'Tap tax' slammed across the board

The strongest ever hint that ratepayers in Northern Ireland may have to fork out more in water charges in the form of a 'tap tax' has been slammed by politicians across the political divide.

Last week following Gordon Brown’s 2002 Budget, Finance and Personnel Minister Sean Farren said despite Northern Ireland’s £2.7 billion increased share, it may be necessary to impose more charges on water and sewage systems.

South Belfast assembly member Michael McGimpsey said he would “adamantly oppose at every opportunity” any moves to impose charges for domestic water provision.

“Any move to impose charges would hit the most vulnerable people in society. It would simply be unfair,” he said. “Rather than talking about further increasing the burden on our people, it would be much more prudent for the Department of Regional Development to introduce effective measures to end the massive waste through water leakage across the Province,” said Mr. McGimpsey.

Alliance Chief Whip Kieran McCarthy has said his party would also oppose any proposals for water charges to be introduced to Northern Ireland.

Mr McCarthy described it as a ‘tap tax’ which would simply paper over the cracks in the Barnett formula.

Mr McCarthy said: “There is certainly a case for reform of the Barnett formula, which is based on a headcount, not on need, as it should be. This is not acceptable when such large amounts of funding are being distributed.

“It is increasingly obvious to all parties in Northern Ireland that we simply do not receive enough funding from the Treasury to even maintain a proper and fair health service. Other public services are suffering too, and the British Government knows this, despite its half-hearted defence of Barnett.”

Meanwhile, Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee Francie Molloy said: “Attempts to penalise people who are already marginalized in their access to public services cannot hide the unimaginative approach of the Department of Finance and Personnel. We need new ideas and to put our arguments forcefully to the British Government that, as long as they remain in charge of our finances, it was time they lived up to their responsibilities here.”

(AMcE)