I assure the Member that we will do all in our power to ensure that local suppliers, which, for the most part, are small- and medium-sized enterprises, are aware of what is required in terms of cost and quality. The assistance available to them will be for other Departments, or, specifically, for the procurement directorate, to provide, rather than my Department. Nonetheless, we are anxious to ensure that local suppliers take maximum advantage of the considerable opportunities that exist with Government expenditure to win contracts and develop their enterprises. The point about more direct forms of assistance needs to be addressed to other Ministers - most particularly the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

The Minister's statement refers to a pilot scheme. He has suggested that there is a belief that the integration of social policy may run contrary to either EU law or international procurement law. Given that belief is it not foolhardy to continue with a pilot scheme that could leave Departments vulnerable either to EU enforcement or to litigation by disgruntled companies? How can he ensure that when companies tender for those pilot schemes they do not try to fiddle the system and gain advantages by taking on long-term unemployed people on a short-term basis for the duration of the contract? If social policy is to be brought into procurement decisions, how can the Minister guarantee the long-suffering taxpayers in Northern Ireland that there is value for money in procurement?

The details of the project have still to be finalised, so it is not possible to answer the Member's points with precision. An announcement will be made today about our policy approach.

It is normal practice to state what a policy will be, and then to highlight the areas that it will affect. It is the responsibility of those who will implement the policy to detail how it will affect those areas. Members who think that they know better than everybody else in the House should not snigger or make snide comments about the matter. We are aware of our obligations on EU Directives, and we can develop procurement policies that take account of social policies. We are not inhibited from proceeding with the pilots, although the Member suggested that we might be.

Wearing my agricultural hat, does the Minister share the concern of the agriculture industry that Government food purchases for schools, hospitals and departmental canteens are usually imported and do not match the standards of local quality-assured products? That practice is questionable with regard to health, and it offers no support to local producers.

I would be concerned if food were being procured that did not meet the required quality standards or take into account health considerations. Therefore, I would seek advice on the nature of the terms and conditions that apply to procurement practices in the sectors that the Member identified. I would want assurances that quality was a specified condition, and if the food were found to be unsatisfactory, the matter would have to be addressed. I thank the Member for raising an important question that needs further investigation.

The Minister's statement points out that

However, he does not inform the House how that will be achieved, an issue that has been queried on several occasions. If the Minister is not prepared to tell the House how that will be achieved, will he assure Members that he will give them that information in writing, or at least place it in the Assembly Library, so that it can be scrutinised?

The statement continues by saying that

What comfort will firms in Northern Ireland take from the Minister's statement, particularly if they are paying off workers, only to find that businesses south of the border are securing contracts here? Should firms here not be given priority?

The Minister said that the proposed approach would be compatible with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That section does not deal with best value; it is concerned with political correctness.

I do not accept that equality issues, as the Member seems dismissively to claim, relate to political correctness. Affording equality of opportunity to all our citizens is a fundamental principle and a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement and legislation on the matter. It must be inherent in all aspects of Government policy and practice, and we must clearly demonstrate that.

With respect to the Member's initial question on best value, I said later in my statement that the concept is central to public procurement policy, but the Executive have not adopted a narrow definition. They defined it as

Those criteria must be applied to every contract so that we can demonstrate always that best value for the public's money has been achieved. Therefore, we are not shying away from the question of best value.

I refer Mr Morrow to my previous answers relating to Northern Irish suppliers. Suppliers, North and South, operate within the European framework. Suppliers from the South are entitled to bid for Government contracts in Northern Ireland, as suppliers here are entitled to bid for contracts in the South of Ireland. Indeed, suppliers can bid for contracts beyond the shores of this island, and many have done so successfully. I am sure that everyone is anxious to see suppliers gain even more contracts outside Ireland. Our responsibility is to encourage and assist them to do so, while complying with the requirements of European Directives on public procurement.

Dr Paisley, you had a point of order. Do you wish to -

It is too late.

Review of Rating Policy

TOP

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the review of rating policy.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Dr Farren): On behalf of the Executive, I open public consultation on our local rating system.

The Executive agreed in 2000 that a full review of our revenue system was needed. After detailed research and discussion involving the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the Departments and the Ministers, we launch the consultation paper on the review of rating policy. The paper that Members have is the final version of the text - although it will appear in a better, printed form in the next couple of weeks.

The Executive decided to embark on this review in recognition of the fact that the present system is unfair, out of date and does not meet our current needs. The subject is not easy to address: it is complex and provokes strong reactions. However, we are not in Government so that we can avoid the difficult issues. Any proposals for a local taxation system, which is what the rating system is, will touch the lives of all the households and businesses in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we have been mindful of the consequences of radical change.

I have been asked why the Executive cannot be more imaginative in seeking ways of raising local revenue. I have been asked why we have to look to the rates. The answer is that we do not have to restrict ourselves to rating property. However, our options are limited by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 - we cannot readily introduce anything like income tax or VAT.

More importantly, international experience tells us that almost all developed countries continue successfully to operate property-value-based local taxes to help pay for local services. The consultation paper focuses on such systems, but other ideas are not ruled out, providing they can be easily administered, are stable, recurring, and fair to all, and do not have undesirable economic, social or environmental effects.

The consultation paper is not exclusively a Department of Finance and Personnel product. It is an Executive paper, and all Ministers have been consulted and have had an opportunity to have an input. We have worked with the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which has employed a team of rating experts from outside Northern Ireland. The Committee has helped shape the document, and I appreciate its input.

It has been our intention to address the issues in a considered, balanced, open and transparent way. The consultation paper does not make any proposals or recommendations, but it expresses the issues and available options as neutrally as possible, setting out objectively the pros and cons of the possible changes that might be considered.

Nothing was ruled in by the Executive, and nothing was ruled out, apart from domestic water metering and the rating of agricultural property. The consensus among Ministers was that those issues should not be put forward as options in the paper. I reassure Members that any decisions on changing the system, or elements of it, will take full account of the views expressed in the consultative process.

Twelve key issues are identified in the report. Although the question of how individual bills compare with what ratepayers and council-tax payers contribute in GB is addressed, the core of the review is about developing a system that distributes local revenue requirements in a fairer way.

I will not go through all the key issues covered in the paper. However, it might be useful if I mentioned two of the more difficult choices that we face - domestic rating and industrial derating. The present domestic rating system is very hard to defend. In presenting the options in the paper, we have included a dispassionate description of the existing system. However, it is quite difficult to find any defence for the existing domestic system. It does not target social need. On the contrary, in the distribution of the tax burden, it tends to disadvantage the less well off. Although there is a gradual upward curve, the amounts levied flatten out quite markedly for those in more expensive housing.

Therefore, ratepayers with low incomes that are just above the housing benefit threshold pay more than they would do under a fairer system. In taxation language, the system is not progressive. The valuation list is relatively flat and discriminates little between market levels and sectors. A revaluation is long overdue. The last one occurred in 1976 and was based on late 1960s rental values that reflected prevailing social and economic conditions.

The system lacks clarity and transparency. The figures in the valuation list are meaningless to the ratepayer. The rateable values are artificial, so most people cannot understand the basis on which they are asked to pay. That has an impact on an individual's ability to decide whether his or her assessment is fair, and it affects the public attitude to the appeal process.

Although we have presented the options neutrally, it is widely accepted that a revaluation cannot be conducted on the basis of rental value because an active private rental market exists in only certain areas and market sectors. If the independent market evidence were not widely available, the system would be rendered arbitrary. The main case for domestic revaluation is based on redistribution and the relative contributions of those in prosperous areas compared to those in less well-off areas. However, the inequities of the current system will be exposed even more if the Assembly increases revenues significantly using the current tax base. After all, the review began after the outcry about the increases proposed in autumn 2000. For that reason, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and I have given assurances that there will be no abnormal increase unless, and until, a fairer system is introduced.

If colleagues doubt the difficulty of defending the present system, they may refer to the many occasions in the Assembly when my predecessor and I faced questions on, and criticism of, the system. The calls to review the system urgently were clear and strong, as they have been for many months. Furthermore, if we agree to consider redistributing the domestic rating burden, we must ensure that there are appropriate safeguards for vulnerable groups and individuals who are beyond benefit support. That means taking into account people's ability to pay, the avoidance of genuine hardship and ensuring that we do not distort benefit calculations to our disadvantage, by comparison with other regions.

Industrial derating has existed since 1929 and is unique to Northern Ireland - no other region provides that tax break. It costs Northern Ireland £64 million a year, an issue that is likely to generate strong views. It was felt that the matter was so sensitive that it was examined separately, with assistance from external consultants. We wanted to determine the need for industrial derating, its purpose, its continuing relevance and its effectiveness.

A copy of the report will be made available with the consultation paper to inform debate, and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library today. The study found that the justification for continued industrial derating was questionable, and there are strong arguments in favour of phasing it out. Furthermore, the consultants argued that the overall economic impact of its removal would be negligible in the medium term and that it is not a cost-effective tool of economic development.

I acknowledge that there are strongly held opposing views. A variety of interested parties believe that derating is a significant incentive to attract inward investment, a useful counter-measure to the attractive fiscal regime available in the South, and a partial compensation of the additional costs faced by industries here. The review will take all those views into account.

I mentioned two of the more difficult issues in the consultation paper, which also outlines what we pay rates on, existing and potential rate relief, and how best to deal with vacant rating and/or making owners ultimately liable.

The paper includes an examination of relief for particular groups, ranging from broad reliefs, such as the single person allowance, to more selective ones, such as assistance to pensioners or those who find it hard to make ends meet. The paper also covers some ideas for new reliefs for the commercial sector, such as small business and hardship relief. The list is not exhaustive, and consideration of different reliefs may emerge from public consultation. Again, we shall welcome any views on that.

I understand that the pressure for introducing additional reliefs or a different set of reliefs will be immense and diverse, but we must maintain a careful balance. After all, the rating system is the mechanism through which businesses and households pay their contributions to regional and local services, so if reliefs are wide ranging, they put an unfair burden on remaining ratepayers.

Funding of water services is also considered in the paper. The Assembly is well aware of the investment requirements of the water and sewerage systems, and the Minister for Regional Development has estimated that investment will amount to some £3 billion over the next 15 to 20 years. Water services in Great Britain are no longer in the public sector, so we do not receive any consequential funding under the Barnett formula, and all funding must be found from within our departmental expenditure limit. We must face that difficult issue, and the paper sets out some of the options we can consider. Others may be identified during the consultation.

The Executive are not in the business of creating financial hardship for anyone, and I emphasise that for any change in the rating system after the review, there will be carefully planned transitional arrangements to avoid hardship and to allow time for those paying to adjust.

The consultation period will run beyond the summer until mid-September. Three or four public seminars will take place around Northern Ireland in June, followed by a series of meetings with interest groups and organisations. A web site is ready to provide information and elicit feedback. Assessment of the responses will begin in the early autumn, and a range of options will be identified. An impact analysis will be carried out on those options, and a report will be made to the Executive, involving the Committee for Finance and Personnel, in the autumn.

The programme will be sensitive to the results of consultation and feedback and to the extent of amendments and additional work deemed necessary. The legislative process will follow throughout 2003 and possibly early 2004 when final decisions will be made.

During the various stages, some useful links can be made between the rating policy and public administration reviews. Some aspects of those reviews, however, are distinct. I do not agree that conclusions from the review of public administration are needed before we can make progress on the rating issues. One is a matter of ratepayer contribution; the other involves distributing revenue in the most appropriate way to any new structures that emerge. We must address the basis on which we raise revenue for regional services as well as those covered by the councils. Those services will continue no matter what structures are in place.

I fully expect the consultation on rating to be complex and contentious. Time will be needed to assess the implications of the response to consultation from both an official and a political point of view. It seems realistic to plan on the basis that we will need to consider carefully when to take substantive decisions and how implementation of possible options might be phased. Responses to the consultation will clarify matters, and that in turn will affect the timetable for decisions. Furthermore, the neutrality and openness of the consultation are underscored by our deciding in the autumn the phasing on which any substantive decisions will be taken.

The recently announced reinvestment and reform initiative was not conceived until the rating review was well advanced. There is, however, a relationship between the two, in the sense that any additional revenue we decide to raise locally must come from a reformed and fairer system. The manner in which we address the review of rating will be a measure of how responsibly we are prepared to face difficult issues. The issues are complex, and the challenge is considerable. I am keen to hear Members' views, now and over the coming months.

The moment of interruption for Question Time is 2.30 pm. Therefore I remind the House to be as concise as possible in putting and responding to questions.

I welcome the Minister's statement. It is one thing to say that the current system is unfair, but it will be quite another to put an acceptable alternative in its place. I caution against the abolition of the industrial derating scheme, largely because of the negative impact that it is likely to have on small businesses in Northern Ireland. The clear inducements offered by the regime in the neighbouring jurisdiction would have an adverse impact on the Northern Ireland economy. How does the Minister envisage progress after the consultation period? Who will carry out the assessment, and who will be responsible for developing the proposals?

I ask the Minister to bear in mind the strong representations made by many people who feel that rating is a very important matter. Some people feel that small buildings - local community buildings such as Orange halls - should not be charged rates. Will the Minister pay particular attention to those representations and also to those made by the equestrian industry for the derating of equestrian centres? Many groups and individuals will want to make strong representations. Is the consultation period long enough, given that it is over the summer months, to allow such groups and individuals to make a real contribution?

Before inviting the Minister to respond, I would like to point out that this is a statement on a policy issue. I must ask Members not to get into the nitty-gritty of every little bit and piece. Whether they expect the Minister to respond, or someone outside to take notice of it, is another matter, but we cannot have detailed issues of this kind on a policy statement of such a substantive order. However, the Member did ask general policy questions and I invite the Minister to respond.

I am unveiling the approach to a consultation process that will involve all interested parties and the public at large across Northern Ireland. I do not come with answers to particular questions this afternoon. The answers are to be elicited and developed during the consultation and an assessment of what the consultation provides us with thereafter. Therefore, if Members are looking to me for answers on particular aspects of rating policy, they will be somewhat disappointed. I am anxious to hear what people in the House and elsewhere have to say on the issues. The matter will advance in the usual way. The Department of Finance and Personnel has a particular responsibility in that regard.

The process will develop in consultation with the Executive and the Committees that are directly affected. For example, the Committee for Regional Development and the Minister for Regional Development will be anxious to make a contribution on the future financing of the Water Service. The Minister has told me some of his ideas on that matter, although I am not sure whether he has revealed them to the Committee.

I agree with the Member that replacing a system is difficult. It is easier to recognise the deficiencies of the existing system, but to acknowledge that the system is deficient in many ways, amounting to an inadequate account being taken of social need, places a heavy responsibility on us to address the rating system and to come up with recommendations that will remove gross inequities and make it fairer.

The rating policy review could well be one of the most important initiatives that the Executive will have embarked on, as it will touch the life of every person in Northern Ireland, and it could pave the way for significant increases in our ability to invest in public services. In those circumstances, it is vital that everyone has their say. Can the Minister outline in more detail how the consultation will happen, and who will be consulted? How will equality and new TSN be taken into account in the review?

I agree that this is probably one of the most significant consultation processes, and I trust that there will be considerable involvement in it.

Mr Kennedy made a point about time; the Department has set aside 14 weeks for the consultation. At this stage I do not want to make any commitment to extending that period, but I hinted earlier that we will take account of the interest generated and give consideration to ensuring that submissions are well developed and that everyone who wants to be heard, can be. Let us address the time pressures closer to the end of the formally declared consultation period.

We can try to involve everyone by highlighting the issues through public events. I am sure that district councils, which are directly affected, will be anxious to meet me or departmental officials. Assembly Member Kennedy identified several interests, but there are many more and we will be available to hear their concerns. The work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be crucial. If sections of society are being missed in the consultation process, I hope that they will be identified early on. If we are failing in any regard, I hope that Members will draw it to our attention so that we can rectify it.

The Minster has said that he is anxious to hear what the Assembly has to say. He has outlined how he will consult with the general public. How will the matter be debated in the Assembly? In another place, given that radical changes are involved, there would be a Green Paper, which would explain all the options, followed by a White Paper, which would indicate what the Government's view might be in certain circumstances. Both those papers would be debated in the House.

In answer to a previous question of mine, the Minister spoke about a motion being tabled. However, this is not a matter for private Members' business. It concerns impending Government policy. Therefore, the Government must take responsibility for the child that they will beget. They must, by way of a motion in the House, put the onus on the Assembly. The matter must be discussed thoroughly in the House, and I want an assurance from the Minister that that will happen.

The Minister knows the views of my party. The DUP does not believe that the rates system is the only system whereby money can be raised or saved.

I notice the irritation on the face of the Hon Speaker of the House. I will not fizzle his beard any further by making a speech.

I am pleased that the Member has spared the House that imposition.

I have no objection to the matter being debated in the House. I am happy to give consideration to the most appropriate timing of such a debate. It would probably be useful for the consultation process to continue for some time so that Members are informed of the views of interested parties and of the general public before the debate. Perhaps the debate should be scheduled for the early autumn. However, I am open to suggestions.

We are also open to suggestions with regard to the raising of revenue. However, legislative constraints in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 preclude the income tax route, which might be one method of raising revenue that the Member has in mind. There is no reason why the House should not debate the matter. The Executive will give serious consideration to any views expressed. They will be communicated to the Treasury, and discussions will be initiated.

I welcome certain sections of the statement. I welcome the Executive's recognition - at long last - that the present system is unfair, out of date and does not meet current needs. I welcome the fact that nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out, and that the domestic rating system is now being seen as hard to defend.

I remain unconvinced of the genuine neutrality and openness of the consultation process. In reading this statement, and other papers associated with it, I can see the Executive's large footprints leading in a particular direction. The idea is to scrap rental values as the basis for free rates, to introduce capital evaluation and to scrap the abolition of industrial derating. The Executive are intent on making that happen, and they are also intent on the introduction of water rates. The imprints are already there.

In that respect, an opportunity has been lost. Does the Minister not agree that energies would have been better directed towards enabling the introduction of local income tax in Northern Ireland? That is unquestionably the most fair, equitable and transparent system of taxation. Going down this route effectively slams closed the door to local income tax. Surely we are not going to spend all this money on producing documents, having consultation and introducing a new system in a year's time only to introduce local income tax later?

Does the Minister not agree that, no matter how much we tinker with the rating system - changing the basis from rentable value to capital value - all we are doing is massaging the figures and introducing arbitrary reliefs? Does he not agree that the document is another contrived mechanism for furtively introducing a "tap tax" in which one of the only things ruled out would be water meters? Our poor consumers would not be able to assess the amount of water they use, yet they would have to pay for it.

Does the Minister not agree that an opportunity has been lost to bring about true change and demonstrate real fairness and equity?

I cannot accept the Member's invitation to agree with him. I defend the approach adopted in the consultation paper. That approach gives opportunities for debate. It is also open to recommendations on other forms of raising revenue - that option has not been precluded. This is a democratic society, and the Member is free to articulate his views and make them known during the consultation process. Mr Close is a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and I await concerted views on alternative forms of taxation from him or, indeed, the Committee. That is not a criticism of the Committee. The Member frequently refers to local income tax, but I have not seen any firm proposals emanating from him or his party. I await such documentation and recommendations that the Member might deem worthy of putting before us.

We are constrained by current legislation. The Member is aware that, during the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement, some of us were anxious to open up the subject of taxation for wider consideration. Although that was not possible then, it may be so in the future. Issues such as those relating to local forms of taxation could be addressed in the review of the Good Friday Agreement. However, it will be an uphill struggle to achieve what he suggests.

I do not accept that a rating system is necessarily regressive. If we continue with a rating system, we must make it as progressive as possible - that is the challenge in the consultation paper. By raising issues such as industrial derating, the document reflects the view of consultants who were employed to address the issue in as objective a way as possible. The consultation paper reports their views. I emphasise that their views are not Executive policy.

We were urged that it would be appropriate to address the question of industrial derating. It should be addressed because it contains weaknesses and inadequacies, and it does not apply across the business sector. Therefore, it does not, as some Members claim, act as an incentive in attracting inward investment. Those views and conclusions result from an examination of the situation. Members and others outside may have different views, and I urge that those be made known so that all possible views and recommendations are available in the course of the consultation.

The Minister has acknowledged that the source of the current problems is the deficit of perhaps £9 to £10 billion, the result of underinvestment over the years, particularly in water and other public services. The Minister has also made it clear that the scope for raising revenue is limited to the rates and, potentially, water charging. The Minister agrees that the money received under the Barnett formula is barely sufficient to meet day-to-day running costs.

The proposals are essentially for the imposition of a wealth tax as a matter of policy. He says that that is fairer, but what he means is that he will tax, through the rates, those who have better properties. That will be justified under the guise of fairness. Will there be any end to the increases on that narrow band of water charges and rates, as interest on private finance initiatives (PFIs), other capital expenditure and borrowings from the Government under the recent arrangement clicks in? Is it not a policy under which the rates will be increased by substantial amounts year on year in order to fund the results of the Minister's own mistakes in not having ensured, at the time of the agreement, that the black hole of underinvestment was met, to some extent, by the British Government?

The consultation document contains no proposals. Options are set out, and that is appropriate. We do not, however, claim a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom, and the Member and other interests may want to make us aware of other options.

The Member has frequently made the point that at the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement there was no commitment to, as he puts it, make good the deficit. As I recall, the Member denied us the benefit of his wisdom and recommendations in the final stages of the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement. We are therefore left to speculate as to what might have been had Mr McCartney been present at that time.

The Minister's statement will assist in launching the review of rating policy, and I welcome it on behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. I also welcome the public consultation exercise. I hope that citizens and interested groups will be stimulated by the document and contribute to the review. They have an opportunity to influence what happens, and there will be no point in their making comments in several months' or years' time. I hope that they will be engaged and that they will make a mature and responsible contribution to the issues highlighted today and the options open to them.

I welcome rates relief and rebates for the working poor. The review will discuss the rating of vacant property. Some £48 million a year is lost through the lack of rates for vacant properties. Such a proposal would draw in significant funds even if just a proportion of the money were used. Does the Minister accept that other policy changes may be needed in tandem with changes to the rating policy? Issues might emerge during the review of the rating system, such as planning restrictions in certain areas.

The Minister stated his intention to hold several public seminars in June and to establish a web site. Will his Department co-ordinate the seminars directly or will they be facilitated by neutral organisations as was the case for the regional transportation strategy, the railways task force and the review of the Planning Service?

I welcome Mr Beggs's suggestions for the format and the auspices under which the public seminars would take place, and I will pass them on to the officials in charge. We want the consultation to be an open process in which all views are heard. I am not sure how we can take on board the planning issues to which Mr Beggs referred. However, if he has specific ideas on how they will affect rating policy, I suggest that he writes to the Minister of the Environment and my Department. It may be that he is thinking about the valuations that are struck on particular businesses depending on whether they are situated in a town or a city. If Mr Beggs would clarify his concerns, I will ensure that they are addressed.

Considering the amount of debate in the House on the review of rating policy, it is clear that it will be an important addition to our thinking on fiscal matters. However, does the Minister agree that the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative has changed the context in which the review is being carried out? That initiative, together with public-private partnerships and our public expenditure create new ways to improve infrastructure. What effect will the announcement of 2 May 2002 have on the review of rating policy?

The precise connection between the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative and the review of rating policy - indeed any reform to replace a system of local revenue raising - is that borrowing under the reinvestment and reform initiative must be serviced through local revenue sources. The Treasury set that condition so that the direct relationship between what we borrow and the means that we have available to service the borrowing could be clearly seen. The reinvestment and reform initiative provides us, through that borrowing facility, with access to significant capital at gilt rates to invest in our major infrastructural projects.

Everyone in the House knows the extent of the need for investment in such projects across the major services of health, education, transport, water, roads, and so on. Our judgement on the sources that we draw on for the necessary finance must be balanced carefully. A strategic investment body will be established to advise the Executive on how best to finance those major investment projects.

I think I understood the Minister correctly when he said that the revenue review would consider more than just the money that could be raised by rates and water charges. Will he assure us that any savings that accrue following the review of public administration will be allowed for in the review that he is undertaking? In addition, the Minister said:

I am sure that the Minister agrees that we do not just want to see a redistribution that may result in a lopsided rating, or other, system. We must devote our energies and expertise to ensuring that we create a fair and equitable rating system. The Minister has rightly emphasised that the main thrust of the review will be to ensure that we have a fairer rating system, if that can be achieved. Will he also assure us that the Assembly will have the final say on the matter when the exercise is finished and that there will not simply be a series of statements from him?

If Members need any assurance that the Assembly will have the final say on the allocation of public expenditure and the sources from which public money is raised that we have control over, I give it. Any such decision cannot be contained in a take-it-or-leave-it ministerial statement. I should have thought that I hardly needed to give such an assurance, but I give it.

The more we save, the less we have to borrow, and the more is available to us to spend directly from our own sources on the services and the infrastructure for which we have responsibility. We will work vigorously to achieve maximum savings across the whole Administration. We have a clear obligation, as I made clear today in my previous statement, and have made clear on other occasions. A lopsided rating system would not be fair. That is the simple response to the Member's concern about that part of the consultation document that highlights the disproportionate contributions that the current system requires from ratepayers on low and high incomes. A fair system seeks contributions in accordance with people's means.

Deficient and unfair as the present system might be in some respects, there are provisions to exempt people on the lowest incomes. Housing benefit is available, which enables such people to pay their rate bills. A concept of social justice must run through the entire system, and it is up to us to meet the challenge of achieving a system that adheres to such principles. The system must be as fair as we can possibly make it. Nobody likes to pay taxes.

I welcome the Minister's statement and the review of rating policy consultative paper. The issue is important; it is one that will be debated in the Assembly and across Northern Ireland for many years to come.

Several points are worth mentioning. The Minister said that he planned to hold three or four seminars across Northern Ireland in June. Is that sufficient to deal with the issue if it is so vital? Moreover, what mechanism does the Minister intend to use to consult with interested groups and organisations, and how does he intend to directly consult with local government? Given its importance, a separate or different mechanism for consultation with local government is necessary. Local government will want to be consulted.

Local government will be keen to be consulted, and it will hardly need much prompting from me - or from any other Minister - to become involved in the consultation process. It would not surprise me if the paper is circulated as soon as it falls into the hands of officials from our 26 district councils. The paper will be circulated to Members, and time will be set aside over the coming months for them to debate the issue and come to some concerted views. We shall consider any channels that we should use.

Mr Hay asked whether three or four seminars would be sufficient. I indicated in response to an earlier question that I am open to reviewing the need for such events. Public events are there to highlight the issues, and I do not imagine that decisions will be arrived at them. Such public events will draw in representatives and participants from a wide range of backgrounds. They will return to their various groups and organisations and stimulate debate. I hope that the events will be seen as a significant consultation, and that there will be considerable involvement. If Members are aware of groups to which we are failing to reach out, or groups that want to have an input and seek engagement with us during the consultation, I am happy to receive representations. I will try to see how we can meet any requests that are made.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many Members welcome the Minister's introduction of what is going to be an extensive hike on rates for the vast majority of our constituents. Make no mistake about it: what is being talked about today will have major and serious implications for our constituents. The Minister spoke earlier about Members being free to articulate their views during the debate in the Assembly. That will be interesting, because Members are often limited to five minutes in debates in which to articulate their views. That does not happen at Westminster when major taxation issues are being discussed. Make no mistake: this is a direct taxation on the people.

Thatcher introduced a poll tax through the front door and was frowned upon by the vast majority of people. Will taxation through the back door be more favourably accepted? Can the Minister assure us that there will no such time limit during the debate and that he will do all in his power to ensure that there is a frank and open major debate on an issue that will be of major importance to all our constituents in the future?

One of the issues that the Member raised is really a point of order. It is not for the Minister to determine the length of debates or the length of speeches during the debates. That is entirely a matter for the Business Committee to decide. The Business Committee could determine that a motion would take all week. The Member and other Members should channel their views through their representatives on the Business Committee. In fairness, the Minister can reasonably be asked questions only about matters for which he has responsibility, and that is not one of them.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I do not normally take them, but on this occasion I will hear what the Member has to say.

I did not ask the Minister to allocate the time. I asked him to use his influence to ensure that we have an open debate.

It is good that I clarified the matter for the House. It will be up to several Members when the time comes, one of whom is seated not very far from the Member - and he has great influence in these matters.

Much as I might be described as having influence, I am glad that you, Mr Speaker, have indicated the way in which it is circumscribed in this instance and that this is a matter for the Business Committee. Members must be able to debate such a significant matter, and I will welcome that opportunity.

There is absolutely nothing back door about this. If there were, I would hardly have come here, made my statement and responded in the way in which I did to show that this is an open process. It will be for the Assembly to decide what form or forms of local taxation it wants to adopt and the charges that might be associated with them. It is up to us to promote the discussion.

I note the Member's foresight in that he can tell us that we are going to have significant hikes. I have certainly made absolutely no statement in that regard. [Interruption].

Order.

Perhaps during the debate that the Member wants he will make proposals for the major hikes that he has referred to. I have certainly made no such proposals. During Budget debates in the future we will have to consider and determine the charges that are to be associated with our forms of revenue. There will be nothing back door about it; there is nothing back door about the process now, nor will there be during the public consultation that we are now embarking on.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>