Northern Ireland Assembly

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

The waste across all the Departments must be plugged. I appeal to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to deal with the question of waste when drawing up his next Budget. Only then shall we see a real and meaningful budget.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to debate the Budget and I acknowledge that it is a fairly substantial and generally good piece of work by the Executive. I congratulate the Executive and the Minister on their work.

However, as a member of the Social Development Committee I am extremely disappointed that the Department for Social Development failed to negotiate any substantive increase in its budgetary allocation.

Some departmental running costs are outrageous. Running the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, for example, accounts for 51·4% of the total expenditure, followed by the Department of the Environment. The Department for Social Development is not far behind. The Department's central administration unit, the Child Support Agency and social security benefited most from additional cash.

Unfortunately, the community and voluntary sectors, which do sterling work in areas of great social need and which employ many people, have not received adequate funding. We must spend much more on these sectors to eradicate the differences between communities and to end discrimination rather than starve them of resources.

Many community workers deal with long-term unemployment or drug and alcohol abuse while giving advice and practical assistance to the most disadvantaged and marginalised people in our communities. The sector employs thousands who work in communities for local people, yet many have already lost their jobs because of a lack of gap funding. As more people are employed in the community and voluntary sectors than in the textiles industry, we should try to stabilise employment in order to give job security to them in carrying out this valuable work.

The regeneration of our towns and villages has also been a victim of this Budget - the yearly allocation for this has been slashed by 4·4%. In recent years millions of pounds of public and private money have been pumped into east Belfast through the Laganside project. It follows therefore that increased expenditure in towns and villages would be a more appropriate means of levelling the playing field. No public finance has been channelled into regeneration, and the effects can clearly be seen in parts of our cities and towns. A great deal of work has been done, particularly in areas that have suffered deprivation and neglect for generations.

However, I shall concentrate on the area that has suffered most in this Budget, and that is housing. I welcome the allocation of £3·5 million for disabled adaptations and accept that this will greatly alleviate suffering and improve the quality of life for many disabled and elderly people, some of whom have been waiting for over two years. However, this is not enough. The Housing Executive's budget is being increased by 1·5%, although when inflation has been taken into account, there is actually a decrease.

Thousands of pounds are taken out of Housing Executive coffers every year in receipts from the sale of Housing Executive properties, leaving the Executive to pay interest for years on money that has long been returned to the British Exchequer.

This situation is not acceptable.

Furthermore, the Minister for Social Development proposes hiking Housing Executive rents by GDP plus 2%, despite the Committee's rejecting this ludicrous plan. If the Minister were really trying to avoid increasing rents, surely he would have made a bid for additional resources and gone to the Executive to argue his case. Although the Minister has told us how many kitchen and bathroom adaptations could be made if this increase were approved, we have not heard how this would affect those who are on benefits. What are the implications for those Housing Executive tenants who cannot get work or who are not fit to take it? I fear that these increases would ensure that every Housing Executive tenant would be on benefits, resulting in Housing Executive estates all over the Six Counties becoming a dumping ground for those who cannot get work or who are not fit to work. Mixed tenure housing would be a thing of the past, and the many people who cannot afford to go out to work could expect to see out their days in poverty.

Why should young people who grow up on some of these estates strive to achieve anything at school if they are part of a culture that ensures they cannot afford to get a job when they leave? What shall we instil in future generations if they grow up believing that they will be dependent on benefits because the cost of living for those who work is too high? If the Minister insists on forcing these increases through, he will be making a mockery of targeting social need and will only highlight his lack of understanding of the needs of those who live in social housing.

In conclusion, I add my name to the list of those who are opposed to an increase in the regional rate. The pain involved is not worth the gain, and many small businesses will go to the wall, particularly in rural communities. The difference between the pound and the punt means that businesses in my constituency are already struggling to make a living, but this increase will ensure that towns such as Aughnacloy, Dungannon, Kinawley and Belleek will have to shut up shop and accept defeat. No representative of rural and border constituencies can allow this rate to go through unopposed.

I acknowledge the amendments tabled by the DUP and by own party. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker, I cannot talk while that rabble is making such a noise.

If Members wish to hold conversations, they should do so in the Members' Lobby.

I was interested in what the Alliance Party had to say. Has it any practical suggestions to make on the differential? It is easy to criticise; we can, however, seek alternatives. We should insist that moneys be made available from the peace dividend and we should think of more imaginative ways of resourcing our necessary services. Why should the Dublin Government not be asked to contribute to health, to roads and to an infrastructure that is already desperately poor in certain areas? We will not resort to bleeding the disadvantaged dry; we will not fleece those who pay for services to which they no longer have access; we will not ask people who must travel over 30 miles to the nearest accident and emergency or maternity unit to pay an additional 8% on their rates bill. Go raibh maith agat.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley said this afternoon that this Budget should be spent

Dare I suggest that no one in the Assembly would oppose that? We all want the best possible way and the best possible ends to those most in need. That would be a good start.

I want to focus on road safety, as urgent measures are needed to improve it, and to improve it quickly. I appeal to all those Ministers into whose portfolio it falls. We need a major injection of funding to tackle the terror that stalks our roads, particularly at Christmas.

How many more mornings shall we wake to hear the tragic news of another death on our roads? These are young deaths, avoidable deaths. When shall we realise that more must be done?

Having studied the Budget and the Department of the Environment's plans, I commend the decision to increase the road safety budget over the next four years. It will increase from approximately £4 million to £10 million by 2004. That is valuable; but it is not enough. It is not enough.

I also commend the Executive Committee's decision to fund a recruitment drive to increase the number of road safety education officers. Come on! Road safety education officers are not enough. Just look at the death toll on our roads. We need much more. We must attack the cause of this scourge of modern society at its root and from every direction. We need a cross-departmental package. We must reduce speed limits, introduce more traffic-calming measures, especially in urban areas near primary schools and hospitals and in areas where children gather. The laws on speed limits and drink-driving must be applied more strictly. We must fund public transport. We have been speaking this afternoon about road improvements - and they are needed, in rural areas as well as in cities. However, to get people off the roads and into buses and trains increased funding of public transport is also needed, particularly for rail transport. That would reduce congestion and reduce the danger to pedestrians.

The Committees have highlighted the urgent need to reduce the overcrowding of children on buses. I do not have the exact figures to hand but I believe that 100 children may be transported on a 50-seater bus - without seat belts. We know what happens if we are stopped by the police and a child in the back of the car is not wearing a seat belt. However, we can cram our buses, which are not equipped with seat belts, full of schoolchildren and get away with it. What are we doing?

One vital issue that is probably not being tackled properly is the need for much more funding and more victims' support groups to counsel the families of road death victims and the injured. Terrible trauma and tragedy are inflicted upon these families, and many have nowhere to go for the counselling that they need to bring them through the crisis.

These are areas where a whole package of measures could be put into place immediately. I know that Members are aware that the issue is topical. However, it is not just topical: it is a matter of life and death and must be dealt with urgently.

I want to consider the breakdown of funding in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Office has many responsibilities, but in the Budget allocation there is no mention of some of the important ones, such as the amount of money that will go to victims. That is number one.

Secondly, there are women's issues. Do not forget that women's centres are important for promoting lifelong learning, education and training. How much will go to them? Why has it not been broken down in the Budget?

Community relations is another. A famous gentleman, who was in the Province recently, said that peace is not a spectator sport. We have recognised that by urging more cross-community contact. Where is the money to support those grand words? Where is the money? I want to know.

One example that I always cite is integrated education, and I am glad that the Minister is present to hear this. How much more money do we need to promote the valuable cross-community work of integrated education? This morning there was a festival for integrated education in Irish-medium schools. That is valuable in bringing the matter to the fore, but I want money where mouths are. I want integrated education to be recognised as hugely important for the future of Northern Ireland, for peace building and for reconciliation.

I could mention many other topics such as industry and agriculture; I could mention marketing matters that must be dealt with. We must spend more on innovation, on energy efficiency, pollution control and waste. Where is the money to go into the things that Northern Ireland needs? However, I said that I would be brief and I shall finish there.

I had intended to start by congratulating the Minister on making full use of the resources available to him. However, during the debate I have had something of a Damascus Road conversion. Listening to Mr John Kelly from Mid Ulster, I understood how lacking in innovation the Minister of Finance and Personnel had been. As well as looking for more money from the British Government, Mr Kelly said that we should speak to the Irish Government to find out how eager they are to fund reunification. If an approach were made to the Irish Government to put substantial funds into the Exchequer, perhaps we would see just how keen they really are beyond the rhetoric. We are also told of the great pool of money in Irish America.

Let us not leave the matter at that. We heard from Mr Kelly that we could perhaps trace Strongbow's relatives to the root of Ireland's historic problems and get them to finance the increases in the Budget. Let us not limit ourselves to the earth - the Executive could set aside a little bit of money for a satellite to go to far-flung galaxies that may be prepared to provide funding.

Order. The relevance to the earthbound budget is increasingly distant. I ask the Member to stick to the earth, please.

This is an historic day; that, however, is not necessarily a compliment. After all, the Battle of Hastings was an historic day, but depending on whether one was on the side of King Harold or King William it was either a good historic day or a bad one. The Administration's key test will be the people of Northern Ireland; and the test of the Budget will be the system of government's ability to change things for their good.

I want to return briefly to Mr Close's remarks. He quite properly raised the question of the regional rate and its inequities, but his party's position beggars belief. Mr Close told us to avoid being Pontius Pilate, but the Alliance position on the two amendments is precisely that. The position of Mr McGrady and others in supporting the increase in the regional rate is an honourable one. They said that we should either justify the increase or back one of the amendments or move an amendment of our own. However, to say "We do not like the regional rate, but we will not table an amendment to the Budget proposals" is the epitome of Pontius Pilate.

I should say, to give some comfort to the Alliance Party, that I watched a programme during the week in which the potential new Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who is racing ahead in the polls, is a member of a centrist group called New Alliance. I should point out, in case the Alliance Party gets too excited, that it was a work of fiction. Similarly, the Alliance proposals have been completely fictional, because they do not materialise at any stage.

On the whole, I welcome the Budget. Mark Durkan has done a fairly good job. In particular, I welcome the spending on health, education, and railways - which have been neglected by our society - and on transport for the elderly. I also welcome moneys going, albeit belatedly, towards student fees. However, having a good Budget that has been broadly welcomed does not mean that the Budget is perfect.

That brings me to the amendments. Although neither is perfect, both are an improvement, and consequently I shall be supporting them.

Much has been made of the regional rate, and it is a particularly iniquitous tax. The increase in the regional rate will hit many who can least afford it. It is not a progressive tax. Some of us belong to a party that does not believe in regional tax-varying powers. Indeed, one of the few good things in the agreement is the absence of tax-varying powers. Having ensured that tax-varying powers are not contained in the agreement, we should not let them in by the back door. If we are to have tax-varying powers such as the regional rate let us at least be honest about it. Let us not produce something that merely passes the buck - and the blame - to local government.

I can speak as one, to use Mr Close's expression, "with clean hands". I have no connection with local government, and I am not a councillor trying to remove the burden from it.

What arguments were used in favour of this increase in rates? Mr McGrady told us that the £11 million or £12 million - that is what it will amount to - is needed for education and health. They are the sectors, it is claimed, that will be hit by refusing this increase in the regional rate. However, the regional rate is not directly targeted at any particular aspect of Government. Therefore it is nonsense to suggest that refusing the increase in the regional rate will affect education and health.

We are also told that reducing the regional rate increase to the level of inflation will somehow offend the Treasury so much that any argument on the Barnett formula will be rendered completely null and void. I could accept the merit in that argument if we were proposing a reduction in the regional rate or even suggesting that the regional rate remain at its present level. However, these amendments propose that the regional rate increase purely at the rate of inflation. By saving £11 million or £12 million, the Assembly does not damage its argument that we do not get an equitable deal from the Barnett formula. We must push for it. This is a matter in which the Assembly can be innovative and not simply copy direct rule.

I said that there were some flaws in the amendments. My only concern with the DUP amendment is whether we could raise all £12 million through the changes that it suggests. In favour of its amendment, I agree that there is a layer of fat in "North/Southery", particularly in the Civic Forum, which serves no useful purpose. Savings could be made there.

I turn to the Sinn Féin amendment. That party signed up to the Budget in the Executive and it can justifiably be accused of hypocrisy.

Its proposals are vague and are directed purely at the Executive programme funds. Nevertheless, if we are to take an innovative step to keep the regional rate down, changes must be made. However, where will the money come from?

Some suggested scaling down the British military budget. It is interesting that those who suggest this could reduce that budget by delivering decommissioning. Leaving that aside, were either of these amendments agreed, we would be unlikely to see either the North/South bodies or the Executive Budget completely destroyed, as Members of the Executive regard them as the sacred cows of this process. Were either of these amendments agreed, the money would mysteriously be found. In the various monitoring rounds we have seen savings of £40 million, £50 million, even £60 million being pulled out of the hat. Making either of these amendments will reduce some of the fat in the system.

For example, departmental running costs are projected to rise by 10%. If the increase in departmental running costs was pegged back to the rate of increase across the spend - 7·8% - we would generate more than enough money to keep the regional rate in line with inflation.

Money can be saved there, and the increase in the regional rate is iniquitous. We should take this opportunity to send the message that we are breaking with the past. We must stop the regional rate increase and reduce it to the rate of inflation.

Members may be puzzled about why I have introduced several Members who are Committee Chairpersons or Deputy Chairpersons without giving that information. That is because I only call Members as Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson when they have said that they wish to speak in that capacity. Sometimes I do not have the information to hand; sometimes the Member chooses, although holding an office, not to speak in that capacity. I am aware that this has created a degree of uncertainty.

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Budget for 2001-02 and on the public spending plans for the following two years. The Education Committee considered the draft budget for the Department of Education in detail and passed its comments on to the Minister. The Committee notes that, with regard to education, this Budget allows for little more than maintenance of current spending with uplift for inflation.

The education of our children and young people is important for a vibrant and growing economy. It is important that the Assembly, the Executive and the Minister of Finance and Personnel recognise that funding education is an investment in the future of Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Minister's making an additional £1·3 million available for repairs to school buildings in his revised Budget. The Education Committee has heard at first hand of the appalling conditions in many of our schools and of the poor accommodation that pupils and teachers cope with every day. Those problems include lack of space, leaking roofs, unsafe windows and buildings, crumbling concrete and appalling personal conditions. These are all health risks. The Committee pressed for more money to tackle these problems.

We believe that every child deserves safe, appropriate and excellent educational facilities in which to learn. Although the extra money will be put to good use, it is not enough to improve the appalling conditions of the school estate. I hope that the Minister will take account of the representations made by the Education Committee and will include them in his spending plans for the next couple of years.

I welcome the consolidation of the March 2000 Budget addition of £15·2 million for schools. The Education Committee is holding detailed discussions with departmental officials about how the money available for schools should be allocated. However, the application of the Barnett formula has had a real effect on the allocation of money to schools and raises issues of equity. Applying that to the Chancellor's announcement last July, the Department of Education received only 3·3 %, rather than the increase needed to match the amount given to schools in England. That was a shortfall of millions of pounds. As a result, schools in Northern Ireland rightly believe that they are being treated less favourably than schools in England. The Education Committee has major concerns about Northern Ireland not getting its fair share under this formula. We seek a commitment from the Minister that he and his Executive Colleagues will continue to press the issue hard with the Treasury to achieve a more equitable approach to the allocation of funding for education.

I also note that the allocation of the Executive programme funds will be considered early in the new year. Again, the Education Committee outlined detailed bids in its response to the draft Budget, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that account will be taken of those bids at the appropriate time.

The Minister - indeed all Members - will recall the debate of 28 November. Members endorsed the motion calling for the payment of a retainer fee for term-time only workers and actually commended the Education Committee's proposal to provide money from the education budget to pay the salary costs incurred. I understand that the management of the education and library boards has put comprehensive draft proposals to the trades unions that represent term-time staff to resolve this long-standing issue. Those proposals will be subject to available moneys being found. Given that the Assembly endorsed the Education Committee's call to provide additional funds, will the Minister give a commitment that the necessary additional funds will be made available in the education budget to ensure an early and equitable settlement to this long-running affair?

The Education Committee has held in-depth discussions with the Department on the draft Budget. We shall discuss with the Department how to make the best use of scarce resources to achieve value for money.

In doing so, the Committee will ensure sure that pupils, schoolteachers and principals see the real benefit of the available funding.

I also welcome the Minister's statement of 12 December 2000 that in future the draft Budget will be presented earlier so that the scrutiny Committees can execute their statutory duties properly. I would like the Minister to deal with the points concerning term-time staff and the education budget as a whole.

I have heard little today in the two amendments proposed by the DUP and Sinn Féin that leads me to believe that either could produce a worthwhile outcome. The Sinn Féin amendment refers, among other things, to how the rates burden is spread and its adverse effect on small businesses.

As a representative of a border constituency, I am aware that there is some unfairness in how rates are levied. The economy of border constituencies has suffered from currency differences, as everybody knows; yet, property owners in border areas must pay the same rates as property owners in areas where currency differences have little or no effect. According to the Sinn Féin amendment, rates could be reduced across the board. However, businesses in areas of economic decline would still pay the same rates as businesses in prosperous areas. The amendment makes no distinction between businesses that are doing well and businesses that are trading in very difficult circumstances. I am at a loss to see the fairness of this amendment.

If we are to have fairness - and it is important that we do - we must consider levying rates to take account of the economic climate in which trade and business operate. There are very wide variations in the economic climate of border towns and towns such as Bangor, Belfast or Ballymena. Will the rates review be effective in considering those issues, and will the Minister set out a timetable for completing the task?

Members referred to the rates burdens in rural areas. Shops and businesses in rural areas find rates a very heavy burden. In England, under a rural rates relief scheme, some businesses now benefit from rates rebates of up to 50%.

I call on the Minister to do the necessary preparatory work immediately to introduce a rates relief scheme for trade and businesses in rural areas of Northern Ireland.

The DUP amendment proposed that the North/South bodies be wound down to make savings. Waterways Ireland is located in Enniskillen and plans are now well advanced to build a new headquarters there and so create 70 new jobs for an area that sorely needs them. Several factories have closed in Fermanagh, and any attempt to restrict a job-creating initiative like this would be a disaster.

The potential impact of the all-Ireland tourism body cannot be overemphasised, especially in areas where tourism makes a significant contribution. Fermanagh is such an area. In 1999 tourism generated £20 million for the local economy. People in my constituency are looking forward to the increased benefits of an international marketing body working for the whole of Ireland. Under this arrangement all areas with tourism potential, from Belleek to Belfast, will have more resources at their disposal. The money that will be spent on marketing tourism in all parts of Ireland will be well above what Northern Ireland could afford on its own. I am certain that those who run hotels, bars, restaurants, caravan parks and cruiser-hire businesses will see no merit at all in the DUP's amendment.

I also welcome the increased allocations across Government Departments, especially in the two areas in which I have a particular interest as a Committee member: health and education. The allocation for health is some way short of the Department's initial bid; a shortfall that was further emphasised last week in a report that dealt with per capita spending in England, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland we spend £875 per head compared with £927 in Wales and £1,056 in Scotland. There is a clear need for greater investment in the Health Service, and that has been evident from recent crises in bed shortages and in the treatment of fractures.

More detail is needed on how the Department's resources are allocated. Mr McFarland referred to this problem, and it also came up last week during the debate on children's services. How do allocated funds end up being used for unintended purposes as they make their way from the Department through the various authorities?

I want to comment on the withdrawal without warning of key services from some of our hospitals - the latest being the Erne hospital in Enniskillen. From now on it is essential that there be complete openness and transparency about the use of money as it filters down from the Department through the various health authorities. I ask the Minister whether the Department of Finance and Personnel will provide an audit trail in future so that the Assembly can follow what happens more closely.

I shall finish with a reference to the Executive programme funds. As Members know, these funds cover strategies to eradicate poverty and to support children in need and young people at risk and other initiatives to improve health and education in particular. Considerable funding will be directed towards those Departments with Sinn Féin Ministers. I am therefore astonished at the Sinn Féin amendment.

Ms Gildernew raised the important issue of support for the community and voluntary sectors, but in the Budget the greatest scope for improvement in that area comes from the Executive programme funds. If Ms Gildernew wishes to demonstrate genuine support - and I know that her feelings on the subject are genuine - it is difficult to see how she can support her party's amendment.

I listened intently to the last Member. I am sure that Mr Lenin and Mr Stalin would have been proud of him: he creates more jobs by creating more bureaucracy. He thinks that making more jobs for civil servants is real job creation. However, it has been pointed out for years that Northern Ireland relies too heavily on the public service sector and that more opportunities should be created in manufacturing - real jobs showing real returns.

I do not wish to go over matters already dealt with by the mover of the amendment, Mr Dodds, other than to say that he outlined clearly and concisely how savings could be made so that we could avoid raising the rates by 8%.

I listened to the bluster of my Colleague from Lagan Valley, Mr Close, but I come from Lagan Valley and am well used to it - all sound and no substance. He did not move an amendment; but he could not support an amendment. If we were to follow Mr Close's line we would have no money in our Budget. We would have no hospital beds and we would not be able to fix a pothole because we would not want to use the money in the Budget.

Mr Close's policies would give us taxation without spending. I am well used to his policy of raising rates well above the rate of inflation. In Lisburn Borough Council he was always very keen to do that. I find that interesting.

It was amusing to hear Sinn Féin speak of a peace dividend. There has indeed been a lack of investment in hospitals, in the capital development of schools, in basic infrastructure and in roads and sewerage systems, but that is because each year the Government have had to siphon off so much money for the security budget and for compensation. Why? Primarily because of IRA terrorism and the damage it caused the economy.

Our schools, hospitals, roads and sewerage systems lag behind those in the rest of the United Kingdom because of the devastating effect that the IRA/Sinn Féin bombing campaign had on the Province. It is they who have taken money from the Province. It is they have taken it out of the hands of the people of Northern Ireland; money that has had to be used for rebuilding and redeveloping shops in Belfast city centre - shops that were blown up by that organisation.

I wish to raise some matters on the subject of agriculture before I speak about the Committee of the Centre. There is little in the proposals to develop agriculture's infrastructure and there is little to benefit farmers. There is more about building Departments than about building the agricultural economy.

There was an extra £1 million in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's budget for capital expenditure on libraries. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the matter of library provision in Lisburn, as it has been outstanding for 25 years. I hope that he will stop pussyfooting around with private finance initiatives that he knows will not materialise and that he will put in place plans to give Lisburn the library that it deserves.

The Minister must find ways of dealing with waste in the 10 Departments and with the quangos that were supposed to cease when the 10 Departments were established. I do not know of one quango that has ceased since devolution.

The Committee of the Centre has studied the number of people employed in senior ranks in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. There is the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and seven under-secretaries. The cost of those under-secretaries - salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions - is £95,000 each a year.

There are also 14 under-secretaries costing £70,000 each a year. A further two under-secretaries at £70,000 each a year facilitate the two junior Ministers whom we do not need. No one seems to know what they do - they disappeared into Castle Buildings, and nobody ever hears of them. There are also a further 40 staff at grade 7 level, costing £50,000 each. That comes to roughly £4 million.

Of the Department's £26 million spending, £4 million goes to senior staff; it is top-heavy and overloaded. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must deal with this. How can we take them seriously with such a staffing structure? They have yet to set out a corporate or business plan for their Department. That Department could not make a case for money for victims. The victims sought £500,000, which is not a great deal of money; they failed to get anything. In October they received £200,000 - a drop in the ocean.

In this era, electronic communications are the way ahead. "If you are not in, you cannot win"; and we must keep abreast of developments. Despite requests for £14·9 million to develop e-government and a second request for £900,000, nothing was received. The delay will cause Northern Ireland to lose out on savings that could be made through proper e-government. It will allow the digital divide to open and will result in different levels of access to government.

Shall we get the benefit of joined-up e-government? Shall we continue with disjointed expenditure and repeat examples of incompatible computer systems in different parts of government? Some parts of government operate Lotus, while others operate Microsoft. The two sections of staff cannot communicate with each other on the electronic system because their systems are incompatible. Why has that not been rectified? Why are we not making savings in that area?

I am concerned about the Executive programme funds. The Executive will have built up to £220 million by 2003-04. It worries me that the Executive are taking over so many areas. The Executive programme funds will have more money than the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. One wonders what agenda is behind this attempt to claw so much money into the Executive programme funds.

I support the amendment of my Colleague Mr Dodds. He has identified waste in the Government. He has identified unnecessary spending, and the House would do well not to place the burden of that waste and unnecessary spending on businesses and on the ordinary man and woman in the street who will have to pay the extra tax.

It is unfair to call it the Durkan Tax: it is the Mowlam/ Durkan Tax. Mowlam proposed it and Durkan is imposing it. It is not a good tax, and I urge the House to support the amendment.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>