Opposition to Budget

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, 29 January 2008 on Tue 29th Jan 2008

Given the number of occasions on which a shared future and the cost of division have been referred to, I must start with that.

I want to address a point that was made by the Finance Minister, and Trevor Lunn's response to it. I welcome the fact that - unlike the First Minister - the Finance Minister has indicated that he is prepared to engage seriously with us on the issues. We will happily take up his offer of a meeting, because the Budget is too important to be simply dismissed with the type of rhetoric that we hear in the Chamber.

There have been two types of speeches during the debate - logical ones and illogical ones. There have been two types of opposition in the Chamber - a coherent one and an incoherent one. Although I disagreed with many of the speeches, at least some logical speeches were made by Members on the DUP Benches. In all other parts of the Chamber - bar this small corner - Members stood up and expressed their opposition to the Budget and the Programme for Government. However, they then indicated their intention to vote for it. Tonight, the SDLP may establish where it stands on the issue, but where will the Sinn Féin and Ulster Unionist Members who have expressed opposition stand on the issue when it comes to the vote?

It seems that Sinn Féin has not swallowed the Finance Minister's policies. There was some traditional, old-fashioned, Marxist rhetoric from all manner of places. I was particularly interested when Mitchel McLaughlin complained about PFIs. There was a degree of irony in his saying that because the former Minister of Education - the deputy First Minister - was sitting beside him at the time, and he was the most principled supporter of PFIs. I do not know how Mitchel McLaughlin could possibly have said that, but then Gerry Adams repeated exactly the same points. We talk about coherence within parties, but there are clearly major problems in Sinn Féin accepting its responsibilities in Government, as opposed to its old-fashioned rhetoric.

Peter Weir is not in his place, but he took an interesting line when he asked what we would do about school closures. The answer is simple: school closures are happening anyway, and they are happening in an incoherent way, because there is no area-based planning. My colleagues have been prepared to take logical stances, when necessary, to close unpopular schools, including a so-called integrated school in the constituency of North Down, where we took the realistic and honest solution. Therefore, we do not need Peter Weir to give us lessons on that issue.

Simon Hamilton complained about funding for Irish-language schools. I refer him to objective 4 of public service agreement 10 in the Programme for Government, which he voted for yesterday - and I did not - which gives a clear commitment to funding Irish-medium education. Therefore, if the Member is going to point the finger, he should remember that there are three fingers pointing back at him.

There is no realistic method for dealing with the fundamental issue of education reform in the Programme for Government. There is nothing in the Budget to deal with the costs, which have been highlighted in different corners of the Chamber, and the importance of education reform. How on earth will necessary reforms be carried through if they are not mentioned in the Budget?

Health funding is rising, but it is still lower than other regions of the UK, despite the greater need. When Members discuss the Bamford Review, we must recognise the fact that £10 million is nowhere near adequate to address the needs of mental health and learning disability. It is an insult for people to pretend that £10 million is, in any way, significant support. If we intended to do something about mental health and learning disability, a larger sum would be allocated for it.

Issues have arisen in respect of the review of public administration and the need for reforms of local govern­ment, which, at this stage, have not been addressed. The £30 million that the Department of the Environment discussed for the necessary restructuring and reforms of local government has disappeared completely.

To take the tough decisions that need to be taken requires a coherent Executive with a clear vision. There may be a vision from the Finance Minister, but it is not the coherent vision of this Executive, and it is not a vision that carries across to some Members of his party. Even Mervyn Storey - loyal mid-Bencher though he may be - managed to criticise it. I thought that, at least, the Finance Minister would have his own party under control. However, that is simply not the case. There are too many complaints, and there is still too much to be done.

We will back an Executive if they have the courage to take the right decisions, regardless of whether they are difficult or popular. However, we did not support the Programme for Government yesterday, and we will not support the Budget today, because they fail to deal with those issues. It is time to recall this Budget and bring forward a Budget that meets the needs of the people of Northern Ireland.

Related Link:

Hansard.