Arlene Foster
Fermanagh and South Tyrone · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Yet, like too many projects, it has been tied up in legal wrangles. Too many infrastructure projects are being swallowed up in the courts. We need to improve the expertise in infrastructure delivery. We need better infrastructure for the next generation, but key projects being delayed by 10-plus years is unsustainable.”
“Any agreement involves compromises but NDNA had two central pillars that, I believe, remain important: ambition for devolution and a new cultural deal. The breadth and depth of issues that NDNA set us all to deliver on would have been enough to fill an entire term or perhaps more, let alone two years of government.”
“That confidence-and-supply agreement will leave a legacy but also highlights our challenges. Some £150 million has been rolled out via Project Stratum to bring broadband to rural areas and leave Northern Ireland as the best-connected region in Europe. When it is completed, the project will be transformational to our economy.”
“However, such short-term advantage comes at the cost of long-term harm to relationships. It is not a real partnership. Imbalance and instability are built in that will fester and deteriorate. If Brussels continues to think that the protocol is enough, it is in denial.”
“Colleagues inside and outside the House know very well that all periods of leadership must come to an end. That is why, when we are privileged and, indeed, honoured to hold such a position, we must not waste a moment in frivolous brinkmanship but forge ahead on behalf of those whom we represent.”
“The recommendations of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) are to be taken forward as well. I encourage all of you to do all of it, to take it forward in its totality and to speak of and implement it as one complete, independent package: a new cultural deal for Northern Ireland's new century.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,345 lines we hold for Arlene Foster, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 50 of 67.
“They have all been engaged in worthy work, at a minimal cost, and with access to very modest resources, over a lengthy period. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. They are broadly the same, setting out new complaints procedures for barristers at Part 2 and solicitors at Part 3. Why the barristers come first, I am not quite sure, but anyway. It was obviously drafted before I came into office. Parts 2 and 3 are supported by the provisions in schedules 2 and 3. <BR /> <BR />There are a number of key points to note. For barristers, the Bar Council currently has the main role when it comes to complaints. It will still have a role to play.”
“Clauses 5 and 6 deal with how the office of the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner will be financed. I am of the view that the public purse should not be used to pay for the new arrangements. In keeping with other jurisdictions, I recommend that the office be funded by a levy on the professional bodies. How that will be determined will, in part, be a matter for the professional bodies, working with the Department and the commissioner. Subsequent regulations will add more detail. <BR /> <BR />I also ask Members to note that clause 9 will abolish the office of the Lay Observer. The commissioner will have much deeper powers than that office, and I very much want to record my gratitude to the incumbent of that office, Mr Alasdair MacLaughlin, and his predecessors for the work that they have engaged in.”
“It is important that there should be a degree of transparency for those functions as well. These clauses seek to provide that.”
“While the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner will be able to apply a monetary penalty on a professional body that fails to fulfil its obligations, I expect that professional bodies will recognise their additional responsibilities in relation to complaints and work closely with the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner, and that that penalty will be a tool of last resort. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 3 and 4 relate to the expanded role of the Commissioner in relation to other aspects of legal regulation. Complaints handling forms but one part of that process, and there are many other things that a professional body does in making rules and regulations to govern its members. Those include education, entry to the profession, professional development and training.”
“Clause 1 states that the office holder will be appointed by my Department after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, and is underpinned by the contents of schedule 1. In broad terms, the Commissioner will be a layperson and subject to terms and conditions consistent with other appointments of this nature. <BR /> <BR />Clause 2 sets out the office holder's key powers, which, as I mentioned, are based on proposals by the Bain group. Those powers will provide a proportionate and effective level of oversight of how complaints against lawyers are handled.”
“It has taken some time for the proposals to reach the Floor of the Assembly, for various reasons. In acknowledging the significant passage of time, last year, my Department consulted once again on the proposals in the draft Bill in order to establish that what they were proposing was as relevant today. That exercise cemented the Bain work, with a clear message coming from the consultation that the Bain recommendations were still valid eight years on. <BR /> <BR />The Bill has 55 clauses, five schedules and three Parts. The House will be relieved that I do not intend to provide a narrative on each and every clause and schedule, but there are a number of points that I would like to draw the attention of Members to. <BR /> <BR />Part 1, which encompasses clauses 1 to 10, deals with the proposed Legal Services Oversight Commissioner.”
“It proposed that the majority of their influence relate to the complaints handling system, with, amongst other things, the power to set targets and plans for the professional bodies, to monitor action against those plans, and to have robust powers where the professional bodies were not meeting those targets and plans. <BR /> <BR />Bain also recommended that the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner should have a consultative role in relation to other aspects of regulation — rule-making by the professional bodies in matters such as education, training and competition — and be able to examine other such areas if asked to do so by Government. <BR /> <BR />Those recommendations represent the cornerstone of the Bill. I place on record my appreciation of Professor Bain and his team for all that work.”
“In addition, it recommended that the powers available to that lay-led committee should be enhanced, including the power, which currently does not exist, to award compensation. <BR /> <BR />Underpinning that main set of recommendations was an enhanced level of oversight. Current arrangements are restricted to the office of the Lay Observer for Northern Ireland. The Lay Observer has a fairly narrow remit and can examine only how complaints against solicitors are handled by the Law Society. The Lay Observer has no remit in relation to the Bar. Bain recommended that the oversight be beefed up, and suggested the creation of the post of Legal Services Oversight Commissioner.”
“<BR /> <BR />Secondly, it observed that the number of complaints against lawyers here was relatively small; figures back then showed 200 to 300 complaints per year on average against solicitors, and far fewer against barristers. It concluded, and I direct Members to the review group's report, that a fully independent complaints handling body would not be a proportionate recommendation in need or cost. <BR /> <BR />Alternatively, it proposed that the functions should remain with the professional bodies but subject to significant changes. As I mentioned, complaints are currently heard by committees chaired by a lawyer and with a significant majority of lawyers as members. Bain recommended lay chairs and lay majorities, and that complaints committees be functionally separate from the professional body.”
“This had happened elsewhere, most notably in England and Wales as a result of the Legal Services Act 2007 and also in Scotland, which now has the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. <BR /> <BR />Bain considered this option carefully in the context of a number of factors that the team met during its work on the review. First, it noted that Northern Ireland is a separate jurisdiction with a legal profession that is set up in a different way to others. It found that the professional bodies, namely the Law Society and the Bar Council, had a relatively good record in relation to regulation, and there was not the same regulatory maze that had been identified in other jurisdictions.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bain report found that the existing complaints handling system for lawyers, whilst operating reasonably effectively, would benefit from measured reform; what the group described as a "copper-bottoming" of procedures. Its key recommendation in regard to complaints was that the emphasis should be switched from professionals — solicitors and barristers — judging their own members to a system of lay-majority participation with lay chairpersons being able to deal with complaints. <BR /> <BR />In this regard, Bain considered how best to achieve this end result. The review team had at its disposal the option to take the complaints handling function entirely away from the relevant professional bodies and place it into the hands of a fully independent complaints handling body.”
“The Bill has at its genesis, as I have noted, a report that was published back in late 2006 by the legal services review group, which was chaired by Professor Sir George Bain. The Bain report, as it is sometimes referred to, was commissioned by the then direct rule Government as a follow-up to work that was being carried out in England and Wales and which ultimately led to the Legal Services Act 2007 in that jurisdiction. <BR /> <BR />Professor Bain and his team spent almost a year examining the various facets of regulation of the legal profession. The report produced a total of 42 recommendations relating to complaints, regulation and competition. The Bill implements much of that report and its recommendations, with a particular focus on what Bain described as its principal proposals, that being reform of the complaints handling system.”
“I welcome the opportunity today to speak about my proposals for changes to the current arrangements relating to certain aspects of the regulation of lawyers, in particular how complaints against lawyers are handled and overseen. The Legal Complaints and Regulation Bill will set out a new statutory framework for complaints handling and will introduce strengthened oversight of that framework. It is the culmination of work that commenced with an independent review of regulation of the legal profession and brings, in my view, a proportionate change in this area, which will benefit consumers and be helpful to users of legal services. <BR /> <BR />Before I look at the provisions of the Bill, I want to say something about how we have arrived at this stage today.”
“I beg to introduce the Budget (No. 2) Bill 2015 [53/11-16], which is a Bill to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of the year ending 31 March 2016; to appropriate those sums for specified purposes; to authorise the Department of Finance and Personnel to borrow on the credit of the appropriated sums; to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources (including accruing resources) for the year ending 31 March 2016; and to repeal certain spent provisions.”
“<BR /> <BR />So, it is in that context that I commend the motion to the House.”
“Assembly approval of the Supply motion, and the associated departmental expenditure plans laid out in the 2015-16 Main Estimates, is a crucial stage of the public expenditure cycle. Failure to pass the 2015-16 Supply resolution at this juncture would put at risk the smooth continuation of public services into the remainder of this financial year. Equally, as I have repeatedly outlined, failure of the Executive and the Assembly to find a way forward on welfare reform would put our spending plans at risk and present Ministers and the Assembly with the unenviable task of imposing further spending reductions on our already hard-pressed departmental budgets. That is something that we as a party have already indicated that we are not prepared to do to the people of Northern Ireland.”
“He said that Sinn Féin and the SDLP should accept the current political realities and agree an accommodation on welfare reform. He said that what was being offered in Northern Ireland was a far more generous scheme than was available to his own constituents and that no extra money was coming from Westminster. <BR /> <BR />Mr McCallister made reference to the voluntary exit scheme, and I hope I answered the point in relation to the £700 million. That is all tied in with the Stormont House Agreement and, therefore, if welfare reform does not happen, none of the other parts of the Stormont House Agreement happens either. That was indicated by the Secretary of State on many occasions. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, I will draw my remarks to a close. I thank you for your patience.”
“I do not know what is being said across the way. I cannot hear because I am still talking. It is just incredible to think of the arrogance of Sinn Féin that it will tell the British people whom to put into our national Parliament. Even if that party had got its way and Labour was now in power at Westminster — Mr McCallister made the point — Ivan Lewis was very clear in 'The Irish Times' over the weekend about where he thinks the problems are coming from at present.”
“I will tell you what is not credible: the current Sinn Féin economic policy. I listened with incredulity to some Sinn Féin Members' comments, whether Mr Hazzard or Mr Murphy, who is back in the House. I listened to them and cannot believe what is coming out of their mouths. How can they possibly argue for further fiscal powers to be devolved here when we cannot even deal with the powers that we have in front of us? It is just an incredible situation. There is no credibility to go and argue that point. They seem to think that the British people got it wrong in the general election. The arrogance of telling the British people whom they should have put into Westminster is quite incredible.”
“We all share a vision of our economy supporting our people, but you cannot simply ignore the fiscal deficit of £9·6 billion. We have to acknowledge the reality of where we are, what that means for the economy and Budget rather than pretending that that simply does not exist.”
“It is worth highlighting the role that the carrier bag levy has had in that fund, thanks to the agreement that my Department secured from the UK Government to retain the income from that levy for use in funding. It has provided a secure income stream that is forecast to be £4·75 million this year, which can be used by the Department of the Environment to fund the sort of organisations and programmes that the Chair and Mrs Cameron spoke about. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to mention Mr Ó Muilleoir, who again talked about fiscal levers and wanted fiscal autonomy. Mr McCallister's point about the credibility gap was very well made. How can we possibly argue for more fiscal powers to come to Northern Ireland when we cannot deal with the powers that are already devolved?”
“<BR /> <BR />Pam Cameron mentioned Arc21 and asked what will happen to the financial transactions capital that was allocated to it if the project does not proceed, because, as we know, it does not yet have planning permission. If that is the case, that money can be transferred into the proposed Northern Ireland investment fund. It will not be lost, and we hope that it can be used for further investment. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Cameron and Anna Lo also praised the work of the voluntary and community sector organisations that are involved in environmental work. Both mentioned the recently launched natural environment fund, which will allocate £1·2 million to environmental groups to help them to deliver on key environmental outcomes.”
“As far as the current year is concerned, I understand that the company is being required to work to an increased deficit of around £15 million, which is being funded from its reserves. That can reflect DRD's assessment of what Translink can contribute. <BR /> <BR />Mr Clarke also commented on the funding that the Executive have secured from the European Union, particularly for investment in road infrastructure. One such road project that has benefited from such funding is the A8 Belfast to Larne dual carriageway scheme. That work is almost complete and is expected to be open to traffic shortly. We are looking forward to DRD, hopefully — I think that it is confident — securing up to 40% EU funding for the proposed York Street interchange scheme, which, of course, is also vital.”
“I understand that, while Translink's results for 2014-15 have not been finalised, its reserves will be reduced considerably compared with previous years.”
“Like him, I was concerned about the escalation of the costs of the project, which resulted in the Minister for Regional Development having to make a statement to the Assembly back in November acknowledging the errors that had been made with the cost estimates. The project is proceeding at a cost of £46·4 million, and, given the history of the project, the onus is very much on the Regional Development Minister to ensure that the costs are kept under review. <BR /> <BR />I agree entirely that, in the current financial climate, it is only right that an organisation such as Translink, which receives a substantial subsidy from the taxpayer every year, shares the burden of public expenditure pressures.”
“Those funds are in addition to our public expenditure. There has been significant interest in the fund from public representatives since the final Budget announcement, and a public consultation will be launched as soon as possible to seek views on the proposed spending priority of social investment. In addition, the consultation will test options for utilising the fund that will ensure that the fund can be recycled into other social investment schemes. That will include the consideration of match funding. <BR /> <BR />Mr Clarke, on behalf of the Regional Development Committee, mentioned the Coleraine to Londonderry railway line. I, too, am very pleased that work on phase 2 of the line is going ahead and that it will facilitate hourly services.”
“As a first step, the Executive have agreed to commission a feasibility study that will help to determine the optimal structure, scale and investment strategy of the fund. I am pleased that the consultants, Deloitte, have been appointed to advance the study, which I expect to conclude in the next few weeks. The feasibility study will also inform the ideal scale of the fund, but, in the interim, the Executive have decided to set aside an initial £40·9 million of financial transactions capital. We can further review the funding requirements once the feasibility study has concluded. <BR /> <BR />The social innovation fund has been established to utilise dormant account moneys in Northern Ireland. It was announced as part of the final Budget in 2015-16. There is some £6·4 million available to us.”
“Whilst the provisional out-turn is not strictly related to the Supply resolution before us today, I confirm that I will report it to the House with the conclusion of the June monitoring round. However, I can reassure the Member that I expect the out-turn to come within the Budget exchange scheme limits set out by the Treasury, so there will be no money returned. <BR /> <BR />Mr Cree also raised the review of financial processes. I share his concern that that has not been progressed. The Member asked for an update on the Northern Ireland investment fund. I confirm that the fund is still at the formative stage, but I hope that it will lever in additional funding that will help to boost investment and promote economic growth in Northern Ireland.”
“I welcome the commitment of the Audit Office and, indeed, the Audit Committee to find efficiency savings to ensure that the Audit Office remains within its agreed budgetary settlement. I can confirm that the transformation fund will be open to bids from the Audit Office. However, it must be recognised that the Audit Office is not alone in seeking transformation funding and that all applications to the fund must be strictly assessed on merit. The Member must also be aware that, as Finance Minister, I cannot give a commitment that any funding bids received during in-year monitoring will be met. Such decisions are, ultimately, a matter for the Executive and are dependent on the financial pressures faced and the funding that may or may not become available. <BR /> <BR />Mr Cree raised a number of issues around the 2014-15 financial year.”
“I understand the Member's concern, not just from a personal point of view but as someone representing his constituents. It is one of the reasons why I have already looked into whether there are other ways in which we could deal with that matter. I hope that we do not have to go down that road. I hope that the Budget Bill will be passed and that we will, therefore, have access to accruing resources, but we have looked at whether we can put the money through the Rural Payments Agency, for example, instead of it going to DARD. I am hopeful that we will not get to that point. <BR /> <BR />Mr Hilditch, speaking on behalf of the Audit Committee, raised the issues of Audit Office savings and voluntary exit.”
“Mr Irwin also, along with a number of other Members, raised concerns about the use of accruing resources. The accruing resources that a Department may use are subject to a limit set by the Budget Act. As I said in response to the Chair of the Finance Committee, I have received legal advice from the Departmental Solicitor's Office that accruing resources cannot be used in the absence of a Budget Bill, because the limit has not been set. If there is no limit, we cannot use the accruing resources. That would have serious consequences for items such as the single farm payment, and that is why I very much want to progress the Budget Bill to avoid such a situation. I encourage Members to think carefully about how they vote today, bearing in mind the huge issues out there, particularly, in this case, for our farmers.”
“I am aware that, whilst the most recent figures report a reduction in the number of TB herd breakdowns, there has been an increase in the number of reactor animals. While we cannot lose sight of the negative impact of bovine TB on our local farmers, we must also be cognisant of the cost to the taxpayer, particularly given our current budgetary position. The total cost of TB compensation payments in 2014-15 was £14 million. As the Member highlighted, the Agriculture Minister has already flagged up the need for additional funding in this financial year. There is, therefore, a clear need to explore all means of eradicating bovine TB, including the modernisation of our compensation regime.”
“I reassure the Member that the final Budget settlement agreed by the House in January resulted in a net increase of £18·6 million in the 2015-16 DETI resource budget, enabling Invest NI to create legally binding commitments that have resulted in unprecedented success, as we have seen from their recently published results. We know that that will continue under the leadership of the new Minister and Alastair Hamilton in Invest NI. We have allowed them to promote new jobs, drive investment in research and development and support companies to grow export sales. <BR /> <BR />Mr Irvine — Irwin, rather; I nearly gave him a new name. Mr William Irwin gave the view of the ARD Committee and mentioned bovine TB as one of the key challenges facing the sector.”
“Sinn Féin is now in the business of giving people knighthoods. Moreover, reneging on the Stormont House Agreement has put the devolution of corporation tax in the balance, and we heard the comments made by her colleagues over the weekend in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Mr McGlone, speaking about the DETI budget allocation for 2015-16 in his capacity as Chair of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, referenced the 15·1% reduction in DETI's baseline and expressed concerns about the impact on Invest Northern Ireland's activities.”
“Mr McKinney also raised the issue of the Chancellor's in-year reductions. I can confirm that the Executive's Budget will be reduced by £33 million in resource DEL and £5 million in capital DEL. Her Majesty's Treasury has given us some flexibility in the timing of the reductions, and I will bring proposals to the Executive as part of June monitoring and will, of course, report the outcome of June monitoring to the House in due course. <BR /> <BR />Michaela Boyle raised the issue of more powers to manage the economy and criticised the United Kingdom Government. The Member conveniently failed to mention that the fiscal deficit is in the region of £9·6 billion, and she did not provide any strategy to reduce it. She did, however, give a knighthood to George Osborne, which I found very interesting, referring to him as "Sir George Osborne".”
“Clearly, more has to be done. More will be done, but the Member should note that transition to the new model of care is a long-term process. It will not happen overnight. It takes time to change a health service to deal with a new model of care. I welcome the savings that the Department of Health has made to date. This year alone, the Minister has committed to delivering savings of some £164 million.”
“I thank the Member for his comments. I do not know whether he was in the House when Mr McKinney made comments about Transforming Your Care (TYC), which I know that the Member has a particular interest in. Mr McKinney indicated that implementing TYC is about implementing a new model of care. That is right. It will see the home as the hub of care, and, to achieve that, it is important that we build the right services to achieve the vision and that services are sustainable. I do welcome the progress that has been made to date. That progress has seen the creation of 17 new integrated care partnerships across Northern Ireland, which are working to improve the coordination of care and support in key areas such as the care of the elderly and the treatment of chronic conditions, such as diabetes, stroke and respiratory conditions.”
“The failure to implement welfare reform has resulted in substantial financial losses for Northern Ireland. For example, this year alone, the block will lose some £114 million in welfare reform penalties. The House will know only too well the financial pressures that our health service faces. Undoubtedly, the Health Minister could have made significant use of an additional £114 million. I have no doubt about that at all. When you listen to people saying that they are protecting the vulnerable, think of the use that that £114 million could have been put to. Think of what it could have been used for. Think of the difference that we could have made to people's lives by £114 million going into the health budget.”
“<BR /> <BR />Paul Girvan mentioned the Excess Vote for the Department of Education. I entirely agree with the Member that arm's-length bodies need to be accountable for their expenditure and that they need to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. To be clear, the Excess Votes relate to the 2013-14 financial year, when the Department of Education breached its Vote's amount. I note that steps have been taken by the Department that there will not be a repeat of this situation, and that has been confirmed by the Public Accounts Committee's recommendation. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that my colleague the Minister of Health will have been interested to hear what Mr McKinney said. He indicated that welfare reform had no impact on the Department of Health. I find this amazing. As Finance Minister, I completely refute that claim.”
“Mr McKay also raised the legal position of the use of accruing resources, and I am confident that the legal advice that I have received is robust. I have taken into account the position taken by the Committee, but hopefully the progression of this Budget Bill will ensure that neither legal position needs to be tested. <BR /> <BR />The expected quantum and spread of savings across Departments from the voluntary exit scheme is being calculated by the working group under the direction of the head of the Civil Service, and hopefully those figures will be available shortly as well. However, before those figures can have any meaning at all, the Stormont House Agreement needs to be implemented in full because, of course, all of those things are part of the same agreement.”
“Either of those two elements need to be dealt with sooner rather than later. <BR /> <BR />It is not unusual to take through Main Estimates that need to be amended through the financial year; the Finance Minister brings proposals to the Executive through the monitoring rounds, and, once agreement has been reached, these changes will ultimately be reflected in the spring Supplementary Estimates for endorsement by the Assembly. This year is no different in that respect, although I do accept that the uncertainties are more severe. <BR /> <BR />Mr McKay mentioned the welfare reform study that has been conducted. The report is helpful in understanding the context of welfare reform, and it is my intention to release it to the Committee for its perusal in the next few days.”
“It is my belief that only the spending that comes from the Executive can be voted on. That is not just my belief; it is the legal opinion of my departmental solicitors. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister also made the point that the Estimates that are being taken through now are too high and that any changes must be agreed by the Executive after today. I am acutely aware that we need to have, as I have indicated, the implementation of welfare reform to ensure that the Budget is sustainable, not just this year but into the future. The alternative is completely unpalatable, with significant reductions required in-year. It is certainly not about kicking the can down the road. The SDLP and Sinn Féin need to sign up to welfare reform, as agreed at Stormont House, or Westminster needs to act.”
“That is not a matter for me to comment on, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“I am not sure that there are too many other Members who have taken the time to read the Estimates manual and quote from it. He highlighted that the manual explains that the Supply Estimates are a critical part of public spending control, which is absolutely right. The key point is that the Assembly can only vote on spending plans agreed by the Executive and brought forward by me, as Finance Minister. The Assembly cannot propose new figures, as the Member suggested. That does not make this vote any less important: it is vital. However, only I, as Finance Minister acting on behalf of the Executive, can bring forward the figures. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister also made the point —”
“<BR /> <BR />According to Mr Ó Muilleoir, he is not here to carry water for English Ministers, but frankly, if Sinn Féin and the SDLP get their way, that is exactly what we will be doing — if even that — in the utopia that they are driving us towards. Neither the SDLP nor Sinn Féin has given us any indication as to how we pay for what they are advocating. I am not surprised by that, because throughout this process we have asked for alternatives and different ways of doing things, but no solutions have been brought forward. It is my party that has to always come forward with solutions to the problems that we find ourselves in. <BR /> <BR />I want to move on to the particular issues that have been raised by Members. Mr Allister took the time to read the DFP Estimates manual.”
“I notice that the Member did not take the opportunity to tell us where the 15% cuts would be enacted. <BR /> <BR />Anyway, I move on to the third category of people who have spoken today: what I call the "you couldn't-make-it-up group". That group has two subsections. First of all, we have the SDLP, who continue to ask ad nauseum for more money without any indication as to where it is coming from. Of course, the second subsection of that group is Sinn Féin, who have absolutely no sense of irony when they seek to lecture the Westminster Government on their "economic incompetence". The party that advocated clearing people's credit cards as a policy platform at the Westminster election is lecturing others about economic incompetence.”
“I have not — I wish the Member would listen to what I have said: it is predicated on welfare reform being enacted, and therefore it is a balanced Budget. The second category is his category, namely those who know that they can put forward proposals safe in the knowledge that they will not pass. Mr Allister can put forward a 15% year-on-year cut to the Budget safely knowing that it will not happen. We have not heard from Mr Allister today — he has had ample opportunity to tell us — on where he would cut in the Department of Education in terms of schools or the Health Department in terms of nurses. We have not heard any of that today from the Member, who is looking straight at me and wants to get in.”
“It was not my party that reneged on the welfare Bill at the very last stage, thereby causing the difficulties that we find ourselves in today. <BR /> <BR />However, just to be clear, especially for Mr Allister, this Budget is predicated on welfare being dealt with. His argument that I have in some way moved my position is a fallacy, as I am consistent with what I have said all along, which is that we in my party would certainly not put our hand to a cut of the kind that he is advocating today. The only way that this Budget works is if welfare reform is enacted. I cannot be clearer than that, and, as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better. <BR /> <BR />The second category of people —”
“There you are — 52 minutes. Excellent. The debate has covered many aspects relating to public expenditure, as well as many aspects not relating to public expenditure, it has to be said. Nevertheless, I will endeavour to address as many points raised as I possibly can in the time very generously allocated to me. <BR /> <BR />There are three categories of people who have spoken today in the debate. The first is those who are imbued with a sense of realism. They have spoken to support the motion with varying levels of enthusiasm. I accept that, and I understand it. This is certainly not the set of circumstances that I would have chosen for my first substantive debate on the Supply resolutions, but, of course, that is not of my making.”
“Has the Member not just made the argument for why his amendment should not succeed, when he made reference to the fact that it is only the Executive that can change the Supply resolution?”