Is the summer over?

The summer is not over, but the Assembly will be in recess and I would have liked the opportunity to question the road safety aspect of the regional transportation strategy. Therefore, it is a pity that it was not published sooner.

We are being told that responsibility may be handed over to the Department of the Environment - but this is the regional transportation strategy for Northern Ireland. The attitude is, "Road safety? Ach, we'll wait and see what the Department of the Environment does - when it eventually comes forward with its strategy." Come on folks - what is the priority? This is about road safety and cutting down the number of deaths. We have 150 deaths on our roads each year, and it costs the economy £450 million a year.

We are all talking about where we will find the money for these things. I repeat what I said in February; 150 road deaths each year costs us £450 million a year. All we have to do is cut that number by 20% or by 50%; and if we prioritised that action, we could achieve it. The important question that I want to ask the Minister today is; where in the document are the targets for cutting deaths on our roads? What are those targets and when will they be achieved?

It is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

That is buck-passing. Come on - we are talking about deaths on our roads.

What percentage of road deaths is directly related to alcohol? It would be interesting to determine whether road deaths are due to the roads or whether they are due to a social problem. Surely the Member is not suggesting that alcohol be banned.

During an Adjournment debate on the Bangor to Belfast dual carriageway, the Minister said that accidents are not the fault of roads; they are the fault of the drivers. I dispute that - they are the fault of both.

There is no question that excessive speed is involved; there is no question that drink is involved; there is no question that young men aged 17 to 25 are out joyriding - speeding - on our roads. There is no question that it is a social issue. However, there is a roads issue too. Why, for example, are there more deaths on the Bangor to Belfast road than there are on the road from Newtownards to Belfast? It is because the Belfast to Bangor road encourages speeding.

I accept that there are social problems, but there are problems with roads also. The people in charge of those roads must wake up to that reality before they find themselves in court.

If we wish to reduce road accidents, we must provide adequate funding to improve public transport. However, the need for more investment in public transport and less investment in our roads was not properly recognised in the funding split. Some 63% of funding is spent on our roads and 32% is spent on our public transport. - [Interruption].

I would love to be corrected if my figures are wrong, but I am sure that the Minister will have the opportunity to do so in his closing remarks.

Not only does the funding split encourage less use of cars, but in situations in which money is not guaranteed, public transport investment will be hit rather than roads investment. Mr Ford made that point accurately.

Does the Member admit that in certain areas of Northern Ireland public transport depends on roads?

There is no question about that. I accept the Member's point, because the funding split is 63% to 32% in favour of funding for roads. There is no doubt that roads need to be improved so that buses can be driven on them, but the difference between here and the rest of the UK does not have to be so great. I gave Mr A Maginness the figures: we spend £16 a person on public transport, and the equivalent in the rest of the UK is £73 for each person. There are rural communities in England as well. There is no doubt that roads there need to be improved, but not to such an extent.

Mr Ford made the point that the Executive will look to the private sector to fund the public transport system, while the taxpayer continues to fund roads. That is the case despite the fact that 30% of households in Northern Ireland do not have a car - a figure that rises to 50% in Belfast. That the taxpayer pays for roads while the private sector pays for public transport is unacceptable.

I shall move on to -

Did the Member not read the document?

Does the Minister want me to give way?

I would love the Member to give way.

If the Member wishes to speak on a debate, it would be helpful if she were to read the document. She would not then come out with such inaccuracies or try to peddle something that is clearly not in the strategy.

The Minister is very well aware that I read this document and its predecessor from beginning to end, and that is what annoys him. If he wants to look at the lines that I have underlined and against which I have written, "Wrong, wrong, wrong", I shall pass him my document later so that he can see. Furthermore, if I have given some incorrect figures, I would appreciate it if the Minister would correct those in his closing remarks.

In discussing accessible transport I shall praise the Omnibus Partnership's work. That organisation operates a service in the Bangor and Groomsport area. I hope that the Minister is aware of that pilot project's superb work. It has produced a list of recommendations about moving the service into the Ards area, and one such recommendation is that the strategy should:

That group's target date is 2004, and I should like to see that mentioned in the regional transportation strategy.

I know that I have almost used my time, but I wish to talk about my vision. I do not know whether Members have a moment to close their eyes and think of what they would like. I would like to be able to get on the Bangor train, to buy the cappuccino that I have smelt from the smiling man with the trolley, to sit back with my 'News Letter', 'The Irish News' or whatever, and arrive in Belfast on time, well fed, well read and ready to go home on the same train. That is what people want. That is a wonderful vision. If it is good enough for the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Italians, it is good enough for the Northern Irish.

It is unfortunate that I must limit each remaining contribution to five minutes.

I am disappointed that we are allowed only five minutes. As the Member who began the whole process by tabling a motion on transport on 27 June 2000, I am somewhat aggrieved.

Some of us are not getting a chance to speak.

I accept that. I thank the Minister for tabling the motion and congratulate him on providing the House with an opportunity to debate the 10-year regional transportation strategy.

I welcome the overall objective to develop a modern, sustainable and safe transport system. A key priority is to increase investment in public transport, and that is desirable in that it will improve people's quality of life perspective and the environment. It is good to do something about traffic congestion.

I place on record my appreciation and that of the Committee of the departmental officials, who administered an inclusive consultation exercise. The strategy is progressive and comprehensive, and I recognise the merits of GOMMMS (guidance on the methodology for multi-modal studies).

There is not sufficient consideration to cross-border transport development in the document. It is not good enough just to have an eastern corridor such as the successful Belfast to Dublin railway line and the recently announced capital investment for the A1 from Newry to Dundalk. There is a great need for comprehensive cross-border transport development from Derry to Newry, and particularly for the western and southern parts of the region. It is not good enough to develop a transport strategy for Northern Ireland in isolation from the rest of the island.

Public transport is a key priority but, unfortunately, we have a limited rail network with the Derry to Belfast line, the Larne to Belfast line, the Belfast to Bangor line, and the Dublin to Belfast line. Beyond that, in Counties Fermanagh and Tyrone there are only roads. There is an emphasis on public transport and on increasing investment in buses, but we have a de facto speed limit of 45 miles an hour on our two trans-European network (TENS) roadways - the A4 and the A5. I welcome the proposed dual carriageway from the end of the M1 to the Ballygawley roundabout. I also welcome increased investment in bypasses, but in my area of west Tyrone and the west generally, the A4 and A5 are the only transport means. When it comes to implementing the strategy, I hope that we will see some front-end loading of capital investment for them.

I apologise for interrupting Mr Byrne, as I know he is time-bound. The Minister knows what is coming, but does Mr Byrne agree that the aim should be to convert all key transport corridors into dual carriages? Section 8.5.6 of the strategy states that

Any preparation work on key transport corridors should be done with that aim in mind.

I agree with Mr Hussey. A regional development strategy should look at a 25-year development plan, but this strategy looks only 10 years ahead, and a key objective should be to make all trans-European network roads - and there are only four in Northern Ireland - into dual carriageway.

I welcome the increased investment in rail transport and, in particular, for a demand-responsive transport system for Belfast, but a key consideration will be how to increase the number of rail customers.

I welcome the regional transportation strategy. I thank the Minister and, in particular, the departmental officials for their co-operation with the Committee during the design of the strategy. They listened to the Committee's suggestions and reacted very quickly, and I am most impressed with their co-operation.

I do not wish to discuss all the points made today, but I would like to highlight some key issues. The strategy is a visionary document. It is a dream, and it has come under some criticism because it looks far into the future. That is important, however, because we need a clear idea of where we are going and what we are trying to achieve. For the first time, this strategy and the regional development strategy seek to provide that.

I particularly welcome the detail on the commuter system for the Belfast metropolitan area. My Colleague for North Down Ms Morrice mentioned the Belfast to Bangor line. It is good to see that the line will be completed shortly, if it is not already, and we welcome the new trains that will arrive next year. That will provide us with a state-of-the-art commuter system. At that stage, we can judge whether it will be possible to get people out of their cars and onto the railway system. There is a 25-year plan for the rapid transit system. Some of my Colleagues seem to have misunderstood that slightly. This is a longer-term plan than that for the Belfast commuter system and the railways.

In rural areas, it is important to free up the roads that Mr Byrne has been talking about - they are appalling. I spent last week in Tyrone, and even I was shocked, not having been there for a while. We must consider how freight is to be transported around these areas, and how ambulances and others are to get people to hospital along these roads.

Does Mr McFarland support the call of Members from my area for a bypass at Ballynahinch? That is a very important item on our list of infrastructure needs.

Yes. Mr Byrne made the point already that the trans-European network routes - the fast routes - need to be made dual carriageways. I hope that the Minister heard those remarks.

The document mentions a local transportation plan, which is important. There is no point in providing free transport for the elderly, particularly in rural areas, if there is no transport for them to travel on.

What are the Minister's thoughts on, for example, increasing rates or introducing road tolls to help to pay for the strategy?

The process that we have gone through with the railway task force, the regional development strategy and the regional transportation strategy will be seen as a model for the way in which strategy development should take place. Other Departments should look at how it was done.

This is a broad and visionary strategy. The Committee will wish to monitor it closely and have an input once the detailed plans begin to emerge.

I share Mr Byrne's views about those who live in the west and the limiting of time at the end of the debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is not a criticism of you. For those who live in the west, trainspotting takes on a completely new meaning. People need to live there to fully understand and appreciate that.

We would like to bring much to the Minister's attention today, but time does not permit us to address everything. However, we will try to draw attention to some of the more prevalent issues that are very real for those of us who live in the west. The designation of the A29 road from Newry to Coleraine as a key transport corridor is vital. It has the potential to impact on the growth of places such as Armagh, Dungannon, Cookstown, and, of course, Magherafelt.

I sincerely welcome the statement about the growth potential of Dungannon, Cookstown and Magherafelt as a result of the designation of the A29. However, surely for the growth to occur it is imperative that work on the Magherafelt bypass, the Cookstown eastern distributor and the realignment of the Carland Bridge commence early in the 10-year programme. That will complement the Minister's excellent work in getting the Toomebridge bypass started.

I thank the Member for that point; I could not have made it half so well. I see the significance of his point and accept it fully. I am sure that it will not go unnoticed by the Minister. The A29 Newry to Coleraine road, which opens up the west to the east, has the potential to do what Rev Dr McCrea said; it can also ease congestion in the Greater Belfast area. It can boost tourism in Fermanagh and in south Tyrone and in the areas that Rev Dr McCrea mentioned.

A recent survey showed that traffic on the A4, the Dungannon to Ballygawley roundabout road, had increased by two and a half times more than that on any other key transport corridor. Two bypasses are listed, but the A4 and A5 are not mentioned. I impress this on the Minister because it is vital. I accept that we need dual carriageways. In the past, the west was the poor relation as regards transport. We have never had a comprehensive strategy for transport, and I hope that the opportunity to incorporate it will not be missed. When the strategy is implemented I hope that the west gets its dues.

I listened attentively to Ms Morrice. I will not quote from the transportation vision again, but I know she says that safety comes first. I can easily live with that transportation vision. If this is a mission statement by the Department, then I feel it is right and proper. I encourage the Department to get on with it.

Finance must be made available for the A29 bypass at Dungannon urgently; it must be incorporated into the scheme. Dungannon is chock-a-block with through traffic; it is a trap. Traffic cannot get round Dungannon, and facilities must be put in place to ease congestion. Per capita, the use of cars is higher in rural areas in the west, because the east enjoys better roads, rail and accessibility. That is a relevant point.

I apologise to the Minister for not waiting for his reply - another Committee beckons.

Every Member who had read the report gave it a broad endorsement, for which I am grateful. It seemed to me that all the quotations with which Ms Morrice sprinkled her speech came from the proposed regional transportation strategy, rather than the one that I am asking support for today.

I wish to record my personal appreciation to those who have been central in developing Northern Ireland's first regional transportation strategy. First, Dr Malcolm McKibbin who so ably led the entire process since the early months of 2000. He and his colleagues in the regional transportation strategy division have been exemplary in assisting me to develop the strategy. They demonstrated the professionalism, skills and expertise that epitomise all that is best in the public sector. Their dedication, talent, energy and ideas have been pivotal to the success of the process. A special word of appreciation also goes to Mrs Aileen Gault, who replaced Dr McKibbin as acting director of the regional transportation strategy division earlier this year.

I also want to record my appreciation of the Department's technical advisor, Dr Denvil Coombe, and the members of the independent panel of experts whose advice was invaluable in helping to develop and shape the strategy: Prof David Begg, Mr Stephen Kingon, Mr David Lock and Prof Austin Smyth. I also very much appreciate the contribution of Mrs Joan Whiteside, chairperson of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, who worked with the panel.

I want to respond to some specific points that were raised during the debate. If I had another eight hours instead of eight minutes, I might be able to cover them all. In the absence of time, I am sure that Members will accept a written response if I cannot cover the points they raised.

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, Mr Alban Maginness, who indicated his support for the strategy's underlying principles. I also thank him for the work that he and his Committee put into the earlier stages of the strategy's formulation. I share his conviction that the plan is deliverable. It is ambitious, but we can achieve the goals that it has set. I welcome his call for transport infrastructure to remain one of the Government's top priorities. I note his disappointment about yesterday's allocation of reinvestment and reform initiative funding. Twenty-five per cent of that went to my Department, and we probably have approximately 40% of the infrastructure backlog, so we might have hoped for more. However, like Mr Maginness, I am somewhat content that the £40 million that was promised earlier for the trans-European network route still stands.

Mr Maginness was right to highlight the need for balance. Several Members referred to that. It may be worth pointing out the true figure, as identified on page 69, for Ms Morrice - 35% has been allocated to public transport. It may also be worth pointing out to Mr Ford that the strategy provides an average annual spend on public transport of almost four times the historical spending level. The strategy provides £123 million. The reference case was £60 million a year. Thirty-five per cent of the total funding is for public transport, as opposed to the existing spend of 16%, a figure that everyone remembers my quoting. The proposed strategy increased that to 32%, and the final strategy brings it up to 35%. Forty-six per cent of the additional funding is for public transport, as opposed to 51% for roads. I hope that Ms Morrice heard that while she was sucking her pen. That is a significant figure.

To those Members who are looking at the issue of balance, more than 50% of the funding for highways will be for maintenance. Clearly the strategy focuses its roads' spending on initiatives that will restrain any increase in car dependency, and it seeks to improve the existing network. I remind Ms Morrice that the purpose of maintenance is to prevent accidents. "Safety first" are the watchwords. I would have thought that rather than degrade the money spent on roads under the strategy, Members would have welcomed it.

I do not expect to have rose petals strewn in my path by Ms Morrice, but I would have hoped that it would be recognised that we were taking account of issues raised in the past. If Ms Morrice looks at the document, she will see that it envisages a 2% reduction in accidents over the term of the strategy due to additional funding initiatives. That reduction would be a significant achievement, as it would come at a time when the number of vehicles on our roads will probably increase by 20%.

The references made by Mr Birnie show a lack of knowledge of the position of the Democratic Unionist Party. The strategy introduced today stands, whether the Assembly stands or falls. It is sufficiently robust to be able to cope even with direct rule Ministers. It would certainly be capable of living under the improved devolution that would come through the Democratic Unionist Party's proposals - [Interruption].

Order. The Minister has only a few moments left.

There are dedicated officials determined to deliver on the strategy, and they will be there even if the failed and failing process signed up to by Mr Birnie lives or is improved.

He also raised the issues of decriminalisation and parking. That has come to the fore because the Police Service has said that it is not prepared to continue to police those issues. We must have primary legislation in place, and we will move forward with that quickly. It is not a matter that is parked: we are running with it and intend to deal with it as soon as we can.

Mr Roger Hutchinson will want to look at page 78 of his copy of the strategy, where he will see in the illustrative scheme that there is reference to the Shore Road and to Greenisland, so the A2 is mentioned. I welcome his support for the strategy. I liked his remark that the rapid transit scheme would send out the message that Belfast is a modern, dynamic city.

He also mentioned traffic-calming measures - and that is one of the most popular products I have.

Hear, hear.

That "Hear, hear" from the Member for North Down shows that she endorses the massive increase in the strategy in funding for traffic calming.

Mr McNamee asked about contacts with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland. We are ahead of the Republic of Ireland, as it has not completed its regional development strategy. However, I recall making an early decision to permit one of my officials to assist the Republic of Ireland in preparing its regional development strategy.

There is ongoing consultation and contact with the Department of Public Enterprise and the National Roads Authority. I met an official from the Irish Republic for lunch yesterday to discuss private sector funding and his experience of tolling. The chief executive of the Roads Service met the chief executive of the National Roads Authority last month. We are happy to give advice and be advised, and that can be used in the process.

Health issues were raised. The health impact assessment was a pilot scheme. We were happy to take it up and run with it. As far as the Department of Health is concerned, it was something of an experiment to see how the process ran, and I hope that it has been useful. That was not the first time that we starting looking at the health impact of the strategy. That is a feature of the guidance on the methodology for multi-modal studies that were carried out. The health impact was assessed from the beginning of the process.

You have been patient, Mr Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to go slightly over the time allotted. The regional transportation strategy provides a positive way forward and will allow Northern Ireland to have the advantages of the rest of the British Isles. It is true that more money goes into public transport and roads in the Republic of Ireland and on the British mainland than in Northern Ireland. We have a long way to catch up, and this is the beginning. The strategy represents a 64% increase in expenditure in the roads and transport budget. That is a good starting point, which I hope the House will support.

Water Resource Strategy 2002-2030

TOP

I beg to move

I am pleased to bring the consultation paper on the proposed water resource strategy for 2002-30 to the Assembly. It is being issued today for public comment. The proposed strategy will provide an effective water management plan to improve the infrastructure so that it can meet increased growth in demand for high-quality drinking water up to 2030.

It is all too easy to take our water supply for granted, given the rainfall that we have in Northern Ireland. Almost half of our water comes from large impounding reservoirs in upland areas that must be replenished every year; the remainder comes from loughs and rivers. The below-average rainfall last autumn seriously depleted the Silent Valley reservoirs in the Mournes, threatening the water supply to County Down and Belfast.

Unlike the rest of the population, Water Service engineers have been happy with the prolonged rainfall of the past few months. This has filled the reservoirs, and I am now confident that there will be no supply difficulties this year. Members will be pleased to hear me say that, because many blamed me for having started the rainfall after my statement several months ago.

That threat to the security of our water supply emphasises the need to plan prudently to ensure that water will always be available to meet customers' need. However, effective water management depends not simply on the amount of rain that falls, but also on where and when it does so. Although those factors are beyond our control, we can control how much water we impound in reservoirs in upland areas and how much we abstract from loughs and rivers.

Management of water requires long-term planning. The Water Service must take steps now to increase the supply of water to ensure that future generations will have enough clean water when they turn on the tap. Over the years, the Water Service has developed and implemented strategies designed to meet the ever-growing demand for household, agricultural and industrial water.

The regional development strategy has established the context within which all development will take place. It envisages considerable development. Ten thousand new homes were built last year; all require a water supply. At present, the demand for water stands at about 740 megalitres a day. The strategy estimates that demand will increase by 150 megalitres a day by 2030. That is an increase of just over 20%.

The proposals in the water resource strategy are innovative and far-reaching.

The strategy is built on existing foundations for a cost-effective water supply system that will deliver high-quality water to an increasing population up to and beyond 2030.

The strategy is simple and logical. It proposes a twin-track approach to reduce leakage and to rationalise and upgrade the supply system. It confirms the important role that Lough Neagh and upland reservoirs play in meeting water demands. The strategy also highlights the need for the rationalisation of many smaller sources. These are becoming increasingly uneconomic due to the need to meet current EU quality standards for drinking water.

There is also a need to plan for uncertainties in supply due to future variations in rainfall patterns arising from climatic change. The strategy proposes that efforts and resources are concentrated on those sources that can meet our water needs most cost-effectively.

A further key strand of the strategy is to implement processes to improve the already high quality of water supplied to customers. This is to meet increasingly stringent European legislative requirements that must be implemented in the next three to five years. That is a priority issue in the strategy, and the costs of upgrading water treatment works have been incorporated into the proposals.

All of that comes at a price, and the Water Service faces a financial challenge to implement improvements in the designated timescales. However, doing nothing is not an option. The population will continue to grow and there will be an ever-increasing demand for high-quality water. The water resource strategy also recognises that water lost through leakage creates extra demand. Almost 25,000 kilometres of ageing water mains deliver water to customers in Northern Ireland. It is inevitable that a proportion of water carried through the system will be lost. Increased leakage measures can ensure that the volume of water lost through leakage can be reduced further. The strategy recommends that active leakage management will play a key role in meeting the increased demand for water.

The Water Service has been engaged in a major programme of proactive leakage controls since 1992. To further strengthen that programme, £25 million will be invested over the next four years to reduce leakage through the detection and repair of leaks and bursts. The aim is to reduce leakage to an economic level of 180 megalitres a day by 2006. Although water usage will reduce by 2006, the increase in population will require that additional water be made available in the future.

The additional demand for high-quality water can be met by increasing the supply available from specific sources. Lough Neagh, the largest single source of drinking water, supplies mainly the eastern part of Northern Ireland. It will continue to play a pivotal role in the water resource strategy. There are two key extraction points on the Lough - Dunore Point and Castor Bay. The Water Service also has the right to extract additional water from Lough Neagh at Hog Park Point.

The preferred programme of works was identified after an extensive examination of a wide variety of options, including that of continuing with the existing supply regime. Although the strategy must deliver value for money, the need for flexibility to move water between supply areas must be considered. The strategy must also be deliverable and acceptable to the public. The appraisal of the options included assessment of costs, value for money, rationalisation, environmental issues, climate change, land requirements, water abstraction, planning issues and flexibility of supply.

The water supply is sourced from 50 locations throughout Northern Ireland, ranging from reservoirs and rivers to small local sources including borewells. An economy of scale governs the production of water. It costs up to 10 times as much to supply each litre of water from some borewells as it does to produce the same volume from the major sources. It makes sense, therefore, to concentrate resources on those sources that can produce high volumes of water at a reasonable cost, thus providing flexibility and public acceptability.

The water resource strategy recommends that the number of sources be reduced to 31 locations, and in so doing it will give priority to the most cost-effective sources of water. The Department will then be able to maximise the output from the best sources of water and curtail usage from uneconomic ones.

By increasing the abstraction from Lough Neagh at Castor Bay and Dunore Point and undertaking extensive investment programmes at both existing water treatment works, the Water Service will be able to meet its commitment of improved quality and increased quantity. Therefore, this option will remove the need, based on current projections, to construct a new water treatment works at Hog Park Point. The strategy also proposes upgrading other major water treatment works including Fofanny bane, Ballinrees, Moyola and Derg. The rationalisation and development programme, together with new major transfer water mains, will supply quality and quantity.

The water resource strategy provides an effective water management plan, which will improve the infrastructure. It will also meet the increased growth in demand for high-quality water. The capital costs of the proposed improvements will be £260 million over the next 10 years. A significant proportion of that money is required to ensure water quality over the next four to five years. In order to comply with European drinking water quality regulations, the urgent upgrading of several major water treatment works is required. Careful consideration will have to be given to how the massive investment programme can be met, given other competing priorities including waste water treatment, improvements to water mains and upgrading of sewer networks.

The proposals contained in the strategy are based on a professional analysis of water needs and on an extensive consultation and research process with Invest Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and others. Water usage patterns were examined from a representative sample of more than 5,000 homes in 102 areas across Northern Ireland. The research was carried out over 18 months, and an analysis of the results has enabled the Water Service to formulate the options and to arrive at the preferred solution. The Water Service's research meets demanding water industry standards. It uses forecasting methods that comply with the requirements of the Office of Water Services, which is the water industry regulator for England and Wales. As a result, the public can have full confidence in the conclusions and the relevance of the recommendations in the strategy.

The water resource strategy is not about finding short-term, cost-cutting solutions: it is about providing water treatment works and water mains to ensure enough high-quality water for this generation and for future generations. The Water Service has a responsibility to safeguard an adequate supply of high-quality water for the future. I have highlighted some of the key issues in the consultation paper. I trust that Members and the public will agree that this issue is of vital importance to everyone in Northern Ireland. I look forward to hearing the views of Members.

I thank the departmental officials who attended the Committee to brief Members on the proposed water resource strategy. The strategy is of great importance, as it will have a major impact on how the Water Service delivers an essential service to the whole community over the next 30 years. I welcome the extensive examination of a wide variety of options undertaken by the Department. In arriving at the preferred option, I welcome the thorough appraisal of options, which have included assessment of costs, value for money, rationalisation, environmental issues, climate change, land requirements, water abstraction, planning and flexibility of supply.

It is also reassuring to note that the proposals in the strategy are based on professional analysis of water needs and on the extensive consultation and research process with Invest Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and others. I agree with the twin-track approach proposed in the strategy, which is to reduce leakage and to rationalise and upgrade the supply system. It is sensible to make additional water supplies available from the most cost-effective sources and to curtail the use of uneconomic sources of water. The strategy rightly states that efforts and resources should be concentrated on the sources that can meet our water needs most cost-effectively.

I wish to return to the issue of water leakage. The findings published in the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office's report 'Water Service: Leakage Management and Water Efficiency' have concerned us all. I accept that our ageing water infrastructure contributes to leakage. However, leakage of 250 million litres a day from the distribution system, which represents 37% of water treated, is totally unacceptable.

I am pleased that the water resource strategy gives priority to active leakage management, and I welcome that the Department will be investing £25 million over the next four years to reduce that through the detection and repair of leaks and bursts.

I also welcome yesterday's announcement from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that, under the reinvestment and reform initiative, £5 million will be allocated for leakage reduction in the next two years. Given the level of leakage and additional funding being made available to address the problem, can the Minister clarify whether his Department's calculation of water demand over the next 30 years has taken account of reductions in water leakage? If so, have specific targets been set?

On the financing of the strategy, the Minister has stated that the capital cost of the proposed improvements will be £260 million over the next 10 years. As the Minister has stated, a significant proportion of that amount is required to meet water quality issues over the next four or five years.

A critical issue for the Department is the need to comply with European drinking water quality regulations. The Minister has stated that several major water treatment works require urgent upgrading to comply with EU regulations. Therefore it is vital that an increased level of funding is made available to the Department to avoid costly infraction proceedings against the UK Government, which ultimately would lead to reductions in the Northern Ireland block grant to offset the cost of those.

On 28 June, the Minister announced plans to invest almost £100 million in the current financial year in upgrading the water and sewerage infrastructure. That included £21 million for drinking water treatment and £30 million for improving water distribution networks. That investment is to be welcomed.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister also announced yesterday that, under the reinvestment and reform initiative, £18 million will be allocated for water mains and sewers in the next two years. Although that funding is to be welcomed, it was disappointing to note that out of the budget of £270 million, the Water Service was allocated £23 million, which is only 8·5% of the total allocation. Underfunding will remain a major challenge for the Water Service.

It is to be welcomed, however, that the Minister is examining other means of addressing the deficits, with consideration being given to additional funding and the use of private finance. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline his policy proposals for new funding mechanisms.

Another issue of concern to the Regional Development Committee is that an estimated 829 properties in Northern Ireland are still not connected to the mains water supply. Can the Minister tell us how the water resource strategy will seek to reduce the number of homes without mains water supply, and whether targets have been set for that?

I welcome the public consultation paper on the proposed water strategy. The Regional Development Committee looks forward to examining the consultation document in detail over the next three months.

I welcome the water resource strategy. The sad state of Northern Ireland's water and sewerage systems is well known. It has been a regular topic of debate in the Chamber in the past three years.

Some Departments have flexibility. If they put off action for six months or a year, it does not have a massive impact. However, there is now little leeway left in the provision of quality water if Northern Ireland is to meet EU standards. That has led to the development of this strategy.

I want to comment briefly on leakage. An issue that I found interesting when the Committee was briefed was the introduction of water metering on water rings in order to identify more clearly where the leaks are. The system was unavailable for a long time, so it was hard to tell where water was disappearing. If Water Service introduces a system of those meters, it will be possible to tie down more tightly where the bulk of water is disappearing.

I also support developers' contributions towards the installation of water in new houses. Indeed, any new estate should have a system of water meters in order to identify the exact location of burst pipes from which water is leaking, so that they can be fixed quickly.

I agree with the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, Mr Maginness, about funding. The Committee visited Welsh Water and was quite impressed with the concept of bonds as a means of securing extra money. I sense that extra funding for this particular project will not come from the reinvestment and reform initiative. The interesting thing about Welsh Water is that it has a revenue stream. Money is being produced, so it is able to borrow and use substantial private finance to deal with problems and issues quickly.

Will the Minister share his thoughts on the possibility of obtaining similar finance, with a revenue stream, so that the problems of Northern Ireland's water and sewerage infrastructure can be sorted out sooner rather than later?

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will not repeat what the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee have said.

The Committee has spoken to and questioned the Minister's officials. However, a couple of issues have arisen since the Committee considered the document. The first relates to the computer simulation model that was used as the basis on which to predict water demand and to model the management of water production. The water resource strategy states that the model is based on a water resource management package. It says that the information that is fed into that package should be gathered over a long period. It recognises that few records of flow, and none of reservoir inflow, from before 1970 are available. That will limit the robustness of the model's predictions of rainfall and demand.

I say that in the context of the short-term climatic abnormalities that Northern Ireland has experienced and which the Minister referred to earlier. In the past three months, Northern Ireland has had the heaviest rainfall since 1960. Last September, October, November and December had the lowest rainfall for that four-month period for many years, which raised concerns about reservoir levels over Christmas and the new year. Given the significantly high levels of rainfall in the past three months, is the Minister confident that the computer simulation model, which is based on limited records, will be robust enough to deal with potential short-term climatic changes - or, indeed, the long-term climatic changes that scientists advise us of? If not, does the strategy have any contingency plans to deal with climatic abnormalities?

My second point relates to sources of water. Page 4 of the water resource strategy states that only 6% of our water is sourced from rivers. Given the abundance of rivers in this part of the land, is such a small amount of water extracted from our rivers because it is more costly and less economically viable than other sources, or is it because of the poor quality of the water in our rivers due to pollution?

My third question relates to increased extraction from loughs. Lough Neagh has been mentioned in that respect. I am also concerned about increased extraction from Camlough Lake, which is in my constituency. Has the Minister any concerns about the environmental impact of, or the loss of amenity of leisure facilities due to increased extraction from loughs?

I do not intend to put the Minister on the spot with my final point. The future funding of water infrastructure spending has been highlighted in the water resource strategy. Does he intend to consider or propose the separation of water costs? Since devolution, rates have gone into the general block budget. Prior to that, rates were associated with the provision of services, including water. I am not trying to catch the Minister out, but will he consider or propose water charges based on consumption, either estimated or metered, and the cost of delivering water to consumers? Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I am grateful to the Members who have taken part in the debate and will try to respond to their points. I will respond in writing to those that are not covered.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development asked whether the calculation of water demand over the next 30 years had taken account of reductions in water due to leakage. I confirm that the calculation is predicated on the basis of the targets to reduce leakage, as set out in the strategy, being met. The aim is to reduce leakage to an economic level of 180 megalitres by 2006.

He also rightly drew attention to the importance of funding, a point that the Deputy Chairperson, Mr McFarland, also raised. I put on record my condolences to the Deputy Chairperson on the recent loss of his father. Those of us who have walked that path will know just what measure of anguish that can cause in a household. I was in Derg on the day of the funeral; otherwise I would have been present.

On the issue of funding, I said that there would be a requirement for an additional £260 million over the next 10 years. That is a fairly significant amount of money.

Let me take those issues together with the point about charging. I was somewhat disturbed, mainly by the reaction of the press, when the reinvestment and reform initiative was announced. Figures were bandied about which, if anything, frightened the public. They were inaccurate, but they were sucked into the ether and taken as the truth. In fact, over a 10-year period there can be stepped increases. Not all the increases required for infrastructure must come from the reinvestment and reform initiative and so require an additional stream of funding. Over recent weeks my officials carried out exercises in the Roads Service and the Water Service to identify how to deal with required additional funding. Members heard about that in the context of roads and transport during the earlier debate on the transportation strategy: only £0·4 billion of the £1·4 billion required by the Department for additional funding will come from the reinvestment and reform initiative.

Members will also note that the most significant portion of funding for the water resource strategy over the 10-year period will come from bundling several schemes together for a public-private partnership or a private finance initiative or from developer contributions. That point was made by the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee. I am not making announcements on that today, but I assure him that the matter is being examined in detail at a reasonably advanced stage.

The argument that additional costs for water services as a result of new development should be applied to that new development is almost universally accepted. That is what happens with roads, and under article 40 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, it even happens in education, when paying for schools. The principle is accepted in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland, so steps can be taken to reduce significantly any need for reinvestment and reform initiative funding.

The Committee has always respected the confidences of the Department for Regional Development. I shall allow Members to enjoy the summer recess; however, on our return in September, I should be happy, and it might be useful, to share with the Committee our private calculations of how the funding identified in the transportation strategy and that required for the water resource strategy would be spread over 10 years. Members will see that the scare stories being told to the community about the payments required to meet the bill are not realistic at all. Over a 10-year period the public will find that there is no undue burden, and I make the political point that any burden at all could be swept away, or at least significantly reduced, if we examined places where savings could be made. There are many such places in our current Budget.

I took the long route when dealing with funding issues. The question specifically concerned water charges, and I touched on that at Question Time some months ago. It was a mistake to break the link with the regional rate and the Water Service bill. It was in people's minds that they paid for water provision through their rates. Unfortunately, that link was broken.

I have no difficulty with the suggestion to itemise the regional rate to allow people to identify what portion of it covers their water charges. There is a notion that the water supply is free. It is not; people must pay for it. We should identify how much people pay. If there are additional costs, I wish to show how they can be met, either through public-private partnerships, developer contributions or the reinvestment and reform initiative. Many people do not accept the degree of sophistication with which the public can understand such issues. If the public are provided with the relevant information, there will be greater understanding of the issues involved and the needs that exist in Government.

The present level of leakage, which is approximately 40%, is unacceptable. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, Mr McFarland, was right to state that much money was spent in the past four years on various exercises to identify areas in which leakage occurs in the system. Many commentators have said that, although the Department intends to spend £25 million on leakage reduction in the next four years, the £21 million that has been spent in the past four years did not make much of a difference. However, we had to install the infrastructure that would allow us to identify the sources of the leaks. We expect to realise many of the benefits in the next four years. I have set the target - and it is dangerous when Ministers set targets - that by 2006 we shall have reached the economic level of leakage, which is the point at which it is cheaper to produce more water than it is to spend money to deal with leaks and burst pipes.

Members referred to the cost-effectiveness of rivers and boreholes, as opposed to extraction from the lough. It can cost up to 10 times more to extract water from those sources than from our major sources of water. Therefore, it makes financial sense for us to extract water from the major sources and to decommission - if I may use that word, which I commend to all Members - some of the more costly sources.

The Member for Newry and Armagh referred to Camlough Lake, which features in the section of the strategy that outlines the areas that will be decommissioned, and I am interested to hear the opinions of the district council and others.

Therefore, the issue arises of whether increased extraction from the identified sources would create a problem. The advice on which we based our conclusions was professional and used the accepted industry methods. If anyone danders outside, they will see that, at the minute, our loughs and reservoirs are replenished almost daily. There is no indication that additional extraction will cause problems for the sources that we identified.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to working, when we return in September, with the Committee as it considers the fuller report in more detail. I am happy for Committee members to have a summer break before they attempt to digest the strategy. If I were a member of the Committee, I would also want a break.

Adjourned at 4.05 pm.