uuptoday.org

Centre ground politics plays the necessary role of counterbalancing the extremes. Because we know what can happen, or what little can happen, when the extremes take the lead role.

That said, we are concerned about the structure of this new Assembly. The Northern Ireland Assembly has not been recalled – the Northern Ireland Bill 2006 creates an entirely new institution.

This Assembly has no legislative, financial or Executive powers, and has an agenda and standing orders determined on the whim of the Secretary of Secretary. This is not a good start.

We view the interim Assembly as a short-term stepping stone while we seek to attain the maximum amount of devolution possible. Therefore our focus is to ensure that the focus is fixed firmly on the restoration of devolution. We will not support a prolonged talking shop.

That’s why Ulster Unionist Chief Whip David McClarty submitted a resolution calling for the creation of a ‘restoration of devolution committee’ to look precisely at this question. This was met with immediately support from all but the DUP.

This committee could discuss unfinished business from the Review of the Belfast Agreement, such as accountability of North South arrangements, a revised Ministerial Code, and of course the issue of ongoing criminality. We have also been compiling motions designed to challenge NIO plans on water; education; rates and the economy.

The Secretary of State has also proposed that the recalled Assembly should meet twice a week. But if we are truly committed to restoring the maximum level of Devolution, then we need to be working full time on it. The message from Ulster Unionists is that the Assembly means to do business.

Ulster Unionists have significantly more power and influence than many would give us credit for. Both ourselves and the SDLP represent over 40% of each designation within the Assembly. This is important because we can deliver cross-community votes.

Indeed, the only way our views can be overturned is if Sinn Fein and the DUP combine against us. With our experience and knowledge of the system, we intend to play an important role and we have shown from the start that we want to resolve the issues that are holding up the political process.

However, the extremes may show more interest in cloak and dagger deals. And for government - offering crumbs for one political party over another causes widespread tension and division, and is a source of instability.

Along with other centre ground parties we have been highlighting the need for openness and transparency throughout this process. The public has no stomach for side deals.

That’s why we have published the details of all negotiations on our website (www.uup.org) and have challenged others to join us.

Moderate centre ground Unionism is a vital part of Northern Ireland’s political DNA. That this remains intrinsic to the make up of the assembly is essential to the health of the body politic.

Do not immediately conclude that I represent narrow-minded, bigoted, unionism. I wish to see harmonious working relations within this island. Since I became involved in politics I have envisaged an inclusive society in Northern Ireland, strongly supporting the 1974 power-sharing Executive.

As a Minister I wholeheartedly participated in North/South co-operation. I still advocate positive political developments within this island, but only on the basis of agreed international norms. Indeed, all developments on a North/South basis require us all to accept these norms.

Bertie Ahern stated last August that there would be no speaking rights in the Dail for Northern Ireland’s MPs but rather he aimed to facilitate committee discussions on matters relating to Northern Ireland and the Belfast Agreement. He repeated this position when writing to all members of the Dail last October, making clear that Northern Ireland’s MPs would participate only by way of invitation.

Mr Ahern further commented in the Dail last month: “It is obvious the House will not agree to anything other than Northern parties attending committees to make presentations and discuss issues in the normal way.” These very recent comments by Bertie Ahern did not alter the fundamental position he adopted many months ago.

What of Sinn Fein’s response to these latest utterances from Bertie Ahern? All consistently rejected his comments. For example, Gerry Adams viewed them as unacceptable, claiming that citizens’ rights and entitlements would be denied. While Sinn Fein makes many demands of the political process, an important theme has been the right to participation in the Dail.

The DUP’s response was in marked contrast. Nigel Dodds welcomed Bertie Ahern’s decision not to pursue the idea of speaking rights in the Dail claiming it as “a major set back for the Republican movement.” He noted that “the concerns raised by the DUP … have been listened to and acted upon.”

However, Mr Dodds should read carefully Bertie Ahern’s comments on this issue and he will see that his latest comments do not represent any alteration to his previously stated principles regarding Dail participation by Northern Ireland’s MPs.

The DUP has made it clear that if Northern Ireland participation in a Dail Committee is by way of invitation only, and not treatment on an equal basis with members of the Dail, then the DUP would not oppose such a proposal - though the party would not participate. In short, Bertie Ahern’s position is not opposed by the DUP.

Remember when the DUP presented an apparently strong image at the 2003 Assembly election. It was going to confront Sinn Fein’s all-Ireland agenda. It argued that if voters chose the UUP this would likely mean more all-Ireland rule.

Yet, rather than resisting Sinn Fein, the DUP committed itself in December 2004 to supporting and encouraging the development of more all-Ireland bodies. Ironically, the DUP supported all-Ireland expansion that under the ‘Belfast Agreement’ was merely to be “considered”.

For example, Nigel Dodds, as a future minister, would be committed to encourage the development of an all-Ireland inter-parliamentary forum - a forum which he and other DUP members, along with the UUP, voted against in the Assembly in May 2002.

Overall, while the DUP is merely concerned as to the process of Dail participation, the UUP has consistently objected in principle to the Irish Parliament discussing Northern Ireland’s affairs: this is against international law, against the Irish constitution and against the Irish Government’s adopted position within the Council of Europe. And, that is before one considers the aspect of good neighbourliness.

Pragmatically speaking, neither the Chancellor or the Treasury are likely to be willing to countenance two totally different tax regimes within the United Kingdom. Other parts of the UK will understandably object. Government itself will not forgo tax revenues from business in a situation where the Northern Ireland economy is already underwritten by Westminster to the tune of £4½ billion a year. Despite the undoubted advantage to business in having an all-island corporation tax rate set at 12½%, there will be a concern among many Unionists that this is really a device for driving an agenda which is primarily political rather than economic. That the SDLP has factored this into its North-South Makes Sense policy and has anchored much of its thinking in North-South cross-border bodies will probably do little to allay some Unionist suspicions on this issue, no-matter how persuasive the economic arguments.

Fortunately there is more than one way to achieve the objective of extending the private sector within the Northern Ireland economy. That route is the route that China followed in achieving its transition from a command and control type communist economy to a modern industrial, free-enterprise economy – a task not unlike our own need to wean our economy away from public sector dependence to a private sector focus. I have recently visited China and have been impressed by the effectiveness of the model China has used. China’s approach has been to create special economic zones. This has been very effective in building one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Basically it creates area-specific low-tax regimes for certain strategic industries. In the Chinese National Economic and Technological Development Zones, Knowledge intensive and technology intensive industries and Technology Development businesses enjoy a tax rate of15%, export-oriented enterprises with exports exceeding 70% of output, enjoy a tax rate of only 10%, financial institutions with foreign operating capital above $10 million enjoy a tax rate of15%, and projects involving energy, transportation and ports also enjoy a tax rate of15%.

This Chinese model would enable the Government to show its commitment to weaning the Northern Ireland economy away from the present dependency culture towards a more robust private sector led model without having to create two quite distinct tax regimes within the United Kingdom. It would also enable the development of key strategic industries by its selectivity rather than the broad-brush, undiscriminating approach which a flat rate tax reduction would offer.

In Eastern Europe low flat rate taxes have helped regenerate local economies in countries such as Russia, Estonia and most recently Romania. Currently Spain is considering such a move to diminish the size of its black economy, which now stands at 20% of the overall GDP, making tax evasion no longer as attractive when legitimate taxes are low. There are indications, however, that this solution has its problems. Some Russian economists now believe that the low flat rate tax introduced by President Putin has not increased productivity or regenerated business. Russia’s economic success has more to do with its new role as an energy super-power, with massive reserves of oil and gas.

What action can be taken ? To begin with, we have got to stop the irresistible drift towards market dominance by a very small number of supermarket chains. Already, for example, the immensely successful Supermarket Giant Tesco controls 30% of the grocery market and they are set to control half the market within ten years if current trends continue. We have got to ask ourselves - do we really want this to happen ? It seems to me that the only way to prevent this happening would be to appoint a Retail Regulator, charged with ensuring that certain pre-set rules are adhered to, that there is an adequate level of fair competition and that the interests of the consumer are properly catered for.

A Retail Regulator could operate in just the same way as a Gas and Electricity regulator. In a market place dominated by a few big supermarket chains only regulation will prevent them becoming too powerful and over-mighty. The consumer must be protected.

Allied to this, the prevention of further mergers among large scale retailers would prevent a cartel situation developing. My belief is that, if current market trends continue and the Supermarket chains are allowed to go on expanding unchecked, the prices of products will remain fairly low until the consolidation of supermarkets, through mergers and take-overs, reaches saturation point. At that point the attention of the multiples’ Directors will increase price margins to generate profits and benefit shareholders. With fewer competitors in the market, a cartel-like operation could drive prices up and the shopper will, effectively, be at their mercy.

The end-result of all this will be that convenience stores, petrol fore-court stores and small local and specialist shops are unlikely to survive. This will do serious damage to the Town Centre High Street as we know it. This will affect many different kinds of shop – not just food shops - because the Supermarket chains are into everything including clothes and electrical goods. Wherever profit leads them, they will go.

What has happened to the countryside and villages in the past forty years will now happen to our town centres. Between 1991 and 1997, 4,000 food shops closed in rural areas across the UK. That trend is now encroaching on our town centres. The Supermarket chains are already placing their own convenience shops in town centres to mop up what remains of local town centre business. The bigger the giant, the hungrier it is. The most vulnerable groups - the elderly, the less affluent and others without transport - will be the hardest hit and women, who make up the majority of small shop workers, will also suffer as their jobs in these smaller retail outlets disappear.

With Sinn Fein’s criminality now spilling over the border the Republic is finally wakening up to their threat, I appeal to the Irish Government to match the statement made by our own government that they too have no selfish,economic or strategic interest in Northern Ireland.This would ensure equality of treatment as to our status by the two Governments and could help unlock the nationalist logjam that is preventing progress on the institutions particularly with regards the attitude of SDLP to power sharing.

In a recent survey less that 50% of Catholics see a unity as practical and up to 25% are broadly in favour of the Union.We need to appeal to these voters by showing we are changing to become a more broader church and to to join us. There are still doubts amongst voters that as from May 2005 we no longer have any formal link with the Orange Order.As a broad church we embrace the orange tradition and must continue to strive and represent the Orange interests to ensure peaceful marching without triumphalism thus celebrating a great cultural tradition as it was in the 50s and 60s when many Catholics joined in the festivities.

We must remove sectarianism completely from our society and promote a truly civic society in line with all modern democracies; in particular the d’ Hondt system in the assembly and the segregated education system both of which simply institutionalize sectarianism.