This year the Water Service is seeking more money. Last year it was forced into the situation of having to make an ex gratia payment of £450,000 because it had not got basic facts right. It had not completed land acquisition but had employed contractors to start work. It had not obtained planning permission, yet had employed contractors. The sum of £450,000 may appear to be small fry in the overall Budget for Northern Ireland, but to the man, woman and child in the street it is not. To those waiting for hip replacements, or for a social care package, or whatever example one chooses, that is a large amount of money.

Through our constituency offices, we are all aware of individuals who feel they are being short-changed by Departments not giving them that to which they are entitled. Those individuals who are deprived in our society feel that it is important that this type of error or laxity cannot be seen to be happening again and again.

I mentioned social security. According to the last audit report, over-payments of £65 million were made. That has a dreadful impact on the socially deprived in our society. It makes them want to weep and question what is going on. We, as the custodians of the public purse, have got to be absolutely sure that what we are doing - and what the Departments are doing in our name - is seen to be above board, absolutely beyond reproach, transparent and accountable.

I do not highlight these issues to give the impression of being overly critical. I recognise that, by and large, there is absolute transparency and accountability in the vast bulk of the issues confronting departments. We should take great pride in the operation of our civil servants. I do not think that can be stressed heavily enough. However, I raise those points so that the Minister, in reflecting and dealing with the issues that confront him, can recognise something he said in an earlier debate - that the money is in the system to do various things that we need to do now. We need to do those things now because, in many respects, the Assembly and the Executive are seen to be on trial. People want to see fundamental change, and they want to see it now. In many respects, they cannot wait for an uncertain number of years. The money is in the system, and I believe that the Minister, his officials and the Executive should be doing their utmost to ensure that wastage and inefficiency are cut out now, so that the schemes that are necessary to go ahead can do so.

Other Members and myself have referred to the increase in the regional rate. Some said that the money was there and that the figure could be reduced. I found it sad that it had to be an exercise akin to pulling teeth to get the necessary movement and the necessary reductions in the rate increase. I regret that, due to illness, I was unable to be here to thank the Minister for the small mercy on 12 February. The sudden pain in my stomach reminded me of the practice of sticking pins into little puppets, and I wondered if somebody was doing that to lay me low so quickly, just when we were about to deal with the rates.

Interestingly, on the same day, a Standing Order was moved with great haste through the House, which now means that accelerated passage will be the rule - rather than the exception - for the most important issue we deal with. That was a fundamental error. We should have been concentrating on getting procedures right rather than changing the rules to have accelerated passage as the norm. With every matter other than finance, Ministers will have to explain to the House why they are deciding on accelerated passage. Unfortunately, I missed that debate and did not get the opportunity to make my point. I just mention it now en passant, as it were.

I want to make a bit of a party political plea on a constituency basis, as other Members have. The money is in the system for the railway that Mr Poots mentioned, namely, the Knockmore line. The consultation period on that is coming to a close. The big issue that has to be considered by the Executive and by the Minister for Regional Development and his colleagues is that of hardship. Is there hardship, or will there be hardship, if that line closes? Clearly, the answer to that question is "Yes". The people of Glenavy, Ballinderry, Lisburn and Crumlin will suffer hardship.

It is a totally backward step. It is reminiscent of the old Beeching plan, under which they were shutting every line that appeared. I do not accept this talk of mothballing. How many railway lines have been mothballed and then reopened? None. The money is available in the system to keep that line open, and that should be done. That message should come out from the consultation, and I hope - and I am not making a political point - that the Minister will go to the Executive, on this one issue, to argue the case with his Colleagues and ensure that that money is made available. It is in the system. He should ask for it, beg for it, and get it. That will be recognised by the people in the Lagan Valley constituency, and others, who will suffer hardship if that particular line is forced to close.

The question of out-of-town shopping developments has been raised. We in Lagan Valley are fortunate in many respects. We have a regional shopping centre, known as Sprucefield. However, things can be pushed a little too far. If development continues at Sprucefield at the rate that is currently proposed, it will be the death knell of a number of the shops and core businesses in the centre of our town. Is that progress? In my book, it is not. The character of our towns and villages needs to be retained, and therefore out-of-town shopping should be restricted. I ask the Minister to look at the type of proposals that Minister Dempsey in the South is currently considering, or may already have put in place, for restricting the size of such developments.

Reference has already been made to the rates. I will leave that to the rate revaluation that will be coming up. I hope that they get their sums right this time. Out-of-town shopping centres were not included in the last revaluation. I imagine that they have been riding rather easily until now, and I hope that that will be rectified. How are Thiepval Barracks, Maghaberry Prison and other Crown properties of that ilk dealt with in regard to rates, compared to the rate base in Lagan Valley or the borough of Lisburn? I understand that they may not be paying their full whack, yet I know for a fact that their bins have to be emptied. There is an issue here with regard to the rating system -

Allow me to interrupt for a moment. There is no time limit on Members' contributions. However, given the number of Members, especially from the smaller parties, who have indicated a desire to contribute, if each of them chooses to speak for 25 minutes there will be very serious difficulty in including them all.

I appreciate that point. If and when we reach the stage of having full and proper scrutiny opportunities through the Committees, and other opportunities to really get to grips with this, long speeches will not be necessary. Anyway, 25 minutes is not that long. I was unaware that so many people wanted to speak; a few names must have been added recently, so I shall conclude.

Are town plans likely to be superseded by the metropolitan plan? How much money will be wasted? The Knockmore-Sprucefield road link is needed to ease congestion in Lisburn. The building of the road has been put back again and again - sometimes, we are told that the work is on a 15-year plan, sometimes that it is on a 25-year plan. Could the Minister use his good offices, with the money that is available, to bring that plan to fruition sooner?

I welcome the Estimates and the move to resource accounting. It will be easier for Committees and the Assembly to follow Budget lines.

As with other Estimates, I have studied the appropriations-in-aid. We should consider that carefully as we move towards private finance initiatives. Although I have gone through the Budget and the Estimates, I find it difficult to follow how much appropriation-in-aid comes to any Department through the sale of public land and buildings. That is an important issue. Constituency offices receive many telephone calls about what has happened to public land - whether it has been sold and, if so, how much money has gone to the public purse and how much to the developers. We need to ask such questions, so I welcome the move to a new way of budgeting.

I am concerned that much of the new money is available because of poor planning. Some of the circumstances were unforeseen and were beyond any Minister's control. However, there were failures. I am concerned by the fact that £10 million of slippage money has appeared in the Department of Education's budget as a result of the failure to provide schools with the information technology that they needed. Was that because of a failed public-private partnership? If so, how that will be addressed in the future? I would welcome a response now or in writing.

We should pay attention to the Estimates because they involve a huge sum of money - £196 million. I echo other Members' concerns that they have not had enough opportunity to scrutinise the figure. However, it is good that we have the opportunity, unlike Westminster, to debate spring Estimates. The more that we debate the issue in this Assembly, the more the public will see that we are trying to be open and transparent and that we can be held accountable for where the money goes.

I am concerned that the Estimates for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety show that £5 million went to deal with clinical negligence. That could not have been foreseen. However, I understand that that is not the total. One figure mentioned to the Committee was close to £20 million. We will have to pay more attention to that; huge sums of money are being reallocated to cover costs that arise from negligence.

It is also interesting to note, as regards the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, that £2·5 million will not now be spent on the Springvale campus. Is it the case that this Department, like many other Departments in respect of capital investment, could not spend the money in time, or is it that the money was no longer required? The latter would be unusual. Given that it is such a substantial sum, the response will be interesting.

I echo Dr Birnie's views on the moneys that have now been made available as a result of a reduction in unemployment or because of the inability to market some programmes well enough, particularly those concerning management development. As Dr Birnie said, Northern Ireland requires a great deal of training, if it requires anything. It is sad that the money could not be spent, given that a budget was set up for training. The funds will now have to go elsewhere, to be spent by others before the end of March.

The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment requires an extra £1·5 million because of changes due to devolution. It would be interesting to know - as it would for other Departments also - what is meant by changes due to devolution. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has had a substantial amount of money given to it because it is a new Department, and because of changes due to devolution. The Supplementary Estimates indicate that the £1·5 million is also in respect of the private finance initiatives (PFIs). We need to be able to answer questions from the public about what that money is spent on in relation to PFI.

Finally - this is a repeated plea of mine - we need to change the headings used for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The largest sum of money is the £12 million under the heading "Community Relations, Equality and Victims - Current". We need to see that figure broken down further. We need to know how much is going to the Equality Commission, towards human rights, to community relations or to the Victims Unit itself.

That organisation must have been doing a very good job because it required very little money in this Estimate. It speaks volumes about excellent planning. However, every time I speak about this matter I say that the entire budget for those areas should not be on one line. A breakdown should be given as it is in other Departments.

Inasmuch as I welcome the Estimates, I remain concerned that much of the document refers to poor planning in Departments and substantial slippage as a result of some failed initiatives, particularly in PFIs.

I intend to review the debate situation at 1.30 pm. We may continue after that time because of the large number of Members wishing to speak.

In this debate, there is the risk of trotting the same horses around the paddock again. The same applies to tomorrow's debate on the Budget. Technically, we are rounding off a Budget that we did not scrutinise. Next year, when we deal with the spring Estimates, we will be rounding off the Budget that will be laid before the House tomorrow. In that respect, we should remind ourselves that, at the behest of the Finance and Personnel Committee, we had a thorough debate on that Budget in November, with a view to making it possible to influence the setting of the final Budget.

It is the case that by the time you get to the Estimates the Budget has been set and you are simply putting the agreement made a few months earlier into prescriptive form. Overall, the structure we have devised during the course of the past six months is probably quite good. Next year, when we have a full run at it, including an opportunity for Committees to do their work, between Easter and the first round of Budget setting in the autumn, I hope that we will do a great deal to influence the shape of the Budget.

I wish that I could echo Assembly Member McWilliams's confidence that moving to resource accounting will make it easier to understand the accounts. I suspect that it will make it much more difficult. Maybe after a couple of years the clouds will lift, but I am certainly not looking forward to wrestling with the first edition. I am glad that there is some parallel running of the old system to give us a clue in the first year of the new system.

What will be significant in those resource accounts will be the valuing of Government assets. I hope that the ability to readily see the extent of our assets may cause people to think creatively about those assets and whether we are making the best use of them and examine opportunities for looking at how we raise and spend our money in several different ways. That may in itself provide some of the answers as to how we manage to get a quart out of a pint pot. If we were to take all the demands for money made by Departments, Members and Committees seriously, we would be at least trying to fill a quart with a pint pot.

On the much discussed subject of the Barnett formula, I and other members of the Finance and Personnel Committee were in London last week. We had the opportunity to - very informally, I am glad to say - kick this around with one or two Members at Westminster.

We need to be cautious in addressing this issue. There are very real risks of stirring up a hornets' nest. What one has to remember is that the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the English regions, the Mayor of London - every single one of them - have the same intention: they want more money in their pot.

Therefore, all things being equal, it will have to come out of somebody else's pot, and not one of those entities will agree to any money being taken out of their pot. We have to approach this with some caution. The only other thing that can happen is that the overall size of the pot has to be increased, and there is only one way that that can happen - by increased taxation. I have said in the House before, and I will continue to say, that I am exceedingly averse to increased taxation. The way to stimulate the economy is by lowering taxation, not by raising it.

In the context of the debate about rates, I am relieved that it has not proved necessary to make the increases that were originally outlined to the rates. If there is a realistic opportunity of getting a better outcome on Barnett or some revised formula, we may have to do that. We should be aware that that would almost certainly be in the context of higher rates. However, we have to ask ourselves, if we are not likely to get the better outcome, whether it might be better to get by on less and not have what one might call the negative stimulus of ever-increasing rates. Those matters require serious consideration.

I also remind the House that when you increase tax, whether it is rates or anything else, you are making an assumption that the Government can spend the money for the better public good than people could if it were left in their pockets. That is an exceedingly doubtful contention, and there is only a tenuous link between cost and benefit. That became apparent on the mainland last year when we saw protests over the level of tax on fuel. Some 75% of the cost of fuel for motor cars is taxation.

Some Members regularly draw attention to issues in relation to targeting social needs and targeting particular areas of deprivation. I am aware of the problem. There are a quite a number of such places in my constituency. Unfortunately, Moyle District Council in North Antrim shares the highest unemployment rate in Northern Ireland with Strabane. I am conscious of the need to find some means to address that. However, it should be in the context of getting Northern Ireland's unemployment rate down from its current level of about 5·5% - which is a big improvement in itself - to 3%. That figure is regarded as being fairly close to full employment in relation to those whom it is possible to employ. That is how we will be able to address most of these problems.

In addressing the issue, we must focus on our skills base and the provision of training in new skills. It is clear from the problems in agriculture and textiles that there are a number of skills for which there is less of a market - we cannot produce a product in Northern Ireland at a competitive price using those skills. We must therefore be proactive in finding ways to re-equip workers who have been adversely affected by those circumstances with other skills that can be applied to businesses that are in a growth phase. All Members will have noticed the situation that has arisen in Wales. A considerable number of steelworkers are being made redundant, and it looks as though there may be an opportunity to redeploy a significant number of them in part of the telecommunications industry.

We must be alert. We must be realistic about what is happening to our economy and to some of our traditional industries, and we must put measures in place to address those problems. It is not particularly helpful to the affected workers, or to anyone else, to start howling with anguish after the problem has manifested itself, when it is obvious that the problem is there right now. In that respect, I am particularly anxious about, and will continue to closely view, the allocation of moneys to the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Rather than pre-empt tomorrow's debate, or leave myself with nothing to say in it, I will conclude my remarks.

I am pleased with the approach being taken by the DUP and the Alliance Party on out-of-town shopping centres. Mr Poots and Mr Close are to be congratulated for the concern that they expressed this morning about the uncontrolled development of such centres. They are, of course, representing the views of the 20,000 people employed in the independent retail sector. My only regret is that they failed to support the motion that I brought before the Assembly a few months ago on that very issue. Nevertheless, the views voiced today are important. It is to be hoped that a new motion, which will be guaranteed support from both the DUP and the Alliance Party, can soon be put before the Assembly. That would be a great source of comfort to the many small shops in towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland.

I now turn to the more important issues of services and how we spend our money. Tomorrow, there will be widespread support for increased powers for the public auditor. The Assembly can then have a handle on the millions of pounds expended by the bodies that draw on the public purse. The amount stated today, which the Comptroller and Auditor General requires, is £2,327,000. Will the Minister confirm that that amount includes the additional costs of carrying out the extra duties to which I referred and which I hope will be passed when the Assembly debates the Government Resources and Accounts Bill?

I impress upon the Minister the need for there to be no unnecessary delays on reports prepared by public auditor. I recognise that, as recently as last week's Question Time, the Minister provided an undertaking that there would be no such hold-ups.

By way of example, I refer to a report on the Water Service that was published recently. The report took almost two years to agree. That is totally unacceptable and does not represent good value for money. Perhaps today would be a good time to send out a clear message to all Departments that when we allocate money to the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure public money is well spent his reports should not be delayed. They must be made available at the earliest opportunity so that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) can scrutinise them with a view to improving value for money. The Minister gave us an assurance that that would happen, and I simply emphasise that again.

However, when reports come before the PAC there must be more than just a little smack on the knuckles. Where serious bad practices are uncovered, they must be addressed, because it is only then that the public will recognise that the Assembly is making a real impact on how public money is being spent.

I refer to a serious report last week on serious deficiencies in the tendering procedures of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB), which led to printing contracts being awarded involving millions of pounds. Not only did the contracts go to a company whose chief executive is also chief executive of the NITB, they did not go to the person making the lowest tender. Those disclosures have undermined confidence in the NITB's procurement procedures and call for action beyond a ticking off from the PAC.

No one is claiming impropriety, but there is little dispute that the chief executive, Mr Roy Bailie, should not be holding a key position in NITB while at the same time, in another capacity, providing millions of pounds of goods and services to NITB.

The money we allocate today to the Northern Ireland Audit Office must bring about real change if we are to conduct the financial affairs of our publicly funded bodies, and that includes NITB. To date, there is not enough evidence that things are about to change dramatically. That worries me and will no doubt worry the Assembly.

The PAC, under the chairmanship of Mr Billy Bell, has done a good job. However, the enormous energy applied by that Committee must not be ignored or undermined by reluctance, or by the bad practices which crept into Departments over 30 years of direct rule when there was limited opportunity to scrutinise or criticise Government expenditure.

The money allocated to the Northern Ireland Audit Office today will assist the better use of public money, but it also requires a determination to stamp out bad practices when they occur. If we deal with that issue, many of the concerns expressed today can be addressed with a view to providing better value for money. The Assembly can make a real impact by taking the reins and insisting that the standard of services provided are improved, and it can really make the changes necessary to get better value for money.

The lack of accountability has been highlighted in what has been announced this morning. The Committees have not had the opportunity to properly scrutinise what has been announced this morning. It is right that we, as public representatives, lay down a marker on that serious issue.

The Minister's announcement last Monday concerned a reduction in the proposed 8% increase in the regional rate. The Minister fully explained how it was possible to reduce the regional rate. However, there was a head of steam building up in the public domain, especially in the small business community.

Reality struck when most councils worked out their rates estimates for the year. During our city council's discussions on rates estimates and council expenditure, the Finance Minister's announcement of 8% on the regional rate was uppermost in councillors' minds. The council expressed concern about that announcement. The pressure from the small business community in Northern Ireland and local government agencies led to the Minister's announcement last Monday. The announcement was welcomed by everyone - especially by those in local government and small business who are facing difficult decisions and challenges.

The Minister's announcement on gap funding was also welcomed. This has been a problem for some time in Northern Ireland, especially since it became clear that Peace II was not going to hit the ground as quickly as was intended. There was panic when most people realised that. Most of those involved in projects, especially those in the voluntary sector, realised that by the end of March there would be serious difficulties for the work that they had been doing under difficult circumstances and for many of the projects that were funded under Peace I.

Will the Minister tell the House how much money is left for the various organisations under Peace I? I am open to correction, but I understand that that money must be spent by the end of June. The public is concerned that if the Peace I money is not spent - and we are talking about several millions of pounds - it will be taken from Northern Ireland.

Members and the Minister have been lobbied by various groups and organisations about the Peace I money. That money could provide funding for the voluntary and community sectors until Peace II hits the ground. It is difficult for organisations to understand why money cannot be made available when there is still a huge amount to be drawn down and spent under Peace I.

Will the Minister indicate how much money is still available, by what date it has to be spent and whether Northern Ireland will lose that money if it is not spent?

There are a number of district partnerships in the Province. Some have spent 60% of their allocation, and others have spent 70%, but there are partnerships that have spent as little as 50%. That is a worrying trend of which the Minister must be aware.

In the context of regional development, I welcome the additional resources announced for roads maintenance.

However, the allocation falls short of what is needed. It does not go far enough. The Minister has inherited a 30-year underspend in Roads Service generally. The same applies to all other Departments. However, the problem of resources for road maintenance continually comes up in the Regional Development Committee, and it is causing deep concern.

The other worrying problem is the reduction in capital expenditure for Roads Service because of delays in the commencement of schemes. When those schemes eventually get the go-ahead, will money then be made available? We do not know which schemes have been delayed and why they have been delayed. There are capital schemes across the Province which need to be looked at seriously and which need expenditure. The Minister must address that.

The Regional Development Committee has discussed the Knockmore railway line. It is wrong for the hon Member Seamus Close to say that railway lines that have been mothballed stay mothballed. That is not the case. During direct rule, Ministers had a policy of closing railways across Northern Ireland. If they could get away with it, there is no doubt that they would still be doing it today. When the Regional Development Committee examined the matter, it was obvious that that was its clear policy.

The Minister for Regional Development and the Committee are conscious of the need for a good public service rail facility across Northern Ireland. Railways are uppermost in our minds. People need a reason for moving from the private car to public transport. The Minister and the Committee are committed to looking seriously at the whole railway network. Other Committee members have raised concerns about how the Knockmore railway line issue has been handled. The Committee is awaiting a number of reports, and we will be deliberating in the future. It is wrong to say that when lines close they are mothballed. Under direct rule that would have been the case, but under the Assembly and the Minister for Regional Development that will not be the case.

Generally we very much welcome the Minister's announcement of extra expenditure. He will never please everybody, but if he pleases everybody sometimes it may be enough to get him elected.

I have another 15 Members on my list. The debate must end at 2.30 pm, and the Minister is entitled to 40 minutes to sum up. I suggest that from now on we limit speeches to eight minutes.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is ironic that I get up at the moment that the time is reduced to about 50% of what I need. I always like to touch on the different Departments, as it is often the only opportunity that we get while we have Committee struggles with which to deal.

Take the Department of Health, for instance. The trusts have got an extra £18 million, and they have to decide what they want to do with that. They have been struggling with their debts and have also been told by the boards that they have to keep within their limits. Take the western area, where there has been a continual loss of services in places such as Enniskillen and Omagh. Services are continually being drained away from us. Quite often you wonder whether the pressure is on all the time for people to actually pay for themselves, rather than letting the NHS do what it is supposed to do. There seems to be a drive towards that all the time.

We are talking about resources and the price of resources. Private operations are taking place in NHS theatres. These are all questions people will ask. At the end of the day, who is paying for what? It all comes out of the same budget. NHS patients have to wait and suffer. Some trusts, such as one in my area, are in the business of leasing land, while at the same time trying to acquire land in case we ever have to build a new hospital, which I think will be necessary in that part of the Six Counties. At a later date, the budget from here might have to be used in a much greater proportion than the amount that they are going to gain from the leasing to buy back land that might be needed. I want to flag that up because it is a very important issue regarding the budget for the Department and for the trust.

I always welcome any extra spending on education. However, central administration funding has been mentioned again, and boards have got considerably more. It is administration versus what goes into the school or learning. It looks as though we have 5% going to children or learning and 95% going to administration and pay. There is a certain difficulty in people's minds about where administration is going and why there has to be so much emphasis on it.

Mr Poots described Irish-medium education as wasted funds. Irish-medium education is a growing area and Irish is an important language. Germany and other countries consider their local language to be number one, and they will not allow any movement on that. That is what we should be doing. Social inclusion is part of the Good Friday Agreement and part of the successful future that we need through all the negotiated points of the agreement.

I also welcome money going to the libraries. That is important. I often wonder whether there is as much going to libraries in rural areas as there is to libraries in urban areas. People in rural areas often have to rely on mobile libraries.

I am a member of the Agriculture Committee. Without going over everything that we talked about, I want to say that there is nothing extra for farmers now, just as there was nothing in the last funding round. It points out the commitment of Government to the future. There has to be a change in future Budgets. The Department has asked for more money for administration costs; that is where the difficulty lies. The Department is bound up in administration, and farmers find that taxing and expensive. It has to move away from red tape, as do all the others.

As was mentioned, there is a social services surplus - there has been year after year, even going back to the days of direct rule. However, in many instances people are failing to receive the money to which they are entitled, because they are in weak and vulnerable situations, and bureaucratic pressures target them in a drive to save money in relation to fraud. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will have to look at that.

Fermanagh lost another 90 jobs last week at the Aldervale textile factory, and there were further losses in Newry. I have asked the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, as well as other bodies, to look at the facts behind the job losses and to understand that that is not something that we are making up, it is a fact. I want to see action to help put that right, and there must be equality of spending in the region, and the wrongs in relation to job losses must be put right. There must be parity in respect of the money that is drawn down for us at a local level and on an east/west basis. The situation with regard to the Industrial Development Board (IDB) and the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) - which is not delivering for us in those areas - needs to be looked at. Obviously they are going through a phase of change, and we hope that that will help to deliver something different and more positive to us in the future.

As regards the Department for Regional Development, the roads maintenance budget in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone area is vastly underfunded. The area has a small percentage of class A roads that require gritting all the time, so we get much less from that budget than Belfast, for example. There has been talk about equality in road budgets, but there is an increasing failure and weakness in the road structure at all levels from here to Fermanagh. The number of pot holes is increasing, and many people are asking about compensation for damage to their vehicles. People are taxed for road maintenance, and they are also taxed when they have to fix their vehicles when they are damaged. That is happening more often, and more money must be allocated to rural areas in the roads budget. The Department needs to look again at how things are done in order to try to save money.

Rail transport is important. My constituency does not have rail links, but if it did we would be more positive about the budget for that.

On behalf of my Committee, I welcome those alterations that have produced additional funding for the Department - especially increased provisions in research and consultation exercises and in capital spending for libraries.

In addition, I stress our gratitude to the Department, as well as the Minister of Finance and Personnel, for providing a considerable increase in funding to address urgent health and safety issues at sports grounds. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is of major concern to many people.

Likewise, we should record our gratitude for the increased community involvement finance for millennium celebrations.

In line with the Committee's report - the long-awaited inland fisheries report, which I hope to see finally published before the beginning of March - money has been made available for a scientific study of that matter. That is necessary to enable us to ascertain the impact of hydroelectric schemes on river fisheries. It is a major step forward in recognising our aspiration for clean energy sources, while ensuring that those do not disturb the quality of river life or any related environmental aspects.

On the Vote on Account, some £71·4 million has been indicated for the forthcoming year. We welcome the increases for areas such as libraries, health and safety in sports grounds, the languages body and the attempts to provide access to and participation in the arts by young people, especially those from the more disadvantaged sections of the community.

With regard to the Department's total bid, I must emphasise that, although it is a small Department, it considers the bid to be modest in comparison with it's assessment of need. We therefore argue for as much sympathy as possible from the Department of Finance and Personnel. It got little more than 25% of what it asked for, and for a small Department that is something that merits attention.

There is a great need for funding to buy out the commercial fish nets from around the Northern Ireland coastline. Unfortunately, we were unable sufficiently to impress that need to secure the necessary funds. There are many things that could impact on the dreadful condition of our wild salmon stocks and other fish species, such as sea trout. The most important thing that we could do to change that downward trend in the population graphs is remove coastal netting licences. Our inquiry - and we are awaiting the publication of the report on that - has underlined the importance of fishing as part of a recreational tourist industry. That is important to the economy of Northern Ireland and to the anglers. We are coming from a low base, although the potential for economic development is great and meaningful, as indeed is the revenue return to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

On behalf of the Committee, I emphasise that we are concerned that the spending plans do not include any funding for safety improvements to existing motorcycle road racing facilities. This matter has taken up a lot of time in the Committee and has become one of great public concern over the past 12 months or more, which saw many tragic deaths that spurred the Minister and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to set up a special team to look into it. The Department has made a number of recommendations, which cannot be implemented without a considerable degree of financial support. This issue requires urgent attention, and I hope that by my re-emphasising its importance, it will not get lost. The Committee generally respects the difficulties that the Department of Finance and Personnel faces. However, the bids that we have made have not succeeded to the extent that we would like.

I listened to the debate with interest. There was much comment on the control, monitoring and scrutiny of budgetary activity. Quite justifiably, great emphasis was placed on the elimination of waste and poor accounting procedures.

I was particularly interested in the Public Accounts Committee and its recent work concerning the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Its report drew particular attention to the Department's accounting procedures, and it was quite right to do that. However, many Committee members, in their subsequent comments, put an unfortunate spin on the activities of some of the community groups involved. On behalf of those hardworking voluntary groups, I must say that a poor impression was left.

I have not been the first today to introduce Dickensian references. In criticising a particular scheme in Ardglass, the comments of Seamus "Uriah Heep" Close about delivering money around each individual member made for a damaging statement. We are all anxious to ensure the best in public accountability, that everything is open to scrutiny, and that better value for money is achieved. I hope, however, that when something deserves attention we will be more careful about how our findings are presented.

Most of the important points have been covered. My deputy leader, Mr Seamus Close, spoke eloquently for almost half an hour. However, I have a couple of points to make.

Mr McHugh, Mr Hay and Mr Poots spoke about the underfunding of the roads system. Although I welcome the Minister's speech, in which he said that funding has been provided for a new vessel to operate between Portaferry and Strangford, some of my constituents are still disappointed at the Assembly's reluctance to even consider the possibility of a bridge across Strangford Lough.

I am particularly concerned about the apparent inequality in the Department for Regional Development's distribution of funds to different areas of Northern Ireland. My constituency of Strangford would appeal to the Minister for Regional Development to allocate more funding for road maintenance in rural areas. Modern, large vehicles, tractors and milk tankers have destroyed rural roads, and will continue to do so.

I do not know whether the Minister for Regional Development knows that some milk distributors are considering introducing even broader tankers. Someone mentioned the gritting of roads. If broader tankers are introduced, there will be no need for gritting, because rural roads will be so badly cut up. Such vehicles destroy rural roads.

The Roads Service division in my constituency does not seem to have the funding to repair roads or for simple minor road-widening schemes. Thus, we have an outcry from constituents whose cars are wrecked when they use those roads. As has been said, compensation is hard to come by. I ask Mr Durkan to ensure that Mr Campbell distributes funding on a fair and equitable basis.

Secondly, I would like to mention health issues. Again, I welcome the new investment, which is going into the provision of a decent Health Service, but much more needs to be done. We need more funding for cancer research, for example. We need more ambulances. Many other facilities in the Health Service need much more funding.

I conclude by putting down a marker. I must impress on the Minister that we look forward to the implementation of the report of the Royal Commission so that in due course we will provide free residential and nursing care for our elderly. That is a major problem which needs to be acted upon, and I hope that it will come before the Assembly soon.

I finish by welcoming the Minister's statement. I hope that he will take what I have said into consideration.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>