I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. As has already been stated, 'Strategy 2010' was published by the Department in March 1999 and, following its publication, serious concerns were expressed about it. As the Chairperson has stated, it was because of this that the Committee launched its inquiry.

I am a relative newcomer to the Committee, having joined it in January 2001, and at that stage the first inquiry draft was just completed. It was followed by a second and a third draft. I say this to give some idea of its scope and of the painstaking way in which the inquiry was conducted. This was of course in stark contrast to the consultation that took place on the original 'Strategy 2010' document. I thank the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee staff for all their help.

The criticism of the original 'Strategy 2010' document was that there were too many unstructured recommendations - 62 in total. The Committee has made 37 detailed and two general recommendations, but I intend to concentrate on the two relating to skills and education - recommendations 26 and 27.

The Committee recommends a system of education that releases the potential of all children, reduces the failure culture, improves access to employment through careers guidance, enhances links with business and industry, gives more recognition to vocational studies and makes greater use of work placement in industry. It also recommends greater links between the further education sector and industry, particularly with a view to preparing students for new skills to accommodate the knowledge-based economy, increased support for in-house training at all levels and reskilling courses, particularly for those sectors, such as textiles, which are particularly vulnerable to changes. These recommendations have the support of the trade unions and educational bodies. Courses within the educational establishment need to be customised to make changes in the workplace and the knowledge-based economy.

There should be stronger working links between the further education sector and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment agencies. We already have evidence of that when we see the Minister of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment, Sean Farren, and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, travelling to Europe and America seeking jobs and inward investment.

We support an economic development strategy that informs the education and training policy and its funding delivery mechanisms. For too long, colleges have been left to make provision for courses and qualifications with inadequate market intelligence. Partnership is the key between schools, colleges and relevant businesses in order that the necessary skills are taught.

There needs to be greater support for in-house training within sectors, such as the textile industry, which are very vulnerable to change. Even in this past week, we have seen further job losses at Desmonds in Derry. This type of training needs to start sooner rather than later, if we are to have a sound economy. We need to be proactive rather than reactive, and we need to monitor carefully the implementation of these recommendations.

To finish, I would like to highlight two other recommendations that are close to my heart. The first one, which has already been highlighted by my Colleague Eddie McGrady is tax exemption for the creative industries. This is a very important recommendation. We recommend a tax exemption for artists and crafts people in creative industry in Northern Ireland. At the moment, when we are talking about developing cultural quarters in all the major cities, this is an excellent recommendation and one that the House should support.

The other recommendation concerns women in the workplace. We recommend an increased focus on the recruitment and promotion of women in the workplace, including targeted training for women, workplace crèche facilities, increased access to job-share and greater use of family-friendly and flexible working hours. Thankfully, that is happening now in more places than it used to, particularly in hospitals, but it is something that we have to encourage if we are to get more women back into the workplace.

I support the motion.

It is disappointing that we have had three major motions crammed into one day. That does not do justice to any of the issues. Each of them could have done with a full day's debate. Many more Members would have been able to contribute.

The councils, including Ards Borough Council, made a significant contribution to 'Strategy 2010'. It is important that Members reiterate some of the points that were made through that. Ards Borough Council represents some 80,000 people living in the borough, mainly around Newtownards. However, there is now a focus and a population growth in the Comber and Ballygowan areas, which tend to be dormitory towns for the Greater Belfast area. It is clear, even to the untrained eye, that that area is going to face some considerable problems over the next 10 years with respect to the inadequate provision of industrial incentives, despite the suitable location.

It is essential for the future success of Ards borough that attention be focused on the regeneration of industry and the expansion of the hospitality sector, which is pitifully low in the borough. We heard this morning about the problems facing the hospitality sector because of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. That is a problem in my area.

Problems that may arise in the future will be linked to the increase in population predicted in 'Shaping our Future'. The Ards borough will have some 7,500 new houses in the next 13 years, translating into 21,000 people and 14,000 extra jobs for the borough.

One of the areas in special need is Comber. It is one of the more popular parts of the borough for housing, but it has little or nothing to offer any individual or company wishing to direct inward investment to the area. There must be extra zoning of industrial land in that area.

Local government should have a direct influence on planning procedures. Local government is accountable and has a grasp of all influencing issues. It has been suggested that a fairly small number of industrial units, through which we could monitor the needs and requirements of the growing population and how industry should grow, could be created in association with Government agencies.

The role of local government in the development of its own jurisdiction needs some clarification. At present, the organisation of local government into 26 separate entities has led to a diffuse and complex list of priorities and goals. Clarity is needed in this area if inward investment is to be effectively attracted to all the areas of Northern Ireland, and not just to Ards borough. Local government authorities are in the best position to understand the needs of their own areas, and as a local form of authority they are best placed to provide all relevant information to those in the area who wish to create or develop business opportunities.

It is all well and good to have the relevant information at your disposal, but if it cannot be distributed effectively it might as well not be there. Local people must be able to access business development information and assistance without difficulty or hindrance. Local government is in a position to fulfil that task in a manner that is accountable to the ratepayer.

One of the targets in 'Strategy 2010' is to reduce unemployment from 4% to 2%. Is that achievable? Local government has a strong role to play in that and can help to achieve that goal.

Cross-border co-operation has always been surrounded by controversy and political expediency and must be approached on a practical basis. The thrust of the Belfast Agreement is to harmonise infrastructure and policy north and south of the border, but any co-operation with southern companies should not rise above the importance of co-operation with a company from the mainland United Kingdom. Above all, any relationship must be based firmly on respect for the integrity of Northern Ireland's constitutional position in the United Kingdom and the authority of the Crown here.

When this is established we can have a working relationship with companies from the Republic of Ireland in areas such as fisheries, forestry, energy and technology. In this vein, I agree that assistance is required to optimise co-operation between companies north and south of the border.

With regard to internal co-operation, I suggest that projects backed by local government authorities should not be adopted willy-nilly. The health and wealth of the respective boroughs should be the overwhelming priority when it comes to business development. There are cases where such arrangements will be of mutual benefit to those participating. However, we should not enter into such arrangements blindly.

It is essential, from an international aspect, that Ards borough be identified with the Greater Belfast area as opposed to the Down area since international companies will immediately recognise Belfast as a place for locating business. My Colleague Jim Wells will not be happy with that, but we have to look at what is best for our own areas. We also have to put it on record. On the other hand, co-operation with local government authorities on tourist projects may be of benefit. Down District Council, Newry and Mourne District Council, Ards Borough Council and North Down Borough Council are all involved in tourist projects on the coast of Down.

Ards Borough Council has suffered greatly as a result of the decline in the British textile industry. It is important to identify industry which could be attracted into the area. Such industries include technology and marketing. Some work has been carried out to create a market for high quality linens and textiles, which are outside the previous market, but these have been undermined by cheap eastern imports. The quality sector of the market is, therefore, free for development and expansion. However, Northern Ireland is establishing itself in foreign markets as a leader in this field. Efforts must also be made to increase IT awareness among the local workforce. The IT sector is expanding rapidly beyond the rate at which individuals are being trained. Everyone must play a role in that.

In conclusion, the way forward for industrial development is for local government authorities to take existing small businesses and market their products overseas, whether on the United Kingdom mainland or in the United States, through targeted trade missions as opposed to inward investment drives. Government agencies, as currently structured, can cope with this and develop inward investment separately. Together we can make this work.

When I was being considered for a position on the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee I thought that it sounded interesting. I thought that we would have the odd wander around factories and look at industrial investment. It did not sound too difficult. After eight months on the Committee I asked why every other Committee seems like a Sunday afternoon stroll when the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee's work seems like an assault course. It is the busiest Committee in the Assembly and has the hardest working staff.

What about the Regional Development Committee?

I can assure Mr McFarland that the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee does a lot more work than the Regional Development Committee, and I speak as someone who has experience of both. We need to pay tribute to the extremely hard working Committee staff who have produced this huge document. We have gathered information from the widest possible range of interest groups. While the other Committees were lounging on some beach during the summer recess or having a glass of wine in some Greek restaurant, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee was working hard gathering evidence. It also went on a fact-finding mission to the United States.

There is a lot to commend in this report. We are in a period of enormous transition in Northern Ireland. In the Senate Chamber above the Public Gallery are three paintings on the ceiling depicting the three cornerstones of Northern Ireland's industrial heritage. One is shipbuilding, the second is agriculture, and the third is textiles. The sad reality is that the one thing the three industries have in common is that they are declining fast. Employment opportunities are drying up very quickly in those three pillars of society. How we manage the change from the decline of those three pillars to the new vibrant global economy in which we find ourselves will decide whether Northern Ireland goes forward as a heartland of industrial expansion or stagnates.

There is much to commend in the report, particularly the way in which it deals with the major impediments that face us as we go forward. As someone who represents a constituency very close to the border, I strongly support the recommendation that we examine in detail the problems we face in having a land border with the Irish Republic. The fact that Northern Ireland is outside the euro zone while the Irish Republic is inside is a problem, and we know that we have lost opportunities for inward investment because of that. The decision on whether we do or do not join the Euro is not - thank goodness - one that this Assembly will ever have to take. That is a much bigger issue than even Sir Reg Empey could cope with. It is just as well that we do not have to deal with that, but we have to accept that not being in the euro zone causes difficult trading conditions.

The dreadful problem of the unequal excise duties on fuel has decimated employment in the fuel industry within 20-30 miles of the border. I understand that there has been a decline of 50% in the amount of diesel sold in Northern Ireland, while there has been an increase of 20% in the number of diesel cars. Something there does not add up, and it has had an enormous effect on garage businesses in the border area.

The big threat on the horizon is the aggregates tax. It is not that the tax is being implemented at a differential rate in the Republic; it is not being implemented there at all. I spoke to quarry owners last weekend, and many of them are seeking out quarries in the Irish Republic so that they can transfer staff and investment from Northern Ireland into such counties as Cavan, Leitrim, Westmeath and, to a lesser extent, Donegal. Jobs will migrate, simply because of the imposition of a tax that will have a disproportionate impact on Northern Ireland in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom.

I take Mr Shannon's point entirely. Clearly, none of this should call into question the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, but on the basis of two sovereign Governments sitting down and discussing this issue, we must find some way of reducing the impact of these impediments to our economic growth.

I also strongly support the proposal for a review of the Barnett formula. This is one of those issues that need to be handled very carefully. At the moment, many believe that the Barnett formula should be assessed on the basis of need, rather than being a pure mathematical formula based on population. On the basis of need, Northern Ireland would get a higher proportion of the UK cake.

An issue that came up quite late in the inquiry - and I am glad that Mr Neeson quite properly raised it - was the role of the banks in the Northern Ireland economy. Many of us attended an event in the Long Gallery, sponsored by Dr McDonnell, at which the results of a survey were revealed. They indicated that the greatest single impediment to the expansion of local industry in Northern Ireland was the attitude of our banks.

The cartel of four large banks overcharges, places almost impossible conditions on loans, charges ridiculous rates of interest and tries to hide unfair charges in complicated statements. Eighty-five per cent of the businesses questioned suggested that they were the main impediment. Until we get the banks on board in the process, there will always be difficulties for the expansion of small industry in Northern Ireland.

I do not know what whip this Assembly or the Executive can crack with the banks, but there must be something wrong with institutions that take over £250 million per year out of the Northern Ireland economy and that seem almost to have a monopoly on small business loans. That simply cannot be allowed to continue. For example, £90 million a year from one bank goes straight out of the Northern Ireland economy to Australia. The Australians do not need it, and the Northern Ireland economy does. We must look at that. We are not talking about nationalisation, but we must bring these bodies under control. They have had it too good for too long.

My party and I strongly welcome the proposal to amalgamate all the industrial promotion bodies into one new unit. That is one of the most far-sighted proposals made by the Committee, and we support it. We also support the concept of its being taken outwith the Civil Service and given the flexibility and power to go out and attract industry and to employ the very best executives to seek new investment in Northern Ireland. That is an extremely welcome development that cannot come soon enough.

On the downside, however, the one issue that will handicap Northern Ireland's future growth, apart from the difficulties of having the common land border and not being part of the euro, is the tremendous problem facing our infrastructure. We have the very difficult problem to crack of 25 to 30 years of underinvestment in our roads, ports and rail. Mr Campbell is looking at this matter, and I wish him well. When he was in the United States recently he looked at possible options for private sector investment without the loss of public control in infrastructure. If we can crack that problem, then we get round the other great bottleneck that is affecting our future expansion. If we cannot transport goods and services round and in and out of the Province quickly, we will always be lagging behind when it comes to future growth.

I support recommendations 10 and 11, which suggest that not only should we have a vibrant economy but also an environmentally aware and green economy. I do not see these aspects as being mutually exclusive. Ms Morrice spoke at length on this issue in the Committee. I see the revolution in the attitude to green issues as an opportunity for Northern Ireland rather than a threat. We have a problem with our shipbuilding industry, but perhaps instead of making ships we should make wind turbines. Northern Ireland should take the lead on these issues and show that it is possible to combine the protection of the environment with a vibrant economy.

There are some exciting opportunities as well as some concerns, and I commend the report to the Assembly. However, I agree with Mr Shannon that it is appalling that three absolutely vital issues affecting this Province were discussed and debated on the same day. This is the most important report to have come from any of the Committees so far, and an entire day should have been set aside for the debate. To have the debate on the same day as a debate on consequential loss for the rural community because of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, together with a debate on foot-and-mouth disease itself, is not acceptable.

The full impact of this report should be on the front page of almost every newspaper in the Province, but that opportunity has been lost because of the foot-and-mouth disease debate. We have to manage our business better to ensure that this does not happen in the future.

Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to take up in full my allocated ten minutes. Unfortunately I have not heard much of the debate because I was at a meeting, but I have endeavoured to follow on television some of what has been said.

Given my past experience as a social worker, I welcome the fact that the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, which might have been thought to have been solely concerned with the "hard economy", has made some firm and straightforward recommendations under the section which it headlines 'Partnership and Cohesion'. There are major problems for the economy because of the failure to address the issues of poverty and long-term unemployment. We are not going to develop the economy of Northern Ireland in the way we need to if those who are educated do well and those at the bottom of the educational heap continue in short-term unskilled jobs and fail to contribute to the economy in the way in which they and their families need to in terms of the income payable. The Committee has made a significant contribution in that area, and that is to be welcomed. Frequently in the past that has been left out when looking at the field of economic development. Similarly the remarks on social cohesion, and the social economy and the role it can play, need to be followed through.

I should have known, having to follow Jim Wells, that the second of my hobby horses - environmental aspects of the economy - would have been well covered. So perhaps I should not make too much of that. The clean, green image that we have on this island compared to much of Europe is a major strength for potential economic development. It also presents a major threat if we do not continue to keep that image right, but it is a major opportunity for growth in the relevant areas of the economy, many of which Mr Wells covered.

I want to look at part of the issue raised by Sean Neeson, and that is the way in which the public sector relates to the private sector and the way in which the public sector manages to control, guide or exercise discretion over the direction of the economy.

I welcome the inclusion in the report of the slightly coy and guarded agreement that the need for tax varying powers has to be seriously addressed. We do not have the luxury of the Scots, who have tax varying powers in law but are frightened to use them. This is something that we will have to look into in the future. The report clearly lays down guidelines for carrying out a study, and we could build on that. It is the responsibility of everyone in the Chamber to look at the best economic future for Northern Ireland and only by using all the economic levers that we can to get the economy growing, people employed and businesses thriving will we begin to invest in infrastructure, develop private industry and start to repair the damage of the past.

'Strategy 2010' is an important document in that respect, and the Committee report must be welcomed. We should be working for economic success. It is perhaps regrettable that the Committee hedged round how tax varying powers might be handled in points 15, 16 and 17. At least it has recognised the term "fiscal flexibility", and I welcome the fact that that term appears.

It is not only dangerous radicals like me who think that fiscal flexibility is important. Bodies such as the Institute of Directors have joined the call for such powers as well. It is logical and makes common sense. A mature Government, even a devolved regional legislature, must have the power to control their own purse, or they will not have the powers they need. This is not just about how to spend the money - which we spent time discussing when we looked at budgets - it is also about where the money comes from and how we raise it. In that sense tax varying powers are integral to any economic planning.

Look at some of the debates we have had. We discussed fuel tax and looked at the problem of the different tax rates across the border. We had a recent debate on the aggregates tax. Mr Wells has left, so he cannot exercise his environmentalist concern over the way in which the aggregates tax may or may not be applied. However, if it is applied as currently proposed by the UK Government, there is no doubt that there will be a migration of jobs to quarries in the Republic.

We all recognise that we need to determine policy and drive it forward - not just taking the income as given. We could look at taxation in a number of other areas as well. Part of the reason for the economic growth in the Republic is that it has a lower rate of corporation tax than we do. That creates difficulties for this corner of the island that the "Celtic tiger" economy does not have.

I welcome the recognition of all that is inadequate with the Barnett formula. There must be change. As the report acknowledges, Barnett was thought to be a short- term solution in the 1970s. It is something that we are stuck with, a blunt instrument that has completely failed to address the levels of real need in the three "Celtic fringe" nations as opposed to England.

Last week the redistribution of Government resources within the regions of England was raised. That issue is not going to go away. However, the Assembly should be careful to say that the revision of Barnett is not just a threat - although there is a degree of threat - it is also an opportunity. We can make a case for a needs-based assessment rather than a simple headcount-based assessment. Whatever needs to be adjusted between English regions, like the south-west and the north-east on the one hand and Greater London and the south-east on the other, there is a continuing need for this region to receive a fair allocation from the UK Exchequer. That requires a modification to Barnett and amendments to our tax varying powers, whenever we get them.

When we discussed the regional rate, my party was accused of wanting the money but not wanting to raise it because we opposed the increase. The increase was gradually whittled down due to the pressure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel was under. Every time he looked in his back pocket, the Civil Service allowed him to find a few more million pounds.

The regional rate, however it is used for raising taxes, is about the most blunt and unfair possible taxation. We need to look for a better system of taxation based, almost certainly, on income tax but with variations on corporation tax. There is also potential for other tax-varying powers, which we must have.

This is the first report from any Assembly Committee that has recognised that Barnett is a matter for all Members, not just the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and has agreed the need for tax-varying powers. I welcome and endorse the Committee's report on 'Strategy 2010'.

I welcome the report and thank the Committee, the strategy steering group (SSG) and the Economic Development Forum (EDF) for their contributions. I feared that Mr Wells was going to eulogise and even propose the beatification of some of the Committee members who were obviously working so hard. However, I also acknowledge the work that they put in.

They worked over the summer, which my Department hopes they will do again this summer. There are plans in the pipeline to keep them occupied. We hope that the result of this significant amount of activity will be positive.

Adam Ingram, as Minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development, initiated the process. In the foreword to 'Strategy 2010' he emphasised that it had been produced as a basis for discussion. It was also envisaged that leadership for that debate would come from the Assembly and that there would be extensive involvement from the wider community. I highlight those points because the Chairperson's opening remarks focused on the consultation issue, which has also been mentioned by others.

I have made it clear that I have never, either now or in the past, viewed 'Strategy 2010' as a definitive or fixed blueprint to be slavishly followed. Rather, it was an agenda for change created over two years ago in a unique partnership that would extend through a consultative process to the implementation of accepted recommendations.

It will be recalled that delays in getting devolution had an impact on the speed at, and the degree to, which recommendations were implemented. Adam Ingram indicated in the foreword of the document that the Assembly would have to deliberate on it and, ultimately, decide its fate.

By initiating this debate the Committee has obviously led the further stage of the process, which was added to by the 58 written evidence and 45 oral evidence sessions - a substantial amount of work. The SSG, the 11 sectoral and seven cross-sectoral teams and the 'Strategy 2010' consultation panel deserve thanks for their efforts to produce the strategy in the first place.

Members will recall that a huge number of people, much larger than in the past, were involved in this exercise. It would not have taken place in this fashion had it not been for the arrival of devolution. Never before under direct rule was such a substantial amount of consultation undertaken, and, although the Committee has pointed out weaknesses with that process, we must nevertheless thank those who gave voluntarily of their time to enable it to occur.

Thanks are due to the EDF which was established as one of the recommendations in the 'Strategy 2010' report. It has given generously of its time over the past 18 months to provide advice on many of the other recommendations and related key issues. It should be noted that, during the Committee's inquiry, our new structures have been working increasingly effectively and the Programme for Government has been developed and approved.

The Programme for Government states the Executive's priorities across all areas of expenditure, including economic development. It is important to remember that the programme is not set in stone but is designed to be reviewed on an annual basis. This provides the opportunity for many of the recommendations that are foreshadowed in the report to find their way through into the programme because that is the only way, ultimately, in which they will be implemented.

The task now is to ensure that agreed priorities and measures are reflected in the Programme for Government as it is rolled out over the years. I repeat that this will be on an annual basis because things change continually. It is not possible to determine what should happen and then sit and wait for it to happen in the economy. The Chairperson of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee also focused on the lack of economic modelling, and I know that that has been a criticism from some professional economists. However, the 'Strategy 2010' report did understand those matters, and there was a number of contributions from the Northern Ireland Economic Counsel (NIEC), which has done reports in the past, and from the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre (NIERC) itself, which exists to carry out research. The 'Strategy 2010' Committees were not without an awareness of such matters.

Globalisation has also been mentioned today, and, of course, that was in the context of today's being May Day. The Chairperson also spoke about the Republic, and how well it has been doing. There is no economy that has benefited more from globalisation than the Republic because it was that process that brought the benefits, and that needs to be spelled out.

Several Members, including the Chairperson, referred to the question of equality. Equality and social cohesion was one of the 'Strategy 2010' report's key themes. Page 14 of the report states that

Equality and social cohesion, therefore, are incorporated into the 'Strategy 2010' report. The Programme for Government has picked this theme up and it states that

It goes on to say that this vision is and must be

New TSN is also a new policy of the Executive, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment policies give priority to New TSN areas. I noticed that Mr Carrick raised the issue of the borough of Craigavon and said that he did not want his area to be disadvantaged by New TSN policies. There is an element of unnecessary alarm about the issue. There is nothing wrong in saying to people, who might wish to invest, that there are certain areas of our territory where we wish to see industry strengthened because there are weaknesses. We cannot instruct and we do not attempt to prevent people going to another location if that is what they want to do. However, we do encourage them and that can be done financially, as well as in other ways. If an employer decides that he wants to invest in a particular area, there would be no question of our taking any action to prevent that. However, the Department is saying that there are clearly identified areas in our Province that have specific and special needs, and it is only proper that we give credence to that policy. The Department is fully committed to that; it has targets in the Programme for Government, and I am happy to say that, at the moment, it is achieving those targets.

I hope that Mr Carrick will not be alarmed. I have been to his borough on a number of occasions, and I have spoken to the representatives of the district council; I have visited the area extensively, and I can assure him that no discrimination is taking place against the borough as a result of New TSN policies.

A number of Members referred to partnership and shared ownership, and the Chairperson mentioned the Fast Track to employment IT schemes in the Republic. Obviously that is a matter that my colleague, Dr Farren, will want to address together with a number of the recommendations in the report.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has identified that the Committee's recommendations are spread over eight of the 10 Departments, and seven Departments have recommendations pertaining to them. Consequently, my Department has written to the other Departments seeking their views and advice on those recommendations. Therefore I am not in a position to come to a definitive view on the report today. I communicated that to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson in advance of today's debate, because I do not want it to be seen as any discourtesy to the Committee.

Think of the practicalities. The Committee has taken months to prepare this substantial report - the Department has only had it for a few weeks. Many of the recommendations involve other Departments; we have not yet had their input, and it is not possible to have definitive views on such a wide range of recommendations yet. Furthermore, I have been asked to respond in writing by early June, when it would be my intention to give a more definitive response.

I do not believe that the Committee expects me to treat such a substantial report with a cursory view, so I am not in a position to say that I can, and will, implement every one of the recommendations. I can say that each is being pursued actively and will be responded to, by me in writing, in early June provided that I am given the proper responses by the other Departments that I have contacted. I have no doubt that that will be the case.

A number of Members, including the Deputy Chairperson, referred to the Barnett formula and the fiscal environment; indeed Mr Ford talked about the matter at some length. I have written to the Financial Secretary many times about items such as aggregates tax and fuel duty. I have been to see the Financial Secretary and I know that my Colleague, Mark Durkan, has prepared a comprehensive list of tax issues. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister saw the Chancellor earlier this year. I receive regular and frequent correspondence on those two issues, and I know, and agree, that anybody who is seriously taking a land border into account would not have come up with the aggregates tax as currently drafted. It amounts to a tax in excess of 60% on quarry products here compared with 25% on quarry products in Great Britain.

Anybody with an ounce of wit could see that a lorry load of stones can be driven a few miles along the road and would replace the production needs of a particular area. I share the environmental objective that the people who designed this tax may have; and a number of Members, including Mrs Carson, have referred to environmental issues. However, if the product can be replaced a few miles down the road, the tax is not capable of achieving its objective, and there is no point in having it. Quarrying will not become a revenue raising activity, because the revenue, like fuel duty, is being substituted.

Statistics show that, in the last five or six years, the amount of legally-imported fuel into Northern Ireland has halved. However, we all know that there has been a substantial increase in the number of vehicles on the road. It is perfectly clear that fuel duty is being lost to the Chancellor. We have pointed this out on a number of occasions. I have received delegations from a wide range of Assembly Members who are all saying the same thing. Mr Durkan, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister regularly correspond with the Treasury on one or other of those issues - and sometimes on all of them. The Executive are very focused on this issue, and we are trying to do our best.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>