Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 18 December 2000 (continued)
|
5.15 pm Additional funds have been made available to local councils in Great Britain, but not here. Why not? How can we hope to meet the vital targets for waste reduction and recycling in the strategy if they are not backed by the necessary money? If the Department of the Environment fails to meet its obligations under EC Directives because it does not have the resources, which Department will meet the cost of any infraction proceedings? Will the Department of the Environment have to bear the cost because it did not have the necessary resources to put the structures and systems in place to meet its international obligations? It would be totally wrong not to make money available to it. My final observation as Chairperson of the Environment Committee is to note that the Budget figures for 2002-03 and 2003-04 are indicative and are rounded to the nearest £10 million. They show an increase of almost £10 million for the Department of the Environment for both years. The Environment Committee welcomes the increase for the Department. Can the Minister confirm that the Department will benefit from that extra £10 million? If not, can he tell the Environment Committee and the Assembly what the real increase will be for 2002-03 and 2003-04? This document clearly says that the figures will be rounded to the nearest £10 million. It shows £110 million for the Department of the Environment, so the nearest £10 million would be £120 million. That would be deeply appreciated by the Department. I wish to discuss other matters, speaking as a Member of the Assembly. We have received different signals from around the House today. I heard the Sinn Féin/IRA Member for Mid Ulster, Mr John Kelly, welcome Mr Durkan's motion. He differs from his party, because it did not welcome the motion but moved an amendment to it. I am not sure what is happening - is there another division in Sinn Féin/IRA? On one hand it wants to amend the motion; on the other it welcomes it. Those were Mr John Kelly's opening words. I am sure that it charmed Mr Durkan's ears when he heard that he was to be supported by Sinn Féin/IRA. Mr John Kelly went on to say that the DUP wants the best of both worlds. That is interesting. The two Sinn Féin/IRA Ministers were at the Executive meetings; they were party to the discussions and they agreed the programme. They now find that their party has cut the feet from under them by making an amendment. They would accept the motion subject to a reduction of expenditure in the Executive programme funds in order to lower the increase in the regional rate from 8% to the current level of inflation. What do they want? Does Sinn Féin/IRA want the best of both worlds so that it can pretend to ratepayers that somehow it robustly defended their interests in the Assembly? In the secret closets of the Executive meetings their Ministers raised their hands in agreement to it. There seems to be a disagreement. I know that other parties disagree; but in that party disagreeing can have serious consequences. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. In his defence of the Budget, the Minister said that an increase of 8% was justifiable because it would come from those who could afford to pay. I do not accept that. There is a major poverty trap in Northern Ireland that catches those whose wages are just above the minimum benefit level. They must pay for everything. It is they who cannot afford to pay. We find that instead of 2·9%, it will be 8%. This rate, as my hon Friend Mr Dodds said, is in line for several years to come - a constant 8%. Of course, there were howls of objections to that - Mr Speaker: Order. I draw the Member's attention, and the attention of the House, to my injunction at the start of the debate. I trusted that when matters had been dealt with at substantial length earlier in the debate that Members would not repeat them. Many Members still wish to speak, and Members will have to be particularly creative and fascinating to get beyond 10 minutes before I call the next Member. If each Member takes even 10 minutes to speak, the debate will last for a very long time. I therefore ask Members not to exceed 10 minutes unless they are being particularly innovative in their ideas. I am listening acutely for that with all Members, not just with Dr McCrea. Rev Dr William McCrea: I do not want to be treated differently from other Members. That rule of thumb has not been in use while I have been in the Chamber. Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has not been listening. At the start of the debate I said that I would not impose a time limit so that Members speaking at the start of the debate would have longer to speak. I wanted Members who spoke in the later part of the debate not to repeat what other Members had said earlier. For that reason, if the Member, as he will undoubtedly do, not only attends to what I say but to what I do with regard to other Members he will find equity. Rev Dr William McCrea: I accept your ruling, Mr Speaker. However, the 8% is at the heart of this issue and of the amendment, and I have not heard many Members deal with the Minister of Finance and Personnel's statement on it. Very few have mentioned it or dealt with the claim that it will affect only those that can afford to pay. In fact, it will hurt those who are least able to carry the burden. In saying that, I am guided by the Minister's statement. The burden is not placed upon those who can afford to pay the additional money; it is placed upon those who are in a very serious poverty trap. That is at the heart of the two amendments. I hope that Members can speak to the amendments. The matter of the 8% is in both of them; it is topical, and rightly so. If there is a ruling that we do not deal with those matters, that we must deal with other matters, we shall have to consider carefully what we are supposed to say in the House. Mr McFarland mentioned the budget for the Department for Regional Development and asked whether Mr Campbell was misleading the House. Mr McFarland knows that the Minister was not misleading the House. By making that cheap political point Mr McFarland may feel that he has done something in the debate to bring him some kudos. However, it is stupid and childish to talk about misleading the House on a very serious matter. Getting money for the Province's roads is a serious matter. Anyone who thinks that the money that the Minister has given is sufficient to repair the Province's roads is mistaken. The Member must be in North Down and not in the rest of the country. The roads in Mid Ulster need a tremendous injection of finance. We want to ensure that we have enough money to build the Toome bypass and other vital roads in the area. He also mentioned the Executive programme funds. People used to talk about "brown paper bags". Let us be frank: when people speak about Executive funding they mean the drip-feeding. When the Belfast Agreement gets into difficulties and the people do not see it as the way forward or do not agree with it, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister drip-feed another few million pounds into the community to keep the peasants quiet for another while. Money for roads should go to the Department for Regional Development rather than into the central programme, where the Executive can interfere with a Department's finances. The programme, which my hon Friend has laid out in the considered amendment and on which we have been upfront and open, states exactly where the money would come from. The sad reality is that the Alliance Party has no alternative and therefore could table no amendment. The DUP has tabled a clear and considered amendment, and I trust that the House will support it. Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom roinnt pointí a dhéanamh sa díospóireacht seo gan athrá nó pointí a lua a luadh cheana féin ag Comhaltaí eile. Sa chéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom labhairt i leith an leasaithe a cuireadh chun tosaigh in ainm mo pháirtí ag an Chomhalta ó Iarthar Bhéal Feirste, Alex Maskey. Is mian liom labhairt in éadan an mholta gur chóir an táille tís réigiúnach a mhéadú faoi 8% agus de réir sin sna blianta atá romhainn. Is mian liom fosta cur in éadan an mhéadaithe de 6·6% sa ráta tráchtála réigiúnach agus méaduithe níos lú, ach iad suntasach mar sin féin, sna blianta 2002-03 agus 2003-4. Ar na pointí eile a ba mhaith liom béim a leagan orthu tá imthosca speisialta Chontae Thír Eoghain agus Chontae Fhear Manach, a bhfuil cur chuige cás faoi leith ag teastáil uatha; agus na buntáistí a bhaineas le comhchuibhiú uile- Éireann - go díreach, malairt an mhéid a bhí le rá ag an Uasal Nigel Dodds agus ag a Chomhghleacaithe sa DUP ní ba luaithe sa díospóireacht. Cá bhfuil díbhinn na síochána a gealladh dúinn agus a hinseadh dúinn a steallfadh amach as coire Sheansailéir na Breataine? I want to raise some points without being repetitive. I acknowledge the many good things in the Budget and commend the Minister and the Executive for their hard work. However, I want to argue in favour of the amendment moved by my party Colleague Mr Maskey. I want to oppose the recommendation that the domestic regional rate should be increased by 8% in 2001-02 and in subsequent years. I also want to oppose an increase of 6·6% in the non-domestic regional rate with lesser, but still significant, increases in subsequent years. I shall briefly argue the special circumstances west of the Bann, of Counties Tyrone and Fermanagh in particular, which require a special-case approach and the merits of an all-Ireland harmonisation programme. In effect, the opposite of the case articulated by Mr Dodds and his DUP Colleagues. 5.30 pm Where is the much heralded peace dividend that we were told would flow abundantly from the British Chancellor's coffers? Why should we oppose the increase in the regional rate? Because its impact would be much greater than the revenue it would raise. It is too much pain for too little gain. It amounts to double taxation and will have a crippling effect on already hard-pressed ratepayers, not least on those who are trying to make ends meet in small shops in towns such as Omagh, Strabane and Dungannon. There is high feeling, anger and resentment among traders in Omagh, for example, at being rated out of business. They suffer when competing with large, out-of- town multi-outlet retailers. It is bad for the economies of small towns and rural communities. Why should I plead a special case for west of the Bann? Because things are not equal. People there ask why they should be subject to the same percentage increase in their rates when they are wrestling with the consequences of decades of underinvestment, neglect and discrimination; when they have inadequate access to quality health services; and when motorways end at Dungannon and just beyond Antrim. Poor roads infrastructure is a major disincentive for tourists and potential investors. Why should there be a uniform approach when uniformity does not exist, where service provision is not uniform, allocation of resources unequal, and where there is no level playing field? Inequality must be recognised and legislated for, even if that entails a two-tiered approach and some affirmative action or rebates for disadvantaged citizens and disadvantaged areas. The Executive could enter into a public service agreement with citizens living in disadvantaged rural areas west of the Bann to correct the huge imbalance in resources and underdevelopment. I shall not indulge in what the DUP calls "North/ Southery". It is sufficient to assert the strength of the economy in the rest of Ireland, and the DUP, whether it likes it or not, is swimming against a very strong economic and historical tide. Looking at tourism, agriculture, industrial development and the knowledge-based economy, one can see that money spent on North/South development is money well spent. It is a progressive move and a sound investment for the future. The Ceann Comhairle's invitation was to be innovative, and I shall be. One possible source of income has not dared to be spoken of today: the massive British military budget. Exact figures are difficult to unearth, but conservative estimates put the cost of maintaining Britain's military garrison in Ireland at between £800 million and £1 billion per annum. I want to use a visual aid. It is a map of the Six Counties outlining the British military presence. Mr Speaker: Visual aids of this kind are not in order. Mr McElduff: I accept your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle, but I wish to point out that there are about 52 British military installations in the Greater Belfast area. Rev Dr William McCrea: What have military installations to do with the Budget? I was called to order a short time ago when I was speaking directly to the Budget, yet this person is completely out of line. Mr Speaker: I am waiting to hear the relevance, Mr McElduff. Mr McElduff: Picking up on your invitation to be innovative and responding to Mr McCrea, I ask: where will the savings be made to generate the £20 million that would otherwise be raised by imposing an unduly high regional rate? Will it come from the British Exchequer's savings or from the British war budget, which should be redirected in peacetime into a reconstruction budget? A delegation from the Executive should meet the British Chancellor, Gordon Brown, and the Finance Minister in the rest of Ireland, Mr McCreevy, to ask where the much promised peace dividend is. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mr Speaker: Whatever else I may say I can scarcely complain that the Member has not been innovative. Dr Adamson: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle - [Interruption.] Mr Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it simply the advent of Christmas that makes so many people want camcorders? Mr Speaker: I fear that the Member may need to avail himself of some of the classes that are springing up. Dr Adamson: I would like to speak in Ullans, the literary standard of Ulster-Scots, and then give a translation. Preses o the Tolsel an forgaithert Memmers, anent the siller ploy o Govrenment, A maun ettil at pittin forrits whit the Ulster-Scotch residenters o this kintra maun an wad hae. A heid-count daen wi McCann-Erickson speirin whit fek o fowk in Norlin Airlann thocht thairsells Ulster-Scotch cam up wi aboot 20%, an nummers mair nor that ledged thai war on for fendin an forderin the Ulster-Scotch leid. Sic nummers maunnae be taen as the heicht, for mair an mair fowk is takkin tent o it, an a whein Ulster-Scotch fowkgates is on the rise. The Guideship Curn for a Siccar an Thegither Europe (OSCE), at a gaitherin o a collogue anent the fowk syde o its haundlin, gied grieance at "belangin a minoritie leid wad be a bodie's richt, an naebodie soud thole onie laich haundlin frae pittin sic richts forrits." Weill, aiblins mair nor 100,000 fowk in Ulster caas thairsells Ulster-Scotch, but thai cannae thole sic laich haundlin for aye. The pit-doun o jonik for the Ulster-Scotch leid an fowkgates maun cum ti an end richt nou. The mair the BBC disnae pit aneuch anent the Ulster- Scotch leid on, fowks is cryin oot for it. Tak the nicht o Ulster-Scotch on BBC 2. Mair nor 120,000 pair o een wes watchin it. Echt yeir haes gien witness ti an ower ocht waukenin o Ulster-Scotch fowkgates daeins, but for aw that, maist heid-yins haes turnt a blinnd ee ti the kintra hoachin wi it, an whyles thai winnae gie jonik nor kennin ti it ava. At the hert o the new waukenin o Ulster-Scotch fowkgates is thaim as haes been forderin the leid. The haundlin gien ti the Ulster-Scotch lede kythes mair nor ocht the pit-douns - or the pit-affs - at this native heirskip leid o our ain fowk o Ulster haes been gart thole. The Meinistrie o Fowkgates, Airts an Aisedom is ower ocht - an mair nor maist ithers apairt frae the Meinistrie o Leir - gart mak a repone ti the new waukenin o the Ulster-Scotch leid, an the repone gien maun be frae the heichmaist staundarts o jonik. Big merkers haes been pitten doun in Europe, staundarts the haundlin o the Ulster-Scotch leid maun be gaugit agin. The Meinistrie o Fowkgates, Airts an Aisedom maun tak tent o thir staundarts nou, for thai haud athort langilt Europe. For the Scotch leid, our day isnae juist for cummin. Our day is here thenou. It raxes oot ti aw, no juist aboot our auldryfe heirskip, for it haes a leevin spairk forby an can tak ti a modren - Mr Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are not you and the rest of the House being discriminated against? When a Member speaks in the Irish language you have a simultaneous translation. However, when a Member exercises his right to speak in another language of his choice - and it is a right not a privilege - you are not provided with a simultaneous translation - unless you are a fluent Scotch-Irish speaker. Mr Speaker: This big heid-yin can uise the Ulster- Scotch no tae bad - as onie a guid Ballymena man wad. Dr Adamson: Fair faw ye, Heid Billie. It raxes oot ti aw, no juist aboot our auldryfe heirskip, for it haes a leevin spairk forby an can tak ti a modren, ventursum, ootgangin an inventive kintra. Here ye hae the genius o our heirskip o leid, a heirskip we maun fend, forder an wauken new, sae as awbodie apen ti our ain mither tung micht reap a hairst o blythsum leir. Frae oot o aw this, A maun hae it pitten doun in the skreived raicord, sae as the Meinistrie o Fowkgates, Airts an Aisedom is in nae dout o the staundart at maun be uised for gaugin hou weill it haes wrocht for jonik anent our fowk richts. The Council o Europe's Protocol Girdwark for the Beildin o Fowk Minorities hauds at a free an apen kintra, carefu o the richts o aw, maun tak respekfu tent o the fowk, kirk-gangin, heirskip an leid richts o awbodie at belangs an unner-lede o the kintra. An mair, Govrenment maun mak strecht an aisie the pads o fendin an forderin, sae as thaim as wad can kythe apenlie thair ain hert's fowk leid. For winnin ti siccan heich grund, indyte 2 o the protocol girdwark, airticle 4, pairt 2 gars thaim as unnerskreives the protocol ti - Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has now used fully half his 10 minutes. If the Minister of Finance and Personnel is to respond to him in a manner to his liking, the Member should provide the translation now. Dr Adamson: "tak on haund the daein o aw that is needit in ilka pairt o leevin, siller haundlin, fowk graith an residenter haundlin, politics an fowkgates, for fu an wrocht-oot jonik aqueisht thaim as belangs the hert leid o a minoritie o fowk, an thaim belangin the maist fek." Mr Speaker: It is the translation of the English that I wanted. Dr Adamson: Mr Speaker, I wish to speak about the Budget with regard to the needs and aspirations of the Ulster-Scots community in Northern Ireland and in east Donegal. The McCann-Erickson identity survey found that 22% to 23% of Ulster's population are happy to describe themselves as Ulster-Scots, while more than 50% of those surveyed expressed a positive attitude towards the language in particular. These figures must be regarded as the baseline for Ulster-Scots, because a rising tide of interest and enthusiasm is spreading across Ulster-Scots cultural interests. The Conference in the Human Dimension of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe resolved that "to belong to a national minority is a matter of a person's individual choice and no disadvantage may arise from the exercise of such a choice." More than 100,000 people in Ulster chose to identify themselves as Ulster-Scots, but this minority is being disadvantaged and this discrimination must end now. Although the BBC gives Ulster-Scots cultural interests only inadequate coverage, the Ulster-Scots night on BBC2 attracted an audience of more than 120,000. The last decade has seen a remarkable rise in interest in many Ulster-Scots cultural activities, but all this has taken place against a background of indifference, unfairness and outright discrimination. The mainspring of the Ulster-Scots cultural renaissance is the Ulster-Scots language movement. The treatment afforded the Ulster-Scots illustrates graphically the discrimination and marginalisation to which the indigenous language of the Ulster people is subjected. It is vital that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure responds to the rising interest in the Ulster-Scots language in accordance with the principles of justice and equality. 5.45 pm Happily, we do not depend on local definitions of what may reasonably be thought to constitute fairness, justice and equality of treatment. Important markers laid down in Europe will establish a standard against which the treatment afforded to the Ulster-Scots language can be judged. Ulster-Scots has Part II status in the European Charter; that means that it is recognised as a regional minority language. The Irish language enjoys Part III status. This must not be used to justify discrimination or inequality of treatment. The Ulster-Scots community is not asking for preferential treatment, but it insists on equality because it aspires to Part III status. The Irish language benefited from a development programme wisely embarked upon by the de Valera Government. This development programme was ideologically driven. In contrast, we maintain that the Ulster-Scots movement is entirely apolitical. Nevertheless, we require a language development programme suitable for our specific regional needs and special circumstances. I welcome this opportunity to place before the House the undeniable claims of a people of genius, enterprise, industry, resilience and perseverance: the Ulster-Scots. They have often been inarticulate in the past but they have now found their voice through this Chamber and through the Ulster-Scots Agency of the North/South language body, tha Boord o Scotch, the establishment of which has at last created the conditions under which our community can grow strong. The Chairperson of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee (Mr ONeill): Some said that we would never get this far. Well, here we are. We have a Government in place and a Programme for Government in the final stages of budgetary preparation. Sometimes we become too preoccupied with our internecine wranglings and miss the bigger picture. We have certainly made some progress. The development of the Budget has suffered from pressures of time and change. Many of those pressures are a result of changing from the traditional approach to a more equitable modern one. This is typified by the creation of the Executive programme funds, a very imaginative and innovative set of ideas approved by all the Ministers in the Executive. The Sinn Féin amendment is therefore all the more bizarre and unbelievable. If this amendment were made, which areas of the Executive programme funds would survive? What would be reduced and what would be abolished? A party moving a competent and responsible amendment at this stage of a budget should be required to outline any affect it might have. Sinn Féin has not done so. With a funding allocation of only £25 million in 2000-01, this amendment would wreck any chance the programme had of getting off the ground. We have heard about the many good things in the special funds. It is important that we hear more about this amendment, although I do not see how we could accept such an amendment at this stage. The DUP's amendment has been accurately described as party political. I often think that our electorate is extraordinarily patient. What other electorate in the world would put up with the constant assault that the DUP has mounted on the overwhelming mandate given to the Good Friday Agreement, of which the cross-border bodies are an integral part? Its leader called today for a referendum and said that he would abide by the outcome. Why does he not abide by the other referendum on the Good Friday Agreement? Neither he nor his party has done so. Interestingly, the special EU programmes also feature on the DUP hit list. The special EU programme provision is, of course, a cross-border programme - Peace II. Every party and almost every Member has supported not just its implementation but its early implementation according to need. Every party encouraged the establishment of the special European programme body to administer that fund. And - guess what? - the DUP has appointed a member to that board. It has appointed an Assembly Member - Mr William Hay from the constituency of Foyle - to that board, and I am glad to see him in the Chamber. No sensible Member could possibly support this kind of self-contradiction and inconsistency. Having made those general points, I have been asked to express some concerns on behalf of the Committee that I chair. Although recognising the Minister's difficulty in producing a sensible Budget - and that has been well achieved in the circumstances - we must put these concerns on record. First, we were concerned because for several years the areas that comprise the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure have suffered disproportionate underfunding. There was therefore a strong argument for giving them special consideration. Unfortunately, only 25% of our additional bids were met. Our concerns about the ability to buy out the commercial fishing nets around Northern Ireland's coastline have already been referred to the Minister, and he knows our views. We are also concerned that the arts bid has only been met in part. Obviously, we should have liked greater emphasis placed on that. Also - and this is a very interesting and important point - no funding was included in the Budget for safety improvements to motorcycle racing facilities. As Members will remember, that has been the subject of much debate in our Committee and in the Department. All Members believe that it must be attended to. Clearly, that has disappointed the Committee. However, it would be ungracious of me not to recognise that there is more money for libraries and for the languages of the North/South cross-border body, and that will help enormously. Considering our difficulties, the changes that we want to make and the innovations that we want to introduce, we have made a great start. Members should not be disappointed if their demands are not satisfied in the first round. We shall go from strength to strength. Who would have believed five years ago that we would now be considering the final stages of a budget for the programme of a new Government for Northern Ireland? In five years' time, how well honed will the new arrangements be? We shall be able to deal more efficiently with many of the problems raised today. The Deputy Chairperson of the Education Committee (Mr S Wilson): Mr Speaker, I shall obey your injunction not to go over points that have already been made about the Budget and why the DUP moved its amendment. The arguments against the SDLP's stealth tax have been well made. I wish to deal with the points made by some of the other parties about our amendment. As usual, Mr Close brought a bit of life to the debate, although the arguments that he made were more or less dead. He opposed the amendment without moving one of his own. He said that he was being accused of taking a populist stance. No one could accuse the Alliance Party of being populist; "populist" implies that a party has a wee bit of support for its views. Mr Close was also described as a magician, although he did not conjure up an amendment. Time and time again his party has lectured my party on being "negative" and on the need to offer an alternative. He was asked why he did not move an amendment, but no answer was forthcoming. I was intrigued by some of his reasoning: first he said that he could not move an amendment because the regional rate was a serious point of principle. Surely if the 8% increase in the regional rate were such a serious point of principle an alternative would have been offered. His fall-back position was that the voting system in the House was so rotten that it was not worth his while to move an amendment. His party supported that voting system. He objected - and I liked this bit - to his party's being designated "Other". That intrigued me. The Education Committee discussed a document on the viability of integrated schools. The Alliance Party's submission described the present system of dividing people into Catholics and Protestants as unfair and called for a third category. What was that category to be called? Why "Other"! The Alliance Party objects to being called "Other" in the House and will not even table an amendment to the Budget because it is so indignant about it. However, it wants those attending integrated schools to be able to call themselves "Other". Mr Close said that he was sick of sectarian labels, although the Alliance Party's proposal for integrated schools suggested that we could have "Others" from a predominantly Protestant background and "Others" from a predominantly Roman Catholic background. 6.00 pm This is the party that hates being labelled and that will not table an amendment because the voting system in the House labels it. Even more intriguing was Sinn Féin's position. It said that the DUP's amendment was an assault on the Good Friday Agreement; that it was party political and an attack on "North/Southery". At least we were clear about what we were doing. Sinn Féin does not have a clue about what it is doing. We heard three or four speeches in the House today, some of which moved an amendment. Sinn Féin does not want the 8% increase. We then had a most articulate contribution from Mr John Kelly. If he had cut the "camcorder" out of it he would have halved his speech. In that highly articulate speech he actually welcomed the Budget. It seems that there are divisions in IRA/Sinn Féin. There are those who give "real" support to the Budget - the two Ministers, because they must have agreed to it; there are those who give "provisional" support to the Budget by giving it a qualified welcome; and there are those who give it "continuing" support, because they say they that they do not mind the 8%'s being imposed in future. They are in a bit of a tizzy about it. I am glad that Mr Billy Bell is here. He was speaking at a difficult time. The Ulster Unionist Party's contributions all had the common theme of supporting the Budget and of attacking the Departments held by DUP Ministers. Billy Bell had a difficult task. First, he was trying to defend the indefensible; secondly, he was trying to do it before dinner time. I wondered at one point whether it was William Bell or dinner bell, because everyone seemed to rise to leave as he was speaking. I was amazed at the Ulster Unionist Party's contributions; I am even more amazed that some contributions have not yet been made. There was certainly no vigorous defence of the Budget. Time and time again I have heard members of the Ulster Unionist Party speak about the iniquity of the regional rate. I have heard them in Belfast City Council. Some of them are Ministers who must have supported the Budget. They are not here. They spoke more eloquently and more robustly than ever I did in condemning the Labour Government for imposing the 8% increase in the regional rate. It used to be said that while we in the councils sought to keep rates within inflation, the direct rule Administration imposed high rates increases upon us. The same people now support that increase, but they are not in the House to explain themselves. One Member who is not here - and I shall be interested to see how he votes - is Mr Cobain, the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee. He has spoken previously in the House in support of the poor. He has described this as a middle-class Budget for middle-class people. I should like to have heard his comments; I should like to know how he will vote. Paddy Roche accused DUP Ministers of writing a blank cheque. We have a blank seat, as we usually do, in his case. He never comes to hear me upbraid him. Given his opposition to the Budget, will he be here to vote against it? That will probably be a signal for him to come in to do precisely that. He certainly did not get it right because he said that it was impossible for people who had taken ministerial positions to mount credible opposition, as they had to support the decisions of the Executive. He usually reads from a prepared script, but today he tried to ad-lib. I am sure that you were pleased by that, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, in ad-libbing he missed the facts. If he had been reading from a prepared script or if he had looked at the Northern Ireland Act 1998 he would have seen that Ministers only have to operate in the Programme for Government when it has been agreed in the Executive Committee and authorised by the Assembly. No Minister is committed merely because it has gone through the Executive Committee, whether there was a DUP Minister present - Mr Speaker: Order. A script is no guarantee of facts or accuracy. Time is passing. The Member will bring his remarks to a close. Mr S Wilson: Whether they were in the discussions on the Budget or outside, as our Ministers were, they are not committed. If Mr Roche shows his face for the vote, he will see how bound the DUP Ministers are by this Programme for Government and Budget proposals. I shall sit down in a moment although I had a few things more to say. This amendment should have the support of the House. It should have the support of those in the Ulster Unionist Party who tell us that they have a social conscience. The money should be spent on the people who count rather than on "North/Southery". |