Financial Pressures on Householders motion

Speech by David Ford MLA delivered to Northern Ireland Assembly on Mon 30th Mar 2009

Supporting the motion and amendment David Ford MLA said: "I hope that the final challenge from the Minister was not directed at this corner of the House. Anyway, we will let others answer for themselves at a different time.

"As Stephen Farry said when he proposed the amendment, the Alliance Party had some concerns about the original motion: it is just a tad self-congratulatory; not, of course, that anyone else in the House has ever engaged in such a thing. We believe that the motion has been improved significantly by the proposer's willingness to accept the amendment, which at least emphasises the fact that it is not simply a matter of saying that untargeted benefits to everyone is of most help in a time of recession, but to recognise the need to target measures at households on low income. That is, clearly, where we now stand, and that has been the bulk of the contributions from different corners of the House; except, of course, from the two unionist parties, which seem to spend most of their time attacking each other.

"As Stephen Farry did not quite say, I believe that we are all now at least neo-Keynesians. On behalf of the Keynesians in this corner, we welcome the conversion of some Members, although, sadly, not yet the entire House.

"I will not go over the whole issue of the capital budget. The Minister referred to the lack of money that we currently face because there is no point in selling assets whose value has diminished. However, the case could be made that spending on infrastructure is the best way of dealing with the recession; it would create long-term benefits and provide incomes for people who are out of work, particularly in the construction industry.

"Although I welcome the reduction in the rates burden in a region of low income, I recognise that it has implications for when the Treasury imposes the so-called efficiency savings. Mitchel McLaughlin highlighted that point when referring to the Barnett formula and efficiency savings. My problem is that I see little benefit in suggesting the sacking of a few front line workers, such as classroom assistants or nurses, describing the money saved as "efficiency" and giving a bonus to the relevant permanent secretary. In no way is that a justifiable use of public expenditure, but we seem to be facing that.

"Mr McNarry, in his elegant and erudite contribution, suggested that the motion is a silly stunt that is unworthy of the House. Most of private Members' business appears to constitute stunts, and I have seen many that are worse than this one. Through contributions from elsewhere in the House, the Assembly has at least had a serious discussion on economic policy, albeit tangential to the original motion. That has been good for all of us. Immediately after Mr McNarry, Declan O'Loan, for example, engaged more positively with concerns about unemployment. He highlighted issues on which greater expenditure and investment are necessary, which is the kind of thing that we should be looking at.

"Sadly, Mr McQuillan and Mr Shannon merely played the role of sucking up to the Minister. However, they do it so well that they deserve a mention.

"Claire McGill talked about the opportunity for end-year funding and looking at an anti-poverty strategy monitoring. There is serious engagement, therefore, elsewhere in the House on this issue. The Assembly will not solve the capital budget problems in one afternoon, and there are wider public expenditure issues. However, having referred to our all being at least neo-Keynesians, I was pleased that the Tories on my left - geographically - have proved that they are not yet Keynesians, even if the rest of us have got there. The Minister, therefore, still has an education role in getting those points across.

"Alasdair McDonnell made some points that should be noted. He rightly made the point that household bills tend to go up but never down. He also said that people look to the Assembly for action, not hot air. If the debate has been solely about the words of the motion, or even the amendment, I fear that it has been simply hot air. However, if the debate is a measure of how Members are starting to look, in detail, at the proposals being made from around the House, and if every Minister and Department demonstrates a similar level of engagement, we will have more to go on.

"The Minister talked about the need to balance expenditure, and I believe that he is right. The Alliance Party does not consider the Minister's balance of expenditure to be quite right. However, the discussion must continue. The Assembly should have had a proper Budget process this year, but in-year monitoring at least ensures that we can continue to seek to achieve the correct balance. The concern of the Alliance Party, which we put into the amendment, is that generalised benefits would replace benefits targeted at those who are most in need. That came through in much of what the Minister said.

"The debate has usefully covered many issues, and the motion, as amended, will be a positive statement calling on Ministers to move forward.

The motion was passed with the amendment.

Original motion: "That this Assembly notes the difficult economic conditions as a result of the global economic downturn; notes the impact on household bills; notes the increase in the regional rate during the period of devolution between 1999 and 2002, and again under direct rule between 2002 and 2007; notes the freeze in the domestic regional rate; and calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to ensure that every possible step is taken to reduce pressure on the bills of householders." (Mr Hamilton)

Amendment at end add: "in particular through targeting measures at those householders on low incomes." (Dr Farry)