MR QUINLAN (continuing):

I now believe that the original concept of referring the draft Budget to the total Assembly through its various committees to have been a mistake.

In the accompanying Report, the committee has stated that it had inadequate time and resources and, more importantly, inadequate information to carry out the task with which it is charged.

As a result the committee has commented and criticised as it saw fit and has made a number of recommendations. However, much of this process, I submit, is identifying funding areas that the committee found questionable or might have funded differently - and which might not have found their way into the report if further consultation had been possible with government, thus resolving differences.

Inevitably, I believe, political views will surface in commenting upon such a document as the draft Budget (just as they do each year following the presentation of the budget itself).

While I have no quarrel with this approach, it being a fundamental of the democratic process and the Westminster system itself, I cannot associate myself with everything said in this report.

However, because of the limitations outlined earlier and the absence of feedback the first of these restrictions inevitably imposed, neither am I able to identify those matters and recommendations I might have supported as opposed to those I would not.

Therefore I write this disclaimer dissociating myself from this Report and its recommendations.

In conclusion however, let me state that while I now believe the original idea of referring the draft Budget to Assembly committees was a mistake, I agree that until this was done the implications of such an innovation could not have been recognised.