Northern Ireland Assembly

I reviewed the remarks that I made at the conclusion of the take-note debate on the Budget. It would be straightforward to read them again and save myself the trouble of having to make another speech, because the same points have been raised. Will the Minister of Finance and Personnel restrain himself from spending so long repeating those points? There may be some new ones for him to cover.

The Minister knows that I have consistently questioned the level of the rates and he also knows that I have consistently questioned him in the Finance and Personnel Committee on the total cost of government. There will inevitably be a j-curve - things will get worse before they get better. However, we must plan for the "getting better" in two or three years' time. I therefore urge the Executive to put that nearer to the top of their agenda as they plan for the future.

All Government expenditure must be scrutinised by the Assembly to ensure value for money and to ensure that the public gets a good deal for the money that is being spent. That is particularly true for one lot of money that is directly contributed by people in Northern Ireland - the rates.

The Ulster Unionist Party has lobbied the Minister intensively on the housing budget and on housing improvements. We must be mindful that some of these measures appear to disadvantage people on low or no incomes. A stratum of people is not feeling the benefits of economic growth and falling unemployment, and it is incumbent on us to deal with their needs very specifically. In the July and October monitoring rounds it was clear that much of the extra money was generated by the sale of Housing Executive properties.

I remind the Minister that we are, in a sense, living off capital. We have disposed of a capital asset and we still have a debt on it that we must settle eventually. Meanwhile, our income to service that debt is being reduced by the depletion of the capital. By improving Housing Executive properties, we are reinvesting in that asset and improving its quality. That in turn should make it easier to achieve more sales.

The argument has been made that Northern Ireland pays less in rates than the rest of the United Kingdom. It should be borne in mind that the rest of the United Kingdom pays regional rates and water rates. So far, we have been spared domestic water rates, although businesses pay them. If this argument is to hold water, I look forward to the Minister's undertaking an intensive exercise with Colleagues in Wales and in Scotland to formulate a review of the Barnett formula to present to the Treasury.

Sinn Féin's amendment at least spreads the burden of finding the money evenly by targeting the Executive programme funds. However, the Sinn Féin Members who spoke seemed to take a different line. They did not want any reduction in money, but somebody else would have to come up with it - everybody but the people of Northern Ireland. We must stop looking to others to provide us with money. We should be looking forward to paying our own bills and to standing on our own two feet.

I was intrigued by some of Mr Molloy's remarks; perhaps they give us an insight into an item in the next Sinn Féin election manifesto - the one for elections to the Dáil. I understand that his Colleague Mr Adams, among others, proposes to stand for them. When Mr Adams is targeting a seat in Donegal, will his manifesto include a commitment to ask the people of the Republic of Ireland to cough up another 4% of their rates? Will he ask them to give the money to the people of Northern Ireland to avoid an 8% increase in rates here?

It also seems curious that although Sinn Féin's two Ministers were involved in devising and agreeing the Budget, their party has moved an amendment that fundamentally disagrees with some of its contents. It is completely inconsistent. They must take responsibility for popular and unpopular elements.

The DUP's amendment was much more targeted at where the money would be deducted. It came as no surprise to these Benches that it looked towards the North/South bodies. We should remind ourselves about the selection of ministerial posts. DUP Members claim to be the most devout and evangelical defenders of the Union (despite agreeing with Sinn Féin that the North/ South bodies are a stepping stone to a united Ireland). However, when the d'Hondt formula was run, the DUP specifically avoided taking a position on these bodies.

It targeted instead two Departments with no cross-border bodies. How would DUP Members defend their Union by avoiding those Departments? It is curious that the DUP goes on and on about the problems in the agriculture industry and about what should be done about them; yet presented with two opportunities to take the Department of Agriculture, which contains a cross-border body, it seized neither.

As with the rates, and as with all Government expenditure, we must get value for money from the North/South bodies, and the tourism body stands out in that respect. If the tourism body works well, the £5·8 million will be well spent on behalf of Northern Ireland, but we must scrutinise this constantly and review how the money is spent to satisfy ourselves that we get good value for it.

We hear throughout these debates about deprived areas, which always seem to be along the border and always seem to be west of the Bann. Moyle district in my constituency has, sadly, the worst rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland. It is a deprived area not adjacent to the border with the Republic of Ireland; it is, however, adjacent to the border with Scotland. Is that sufficient to get it within the purview of the money that must always be spent on deprived border areas?

Reverting to the need for a review of the Barnett formula, I note that a recent audit identified social security fraud of more than £50 million. In Northern Ireland social security is administered by the Department for Social Development. Would it not be a good thing to root out social security fraud in order to reduce the money that we spend not just under this Budget but under any budget? That would strengthen our hand in negotiations with the Treasury for a review of the formula.

Finally, I must point out again that I am no fan of any form of taxation and no fan of the rates, but the figure that Mr Peter Robinson quoted of £12 million is the difference between 2·9% and 8·8%. If that is a correct figure, and there are roughly one million adults in Northern Ireland, it would be £1 a month on the present rates for every adult. It is not a king's ransom, provided that we get good value from the money. I urge Members to reject the amendments and to support the Budget.

I rise to support the DUP amendment and also to highlight a couple of matters in the Budget. Leir an lairnin bes ae gait o leevin whaur the Ulster-Scots fowk, an in parteiclar thaim as taks ocht adae wi the leid, luiks for byordnar farin. For a guid whyle, the Ulster-Scots leid haes tholed mukkil mair skaith an backhaundin nor Erse Gaelic, an thon wey o gangin cannae be hauden on onie mair.

Education is one area in which the Ulster-Scots community, and in particular the Ulster-Scots language movement, calls for significant improvement. Historically, the Ulster-Scots language has suffered from much greater discrimination and marginalisation than Irish, and that is no longer acceptable.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's budget shows that funding for the North/South languages body will be increased in its first year; in the second year it will be increased by £1·2 million. Is this money being well spent? I suggest that it is not. Some of it will be spent on the Irish language TV channel. We are well aware of the numbers who watch it. It has some of the worst viewing figures in the whole of Ireland, in the whole of the United Kingdom and possibly in the whole of Europe.

A TV station in Antarctica might get fewer viewers, I suppose, but the Irish language channel wins the prize for having the fewest viewers in Ireland and the United Kingdom. If it were not for westerns and Premier League football, nobody would watch it.

There has not been parity for Ulster-Scots in education or in promoting the language in other ways. In the past few years, Irish language, culture and tradition has received £11 million, whereas Ulster-Scots has received £1·2 million. That highlights the lack of equality. Such parity is not apparent in the Budget, and the more we look at it, the more serious the problem appears. What criterion is used to justify promoting the Irish language above Ulster-Scots? Where is the fair play in the system? There is very little of it.

We do not need the North/South bodies; we should take away the budget of £3·5 million, proposed for 2001-02, and put it into something better. Members from our party have said that there is a great deal of waste in some of the Departments; we should look at that.

There is a marginal increase for fisheries, an increase so small that it could easily be missed. We realise the position that the fishing industry is in. The code of restrictions has hit the industry hard. Is there money in the Budget to address the problems of the fishing industry? I am thinking particularly of the villages of Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie - my own village - on the Ards Peninsula? Where is the help for the fishing industry? It cannot be provided from within the fisheries budget. That money is for improving harbour facilities in two or three areas.

There is talk of improving children's services. There are many deficiencies in that part of the Budget. For example, there is not enough money for children with special needs and with disabilities. Where will the money come from? We understand that an extra £7 million is available, and we would like to see whether it will go towards those who are in most need. That is how it should have been. It is good to know that free travel for elderly people - a DUP initiative - is in the Budget, but it is disappointing that it will be 2002 before it happens.

We could save money by taking it away from the North/South bodies or the Civic Forum. All that money is being used for no purpose other than to promote a political viewpoint. We in the DUP want to see the money being well spent - on health, education, roads and those with special needs. That would be the wise way of spending the money, and I urge Members to support the DUP amendment.

Go raibh maith agat. At the start of the debate, the Minister said that he was looking forward to what he hoped would be a constructive debate on the amendments. For the most part, that has been the case but, as usual, some Members could not contain themselves.

The purpose of today's debate was to consider the draft Budget; it represents the Executive's best guess. As the Minister said, there has not been enough time to consider the Budget fully, and I pay tribute again to the Ministers who are working hard, grappling with competing demands and doing their best for all the Departments. However, the purpose of today's debate was to scrutinise the Budget and make any necessary amendments. That is why the draft Budget was published - for consultation.

If, as some Members suggested, we are to be beholden to what the Executive have agreed, Members might as well go home and forget about having a say in the matter. My party has clearly demonstrated that it is prepared to work hard in the Executive and the other institutions and will continue to do so. However, where we have a difference of opinion with the rest of the Executive, we will put it on the record and, as a party with its own mandate, we will pursue our aims in the best way that we can.

This morning I tried to put our amendment into a positive and constructive context, and I will continue to do that. I commended our amendment to the Assembly on the basis that there has been criticism and anxiety about the proposed rates increase, particularly in the small retail sector. The increase would impose an unfair burden on those least able to pay it, while whole swathes of the manufacturing industry would not have to pay a thing.

The DUP's amendment - at least they had the courage to table one, unlike other people in the Chamber - is a party political stunt. Peter Robinson said - this is where he contradicted himself, so he might want to listen to what I say - that Sinn Féin's amendment would take money from the Executive programme funds, which were all but allocated except for the minutiae, and that it would take money away from children's programmes. He then said that the Executive programme funds only existed so that Trimble and Mallon could deliver good news stories. It cannot be both; it has to be one or the other. My party supports the notion of Executive programme funds and will continue to do so, because they represent an important way of making strategic interventions for infrastructure or other programmes that Members might support from time to time.

Mr Gallagher said that he could not understand why we were asking for a reduction in the rate increase. He suggested that we look at preparatory work on rates relief. I would support that, but if we did it without thinking it through or costing it, we would reduce the revenue that we would raise by the proposed increase.

Sinn Féin's amendment is simple. To increase the rates by more than the rate of inflation will not realise the funds that the Executive need and will be an unfair burden on those who have to pay it. Our amendment would create a breathing-space, during which we could use some of the money from the Executive programme funds for a specific purpose. It would be a one-off and would give us the time to do what Mr Gallagher and others are suggesting. I make no apology for saying that the British Government - or indeed the Irish Government - have a responsibility to pay extra money into this part of Ireland.

I was especially annoyed and offended by Mr McGrady's comments about the begging bowl. Perhaps Mr McGrady's life is comfortable and things are OK for him. However, other people in his constituency do not consider it as begging to go to the Exchequer or the Irish Government for extra funding for services that we have been denied for many years because of discriminatory and neglectful policies. It was regrettable that Mr McGrady introduced that tone to the debate.

Sinn Féin will be constructive about the matter. This morning I paid tribute to the Ministers in the Executive who attend and work together. Where there is a difference of opinion, Sinn Féin will be consistent and will put that opinion to the Executive. If we feel that it is necessary, we will advance those arguments.

I am sure that there have been regular differences of opinion in the Executive. Why would there not be? There are at least three parties working together on the Executive who have different mandates and different manifesto positions. Therefore, it is appropriate and reasonable that there should occasionally be differences of opinion. If those people are committed to working with each other, rather than against each other, the good work that has been achieved by the Executive and all the other institutions will continue to be built upon.

It is important that Members argue about each other's point of view, but it is silly to make crystal ball analyses of where one party or another might be. Mr Leslie should be more concerned about where his own party will be. His task in the months ahead is to establish his party as a credible force in the Executive. We support the Budget. We are trying to amend it, but we support the Budget as a whole, difficulties included. We also support the Programme for Government, which the Unionist Party is undermining by its activities. The Unionist Party would do well to analyse the Barnett formula. It is easy to dismiss the arguments and say that we should pay for ourselves: we have neither economic nor political sovereignty. Until we do - or are allowed to - we cannot expect to do all the things that we want to do.

We have a mandate and we have a manifesto that we will do our best to pursue. However, that manifesto commits us to work with the parties in the institutions. We will never be found wanting on that. The other parties should accept their responsibilities, rather than making cheap remarks.

I sit on the Committee with Mr Close. We have heard so much hot air and so much bubble from him about the rates, but he did not even table an amendment this morning. Perhaps we should not worry ourselves about that. Mr Close talks about a manifesto position, but the rate of increase in support for his party suggests that he will not have to worry about manifestos. We will leave that to the electorate.

I commend our amendment on the basis that it represents an opportunity to draw breath before we impose an unfair rates increase. It is very rare for rates to come down once they have gone up. Furthermore, there are commitments throughout the Programme for Government concerning reviews and re-examinations of the entire structure of Government and the various programmes. That gives us plenty of scope to increase the money available, even within the current grant. The amendment would allow us to draw breath and take stock before we impose an unfair burden on those who are least able to carry it.

I shall respond to some of the points that were made about our amendment. Mr Close suffered a fair amount of criticism in the debate - rightly so, in the opinion of virtually everyone in the House. I felt rather sorry for him, because all the bluster, passion and energy that he worked up could not disguise the fact that he slept in when it mattered most. He did not bother to put down an amendment. He waxed so lyrical on the issue, but it was all just empty rhetoric.

The Alliance Party recently produced an alternative Budget. As an alternative Government - I can see four of them sitting there - they had the wonderful idea of presenting a Budget. Today they have not produced a single alternative to the Minister's Budget.

Mr Close stretches credulity when he suggests that simply voting against the Budget is sufficient compensation for failing totally to have put down any realistic alternative to it. Then he tells his party Colleagues and us that he looks forward to other parties joining him in lobbying against the increase in the regional rate. Next he will tell us that he is glad that the 190,000 or so people who voted for Dr Paisley are going to join the 14,000 people who voted for him in the European elections to fight in Europe for the farmers of Northern Ireland. The absolute audacity of the 2% party to my right lecturing others about joining them in lobbying really does beggar belief when it has not even had the sense or wit - or perhaps even the ability - to table an amendment to the Budget. Despite its pretence and spurious attempts during the debates on statements in the House to claim this issue as its own, it is the Democratic Unionist Party that raised the issue before the Alliance Party.

Do not get excited, there is more to come. Now I can see why you do not want anything to do with your former Colleagues, Mr Speaker, and why you were earlier at pains to distance yourself from any association with them. In the last major debate on the Budget, we had Mr Close admitting that all the quotations and points that he was going to make had already been made by those of us on this side of the House. So let us have a little bit of reality and common sense.

This morning Mr Close then told us that people were hand-wringing and scrambling to distance themselves from the decisions of the Executive. Clearly, there has been some running for cover on the parts of those who attended the Executive and who signed up to those decisions from which they now want to run away. We will let the two Sinn Féin Ministers hang out there to dry. We are not responsible for what they are doing. We will put a knife in their back - Sinn Féin can do what it likes in the Assembly.

As far as this party is concerned, we did not attend the Executive; we never gave our assent to this Budget; we never agreed to any increase in the regional rate. We have been totally consistent. However, Mr Close tells us that we are Members of the Executive and therefore, responsible. So, since he is a Member of this Assembly, if the Assembly votes this Budget through tonight, is he responsible?

I will be voting against it.

He will be voting against it, just as we will be voting against it, just as we did not assent to the Budget in the first place. So at last the logic of the position dawns on Mr Close. I am so sorry that it has taken until 8.15 at night for that reality finally to dawn. But then, since he did miss the 9.30 deadline for tabling amendments this morning, we will allow him that bit of latitude.

Sinn Féin, in particular, agreed to this regional rate increase in the Executive and never raised any objection to it until today. Indeed, a previous contributor - the Member of Sinn Féin who was on the Finance and Personnel Committee when this issue was raised - described those of us who criticised the increase in the regional rate beyond the rate of inflation as having adopted a shallow approach. This was a shallow approach. He did not want to have any debate; he did not want to have any vote. He did not want the Committee to come out against the regional rate. Now he comes to the House and beats his chest because somehow his party is now against the regional rate, having supported it in the Executive, having omitted to speak out against it until now, and having refused to speak against it in the Committee - when he attended the Committee. I never see that particular Member there. He certainly did not fight. Calm down. Do not get excited.

This proves that what we have said all along about the nature of this system of government is true. There is no collective responsibility whatsoever. Every Minister does his or her own thing in his or her own Department. The Minister of Finance can come here and make proposals which can even be agreed in the Executive, but when it comes to the House, every party is free. Nobody is bound, and even Ministers can vote against what they agreed in the Executive.

We will wait and see if the two Ministers who supported this proposal in the Executive, but then had a rebellion on their hands in their Assembly party, will go into the Lobbies to vote against what was agreed in the Executive by the UUP, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. All these parties agreed in the Executive that the regional rate should increase by 8%. The people of Northern Ireland have already seen that rate increase by over 8% in the last two years.

Dr Birnie, in commenting on the DUP amendment, described the amount of money as being insignificant in the context of the overall Budget - that argument has been trotted out on a number of occasions. The people of Northern Ireland will regard as significant another 8% increase in the regional rate. They will regard as significant the expenditure of some £20 million, taking into account the all-Ireland tourism company, which was last year taken as part of the all-Ireland bodies. I have already outlined what that money could do to reduce the regional rate and, if the Executive were so minded, how that expenditure could alleviate a whole range of social needs. We are not dealing with trivial amounts of expenditure; this is real money. This issue affects people's pockets and it deserves to be taken seriously.

We were also told that those who had been working within the Departments would simply be working under new bosses in the North/South implementation bodies. If that is the case, it is up to the Minister to decide where that necessary work should continue within the local Departments. In our amendment we have said that he should take sufficient amounts from the budgets of the North/South implementation bodies and the Secretariat of the North/South Ministerial Council and, if necessary, from the Civic Forum to pay for the reduction in the rate. That should leave him enough to get on with the necessary, day-to-day work within the Departments that employ those people.

Mr McGrady and others on the Nationalist side have berated us because they say we are acting against the Belfast Agreement. They are greatly surprised and shocked that we on this side of the House should be continuing our opposition to this aspect of the implementation of the Belfast Agreement. We make no apology for our stance - that is the basis on which we were elected and we will continue to take that stance in this House. Those who express surprise, shock and horror are perhaps surprised, shocked and horrified that there is at least one Unionist party in the House that does stand by its election manifesto commitments.

Mr McGrady had to admit that our amendment was a serious one and I give him credit for acknowledging that. He acknowledged more than his Colleague, Mr Dallat, who said that the amendment should not be taken seriously. Mr McGrady should have a word in Mr Dallat's ear and let him know what an amendment is in parliamentary terms. I thank you for your assent to that, Eddie, well done. No doubt Mr Dallat will be going back to Coleraine Borough Council to explain why, having voted against an 8% regional rate increase, he is now in favour of it. He tells us it is because he has suddenly discovered that Mr Durkan found £31 million. If, next year, he has to come back and take some money away, he might be running back to the Council to reverse his vote.

Mr McGrady told us that the fact that there were only two amendments was an indication of most parties' support for the Budget. Members will indicate their support for or rejection of the Budget when they vote. How we vote, rather than the number of amendments tabled, will determine whether there are people in the House who support the thrust of the Budget.

The Sinn Féin/IRA party has also tabled an amendment and it has described people as being opportunistic. What could be more opportunistic than to agree the motion in the Executive and to support it throughout, never opposing it in Committees, but then to call for a reduction in the regional rate at the last minute, in terms almost identical to our amendment. It is clear where the opportunism lies. I heard one contributor from that party talk about having sympathy for Mr Durkan. With friends like that in the Executive, he deserves every piece of sympathy he can get.

It was suggested that this should all be paid for out of Her Majesty's Treasury. The interesting suggestion that Dublin should be asked to stump up as well, in addition to the taxpayers of Northern Ireland, was also mooted. Everybody should be asked to contribute, except those who were actually responsible over 30 years for most of the destruction, mayhem and economic deprivation in this country - IRA/Sinn Féin. They are the ones who brought many parts of this Province economically to its knees, and yet to listen to them, you would think that it was the fault of the British Government, the Unionists and everybody else. They are the ones who blew up factories and who murdered industrialists and employers. They are the ones who are responsible for much existing economic deprivation. [Interruption]

Order.

Some people talked about perks of office. I remind this House and the people of Northern Ireland that we do not keep the perks of office for ourselves, be they the salaries of Ministers, Committee Chairmen or other office-holders in this House.

I have to correct the Member for South Down, Mr ONeill, who got up and refused, despite being told that his facts were wrong, to take a point of information. He accused the DUP of actually appointing an MLA, as he put it, to serve on the special North/South EU programmes body. In fact, he got that absolutely - [Interruption].

You are not listening.

Order.

If you would please listen to what we are saying. He said that we had appointed a Member to this body; and yet we were totally opposed to it. We were suggesting that money be taken from it. Of course, he got that completely wrong. We are talking about the monitoring committees. People from all parties have been appointed to them. They are the transitional monitoring committee, the Peace II committee, and the overall structural funds monitoring committee. Today, however, we are dealing with the EU special programmes North/South implementation body. This is a completely different organisation on which, as I understand it, no MLA actually sits.

Perhaps Mr Durkan can again help his Friend understand that. One of the problems is that, having got it wrong, Mr ONeill is not now prepared to listen in order to learn something from it.

A number of contributors have outlined criticisms of the Budget, not only in relation to the regional rate. Some Members have been very vocal outside this House. Some have been very concerned about the social aspects of the Budget, and the harm that it might do to very socially deprived people. Where have they been today? When asked to give a response to the Finance and Personnel Committee as to how -

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

I will, Mr Speaker. Each departmental Committee was asked to give a view on the priorities for spending within the Budget. Every Committee Chairperson responded, except Mr Cobain of the Social Development Committee, who has been waxing lyrical about the issue. He could not be bothered to respond on behalf of his Committee, nor could the Health Committee, which has not made a contribution here today either. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Finally, there is no proposal, as was alleged by Ms Gildernew, to increase Housing Executive rents by GDP plus 2%. I am sure that all those who have opposed the rent increase of GDP plus 2% - and I see them all on the Ulster Unionist Benches in particular - will now come and join us in the Lobbies to vote against an even larger increase in the regional rate, which affects all households in Northern Ireland. We are determined that whether people are in social housing or in private housing, whether they are in industry or are shopkeepers, they should not be penalised by increases in rent or rates above the rate of inflation.

Before I call the Minister to speak, I would like, on behalf of the House, to acknowledge the fact that this is probably our longest ever debate on any individual motion. That is characteristic of financial and Budget debates, but the Minister has done the House the courtesy of remaining here throughout the debate. I want to recognise that on behalf of the House.

Having made that peace with the Minister, I hope he will also take the length of the debate into account when considering the length of his winding-up speech.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Minister left for a few minutes. I hope it was water he was drinking and nothing stronger.

I hesitate to speculate on why the Minister might have left for a minute or two.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>