Allister hits out at Budget and Programme for Government
07 January 2008
In a hard-hitting 22 page response to the consultation on the draft Programme for Government and the draft Budget, Traditional Unionist MEP, Jim Allister, has not spared the Executive.
Describing them as essentially “non-documents”, because of their paucity of content, he highlights the fact that after 30 years of what has been called neglect under Direct Rule, a Programme for Government is produced running to just 17 pages – which cannot even manage a page per department.
“When one wonders why the PFG is so scant, DCAL provides a ready answer”, says Mr Allister. “When asked to outline his legislative plans for the next year Minister Poots replied:
“The implementation of the Libraries Bill to establish a new Library Authority for Northern Ireland is the only planned legislation for the next year.”
If, as the parties repeatedly claim, Northern Ireland has been missing out due to inaction by Direct Rule Ministers over the past 30 years, how is it that the DCAL Minister cannot think of anything to do?”
In his response Mr Allister makes a number of trenchant criticisms. By way of background he highlights the lamentable failure to deliver on the promise that devolution would be accompanied by huge financial package from Westminster. Having quoted the DUP Manifesto commitment that such a package was a “pre-condition” to devolution, the MEP says, “What are the reasons for the Executive’s failure to secure a financial package? Both Messrs Blair and Brown knew that Northern Ireland’s politicians were bursting to obtain high office. Why, therefore, would they believe all the hot air about an enormous cash injection for Northern Ireland being a ‘precondition’ for the return of devolution? Patently they did not, and called the parties’ bluff.”
Dealing with historic under-investment Mr Allister condemns the Executive for having nothing to say about it being republican, and “loyalist”, terrorism which diverted money away from frontline services. He comments, “It would seem that the Executive would like to blame all of Northern Ireland’s economic ills on the “Brits”, while ignoring the primary cause of historic under investment in Northern Ireland – the terrorist campaign in which at least two members of the Executive played an active part.”
Given the Executive is so strapped for cash, the Traditional Unionist MEP slams the increases in expenditure on north/southery. Going through each of the north/south implementation bodies, he highlights massive increases in their funding, at a time when hospitals are struggling to make ends meet.
Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights: Expenditure proposed to rise by a massive 27.3% in 2008-09 and by 2010-11 expenditure is set to rise to by 39%.
Language Body: is to get a 12.3% increase in 2008-09.
Tourism Ireland: DETI has earmarked £14.3 million for Tourism Ireland in 2008 – 09 rising to £17.2 million in 2010. This contrasts with a fall in the proposed expenditure on the development of tourism in Northern Ireland from 16.1 million to 15.1 million over the same period.
Inter-Trade Ireland: budget allocation is set to rise by a huge 38.1% in 2009-10. There is a further rise of 7.6% proposed in 2010-11, meaning that over the period covered by the Draft Budget the allocation for Inter Trade Ireland rises by 45.7%.
North /South Special EU Body: While almost every area of DFP witnesses cuts, with expenditure on Civil Service Personnel Services be cut by over 44%, it is proposed that expenditure on the North/South Special EU Body remains static, even though it now has less EU money to disperse.
Food Safety Promotion Board: The minister for Health has made no secret of the fact that he regards the Draft Budget allocation to his department as inadequate, yet it is proposed that within his budget the useless Food Safety Promotion Board’s allocation of funds remain static.
Commenting Mr Allister said, “When devolution was last in operation under UUP/SDLP control the DUP rightly proposed that north/south funding be stripped away and diverted into frontline services. Now, that they have the power, sadly, instead, they are advocating increased expenditure on this dangerous tom-foolery!”
The MEP also reflects generally on north/south cooperation, commenting, “The Draft Programme for Government refers extensively to working ever closer with the Republic of Ireland administration through ‘day to day contact’. Despite claiming North/South and East/West should have equal status –itself objectionable for an integral part of the UK –the predominant focus is in fact North/South.
Within the Executive’s priorities for Government, the so called East/West dimension hardly merits a mention, while the North/South relationship is seemingly becoming more formalised and institutionalised, no longer solely through North/South bodies, but now with integration in Northern Ireland’s internal Departmental affairs. The type of North/South ‘day to day contact’ referred to in the Draft PFG has thus far equated to proposals by the Education Minister for a complete overhaul of our established and hugely successful education system in line with that of the Republic of Ireland; and the Agriculture Minister acting as though Northern Ireland is a satellite state of the Republic of Ireland, through consorting with her Southern Ministerial counterpart on every area of policy.
While the Draft Investment Strategy contains a section headed “Benefits of North/South Co-operation” and “Co-operation in Border Areas”(5) there is no section dealing with the benefits of East–West co-operation. This in itself demonstrates the relative importance of the two as far as the Executive is concerned.
Under “Co-operation in Border Areas” the Draft Investment Strategy states that there will be “a particular focus on cross-border links” (DIS, 5).
It goes on to state that the ‘upgrading’ of transport links ‘along the Dublin-Belfast corridor will ensure that this corridor forms a major axis for economic development on the island’ (DIS, 5). Nowhere in any of the documents which form part of this consultation is there a commitment to further develop East-West transport links, despite their deficiency. Why is there no talk of working with the Scottish Executive on such practical issues?
“Sadly, these documents give no room for hope that good government, strengthening our position within the UK, awaits us. Rather, mediocrity, under-funding and a proclivity for north/southery, is to be the order of the day.”
Note: You can read Jim Allister's response, in full, here
