Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Molaimse an rún seo fosta. Baineann sé le logainmneacha atá stairiúil, traidisiúnta agus atá fíorthábhachtach ag daoine ar fud na hÉireann.

I commend the motion tabled by the Alliance Party Members for Strangford and South Antrim. I also welcome the emerging consensus around this crucial issue. Perhaps it is universal, but it is certainly an Irish characteristic to be proud of where one comes from and to have a real sense of place and belonging. Townlands are an ancient land unit. There are more than 64,000 of them in Ireland. They have existed through the ages, and some names have proved more durable and more resistant to so-called modernisation than others; but all are resonant with meaning, mystery and beauty.

Townland names provide a living link with the Irish language, and with our history. There are variations in spelling, local pronunciations, and translations that become unreliable. They speak of landscapes, topography, geographical features and clans. They speak of occupations and trades, animals and trees, churches, saints and ancient battlefields. They speak in colourful and descriptive language of beautiful-sounding place names, which give people a real sense of place.

Some speakers have traced the history of interference with townland names to the Post Office devices of the 1960s. Brian Friel's tragic play 'Translations' takes us back much further. It has a powerfully emotive theme, and is set in Donegal in the 1830s when the British Army's engineering corps carried out its famous ordnance survey of Ireland. It mapped and renamed the whole country to suit the agenda of faceless civil servants in far-off places with no local knowledge who wished to bin centuries of history and culture. It was vandalism of the most insidious kind. It was an example of cultural imperialism. The play explores the crisis of language in the context of a crisis in a family. Owen, the son of a hedge schoolmaster who taught Greek and Latin through Irish, returns from Dublin as a member of the engineering corps to map and rename areas in his native Donegal.

Reference has been made to Post Office attempts to do away with townland names in the name of modernisation, to assign names and numbers to country roads, and perhaps to incorporate the name of one townland into the name of the road. On the surface, that might have appeared to be positive. However, it wiped out other townland names in the process.

I am mindful that the townland name was the postal address, and if it were still so, as it is in County Fermanagh and elsewhere in Ireland, it would be more accurate for ambulance services and doctors who are attempting to reach people in their homes. Mr Haughey will be familiar with Burn Road in Cookstown, which stretches for miles and miles. Drum Road is similar. Emergency services can get lost, and have to come back several miles to find their destination.

I want to draw attention to a problem for the people of Carrickmore in County Tyrone. Sixmilecross has a larger postal sorting office, which means that the very name of Carrickmore is threatened with extinction. Believe it or not, the postal address of Main Street, Carrickmore is now Main Street, Sixmilecross. We have tried to secure a meeting with Royal Mail to discuss the problem, but it is resistant. Nobody has a problem with Sixmilecross appearing beneath Carrickmore on a postal address, but it is simply unacceptable that it be used as a substitute.

The role of councils has been mentioned. I have recently been appointed chairman of Omagh District Council, and we plan to address the matter seriously in the very near future. There is tremendous international interest in preservation, promotion and proactive campaigning around our townlands. Irish exiles in America and Australia return home to discover their roots and townland names are important in tracing those roots. Go raibh maith agat.

I hope that in supporting the motion I can also provide some idea of the Fermanagh experience, the benefit of which might help to enlighten minds. Fermanagh District Council has always insisted on the retention of townland names. It has consistently opposed the introduction of road naming and numbering of houses. However, the council is at present revising that policy, because, in recent years, people have increasingly made complaints about shortcomings in the system.

Residents have experienced difficulties when trying to do business with some companies in England. For example, some credit card companies require applicants to provide a road name and house number. Applications are refused unless this information is provided. Insurance companies apply that policy with increasing frequency, and in certain cases they will not provide cover if applicants are unable to supply a road name and a house number.

In view of that, we should try to devise a way to retain our townland names on correspondence, in the same way as Fermanagh District Council is revising its policy. However, at the same time, we need to avoid restricting opportunities for people to avail of keen rates offered by financial organisations such as credit card companies and insurance brokers.

The best way forward for everybody is a system whereby the name of the townland, the road and the house number are used in every address. References have been made to the fact that the tax office, the Electoral Office, and, to some extent, the Housing Executive include road names in their correspondence. We should not build on that work, because, in the case of Fermanagh, the road names used in such correspondence mean little to the people who live there.

Before we implement any changes, we should take time to consult with local councils and communities to get the best possible information. It may be necessary to carry out some pilot studies among local district councils, but the best approach is to make sure that our townland names are preserved. We need to be careful about the way in which we progress. Today's motion is a very useful first step, and I support it.

Our townlands are our heritage appreciated by all without division or dispute. I therefore welcome the motion, which, for a change, unites us on a common issue.

As our cities, towns and villages experience varying degrees of development sprawl, townland names have tended to be squeezed out as developers opt for names more appropriate to leafy suburbs of English towns. I have no objections to names such as South Winds, Pine Trees or Cedar Gardens, but I prefer the name of the townland in which I live: Gortmacrane, which means "stony field". It denotes breadth as well as length. Ninety-five per cent of townland names have their origin in the Irish language and, as Members have already demonstrated, one needs only a cursory knowledge of the language to develop a keen interest in our place names.

The issue before the House today is not new. Practically every council has called for the retention of townland names. The motion can make a difference for the first time, because we now have the power to instruct Departments to include townland names, and they must listen. Townland names have length and breadth; they can be measured and are critical to many Departments in cases in which ownership of land is an issue. Perhaps if Departments had paid more attention to townland names, fewer mistakes might have been made. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, for example, might not have paid an agriculture grant to a farmer for Lady Dixon Park, as was recently discovered by the public auditor.

However, the critical issue revolves around heritage, and fortunately that is something that Members no longer argue about in this respect. Members all cherish their place names, not only for personal satisfaction and pride but because they want to retain them for future generations. The townland issue has been bounced about for too long. It is time to act and put townland names back on the maps to paint a picture, sketch a scene or vividly describe the places in which we live.

When townlands first became an issue our postal service was called "the Post Office", but today it is "Consignia". For its own reasons the Post Office has no allegiance to names, heritage or tradition, so it would be foolish to follow Postman Pat. Let us stick with what we have. I am sticking to Gortmacrane, even though the farmers have gathered most of the stones that gave it its name, which means the stony field.

I support the motion and congratulate Mr Ford and Mr McCarthy for tabling it. Townlands existed long before parishes and counties. Their original Irish names were written in English form as they sounded to English court scribes. A townland name in its original Irish form often referred to an easily identifiable feature of the landscape such as a "carraig", which means "rock", or a "tulach", which means "hill".

The social customs or history of people who have lived in a place can also be reflected in the name of a townland. Often those names are the only records that survive of families who held the land in pre-plantation times. An example of that is "baile" meaning settlement, and that prefix can be found all over Ireland in such place names as Ballywalter, Ballyshannon, Ballymoney and others.

Many townlands in Ireland took their names from early habitation sites - ecclesiastical and secular. Examples include "rath", which means "fortification", and "dún", which means "fort". In County Tyrone there is Dunamanagh, or Donemana, which means "the fortress of the monks", and in Donegal one will find the Dunree fort.

It was often through the townland name that entitlement to land was determined, and that was important for inheritance purposes. For a long time prior to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, councils were bound by the Towns Improvement Clauses Act 1847, the Public Health and Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 and the Public Health Acts Amendment 1907. However, those were all repealed in the 1995 Order, and since then councils have had limited powers to do anything. It is almost impossible to change names.

Developers have no authority to name streets or developments. Derry City Council belatedly followed Fermanagh's example and developed a relationship with planners and developers to ensure that names would not be used except with the agreement of the city council. Derry City Council has promoted the use of townland names over the years. That has had cross-party support, and a lot of research continues to go into the naming of new estates and housing developments. Derry City Council has a policy of encouraging developers to research proposed names before presenting them to the council for approval. That policy is well known and is facilitated through the culture subcommittee.

It is a matter of record that many proposed names relating to contractors' families, popular soap operas or known personalities in an area have been rejected, and any proposed names must have some relevance to the area or original townland. That policy can work. The debate is important, and Departments must take it seriously and start using townland names.

Over the years it has been almost impossible to complete an official form without the postcode or the correct postal address, but Derry City Council also includes the townlands. I come from a rural background, and I do not want to lose the townland.

I am pleased to take part in this debate. I have long been of the view that society is at risk of losing something important and central to its identity if the use of townland names sinks into decline and disappears from our vocabulary and consciousness.

When a similar motion was tabled at one of our party conferences, a party colleague began his speech by saying that there were four reasons why the loss of townland names should be resisted: first, Altaglushan; secondly, Munderadoe; thirdly, Munterevlin; and fourthly, Drumballyhugh. What a tragedy it would be if all the richness, tradition and history inherent in those names were to be lost.

My postcode is BT80, but the town of Cookstown is built on five townlands - Derryloran, Gortalowry, Coolnafranky, Killymoon and Tullagh. It would be a tragedy if those names were lost. People in Cookstown still refer to certain commercial premises as "So-and-so's down in Gortalowry" or "So-and-so's over in Monrush" and to other local townlands.

It was said that it was in the power of councils to determine policy on the use of townland names. It was also said that Fermanagh District Council had an honourable record in that regard. I plead the case for my district council; it took the decision some years ago that all new signs bearing road names would have the townland name - Drumballyhugh or wherever - in bright red lettering underneath. Mr McGrady and Mr McElduff made the point that some long roads run for up to 10 miles, making it difficult for an emergency services driver to locate a particular house if the numbering of properties along that road is inadequate.

Mrs Carson referred to the number of roads around Dungannon that have the same name - Moy Road, Portadown; Moy Road, Dungannon; Moy Road, Moy; and Moy Road, Armagh. How could the driver of an ambulance be absolutely sure of his destination in those circumstances? Mr Gibson made the significant point that property is legally identified by county, by barony and by townland name.

Chuir cuid cainte Pat McNamee i gcuimhne domh ócáid amháin tá cupla bliain ó shin nuair a dúirt comhairleoir de chuid Chomhairle Ard Mhacha nuair a bhí an chomhairle ag plé an ábhair seo: "Ní bheidh áitainm Gaeilge ar Drumnahunshin a fhad agus a bheas mise beo". I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there was an occasion some years ago when an Armagh councillor said that there would be no Irish place names in Drumnahunshin as long as he was around to prevent it.

Mr Shannon and Mr Gibson reminded us that townland names are not just part of the Irish tradition; they are very much part of the Ulster-Scots tradition also. Mr Shannon talked about Betsy Gray and the Six Road Ends in his part of the world. Mr McElduff talked about the strong sense of place and belonging that is characteristic of people in his area. When he spoke about Carrickmore, I was not sure where he was talking about because in my dancing days we always referred to "Carmen", which was a corruption of the Irish word "tearmann".

Mr Gallagher made a number of noteworthy points about the legal aspects of, for example, insurance matters and said that there was no reason why road names and townland names could not both be used. That would give us a double dunder.

Mr John Dallat referred to the stony fields of his part of the world. Mrs Courtney talked about title to land, and she also referred to the fact that there was no division between the parties on the issue; that has been an essential characteristic of the debate. This is an important issue for people of all traditions in the North, including me. I have been at the fore in trying to preserve townland names in my district.

At present, the Administration has no policy to promote the use of townland names in correspondence and official documents. The motion, which calls on Departments to promote townland names, suggests that the Administration should take a more proactive role in doing so. Researchers at Queen's University, Belfast have worked on a project that covers townland names from all over the North. Other Members may have had some contact with it. The appropriate Committee may wish to consider taking evidence from that project.

I hate to be a bore, but I must say that any change in policy has resource and cost implications. I have no right to give any undertaking on behalf of the Administration to make changes to policy until costs are properly quantified, however strong my personal support for the motion. Northern Ireland Departments will facilitate the use of townland addresses when they have been notified of them. Departments will reply to correspondence using the address given, including the townland name. I cannot go further than that, other than to confirm my support for the motion. I will report the views expressed during the debate to ministerial Colleagues through the appropriate channels.

It is a great pleasure to wind up a debate in which everybody supports the motion. At least, that was the case until the Junior Minister - as opposed to Denis Haughey - spoke, which was a little sad. We have seen that townlands can have legal, administrative and ecclesiastical identities; I confess that the last of those was news to me. Above all, they give us pride in our culture and history and a sense of place. The modern system of addressing, by road name and number, does not give the sense of place that the use of the historic townland name gives us.

Since the late 1960s, Royal Mail's policy towards townlands has been toleration, not encouragement. For all that Royal Mail - or Consignia - says that it will accept the use of a townland name, the name is dropped if an address becomes too long. Royal Mail has an electronic database of addresses. If I go into a shop and give my postcode, they can tell me my road name and postal town, but there is no space for the townland; there is something fundamentally wrong with that. Although Royal Mail says that it has not sought to destroy townlands, the actions of others using the addressing system that the Royal Mail promoted and rural district councils adopted has had that effect. That is why firm, speedy action is essential.

Members have highlighted the historical and cultural aspects of townland names. It was a pleasure to sit between the poems of WF Marshall, from Oliver Gibson on my left, and the Irish language from Pat McNamee, Barry McElduff and Denis Haughey to my right. Clearly, townlands are significant to people. I was delighted that Jim Shannon somehow managed to drag in a heroine from 1798 to support the cause of townlands; but if the DUP is adopting that policy then that is fine by me.

There is an issue about whether this subject relates to the culture of every side and section of the community; it is something that we can build on together. I do not claim to have a knowledge of Irish, as demonstrated by the two Members from Sinn Féin, but my love for townland names in the area in which I live came from an elderly neighbour who died a few years ago. He did not speak a word of Irish, nor did he claim to, but he made it his business to find out what the names of the townlands meant.

It is clear, as other Members have said, that virtually every townland is still recognisable as meaning something. Indeed, only last week, when introduced to me, someone said "Ah, you are the man from Tardree." I pointed out that while my wife came from Tardree, I came from the neighbouring townland of Barnish. That was a fascinating example of how somebody who knew the neighbourhood thought in terms of townland and not road name.

It has been pointed out that many of our names have been corrupted. I am not sure that the Royal Engineers did it in a spirit of malice; it may have been a case of ignorance. Tardree is a classic example in that the name should be "Ardree", because anybody who saw the mountain before the Forest Service came along would have known that "the height of the heather" did not require the word to have a superfluous English "T". John Dallat made a similar point. If the stones have been cleared, so what? If that is the historic name of the townland, it stands for something in our cultural background.

I am delighted that a number of Members made positive suggestions about actions that can be, and have been, taken. Joan Carson's reference to getting primary-school children to use the townland as the basis for local studies is clearly a way to inspire the young and make them think in later life. P J Bradley highlighted his use of two townland names in an Adjournment motion last week. I am not quite sure about Oliver Gibson's suggestion that a boundary stone should be placed at every point where a road crosses a townland, but there may be something in that which will get the message across. I welcome what Annie Courtney and Cllr Denis Haughey said about Derry and Cookstown regarding their work on adding townland names to road signs. I got Antrim Borough Council to agree to that. It is a small step, but one that moves things forward.

We have problems in ensuring that Departments take the responsibilities that have been outlined by every section of the House. It is clear that there should be a policy that forms have a space left for the townland to be inserted. Some organisations, such as the Electoral Office, seem to do that quite well; many others fail. We need a policy of encouraging Departments to use correct townland names. In my area, the Roads Service is quite good at referring to junctions by the name of the next townland but one, rather than the one in which they are actually located.

We must face the fact that, without serious action, we run into the danger that I highlighted earlier - if the address is too long, the townland will be omitted. While I welcomed Denis Haughey's comments in the early part of his speech, I was disappointed that he could but plead resource implications. If he is going to do that, then we may have to use up more resources by asking him questions about how much it will cost to add the odd box to the odd form or encourage Departments to look at a map and get the townland name right. I cannot see how that would have significant resource implications. The motion has been supported unanimously by the House, and the Minister ought to heed what Denis Haughey and others have said.

TOP

Alternatives to Private Finance Initiatives / Public-Private Partnership

I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is timely that we have a debate on the subject of the private finance initiative (PFI). I use the term PFI deliberately as there has been a public exercise to change it to PPP (public-private partnerships).

The PFI of the past carried the baggage of bad contracts and projects. The new Labour Government put their usual spin on it and came up with the idea of public-private partnership. There is no partnership aspect to it - only private finance and profit-making.

The motion is designed to move us along. It is not meant to simply explore the various aspects of PFI but to look at the available alternatives and to encourage the Executive to take up those issues and investigate the alternatives. Earlier this year the Finance and Personnel Committee produced a report on PFI and made several recommendations. One in particular was that public funds and public services should be in the public domain.

Last week the Minister of Finance and Personnel - who has just entered the Chamber - made it very clear that there is not enough money to provide public services and to meet the requirements of the Programme for Government. That is not acceptable. This is a fledgling legislative Assembly. We have set an agenda in the Programme for Government that is heavily underpinned by PFI. We must commit ourselves to exploring the means of ensuring that we have the public funds to provide the necessary services.

Our public services - the hospitals, the schools and the roads infrastructure- are in crisis. A considerable injection of money is required to maintain them, never mind extend them. Money must be made available to retrain and encourage nurses, doctors and professionals to return to the Health Service.

We need to break the cycle. We have fallen into the trap of continuing as though direct rule still applied, and we have not come up with new ideas. I support the Minister of Finance and Personnel in his endeavours to get the extra finance that is needed. I do not, however, support the idea that the extra money should be obtained by increasing the rates or by "back door" taxes such as water and sewerage charges. That is not the way. We need to look at alternatives - bonds might be one possibility.

We need to be up front and honest. New investment in the system is required, but we must be careful not to charge down the same road as the British Labour Party in producing new taxes and other devices for raising the money. Those measures simply tax the people who most deserve the services and, in many cases, those who have been deprived of them. The problem with the rates is that they are applied to households. Each pays in line with the variations. Some people do not have to pay rates. Some rural areas, particularly west of the Bann, do not have such services as sewerage and public water. Our targeting for resources has to be fair and must not overload people.

How forcefully has the Minister put the arguments to the British Exchequer? How do we rectify the legacy of underfunding by successive British Governments under direct rule? Has the Minister pointed out the legacy of discrimination and the fact that the finances that should have been put into areas west of the Bann for hospitals, schools and infrastructure were not put in? How do we re-balance that and make the British Government come up with the required funding? It cannot simply be done under the Barnett formula on its own. We need to come up with ideas.

The Barnett formula works on a headcount and does not reflect the need in our area. Our society is emerging from conflict. Are those arguments being made? Despite being told that there is no money available, and being asked how much money we will raise ourselves, we must question the British Government on whether they are prepared to rectify the imbalance in past spending.

I do not intend to become bogged down in the pros and cons of PFI. However, we either think about a dependency on PFI companies and the fact that we will be handing matters over to the private sector to build, direct and maintain, or we look at the alternatives. One alternative is "back door" taxation; it was, and still is, favoured by the British Government. Such a method would fail us and those who elected us. We must come up with alternatives.

The Finance and Personnel Committee reached several conclusions about the operation of PFI. Its primary conclusion was that public services must remain under public control. They should be financed with public money.

I note that the Executive have established a forum to investigate PFI and its implementation. Can the Minister confirm that the forum is looking at the alternatives to PFI and not simply at the current implementation of PFI? Has the forum been tasked with trying to break the cycle? Has it been tasked with looking for alternatives?

There are insufficient public funds, and we have been told that we must use PFI. Those who have been involved in PFI have told us that it is not suitable for all contracts and projects. There must be an alternative. Private companies may not be interested in a particular scheme because of its rurality or because they do not see it as a means of making money quickly. How do we deal with that?

How do we ensure that staff in schools, hospitals and other services are not disenfranchised by PFI and private finance taking over? Are we heading for a situation in which schools will not only be managed and built by PFI but in which the pupils will be taught by PFI? That is a serious consequence. We must look at what Tony Blair is proposing in England. More and more of the running, teaching and management of schools will become part of PFI.

The Committee's report made it clear that we must caution people about the contracts that are being set up now. Various Departments are forging ahead with PFI contracts. Have the Committee's recommendations been implemented? Twelve months down the road, or when the departmental review takes place, we could find that contracts have already been signed up to and that mistakes have been made. I urge the Minister to caution Departments that there is a clear strategy to follow when putting such contracts in place. We must learn from the mistakes that have occurred in hospital - and other - contracts, particularly in England.

Other means of raising finance came up in the inquiry. Some people in Dublin said that they had had a clear option - public finance was available for schemes, but they chose to use PFI. However, the background here is that PFI was brought in because public funds were not available. The situation is different now - public funds are available. Public borrowing is cheaper, and other options, including the European Investment Bank, are available. Do we need to stick rigidly to PFI?

The British Treasury does not allow us to go down that road. That is hindering the Assembly's establishment. We do not have control of our own taxation or finances, and we depend on the Barnett formula to provide us with the headcount and to deliver the money accordingly. The headcount does not provide the necessary funds. However, if, for example, the Assembly were able to sell bonds to the public, who would be guaranteed a steady stream of income for the years to come, a significant amount of money would be raised for investment. In the past, the British Government have used that system to finance schemes. The system has also been proposed for the London Underground, and it has been used in the USA, particularly in New York and Boston. We must look at the alternatives.

We do not possess the limited tax-varying powers of the Scottish Parliament. However, we do have the power to set the level of the regional rate. We must recognise that that is not a significant part of overall public expenditure. Some would argue that that is not a significant amount of money on top of the rates. However, it is additional to the present rates, which some would say are high enough. I am concerned that the Minister is looking into doubling the regional rate in order to catch up with England, Scotland and Wales. I remind the Minister that those countries provide different services and they have different ways of providing those services. Although we do not raise a significant amount of money through rates, I ask the Minister to recognise that it is an unfair system of taxation.

The present system asks those people who have neither the services nor the infrastructure to pay the same as those who do. The issue of toll bridges has been mentioned. Again, those people who have been deprived of services for years are being asked to pay. For example, it has been suggested that the bridge on the Toome bypass should be a toll bridge. That denies access to the fast track into Belfast to those who did not have the services. Those who have had to move from the west to the east because of their employment will now be charged more because they were deprived in the past. I do not rule out any options, but we must continue to look at the alternatives. We should look at alternative sites and at how we raise money. If we introduce tolls, we should ask not only those who use a particular bridge or stretch of road to pay, but we should spread the load to ensure that we do not further tax those who have been deprived in the past.

We must get to grips with the issue because we cannot go from year to year without enough money to expand or provide services. We must face our responsibilities, but we must be sure that the form of taxation and the way that we deliver services - whether that be through bonds, PFI or any other method - is done in the most suitable way for a particular project. It is not enough to say that we do not have enough money to provide services or to fund them properly. We must move ourselves into a position in which we can fund services, and we need control of our own fiscal policy. Rather than tax-raising powers, we need tax-varying powers that will give us the freedom to explore how we borrow public money, as well as how we spend it.

We are speculating on these Benches about the notion that we need tax-varying powers rather than tax-raising powers to raise money. We are not sure that we understand the distinction. If we are looking for more money, we must mean raising taxes. We pay too much tax already, and I am doubtful about the value of the Government services that we get for that tax. There is opposition on these Benches to the notion of raising more tax. However, we acknowledge that in order to spend a greater amount of money on public services, especially to clear the infrastructure deficit, money must be found from somewhere. You either pay for it, or you pay for it.

Regardless of whether the money is borrowed through the issuing of a bond - thereby deferring the final payment, but with interest being paid in the interim - sooner or later the bond must be redeemed. That means that all the money that is borrowed in the first place must be paid back with interest.

Alternatively, as is current practice, the Government can take as much money out of the block grant as they can to spend on infrastructure.

The third way is for the public sector to provide some of those services, for which it will charge a fee that will give it reasonable profits. We do not want the public sector to make what we believe to be unreasonable profits. The public sector wants to avoid making what it regards as unreasonably low profits for their efforts put in the risk they take.

The fourth option, which may well be a function of the second, is to make the user pay for the service by introducing tolls - a word that Mr Molloy was careful not to use. With a toll, for example, on a bridge or a road, only one kind of person pays: the person who uses it. As long as use of the service is voluntary, it is not unreasonable to invite people to pay for that extra convenience. In countries and cities where toll roads are in place, such as France and Hong Kong, the road usage by workers in particular is tremendous. For example, for a lorry driver on his way to a port, time is money, so it is worthwhile for him to pay the toll. Of course, it is important to judge the right price for the toll so that it does not become a disincentive to using the road and that it generates sufficient revenue.

Only the user pays the toll. The rest of us do not have to - although we all pay tax, and if the Government are providing those services, then, in effect, we are paying for it. The more the Government provides, the more we all must pay through tax. It is a question of whether one wants to contribute to the general pool in the hope of getting what one considers to be value for money, or whether one would rather pay only for the individual services that one wants. I am not going to get into the issue of healthcare. I see Dr McDonnell looking thoughtful. He will be well aware that that is at the core of the healthcare problem.

I have no alternative but to go into some technical detail on bonds. I am concerned that although we have some grasp of the notion, we have not grasped all the pertinent facts. In July, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee circulated a paper entitled 'Bonds - a Capital Idea'. I read the paper with some concern, and I trust that people who are interested in that area will read other literature to inform themselves on the subject.

The biggest issuer of bonds here is the Government, and the biggest issuer of bonds in the world is the Government of the USA, as they need more money than any other country. The UK Government has been issuing bonds for over 200 years; they pioneered the concept and have managed public finances very successfully by so doing. In recent years, there has been a surplus on the account, and the net level of Government debt has been reduced. That is essentially because when bonds become due, they have already been repaid and a replacement has not been issued.

However, given that the corporation tax revenue will undoubtedly fall in the United Kingdom over the next two or three years, the likelihood is that the Government will either have to raise more taxes or borrow more money. They will probably borrow more money or perhaps opt for a combination of the two.

There is not all that much debt around with a maturity of over 20 years, and the Government are not borrowing much money for that length of time. As a result, the opportunity exists for the right kind of organisation - with a good credit rating - to borrow money relatively cheaply over 20 to 30 years.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>