I note the enthusiasm of the Members and the Minister, but we are still at question 2. Please bear this in mind.

I add my congratulations to those already given to the Minister. His assured performance at the outset augers well for the future. Will he give assurances that a genuine consultation process will take place on the planning system and that it will have a significant impact on the current backlog in planning applications?

Yes. Is that too brief for you? We do want an improvement. One of the key elements of the consultation process on the modernisation of the planning process is that we are endeavouring to set targets by which planning applications are dealt with. We are trying to reduce regularisation, and we are trying to have a business planning zone. We are dealing with factors to improve the speed and effectiveness of consultation and with statutory consultees such as local councils. We are taking this seriously. I have pledged that we want to see an improvement.

TOP

3.

asked the Minister of the Environment whether he will undertake to review the area of special scientific interest (ASSI) policy to ensure that farmers' long-term work programmes are not jeopardised as a result of agricultural land being designated ASSI.

(AQO 910/01)

My Department is required, under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, to declare an area to be of special scientific interest where it is satisfied that an area of land is of special scientific interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological, physiological or other features and accordingly needs to be specially protected.

The legislation does not allow considerations, other than the scientific interest of the site, to be taken into account in coming to a decision on that declaration. That is the correct approach in the interests of conserving the important areas of Northern Ireland's natural heritage, and I have no plans to review it. My officials are considering the responses to consultation on proposals to strengthen the protection and management of ASSIs. However, it is important that my Department addresses the needs of agriculture and fisheries, and those of other land users, when considering how best an ASSI should be managed.

Most ASSIs include some land that is farmed, and, therefore, there is potential for some agricultural practices to damage the scientific interest. Such practices are specified in a list of notifiable operations that is issued to all owners and occupiers when an ASSI is declared. The inclusion of a farming, or any other, activity on that list does not necessarily mean that it cannot be undertaken. However, it provides my Department with an opportunity to consider how appropriate the activity might be in the context of protecting the scientific interest of the site. However, in most cases where agricultural land is included in an ASSI, nature conservation will best be served by the continuation of existing activities by the farmers. Where it is considered that a change in current practices would be beneficial to the conservation interests of the site, my Department has powers to offer a management agreement to the owner or occupier. My Department may make payments to owners or occupiers in return for activities that provide positive nature conservation benefits.

Being from South Down, I too extend my congratulations to the Minister on his new appointment, and I take the opportunity to thank the outgoing Minister, Mr Sam Foster, for the valuable assistance that he gave me when I visited his office. I am grateful to him, and I wish him well.

My question on ASSIs stemmed directly from a problem that was brought to my attention. Two farmers were denied the opportunity of reseeding valuable land as part of their works programme because the area was designated as an ASSI. Does the Minister not agree that in such situations no legislation should be implemented that would curtail the day-to-day activities of members of the farming community in working and maintaining their holdings as only they know best?

As I said, most farmers should continue with their activity. However, I stress that the management agreement is entirely voluntary. My Department and I recognise the important contribution that is made by the farming community. For example, species-rich grasslands, hay meadows, heaths and some sand dunes would not get the necessary protection if they were not being grazed by farm animals. The farming community is, therefore, important to those areas. We wish to have management agreements with farmers where appropriate, but those agreements are voluntary.

We all welcome measures that will preserve our environment. However, the Department of the Environment has recently designated the outer Ards Peninsula and its east coast as an ASSI, which means that local farmers, landowners and others in my area are being threatened with a loss of their rights. Can the Minister assure the House that the rights of all concerned will not be diminished by that designation?

Secondly, the Minister mentioned preservation. Will he and his Department help when coastal erosion occurs in those areas? Coastal erosion occurs all the time in the Strangford Lough area, and the Department of the Environment, along with the other Departments, turns its back on the problem.

That is a two-part question. The Member will forgive me if I do not answer his question on coastal erosion. I will ensure that he gets a written answer, giving details of the Department's responsibility, of what can, and cannot, be done and of what may, or may not, have been done.

The first part of the question to do with rights is important not only in the Chamber, but throughout Northern Ireland and further afield, and I tried to address that in my answer to Mr Bradley. People have rights, and those rights must not be trodden upon; therefore rights should be considered in a sensitive way when ASSI designations are being dealt with. The only criterion upon which a judgement can be made is whether an area is of scientific interest or speciality.

Is the Minister aware of the substantial concern that is being expressed by farmers, landowners and members of the Ulster Farmers' Union, especially in the Ards Peninsula area? Will he confirm that full consultation will be carried out with everyone concerned? Can he assure the House that the decision to designate is not a fait accompli, should people be unhappy or, indeed, unwilling to agree the ASSI designation for their area?

Many of the aspects that were covered previously answer the Member's question. First, I repeat that, when implementing ASSIs, the Department is concerned that people who are directly affected are handled sensitively, that their rights are taken into account and that any management of that is done voluntarily.

Secondly, the Department is reviewing all the ASSIs. We have about 245 ASSIs, which, in large measure, involve the farming community. However, the Department must achieve an adequate representation across the whole area and across the types of areas to be protected, so it is reviewing every aspect of that, which is all I can say now.

TOP

4.

asked the Minister of the Environment what plans he has for ensuring that out-of-town shopping complexes will not reduce town-centre business; and to make a statement.

(AQO 927/01)

Future plans on that subject are a matter for the Department for Regional Development. The regional development strategy recognises the important part that retailing will play in the future well-being of Northern Ireland, and the Department for Regional Development has agreed to issue a new planning policy statement on retailing in town centres. I understand that it intends to have a draft of the new retail policy ready for public consultation in September 2002.

The existing policy on out-of-town shopping centres is clear. Proposals for major retail development in the countryside - that is, outside development limits - are not acceptable. However, existing policy provides guidelines on what are known as "out of the town centre" shopping centres, but within defined limits. The policy for dealing with those and shopping complexes is outlined in planning policy statement No. 5, 'Retailing and the Town Centre', which seeks to strike a balance. There are always conflicts and tensions in what the Department does between protecting the vitality and viability of town centres while at the same time promoting choice and competition to benefit consumers. Such proposals for out-of-centre and out-of-town shopping centres are subject to detailed scrutiny and are assessed against the rigorous policy test of planning policy statement No 5.

I welcome the new Minister and hope that in time he will become known for the brevity of his answers.

I pay tribute to the outgoing Minister, Mr Foster, particularly for the attention that he paid to road safety. I have no doubt that many people are alive today who owe their existence to the increased focus of the media on road deaths here. The Assembly owes a debt of gratitude to Mr Foster for that.

Does the Minister accept that failure to implement new planning legislation, as the Republic has done, has meant that we face various problems in sustaining commercial life in many town centres? As long as his Department continues to grant planning approvals for out-of-town shopping centres where there is no established need, the problems can only get worse.

I can only repeat what I have said. For out-of-town centres to be permitted, they must pass rigorous policy tests. They will only be permitted outside a town centre if there is no suitable site in the town. Irrespective of what happens in the South of Ireland, when we look at planning applications, we consider the type of retailing that is envisaged, any existing deficiencies and whether there is a need for the shopping centre.

We also consider whether alternative sites exist and the impact on existing shopping in the particular town centre. Those are the important criteria that are considered. I shall look at particular cases in more detail if and when they come forward, but I can only deal with the generality in this case.

Mr Poots, I ask you to be brief with your question.

As the Minister is aware, the only shopping centre in the region is at Sprucefield, in the Lagan Valley constituency. The Minister's predecessor granted planning permission for further development at Sprucefield. Will the Minister look further at the reserved matters, as the proposed development has substantially changed? It probably does not now meet the regional criterion as originally envisaged.

Time is up. I am sure that the Minister will provide a written response to Mr Poots's question.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Speaker's Office give us some sort of definitive outline on the number of supplementary questions that can be taken?

More specifically, with regard to question 4 to the Minister for Regional Development, will the Speaker's Office look at the number of Members who wanted to ask supplementary questions and the number of Members who were called to ask supplementary questions? The questions related to a matter that, as the Minister said, is under investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. Many Members are deeply concerned about water leakage. However, no supplementary questions were taken from either of the two major Unionist parties to an initial question from Sinn Féin. I ask the Speaker's Office to look at that and report to the Assembly.

I shall refer your comments to the Speaker's Office. As you know, there are conventions on the number of supplementary questions that may be asked, but your question will be referred.

Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002

TOP

I beg to move

I am in the somewhat invidious situation of presenting myself to the House for the third time today. I hope that I have Members' forbearance in doing so.

This short statutory rule specifies the regional rate poundages for the 2002-03 financial year and the amount of domestic rate aid grant applicable to that year. As the Order will increase a tax, the provisions of section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 apply, and cross-community support is required.

On 25 September 2001, my predecessor, Mark Durkan, announced that the increase in the regional rates for 2002-03 would be 7% in respect of the domestic rate and 3·3% in respect of the non-domestic regional rate. Those increases were subsequently incorporated into the Budget that the Assembly approved on 11 December 2001. The Order to be considered today prescribes the actual rate poundages that reflect those percentage increases. I will briefly describe the articles in the Order.

Article 1 provides legal definitions of the two main classes of rateable property. A "specified hereditament" broadly means a commercial property; consequently, an "unspecified hereditament" is a domestic property. Article 2 affixes 31·42p as the non-domestic regional rate poundage and 199·29p as the domestic regional rate poundage. Article 3 specifies 66·82p as the amount by which the domestic regional rate is to be reduced. The domestic regional rate poundage that ratepayers will actually pay will be 132·47p. In effect, the regional element of the domestic rate bill will rise by an average of £15, and the non-domestic rate bill will rise by an average of £138.

When district rates are taken into account, the total average rate increase facing households will be £30 per annum, or 59p per week. For businesses the overall average increases will be £269 per annum, or £5·17 per week.

Members will recall that the increases proposed in the Budget were considered necessary to sustain spending levels on public services, particularly the agreed priority areas of health, education and roads. It is estimated that the revenue raised from the regional rate this coming year will exceed £330 million. The sum is a very significant contribution towards the programme of expenditure proposals for 2002-03, which were set out in the Budget.

Major issues remain, however, in respect of the financing of local services. Members were made aware of two initiatives to solve the problems. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take the opportunity to make a few short remarks on them.

First, stage 1 of the review of rating policy, dealing with factual analysis and the identification of major issues and policy options, is almost complete. It should be clear to anyone who has considered the range of issues involved in the review that the consultation exercise, to begin around April 2002, will give rise to many complex matters.

In the autumn we must carefully consider decisions following the response to the consultation exercise. Obviously there is a need to address serious deficiencies in the existing system, but we must be careful in the changes we propose. It will be judged in light of what is revealed by the consultation.

Secondly, there have been relative shifts in the values of non-domestic property since the last revaluation in 1997. These have not been solely due to the effects of inflation; social, environmental and economic factors have also been involved. The shifts are widespread and exist within, and between, different classes of property and locations. A further revaluation was necessary to address this shift in values.

The current exercise, which affects only non-domestic property, should be completed towards the end of 2002, and the new valuations will take effect from 1 April 2003. It is not possible to predict the impact of the revaluation on individual properties. However, businesses in areas of relative decline may benefit. That will be welcome news to businesses that have experienced difficulties recently.

As Minister of Finance and Personnel I am committed to public services and to effective public expenditure. The Assembly has heard many calls recently for increased resources for priority areas such as health, education and transport. It can begin to address these issues, but the availability of resources is a crucial issue.

The Order is an outworking of the Budget that the Assembly approved last December. The Executive and I believe that the increases are vital to ensuring that the services that ratepayers expect are maintained and improved. I commend the Order to the Assembly.

Rates have often been debated, and on many occasions their pros and cons have been raised. However, the real argument is how we can continue to make and finance effective public spending decisions.

Whether we like it or not, rates are the only available means of raising revenue to supplement funding for necessary services. Some Members will take a simplistic approach, but that is not good enough. We must show political maturity in our decisions now. If we do not have the political courage to make difficult decisions, we cannot cry for extra resources.

In particular, I refer to the frequent calls for more money for the Health Service, students, education, roads and the environment - in fact, for anything that will get an easy headline. When it comes to finding resources to pay for vital services, what do we see? We see those people who sought the easy headline voting against increases in local rates. We must be realistic. We must raise revenue through innovative means, because the demands on the public exchequer mean that our only indigenous fund-raising mechanism is the rates.

This is an opportunity to deal with budgets in new and innovative ways and for Departments to become more proactive with their allocations. The targets defined in the Programme for Government must be regularly reviewed to enable us to turn them into feasible objectives. However, we cannot do that without adequate funding.

Some Members are playing a short-term political game that will result in long-term political pain for all people in Northern Ireland. It is worth bearing in mind that the Minister for Regional Development, Peter Robinson, has produced a transport strategy that will cost about £950 million. A rates increase would allow for a chance to promote social inclusion by ensuring adequate measures to provide and extend services for people with disabilities. The transport strategy makes no headway in accommodating those people.

Mr Robinson also presides over a run-down Water Service that will require hundreds of millions of pounds to bring it up to standard. The 'Financial Times' recently quoted Mr Robinson as being in favour of increasing the rates to pay for the transport strategy.

The new draft housing Bill shows that the Minister for Social Development has failed to deal adequately with the spiralling problem of homelessness in Northern Ireland. The poor and vulnerable in our society deserve equal treatment. Adequate housing is one of our basic rights. Reasons for homelessness are complex in any ordinary society, but in Northern Ireland there are many more reasons for people ending up on the streets. The draft Bill means that approximately 40% of those who present themselves as homeless will not qualify for help.

In the past, the Alliance Party has called for tax- raising powers to be devolved to the Assembly. I assume that it wishes to raise taxes in order to pay for services. How can that be? When faced with that option, its members always vote against it; perhaps they want tax-varying powers so that they can lower taxes.

If the Assembly votes against the rates increase, it will send out a damaging signal to the Treasury at a dangerous time. We are about to begin a spending review that will determine our total allocation for the next three years. If we fail to show real ability to raise our own revenue, we can expect no favours from the Treasury, and any Member who votes against this Order should bear that in mind.

The Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 is an outworking of the Budget that the Assembly approved before Christmas. It is important to note that the Assembly has begun to identify its priorities and to allocate resources to them. It is incumbent on us to take action to back up our words. If we want to deliver good government across a range of services, including health, education and infrastructure, we need to take some financial responsibility for those services.

I welcome the statement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel that the review of rating policy is being progressed by the Executive. However, can the Minister tell us when the review will be completed and whether the public will have an opportunity to have an input into the review?

I am a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which is examining ways to complement existing funding. It is important that we continually consider and revise innovative ways of raising revenue to enable us to continue to make effective public spending decisions, and to finance them. We must also look at current rating policy, as there are inequalities in the system that need to be dealt with to bring forward a more equitable system for raising revenue. I support the motion.

My party is unhappy with the proposed rates increase, and will be voting accordingly. We are on record as expressing our opposition to the increase, and it is important at this stage to reiterate some of our reasons for that.

I am concerned that the regional rates may be hiked above a level that already exceeds the rate of inflation. That is a matter of concern for us and probably for all constituents in Northern Ireland who are represented by the parties in the Chamber. Many Members are also councillors. We have done our best at council level to be prudent and to trim the rates. We have trimmed the rates to the bare minimum, in many cases, to ensure that while the services are delivered, constituents are not overburdened with a rates rise at this time of year.

The past year has been particularly difficult at council level for several reasons, such as councils' responsibility for waste collection and disposal and the landfill tax. European regulations have been targeted at councils, which have been duty-bound to deliver on recycling. Although many councils have been happy to do that, it has been a burden on them. We are of the opinion that the financial burden associated with recycling could in some way be alleviated through the regional rate. We are concerned that EU regulations impose financial burdens.

Many Members feel that a fairer rating system is needed. Some of my constituents have expressed concern about buildings that have been lying vacant for several years because the businessmen and the owners have been unable to lease them. In many cases, that has been because of a campaign of terrorism. Towns have borne the brunt of that, and certain buildings have remained vacant. The owners have done their best to ensure that the buildings are maintained to a certain standard. However, a rates burden is placed on the owners of the properties - people who have tried to avoid spending any more money on them.

The proposed changes will mean that people with vacant properties will be charged at a high level for their rates. That should be reconsidered, and their particular circumstances should be taken on board. There are several reasons for that, the most important of which is that people in the Province are already overburdened with rates. It is only fair that the people in this Province receive the value for money that they deserve, and that is not offered with this rates increase.

The proposal is to increase the rates. The rates will be increased in real terms by 7%, not by the headline figure of 3·4%. Although that is the specified increase in rates, the amount of the rebate has been reduced by 3·37%.

What is the purpose of the rates? The rates are intended to provide the financial resources out of which most of our local government services are funded. Initially, all of those services were funded by rates, but, over the years, central Government put more and more money into work that had previously been a burden borne solely by the ratepayers.

Patricia Lewsley has suggested that, as rates are the only tax-raising power left to the Assembly, and the only source of income other than the block grant, innovative measures should be put in place and that we should be exercising our rating powers to gain revenue with which to fund other services. A picture is painted of a Health Service desperately in need of funds; of an education service that requires all sorts of financial resources for infrastructure; and of a regional development sector for which money is required in respect of transport. It is suggested that the source of that money, other than the block grant, should be rates and that we should continue to increase them. I see Ms Lewsley apparently raising her eyebrows, but I am sure that anyone who analyses the whole drift of her statement -

Will the Member give way?

No, I will not give way.

The Member is misquoting me, for a start.

I am not misquoting - when the Member's speech is analysed, that will be in it. The Member painted a picture of all of those services requiring resources and of there being no point in going to the Treasury as it would not be willing to assist. Therefore, it follows, we must think of measures which will raise money to resource those great endeavours.

In fact, the absence of money and resources is down to several factors, and it is open to this Assembly to correct those factors - something that it has been slow to do. A huge amount of public money is being poured down the drain in an excess of administration and a multiplicity of quangos. If the system had been pruned from day one, instead of being promised endless reviews, enormous amounts of money would have been available to fund the services that we are now apparently going to fund through increased rates.

Furthermore, the super-bright people who arranged the agreement knew that there was a huge deficit in capital investment in Northern Ireland's infrastructure that could never be replaced out of the annual block grant - and I have repeated that point many times. Yet, when the agreement was being negotiated, there was no question of telling the Government that they had to make good the amount of money that they had saved through underinvesting, or not investing, in that infrastructure.

Indeed, if my memory serves me right, the Minister of Finance and Personnel announced to a public gathering a couple of weeks ago that something in the nature of £4 billion to £5 billion would be needed over the next four to five years.

It was over the next 10 years.

The Minister says it was 10 years, but I believe that he stated that a substantial proportion of that money would be required in the shorter term of four to five years. Where will this money come from if not from an increase in the block grant? Apparently, if we do not go to the Treasury and demand what we ought to have received in the first place, the money will be raised by the only means available to the Assembly - milking the people of Northern Ireland through the rates system.

In a previous debate I mentioned the absence of any liaison between Departments on a strategic plan for governing Northern Ireland - joined-up government, some might term it. Let us look at some of the effects that will arise from these significant increases in rates. There are many small businesses in Northern Ireland that are not run to make a profit over and above paying the people who run them. They are one-man businesses - florists, greengrocers, corner shops, boutiques and other small businesses - and a significant increase in rates will put them out of business. These people are making a living, but they are not putting away vast profits. They do not constitute a charge on public finances because they are not drawing benefit or anything else. However, when they go out of business, as they inevitably will if there are significant hikes in rates, they may well be a charge on public resources.

What do we see in other Departments? We see vast amounts of money being spent by LEDU on expensive television advertisements giving information about starting a small business. If one wants to do that, LEDU will provide all the necessary support. It will work out business plans to get people started. However, when people examine what happens to small businesses, and when they prepare a business plan to find out how much money will be required not only to rent their premises but also to pay rates, many will be dissuaded. LEDU, which is now joined with another Government body or quango charged with creating jobs, is spending huge amounts of money per job created. That money comes out of the public coffers, and nobody seems to mind if £20,000 or £30,000 is spent in creating a job that may or may not last for very long. No one thinks that if these small businesspeople are put out of business, it is costing jobs.

I want to know how much money the Minister expects to raise from this increase in rates? Has his Department investigated the number of small businesses that may go under if there are significant rises in the rates? How much, ultimately, will the Government have to pay if these people become a charge on the public revenue? We have an Assembly and Executive that has one tool with which to raise money, and they simply cannot resist getting their sticky fingers on the levers of power to extract money from ordinary small businesspeople to blow on grandiose schemes such as the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

What does the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister do, other than spend £36 million on administration? What does the Assembly do, other than spend £1·2 billion on 11 Departments?

Leave it.

No, I will not leave it. I will stay here to be a constant thorn in your side and in the sides of people like you.

The Minister said that £313 million is raised through local rates. The Assembly must decide what proportion of its expenditure should be raised locally. Some parties appear to continue as they did during direct rule - they call for more spending but for someone else to pay for it. Some of the Assembly's decisions in this regard are not easy. However, it can determine how much funding will be spent on necessary provision in Northern Ireland; for example, health, education, public transport, roads and water treatment. Some people's financial calculations do not appear to add up - they want more money, but they do not want it to be raised in any way, so there is no logic to their argument.

It is strange that a Minister of the party that leads the charge has received in his Department one of the highest increases in departmental funding for next year. That allocation was made in recognition of the needs of that Department; for example, inadequate public transport and water treatment infrastructure. It is hypocritical that the party of a Minister whose Department has received one of the higher funding increases should argue that the proposed rates increase should be reduced.

Good work is being done in the Assembly. I value the opportunity to contribute to the Public Accounts Committee, which highlights inappropriate spending that was hidden in the past. All Departments and Statutory Committees must ensure that taxpayers' money is used to achieve best value at regional and local government level. I wish that every Member would contribute to the scrutiny of Committees and their Departments. Some Members decide not to contribute but to grandstand here for the cameras. It is important that everybody contribute. If money is badly spent, that should be highlighted, not only in plenary sittings, but in Committee meetings during which Members should take civil servants and Ministers to task.

The Assembly must make difficult decisions about rates. However, the books must be balanced, and Members should consider that when they vote.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. The Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 represents a reasonable compromise between the need to generate sufficient revenue to sustain and improve key public services and the equal need not to place a greater financial burden on ratepayers than is absolutely necessary. We have achieved a proper balance, although inevitably not everyone would agree.

The main arguments have been rehearsed before, at the draft Budget announcement in September 2001 and during the Assembly debate of 11 December 2001 on the programme and expenditure proposals. More points were raised today, and I shall try to cover all of them.

I am unsure of whether I understood Mr Shannon's point correctly. He must be aware that non-occupied properties are not subject to rate charging. That includes non-domestic properties as well as domestic properties.

Patricia Lewsley quite rightly emphasised the need for the Assembly to examine carefully the revenue sources it has direct control over, to see to what extent they can fairly and equitably contribute towards meeting our public expenditure needs. She correctly stressed that there are significant deficits in our services and infrastructure that must to be made good. We must satisfy ourselves, in the first instance, and the Treasury, that we are making the best use of revenue sources that we control directly.

To illustrate this point, I will compare the average domestic rate bill in Northern Ireland and the average council tax per chargeable dwelling in England. In Northern Ireland the average is £414·11 in 2001-02; in England, it is £740·54. I am trying to compare like with like. There is a significant difference in the average contributions made in Northern Ireland and in England. I am not arguing for an increase to match what is being paid in England; I am simply drawing attention to the discrepancy. The Treasury is fully aware of this, and we are reminded of the discrepancies and being asked to examine carefully the revenue streams that we control.

We are about to launch a major review of rating policy. I trust that people such as Assemblyman McCartney will make his views known during the consultation process. It will probably commence in April and conclude later in the year. That will give us time to address the outcome of the consultation and any recommendations proposed. There will be full consideration of the basis on which rates and property taxes can be levied to ensure that they are as fair and as equitable as possible.

Mr McCartney quite rightly pointed to the considerable sums that we require to make good the deficit in our infrastructure. Everybody recognises that deficit, and Members speak about it almost daily. We are aware of emerging plans. For example, the Minister for Regional Development has already stated what he estimates we will require over the next 10 years - approximately one quarter of the £4 billion to £5 billion mentioned by Mr McCartney. I referred to it in the course of the seminar. He obviously paid some attention to the report of that seminar.

That is a significant sum, and we must ensure that we acquire the necessary resources. Some of those resources may be acquired from local revenue streams; others may be acquired from the development of public-private partnerships. Members know that the vast bulk of our resources come by way of the block grant, which we addressed, in part at least, during debate on an earlier motion.

The points made by Mr Beggs support the position that I have outlined. He spoke about our considerable needs, and we must face up to the challenge of acquiring the necessary resources to meet those needs.

Mr McCartney asked what we estimate the revenue from the regional rate for this year to be. We estimate that it will be over £330 million - I made that point in the course of my remarks. He also asked about the effects on small businesses. Again, I pointed out in my opening remarks that revaluations are taking place and, when completed, will take effect from April of next year. I also made the point that businesses in areas of relative decline are likely to benefit. That will be welcome news to businesses that have experienced difficulties.

With those remarks, I conclude my response and hope that if -

Will the Minister give way?

Not at this point. I am winding up.

I trust that I have covered all the substantive points made, but if I have missed any, I will write to the Members concerned.

 << Prev