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 52 of 67.
“In addition to the loss of £700 million reinvestment and reform initiative borrowing for the voluntary exit scheme, we would lose £150 million over five years to pay for institutions that help to deal with the past, and we all know how important it is to deal with those very difficult issues; £500 million over 10 years for capital projects in support of shared and integrated education; and certain flexibilities agreed in this year's Budget relating to the scope to continue repaying the £100 million loan taken out in 2014-15 from capital receipts and capital budgets. We would have to pay the full-year cost of not implementing welfare reform, £114 million, and would lose the flexibility to repay that from the capital budget. Very significant issues and funding are dependent on the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement.”
“As I indicated, 7,285 individuals applied to be considered for selection by the closure of the NICS scheme. All Departments provided a profile of the numbers of staff by grade and discipline that they required to exit under the scheme in order to achieve the required pay bill savings. Not all applicants were selected, and we anticipate that not all those selected will choose to leave. They may decide to stay and work on, so it is not necessarily the case that all 1,200 will leave. At this stage, it is not possible to say whether the scheme is oversubscribed. We will know more later in the year.”
“Pay bill reductions will come into their savings plans, so there are two sides to it. It is very important that we can proceed with the voluntary exit scheme.”
“There are two aspects to the voluntary exit scheme. We have been allocated £700 million under the Stormont House Agreement to allow people to apply to the scheme. As the Member will know, over 7,200 people from the Civil Service applied. The head of the Civil Service has sent out the first tranche of conditional letters to 1,200 people. Those letters indicate their offer, that they could leave at the end of September but that that is conditional on our being able to access the £200 million for this year. <BR /> <BR />It is important that those people be allowed to leave in a timely manner because Departments have factored in savings from the pay bills of those leaving. I do not have the specifics in front of me, but each Department has factored a particular amount of money into its savings plan to allow those people to move on.”
“The voluntary exit scheme and the £700 million required to fund it are key elements of the Stormont House Agreement, so, at present, we are unable to access that funding. That has significant implications for the Executive’s Budget, the budgets of public-sector bodies and, importantly, the individuals affected.”
“With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 2, 11 and 12 together, as they all relate to the Northern Ireland Civil Service voluntary exit scheme. <BR /> <BR />In her St Patrick’s day speech, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:-”
“I thank the Member for his question. As he probably knows from public commentary, I have asked for a meeting with Her Majesty's Treasury. That meeting was to take place on Thursday of this week. Unfortunately, that clashes with the Executive meeting, so I will not be able to attend. However, I have asked for another meeting date as soon as possible in order to discuss the situation that we find ourselves in. <BR /> <BR />As to breaching our controls, I am bringing the Budget forward on the premise that the whole of the Stormont House Agreement will be implemented: not parts of it, but all of it. If all of it comes to fruition, the Budget will not have a hole of £604 million.”
“Yes, I have received correspondence from the Committee. I have studied that correspondence, as the Member would expect me to do. I have to say that it does not lie alongside the very clear legal advice that I have, which indicates that I and the Department have no legal power to set accruing resource limits in the absence of an appropriate limit. That appropriate limit is set by the Budget Act. The Committee's letter in no way negates the legal advice that I have received. I am quite content to have a conversation with the Member as Deputy Chair or with the Chair about that advice, but, as far as I can see, that legal advice does not negate the very clear legal advice that I have received.”
“Obviously, EU funding, including the single farm payment, is provided for specific reasons, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that that funding goes to the intended recipients. With the progression of the Budget Bill, which, as I said, I have already shared with Executive colleagues and the Committee, I anticipate that payments will continue as normal. If the Budget Bill should be rejected, however, I am taking steps, and I am confident that the single farm payment will be paid, although possibly not through the normal processes. I want to ensure that farmers are in receipt of their single farm payment because I know how important that single farm payment is to the rural community.”
“Therefore, the people who are not standing by the Stormont House Agreement have to look at themselves and ask themselves why they are not standing by their commitments in the Stormont House Agreement. To do otherwise will cause grave difficulties to public services in Northern Ireland. There are two choices if the Budget goes ahead: either the Westminster Government will have to implement welfare reform or those who have turned their face against welfare reform will have to deal with it. Those are the choices ahead of us.”
“Thank you for the supplementary. Indeed, it would be, to use the Member's word, "catastrophic" if we had to go into a situation where the permanent secretary of DFP had to act under section 59 of the Northern Ireland Act. That would be absolutely catastrophic for the Northern Ireland public because of the cuts that would have to be made to public services. <BR /> <BR />I have heard the Budget that I have circulated to Executive colleagues and, indeed, to the Committee being described in various ways: a fantasy Budget, a phantom Budget and whatever it is that the BBC deems to call it at that particular time. In fact, the Budget that I am bringing forward is a Budget that is based on the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement.”
“"Accruing resources" is the term used to refer to the income received by a Department that it is authorised to retain to offset related expenditure rather than surrender to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The limits for such income are voted by the Assembly in the Budget Bills associated with the Main and spring Supplementary Estimates.”
“I beg to introduce the Legal Complaints and Regulation Bill [NIA 50/11-16], which is a Bill to make provision for the establishment of the office of the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner for Northern Ireland; to make provision as regards complaints against members of the legal profession in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes.”
“There is where the rather large figure of £2·7 billion occurs. It is a very distressing place to be. <BR /> <BR />As I have said, this is a test for the House of whether it will pick fantasy politics over responsible government. I fear that Sinn Féin and the SDLP have made the wrong choice on this occasion and are playing fantasy politics whilst the rest of us are concerned about public services in Northern Ireland. I support the Bill.”
“2) Bill there is no legal authority to pay the money out, so, whilst the money will come to Northern Ireland, there is no authority to pay out the accruals that come.”
“I thank the Member for that point. Just to be clear, yes, the Budget that we talked about last week and the hole that is presently there in relation to £604 million of debt arises because of the non-implementation of the Stormont House Agreement, and we will not put our hands to supporting such a Budget, even though I will probably have to bring the figures forward to the Executive this week for discussion. If that is not doable then it falls to the permanent secretary to deal with the issue. I have taken legal advice in relation to the use of accruals and have been told that, whilst the accruals will come in to Northern Ireland, they cannot be paid out, because to do that we would need legal authority under the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Without the Budget (No.”
“Members have a clear but stark choice to make tonight. They can pass the Bill — it does not appear that we are going to do that — and protect those who need support from benefits, giving them the best deal in the UK, or — this appears to be the road that we are going down — we can consign welfare recipients to a harsher regime with lower payments, and for what? In the end, Sinn Féin and the SDLP will be punishing those for whom they claim to be fighting. It is just cheap, self-serving, party political posturing that goes on across the way — and, frankly, it is pathetic — just to look like tough guys to the rest of the electorate in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, to the electorate in the Republic of Ireland. <BR /> <BR />This is a test for the House today as to whether it will pick —”
“I thank the Minister for clarifying that. <BR /> <BR />The inability to set a Budget because of the fall of this Bill would have severe ramifications and would lead to the permanent secretary in the Department of Finance and Personnel imposing even greater cuts. So great would those cuts be that the head of the Civil Service would be forced to inform Whitehall that the Northern Ireland control totals would be breached, and, in those circumstances, the United Kingdom Government would be forced to intervene. <BR /> <BR />The final fact that I want to leave with the House tonight — because we have heard a lot of conjecture today — is that our proposals on welfare are the best offer in the whole of the United Kingdom. Defeat of the Bill will reduce the level of payments to tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland.”
“The inability to set a Budget because of the fall of this Bill would lead —”
“He publicly and privately challenged those who claimed that they were going to oppose the Bill because the Social Development Minister had produced a scheme that was not what they believed they were signing up to last December. The First Minister announced that, if it would lead to them reaffirming their support for the Bill, he would accept any amendment consistent with the five-party Stormont agreement, providing it was within the agreed spending limit, legally competent and operationally feasible. Not one amendment was brought forward by any of the parties opposite, or, indeed, any other party. I think that speaks volumes about the debate that we have had here today.”
“Today is the Assembly's last sitting day before that deadline and, without the funding that the passage of the Bill would bring, a balanced Budget that the Assembly would support cannot be crafted. That is why the Bill had to be completed this week. There is nothing contrived, artificial or politically motivated about the timing. It is the only legal option open to us to produce a balanced Budget. <BR /> <BR />Some Members have tried to excuse the U-turn that they have very skilfully managed today on this Bill by claiming that the Social Development Minister's proposals on how the Stormont Castle agreement would be implemented caused them to withdraw their support. Last Wednesday the First Minister called their bluff on this issue.”
“I wonder whether there is anyone in this House who would support £600 million of cuts to health, to education, to victims, to justice services and to job promotion. I am looking round the House, and I do not see anybody putting their hand up for that sort of cut. The only way to avoid having to deal with that issue is to pass this Bill. There is no money tree out the back of Stormont. I have searched; it is not there. <BR /> <BR />The next thing I wanted to come to was the absolutely ludicrous suggestion that the timing of this debate is in some way artificial. I have heard it from a number of people across the Floor. The statutory requirements compel me as Minister of Finance to action the Budget process by Friday of this week.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have heard much about austerity this afternoon and this evening and about what is coming down the line. Whatever happens in the future, what happens now should concern this Assembly. If this Bill does not pass — I have said it many times over this past week — £604 million of cuts will have to be made to vital front-line public services, the services that the most vulnerable in our community need and rely upon. That is the size of the hole in our finances at present. There has been a lot of talk about what is coming down the line and what might be happening, but that is the reality of where we stand tonight. I prefer to deal with what is happening in front of me right now. <BR /> <BR />Let me be clear: my party will not support such severe cuts. Public services would be decimated. Public safety would be endangered.”
“So there has been a smokescreen thrown up by the parties opposite about going to London with Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones and making great play of the wider economic issues, when we are not dealing with the reality of what is right in front of us in this House tonight. <BR /> <BR />Because this House has chosen not to deal, and is choosing not to deal, with this issue, we are now facing fines of £9·5 million per month. Nine and a half million pounds buys an awful lot of hip operations and knee replacements. In fact, I think it buys 1,800 hip operations. If the Welfare Reform Bill had been passed before now, the penalties would have been coming to an end once Royal Assent had been granted. If the Bill falls today, those penalties will continue and increase year on year.”
“<BR /> <BR />Welfare reform has happened in England, Scotland and Wales, which makes a complete and utter nonsense of the claim that we should all go to Westminster together. What utter nonsense I have heard in this House today — "We should all go and see the Government." Welfare reform is already implemented in England, Scotland and Wales. They do not even have welfare powers in Scotland and Wales. <BR /> <BR />We have heard much about going along with Nicola Sturgeon this morning, but Nicola Sturgeon is talking about the wider economic picture. She is certainly not talking about welfare reform issues.”
“Indeed, all those vulnerable people whom Sinn Féin says it is protecting will get the full implementation of GB welfare reform. I wonder whether Sinn Féin has explained that to its electorate. We have heard much about its mandate today, and I wonder whether it has explained that to its electorate. <BR /> <BR />Over the next three years, under our proposals, 102,000 existing benefit claimants in Northern Ireland will be better off, and no existing claimant will be worse off. This transitional scheme will collapse if the Bill is defeated. Future benefit claimants can top up their benefits by applying to a sizeable discretionary fund to assist them with any hardship, and this fund will not be available if the Bill is not passed.”
“You will receive less money not as a result of this Bill being passed but if Sinn Féin and the SDLP kill this Bill. The Minister for Social Development and his staff have been working on transitional protection or top-ups for claimants in Northern Ireland. The detail on all this is not in the Bill, as it is an enabling Bill, but was set out in the DSD paper of last week to Executive colleagues. <BR /> <BR />Let me spell out the consequences of the Bill not proceeding today for all those who would have received transitional support and top-ups. After today, if this Bill fails, their top-ups disappear as there will be no legislative cover to bring these issues into reality. Instead of having the opportunity of the most generous system of welfare reform in the United Kingdom, we will end up having the same as everyone else.”
“The Bill can be passed today, and nothing is lost to those who oppose the Minister for Social Development's proposals. His proposals will be dealt with through regulations. Killing the Bill, when that happens, does not impact on any payment levels. That really does show how contrived and artificial the argument has been today. Because it is an enabling Bill, its defeat would remove the power from the Assembly to improve welfare benefits for at least, I would say, two years. Dump this Bill, as is proposed today by the petition of concern, and welfare recipients will be worse off. That is a fact. <BR /> <BR />Let me spell out to those outside the Chamber what Sinn Féin and the SDLP are doing: they are removing the only mechanism that the Assembly has to improve welfare payments.”
“The principles and narrative of the Bill have not changed; there is not one schedule or clause, not one sentence or word in this Bill that Sinn Féin has not repeatedly supported. Until, that is, at the very last moment of a gruelling and lengthy process, its Dublin bosses cracked the whip and the Sinn Féin Assembly team flipped. <BR /> <BR />Fact three is that this is an enabling piece of legislation; it creates no change in the level of any benefit. It provides legal authority for the Assembly to improve benefit payments and leaves all the decisions about claimants' benefits levels subject to subsequent regulations. The Executive have already agreed that those regulations can only be introduced by cross-community agreement.”
“When it was presented to the Northern Ireland Executive, Sinn Féin supported it; when it was brought to the Committee for Social Development, Sinn Féin supported it; when it was submitted to the Speaker for its pre-introduction scrutiny, Sinn Féin supported it; when it came to the House for its legislative First Stage, Sinn Féin supported it; when it came to the Stormont House leaders' committee, Sinn Féin supported it; when it was subjected to a full debate at Second Stage, Sinn Féin supported it; when it faced its lengthy Committee Stage and others sought to amend it, Sinn Féin supported it. Throughout this process, until it came to its Final Stage, Sinn Féin supported this Welfare Reform Bill.”
“Some talked of economic prosperity pacts, while others never mentioned it when they got up to speak today, and that includes someone who spoke for an hour and 14 minutes. <BR /> <BR />Fact two is that today we are debating the Bill produced as a result of a five-party agreement.”
“Whatever happened in Londonderry, Sinn Féin has reverted to type and walked away from the implementation of an agreement that it had signed up to. That begs the question: did it not understand what it signed on 23 December 2014? What possible explanation is there for signing up to a deal — a comprehensive deal — and then walking away from it a couple of months later? That is what it has done, and it has now brought its fellow travellers in the SDLP along with it. It speaks volumes about the attitude to responsible government in Northern Ireland, and I totally understand the frustration expressed by my ministerial colleague Stephen Farry earlier after his engagement with the SDLP.”
“<BR /> <BR />Our Government kept their pledge by pushing forward on the corporation tax legislation; in the new year, the former Finance Minister put forward a balanced Budget based on the Stormont House Agreement commitments; and the Minister for Social Development faithfully introduced welfare legislation and, all the while, worked on top-ups for Northern Ireland claimants.”
“Before reaching agreement, they read and studied the text that officials had presented. The five party leaders then took that agreement to the Secretary of State and recommended it as the resolution to welfare reform. Indeed, without the welfare deal, there would certainly not have been the Stormont House Agreement. The Stormont House Agreement was signed by all five Executive parties and yet two of them — Sinn Féin and the SDLP — have felt unable to keep their side of the agreement.”
“My colleague the Minister for Social Development duly brought the Bill to the House, where various stages were passed. It was only after Sinn Féin had been to its ard-fheis in Londonderry that things started to fall apart. After that meeting in the north-west, we were told that Sinn Féin would block the Final Stage. <BR /> <BR />So, let us go through what happened. The first fact that I want to talk about is that, last December at Stormont Castle, all five Executive parties agreed on how to deal with welfare reform. The Bill and the Minister's proposals for its implementation are entirely consistent with that five-party agreement. The five parties discussed it in detail, and they asked the head of the Civil Service and the head of the Social Security Agency to document their agreement.”
“<BR /> <BR />The agreement, when it came, was comprehensive and dealt with structural and financial issues. The first step was to agree a balanced Budget for 2015-16, which was achieved in the new year by the former Finance Minister through the Budget (No. 1) Bill. Secondly, a comprehensive public-sector reform and restructuring strategy was to be set in place, and this, too, was actioned. Indeed, over 7,200 civil servants applied to exit the service through the voluntary exit scheme. Thirdly, the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill was passed in the House of Commons and achieved Royal Assent on 17 March this year. So, the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement was moving along. <BR /> <BR />The fourth element of the agreement was to bring to the Assembly legislation to give effect to welfare changes.”
“It has been well rehearsed that the deputy First Minister agreed the terms of a welfare deal with the First Minister some years ago. Then, Martin McGuinness was prevented from delivering on that agreement by others in the background of Sinn Féin. Last year, the First Minister indicated that we could not continue in the fashion that we were, so the Stormont House talks were convened towards the end of last year. Many issues were discussed at the talks, including flags and identity, parading, the past, dealing fairly and justly with the victims and survivors of violence, the need to have corporation tax devolved so that we could effect a step change in the Northern Ireland economy by lowering the rate, a voluntary exit scheme for the public sector, including civil servants, and, of course, dealing with welfare reform.”
“Obviously, we miss the presence of our party leader and First Minister, and I know that everyone wishes him well. Hopefully, he will make a speedy recovery and come back to this place. I have no doubt that he will read the Hansard report of the debate at a later date, when, unfortunately, he will find that the quality of debate across the way has not changed and that nothing new has been added today from that side of the House. The debate must focus on the legislation, but, in that context, and as Finance Minister, it is, I think, incumbent upon me to set out the financial ramifications for Northern Ireland should the Bill fall at Final Stage today, as it appears it will. <BR /> <BR />First, I will look at the background.”
“Whilst I cannot support the motion, because I do not believe that there is a need for more reports, I agree absolutely with the need to continue to push. I say that in the context of economic realities and of a debate that we will have in the House next Tuesday: a hugely important debate on welfare reform, which will have far-reaching consequences for the Assembly.”
“My predecessors raised the case for a reduced rate of VAT on tourism-related services with the previous United Kingdom Government, who made it very clear that this was a step they were not prepared to take. There is no indication that the new Conservative Government will change their position on the matter, certainly not as they seek to deal with the deficit that they have to deal with. Whilst that is disappointing, we will continue to push ahead with our tourism policy in the context of the economic strategy. <BR /> <BR />We will continue to ask the question, but I do not believe that there is merit in taking forward a fresh report. There is a whole range of reports available to us. That is not the issue. The issue is the Treasury's view on this matter.”
“That does not mean to say that we do not continue to press Her Majesty's Treasury. Indeed, as a result of this debate, I will be writing to David Gauke about the matter again or, if he is not still in post, to his successor. <BR /> <BR />Apart from that, we must continue to work with the sector through Tourism Northern Ireland and others to continue to invest in and promote our tourism offering. Price is important, but it is only one part of the tourism industry, and we need to recognise that. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I assure Members that the Executive and I, as Finance Minister, are committed to working with the tourism sector and, indeed, others to invest in and develop our potential.”
“That does not mean that we do not continue to push; we will continue to push on all those issues. I agree with Mrs Overend, who was, I think, the first person to comment that it is something we need to do in conjunction with our Members of Parliament. I hope she does not mind me saying that we will work with all Members of Parliament, not just the Ulster Unionist ones. Those who attend Westminster have a full role to play in this matter. Our 14 MPs who attend Westminster have a very significant role to play in this issue. <BR /> <BR />I do not believe that there is merit in having further research on this area. I think that the case has been made, and we have all the evidence that we need on the issue not only at a national level but here in Northern Ireland at a regional level.”
“One that Professor Adam Blake took forward concluded that tourism VAT reduction is perhaps the most efficient means of delivering economic growth at low cost to the Exchequer. That is a very clear indicator from a very eminent gentleman. He estimates that a reduction on key tourism services, such as visitor accommodation and attractions, could deliver the Treasury up to £2·6 billion over 10 years. Other sources of research and survey evidence are available as well. So, a host of evidence is available to us that we can take forward to Her Majesty's Treasury. <BR /> <BR />We have had a number of debates, and my predecessor wrote to David Gauke in the Treasury and got a very detailed letter back indicating why the Treasury does not believe this is the best way forward.”
“I very much recognise that it is negatively impacting on our tourism offer's economic competitiveness. For that reason, I support the local industry in its calls, whether it is Pubs of Ulster or other tourism organisations, like the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation. <BR /> <BR />Those organisations have been very good at putting forward their arguments for the reduction of VAT. Indeed, a number of reports and reviews have been put forward on this issue, most recently by the Hotels Federation here, which said that we could benefit by up to £60 million a year and increase jobs within the hotel sector by 10% and in the wider industry by a further 6%. At national level, a number of other very good reports have come forward.”
“That brings me to the substance of today’s motion. We have heard about the Irish experience and how Members believe that that has made a great difference to the industry down there. Tourism is one of a limited number of areas in which the EU permits member states to apply a reduced rate of VAT, and we have heard that 13 member states across Europe have taken advantage of that, including Germany, France and Italy. There is the rub. Member states have taken that decision, and, therefore, we need to continue to push our member state, the United Kingdom, to see the benefit of that. <BR /> <BR />Many Members made the point that our local businesses in particular have pointed to the lower VAT in the Republic of Ireland presenting a significant challenge for our restaurants, pubs, hotels and visitor attractions that are dotted along the border.”
“I believe that very sincerely, and, therefore, it is vital that we take every possible step to ensure that its potential is fully exploited.”
“Those jobs are spread right across Northern Ireland, and the tourism and hospitality industry is an easily accessible market that generates jobs in every constituency and, importantly, at every skill level. <BR /> <BR />As it is one of Northern Ireland’s key service sectors, I recognise that developing the tourism and hospitality industry offers a great opportunity for us to strengthen our economy, and that has been recognised in the Programme for Government and in the economic strategy. We must recognise that the industry is, for very obvious reasons that the House is well aware of, at an earlier stage of development compared with our nearest neighbours. I have believed for a long time that it is an industry with huge growth potential, and I hope that I have advocated for the tourism industry over this past seven years.”
“Members need to reflect on that. I do not criticise Members for tabling the motion; it is absolutely right to debate it. However, we must reflect on what is actually happening in Northern Ireland in relation to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />As you would expect me to, I want to put on record that tourism makes a hugely important contribution to the economy. It is worth almost three quarters of a billion pounds per annum, and, as we have heard from many Members, it provides a vital source of employment. As we have heard, about 43,000 jobs have been created directly in that sector, with many, many more created indirectly. That represents over 5% of the total workforce, or one in every 18 jobs.”
“Yet, we are talking today about going to the Treasury and asking for more fiscal powers. There is a real issue of credibility with that. I ask Members on the opposite side of the House to reflect on that because, when you complain about the lack of economic levers in Northern Ireland, we have to make the strongest possible case to Treasury to get more powers devolved to Northern Ireland. We have to answer very difficult questions: how will we pay for a lower rate of VAT? How will we pay for a lower rate of air passenger duty? <BR /> <BR />We cannot go to the money tree at the back of Stormont for the money because, let me tell you, I have been looking for that money tree over this past week, and it is not there. If it were, I would not be in the difficult position in which I find myself in relation to the budgetary process.”
“First, I thank Members for bringing the motion to the Floor of the House. I certainly do not think that there is much disagreement about making the argument for a reduction in VAT at a UK level. Here are words that I never thought I would say: I entirely agree with what Basil McCrea had to say today. It is not often that I take lectures from you, Basil, but I hope that the whole House was listening to you today and that the Members who are not here were listening and will read it in Hansard. <BR /> <BR />There is an air of unreality about today's debate; it is rather surreal. It would be wrong if I did not say that. We in Northern Ireland have been granted more powers in some areas than either Scotland or Wales; however, we are not using them either responsibly or with logic. I am, of course, speaking about welfare powers.”