Northern Ireland Assembly

It is most surprising, given the collective responsibility of the Executive. I presume that the decisions on the funding from the block grant and on the regional rate were distributed and approved. A distribution cannot be approved without the approval of the receipt that provides for it. Therefore I assume that all parties were fully involved in agreeing the source of the revenue, followed by the distribution of that revenue to the various Departments.

The mover of the amendment did not give a very convincing reason why the two Departments primarily benefiting from the regional rate happened to be the Departments of Education and Health. However, if there were merit in the proposal that the regional rate should be reduced - and we would all love it to be reduced - one would have assumed that, being in the same party as the Ministers of Health and Education, the mover would have said that the extra money for those Departments could be withdrawn. He would be happy for it to be withdrawn and be pleased that there would be fewer services in health and education. I did not, however, hear that argument. It is as if there are two, or perhaps three, political parties under the same name supporting this amendment. When I heard the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee's contribution - and, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, he was called to speak as the Chairperson - I thought it was a party political speech from beginning to end. Not only that, he was able by some mysterious means to assess the intent of a Committee that did not even vote on the matter. I would love to have such an understanding of any Committee that I served on; to be able to say "If my Committee took a decision it would decide thus". I have never in all my life been in that position and I admire a Chairperson who is. However, there is a serious point. The Chairperson was not conveying the corporate opinion of the Committee; he was merely making a subjective personal statement. That must be wrong, as a Committee Chairperson when addressing the Assembly in his capacity as Chairperson must express the opinion of his Committee.

There have been several astonishing contributions. We were told to put on our begging clothes, deepen our begging bowl and approach the British Government for more from the Exchequer. I support that argument. I have always supported that argument, and I found it very surprising from that quarter. I do not know about giving the argument some sort of rationale by throwing in "We shall approach the Irish Government as well with a different begging bowl, perhaps in punts". There was no serious debate about what was meant by the proposition to abolish the increase in the regional rate.

There is not a person in the Chamber or in the community who does not want to pay less tax. However, I bet that the shopkeepers, the farmers who are so badly off, the fishermen and housewives would be prepared to pay a few pounds extra in their rates this year to get a better education and a better health service. I am almost certain that they would be willing to make the sacrifice. I would not make the same mistake that I accuse another of making - that of making a subjective judgement. A poll in Great Britain (although it was not voted for) showed that people would be prepared to make a sacrifice to ensure additional funding for health and education.

The Liberal Democrats suggested in their taxation proposals that an extra penny should be raised from income tax. They were accused of increasing the range of services on which this extra penny would be spent. Is the Member in danger of falling into the same trap? Is he not in danger of spending the £11 million or £12 million from this increase over and over again to improve health and education? Is he not being too ambitious in what he thinks the regional rate rise can pay for?

The hon Member makes a strong point, and his question is almost self-explanatory. Although people did vote for it in an opinion poll, they did not follow this through by voting in the general election to implement a proposition that had been so widely supported.

The other matter raised was whether the rates increase is a kind of poll tax. There is no comparison between rates and the poll tax. They are entirely different in constituency, levy and circumstances. For the advancement of political posturing and to the disadvantage of the collegiate responsibility of the Executive, parties can play around with bits and pieces of the Budget.

It is astonishing, however, that there were only two amendments to a Budget of such size and change. That shows the extent of its support among all parties in the Chamber. Now that the diversions are over, we can deal with the serious matters in the Budget. I hope that the vote will have the support of the entire House and will enable the Minister to deal with some of the serious new issues.

I compliment not just the Minister responsible for the Budget but all the other Ministers - Sinn Féin, UUP, SDLP and the DUP from afar. They all made a magnificent contribution to the Budget. I have no doubt that the parties in the House will support their own Ministers, whose Departments will benefit from the Budget. If they do not support their own Ministers, they will show a lack confidence in them and in their ability to achieve a fair deal.

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon Member. As a young boy, I sat in the Strangers' Gallery, as it was called, and listened to a debate one night when Cahir Healy, a famous Nationalist, spoke. I remember one Member rising to congratulate him, saying that it was a pity that he was not a family doctor. His attitude reminded the Member of a good family doctor at the bedside who knew that he was well remembered in the patient's will. That describes Mr McGrady, who speaks with a quiet confidence that nothing he says can be called into question. Poor miserable specimens that do not share the vast brainpower that divides his ears must be patted on the head and told "We shall give you a fool's pardon". The people of Northern Ireland are not fools. The serious matter of the regional rate is something that we cannot ignore.

There is no use in telling us about the wonders of the Budget or about what Mr Durkan has done, or in saying that the only amendments are on the regional rate. This is the straw that will break the camel's back. It is right for the House to be aware of this. Members may not like the wording of amendments. They may not even like amendments, but we live in a democracy. This is not a fascist dictatorship yet. We are entitled to bring forward our amendments and to have them discussed. However, some people thought that by mighty denunciation of individuals they could brush this matter under the carpet and safely put it away. However, that cannot be done.

Mr Close got very warmed up about this matter. I am glad that he is in the House now. He got very frustrated. He tried to put forward the strange thesis that if one was in a meeting and one disagreed with what the meeting did one was nevertheless responsible for its decision. That is a complete negation of democracy. I am a Member of this House. I will disagree with many of the things that it does, but this House does not bind me at all. I am free, so far, to express my views. My two Colleagues happen, by the vote of the people, to have been put into Government. They were put there not by the patronage of Westminster, Mandelson or Mo Mowlam, but by the votes of the people. These are votes that his party, by the way, did not get. His claim that my two Colleagues must be held responsible for this Budget is utter nonsense. I want to repudiate the misinformation, half-truths and bundle of misrepresentations thrown together in anger to throw mud at men who have made their position absolutely clear.

Then we had Mr Roche, who is now absent along with every member of his party. He described Mr Peter Robinson as a "hypocrite". I have the statement that Mr Peter Robinson made. I shall read it so that those who read the report of this debate will know exactly what Mr Robinson said on the occasion referred to by Mr Roche. Mr Robinson said:

Mr Roche, take note.

As far as my conduct as a prospective Minister may be an issue, I want to place firmly on the record my intention and disposition to be scrupulously fair in every respect, while exercising such responsibilities as may be in my charge. The religious conviction or political opinion of any person or group will form no part of the judgement I will make on any matter. I shall work for everyone in this community, seeking for them a better deal. I consider myself to be the servant of all and master of none. I accept the nomination and affirm the Pledge of Office as set out in Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998."

Of course, as Mr Peter Robinson's nominator, I was told that this could not be done. I was also told that if I nominated Members for the seats that the people of Northern Ireland had in their gift and which they gave to the Democratic Unionist Party, we would be ousted by law. We also heard the threats of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, it was all vain talk because our lawyers were better than theirs - they told us the truth of the matter. These Members are still in the places of Government given to them by the votes of the people, rather than by patronage.

Mr Close stood for election to the Forum and lost. He had to sit as a nominated Member. After the Assembly elections he told us that he had topped the poll but he did not tell us about the other figures. If he had looked at the other figures he would have discovered that although he might have topped the poll, the other candidates, after their votes had been added up, were miles ahead of him.

The Alliance Party leader told us that at the European election I would be laid very low and that he would come forward with such a bounce that the Alliance Party would be said to have been born again. The same man went down to my constituency to do his canvassing. He stood and waited at The Pentagon for half an hour and no one spoke to him so he issued a statement to the press. He said that he had been in the centre of Ian Paisley's constituency and that no one had broached him on the matter of opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Why was this the case? Because nobody spoke to him. It is wonderful that some people believe they know what people are thinking. The only solid way of knowing how people think at an election is to stand at the ballot box. Then one gets the answer - the real answer.

It is vital that the view that I express on behalf of my party be heard in the House, because this will be a very serious situation. One would have thought that after all that, Mr Close's party would have moved a reasoned amendment; that he would have concentrated his great wisdom and powers on devising an amendment that might meet the need that he has in mind. However, no such amendment was produced. Our only means of expressing our views on that is to vote for the motion that will introduce the 8% increase in the regional rate.

There was legitimate criticism of Sinn Féin: it sat on the Executive Committee. Our Members never sit on the Executive Committee, yet Mr Close told us that they signed up to the Budget. They have never signed anything from that Committee and they never will.

They were pressurised. It is nice to know that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety can be pressurised. Their party then decided that it would not do for it not to take a stand on this issue, so it made a change.

I did not speak today as Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee; I intended to, but I did not because I had to deal with political points. It should not alarm Mr McGrady that this party is still against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, as indeed is the majority of the Unionist people. If Mr McGrady thinks that he has converted the natives, let us have a referendum tomorrow, and I shall abide by the result of it. But no, he does not want to see referenda; some people here do not want to see local government elections. Some of them dread Tony Blair's going to the country too soon and would rather he delayed his application for a renewed mandate.

What better way is there of reducing people's financial burden than by forgetting about Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights? As the Irish Government have taken over these matters, let them pay for them. He that lights the light, let him pay for the oil. That is not in the Scriptures. I do not want Mr McGrady to think that it is.

A North/South body for languages - as if we do not all understand one language. Even in this place they all understand English - [Interruption.]

Even in the Dáil.

And even the Dáil holds its debates in English; its letters are written mainly in English too.

The waterways of Ireland - well, we have plenty of water; the good Lord has seen to that in the last days, so we can do without interfering with the deity's prerogative by helping to pay for waterways in Ireland.

Trade and business development North and South; special EU programmes - an economic union that has destroyed our farming industry and does not allow the farmers the right to buy grain to feed their animals on the world market. Getting into the world market today would lift a great load off the farming community.

The North/South Food Safety Promotion Body, the North/South Tourism Company; the North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat and - hold on to your seats - the Civic Forum. It would not matter if these things were buried this day in a Sadducee's grave for all the difference they would make to this country. These things are not vital when the people of Northern Ireland are to be burdened with a rise in the regional rate. The House should say plainly to the Government and to those in power that we will not tolerate this terrible increase; that it will be a weight upon the shoulders of the people. It is very important that that be said.

Tomorrow my Committee will convene a special meeting to discuss the fisheries catastrophe, and I welcome Mr McGrady's words on this matter. A very bad decision has been made. I shall say no more until we have all the facts. However, I do know that the Minister told the Committee that she was sure that other representatives from the United Kingdom would stand with her in her battle - they did not.

The Old Book says "Put not your trust in princes", and certainly the prince who came from Westminster was not to be trusted, because up to the last minute he was going to go the right way only to go the wrong way.

We must find a way to save our fisheries. It is vital to the livelihood of the people who for generations have lived off the sea. Astonishingly, the United Kingdom joined the European Union with the greatest possible asset - the seas around our coasts. And what happened? Edward Health, in his folly, handed over our assets. The Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr Fischler, who comes from Austria and who never sees the sea, tells us that this is good for the people of Northern Ireland, good for the people of Britain and good for the people of the seas - the seas that his Union stole from the people whose right it is to fish them.

The tragedy is that we shall have to have major decommissioning, but it could be worse than that: in the sorrows and sadness and tragedy of the moment too many men will leave the fishing industry. Even if there were a turnaround in fishing, these men would not be able to return to use their expertise to bring the industry back to life and viability.

I am sure that Mr McGrady knows that in Kilkeel many men who sailed the waters now break stones in the quarries. Like convicts, they have been sent to mine the stones. This is the death of our fishing industry. We must find a way to save it; we must do our utmost to alleviate the distress that false friends have brought and to undo the damage caused by those who did not make their stand for the people when they should have.

Why have we not tabled scores of amendments to this motion? Mr Durkan knows very well that this Budget has been rushed. He knows very well that the whole thing could have been stopped with one vote. But what about the hospitals? What about the schools? What about the roads? What about employment? What about new businesses in the pipeline? This was a price that my party would not pay, and although we were hammered and criticised we let this Budget go through because we had no viable option that was good for our Province.

Now we come to consider the Budget. No doubt many issues will arise in the coming months that were not envisaged when the Budget was drawn up. Many things will come to light and there will be many hard places along the road. Nonetheless, a sum of money has been delivered to us, and it is our business to see that it is spent in the best possible way, for the best possible ends, and distributed to the neediest of our people. However, that is a matter for another day and for another debate.

Tonight, however, I commend my party's amendment. This issue must be highlighted, and if Mr Close felt the same he could have moved an amendment with no political tag attached. I am very glad that the Member for South Down has tagged our motion. I am glad that he recognises our uncompromising principles and that he accepts that we mean what we say and that we do what we say we shall do. The proposal to lay such a heavy burden on our people at this time is an outrageous one, and we must say so.

I congratulate the Minister on producing an historic Budget. It goes some way to redress the democratic deficit that has existed in this part of Ireland since partition. It is appropriate that a son of Doire Cholmcille - of Derry - should deliver the first Budget.

Much has been made of the amendment, but if ever anyone made a virtue out of cheap political opportunism it is the DUP, and that has been very evident today. Its amendment is not about rates or the abolition of rates; one need only read the seven references to North/South bodies to know that this is an attack on the Good Friday Agreement. It is a device used by the DUP not because it has a deep social interest in the effects of rates but for attacking the very premise on which the Good Friday Agreement was built. Seven times it mentions North/ South bodies.

We live on a small island, and I do not think that any Unionist, let alone Nationalist, businessman does not see the benefits of exploiting all the island's potential for trade and business development. Hence the Trade and Business Development Body. We also have the Special EU Programmes Body and the Food Safety Promotion Board - there is no border for food safety. Those who know anything about tourism want to develop an all-Ireland tourism body because they recognise the potential in all-Ireland tourism.

The DUP's amendment is more about exploiting cheap political opportunism than about the very sore issue of the rates. Sinn Féin's Ministers do not run the party - there are no pontiffs in Sinn Féin. We leave the popes in Rome or in north Antrim. The two DUP members of the Executive have resiled from their Budget responsibilities. They want the best of both worlds. They want to stand outside the tent; yet they want to live in it. They want power without responsibility. They want the trappings of power without its responsibility and obligations. They have not returned their ministerial cars and they do not refuse their ministerial salaries and all the other perks that go with ministerial responsibility. "Do not ever ask us to take responsibility" is what they say. They want to follow their nice, comfortable, little middle track waving bye-bye to those who are carrying the responsibility for the process - [Interruption.]

Order.

It is OK, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Let them finish. I can wait. The economic advantages, a LeasCheann Comhairle, of an all-Ireland economy are obvious in agriculture, tourism, fisheries - and Ian Paisley Senior has just spoken about that - transport, roads, electricity, telecommunications and the harmonisation of taxes. We hear much from the DUP about fuel taxes, but it never attempts to promote harmonising these taxes. Fuel is just one example of the harmonisation of taxes.

Ask the people of Omagh, Derry or Fermanagh whether cross-border co-operation on health and education has potential advantages. Those who live there know of the advantages that can be provided in those matters.

This Budget has not fully explored the peace dividend. As I said at the outset, the Budget cannot and will not deal with all the neglect and deprivation that has existed in this part of Ireland for the past 30 years - and for the past 80 or 90 years. It makes no suggestions on how to deal with the dreadful poverty among young people, the old, students and the sick. These elements of the fabric of our society have been neglected in the past 30 years and they continue to be neglected.

The Budget does not and cannot deal with those wants and needs in our society, as the money is not available. Those who wish to stay outside and those who wish to force others outside should stop playing games with the Executive and should develop a strategy to rectify the economic imbalance, the political discrimination and the social and economic deprivation in society.

The Executive have a wonderful opportunity to set up an economic task force to project the additional moneys that will be needed to underpin the social and material infrastructure of our society for the next 10 or 15 years. There is no reason why we should not approach the Irish Government to ask them to assist us. We should not approach them with a begging bowl but with a proposition that if they have an interest in reunification with this part of our island they have an obligation to assist in that reunification. There is no reason why we should not ask them to provide subvention and to assist us by putting money into the infrastructure of this part of Ireland.

The British Government and the Dublin Government are the two sovereign Governments with ultimate responsibility for this part of our island. There is no reason why the British Government should not be compelled to make amends for the economic deprivation that they have caused. This deprivation has not existed merely since partition; it existed for several hundred years before partition. There is no reason why they cannot be asked to provide subvention to help to secure a more stable economic and social future for this part of Ireland.

There is an American dimension. Bill Clinton, among others, has spoken of the 40 million people of Irish descent who live in America. That is another area that we ought to investigate to see whether we can secure subvention for and investment in this part of Ireland. We recall how the Americans implemented the Marshall Plan, which played a major part in rescuing Europe from the economic desolation of the second world war, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

There is no reason for not going, like the Israelis, to America to launch a bond scheme. There is no reason for not, through the Executive, looking in a very imaginative way at launching a bond in America with the co-operation of the Irish and British Governments in an attempt to improve our financial situation over the next few years.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, these are matters that the Executive could profitably explore in future. It could deal with the very serious underfunding in all Departments in this part of Ireland - in health and education, for example. Consider the condition of the roads west of the Bann. It was once the case that travelling through Cavan one could tell who lived where by the state of the fields or how good the land was. If one travels west of the Bann one can pinpoint a green or orange area simply by the state of the roads.

These matters can and must be dealt with. I know that it is difficult and I congratulate Mr Durkan on this Budget. It cannot have been easy for him. However, in designing and structuring a budget within our financial parameters he has made a worthy first attempt.

We must look beyond the Barnett formula and beyond the technical formulations of the cold economic points that the Barnett formula tends to deal in. We must be adventurous and look beyond our own devices and our own shores.

I welcome the Budget. I must admit to feeling a frisson of excitement, for this is our first chance to have a serious debate on an important issue without a time limit.

Departmental running costs were mentioned earlier, and in many cases the increase is confusing. In his speech the Minister said that the Executive must make realistic provision for them and that departmental running costs were originally underestimated. It was a substantial underestimation, and these rises could be more easily understood were it not for the extensive use in most Departments of consultants, outside study teams and panels. Members will easily recall the acute hospitals review. The Department for Regional Development has made extensive use of outside management consultants on the port of Belfast; there is also a regional strategy panel. Outside consultants can be found in all Departments, and if they are deciding policy and strategy - which they are - the question arises of what the Departments are doing and why they need the extra money for doing less.

Today we are asked to agree a Budget and to comment on how well the Departments have planned for next year. How many Members have been able to see how well Departments have stewarded their funds in the past year? Members may be interested to know that the latest published figures for the Department of Health are for the year 1997-98. Questions about this will be met with the reply that the accounts for subsequent years have not yet been officially audited. How can Members properly decide how much money a Department requires and whether such funds are justified in light of the Department's past performance if we are denied this information? The Minister of Finance and Personnel should consider this problem, because it will be a more serious factor in the next Budget.

Members will know that I am a member of the Regional Development Committee. For several weeks the Minister has been warning the Committee and the Assembly that road improvements announced by his predecessor are in jeopardy. I have here a letter - addressed to my Colleague, Mr Hussey, and dated last Wednesday - that says, quite clearly, that some schemes may have to be deferred. The latest figures from the Department on major roadworks over £1 million are therefore confusing. It is interesting that in 2000-01 £24 million was allocated. The projects over £1 million amount to a £7 million spend. I am not clear where the other £17 million or so has gone. Next year is even more interesting: £60 million has been allocated, but on the list is a £28 million spend; we seem to have lost or got confused about £32 million.

Do not forget that the Minister has said that he does not have the funds to start these road projects. He has made great play of that. Can the Minister of Finance and Personnel confirm that the Minister for Regional Development has been guaranteed 90% funding for projects in years two and three and that once the public service agreements are in place that will increase to 100% funding? I understand that the Minister has been told that the funding is available, yet he tells us that he does not have this funding and therefore will not start the projects that were listed for the Assembly last week. That is very confusing.

Of course, these figures do not take into account Executive funds, which in year one are £7 million, £40 million in year two and £100 million in year three for infrastructure funds. The Minister of Finance and Personnel told us last week that railways and roads are key areas of infrastructure that are eligible for bids under the Executive programme funds - supportive noises there from the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Could the Minister for Regional Development have been misleading the House on the availability of funds for his roads?

I was struck by and agree with Mr Peter Robinson's statement on the railways - they were indeed heading for oblivion. It was heartening to hear him recognise the benefits of the Belfast Agreement and of devolution - brought about on behalf of the Unionist community by the Ulster Unionist Party, with no contribution, of course, from his own party. Perhaps it highlights the hypocrisy of some here. You have heard them today urge the Executive to do this or that. Is this the party that was going to bring the Assembly down and destroy it? Is this the party that sat last Friday with Sinn Féin in Belfast City Council and produced a full budget for the council? Amazing.

I am also a member of the Health Committee. The Minister of Finance and Personnel will be aware that the Health and Social Services Committee was unable to comment on the Budget. I mentioned the difficulty we experienced in obtaining figures. The NHS, despite valiant efforts on the part of its staff, is a disaster - £2·6 billion go in at one end while patients on trolleys and crises come out at the other. Funding is given to the boards; the boards allocate it to the trusts, and it sinks into the woodwork with a worsening output at the other end.

Are the Ministers of Health and Finance and Personnel not curious about where all this money goes? If ever there was a case for a public service agreement and a radical examination of the administrative system, it is in the Department of Health. I trust that by next year we shall know exactly what happens to the funding available to that Department.

I am struck by the opposition to the increase in the regional rate, which is in line with the Treasury's advice, and by the number of councillors who have supported the amendments. Perhaps those Members who are also councillors should have informed the House of a potential conflict of interests. I support the substantive motion.

We have heard a good deal about what is and what is not taking place in the Executive. I was pleased to hear the Minister describing the degree of co-operation between Ministers and Departments in drawing up the Budget.

First, I shall comment on the amendments, particularly the DUP's. Anyone who has the remotest interest in tourism, trade, business, agriculture or health must vote against the DUP's amendment. The only thing missing from its list is fresh air - we do not have control of that here yet, thank goodness.

I am as baffled as Mr McGrady by the Sinn Féin amendment; he could not understand why Sinn Féin should oppose its Ministers' stance. Under the provisions of the Budget, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's expenditure is to rise by 7·6% while a 10% increase in funding for personal social services is provided for. The Sinn Féin Ministers will not welcome their party Colleagues' amendment if it removes the 7·6% and 10% funding increases. Similarly, there is to be a 7·2% increase in funding for the Department of Education, the deduction of which Mr McGuinness would not welcome.

I am particularly interested in the Executive programme funds. I shall try to make my comments on this matter parochial rather than talk about billions of pounds. The Executive programme funds may soon be tested by the closure of the grazing lands in the Silent Valley as a result of a directive from the Minister of Health and an implementation of the ban by the Minister for Regional Development. After these had been closed, everyone ran to the Minister of Agriculture who, through no fault of her own, became the third Minister involved in the matter.

The loss experienced by farmers must be examined. This was not a one-off ban - it is to be repeated for the next three years until the new treatment plant at the Silent Valley reservoir is built. The Executive programme funds provide an opportunity for Ministers to discuss matters involving all Departments, and this is one case that meets those criteria.

Secondly, I welcome the £2 million for animal health. I have had a personal interest in this from the outset. I have never seen the sense in having two research centres and two different Governments working on animal health on the island of Ireland. Although there was some co-operation, it was not nearly enough. This £2 million will be welcome if it helps to reduce animal disease on the island of Ireland.

The third subject, which I shall discuss briefly, is the Executive's decision to increase their contribution to the free travel scheme from 50% to 75%. I recently asked the Minister of Health and the Minister for Social Development whether their respective Departments could fund the programme. I was disappointed in their response. At that point it would have meant dividing the balance of 50% between them. I was very disappointed and concerned that neither Minister saw the benefit. They said that it was not part of their remit to facilitate senior citizens by contributing to the scheme. I ask them to reconsider that proposition because I firmly believe that it could be slotted into their Departments. It is only 25% now - 12·5% each. I believe that it would be difficult for them to refuse.

Finally, an additional £2 million has been provided for Mr Campbell today. It is a Christmas box that he could use well. I am being seasonal in one sense - he could use that £2 million for a road gritting scheme for rural areas. After all, main roads also go through rural areas. There have been no gritting schemes for 10 to 12 years, and matters would be improved if the £2 million were spent on such a scheme. I do not look for billions. Those are a few simple ideas. Perhaps I am being parochial but I would welcome their being encompassed in the Budget.

First, I want to speak about some of the issues in the Budget in my role as Chairperson of the Environment Committee. I shall certainly let the House know when I am not speaking as that Committee's Chairperson but on my own behalf as an elected representative.

As Chairperson of the Environment Committee I wish to comment on the Budget's provision for the Department of the Environment. The Committee welcomed the increase of 12% in direct funding for the Department and the possibility of an additional 2·3% from the retention of receipts by the Environment and Heritage Service and the Planning Service. This has gone some way towards redressing the underfunding of important environmental and conservation work that has been undertaken in recent years. However, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that several Budget allocations still cause my Committee concern.

The Committee noted that a bid of £3·6 million for essential work on landscape protection and nature conservation was not met. Can the Minister tell the House what account was taken of the consequences of missing this bid when the allocation of funding to Departments was considered?

The Committee remains extremely concerned about the underfunding of historic buildings. The Committee welcomes the additional £1 million for this work, but I understand that this will not lift the moratorium. As a result, we shall lose funding that would be available from other sources. Will the Minister tell me what consideration was given to the effect that this may have on the built heritage? I hope that I do not have to remind the Minister or the Assembly that, like our landscape and natural heritage, once old buildings are lost they are lost for good, and we lose an important and irreplaceable part of our shared heritage and culture.

I trust that the Minister will agree that much of the Department of the Environment's work has important implications for everyone in Northern Ireland. Many issues cut across Departments, particularly the waste management strategy. Much of the implementation work on this strategy will fall on district councils. They will not be able to meet the cost of the work without an increase in funding or an increase in rates. Many district councillors are deeply worried by the financial implications of the rates - the district rate in particular - and the burden on ratepayers.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>