The resources requested by the Department will enable the delivery of planned services in all the areas that I have mentioned and will support the next stages in a range of reviews, including reviews of rating, public procurement, promotion and recruitment to the Senior Civil Service, accommodation, and the scope for decentralisation of Civil Service jobs. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking just under £145 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is seeking over £2,321 million. That figure includes £2,230 million to be spent on delivering an effective, high-quality health and social care service to people in need; £60 million for fire services; and £31 million for departmental administration. When adjusted for capital payments and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is just over £2,330 million. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's Main Estimate identifies £41 million to meet the cost of the health and personal social services superannuation scheme. The net cash requirement for that Estimate is also £41 million.

A total net resource requirement of some £122·6 million is being sought by the Department of the Environment, together with almost £2·7 million for capital investment. That increase of £9·8 million above the resources that were available last year reflects the continuing need to resolve historical underfunding of the Department's functions. Around £6 million of the additional resources will be used to help meet international environmental obligations, including waste management and the transposition and implementation of European Union Directives.

The remainder of the increase - some £4 million - will be directed in a variety of ways, including assistance to district councils, the continuing effort to reduce road casualties, and support for the planning process. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking just over £111 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Department for Regional Development's Estimate comprises two requests for resources with a total net resource requirement of £1,768 million, together with £170 million to meet direct departmental investment in capital projects.

Request for resources A, which covers the roads, transport and the strategic planning functions of the Department, along with related central administration, amounts to some £1,287 million. Of that, almost £1,041 million is attributable to non-cash costs such as depreciation and cost-of-capital charges, substantially in respect of the roads network.

Provision is also made for capital expenditure of some £57·5 million, mainly by the Roads Service. That figure includes an allocation of £11·5 million from the Executive programme funds to enable five high-priority road schemes to progress.

With regard to transport, request for resources A includes some £56 million to fund capital expenditure by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company on the railway infrastructure service. This is included in the grants column on the resource side of the Estimate. Some £18 million is needed for other railway services, and some £26 million for road passenger services, including concessionary fares and rural transport.

Request for resources B relates to the provision of water and sewerage services, for which a net resource of some £481 million is needed. Depreciation and cost-of- capital charges amounting to £372·5 million are catered for. The £113 million needed for capital investment in the water supply, treatment and sewage disposal infrastructure includes £1·5 million allocated from the Executive programme funds. After accruals to cash adjustments are made, the Department for Regional Development's net cash requirement for the year is just under £520 million.

The Department for Social Development has sought £2,552 million for resources A, which covers its social security and child support programme. That figure is made up of non-contributory and income-related benefit expenditure of £2,365 million, £158 million for administration and £29 million for non-cash items such as notional interdepartmental charges, capital charges and depreciation costs. Included in the administration costs is some £41 million to enable the Department to progress its welfare reform and modernisation programme.

The sum of £294 million is being sought for resources B, which covers the housing programme. That figure includes programme expenditure of around £289 million, administration costs of £2 million, and £4 million for non-cash items. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts from house sales are taken into account, the gross resources available for housing will be over £632 million. For resources C, which covers the urban regeneration and community development programme, £71 million is being sought. That figure includes programme expenditure of £53 million, administration costs of £6 million and £12 million for non-cash items.

Within programme expenditure, £31 million will be provided to promote and implement a comprehensive approach to tackling physical and social regeneration and £8 million for grants to voluntary bodies. The sum of £8 million will be made available under the European Union's peace and reconciliation programme, of which £6 million will be funded from European Union receipts. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash figure and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department for Social Development is seeking £2,845 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is seeking total resources of £39·2 million. Some £15 million is to support the Executive in making and implementing well-informed and timely policy decisions and improving public services, while £23·3 million is to promote equality of opportunity and human rights, to improve community relations, tackle poverty and social disadvantage and meet the needs of victims. When adjusted for capital and non-cash items, the net cash requirement is £38·9 million.

The Assembly seeks £40·4 million to cover Members' salaries, expenses and administration costs. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £39·9 million. The Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints seek £0·9 million to investigate complaints against Departments and public and local bodies and to provide an investigative resource for the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £0·9 million. The Audit Office seeks £5·4 million to provide independent assurance to the Assembly on Government expenditure. The net cash requirement for this Estimate is £4·9 million.

Finally, the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas is seeking £0·1 million. This includes provision to cover salaries and other costs associated with gas-related work, which, as it falls outside the current licensed area, cannot be financed through licence fees. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, £0·05 million is required to fund expenditure on the Estimate.

The Estimates and the Budget Bill will set the framework for our spending plans for 2002-03 based on the Budget position approved in December. However, we already know that there will be quite significant funding changes in the coming year, which will need to be reflected in the Supplementary Estimates.

In addition to the normal in-year monitoring round - significant changes in themselves - the Executive will shortly be making funding announcements about the reinvestment and reform initiative and the infrastructure fund. Those will be followed by later announcements on the Children's Fund, the new innovation and modernisation fund and the social inclusion/community regeneration fund.

The spending plans that we are debating today represent another important step in the evolution of the Assembly. The Estimates and the Budget Bill consolidate what we have already achieved and establish the framework for our expenditure in 2002-03 and the delivery of public services.

We now have many important issues to look forward to. We will know the outcome of the UK spending review in July, and we will then know what resources will be available to us for the next three years. We will be setting plans for our expenditure in the Budget 2002 process, which I explained in my timetable statement on 4 March earlier this year. These plans will cover the three-year period from 2003-04, so that we can begin to move towards more stable, longer-term planning in line with our Programme for Government. The Programme for Government sets out our most important priorities alongside issues such as equality and new targeting social need, which cut across all our policies and initiatives.

In commending this Supply resolution to the Assembly, I am conscious that, as a devolved Administration, we have a clear responsibility to ensure that our spending plans address our agreed needs and priorities. The allocations that we are asked to agree today reflect priorities set and agreed by the Executive and the Assembly. That is not an insignificant point, and we should continue to be aware of the Assembly's responsibility to meet the needs of our people across the full range of public services. We also must ensure that there are appropriate levels of management and control over the use of these resources.

Our expenditure decisions affect directly the life of every citizen in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is an obvious message, but it is worth reminding ourselves of our responsibilities and of the impact of our decisions. Debates and decisions that come from this Chamber impact on the daily lives of the people of Northern Ireland; that might not be visible every day, but nonetheless the impact is real. We share a duty to make that impact as positive as we can.

This is particularly pertinent at a time when sectarian forces persist in their attempts to deepen divisions, inflame old hatreds and set sections of our communities against each other. The message from the Assembly to the people of Northern Ireland should be that by working together we are achieving positive results, and we will achieve even more than we did in the past by continuing to work together.

I welcome the Supply resolution debate to formally consider and approve the Main Estimates. The Main Estimates are the further development of the figures that were approved in the revised Budget last December. I agree with the Minister that minor improvements in the format of the Estimates have been made, following representations by the Committee for Finance and Personnel. The Minister has also stated his willingness to further consult with the Committee about other possible improvements and simplifications before next year's Estimates.

The Finance and Personnel Committee will readily act as a conduit for other Committees or Members who have suggestions for further improvements. At the Committee's request, the Department of Finance and Personnel held a seminar on the Estimates procedures for Members and staff recently, and further information will soon be distributed to those who were unable to attend.

Members' attention is needed on the current Estimates and Budget process. They should scrutinise them and hold the Executive to account for their spending priorities and plans for future years. That must be an ongoing exercise, not just a one-off measure relating to a key debate such as the Budget or the Estimates. Spending priorities must reflect the Government's objectives, and moneys must be spent effectively to achieve the desired outcomes and ensure that performance targets are met.

Statutory Committees can effect that scrutiny throughout the year: as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I value that role. Members can also pose probing questions to Ministers throughout the year to ensure effective expenditure. This should not be a set-piece debate: our attention should remain on it during the year.

The Executive's recent position report, 'Developing the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2003-04', will allow for six months of informed debate about hard choices on how to spend public funds, the Barnett allocation, and how we spend funds in the coming year. It is not simply a matter of saying that more money is required for everything. Difficult choices must be made, and informed debate should occur so that the best choices can be made.

On a more personal note, I welcome the increased resources set aside for health and social services, and the significant bids envisaged for that in next year's Budget. However, it is important that we deliver additional funds and ensure that the money is spent effectively. I look forward to the imminent publication of the needs and effectiveness analysis. That will assess how the money has been spent to date and ensure that money is better spent.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss and approve the Supply resolution. The public knows that the needs of society far outstrip the resources received from the Treasury.

One of the few ways of raising funds for health, education, roads and other necessary services is rates. Therefore, it is important that we approve the Supply resolution. However, it is also important that we support and approve the action of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, who does a difficult and complex job. His professionalism on these issues is commendable.

The Assembly, Committees and the Executive must work ceaselessly in pursuit of the goals of the community. We must build, innovate, develop and continuously improve our activities. We must continuously question the use of resources in every Department, asking whether they represent value for money. We need to ensure that our public procurement is used in ways that satisfy our needs and, where possible, liberate opportunities for our people and our economy.

I welcome the Minister's statement as a sign that devolution is truly bedding down. However, that brings with it a responsibility on Members to deliver on the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. Local responsibility and local decision-making is not a responsibility-free zone.

I welcome especially the funds that have been allocated by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to improve community relations, and I hope that people on the streets will soon witness an outcome of the use of such funds.

We have heard, and will undoubtedly hear today, appeals for more funding to be made available for particular projects and Departments. However, funds are severely limited. Some progress has been made in examining alternative and innovative ways to introduce new spending ability to the system, and that must be welcomed. The reinvestment and reform initiative offers an opportunity to begin to address the serious infrastructure backlog, which is a matter of record in the Assembly.

Moreover, the review of public-private partnerships in Northern Ireland is moving ahead. I hope that as many people as possible will take the opportunity to contribute to debates on that review, the review of public administration and the review of the rating system.

Much can be done to increase our spending power, within our system and resources, that can be added from outside. None of the advances that I mentioned release the Minister from his task of achieving the best possible outcome for Northern Ireland from the spending review. He needs the backing of all parties and Departments.

It has been said frequently here, and mentioned just now by Mr Beggs, that health services need resources. That is true, but the House must be assured that funding for health is spent as effectively as possible. The ongoing needs and effectiveness evaluations by several Departments are vital. I support the motion.

The way in which the Estimates have been presented to Members is bewildering. Roy Beggs said that minor changes had been made; however, I am sure that the language used in the Estimates could be simplified so that they are more accessible, not only for debate in the Assembly, but to the public. When it comes to accounting measures there is a need to use accounting terms. However, many of us are still getting our heads around AMEs and DELs when we are hit with RFRs and FOCSs and CFERs et cetera.

Sometimes I wonder whether the Department invents much of the terminology, to make those matters unnecessarily obscure. The presentation of the Estimates must be much more user-friendly in future.

I noted Ms Lewsley's comments about the need to examine expenditure, but also to support the Minister as regards rates. She pointed out that resources outstrip needs in our society. That will be a familiar call in years to come as the local tax, which this Administration impose, begins to increase. I do not accept that we should unnecessarily increase the sources of funds in Northern Ireland. In doing so, we sometimes stymie enterprise. We have before us almost £9 billion of expenditure. It is not impossible, with that amount of expenditure, to make sure economies as would enable the most pressing capital needs and other needs to be met without imposing a further local tax on those who seek to create jobs and provide economic development in Northern Ireland.

We are in the middle of the spending cycle that the Estimates refer to. Ms Lewsley said that we have seen the Administration bedding down and that Northern Ireland is moving into a new era promoted by the agreement. However, it is becoming clear that what is contained in the Estimates is being altered as a result of what has been going on in the streets over the past few months.

This year, 250 houses will have to be bought up under the special purchase of evacuated dwellings (SPED) scheme. That has not been factored into the Estimates. Seventy-five of those purchases - almost £7 million worth - will be the result of the activity of the armed wing of a partner in the Administration. As a result of the raid on Castlereagh by the IRA and the way in which that compromised the security of policemen, 75 families have had to move house, and 75 houses will have to be bought under the SPED scheme. That is just one incident; add to that the number of people who have been put out of their homes as a result of terrorist activity on the streets.

It is obvious that the best-laid expenditure plans are being unravelled and damaged by some who sit on the Executive, who draw up the budgetary plans and introduce the expenditure Estimates. At the same time, plans for housing - to give one example - are being disturbed and affected by the activities of those who sit here and pontificate as politicians while their less-savoury friends are out on the streets destroying houses and putting people out of their homes.

How many other spending plans will be affected by that kind of activity in the coming months? The Minister of Finance and Personnel's party continues to reward those who put a spanner in the works and who damage the manner in which spending in the Province is undertaken. It rewards them in many ways. It is best illustrated by the SDLP's and the Alliance Party's rewarding of a member of the political group that is at the heart of the street disorders that are rampant in Belfast.

Mr Wilson, you are straying from the item of business.

I hope that I have explained myself, Mr Deputy Speaker. It probably hurts when the finger of blame is pointed at those who have rewarded Sinn Féin/IRA in Belfast City Council. However, housing expenditure will be severely damaged. Members have heard that £600 million - including grants and capital receipts - is available for housing in Northern Ireland in the next year. However, the Housing Executive must buy up houses from people who have been intimidated, repair houses that have been wrecked and improve security on houses so that people can live without fear. That is as a result of the activities of parties represented in the Assembly and who, presumably, approved the Estimates.

I hope that the Estimates will become more user-friendly. I know that it is the job of Committees to examine Budgets at the stage when they are presented to them, and they do that. Before we impose further tax burdens on the public, I hope that we will look at what economies can be made in the £9,000 million represented in the booklet.

With regard to those who engage in activities across the Province that, in effect, drain resources away from much-needed areas of expenditure into unnecessary areas of expenditure created solely by their activities, I hope that they will not be rewarded in future and that everyone in the House will treat them with the disdain and contempt that they deserve.

This is one of the most important issues to come before the Assembly, because it literally affects every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland. Looking around the Chamber, a dozen or less representatives are present. In many ways that is an indictment of us and of how seriously we take our functions, because this affects everyone in some way or other. It is important that all Members, without exception, take an interest in the Estimates, the Budget and the expenditure of taxpayers' money, and it is in all of our interests that that be done.

With that in mind, I welcome, and for the Minister's attention I emphasise "welcome", the efforts that have been made in the past 12 months to make the Estimates more user-friendly. For example, the colour-coding is beneficial when examining each section and getting the meaning behind it. I also welcome the efforts, which the Minister referred to, to provide courses for Members and officials as a sort of guide through the Estimates. That is welcomed and is beneficial to all of us.

However, further improvements could be made. Mr Sammy Wilson referred to the language used, and it should be more user-friendly. He gave some examples, and I accept that there are certain terms that are established in accountancy and that trying to change them would create more confusion. However, we have introduced new language - for example, CFERs. Let us call receipts "receipts" and sales "sales" wherever possible, rather than using other terminology or jargon, which only makes understanding more difficult.

I would also like to see an easier read-across from one year to another. Last year's Estimates booklet does not co-ordinate with this year's. There is no straight read-across, and there should be. We are moving away from Government accounting to more commercial accounting. In company accounts there is a direct read-across from one year to another. There is no reason why that should not happen with our Estimates.

Does the Member not suspect that the failure to provide clear comparisons between one year and another is not accidental, but a method of burying unpalatable truths?

There are many occasions when bad news can be hidden in one way or another. However, I cannot judge whether it is the reason behind this, because I am not a Member of the Executive.

A simple read-across would help. For example, the sequencing of the presentation of the Departments - the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, then the Department of Finance and Personnel - should be the same from one year to the next.

That is not the case this year. I mean that as a constructive criticism, to try to help Members to further understand finance so that we can have a greater input and better represent those who sent us to the Assembly. I am saying this to ensure that there is best value for money and more interest in finance, which can be a boring topic. Finance is always boring except when it is your own. There are some small areas in which improvements could be made to help Members better understand the topic.

Another idea would be to highlight, with an asterisk, large differences between one year and the next. I am not talking about common inflationary increases; Members know that normal administration costs, for example, rise from one year to the next. However, as you flick through the document, you wonder why there are such large increases in some areas. For example, why is there a 15% increase in central administration under some of the votes? Adding an asterisk, and an explanation - if there is one - would certainly help Members, and would, perhaps, make those with suspicious minds less suspicious. It would remove the clouds of suspicion that may hang over certain figures.

The document has around 300 pages. I know that all efforts are being made to increase the time available to Members to do their jobs. That is all we are asking for - time to do our jobs. I admit that I have not had enough time to scrutinise the 300 pages properly. I have not had enough time to go through them in detail, and I am sure that I speak for several Members.

Members are working to tight deadlines. However, that should not be used as an excuse to bury us in paperwork that will lead to confusion. More effort must be made to give proper input into our timetable. The old cliché is very true: if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Due to time restraints, Members do not have adequate time to do their jobs properly, and everyone, therefore, loses out.

Other areas that the general public and taxpayers will be interested in when they consider the document are whether the Assembly is making any real difference; whether the general public is getting real value for money; and whether the Assembly has got its priorities right.

As regards priorities, the Assembly is, by and large, getting its priorities right. Health is the Assembly's priority, and must continue to be so. The general public would support that. However, they would be justified in asking how translating priorities into action actually works. If they see that the health budget has increased by around £200 million from last year, they can justifiably ask why waiting lists are still increasing. They could ask, "Is there a hole in the bucket?" The old song goes: "There's a hole in my bucket dear Liza, dear Liza." Well, "dear Liza" - or dear Bairbre - needs to fix that hole, and fix it quickly. The general public is becoming more and more concerned.

I recently received the Eastern Health and Social Services Board's quarterly service agreement - its monitoring report. Despite additional money being spent, the board had to report that at the end of April 2002 the number of delayed patients was 18% higher, and delayed days were 40% higher, than at the end of April 2001. Something is wrong if that happens. There is a problem that needs to be fixed.

There are other areas in which priorities must be questioned. For example, why are road safety services down almost £1 million on last year when the environment and heritage services are up by £5 million, or almost 15%? Priorities have not necessarily been properly established in that respect.

Much concern and alarm has been expressed about the Water Service, yet its allocation is down £2 million, while the administrative costs in vote B in the same Department are up 50%. Where are the priorities? Have we got them right?

Other Members will probably mention administrative costs, so I will be conservative in my comments. Almost £1 billion is being spent on administration. Depending on the calculation, and on whether other areas that would not necessarily be included under administration costs in the Estimates are incorporated, there could easily be in excess of £1 billion being spent on administration. Is that real value for money?

The Minister will mention, with some justification, the ongoing review of central administration. However, since the Assembly was established some four years ago, many reviews have been thrown into the wheelbarrow. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know what to do with a wheelbarrow - you push it in front of you, you never really get to grips with it, you keep pushing it forward.

The general public and the taxpayers are anxious to see the Assembly really making a difference. There will be a growing question about the efficiency and the effectiveness of this place until actions and resolutions on those reviews come before the House and until we get to grips with £1 billion being spent on administration.

I want the Assembly to work. The people who sent me here want it to work. They want value for money and to see money being spent on proper priorities. They do not want to see their money being lost or dissipated and scattered round foolishly.

I disagree with Mr Sammy Wilson, who said that we probably do not need additional sources of revenue. Considering that the infrastructure deficit is some £6 billion, we probably do. With the best will in the world, the savings that can be made need some form of revenue. That revenue should not come from rates; it should come from local income taxes. That is where I disagree with Mr Wilson - an additional source is needed. If we are going to make the difference -

Does the Member not agree that if the economies that he describes were made, the infrastructure fund, for example, could be entirely serviced from those economies, rather than having to levy additional taxes?

The extent of the bite that one attempts to take from the cake in dealing with infrastructural problems will dictate the amount of loans and finance that will be required in any particular year. However, a conservative estimate is that between £100 and £200 million could potentially be saved in the figures that we are considering. If rates and local revenue-raising were done away with, that would not be enough to service the debt.

There must be a local revenue stream. Rates are the wrong way to do it because they are regressive, although I will not go into that argument. To continually increase rates by 6% or 8% will lead to negative financing, because people will be driven out of business.

A new stream of resources must be considered. My preferred option would be local income tax. We should continue to argue that. I have said this before: I wish that the Executive had used the opportunity for review to put that on the table and have it properly costed and examined. An opportunity may well be lost unless the Executive change their mind and allow economists and others and those giving evidence to consider the potential of local income tax.

Another area of resource wastage that I have touched on is the expenditure of millions of pounds on the "glossy brochure" syndrome. That is still ongoing. Since I spoke about it, a couple of organisations have contacted me and asked for suggestions. I am not against consultation but I am against wastage through consultation. It should not be beyond the wisdom of the Executive and those behind them to target the people they seek to consult, and to do that succinctly and wisely. They need only an exercise in marketing. I am against throwing money away by sending out hundreds of documents to every citizen who happens to be on an equality list or whatever. Proper targeting brings the best results. A recent consultation document on radon gas was sent all over the place, yet only a few per cent responded. We have no resources to waste, so targeting must be specific.

I have referred to reviews, to the need for savings and to everything that we as an Assembly must do. I am glad that the Minister and Sammy Wilson touched on the vital message that must be sent to the thugs and gangsters who waste money in almost every Department. Mr Wilson referred to housing. We have seen the television footage of young thugs systematically wrecking house roofs. That will possibly cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to put right. We hear daily of attacks on ambulance men and their vehicles. How will that increase the number of nurses and doctors? People are dying, and thugs and gangsters attack ambulance men. It is crazy.

Is the Member aware that central Government subsidise a proliferation of organisations that are inextricably linked to those who are involved in paramilitary and terrorist activity? The aim is to bribe them, but it does not work.

I sympathise with the Member. The paramilitaries have had long enough to decide whether they want to be proper democrats, and they cannot sit astride two horses. In promoting the paramilitary horse they have fallen off the democratic one. Society has borne it for long enough. The Good Friday Agreement is being implemented, as are the changes. Although today we must focus on the Estimates, the destruction taking place has an effect on every Department. It is time for us collectively, as democrats and elected politicians, to say that enough is enough and to call on all terrorist organisations without exception, and on those who claim to have their ear, to get off the fence, stop and disband. We cannot afford to pour money into the black hole of terrorism, which destroys ambulance men, firemen and their vehicles, and attacks the police, and some parties do not even criticise the fact that a young policeman was almost killed a day or two ago.

I am impressed by the Member's points. He is an honest individual who gives of his best in any debate and holds sincere views. How does what he says today sit beside the decision of his three comrades in Belfast city hall last week to support the very people he now castigates? Will he give the reasons for that decision to the Assembly? The public do not understand it, Mr Close.

To get to grips with the problems, Members must stop playing games with them. I am making an unequivocal, unambiguous plea to everyone across the political spectrum to ask those who call themselves paramilitaries - I call them thugs and gangsters - to cease their terrorism, to disband their paramilitary organisations, and to reassure us, when we spend money and consider motions such as this, that that money will be spent in the interests of society. To enable us to build a better future for the people of Northern Ireland we must ensure that the thugs and gangsters who belong to paramilitary organisations will not waste not only life and limb and blood and sweat but scarce resources.

To paraphrase Mr Micawber, if your income is £1 and you live on £1 0s 6d, it is misery, and, if you live on 19s 6d, it is happiness. As is often the case, Mr Close referred to several topics, some of which I will not dwell on because he covered them so completely, and one or two others that I will attempt to amplify.

It is a matter of regret that a debate of this kind should warrant the attendance of a single member of the largest party in the Assembly in the form of Mr Beggs; that apart from one fleeting, swallow-like appearance of Mrs Nelis, there has been no representation from Sinn Féin - [Interruption].

I would hardly describe Mrs Nelis as a swallow.

I will not develop that point.

However, perhaps it is a reflection of the attention span of some Members that they are not here.

The Estimates contain an enormous amount of jargon and technical terms that would puzzle even the most acute mind and those who are interested in the subject. To those who have only a passing interest in financial matters, the Estimates are utterly bewildering; perhaps that is one reason for the paucity of Members in this place today.

Of course, the matter is open to some simplification. What makes up the income of the Executive and the Assembly? It consists of the block grant, several other minor matters, the possibility of raising money locally via rates and, possibly, charges for the supply of water or the discharge of effluent. What are our debts? They are the massive black hole of underinvestment in the infrastructure of Northern Ireland. Most of them were incurred by central Government, which for many years underinvested in the infrastructure of Northern Ireland with the result that our water system is in the last stages of decay, with upwards of 40% of our water disappearing into the ground. It is, perhaps, a blessing that we naturally have a plenitude of water here, but nevertheless, that represents a huge loss. The sewerage system in many areas of Northern Ireland is decayed and decrepit. Housing developments in some areas have been stopped because the sewerage system is inadequate.

Our waiting lists are an abomination. Not only are our hospital waiting lists 50% higher than those of any other region of the United Kingdom, they are the worst in Europe. We have an education system that requires reform but has been plunged not into reform so much as into proposed revolution. A vast amount of money will be required to commit to any new system and to repair the deficit of funding for school buildings and other ancillary equipment.

That is on the debit side. I have said repeatedly that those who negotiated the Belfast Agreement - [Interruption].

There were others.

Yes, those who negotiated it. The Minister does not want to hear about that, because he was one of the brainboxes involved.

The British Government wanted to devolve the problem, and they might have been willing to pay significantly for money that they saved by short-changing the people of Northern Ireland. There was a perfectly valid legal and moral case for saying to them that if they wanted us to take over this place, they ought to have provided some means, whether by direct grants or interest-free loans, to make good that deficit. None of that was done. The result is that the annual block grant under the Barnett formula is barely sufficient to meet Northern Ireland's annual running costs, let alone provide money that could be saved or put into capital investment.

What did the Executive do when, late in the day, they discovered the deficiency? They went to the British Government and told them, somewhat disingenuously, that they had sold them a pup. The Executive said that hospitals, schools, the water supply, the sewerage system and roads in Northern Ireland were in a mess. Some roads leading to the most important areas, such as the docks, have become a hindrance to business development. The Executive told the British Government that they had left them in a mess and asked what they would do about it. Judging from subsequent actions, I assume that they were told that public-private partnerships would be one half of a panacea for those difficulties and that the British Government's provision of loans, on which significant and substantial interest must be paid, would be the other.

From where will that interest be paid? Apparently, it will not be paid from any money that is recoverable from the block grant, but by the imposition of local taxes. What are those local taxes? In his previous statement, the Minister of Finance and Personnel talked about resource streams and funding streams. He meant rates, water charges and, possibly, effluent charges. Those sources of income were originally designed to provide for local services; they were not intended as a means of general taxation. Ms Lewsley let the cat out of the bag when she said that we need money to fund education, health and the environment from these resources.

As Mr Close said, when Governments get into bother they suggest a commission or a review, which puts everything on the long finger. He suggested that it is like putting something into a wheelbarrow and continuing to move; it is kept constantly ahead of oneself.

What have the Government done here? They have produced a review of rating policy, which, we are told, is purely a consultation document that nobody need get upset about because nothing is on the table or off it. The core objective of the rates policy review is to increase vastly the money to be screwed out of the ratepayers of Northern Ireland, perhaps by 50%, 100% or 150%. The document suggests that rates should be raised on the capital value of properties.

Everyone knows that the capital value of the property may not represent its value to the occupants, who could be a young family who have taken out a 90% mortgage so that they can live in a better environment in which to bring up children, provide a future nest egg, or even a pension. It is proposed that the full value of the property be taxed through rates, as if it were owned completely, when in fact only 10% of the property maybe owned. At the other end of the scale there are pensioners and other families on a fixed or limited income whose house is their only asset. Those folk, who may have spent their lives paying off their mortgage, will be taxed on the full value of their pension.

What is the relevance of the Member's points?

The Minister is questioning the relevance of this. The debate is about the Estimates, the money to be raised and the money to be spent.

Upwards of £1 billion - I suggest that the figure is nearer £1·2 billion - is to be spent on administration costs, bureaucracy and an overwhelming welter of civil servants that has increased exponentially since the Assembly came into being. Northern Ireland used to be run by six Departments - there are now 10, plus a "Department of the Centre" that was never officially a statutory Department, and which spends £40 million on administrative costs.

We have a block grant of £9 billion, to be spent on running the entire gamut of Government services - education, health, environment, agriculture, the regions and culture. Out of that £9 billion, possibly £1·2 billion - getting on for 15% - is to be spent on administrative charges. The Health Service is in a dreadful state, with the worst waiting lists in Europe. The sewerage, water, and roads infrastructure is in a state of dereliction, and almost £1·2 billion is spent on administration. Then, when the problem is raised, we are told that there is to be another review of administration.

In Northern Ireland we have three MEPs, 18 MPs, 108 MLAs, 26 district councils with 560 paid councillors, and 120 quangos with 2,000 members, all for a population of 1·6 million. Mr Close pointed out that we could save money by reducing wastage on administration. Unless we do that, we will have the following scenario in the future. The infrastructure deficit - which is not £5 billion, but in excess of £10 billion - will be solved in two ways: by public-private finance or by borrowing from central Government billions of pounds, on which interest will have to be paid.

Public-private finance is simply a form of hire purchase. The Executive will ask private financiers to build a hospital, a school or some other public utility, and rent it to them on hire purchase. The Executive will have to repay not only the rate of interest on the money that the private financiers borrowed from the City in the first place, but the profit addition on the borrowed money. Private financiers are not philanthropists; they are in the business of public-private finance to make money. Therefore, we plan to get out of our difficulties by doing what we advise every young family not to do, and what Mr Micawber would have advised them not to do, which is to get up to the neck in debt.

The other source of income is central Government's altruistic offer to lend us £5 billion over the next 10 years; however, interest will have to be paid on that. Where will that money come from? Apparently, it will be raised from rates, and possibly through charges on water and sewerage. The people who will pay for that are those who have saved throughout their lives to put a roof over their family's heads, to improve their social and living standards, and to provide a nest egg and possibly a pension for the future.

The review document tells us that 52% of people will be winners, and that only 32% will be losers. However, if the total amount of money received from rates is to increase by 50% to 100%, the losers will be enormous losers, and any winners will be meagre winners. The entire plan is a nightmare. Unless the problem is properly addressed soon, the future for this and the next generation in Northern Ireland will be extremely bleak.

I agree with Mr Close that rates system does not provide suitable or even true assessment of wealth for the purposes of imposing general taxation. The system was never intended as a source for general taxation. Mr Close suggests a local income tax as an alternative. That would be a much fairer method of imposing general taxation because tax would be imposed on people's disposable income rather than on an asset, such as a house, which is not disposable. People are trapped in their homes and are being taxed to death on them. They cannot dispose of them because people need houses in which to live and to raise their families.

The difficulty with local taxation is that no one will like it because it is a clear imposition of tax. Although the devolved Government in Scotland have been given the power to raise local income tax, they have yet to use that power because they realise that, electorally, it would not be wise to do so.

Now, in Northern Ireland, since we do not have any true democracy - we do not have Governments that, if they displease the people, can be put out at the next election - broadly speaking, the same parties will be returned after each election. The parties will nominate the same Executive, or a variant of them. They can impose local taxation, and, since they will not be harmed by it, they can literally say "To hell with how the electorate feels." However, is that wise? Is it wise to use an undemocratic system to impose a tax?

In conclusion, as Sammy Wilson and Mr Close said, the Estimates show massive scope within the amount of money available for real economies, especially in administration, which should be effected with the greatest possible dispatch. They should not await the outcome of some interminably delayed review, which merely exacerbates the problem without dealing with it. Secondly, if a tax is imposed, it should definitely not be on the rateable value of premises.

I call Mr ONeill.

Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must have nodded off.

Cheap, that is cheap.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>