Northern Ireland Assembly

6.30 pm

Some Members quoted sections on rolling forward from my budget statement. My Budget statement was transparent. It was clear and open. It is on the record, and it can be seen we will be rolling forward the 8% increase that was allocated in the comprehensive spending review. That has been said here in public, so this is not a stealth tax, it is not a back-door affair. It is in print and Members have been able to quote it here. We need to make a distinction between rolling forward the expenditure plans we inherited which we clearly are not. This would have been the third year of the comprehensive spending review, and spending patterns are different from those that were intended so there is a distinction to be made between not rolling forward the expenditure plans and rolling forward some of the funding, and that is what was done.

Some Members, Sammy Wilson in particular, raised the point that in the comprehensive spending review, increases of 8% in the regional rate were earmarked for two years. In fact, increases of 8% were earmarked for three years. Mr Wilson pointed out that when that was revealed, the Minister who had responsibility for finance and personnel at that time stated, in reference to the regional rate increase, that extra money needed to be invested in water. Members have been talking about various people's having made impassioned pleas and bids. People have been making it clear to me that they wanted the indicative allocation for continued increased spending on water to be protected. They wanted the increased allocation in the comprehensive spending review to be protected and continued. Members should note that this budget sees it both protected and continued. People cannot have it both ways, which unfortunately they wish to.

The regional rate revenue is £318 million. That figure has been built into the budget plans for 2001-02. To generate that revenue, we estimate, a regional rate increase of 8% in the domestic regional rate is needed, with an increase of 6·6% in the non-domestic regional rate, and on that basis we have presented these figures. In February 2000 we were able to make the decision not to have to follow through on the full level of increase that we had indicated in the draft Budget statement for the non-domestic regional rate, because the figures available showed some buoyancy, indicating that we could reliably set a lower rate and still achieve that estimated amount. I would like to remind Members of that.

Some Members are saying that this is, in effect, a tax. Mr Dodds has said that it is not justified to say that we need this to cover spending. If these rates can raise more revenue than that estimated, time might allow us to do a revision similar to that which we did earlier this year. This rate increase is not being pursued blindly as some sort of must-have tax, because I have said it is needed to cover spending. It is not a must-do levy. It is related to the amount of money that Ministers and Departments have agreed, at Executive level, that they need if we are to produce a budget consistent with the priorities laid down in the Programme for Government.

In the terms of resources the best ready reckoner is that for each percentage point reduction in the regional rate uplift, our revenue would decrease by £2 million. This would be a direct reduction in resources available to the Executive for the provision of public services. I make the point in answer to the question asked. The average domestic rate bill in Northern Ireland next year will be almost half of what will be levied in England. There is also the water charge to consider.

The percentage increase in the regional rate proposed for Northern Ireland is similar to that proposed for council tax in England. Seamus Close, Sean Neeson and others raised once again the question of tax-varying powers. As Mr Leslie pointed out, the Scottish Parliament has those powers but is not using them. One should also remember that 3p in the pound - if that is the extent of the tax-varying power we seek - would raise significantly less than the regional rate does.

Some Members seemed to be suggesting that we abolish the regional rate, saying that it was fundamentally wrong and iniquitous and should not exist in any form. I took the logic of some Members to be that they were not so much against an 8% increase, but against the principle, and wanted a different form of taxation. Even if we were to apply the Scottish model, which is the only alternative that seems to have been suggested so far, it would not raise the money that the regional rate currently does. Something would have to give.

Seamus Close and Sean Neeson also seemed to be saying that we did not really need the regional rate in any case, since there were so many savings there for the taking if we only listened to the Northern Ireland Audit Office. We certainly want to achieve savings wherever possible, and the Department of Finance and Personnel is glad of any friends it can find in the Assembly when it comes to achieving savings and ensuring proper efficiency and soundness in spending. It seems strange for people to argue on the one hand that we do not need the resources the regional rate will give us, while also arguing that we need more than the Barnett formula provides and that we need some elaborate tax-raising powers. It simply does not add up.

Mr Close rather unfairly accused the Executive and myself of hypocrisy. I ask him to go and think through his own party's position, for it cannot be the case that we simultaneously need and do not need the money, that we can raise it by different means, and that those means do not provide us with the requisite sum. I hope that there will be further thought on this matter.

I want to take up the positive suggestions such as making certain, through the various Committees, of much more efficiency in spending, and I look forward to that work succeeding. I remind Members that, when we bring forward matters like public service agreements in the context of the Programme for Government, it is precisely to insist that Committees and others perform that task better.

I would also like to deal with the point about the housing budget and the question of Housing Executive rent increases. There seems to be a similarity between the arguments about the rates, not least from Mr Close, and those from Mr Cobain on housing and rent increases. There was an allegation that the Executive had no interest in targeting social need. Mr Close said that when Ministers get a sniff of power they forget about people in need and lose their social conscience. I have not lost my social conscience and am in no particular need of lessons from anyone.

We are trying to discharge our responsibility to manage a Budget well and effectively, targeting it across many competing needs to meet a large number of serious pressures, in circumstances where we simply do not have enough resources to cover all those areas and do all that we would wish. People should recognise that, rather than take cheap shots about people losing their social conscience when they get a sniff of power. If we in this House can demonstrate that we have caught the whiff of responsibility, and show a degree of maturity and realism, we will be doing our work well.

The figures for the Housing Executive rent increase were based on national figures that put rent increases at GDP plus 2%. The Department for Social Development used the same guidelines. That is the assumption in those figures. If we do not hold to that, there will be a reduction of £7·8 million in the Housing Executive's budget. Incidentally, that reduction figure is based on a revision of the previous figure of £5·4 million.

Mr Cobain alleged that we have continued to cut the housing budget. In contrast to what was planned for next year under the comprehensive spending review, the Housing Executive budget will go up slightly, by 1·5%. The budget for housing associations, which are doing the new building, will go up by 6·4%. Mr Wilson recognised that what he called the fall in the housing budget has stopped. People will not be able to say that if we do not follow through with the rent increase. The Minister and the Department will make the final decision, and I understand that the Minister is awaiting the views of the Social Development Committee before doing that.

We should remember that there have been high levels of investment in public housing over the past 20 years - rightly so. We have inherited an infrastructure, even with all its problems, that is much better than that in England and Wales, and shows lower levels of unfitness. Also, under the house sales programme, the number of houses that the Housing Executive maintains continues to fall - it is down by over 15% in the past five years. People need to bear such points in mind as we deal with some of these questions. Predictably, I will make the point that 75% of Housing Executive tenants receive help with their rent through housing benefit. That goes some way to minimising the impact of the increase, although I recognise the effect of any rent increase on households on marginal income, particularly those that do not qualify for the relevant benefits.

Mr Poots raised the question of funding for buses. An additional £1·7 million has been allocated to bus purchases in the Budget. The Department for Regional Development already gives Translink a grant equivalent to 50% of the cost of replacement vehicles. He also raised some questions about the budget of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Expenditure on running costs for that Department in turn provides direct benefits to agriculture, such as the veterinary and scientific services. It is wrong for people to treat running costs as though they were just funding for idle bureaucracy - they support necessary services. If we were not proposing those increases, we would soon hear about how important some of those services are to farmers.

Funding for victims is a matter of considerable concern to the Executive. We will address it shortly, when we clarify the position on the Peace II negotiations with the European Commission.

6.45 pm

With regard to the division of responsibilities that Ms McWilliams mentioned, the NIO took the decision to set up the Victims Liaison Unit, and people know the basis on which that was set up. We sensibly decided that that did not preclude us, equally having a responsibility in relation to the scope of interest and responsibility that we have as a devolved institution, from showing proper consideration for victims in the work and service programmes undertaken by our Departments. That is our responsibility.

There is no pretence that the Victims Unit that is now being established in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will replace or displace any of the work that is being done by the Victims Liaison Unit in the NIO. It is to ensure that we show consideration for victims within our devolved responsibilities. If we had taken the other course, saying that there was already a Victims Liaison Unit in the NIO, people would really have had a case against us, that we were showing absolutely no consideration or regard to victims.

When the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister brought forward the departmental designations that listed victims as one of the responsibilities for their Department, they explained that point well. They were not going to use the excuse that there was already such a unit in the NIO.

Mr Poots and others raised the issue of e-government. Obviously, we attach a high priority to the effective use of technology in Government. The establishment of the Executive programme funds to cover service modernisation, with £3 million, £10 million and £20 million across the years, reflects that. As with the other funds, precise details of how it will operate are the subject of discussion and development.

Patricia Lewsley mentioned the budget of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, with particular regard to equality. The sum of £1 million has been allocated to enable the Equality Commission to carry out its new statutory obligations under the Equality (Disability, etc) (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. That funding will enable the commission to provide services to people in the community with disabilities, employers and service providers, and to work towards the elimination of discrimination.

Ms Lewsley also questioned the adequacy of the Department of Education's budget. I believe that the proposed allocation strikes a fair balance between the needs of education and the very pressing needs of other services. Planned expenditure on the Department's services will rise by 7·1%, bringing it to a total of £1·332 billion.

The planned provision will enable existing levels of service to be maintained across the schools sector, youth service and community relations. School budgets will benefit directly from the extra £20 million in the Budget statement, continuing what was originally a one-off allocation of £14·7 million. The plan also provides for £3·5 million for the curriculum review, and £9·5 million to make good deficiencies in the school estate.

Even with all the difficulties we have under the Barnett formula, even if we are not able to match the rates of increase in spending in education and health that have taken place across the water, the Department of Education is getting more than its Barnett formula share, as is the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Even with the difficulties that we have, several Departments are giving increases over and above what their strict share would be under the Barnett formula.

Peter Weir emphasised the need to get better performance from additional money in education and health. Again, I remind people about the importance of public service agreements, and refer them to paragraph 1.3 of the actual Budget statement, which made it clear that any allocations are conditional on clearly identified actions and targets. I hope that people are not going to ask me to say that, and then forget about it when they get to work on the departmental Committees. I hope that all Members will bear that in mind.

Jim Shannon raised the question of railways. Obviously, the Budget proposes an additional £19·6 million for investment in railways to implement the consolidation option. That is a significant increase on the £22 million baseline that was previously planned for Northern Ireland's railways.

I hope that the people who are welcoming these things in the Budget will vote accordingly. It seems strange that Members say that there are all sorts of things that they welcome, but because of some relatively smaller aspects of the Budget they want to vote against the whole thing.

Monica McWilliams raised several points on foundation degrees. Pilot schemes to test the suitability of introducing foundation degrees in areas of high skill demand will commence next year. The costs are minimal in the first year and will be met from the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment baseline budget.

Many people have said that Departments have missed out various parts in their bids and asked what we are doing in order to make this good and restore it. Twice in the course of my reply so far I have mentioned points that were not covered in the Budget statement for the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, but that the Minister has subsequently said that he will now cover within his baseline. As I said on the day of the Budget statement, all Departments, on the basis of the allocations offered, can re-prioritise some of their expenditure.

A case has been made, for instance, that the chronic housing problem in North Belfast is an absolute priority. I imagine that the Department and the Housing Executive, as the agency responsible for housing, will want to make sure that they do something about such a serious and pressing housing problem, rather than leaving it untouched just because it was not covered in the Budget. The departmental Committees have a particular contribution to make to ensure that they reflect the interests and insights that can help to inform any further re-prioritisation that Departments seek to apply to their budgets.

Monica McWilliams also asked what happened to Welfare to Work. Welfare to Work has, until now, been managed as a separate budget outside the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit. As I said in the Budget statement, on the basis of changes that have come through with and since the Chancellor's summer announcement on the spending review, Welfare to Work moneys allocated to us will now come within the departmental expenditure limit and therefore will be at our discretion.

In the December statement, that money will be apparent in departmental budget lines. It is not apparent in the current budget lines, but it certainly will be when we bring forward the revised figures in December. The amount of money that we are getting for this initiative is going down because of falls in unemployment, et cetera.

Monica McWilliams also asked who has control over the Executive programme funds. The Executive Committee will shortly be considering options for the management of those funds. The expenditure will ultimately be accounted for, in the first instance, by any Departments that are given allocations from the funds. The funds themselves will be clearly monitored and managed by and on behalf of the Executive Committee, and there will be full reporting and transparency.

Both Monica McWilliams and Roy Beggs asked why departmental running costs are going up so much. Clearly, we have now 11 Departments, and nobody ever denied that there would be some rise in central departmental costs. Departments are also carrying out an expanded work programme due to devolution in order to meet the needs of the Assembly and its Committees, and obviously to deal with some of the various other duties that the agreement imposes on Departments. All of that requires resources.

Also, many people are arguing for, and stressing the importance of, much better work going on between Departments, stronger interdepartmental work, more joined-up approaches, far more subcommittees and other communication between Departments. That all adds to departmental running costs. People cannot ask for all these improvements in how Government is run and then at the same time complain when some of the costs start to show in budget terms.

Several Departments have been under pressure with regard to departmental running costs. The Department of Finance and Personnel has had problems with departmental running costs due to the reallocation of responsibilities that came with the reorganisation of Departments. Several responsibilities came to the Department of Finance and Personnel, but the resources that previously covered those responsibilities stayed at other Departments.

When Sammy Wilson says that the Department for Regional Development received only a relatively low increase on departmental running costs, he must remember that the Department for Regional Development kept some of the money that formerly covered the functions that went to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

We need to take account of the circumstances and needs of the Departments. Different Departments run programmes that have different cost profiles and different levels of policy and management input. It is unfair to compare one Department with another, particularly where new Departments' initial budgetary allocations did not properly reflect the cost base attached to their functions. That should be borne in mind by people asking those questions.

It is similar to the experience of the Assembly last year. Many Members were criticised for the significant increase sought by the Assembly Commission, and members of the Assembly Commission - including people from parties that are now criticising departmental running costs - were saying that the increases were needed because the previous assumptions were not soundly based.

Monica McWilliams asked about the Chancellor's initiative and where it could be found. The Chancellor's initiative money, where applicable, is clearly shown on the departmental tables. I will use the Department for Regional Development as an example. When I delivered the budget I talked about the increase for the Department for Regional Development as being 10·2%. People will see that figure in bold in the middle of the table. I could have gone for the figure of 15·2% at the bottom of the table to make the expenditure level sound greater. However, below the total departmental expenditure limit line, we have shown those moneys that would have been deemed to have been previously announced. Those include the Chancellor's initiative, Peace I and Peace II moneys. That was precisely to ensure that there was no double counting. So the Chancellor's initiative money is shown for each Department for this year - and last year where that is relevant - so that should be traceable.

There is no Chancellor's initiative money in the Executive programme funds, and I thought that that was clear from the previous statements. If it was not, then I apologise.

Jim Wells welcomed the budget increase for the Planning Service. I welcome the fact that he welcomed that. Clearly, my Department tried to assist the very serious pressures that the Department of the Environment has been experiencing in the Planning Service and in the Environment and Heritage Service both in this budget and through some previous measures. Again, I hope that people who welcome these things will vote for the budget accordingly.

Mr Wells and Mr McHugh raised particular points in relation to the difficulties of getting designations for AONBs and ASSIs. We hope that the Planning Service's sounder spending position will provide for some improvement in that area.

Mr Wells said that he believed the Planning Service should be made a Department in its own right. Here we have a party saying, on one hand, that we have too many Departments, that we should go back to the six, and, on the other hand, advocating the setting up of another Department.

7.00 pm

Mr Wells and Sean Neeson also raised the question of the Prescott money. As I have indicated, the allocation to Northern Ireland announced by the Chancellor in July included an amount determined by the Barnett formula in respect of transport. That ensured Northern Ireland received its share of the funding package subsequently announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. That was about £37 million. If the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and myself had not made representations to the Chief Secretary, we would not have received that money because London Transport money was discounted. However, we did not get an allocation of any Barnett formula comparison money in respect of the metropolitan railways. Our bid to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was not successful on that front, but we were successful on the London Transport argument. That type of work has made it possible for us to provide the funding for railways that people have welcomed in the Budget.

If we are to propose higher increases in transport spending, we must remember that these will be greater than the strict Barnett formula share of what the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would allow. That puts our increased spending on transport in the same bracket as that on health and education. Even with all of our difficulties, we have managed to give it more than our Barnett formula share of the increase. I hope that people will recognise that given all the constraints that everyone has talked about, it has not been an easy task for the Executive. People need to be careful about thinking that things can be easily changed.

Mr McHugh and Mr Wells mentioned the roads budget. The Department for Regional Development announced details of its major roadworks preparation pool in July. That will improve the strategic road network, and we want those schemes started, or completed, in the next five years. That pool includes a variety of road schemes together with those announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in May 1998. In the Department for Regional Development table in the Budget, people should be aware that the moneys for the Chancellor's Initiative are all going into roads. When people look at the total spend on roads they should take that money into account as well.

Mr McHugh raised some questions about agriculture. A range of measures is being supported to fight animal disease, notably TB and brucellosis testing and scrapie eradication. The total provision for compensation payments in the plan, not counting £2 million on scrapie, would amount to £9·9 million. That provision is clearly intended to provide compensation to farmers for cattle that have tested positive for TB and brucellosis, as well as for the additional costs incurred by private veterinary practitioners carrying out those tests.

If there were evidence that the Budget was being abused, which seems to be the implication, I would be very concerned about that and would be most interested in making sure that such evidence was brought to the attention of the relevant people. I hope that any such evidence would be forthcoming.

The spending plans contain the figure of £3·9 million as the match funding contribution from the Exchequer. Modulation will apply across the United Kingdom at the same rates starting at 2·5% in 2001, rising to 4·5% in 2005-06, with 100% match funding from the Treasury. If this money were not made available, the Department's budget for rural development regulation measures would be significantly lower. That is another area in which the Executive has made some successful representations following the spending review announcements in July.

Among other things, Mr Neeson raised the question of the gas pipelines. I recognise the Assembly's interest in that issue; it dates back to when we were in shadow mode. The Minister, Sir Reg Empey, is working on that matter, and Members will also be aware of the work of the regulator. There is private sector interest, and decisions will have to be made on a number of proposals. The section of the Budget that deals with the Executive programme fund for infrastructure and capital renewal makes specific reference to energy, and the fund can be used for that purpose. Obviously, however, the Minister of Enter- prise,Trade and Investment needs to assess the proposals coming from the private sector before any other decisions are made.

Mr Neeson and other Members, including Ms McWilliams, raised the question of Peace II funding, and the transitional Objective 1 funds. The negotiations on the new community support framework (CSF) have now concluded. Negotiations on the two programmes began early in October, and it is hoped that the negotiations with the Commission will conclude by the end of this year. I have already written to those who are to be appointed to the three monitoring committees - the community support framework monitoring committee, the transitional Objective 1 monitoring committee and the Peace II monitoring committee. Those structures are new and differ from the previous monitoring committee structures, as a result of the consideration given to the matter by the interim CSF monitoring committee and the working group that it established. Obviously, we want those monitoring committees to make a contribution to the further development of our plans and proposals.

The question of gap funding was raised. We made an allocation for that in the context of the Agenda for Government initiative. I said then and in the Budget statement that we would keep that area under review. People have raised particular difficulties with us, some of which are not necessarily as straightforward as they might seem, so we are trying to find the best way to deal with particular situations. Obviously, we are trying to move urgently to bring forward the new programmes, because the most important thing is to get them running. We want to make sure that people will still be in a position to take up the new programme money and make the most of it, building on previous important and positive experiences.

Mr Neeson also raised a question about the new TSN measures. We are consulting on the equality implications of the Budget and have been in touch with the Equality Commission. We are also going through a wider consultation exercise that will include some public conferences. Mr Neeson referred to the Robson indicators. A review of the indicators of social deprivation and social need is under way. There has been public consultation and the relevant academics have been appointed. We are trying to come up with something that is much better than the Robson indicators; they served a purpose but are of only limited use now and do not reflect multiple deprivation in the way that they might. The Robson indicators miss out pockets of multiple deprivation, because they are based on wards. We will use new information systems, based on postcodes, for example.

I hope I have covered most of the main points raised. Many Members put forward particular suggestions and concerns, and we have a record of those. I have certainly taken extensive notes during this debate, and we in the Executive will reflect on what has been said today and whatever comes through from the departmental Committees, in particular from the Committee for Finance and Personnel, with a view to bringing forward a revised budget in December.

We want to ensure that we have good planning so that those who need to know what their allocations are, such as the trust and the schools, will know in time. If we do not do this in December, key services will be in a situation of uncertainty and in the position of having to start giving protective notice. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of reaching the budget decisions in December.

Confirmation of the Budget in December will help to confirm for Departments the allocations they will be working with and on which they should base their final work on the public service agreements. Those will detail the sort of actions and targets that everybody here is saying they want to see so that the Committees can perform their scrutinising role better and the public know what they are getting for this money.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Minister, we have heard about precedents being set. The precedent you set today is a tour de force. I congratulate you.

The Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Finance and Personnel has taken on the responsibility for winding up. I am sure he will be well aware that it is not early. I call Mr James Leslie.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr Leslie):

I do not propose to wind up for as long as the Minister.

I hope everybody will agree that this has been a useful debate. I thank all those who contributed to it. I also endorse the comment made earlier in the day by Mr Wells that it has been a proper debate. It is one of the few we have had in this Assembly that has taken place in a proper debating manner with the time for interventions, which was freely given and taken by Members. That is to be welcomed.

I will set out the steps that will be taken by the Committee to ensure that the views of the Assembly Members on the draft Budget, and particularly the views of the Committees, are brought to the attention of the Minister. Each departmental Committee was invited to provide the Department of Finance and Personnel Committee with its views on the Budget bids and on the proposed allocations for its Department. The Department of Finance and Personnel Committee asked for an indication of particular priorities to be attached to each of the budget headings and bids as well as any related factors that each Committee wished to be taken into account.

I am pleased to say that, despite the short timescale, most of the Committees have already provided a response, and we are grateful to them. Following this debate the Finance and Personnel Committee will prepare a report summarising the responses from the Committees, together with issues that arose during this debate. The report will incorporate the Committee's submissions. While it will be addressed primarily to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the report will be published for circulation to Members in the normal way.

My understanding is that the Minister will take full account of the written comments from the Statutory Committees, together with the issues raised during this debate, when he and his Colleagues in the Executive make their final adjustments and refinements to the budget. Needless to say, in the course of debate a number of Members battled either on behalf of Departments which their parties represent or on behalf of Committees on which they sit. None laboured longer on this matter than the Democratic Unionist Party, as well it might. It was not there to labour long on these matters in the Executive so it had to make up for it on the Floor of the Chamber.

When we have a debate like today's, with all the parties represented - Sinn Féin here throughout today and members of the DUP referring by name to Members of Sinn Féin and the remarks they made in their debate - I have to ask what on earth is the difference between that and attending meetings of the Executive Committee? The only thing I would say in favour of their Ministers' non-attendance is that a Committee of 10 is probably rather easier to work with than a Committee of 12.

We have had quite a lot of discussion today about the rights and wrongs of the regional rate. If one decodes all the bluster, the core of the DUP position is that it wants to be seen to oppose the regional rate but it would quite like the proceeds to be hypothecated to those departments which it represents. And, of course, it wants someone else, mainly the Minister for Finance and Personnel, to take responsibility for raising the money which it would then spend if it could get its hands on it.

7.15 pm

On the subject of rates, the only way you have less tax is if you have less government. I am very much in favour of less government and thereby less tax. Sadly, we have had a regime in Westminster over the past three years that has increased the amount of government and the amount of tax. I hope our administration can, over time, address this situation because we do have to justify a better output for the money we spend. I am grateful to those Members who drew attention to the need to scrutinise the way in which money is spent and particularly that being spent on administration. I think the Assembly, in future years, should be working hard to try and reduce expenditure in those areas.

I have never heard of a tax rise that stimulated an economy, but certainly tax cuts can do that. One only has to look south of the border to see the value of cutting taxes if you want to stimulate the economy. Therefore it would be a worthy objective to seek to reduce the burden of regional rates in the future.

I do feel that the Executive is sensible to take an incremental approach to any changes it may make. As we are a new and inexperienced Assembly and Administration, it would have been unwise to make radical changes in the first years. The approach that has been adopted by this Executive is entirely sensible.

We had some touching entreaties from certain Members of Nationalist and Republican disposition for more money that can only come from one quarter - the English taxpayer. It should be borne in mind that we spend £10 billion a year on administration in Northern Ireland. While no official figure is available, it is estimated, and not disputed, that the tax base in Northern Ireland is probably in the order of £5 billion. The question would therefore arise: if we have to pay our own bills, who would provide the other £5 billion given, as I have just said, that we are unlikely to stimulate the economy by doubling the rate of tax?

Finally, these matters will be revisited in Plenary session when we deal with the final budget just before the December recess. While I am unable to assure the Assembly that the Finance and Personnel Committee will agree a report, I can assure the House that it will produce a report. That report will be given to the Minister of Finance and Personnel before that debate, and it will be published and available for use by Members in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Assembly takes note of the draft Budget proposal announced on 17 October 2000 by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Adjourned at 7.19 pm.

<< Prev