One amendment has been selected, and it is published on the Marshalled List of amendments.

I beg to move the following amendment: At the end add:

I listened to what the Minister had to say, and I was somewhat disappointed that he did not try to deal with the real issues that are before the House today.

The Minister must accept, whether he likes it or not, that fuel poverty is a real issue. He may try to play it down and make light of it, as he did in his speech. However, I suspect that that will not make the issue disappear. In considering what people, right across the House, have been saying about fuel poverty, the Minister will find that there is a unanimous stance on tackling the issue.

Should the Minister take our advice and reduce funding on the items that we have selected, nobody will be hurt. If the amendment is carried, people in Northern Ireland, especially those who suffer from fuel poverty, will be much better off. I bring the definition of fuel poverty to the attention of the House. The commonly applied definition of a fuel-poor household is one that needs to spend in excess of 10% of its income on fuel to maintain a satisfactory heating regime. Some 170,000 households in Northern Ireland suffer from fuel poverty. Around 600 deaths are caused every year in Northern Ireland by cold-related illness. I do not think that any Member of the House would try to make light of that or say that we should not make an honest and determined effort to tackle the problem.

We recognise - not because we agree with it - that the bodies that we refer to are statutory. That was something that the Minister picked up on.

However, we simply said that the benefit would be much greater if the increases that were to be applied this year were withheld and directed to tackle fuel poverty.

The Minister was at some pains to outline the achievements of the cross-border bodies. The world outside has not noticed any of those achievements. Approximately £20 million will be given to cross-border organisations. We wait with bated breath to see what real benefit that will bring to the people of Northern Ireland.

I draw the House's attention to the effects of fuel poverty. The principle effects are health-related. Children, the elderly, the sick and the disabled are most at risk. Cold homes are believed to exacerbate existing illnesses, such as asthma, and to reduce resistance to respiratory infections. In addition, households also suffer from opportunity loss, as they use a larger portion of income to keep warm, compared to other households. That has adverse effects on social well-being and on the overall quality of life for individuals and their communities. It is generally recognised that fuel poverty is a contributory factor to social exclusion.

No Member needs to be convinced about the need to tackle fuel poverty; some 600 deaths per year occur because of cold-related illnesses. Those figures stand out vividly and tell their own graphic story.

The Minister said that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister needed funding for cross- border bodies. I am not quite sure what it is needed for, as we have not yet seen results from those bodies. The office always wants to be at the forefront when there is a good story to tell.

I suspect that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would not mind in the slightest giving up a small portion of its budget to facilitate the worthy cause of fuel poverty. When another Minister had a good story to tell, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister rushed in to take the credit for it. I do not mind if it takes the credit in this case - I just want it to sacrifice part of its budget in doing so.

I draw the House's attention to the comments of some Members who are genuinely concerned about fuel poverty. Mr Fred Cobain, Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, said:

Mr Danny O'Connor, speaking on 25 September, said:

The whole of Northern Ireland will applaud if the Assembly does nothing else but demonstrate clearly and unambiguously that it is determined to remove this problem.

The Minister also referred to the fact that rent increases were not as swingeing as in previous years. He is right, and I hope that the same attitude will be adopted this year. For too long those who live in social housing have had to pay. Why should they, more than anyone else, pay over the rate of inflation?

However, the Minister should have told the whole story of what is happening in housing. He did not say that £18 million was handed back as a result of house sales, and that is important.

I have listened carefully, and I ask the Minister to listen even more carefully. He could identify savings that would not hurt any of the Departments or anyone in Northern Ireland.

The Member has eloquently expounded the need for extra funds for the Department for Social Development. Will he confirm that the running costs of that Department are due to increase by £20 million next year? That offers plenty of scope for savings to deal with fuel poverty.

Whatever the increase, it is not enough to tackle existing fuel poverty. The Housing Executive plans to replace 677 Economy 7 room heaters in each of the next three years. To use the £1·35 million identified would mean accelerating that programme, ensuring that it was kept on course and tackling a further 670 homes next year. Areas have been identified which will ensure that no one suffers. No one can say that that would not be worthwhile or that it should be dealt with in any other way.

The Civic Forum has also been identified as a possible source of savings. Can anyone here point to one constructive thing - just one - that it has done since its inception? I suspect that that would be very difficult.

I look forward to the Minister's changing his mind on this. I cannot tell him to do so, but I urge him to reconsider and to redirect funding for the replacement of Economy 7 heaters, thus ensuring that fewer people die this year.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome this opportunity to speak. This is the Assembly's last opportunity to influence the Executive's spending plans for 2002-03. The Committee for Finance and Personnel led a take-note debate on the Budget on 5 November, and concerns were raised about allocations in the draft Budget proposals. The views of all departmental Committees on their proposed allocations had been sought before the debate, and I thank all Committee members for their useful contributions and their co-operation with the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

Following that debate, the Committee produced a report on the draft Budget with summaries of the views of other Committees as well as its own. Several improvements to the process were recommended, and that report was passed to the Minister and Members on 16 November.

On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Minister's positive response to the report in his statement of 3 December and his response to the Committee on the Executive programme funds on 4 December. I thank the Minister for addressing the recommendations that we made in the previous Budget report. He helped the Committees to begin to examine departmental spending plans, and that created a welcome opportunity for discussion about the Budget. It is helpful if Members have the opportunity to discuss the Budget in detail and begin to examine the departmental spending plans at an earlier stage.

I welcome the agreement that the Executive programme funds should be reviewed. That was recommended in the report. It is important that the funds are seen as cross-cutting measures that are designed for future development. If the funds are to be successful, they must be innovative and cross-cutting, and they need to set out a new plan. They must not simply regurgitate the different plans and bids that were previously put forward. I welcome the review, and I urge the Minister to ensure that it happens quickly.

The Committee recommended that the needs and effectiveness evaluations should inform the 2002 spending review negotiations. If an activity or target is identified in the Programme for Government, it should be funded through the Budget in a transparent way. Mainstream departmental priorities should be funded by the Budget; they should not be dependent on Executive programme funds or on the re-allocation of funding from another year. More fundamental and ongoing scrutiny of departmental activities and spending is needed, and that should be done through a cross-departmental approach. There should be early consultation between Committees and Departments on the development of position reports. That would facilitate more effective understanding of, and debate on, departmental spending plans.

It is unfortunate that so few Ministers are here this morning. It is important that we have greater correspondence between Departments and Committees, to provide the Committees with the information that they require. I urge the Committees to demand that information, so that future debates can be more informed. The information must be detailed if it is to form part of discussions. The Committees must be involved with their Department at an early stage to make the bids. From the point of view of a Minister or a Department, it can only be an advantage if the Committee supports a bid, rather than simply rubber- stamping it. A Committee should not wait for its Department to present its programme; it should be involved in scrutinising service delivery agreements (SDAs) and other financial and planning information in preparation for the Budget.

Executive subcommittees should be established as quickly as possible to manage the individual Executive programme funds. The subcommittee system is a way of dealing with the Executive programme funds, as it creates an opportunity to develop new ideas that may not otherwise be put forward.

The Minister has applied the tactic of forecasting end- year flexibility and allocating funds in advance, rather than in the coming year's monitoring rounds. That is to be welcomed, if we are to see how Departments will perform and if we do not want simply to wait and see whether there is an overspend and then re-allocate it. The Committee thinks that that approach could be beneficial.

The Committee welcomes the approach that the Minister has proposed with regard to effectiveness evaluations. Making allocations in advance of the evaluation results creates uncertainty when Departments are planning their services. We urge the Minister and the Executive to involve Committees at an early stage of the preparation of the 2002 spending review.

I thank the Minister, working on his last Budget, for the effective way in which he has dealt with the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the jovial way in which he was able to cope with - at times - a great deal of criticism. He has always been good-humoured. I thank him for the discussions that he held with the Committee and the open and transparent way in which he dealt with us. It was a learning experience for all of us, but the Minister's approach meant that we gained a better understanding. I look forward to working with his successor. I wish Mr Durkan all the best for the future and thank him for his co-operation. Go raibh maith agat.

I would like to reflect on Mr Molloy's remarks and on Mr Durkan's opening words about the Budget process. We have developed a system of reading a draft Budget at the beginning of a session, having a full, detailed debate in the middle of the session, and presenting the final Budget at the end of the session. This is proving to be a good method of handling the Budget. It enables Members and Committees to have a proper input into the formulation of the final package, and gives them the scope to influence the outcomes. That is better than the "here is what you are getting" approach that tends to be used in other jurisdictions, where Members can merely complain on the day of the Budget, with no prospect of changing the outcome. The system that we have evolved is superior, and makes it easier for the Minister of Finance and Personnel to achieve the consensus that is necessary under our form of government.

One or two ideas were left hanging in the Budget presentation. The Minister said that there would be more focus on asset management as part of a move towards resource-based accounting. We still have some way to go, because we must achieve valuations of all assets that command confidence. The depreciation charges may take up a lot of our time over the next year or so; first, as we get to grips with seeing them in black and white, and, secondly, as arguments are raised about what rates of depreciation it would be appropriate for us to use. The matter exercised me considerably when we were dealing with the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. It may exercise us again when we prepare the proposed audit Bill at the beginning of 2002. The House must have confidence in the conventions used.

I note that every opportunity will be taken to identify and dispose of surplus assets, and that the money thus raised will be available for additional spending. That move is welcome. During the debate on private finance initiatives (PFI) and public-private partnerships (PPP), it emerged that the Government have built up a huge portfolio of assets, particularly over the 50 years since the major expansion in the welfare state. It is not axiomatic that it is wise for the Government to manage such a large portfolio. A fresh eye must be turned on the matter.

The matter of the Government's assets is one of the issues energising the PFI and PPP debate. The issue of services is part of that debate, but it is separate from this matter. Our early focus must be on how best the Government can manage their assets. Should they own as many as they do, or should they hire them as required? The advantage of that would be that such assets could be "un-hired"; if assets are owned, they must be disposed of or redeployed, which is not as efficient.

I remind the Minister that there are still problems in the Land Registry, which is in his own Department, and that this continues to be a source of concern for all those involved in the conveyance, mortgaging and financing of property.

Although we have been assured that those problems are being addressed, they have not been addressed in the Budget. It is supposed to be a self-financing process, but the Committee will have to keep a beady eye on that issue in the new year. I trust that the Minister or his successor will focus closely on the matter, and if further resources are needed, that that will be brought to the attention of the House sooner rather than later.

Although the Minister's statement mentions that the issue of PFI and PPP is being examined, we continue to tiptoe around the matter. The Department for Regional Development has probably the greatest scope to make progress in that area, and it is best placed to apply the concept of "user pays". I have not noticed a single reference to those matters in any literature from that Department. Fresh thinking and political courage are needed if we are to go down any of those avenues. It remains to be seen whether the Minister for Regional Development will be willing to display the necessary political courage and ability to think "outside the box". Such thinking, and a preparedness to explore those avenues, is needed if we are to make a significant improvement, particularly in our transport infrastructure. When setting the Budget, it is important that the Executive are satisfied that such avenues have been exhaustively examined before they simply dole out more money for transport.

I will comment briefly on the amendment. My Colleague Dr Birnie rightly pointed out the substantial increase in the amount of money being allocated to the Department for Social Development this year. Furthermore, the Minister of Finance and Personnel also pointed out that money was reallocated within the Department. It is almost inconceivable that the Department would not be able to find a further £1·35 million from within its own resources for the warm homes scheme, should it seek to do so. If anybody needs to refocus priorities on that matter, it is the Minister for Social Development, who undoubtedly has the means to do that if he so chooses. Mr Morrow is not justified in trying to throw that burden back onto the Executive through this essentially mischievous amendment, which is designed to make a political point in another direction.

As regards the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, I must point out that the body responsible for the Irish Lights does not only pre-date partition; it pre-dates the Act of Union. It is probably the longest standing British Isles body in existence - certainly on this island. As a practising yachtsman who has not totally mastered the use of global positioning systems and other such gadgets - I generally use a compass, a lighthouse and a bearing from the land - I am twitchy when any assault is made on the allocation of funds to the Irish Lights.

The Budget is a worthy and workmanlike allocation of the existing resources to the existing, mostly inherited, programmes. However, it is vital that we move towards some wider and fresher thinking next year. When we have done so, and given the context of the spending review that will take place over the coming year, next year's Budget may well contain some surprises, which we should begin to prepare ourselves for. We need to begin to think differently about how money is allocated and what our priorities are. I trust that that will result in a lively debate on next year's Budget - certainly at the take-note stage - as those changes which will be identified over the coming year are brought before the House. I support the Budget.

I want to make some comments on behalf of my Committee, but before I do so, I thank the Minister for his clarity and information on the budgetary situation for social development. It is important to have that clarified at the outset. Indeed, I congratulate him on providing the extra resources in what was actually a tight expenditure round. It is important to put that on the record because the additional resource will be used effectively in areas that concern us all.

I also want to record the thanks of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure to the Minister, the Executive, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel. Their combined efforts ensured that the budgetary process this time allowed Committees to carry out their scrutiny role more effectively than before.

Although my Committee welcomed the additional allocations for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, totalling £7 million, we remain concerned about some serious aspects of underfunding that continue to inhibit the Department's activities. One of these is in the area of sports, where funding - with the exception of a welcome allocation of £1 million earmarked to be spent on the continuation of the safety at sports grounds scheme - was disappointing.

The Programme for Government's priority of working for a healthier people is not simply about the treatment of disease or the care of sick people. It is about persuading people to change their behaviour, which involves wide- ranging collaborative action across different sectors. This, in itself, puts paid to those simplistic budgetary arguments we have heard in the House this year about taking £10 million from each Department to support an increase in health spending.

Sport and physical activity have important roles to play in increasing health-related activity across all sections of the population. While this is especially true of lifelong participation in sport and exercise, it is equally important in helping to build self-esteem and increase social inclusion through leisure activities. A large body of evidence shows that lifelong involvement in sport and physical activity can bring significant health gains for everyone, and also helps with mental health. Recent research in Northern Ireland has stressed the importance of physical activity to the mental health of our young people, and the strong associations between participation in sport and positive mental health.

We all feel deeply about the tragic loss for families and society when a young person takes his own life. Sadly, in Northern Ireland this is a trend that has caused great concern and seems to be on the increase.

These are just a few indications of the convincing evidence supporting the need for continued and enhanced investment in sport. The Committee hopes that the connection between sport and policy objectives across a range of Executive functions will be properly recognised in future resource allocations.

We similarly have concerns about the success of the Department's arts bids, which total something in the region of £4 million. This means that there is no additional money next year for a sector that already needs capital investment in a crumbling infrastructure.

I appreciate that the arts fared relatively well in 2001-02 and that additional moneys allocated then have been carried forward in the Budget. However, we are lagging far behind arts budgets elsewhere, particularly the Republic of Ireland.

We are also trailing behind the Republic when it comes to events. Next year's budget for the Northern Ireland Events Company is just £1 million. Two years ago the Government in the Republic allocated an additional £2·5 million for three years just to attract extra events. That money was additional to the support already given for four major golf events and many other cultural, arts and sports events. For example, they have put between £7 million and £8 million into staging the 2006 Ryder Cup. That investment, they claim, will bring at least £50 million - and probably closer to £100 million - in return. With an annual investment of only £1 million, we are not really in the game at all.

The Committee is also concerned about the continuing neglect of the fabric of our museums and the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium. In 1994, the budget for museums was cut by approximately 8%, and that situation has not been rectified. Additionally, it is simply indefensible that funding for Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) continues to be addressed by our annual battle for adequate baseline allocations. Given that MAGNI has already accumulated a deficit of approximately £2 million in the current year, the Committee argues that the position must be addressed in the following spending review.

More positively, we warmly welcome recognition of the difficulties that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure faces on the staffing front. The allocation next year of £2 million for administration will enable the Department to create a corporate structure and thereby improve its services to customers, including the Assembly.

I am conscious that I have said this on other occasions, but it is a point worth making again. Very small amounts of money, which could well be lost in the rounding of amounts by other big-spend Departments, would go a long way towards addressing many of the issues that I have mentioned and would bring significant benefits to our community.

I wish to make a couple of points on my own behalf about the amendment. Its thinly disguised attempt to attack the agreement is clear. At least the DUP has been consistent from the outset in its frantic attempt to undermine the will of the people. However, it is exploitative to use emotional subjects such as fuel poverty to try to win public acclaim and support. Many Members realise that moves on fuel poverty are necessary, and they want to support them.

It is amusing to hear the proposer of the amendment talking in such terms. When he came to the Committee for Social Development as Minister, I put it to him that he might consider an alternative method of ensuring that the resources, inadequate as they are, could be applied more directly to those who need them most. By that I mean that scattergun efforts are made to address fuel poverty. At Christmas everybody over 60 years of age gets a cheque for £200, including one chap I know who is a millionaire. He does not need the money; but I know others who could do with double that amount and more. Why can we not tackle the issue by directing resources where they are needed?

TOP

The decision to give £200 at Christmas was not made by the Assembly or the Minister for Social Development. That initiative came from Westminster.

As the Member knows, I am well aware of the point behind his interjection. I serve this as an example of the scattergun effort that is used to deal with the matter. There are other means of tackling the issue, and when I put that to the former Minister he said that he would examine it, but unfortunately that was the last that I heard about it. At that time he was in a position to do something directly about it. He did not do so.

He said that nobody would be hurt by the reduction of funding for cross-border bodies, one of which is a language body. Has the former Minister not been aware of the recent growth of confidence and status of the Ulster-Scots community and language? He should talk to that community, because many of his Colleagues would argue in support of them. Does he suggest that Ulster-Scots should be set back? That is what he will do if he cuts the Budget to such an extent.

Does the hon Gentleman suggest that the Ulster-Scots language should be on a par with the Irish language and that it should get the same amount of Government money to forward its interests?

I am not certain of the Member's point, but the confidence and status of Ulster-Scots is being increased tremendously as a result of the languages body's work. Any reduction in its budget would affect that. Perhaps Dr Paisley wants us to introduce that old DUP exclusive policy whereby we cut the budget for the Irish language only, although I am not certain. Another particular example from my area is the Ulster Canal. [Interruption].

Order. I draw to the Member's attention that this is a time-limited debate. A substantial number of Members wish to address the matter, and at this stage, apart from the proposer, Mr ONeill has been on his feet for more time than any other Member. I ask him to bear that in mind. Members who use interjections, but who also hope to be called to speak, tend to use up the time available. I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Perhaps I am long by nature also. I will draw my remarks to a close. I use the example of the budgetary cut to Waterways Ireland, which runs the Ulster Canal project. That is a long-term project that was fully supported by every party in the Chamber. The scheme would have a tremendous impact on urban and rural regeneration for areas that otherwise would not benefit in that way. When he talks about the need for cuts in that area, he should tell us how he proposes that that be done. We all know that this is a thinly disguised attempt to attack the agreement once again.

As Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I sound a warning about the Budget before us today. The final budgetary allocation to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is unchanged from the draft Budget that we debated in November. I spoke then of the Committee's concerns about the lack of new progress for the implementation of an action plan, as the agreed Programme for Government promises the strategic development of the agrifood industry. Those concerns remain with us today. They were not allayed by the report by the Minister of Finance and Personnel about provision for the findings of the vision report.

He said that when the current consultation process is complete, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development would publish an action plan. He went on to say that at that stage firm bids for the implementation of recommendations could be considered, with access to the Executive programme funds as appropriate.

The Committee's difficulties lie in the fact that bidding within that financial year will be very competitive and will be for very limited resources. The chairpersons of the vision sub-groups who met with my Committee emphasised that they were alarmed that after all that they had done, and the recommendations to be considered, no money was being made available at this time.

When I raised this matter in the Chamber on 3 December during the Minister of Finance and Personnel's statement on the revised Budget, he repeated his assertion that the Executive would consider the need for resources following the outcome of the consultation. He said that

The Committee would not agree. Members feel that such a major commitment in the Programme for Government is worthy of an initial financial allocation at least.

Worse still, when the Minister of Finance and Personnel made a statement on the Executive programme funds on 3 December he said that the Executive were able to agree an allocation - which I understand is to be £1·6 million over three years - for the emerging soccer strategy. That strategy is also the subject of public consultation.

If the Minister can give assistance of £1·6 million to soccer during the consultation period, why can an allocation not be made for a very important programme that is needed to save the largest industry in Northern Ireland? I make no comparisons between the circumstances of one decision or the other, but there is an inconsistency between the wait-and-see principle for agriculture and the absence of such a principle for soccer.

The Assembly would agree that soccer, however enjoyable, is not as important to the Northern Ireland economy as the agrifood industry.

The Committee also recommended that the Executive should set aside additional funding this year for a compensation, or tie-up, scheme for fishermen when they are not allowed to use their vessels. This also falls under the wait-and-see banner, given that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has undertaken to review the economic effects of the closure of fishing grounds over the last two years. The Minister tells us that following the review she will consider when compensation is appropriate. Although there has been no provision made in the Budget, I ask the Assembly to remember its unanimous support in March for the Minister to provide short-term assistance to the fishing industry.

There is more hardship ahead for fishermen. Decisions will be made next Monday that could cut the income of the fishing industry by over £1 million. A delegation from my Committee, and our three MEPs, have secured a meeting tomorrow afternoon with the European Commissioner, in an effort to alleviate some of the savage cuts proposed to the fish quota by the European Commission. The Committee remains convinced that the sustainable and competitive fisheries industry mentioned in the Programme for Government must have short-term assistance to ensure that it is maintained. The Assembly needs to play its part in that.

The Committee is disappointed at the outcome of both the Budget and the Executive programme funds. Time will tell if those concerns are justified, but farmers, fishermen and other rural dwellers will understandably feel let down if good intentions fail for lack of financial planning.

I will now lay aside my hat as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and make a comment on the amendment that is before the House. I regret that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has tried to mislead the House on the motivation and the reason for the amendment. We tabled a series of amendments along the lines that we have advocated in the past. I do not know how much power the Minister of Finance and Personnel has, but it is very difficult to get any amendment tabled in this House.

We were told last night by the Business Committee that our amendments would not be taken. The Minister of Finance and Personnel suggests to the House that the DUP's stand is weakening. Everybody knows our stand against the Belfast Agreement perfectly well. As a party leader, I am deeply resentful that a last-minute decision was conveyed to us that none of our amendments would be taken. Eventually we were told that one of them would be taken, if it were revised. For the Minister to suggest -

Order. I advise the Member to be careful about some of the remarks he is making in respect of the amendments. To my certain knowledge, they are incorrect - to my certain knowledge, they are incorrect. It may be that there is misunderstanding in the House, or it may be that there is misleading going on. The Member should also know that according to Standing Orders, no decisions on amendments can be made before 9.30 am.

That is a matter for those who sit on the Business Committee -

Order. I am astonished, because the Member is well known throughout these islands for his knowledge of matters such as Standing Orders. The matter is very clear, and he knows well that it is for the Speaker to decide on amendments. The account that he gives of some of these matters is not correct. It may be wise for him to check with some of his Colleagues.

I stand over what I have said. That was the information given to me by my Chief Whip -

Order. The Member must be careful about what he is saying. He is coming in contempt of the Chair, and I will simply bring his speech to a close if he goes any further. What he has said is not the case. If he has been misled by one of his party Colleagues, that is a matter for him and his party Colleagues. I know how those decisions are made and what the situation is. They are decisions made by me.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that three amendments were put down?

I can confirm that three amendments were put down, and I can also confirm from the start that I made it clear that amendments that were not competent would not be accepted. It is also the case that my Office, on my advice, gave assistance in making an amendment competent, which it had not been. It appears, however, that no good turn goes unpunished as far as my staff is concerned.

Dr Paisley may continue if he wishes, but the matter will be raised elsewhere.

You were not present for the Minister's speech, Mr Speaker. He made the point that the amendment we put down made it look as if we were watering down our stand. I was simply commenting on how, to my knowledge - to my knowledge - that came about. That is a legitimate point that I need to make.

I accept that, and I accept that as far as the Minister is concerned there may have been some misunderstanding about the question of how amendments may be put down. That is not the issue; it is not the matter on which I took issue with the Member.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member referred to a meeting of the Business Committee being held last night. I am a member of that Committee, and I can assure the House that there was no meeting of the Business Committee last night.

Order. There seems to be some sort of infectious misunderstanding developing. For all that I do not agree with some of the things that Dr Paisley said, I have to say that he did not suggest that there was a meeting of the Business Committee last night.

Read Hansard tomorrow.

I beg your pardon?

We will all read Hansard with interest tomorrow.

I suggest that the hon Member for Strangford should wake up and listen to what I have to say.

Mr Speaker, I think the Member did say that there was a meeting of the Business Committee last night. He should look over his notes.

Order.

I do not have any notes. Members know that I speak extemporaneously. I have only a note of the business of the House here.

Having made that point - and made it effectively because of the interruptions - I move to another point. It was said that the DUP should vote for rent increases, and that its not doing so contributed to the non- progression of the warm homes scheme. I will never come to the House and vote in favour of rent increases in order to finance another programme. Many people can ill afford to pay the rent that is set. The warm homes scheme should be financed completely independently of rent-setting.

The Minister should not bring in those sidelines because he is not happy about the amendment. I thought that he would be happy with the amendment. I did not think that he would castigate the DUP and tell us that we had not changed. However, I discover now that he thinks we have changed. Maybe I have successfully disillusioned him.

Nevertheless, the amendment is clear. Someone said that it was trying to mask what it was really attempting to do. The DUP is not masking its intentions. It is clear what we want.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>