in the October monitoring round could have been used to mitigate the proposed increases in the rents and rates. The Minister assured us then that the 8% rise was needed to provide the services outlined in the November Budget. He also assured us that any reductions would inevitably lead to a reduction in services. However, at that time approximately £75 million was available for reallocation. Some people called it "easement". There was not one penny of easement for rent and ratepayers, despite pleas. It was a kick in the teeth for them.

The DUP pointed out that the 8% rise in the draft Budget was to be applicable for one year. This Budget tells us that it will roll on for another two years. That is a double kick in the teeth for rent and ratepayers. It is a clear demonstration that everyone's pleas were ignored. They were not merely ignored, their noses were rubbed in it. I resent that. More could have been done.

Of the £75 million in the reallocation £20 million came from the sale of Housing Executive houses through receipts, and more could have been done for these people. Those receipts were not anticipated. They could have been used to reduce Housing Executive rents. Four million pounds in the reallocation came from the regional rate through the final allocation of end-year flexibility for 1999-2000. That should have been used to keep the regional rate at an acceptable level. However, that was not one of the Executive's priorities. The Executive regarded the 8% as a sacred cow. They would not bleed that sacred cow; but they were prepared to bleed the poor. That is very wrong. It is unfair and it is a kick in the teeth for all of us, including local authorities, who urged that the regional rate be kept at acceptable levels.

My party did not move an amendment, nor have I any intention of doing so. This is a matter of principle. I will not play party political games with a Budget. I said that my party would vote against the Budget, and we will do that if the necessary changes are not made. It is not too late to do it, even at this eleventh hour. I appeal to the Executive and to the other parties to row in behind us and insist that this Budget be changed to accommodate a less than 8% increase in the regional rate. It can be done. It is the Executive's duty to do this. We shall keep our promise and reject this Budget if those changes are not made.

Our reason for not moving an amendment is vitally important. This Budget is a key decision. With regard to key decisions, the Alliance Party is discriminated against because it does not describe itself tribally. In effect, our votes do not count, for we are described as neither Unionist nor Nationalist in the roll of honour. That is a travesty of justice, of the agreement and of the law. Even if we moved an amendment, it would not count. In that respect our votes are less than worthless. We will not be part of such a charade. I appeal to the better judgement of the Executive to change.

I want society to change. I want to cross bridges and divides rather than stick labels on people. However, if labels mean more, there is nothing I can do. You can vote against us and reject us and tell us that we do not count. You can put us, in many respects -

The Member will address the Chair.

I am sorry.

We can be put in the same category as the rent and ratepayers, who can be trodden on.

We discuss the Budget proposals against a backdrop of crises in nearly all Departments, particularly in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. At the same time, the Budget proposals allocate about £6 billion combined with an 8% increase in the regional rate.

The case against the 8% increase has been made very substantively by the mover of the first amendment. It will fall heavily on the poor and will damage business, which is already suffering from the differential in fuel and electricity costs. At the same time it is being used to finance a combination of bureaucratic waste and a politically driven all-Ireland agenda. I say "politically driven" because the detail of this agenda has never been subject to any substantive economic evaluation. We do not know what return we shall get but we can be pretty sure that any possible returns that may accrue to this all-Ireland agenda will not offset the harmful effects of an entirely unwarranted - indeed, outrageous - increase in the regional rate this year and in future.

Several Departments face acute crises. This is combined with a very large distribution of money and an increase in the regional rate. However, one of the most striking features of this whole so-called Programme for Government is that there is no substantive immediate or medium- term policy justification upon which either the overall allocation of the money or its detailed use in the Departments could be argued. In other words, there is no innovative thinking in the Budget proposals.

There is nothing remotely resembling a grounding in policy. That would require detailed analysis of the crises facing each Department and an evaluation of the various options available to deal with them. Such considerations are entirely absent from this so-called Programme for Government. In other words, it is not a Programme for Government in any sense at all. Spending £6 billion and imposing an outrageous 8% increase in the regional rate with no substantive policy statement is merely throwing money at the problem.

There are two possible outcomes. Throwing money at a problem is unlikely to produce any result. It would be a waste of taxpayers' hard-earned money.

A good example is the recent proposals of the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. I have read these proposals very carefully, and the only way to make sense of them is to say that the Minister was caught between two constraints. He was caught between the commitments in his party's manifesto and the Government's being unable ever to finance student fees comprehensively again. This ragbag of proposals makes no sense. That does not surprise me, for I heard the same Minister on a recent 'Seven Days' programme not only professing his ignorance of elementary English literature but trying to turn his ignorance into an intellectual virtue. What else can one expect when such a man is in charge of a Department?

Why have the Executive not produced coherent policies to enable Members to evaluate the proposals reasonably and sensibly? It is because the Executive lacks any mechanisms for collective decision making. There is no collective responsibility in the Executive, and it is not surprising that their statements lack policy coherence.

The second amendment reflects the absence of any real policy coherence in the Executive. The second amendment opposes a decision reached by the Executive; yet it is being moved by a party that has two Members in the Executive, who, presumably, agreed it. That shows that decision making in the Executive is in chaos.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but, unfortunately, precisely the same is true of the first amendment, although I agree entirely with its substance. The first amendment opposes an 8% rate increase, but it was moved by a former Minister who made two Pledges of Office - first, to participate with Colleagues in preparing a Programme for Government; secondly, to support all decisions of the Executive and the Assembly. A Member is moving an amendment - and I agree with all his arguments - who agreed to give a blank cheque of approval to all the Executive's decisions. He simply cannot mount any credible opposition to this process in general and to the decisions of the Executive in particular from such a position.

We are throwing £6 billion at our problems and imposing punitive economic measures, yet there is no collective responsibility and no coherent policies.

We are in this mess because people were appointed to the Executive regardless of their expertise.

For example, the Minister of Agriculture inherited a crisis in agriculture, many of the causes of which are beyond the Assembly's control. That must be said. However, despite being presented with the opportunity to have the BSE ban lifted, she failed to seize it. Now, unfortunately, the BSE crisis in Europe is such that the ban is unlikely ever to be lifted.

The Minister has displayed marked incompetence in handling a portfolio. That also explains the incoherence of today's document.

Every time the Minister of Health defends her policy in the media, she substitutes the word "clearly" for coherent argument. The word "clearly" - even if screeched at the top of one's voice - is not a substitute for a coherent argument. That this individual repeatedly deploys this word, and various other rhetorical devices as substitutes for arguments, clearly demonstrates her inability to handle the portfolio that the d'Hondt system threw at her.

Will the Member return to the Budget shortly?

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall return to the Budget, and I admit that I was, perhaps with some justification, digressing slightly. The main issue is that several areas in Northern Ireland are in acute crisis. We have £6 billion to spend and we are deploying it blindly. Money is being thrown at problems; yet there is no coherent policy. Therefore we can expect little from this Budget - despite all the rhetoric that has been heaped upon it - to alleviate our real problems.

I support the Budget as, I hope, will the House. I speak as one who has neither desire nor design to be a candidate in the next Westminster election. Therefore I shall make no political points today, as it seems to me that there has been some electioneering going on.

I broadly support the Budget although I am concerned about the time allowed for consultation. I made those concerns known at the Finance and Personnel Committee. I am wearing a couple of hats today: I am the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which oversees Government spending and which attempts to ensure that waste is eliminated. I am also a local councillor and a member of the Northern Ireland Housing Council. I was formerly on the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I therefore have a particular interest in housing.

The Budget sets out to modernise our fiscal accountability. Linking spending allocations to clear targets for delivery will lead to greater efficiency and to better value for money.

I welcome the introduction of public service agreements; these will open up to detailed scrutiny each Department's objectives and the means by which they will be achieved. Furthermore, I welcome the use of the principles of resource accounting in assessing public spending and the services delivered or results attained thereby. I hope that the work of the Public Accounts Committee will be made easier by those innovations. I am confident that local democratic control and scrutiny will lead to greater accountability in the management of our resources.

Housing is a particular interest of mine, and, frankly, I am disappointed that it has been given such low status in the Budget. In his statement of 12 December the Minister promised an additional £2 million for housing to deal with the difficulties of north Belfast. As I represented that area on Belfast City Council I welcome that. However, that allocation deals with a one-off situation and does not affect the overall housing plan for Northern Ireland.

Housing needs are changing. There are more one-parent families, single occupancy is growing and there has been a fall in household sizes. There has also been substantial growth in the number of privately owned homes, which has been partly caused by the sale of Housing Executive properties. I have supported such sales - and I shall continue to support them - but there is still a need for social housing. Lack of funding for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive could lead to important schemes to replace windows or kitchens being put on the back burner. I was heartened by the Minister's assurance to Mr Leslie on 12 December that the Executive would pay due regard to the needs of all Departments in future monitoring rounds. I hope that housing will not be given a back seat in future rounds.

The demand for social housing is not being met. Government financial policies have led to annual cuts in funding for the Housing Executive. Although the housing associations do excellent work, it is necessary that the Housing Executive continues to provide housing as well as performing its strategic role. The Housing Executive should become a housing corporation, or a housing association with the powers of a housing corporation, so that it would have access to private and public funding. In his reply to my question the Minister said

That should be borne in mind, and the Housing Executive should be given access to private funding.

The annual shortfall in housing starts will be about 400. That figure is taken from 'Review and Perspectives 2001-2004', which concluded that there was a need for an annual social build programme of 2,100 dwellings. That is still 400 homes short of what is needed. Providing decent accommodation for all should be one of the Executive's priorities, so that the good work of the Housing Executive over the past 30 years can be continued.

The Department of the Environment's Planning Service is to receive a further £800,000 to accelerate the production of development plans, including the Belfast metropolitan plan. I welcome that move. As a councillor in Lisburn, I have watched the progress of the Lisburn area plan; its slowness has caused great frustration to countless people, including me. I am not sure that it is only a funding issue; the whole system must be overhauled. Anything that can speed up the provision of housing in Northern Ireland should be welcomed.

This is the first Northern Ireland Budget for many years that will receive full scrutiny, although I hope that we shall have more time for scrutiny in future. I welcome the Executive's plans and look forward to many more Budgets that will lead to greater prosperity and a better life for all our people.

The Minister must wonder what people will be for in his Budget, having listened all morning to what they are against. It is much easier to dwell on problems than to find solutions. I welcome the Budget and its focus on solutions although I have concerns about it.

The Minister has consulted from the outset, and that is important. Unfortunately, we do not know how productive the consultations were or what revisions were made between October and December as a result. The process has shown the way forward by giving Members an opportunity to make a contribution. It is also useful that the public - those who knew about the consultations - made its contribution. That the Civic Forum may in future have a say on how we spend our money is also to be welcomed.

Like other Members, I am concerned about the time scale. I am a member of two Committees, both of which had great difficulty in scrutinising the Budget properly. We need more audit trails, although the Minister cannot solely be blamed for a lack of them. In their absence, this devolved Assembly will be no different from what preceded it under the Northern Ireland Office. We must know where the money is going, how much is being spent and what is being purchased.

We do not have an audit trail for each Department. That is certainly true of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. To date, it has been difficult to get answers about what happens to money when it goes to boards and trusts. We must know which boards and trusts are spending money efficiently and effectively; whether they are robbing Peter to pay Paul and whether they are taking from one part of the health budget to cover a deficit in another.

I welcome such scrutiny, even though it has created difficulties. Nonetheless, it is important that Committees be given sufficient time to respond to the Budget in future. The Assembly requires a strategy for an audit trail, and that, as well as a call for a review of the Barnett formula, should be spelt out in future Budgets.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>