Northern Ireland Assembly, 19 March 2002

132 contributions from 46 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I understand that there is a difficulty with the annunciator system this morning. The scroll bar, which advises of matters such as ministerial statements to the House, is not working. I draw that to Members’ attention because three such statements are to be made this morning: a statement on the February monitoring round from the Minister of Finance and Personnel; a statement on the British-Irish Council environment sector from the Minister of the Environment; and a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council tourism sector from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I want to ensure that Members are not unaware of those because of the technical problem with the scroll bar. I understand that our technicians are trying to resolve the problem, but I trust that Members will ensure that their Colleagues are aware of it.

Public Petition: Newtownstewart Bypass

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Hussey has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 1,517 residents of Newtownstewart and its hinterland in my constituency of West Tyrone. The petition has the support of all Members who represent that constituency, and of the members of Strabane District Council and Omagh District Council. I declare my membership of Strabane District Council.

The signatories of the petition are concerned that the present design of the junction of the Douglas Bridge with the Gortin and Plumbridge roads on the Newtownstewart bypass — currently under construction — may create an accident black spot. The petitioners emphasise that they have no desire to delay work on the Newtownstewart bypass. However, they ask the Minister to investigate the potential for an alternative layout at the named junction. The Minister has been made aware of the anticipated difficulties and has undertaken to consider them. The petition emphasises the broad concern about this matter in the Newtownstewart area.

Mr Hussey moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall forward the petition to the Minister for Regional Development and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development.

Public Petition: Closure of Women’s Advice Centres

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Ms Morrice has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the representatives of 22 women’s centres in Greater Belfast. More than 80 women have signed the petition, which highlights the funding crisis that women’s advice centres are facing. Many of those centres are threatened with closure because of lack of funding. If that happens, a wealth of experience and an important service to the community will be lost.

Ms Morrice moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall forward the petition to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre.

Assembly business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday, it was announced that Her Majesty would confer city status on two of the Province’s towns, Newry and Lisburn. Is it in order for the Assembly to congratulate those towns? As a representative of what is now Ulster’s second city, I feel it would be appropriate for us to do so.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member knows very well that, although it would be in order for the Assembly to debate such a motion, such a motion is not before the Assembly. However, it is clear that the Member, who represents the area, has taken the opportunity to make his views on the matter known.

February Monitoring

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the February monitoring round.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

On behalf of the Executive, I wish to make a statement on public spending allocations for 2001-02 following the February monitoring round.

The Executive have decided on some reallocations of expenditure for the short time that remains in this financial year. Those reallocations make use of the resources available from changes in the estimated requirements of Departments that arose in the February monitoring round.

At this late stage, we are primarily concerned with making the necessary changes to estimated requirements and the fine-tuning of allocations, rather than with any policy change or new priorities. As the spring Supplementary Estimates have been finalised, there is limited scope to increase departmental allocations.

Departments have surrendered some money due to new reduced requirements, and some unusual factors have arisen that affect spending power. Net routine reduced requirements amount to £31·2 million. In addition, three special factors have emerged, to which I shall return later.

Members will recall that, in deciding the Budget for 2002-03, we assumed that we would be able to carry forward some spending power from 2001-02. That was largely dealt with in the September and December monitoring rounds, but the first £13 million of new money from this round was required to confirm the spending plans of Departments in 2002-03, as approved by the Assembly in December. Thus the routine amount available for the normal business of Departments was £18 million.

Departments have lodged bids for additional resources in this monitoring round totalling over £6·9 million, and the Executive have agreed that they should all be met. They are mostly relatively minor "tidying-up" allocations to a few Departments. As the spring Supplementary Estimates have already been finalised, there is limited scope for increasing spending allocations in 2001-02, so the small number of bids is not surprising. Once they have been covered, we will be left with £11·3 million of routine savings that cannot be spent in 2001-02 and will be carried forward into 2002-03.

Several Departments have indicated that the savings that they have declared in this round relate to issues for which provision will be required in the next financial year. Those bids for "carry forward" will have to be considered on their merits in the first reallocation exercise of 2002-03. It is likely that there will be more end-year flexibility money that will be identified only when provisional out-turn data become available in May. I will make proposals for distributing end-year flexibility money that is not already committed for an agreed purpose to the Executive in the June monitoring round.

I said earlier that three unusual factors have arisen. First, we have been able to confirm a change to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s resource budget that will allow us to use £23·9 million for important priorities early in the new financial year.

Secondly, the Department of Education has re-phased the expenditure profile for the Classroom 2000 project, which means that some £9·9 million of spending will be accounted for in 2002-03 or 2003-04 instead of 2001-02. However, the timing of the project will not be affected.

It would not be appropriate to treat those unusual items as part of the routine monitoring round, and they will be carried forward as part of the end-year flexibility money. The provision for Classroom 2000 will be required in future years and will be held until confirmation of the detailed requirements is received so that work on the project is not impeded.

The third special factor is that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is completing a review of the spending requirements for its programmes for 2002-03, which may lead to some material adjustments to its plans from those approved in the Budget in December.

Having taken account of those factors, the Executive have decided to use the remaining room to manoeuvre from this monitoring round and the £23·9 million that has become available from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to augment the Executive programme funds and to address some immediate funding issues early in the new financial year. The Executive will be considering proposals on that soon after Easter. Given the scale of resources now available to us for 2002-03, there are strong arguments for taking early decisions on their allocation before the June monitoring round to allow for effective planning and spending.

In considering the scope for action available to us, we must take account of the new inescapable pressures that we will face in 2002-03 including, for example, the £10 million pressure for Harland & Wolff plc employers’ liability insurance claims.

However, I emphasise that these are only some of the factors we will need to consider, and no decisions have yet been made. Also, the circumstances that have given rise to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety issue require further analysis, not least to determine the likely position in 2002-03 and beyond.

The £23·9 million technical reduced requirement from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety arose through the complexity of the conversion to resource budgeting, and the saving came to light through improved understanding of the new rules on resource budgeting. Following the action taken a year ago to correct trust deficits, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety implemented measures to strengthen the financial performance of the health and personal social services, such as recovery plans to address underlying problems and contingency plans to ensure income and expenditure balances in-year.

The Department has advised me that trusts are forecast to break even this year. That achievement was assisted by the substantial in-year additions that the Executive provided for health. In this improved context, it transpired that the public expenditure cover required to provide the planned level of services in 2001-02 was £23·9 million less than had previously been understood.

The reasons for this are complex. I will not burden the House with a detailed explanation of the Department’s funding policies or the accounting transactions which have given rise to it, although I will be glad to discuss this in more depth with the Committee for Finance and Personnel. The good news is that we will be able to make fresh use of this £23·9 million in 2002-03. Some adjustments may also be made for 2002-03 and 2003-04. However, I will not be able to confirm that until the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have completed further work. It will be important to make prudent provision for health trust finances.

The outcomes of this monitoring round again demonstrate the need to address a pattern of underspending which then leaves room to manoeuvre; this has occurred in successive monitoring rounds. It is a matter of particular concern that Departments have surrendered such large sums at this stage, when it is too late for them to be used in the spring Supplementary Estimates.

Mr Durkan and I have both commented at length on underspending. I will not labour the point now, other than to reiterate my commitment to a thorough and robust review, the outcome of which I will report to the Assembly. This exercise will include recommendations on how to agree a long-term approach to the problem of underspending across all Departments. This may include, for example, incentives for Departments to improve the quality of estimating — at all times bearing in mind the need to focus on Programme for Government priorities and public service agreement targets.

I wish to report one further item to Members. On 20 December 2001, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced increases in provision for schools in England, and the resulting Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland is £663,000 in 2002-03 and £995,000 in 2003-04. Although this addition to the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure level is the result of a decision to increase spending on education in England, it is of course for the Executive to decide how the resources should be spent here. However, recognising that education is one of the Executive’s key priorities, we have agreed to allocate the 2002-03 share to the Department of Education now.

Although it would not be normal practice to allocate resources for next year during this year’s in-year monitoring process, we have concluded that this approach will allow the Department of Education to plan to make the best possible use of the available resources at an early stage. However, we have agreed that we should retain the £995,000 for 2003-04 as room to manoeuvre for allocation in the course of the Budget 2002 exercise.

I invite the Assembly to note the relatively minor reallocations that have emerged in this monitoring round. I ask Members to note that, taking account of some unforeseen — and unforeseeable — developments, we will now be able to consider some additions to allocations for 2002-03, including some through the Executive programme funds early in the new financial year. I also ask Members to note my intention to return to the Assembly, having rigorously examined the issue of underspending and how to better plan departmental spending.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is important that the issue of room for manoeuvre and the amount of money available this time be examined.

Will the Minister give a breakdown of the funds and how they will be allocated? How much will be used for particular spending, and how much will be added to the Executive programme funds (EPFs)? How do the Executive intend to undertake the process of allocating EPFs, as current rounds have all but been suspended during the review? My Committee has pointed out that the whole issue of EPFs is in question because it is not dealing with new spending and the new bidding process; it is dealing with reallocation of existing funds.

As regards the review of the monitoring process, I welcome the Minister’s concern about the amount of money that keeps coming up in monitoring rounds due to overbidding or underspending by Departments. How will that be dealt with? I welcome the opportunity for the Committee for Finance and Personnel to become involved in that review.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I will endeavour to answer as many of the Member’s questions as possible. However, Hansard will remind me if I overlook one or two, and I will reply to them in writing.

I have said that, taking the various special factors into account, the Executive will use non-allocated funds that have emerged from the monitoring round to augment the EPFs and address immediate funding issues early in the new financial year. However, I am unable to say precisely how the funds will be allocated within the EPFs. We will not consider proposals until soon after Easter, as I have already made clear.

We recognise that the EPFs have been undergoing a detailed review and that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has provided important and helpful assistance to the review. I acknowledge that contribution. The points emerging from the review will be taken on board in any new allocations from the EPFs.

I acknowledge the Member’s point about underspending, and that he has made that point on behalf of the Committee many times. The review of underspending trends is under way, and I hope to return to the Assembly and the Committee with the outcome of that as soon as possible. I have said — if only in broad terms — that we want to encourage Departments to be more precise in forecasting for their budgetary allocations. A greater degree of flexibility may well become available to Departments if we can be assured that they will be more precise in their approach to some aspects of their budgeting than has yet been apparent.

The bids are detailed in the table that has been circulated with my statement, so I do not need to detail them explicitly now. All Members can see where the money has been allocated. Since all the bids are being met, the allocations indicate the nature of the bids themselves.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Following the question about the allocations identified in the monitoring round, the Minister referred to what the Executive consider to be the "immediate funding issues" that face the Administration as we start a new financial year. Will he detail these? Do they reflect the three big priorities previously identified by the Executive and the Assembly — health, education and the transport infrastructure deficit?

Secondly, can the Minister assure us that there will be no negative impact on any of the aims and targets in the Programme for Government as a result of the easements that have been identified in the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? In particular, £9·9 million has been made available by re-phasing the Classroom 2000 project. Can the Minister confirm that that project will still be implemented on schedule?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

There are short answers to most of the questions that the Member has raised. The Programme for Government will not be negatively affected. The pressures that I have referred to are well-known pressures in the three areas that the Member has identified — health, education, and roads and transport. As everyone knows, those are the main areas where major pressures exist, and the Executive will be making the kinds of allocations that are referred to here to address them

I can assure the Member that Classroom 2002 will not be affected. In reallocating funds to different years in the manner I described, I am addressing the re-phasing of the expenditure, rather than the implementation of the project itself

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

The Minister said that he intends to address financial planning in Departments in the hope of reducing underspending. Can he say when he will make his recommendations to the Executive and the Assembly, and what they might be?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

We will be looking at incentives that may allow more flexibility in how Departments handle their allocations. However, the Executive have not had firm proposals, and until they do and those proposals are discussed and approved, I will not be able to bring them to the Assembly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development handed back money allocated to brucellosis compensation. That is astonishing given the rise in brucellosis and the Department’s inability, in some cases, to deal with it because of an apparent lack of money.

The Minister said that he was concerned about Departments handing money back. His former Department, the Department for Education and Learning, has handed back £2·3 million from New Deal. Was that the money that was allocated to enable single parents to get education and help with childminding some time ago?

The Department for Regional Development handed back £2 million in additional receipts from the Water Service. Where did those receipts come from? Also, can the Minister say where the £1·8m from the capital budget for roads has slipped from?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The Member should direct his questions to the relevant Ministers for detailed response. Departments can find that they cannot spend all their allocations in the time available, and underspending occurs. Significant underspending causes concern, and that has led to a review to find out what underlies the planning process in Departments. I hope that that will give rise to more effective planning and forecasting in Departments. I could provide a general response, but I do not have the details available, so I will reply in writing.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

The Minister’s statement was on accounting issues, and he has explained that, so can he answer those questions in the first instance, and then Members can ask the relevant Ministers?

I am surprised that £23·9 million has come back from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Minister said that certain circumstances arose around resource budgeting. Has he asked, or considered asking, the Auditor General to look at that? I am surprised that his Department has not had any indication from the Auditor General about how resource budgeting will affect the Assembly in the next three or four years.

I am surprised also that the Comptroller and Auditor General has not given him information about the implications of all budgeting here over the next three or four years, given that we continually add things on.

Secondly, I am astonished that trusts are breaking even. As a representative for North Belfast, I can assure the House that the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust has been under-resourced for several years. The Minister will probably tell me that that is a matter for Ms de Brún; however, it was Dr Farren who presented the budget. Are those efficiencies the result of cuts in services or improvements to them? I am concerned that there are not enough speech therapists or physiotherapists in North Belfast. Some older people in the constituency have been waiting for 18 months for adaptations to their homes.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

As I said, the £23·9 million saving by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety relates to a technical reduced requirement to deal with the complexity of the conversion to resource budgeting. The Executive are still relatively inexperienced in the new approach to budgeting, and it is especially complex for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, because it has by far the largest departmental budget. It is, therefore, unsurprising that technical issues will arise in that Department. The saving came to our attention through the Department’s improved understanding of the new rules for resource budgeting.

It is not a case of the Department’s not spending its money. Rather, it is an outworking of the transition to resource budgeting, combined with the positive steps taken by the Executive and the Department to address the difficult issues related to health trusts. I emphasise that the planned level of services has been delivered in 2001-02. However, our improved understanding of the implications of the complex conversion from cash to resource budgeting has been achieved at a lower cost to our overall spending power, and has provided welcome room to manoeuvre. We will decide how best to use those funds in the plans that I will introduce after Easter, particularly in those related to the Executive programme funds.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Let us hope that the new accounting procedure that has led to the discovery of £23 million can achieve the same in all the Departments. It is like winning the lottery 23 times over. Let us hope that it is not another mistake, and that that money actually exists.

I am pleased that the Minister shares my concerns about the amount of underspend, particularly at the astounding backlog of £2·3 million in New Deal funding. My Colleagues on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment will wish to examine in more detail the £17 million underspend in that Department.

Although it is good that we have additional money, I am unimpressed by how it is being spent. Why have issues that have come to the Floor, such as women’s advice centres, Tor Bank Special School, integrated education or road safety not been included? Members argue for such provision daily, yet money is not being reallocated for those purposes. Some £11 million remains to be spent. Will some of our demands be met in those areas that matter?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The Member will be aware from my statement, and from the information on the £6·9 million that has been bid for and allocated, that all the bids that Departments have made are being met. That is the simple truth of the matter. The allocations that can be made relate to the nature of the bids. Given the amount of money available to us, we have been able to meet all the bids, and those are detailed.

Some of Ms Morrice’s other questions must be directed at those who have responsibility for the services to which she refers. As I said earlier, it is necessary to address questions of detail to the Ministers who have responsibility for the services that Members are concerned about. I have referred to the general level of underspend on several occasions this morning, and previously. We intend to come back to the Assembly at an early stage and identify how we intend to deal more strategically with forecasting, so that we do not have a continuation of the levels of underspend that have been reported in monitoring rounds to the Assembly.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The allegation is that the £23·9 million of underspend by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety came about due to the Department of Finance and Personnel’s lack of understanding of the rules that it introduced. The Minister states:

"This arose through the complexity of the conversion to resource budgeting, and the saving came to attention through improved understanding of the new rules on resource budgeting".

That shows that someone somewhere along the line did not understand the rules under which they were operating. As a result, £23·9 million that was available to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was not spent. Does the Minister not think that that is totally inconsistent with his suggestion that the planned level of services has been delivered? A planned level of services delivered by the Department that has underspent by £23·9 million is one of the most parlous in Europe.

The Minister is avoiding responsibility for any departmental efficiency, but the public will say that the Department has not spent £23·9 million that was available to it, whether it was for technical reasons or otherwise. The Minister is saying that the planned level of service has been delivered, but the level of service delivered is absolutely disgraceful.

Under the Barnett formula additions, there is money available for the Department of Education. The Minister has decided that the Department of Finance and Personnel will retain nearly £1 million of the amount that is being given specifically for education by central Government under the Barnett formula, and the Minister will lump it into the general kitty to be used for any purpose that his Department may decide. Money that is given to education by central Government should be ring-fenced for education, which is not delivering a product that is anything to write home about.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his question; however, I leave his comments to be addressed by the Ministers responsible for those services. As regards allocations to the Department of Education, Members have to, and do, appreciate that Barnett consequentials are allocated at the discretion of the Executive. That is what devolution brings with it — authority and the right to allocate additional resources as the Executive and the Assembly, in approving what the Executive recommend, see fit.

On this occasion the Executive recommend that the first of the Barnett consequentials be directed to the Department of Education — the second may also be. However, that matter needs to be discussed in greater detail in the budgetary planning by my Department when making recommendations to the Executive and the Assembly.

If the Assembly were merely a channel for allocating money on a similar basis as it is allocated across the water it would have no authority over its expenditure. The Member would have many questions to ask about such an automatic type of public expenditure allocation. That is not what devolution is about. However, I assure the Member that, given the Executive’s identification of the priorities of health, education, roads and transport, education will receive due and adequate consideration in the allocation of that Barnett consequential, as it will in all our allocations.

The £23·9 million, which is causing the Member concern, was an available spending capacity. Had winter pressures, for example, been similar to those we have experienced, the money might have been drawn down. At the stage it was identified to us, it was not possible to make use of the money in that manner or in any other. The money provides us with additional room for manoeuvre, and, as I said, it will be allocated early in the new tax year. I will return to the Assembly after Easter when plans for the Executive programme funds will be finalised. This £23·9 million will make a significant contribution to those funds.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Will the Minister place on record the situation as regards easements made by Departments that are outside departmental expenditure limits? I ask this question because the Department for Employment and Learning has made easements in the past four monitoring rounds in its annually managed expenditure of £11·66 million. What can that money be used for? If it is not being spent in the current financial year, is it lost to Northern Ireland? In reply to a question I asked on the December monitoring statement, the Minister said:

"we are examining the underspending patterns across Departments to see what lessons can be learnt and what advice can be given on budgetary planning."

The Minister referred to the rigorous examination of such underspend. When will that examination be complete?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I trust that it will be completed soon. I shall return to the Assembly with the outcome of the review on underspend. I hope that our strategic approach to forecasting in Departments will reduce underspend. Beyond that I can add nothing at this stage.

Underspending in annually managed expenditure does not benefit Northern Ireland; it reverts to the Treasury.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

The Assembly appreciates the massive pressures on the Health Service and the Minister’s statement that special circumstances have created underspend in it. People on waiting lists and the overworked staff, who are under constant pressure, may find that difficult to understand or to accept. Will the Minister give a detailed explanation of how the reduced requirement arose? I understand the points made about resource budgeting and the fact that there is much more to the problem, and I appreciate that that is in the Health Minister’s remit.

Bearing in mind the state of the Health Service, is it the Minister’s opinion that this is likely to happen again next year?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

There are no certainties about the future. We have acknowledged that departmental forecasting is rigorous in relation to underspends generally. However, the Northern Ireland Assembly is not the only legislature that experiences underspends. There are underspends in Westminister, and they cause Members similar concerns. That imposes obligations on my Department and on all Departments to review their planning and forecasting procedures, and these are being considered and accepted. I cannot guarantee that we will not have underspends in Departments, should similar circumstances arise. I can, however, give an assurance that we shall do all in our power to work with Departments to ensure that forecasting and spending plans are rigorous and that we will address the problem.

The Executive and I are fully aware of the difficulties and pressures that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is experiencing. We are anxious to address those concerns as effectively as possible.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

There has been some slippage, but I am concerned about accountability, and I am glad that we are not throwing good money after bad.

I am concerned that the Budget does not provide for the restructuring of the agriculture industry. I am happy to wait for six months for a substantial scheme to emerge that will contribute to that restructuring. I am glad that good money is not being thrown after bad and would prefer to wait for proposals for which the Assembly would be accountable.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I trust that bad money is never thrown around, which good money follows. I hope that good money will always follow good money. However, that is a matter for judgement.

I hope that Mr Savage appreciates the nature of the statement and the tidying-up exercise that the Executive are engaged in. The issues he raises relate to the policy of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I have deflected certain questions to the Ministers who are directly responsible for Departments. However, I recently heard the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development say that in the summer she would publish detailed plans of her Department’s policies. The expenditure that the Member anticipates will be signalled through those plans rather than in any statement of mine.

British-Irish Council: Environment

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement on the British-Irish Council meeting in its environment sectoral format, which was held on 25 February 2002 in Edinburgh.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I wish to make a statement about the second meeting of the environment sectoral group of the British-Irish Council, which was held in Edinburgh on Monday 25 February 2002. The statement has also been agreed by my accompanying Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Wilson] in the Chair)

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Ms Rogers and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting, which was hosted by Mr Ross Finnie MSP, the Scottish Executive Minister for the Environment and Rural Development. It was chaired by the Rt Hon Mr Michael Meacher MP, Minster for the Environment in the UK Government. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Noel Dempsey TD, Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The National Assembly for Wales was represented by the Minister for the Environment, Ms Sue Essex. The Government of the Isle of Man were represented by the Hon Pamela Crowe MHK, Minister of Local Government and the Environment. The States of Jersey were represented by Senator Nigel Quérée, President of the Planning and Environment Committee. The States of Guernsey were represented by Deputy Roger Berry, President of the Board of Administration. A full list of delegates is appended to the communiqué that was issued after the meeting. I have placed copies of the communiqué in the Library for Members’ information.

The proceedings opened with a warm welcome from the host, who then gave a short presentation on the key issues with regard to waste management, because the Scottish Executive are taking the lead on that item. All delegations agreed that the issues he identified were matters of serious and growing concern. They also thought that there was considerable scope for the Administrations to co-operate, especially in sharing best practice and on research. The group agreed to set up a working group of officials from member Administrations in order to examine the many important waste management issues that they face and to identify scope for co-operation. The working group will present a report of its findings to the next sectoral meeting.

The group also discussed Sellafield and radioactive waste, prompted by a draft paper prepared by the Irish and Isle of Man Governments. Ministers exchanged views on the discussion paper, and the concerns of those Administrations with coastlines on the Irish Sea were recognised. I emphasised the widespread concern in Northern Ireland about emissions from Sellafield, despite the fact that our extensive monitoring programme shows there to be no significant impact.

Officials from my Department have also undertaken joint studies with their counterparts in the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, and with University College Dublin, on the impact of discharges from Sellafield. Those studies also consistently demonstrate low radioactivity levels on the Irish coastline. That work has been published in several reports and presented at international conferences.

I drew attention to public concern about the safety and security of the Sellafield plant and shared with ministerial colleagues the assurance that I received on those matters from Mr Brian Wilson, Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment. I informed the group of this Assembly’s recent motion on Sellafield, which attracted cross-party support. I also expressed my view that the British-Irish Council is the most appropriate forum for making representations about Sellafield.

The group agreed that the exchange of views had been useful and that Sellafield and radioactive waste should be given more detailed discussion at the next sectoral meeting. Michael Meacher recognised the concerns expressed and that something must be done. He also committed himself to bringing forward a UK strategy in the spring to deal with that matter. The Irish and Isle of Man Governments were committed to bringing forward a more definitive paper, based on the draft paper that was presented on 25 February.

The next item of business was a paper from the United Kingdom Government drawing attention to a proposed regional seas pilot study as part of the review of marine nature conservation. The study will examine the effectiveness of existing systems for marine nature conservation and make recommendations for improvement. The Irish Sea was selected for the pilot scheme as it has the advantage of engaging all UK Administrations, as well as the Governments of Ireland and the Isle of Man. Members agreed that it was a worthwhile project and indicated their interest in participating in the study.

The group also considered a progress report from the working group on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The meeting noted with satisfaction the progress made and agreed that the working group should continue to ensure that realistic assessments of potential climate change impacts are made for all areas of Britain and Ireland. It was also agreed that the working group should report to the next sectoral meeting.

On behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive, I offered to host the third environment sectoral group meeting, which will probably be held this October, in Belfast. The group accepted my offer.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister’s statement raised several issues that I would like to comment on, but I must limit myself to two.

Last Tuesday the Minister gave the opening address to the annual convention of the Sustainable Development Commission. Was the important subject of sustainable development discussed, or even mentioned, in Edinburgh? The Programme for Government that was published in February 2001 set a target of June 2001 for the publication of proposals for a Northern Ireland sustainable development strategy. The Committee still eagerly awaits to be consulted on those proposals. When will they be published? Will the Minister consider putting sustainable development on the agenda of the British-Irish Council’s next environment sectoral meeting, to be held in Belfast?

Can the Minister give some details of the discussions that were held on waste minimisation? Note that I did not say, "waste management", but "waste minimisation." What lessons does the Minister feel Northern Ireland can learn from the Scottish experience?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. This is the first time that I have spoken while you have been in the Chair. I noticed the changeover but did not wish to mention it during my speech.

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment for his comprehensive question. I shall deal with it appropriately.

Sustainable development was not dealt with substantively at the British-Irish Council meeting. However, I share the Chairperson’s view of its importance. The seminar that I attended exercised my mind on the necessary complementarity of protecting the environment and having a sustained, developed economy. Those two elements can be viewed as mutually exclusive, but the aim is for them to complement each other. That theme of protecting the environment while developing the economy is very important. It permeates the Programme for Government and goes to the heart of the Department of the Environment’s work. I say openly and positively that I shall consider whether sustainable development should be on the agenda for the next meeting.

"Minimisation" is an important word; it means that the creation of waste must be minimal. However, that is only one element of what must be done. More waste must be recycled, and more must be recovered. There are very clear targets, and I do not know at this stage whether they can be met, but we shall endeavour to meet them. Some £2 million has been provided to assist councils in this financial year, with a further £7·4 million next year. No doubt, further questions will be asked on the issue, but I hope that my answer has been comprehensive.

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I am disappointed that he did not tell us that, at the meeting, he moved away from the Executive’s thinking and criticised the Irish Government’s legal challenge to the Sellafield plant. Does the Minister agree that to use the British-Irish Council meeting to express his own views so forcibly, despite what the Executive had agreed in advance, was both inappropriate and a breach of ministerial protocol?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I welcome that question. The British-Irish Council exists to make all possible efforts to resolve the elements of conflict. Therefore, an element of the British-Irish Council deals with Sellafield. The Irish Government were the first to mention the court case at the British-Irish Council meeting. My point was that the first meeting of that Council was in December 1999, and the next meeting was almost one year later, in October 2000. We waited almost one and a half years before the next meeting, which dealt with highly important environmental issues. Given the length of time that had elapsed between meetings, the necessity to resolve the conflict, which is what the British-Irish Council is about, and the Irish Minister saying that he was going to court twice, I said that British-Irish Council meetings were the appropriate forum to resolve conflict. I meant to cause no offence to any party or individual, but my statement accorded with my interpretation of the situation.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister advise the House what impact the commissioning of the Sellafield mixed oxide (MOX) plant will have on the Northern Ireland population?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

The purpose of the MOX plant is to create new energy — not to dispose of energy. It has been in initial operation since December 2001, but to allow for full working, that decision must be made. The Member asked about its impact on Northern Ireland, which is an important consideration. We must adopt measured tones. We must examine the facts before we make statements that can hype up a community in one way or another.

I have examined the scientific evidence presented to me, and it is clear that the workings of the MOX plant were examined over many months before it became operable. The word "microsievert" refers to measurement of the level of activity that hits us. The estimation is that the operation of the MOX plant will expose us to 0·002 microsieverts, which is two thousandths of one unit and equivalent to two seconds on board a transatlantic flight. However, on average, Mr and Mrs Citizen of Northern Ireland are hit by 2,500 microsieverts of radiation each year. That is the scientific evidence that has been presented to me, and I want it to be examined in more detail.

Friends of the Earth has commented on the scientific evidence. I met its representatives and put the statistics to them. We will meet again, because in situations which the people of Northern Ireland and my home county of Down find emotive and sensitive, and in which scientific evidence has been presented, we must ensure that we examine the issues in a measured and controlled fashion, rather than in an emotive way.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister is urging caution over Sellafield; I urge that we wake up to Sellafield. Recently, I visited it with TDs from Dublin as part of an interparliamentary body. A sign on the wall in the control room of the MOX plant read "23 days since last minor accident". The target is 42 days, because that is the record number of days without a minor accident. When the Minister speaks with representatives of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, will he determine what constitutes a minor accident?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I plan to visit Sellafield in the near future, and Michael Meacher has invited me. At the meeting in February, he gave a commitment to implement a strategy in the spring to reduce the emissions from Sellafield. An agreement was reached at the 1998 ministerial meeting of the Oslo and Paris (OSPAR) Commission, and we must ensure that those commitments are met.

The British-Irish Council environment sector group will meet again in October in Belfast to consider the views of the Government of the United Kingdom. It will also consider the comments of the Governments of the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man, who are to bring forward their document in its final form. Prior to that meeting, I will visit Sellafield to see what is happening. Therefore, to acknowledge the Member’s point, we have woken up to Sellafield.

I ensured that all the Assembly’s concerns were expressed at the last British-Irish Council meeting. I took note of the commitment given by Michael Meacher, who is the Minister responsible for Sellafield. In waking up to Sellafield, we must carefully analyse what Sellafield is doing to the environment. We must be clear on that.

There has been only one habit survey outside the area directly affected by Sellafield. A habit survey charts the way in which people work and how Sellafield may affect them. In 2000, the habits of 871 people from areas between Belfast and Carlingford Lough were examined. According to scientific evidence, if an individual were to eat 100 pounds of fish a year, swim in the Irish Sea for 100 hours a year, or work on the coast for 1000 hours a year — those people would be most exposed to Sellafield — he would be exposed to 18 microsieverts a year. By comparison, everyone is already exposed to an average of 2,500 microsieverts each year.

We talk about waking up to Sellafield, but we must wake up to radioactivity. One of the biggest sources of radioactivity in Northern Ireland is radon, which seeps up through the ground. Only 23% of people in Northern Ireland have taken advantage of the free test for radon in their homes. We must wake up to more than Sellafield; we must wake up to radioactivity in general in Northern Ireland.

I cannot be specific about what constitutes a minor accident at Sellafield. However, I will examine the matter, and I will ask that question when I visit the plant. I hope that I have answered the questions comprehensively.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. I trust that that means that you will be kind to me today and in the future.

Dr McCrea asked the Minister about sustainable development. Before the next meeting of the British-Irish Council, which he is due to host in October, the world summit on sustainable development will take place in Johannesburg. I understand that the UK Government will be represented at that summit but that the devolved regions will not, despite the fact that they are responsible for sustainable development. Since he probably has not done so, will the Minister undertake to discuss with the Scottish and Welsh Ministers, Mr Finnie and Ms Essex, the opportunity to secure direct representation of the devolved Governments in Johannesburg?

There has been much discussion about Sellafield. Rather than use British Nuclear Fuels Ltd’s BNFL-speak to address the people of Northern Ireland, will the Minister undertake that, following his examination of Sellafield, he will discuss with the other devolved bodies, the Irish and Manx Governments, how the matter can be approached in October to take into account people’s fears? People are not concerned about how many microsieverts they may be exposed to when the plant is working normally, but about what might go wrong at Sellafield, given past accidents.

What are the waste issues of serious and increasing concern that Mr Finnie identified?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Whoops. The rigour of Mr Ford’s questioning almost made me fall over.

I am conscious of the representation of devolved regions at the world summit in Johannesburg. Recently, I presented a cheque to a primary school in Ballymena for its work on sustainable development. One pupil from that school will attend the summit in Johannesburg.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Minister be going to Johannesburg?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

The Member asked a question, so he should let me answer it.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Environment Committee, Ms Lewsley, highlighted the importance of our being represented at the summit. The position is clear: the decision on who will represent the United Kingdom Government is in the Prime Minister’s hands. Scotland will be represented, and I am unsure about Wales. However, I am considering whether this devolved Administration should be represented and, if so, who should represent it.

Mr Ford said that I gave "BNFL-speak" on statistics. I refute that. The statistics that I gave were produced by our Department. Much collaborative research on emissions levels has been conducted by Northern Ireland bodies and by the Irish Government, and those results show a minimal emissions level. I did not say that that was the end of the story — quite the reverse. I said that I take on board the statistics, and that I am conscious of the sensitive nature of this matter. I have discussed the issue with Friends of the Earth, which has been the most outspoken opponent of Sellafield. I shall have further discussions with it and with others because we must fully understand the problems in this highly sensitive area, which involves much scientific and statistical data, rather than make statements of political hype. That is something that I, as Minister of the Environment, will not do.

Mr Ford’s third question was about waste, and that is a serious matter. There are several issues. For example, we put too much waste into holes in the ground. We recycle only about 6% of waste in Northern Ireland, compared to other parts of Europe where more than 40% is recycled. Less waste must go into landfill and more must be recovered and recycled, and we must produce less waste. We could recycle 60% of all waste as reusable biodegradable material. Those elements must be considered. A waste management strategy is in place, and three groups of councils are drawing up waste management plans. This is an important issue, and I have tried to deal with some of the concerns.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

As it is only the Minister’s second opportunity to answer questions in the House, he can be forgiven for overlooking my Colleague Patricia Lewsley’s question on ministerial protocol. I offer him the opportunity to address that in his response.

Will the Minister clarify his position and that of his Department on the health and security issues arising from the continuing operation of the inherently dangerous Sellafield plant? Given that the Department is collecting statistics and information, will the Minister consult members of the County Down fishing fleets and ask them why they will not fish in certain areas of the Irish Sea because of the deformed species to be found there? How many microsieverts are responsible for producing such deformity?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am not sure whether Mr ONeill wishes me to comment further on the matter raised by Ms Lewsley. I feel that I have sufficiently answered that question, so I shall not return to the matter unless Mr ONeill specifically wishes me to do so.

The Member couched his question on health and security issues arising from Sellafield in a reference to the County Down fishing fleet and the deformed species that are being caught. That is the type of language that I do not wish to use. I have made it clear in my statement that I have concerns about the matter, especially as I live in County Down. I am not a fly-by-night in this matter. Health concerns us all.

That is why I have said in almost every one of my answers that we must be measured in our tone, examine the position clearly and reach a measured judgement on where we go from here. I do not want a Sellafield in my backyard — of course I do not. However, realpolitik dictates that I am where I am today. I have a Sellafield and a new mixed oxide (MOX) plant, which opened in December 2001, at my back door, and total responsibility for that lies with the United Kingdom Government. The United Kingdom Government will bring forward proposals in April, to be discussed again in October, and that is the best forum for trying to resolve the conflicts attached to Sellafield.

Security is a concern. Indeed, the ships bringing the substance to be dealt with at Sellafield, or a September 11-type catastrophe at Sellafield, may be of greater concern than the emissions from the MOX plant. These concerns were expressed, and we sought assurances from the United Kingdom Government, which were given. I am not saying that I accept them totally, and I do not know the details, but the Government have given an assurance of increased security.

With regard to the ships, a separate company has been operating them for 20 years, and they have travelled 3 million nautical miles without any problem. Each crew member has to be qualified one level above what he is operating on at any time, and there are many and varied examples of safety, navigation and security measures in the working of those vessels. The shipping used to transfer the material is of the highest order of any shipping in the world. Of course there are risks — one does not deny that — but there is a comprehensive brief on the level of safety and security on those ships that sail back and forth to Sellafield trading their wares.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Does the Minister support the introduction of an aggregates tax in Northern Ireland, and was that discussed at the British-Irish Council?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I appreciate how an aggregates tax would fit in with protecting the environment, which we are discussing. The issue was not specifically discussed at the British-Irish Council, but I mentioned it. This is an example of how tax regimes can change in the United Kingdom fiscal unit without account being taken of our land border with a neighbouring state, which is an important matter that is not common to any other part of the United Kingdom. I mentioned the tax, but the British-Irish Council did not discuss it. However, it was taken on board.

Regarding the aggregates tax, I am aware of the cross-border impact on quarry owners in that area. I am also aware that we have negotiated a derogation for aggregates used for concrete blocks, pipes and such like, for one year — it will be introduced progressively from 2003-04 onwards.

12.00

There is no derogation for virgin aggregates. However, we are negotiating with the Department of Finance and Personnel to make the case that must be made in that, as I said at the outset, Northern Ireland is unique in having a land border with another country whenever it comes to fiscal measures which are uniformly applied throughout the United Kingdom. Of course, the European Commission must be allowed to have their say on these aspects as well, so the jury is still out on full implementation of some elements of the aggregates tax.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to the joint studies that officials from his Department have carried out with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and University College, Dublin. Can he detail the level of access that his officials have to Sellafield? Can he also assure the House that officials from his Department have unlimited, unhindered access to Sellafield for monitoring and scrutinising purposes? Go raibh maith agat.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am not sure if I heard that correctly about uninhibited access for officials to monitor what is taking place. I cannot give a definite answer on the level of access to Sellafield. However, the irony is that people are not concerned about the inner workings of Sellafield so much as about emissions from it that affect people in Northern Ireland. You do not need to go to Sellafield to feel what the emissions may be. I hope that I make myself clear.

I will give an example of the level of examination: sediment, seawater, seaweed and fish are examined regularly for radioactivity, as are the air above and the sand below. People too are checked to see if they are affected by where they work, by what they do and by radioactivity. Officials do much to examine the impact of Sellafield.

With regard to the inner workings of Sellafield, I will be going there to examine as best as I can what is happening. However, Mr Wilson, the Minister of State for Energy and Industry, has said that information about security there cannot be divulged, and I can understand that.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Sellafield and radioactive waste were discussed at length at the British-Irish Council meeting. Living in, and representing, the coastal constituency of East Antrim, I have a question reflecting environmental concerns. Does the Minister’s Department monitor the effects of Sellafield’s discharge around the coast of Northern Ireland? If so, are the findings made public, and are they easily accessible to the public and public representatives?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

The impact of Sellafield is monitored regularly. The findings are made public, and they are made available at various conferences. I said earlier that we should not be hyped up, and I am not saying that the Member is hyped up — quite the reverse. However, part of the reason I mentioned the measurement of 2,500 microsieverts in comparison with the measurement of 18 microsieverts a year for people who work many hours on the coast is to raise awareness among Assembly Members and the greater public that these elements are surrounded by great sensitivity. At the same time, scientific and statistical evidence relating to the argument is being brought forward. We have a responsibility to examine such evidence, put it to all concerned and see if we can reach a measured judgement on its validity. I will ensure that that happens. I can only say to the Member that if the information is not easily accessible I will endeavour to see what can be done to make it more accessible. All the information I have quoted is in the public domain; it has been made known through various seminars and it includes the work being done in Southern Ireland.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. Just as in today’s questions, much attention at the meeting was given to radioactive emissions from Sellafield into the Irish Sea. Does the Minister agree that emissions from non-nuclear power stations would also be worthy of discussion at the British-Irish Council in its environment format? I ask this question because it looks as though the UK will achieve its Kyoto Protocol target in reducing the level of so-called greenhouse gases, as measured in 2010, relative to the 1990 level of production. However, the Republic of Ireland, which has raised such a fuss over Sellafield, sadly seems to be on track for a substantial growth in the level of carbon emissions from its power stations.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

Emissions that can come from other forms of electricity generation were not mentioned at the British-Irish Council meeting. However, they are relevant to the question asked by the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment about sustainable development. We must have a twin approach — protecting the environment while ensuring that the economy prospers. Other emissions, such as car exhausts, for example, must be borne in mind at the appropriate forums.

North/South Ministerial Council: Tourism

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in its tourism sectoral format held on 22 February 2002 in County Fermanagh. I remind Members who wish to ask questions of the Minister of the Speaker’s ruling — it is expected that such Members be present in the Chamber for the Minister’s statement as a matter of courtesy.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The fifth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in tourism sectoral format took place in Killadeas, County Fermanagh, on Friday 22 February 2002.

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Ms Bairbre de Brún and I represented the Northern Ireland Administration. The Irish Government were represented by Dr James McDaid TD, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation. This report has been approved by Ms de Brún and is also made on her behalf.

Mr Andrew Coppel, chairperson of Tourism Ireland Ltd, presented a progress report on developments since the last Council meeting in this sector. Mr Coppel reported that, in addition to the launch of the 2002 marketing programme in Dublin and Belfast on 7 November 2001, launches took place in London, New York and Toronto, and further launches are planned for Germany and France. Campaigns are now under way in key target markets.

The chairperson also reported that it is hoped that Tourism Ireland Ltd will occupy its new headquarters premises in Bishop’s Square, Dublin by June 2002 and that the office in Coleraine will be occupied by October 2002. Temporary premises are in operation in Dublin and Coleraine.

The company intends to expand its tourism marketing partnership arrangements to include a broader participation by industry in Northern Ireland and in the South. Market industry consultative groups are also to be formally established in each main market. Those arrangements will be a vital input into the work of Tourism Ireland Ltd and will help a participative approach with the industry. The Council welcomed Mr Coppel’s report and commended the progress made since November.

The chief executive of Tourism Ireland Ltd, Mr Paul O’Toole, gave the Council a formal presentation on the company’s corporate plan for 2002 to 2004 and its operating plan for 2002.

The company’s corporate plan states that its two key goals are to increase tourism to the island of Ireland and to support Northern Ireland to realise its tourism potential. The principles underlying those goals will be to reach out to consumers in the international marketplace and to encourage business linkages between the tourist industry and the travel trade in target markets. The corporate plan anticipates 5% compound growth in tourism to the island of Ireland, with 8% compound growth for Northern Ireland for each of the three years 2002, 2003 and 2004.

The company’s operating plan for 2002 is aimed at ensuring that Tourism Ireland Ltd delivers on its mandate. Mr O’Toole acknowledged that 2002 would be a challenging year. Consequently, the company’s efforts during the year will be focused on three main areas of activity: securing business through implementing ambitious, innovative marketing programmes; establishing the necessary marketing capabilities and communications infrastructure to take the company forward in a new and dynamic environment; and building and motivating a team of tourism professionals to work with industry partners.

A major component of the 2002 plan is to develop better performance measures for the tourism sector and the company.

The Council approved the company’s corporate plan and proposed marketing activities in 2002. The Council also confirmed its wish to see Tourism Ireland Ltd play a leading role in the development of the tourism industry on the island of Ireland, and it restated the importance of the industry to economic growth in both parts of the island.

The Council agreed that its next meeting in tourism sectoral format would take place in May 2002.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He outlined that the projected growth through the corporate plan would be 8% compound growth for Northern Ireland for each of the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. Those targets are commendable, and I hope that they will be achieved.

What are the likely implications for the growth in employment in tourism in Northern Ireland? Hitherto, our sector has been smaller than might be expected, and growth in employment would be desirable.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member is correct that those are commendable targets, and I will give a flavour of what the figures mean. Approximately 1·3 million people visit Northern Ireland annually from outside the island. When Tourism Ireland Ltd was established, specific reference was made in the December 1998 statement that the company would have to pay particular attention to Northern Ireland’s needs, bearing in mind the problems of the last 30 years. Consequently, although the overall target for growth in visitor numbers is 5%, there is a specific target for Northern Ireland because extra emphasis will have to be put there, given that we have further to catch up.

On growth over the three-year period of the plan, the 8% compound growth in visitors coming from outside the island to Northern Ireland would mean approximately 300,000 additional visitors. Given that our contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) from tourism is approximately 2%, compared with between 6% and 7% in both the Republic and Scotland, it is clear that we have a huge mountain to climb.

I do not have figures at hand that indicate how that will project into numbers of people employed. However, it is clear that, with respect to the numbers of additional visitors to the island coming to Northern Ireland, we are looking at an increase of one quarter on our current position. That does not mean that 25% more people will be employed. There is still a great deal of slack to be taken up in the sector. I shall be happy to write to the Member to give him our economists’ assessment of the likely impact.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the fact that we are slowly but steadily getting the tourism industry moving. That is something that many of us have hoped for. I trust that that hope and confidence is well placed. The words in the Minister’s statement that particularly excited me were:

"Building and motivating a team of tourism professionals to work with industry partners".

Will the Minister expand on that? It strikes me that a great deal of training and organisation will be required. It is not just about the young person providing refreshments or a meal in a bar or restaurant. All too often, tourists tell me that our providers at the microlevel are thinking only of what they can get out of the tourists, rather than how they can serve the tourists and bring them back. Training and motivation is, therefore, very important. The Assembly must look at that as a long-term investment. We have to condition our players, from the top to the bottom of the Northern Ireland tourism industry, to think about developing repeat business. That is something that we will come back to on a regular basis.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

That was indeed a significant part of the statement. The quality of the product that we offer to visitors is directly related to the motivation of the team who deliver that service. I have attended all of these meetings alongside the Minister for Employment and Learning. That Department, in conjunction with CERT, the Republic’s tourism training agency, has been developing programmes specifically aimed at owner-providers, who find it difficult to find the time to receive training. That programme has been running for 18 months and has been very well subscribed.

Two things have to take place. A partnership has to be built with the industry. There is no point in having the marketing structure provided by Tourism Ireland Ltd with nothing else happening. The product as a whole has to be improved so that there is something to market. We all accept that there have been shortcomings, and we understand why. Those who have been brave enough to invest in facilities have been let down by the unfortunate arrival of foot-and-mouth disease last year and also by the continuing background noise of civil disturbance. That has greatly affected the industry and left it at one third of its capacity. I have often made that point in the House.

I assure the Member that tourism, through its wider involvement with Tourism Ireland Ltd, is conscious that it must embark on a quality management scheme throughout the industry. People have higher expectations in the challenging markets that lie ahead. They are no longer prepared to accept substandard services and facilities, and we are conscious of that. I assure the Member that it is one of the guiding principles that is focusing the minds of Tourism Ireland Ltd as we move forward with marketing.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Before I come to the question relating to consultative groups, the participative approach to the industry, the securing of business through marketing programmes and the infrastructure, I thank the Minister for last week bringing to Omagh the new advanced factory, for the occupants that will take it up and for the prospect of 200 jobs in west Tyrone.

With regard to the Minister’s statement, what is available for the farming community in west Tyrone by way of diversification into the tourism industry? There may be another blow to west Tyrone, so how will that community be involved? The Nestlé factory employs about 200 people and buys milk from many farmers. The milk industry is in depression and is under threat of possible rationalisation. I know that this may not be the Minister’s direct responsibility — [Interruption].

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I see the Minister smiling. Like me, he is probably wondering where the question is.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

What help can now be offered by way of diversification to farmers who are suppliers, and to workers in that industry, by way of the possibility of cross-border tourist trade?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member gets nine out of 10 for ingenuity in that question. With regard to the Nestlé factory, enquiries are currently in hand on that. Rural tourism was not part of the agenda for the North/South Ministerial Council on this occasion. It is a matter in which my Colleague in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, myself and others have a keen interest, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think that you will have to concede that that is possibly a question for another day.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I noticed that the questioner was smiling, I was smiling, and the Minister was smiling, so perhaps it was not the occasion for an argument.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire. I welcome the fact that the meeting took place in Fermanagh towards the end of February. Last year tourism in Ireland was severely damaged by foot-and-mouth disease. This year it appears that tourism in Ireland will be affected by foot-in-mouth. Can the Minister comment on the potential damage caused to tourism in Ireland, North and South, by the remarks of his party leader in describing the rest of Ireland as a "pathetic, sectarian, mono-cultural and mono-ethnic state"? Last year it was foot-and-mouth disease, but this year it appears that foot-in-mouth will have devastating consequences for tourism in Ireland.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are aware that again that is not a relevant question, but the Member may reflect that if he and his colleagues stick up posters around the countryside trying to intimidate young Catholics from joining the Police Service, that might also have an impact on tourism.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Before I call Mr McMenamin, I have to say that my patience is now exhausted with this type of questioning. I will not accept it.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. I also welcome the setting up of a team of tourism professionals with industry partners. However, does the Minister agree that it is vital that businesses throughout Ireland be euro-friendly in order to facilitate visitors coming from the South and from Europe?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Like it is with everything else, the tourism sector is at the front line. Through the Northern Ireland Euro Preparations Forum, my Department has been working, and continues to work, to ensure that this and other industries make appropriate provisions to handle currency from wherever it comes. The hospitality sector is probably at a more advanced stage in its involvement with the euro than is any other business. I have not received any complaints that visitors are having difficulty. However, if Members are aware of any, I am happy to be advised so that we can take whatever steps are necessary. Much travel to Northern Ireland, or to any destination, is booked in advance in the currency of the country from which the person departs. Therefore, we are talking about ordinary spending money. The availability of bureaux de change in Northern Ireland, and at our airports, is the same as everywhere else. The evidence I have at my disposal is that the tourism sector is further advanced than any other. However, if Members have contrary information, I am willing to take it up with the concerned facilities.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. A Member mentioned earlier the 8% compound growth for the years 2002-04. How was that figure arrived at, given that the North of Ireland closes down for a substantial period at the height of the tourist season in July, and given the increased sectarian tensions and attacks that are associated with Orange marches? Have those factors been taken into account when arriving at the figure of 8%?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

A target is a target, and, like all targets, it is the best estimate that the professionals in Tourism Ireland Ltd could come up with. Tourism Ireland Ltd has set itself what it believes is an achievable target. Our industry is only one third of the size that it should be, which is a direct result of the community’s being in turmoil for 30 years. It is the only significant reason that I can think of for our current predicament. I have made it clear on several occasions that if the community continues to behave in the way that it does from time to time, especially in the summer months, that will continue to have a negative impact. However, the problem did not begin yesterday; it goes back decades, and we must deal with that legacy. That is why so much effort must go into marketing.

The figure of 8% was based on several factors. First, Tourism Ireland Ltd has a specific remit to do more to help Northern Ireland because of its background, and that was contained in the December 1998 statement to which I referred earlier. Secondly, it must look at where we are now. Although figures for the current year are not yet complete, it is obvious that we shall have slipped back in the previous year because of foot-and-mouth disease, September 11, et cetera. Tourism Ireland Ltd has tried to set a goal for the industry that is based both on the huge increase that there will be in marketing spend and on the fact that the marketing spend is being targeted at areas in which greater potential for growth exists. It must give the industry something to aim for. That situation is subject to change as a result of repercussions from external events. However, Tourism Ireland Ltd drew a balance between what it would like to see and what it felt was achievable. That is its professional judgement at present. I cannot second-guess that judgement, and I am prepared to accept the target, work towards it and hope that it will be exceeded. However, as the Member will be aware, that depends on events.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate him and his Department on the work and progress that they have made. I am, however, concerned about the wording of the Minister’s statement. He said:

"The Company intends to expand its Tourism Marketing Partnership arrangements to include a broader participation by industry in Northern Ireland and in the South."

Does the Minister mean that there is an identified need to introduce a better balance between Northern Ireland and the South, and can he give some details about the market industry consultative groups and how they are to be established?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

That reference relates to a balance within the industry. When the board was formed there was a belief that not all sectors were represented at the level and to the extent that they should have been. At that time, Dr McDaid and I received a significant amount of correspondence, which expressed concern that some of the smaller businesses were not involved. When forming the board we had to make a judgement. It was its first time out, and, because it was to be focused on international marketing, it had a changed management role. We took the view that a person with change management skills was needed to help a significant business get started and established. We recognised that, to be totally representative, the board would have to be larger than the present board, and our view is that that would be unmanageable.

As a whole, the sector has a number of component parts, all of them important. It was decided that, to move away from having only the big battalions represented, people would have to be involved and participate at a different level. There are so many different sectors; for example, we have the regional tourism organisations (RTOs) in Northern Ireland. They are critical groups. In the Republic, Dr McDaid has an advisory group feeding information to him and his Department and Bord Fáilte. We need to develop the sector by involving those who participate in it, so that they have feedback into the marketing campaign and all sorts of activities.

We were trying to achieve a better balance with the industry — not a better balance North/South, but a balance within the sector. That means greater participation and involvement by the small as well as the large businesses. We were conscious that the initial board suffered from the fact that some of the smaller sector people felt that they were not getting a fair share, so we are attempting to deal with that perception by involving more people, and in doing that, we hope that people will feel part of the policies and campaigns that are being implemented. There is no point in having a marketing campaign if the product is not there to match it.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Minister is aware that we will be welcoming him as a tourist to Kilkeel on Friday. However, unlike Mr Gibson, I am not going to use that as a hook on which to hang a question totally unrelated to his statement.

The Minister is aware that the use of the Tourist Board’s overseas marketing budget has been shrouded in controversy recently, and corporate hospitality has come under the microscope. Is he convinced that the necessary budgetary controls are in place for Tourism Ireland to ensure that this is never raised again, bringing tourism here and in the Irish Republic into controversy?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am sure the Member does not wish to mix controversy with reality. One side of the argument has been put, but because of protocol and the procedures of the Public Accounts Committee, the other side has not. The Member must wait until May to have that question answered.

With regard to the substantive point, while it was not part of the business of the North/South Ministerial Council in February, I can advise the Member that the board and the North/South Ministerial Council are conscious of their responsibilities. Both the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Finance in the Republic are involved directly. The Northern Ireland Audit Office is the auditor of Tourism Ireland Ltd. Both Finance Departments are clear that normal financial accountability features will apply — Tourism Ireland Ltd will be subject to the same standards as we apply to any public body in Northern Ireland. Therefore the Member can be assured that accountability for money will remain clear to the House, via the Minister of Finance and Personnel and me.

Tourism Ireland Ltd has internal procedures, which will be always subject to review. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has set out a code of practice, copies of which are available in the Assembly Library. At a previous NSMC meeting — when the company was set up — it was agreed that that code of practice would establish the necessary protocols.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his valuable statement.

In the context of the February monitoring round, which was announced today by the Minister for Finance and Personnel, was there a reason for the £2 million underspend by Tourism Ireland Ltd last year?

Can the Minister give us details on the additional funding allocation of £1 million that was made to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s foot-and-mouth disease tourism recovery strategy in the February monitoring round?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I will deal with the latter point first. After the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak last February the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment moved as quickly as possible to introduce measures to salvage what was left of last year’s tourism season. Last spring my Department conducted a rigorous marketing campaign through the Tourist Board, which cost around £1 million. That was part of the recovery programme that the Executive launched at that time, alongside the scheme to compensate people for loss of revenue. It was designed to get throughput into local businesses. It was widely welcomed by the industry and made a significant contribution.

There is no problem regarding the underspend. The time that it took to set up the compensation body, to acquire premises and to employ staff was such that the personnel were not in place. There were also difficulties with trade unions, particularly in the Republic, regarding the transfer of employees from Bord Fáilte to Tourism Ireland Ltd. The establishment of premises was delayed. The combination of those events meant that the budget was not spent.

This year’s budget is the first that the Department will spend primarily on marketing. It will be its first season out. Last year, the company was not sufficiently advanced to spend its budget. There was a protracted labour dispute, which is now resolved. Consequently, it was decided that the money would be returned to the Executive at the earliest opportunity — so that it could be reallocated to the benefit of other Departments — rather than at the end of the year when that opportunity would have been lost. I am sure that the Member approves of that procedure.

The sitting was suspended at 12.40 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Children (Leaving Care) Bill: Second Stage

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Molaim go dtugtar a Dhara Céim don Bhille Leanaí (Ag Fágáil Cúraim).

I nDeireadh Fómhair 2000, sheol mé tuarascáil dar teideal ‘Promoting Independence: a Review of Leaving and After Care Services’. Bhí an tuarascáil, a cuireadh amach ag Foireann Chigireachta na Seirbhísí Sóisialta, bunaithe ar shuirbhé ar sholáthar fhágáil cúraim agus soláthar iarchúraim ar fud na n-iontaobhas uilig i 1999. Ba é príomhchinneadh an athbhreithnithe go mbíonn daoine óga atá ag fágáil cúraim faoi mhíbhuntáistí i dtaca le hoideachas, fostaíocht, tithíocht agus tacaíocht theaghlaigh de. Fuair an tuarascáil gur gá le tacaíocht níos fearr ó ghníomhaireachtaí na hearnála poiblí.

Idir 1996 agus 1999 d’fhág thart ar 670 duine óg idir 16 agus 18 cúram. Ní raibh ach 16 bliana ag beagnach 25% acu ag fágáil cúraim dóibh. Den chuid eile, d’fhág breis agus 50% acu cúram sular shroich siad 18. Tá na daoine óga seo atá ag fágáil cúraim ar na daoine is leoachailí inár sochaí, agus tá dúshláin mhóra futhu. Caithfidh siad déileáil leis an chumha; caithfidh siad obair a fháil; agus caithfidh siad fáil amach cé leis a ba chóir dóibh dul i dteagmháil ar lorg cuidiú. Ó nach bhfuil tacaíocht theaghlaigh ag mórán de na daoine óga seo, is fadhbanna móra iad na fadhbanna seo a chuireann faoi mhíbhuntáiste iad.

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill (NIA 5/01) be agreed.

In October 2000, I launched a report titled ‘Promoting Independence: A Review of Leaving and Aftercare Services’. The report, which was produced by the Social Services Inspectorate, was based on a survey of leaving and aftercare provision across all trusts during 1999. The review’s main finding was that young people leaving care experience a range of disadvantages in education, employment, housing and family support. The report concluded that there was a need for a better level of support from public agencies.

Between 1996 and 1999, some 670 young people aged between 16 and 18 became care leavers. Almost 25% of those young people were aged only 16 when they left care. Of the remainder, over 50% left care before reaching the age of 18. Young care leavers are among the most vulnerable young people in society, and they face several major challenges. They must cope with issues such as loneliness, finding a job and knowing whom to contact for help. For many of those young people, who lack family support, those are major problems that place them at a disadvantage.

The report noted that the range of accommodation into which young people move after leaving care is varied, and provides different levels of support and supervision. On leaving care, 35% of young people returned home, and 35% moved into their own accommodation, were discharged to semi-independent living or were admitted to hostels. The remaining 30% either went into other unspecified accommodation or were not accounted for by the trust that had been looking after them.

Trusts already have arrangements in place to provide leaving and aftercare services. The Bill aims to help to further promote the life chances of young people who are looked after by trusts as they make the gradual transition from care to independent living. The introduction of the Bill meets a commitment in the Programme for Government to introduce legislation to help to support young people who are leaving care.

In March 2001, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety published a consultation document titled ‘Proposals for a Children Leaving Care Bill’. I am pleased to say that the proposals received general support, and I thank all the organisations that responded.

The Bill itself is fairly short. Members have a copy of the explanatory and financial memorandum, which describes the Bill’s provisions. The new legislation is intended to form the basis for new and improved leaving and aftercare services, building on the existing statutory provisions in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. I will outline the main features of the Bill.

The support provided by trusts to young people in care, and to those leaving care, should be equivalent to that which young people should receive from good parents.

When the new legislation comes into operation, every young person aged 16 or over being looked after by social services and who satisfies certain criteria will have a pathway plan and a personal adviser. It is important that young people be helped to plan their future to enable them to achieve their aspirations. The pathway plan will be crucial to the new arrangements, as it will map out the road to independent living. It will address issues such as accommodation, education, training, career plans and the support to be provided by the trust.

We will want young people to be directly involved in drawing up their plans, together with other interested parties. The plan will be reviewed regularly so that it develops with the young person’s changing needs and ambitions. It will continue in effect until the young person reaches 21, and beyond that if the young person is in a programme of education or training that takes them past that age.

The Bill also introduces a new duty requiring trusts to arrange for each eligible young person to have a personal adviser. Many young people are unaware of the services available to them and how to access them. Under the new arrangements, it is essential that young people receive the necessary support and assistance in a co-ordinated and easily accessible way. It is intended that the personal adviser will act as a single point of contact for the young person and will provide general support and advice.

The adviser will be involved in preparing the young person’s pathway plan and will be responsible for overseeing its implementation. The adviser will be expected to keep in touch with the young person after he or she has left care. By making the appointment of the personal adviser a statutory requirement, we wish to emphasise our belief that young people leaving care should have access to someone who is committed to their long-term well-being. The personal adviser will occupy a role similar to that of the parent of a child who has left the family home — in other words, someone who is there to provide support.

The Bill will simplify arrangements for the financial support of 16- and 17-year-olds who leave care. Clause 6 lays the foundations for the new financial regime. At present, young people who leave care at 16 can claim social security benefits and receive some additional support from trusts’ aftercare services. Rather than be dependent on a confusing mix of social services support and social security benefits, the Bill provides that the trust will normally be the primary source of income for young people leaving care at 16 or 17.

Clause 6 will remove the access that these young people previously had to income support, jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit. The resources currently deployed by the Department for Social Development in relation to means-tested benefits will be transferred to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and allocated to trusts to support these young people.

However, the Bill recognises that lone parents and children with a disability have special needs. Under the new arrangements, 16- and 17-year-old lone parents and certain disabled young people who are in care, or who are care leavers, will remain eligible for income support. Regulations will set out those groups excluded from the restriction on benefit payment.

The Bill also provides that the responsible trust must continue to keep in touch with a care leaver until he or she is at least 21, and must continue to provide a personal adviser and a pathway plan.

For young people leaving care at 18, a new set of arrangements will apply until age 21. Trusts will have a duty to provide general assistance in cash or in kind. They will also have a duty to provide assistance with costs associated with employment, education and training until the young person reaches the age of 21, so long as his or her welfare requires it. When the young person reaches that age, he or she will generally be assumed to have entered the adult world.

However, continuing support in education and training is important, and where a course or training programme has already commenced it would be unfair for that support to cease. Accordingly, the Bill provides for assistance from the trust, if necessary, for a young person in education or training before age 21 until the end of the agreed programme of education or training, even if that takes the young person past the age of 21.

In addition, the Bill empowers trusts to assist care leavers with the expenses associated with any education or training programmes that they begin after the age of 21. Although not couched as a duty, the provision will give a further safety net to 21- to 24-year-olds who failed to take up education options earlier.

The Bill represents a broad framework for the further development of services for those who are leaving, or who have left, care. The needs of those vulnerable young people can be met only if the relevant agencies and individuals work together. Detailed guidance will be needed to promote a consistent approach by trusts and to address matters such as needs assessment, the role of the personal adviser, the development of pathway plans and accommodation and education issues.

There are some examples of good practice through collaboration between statutory and voluntary agencies that deal with young care leavers. In order to build on that, it is intended that the guidance and regulations under the new legislation will be developed on an inter-agency basis, and that a regional group, involving key players in the statutory and voluntary sectors, will be established to facilitate implementation. The legislation will provide the impetus for those developments, and I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I welcome the Bill. As the Minister said, it addresses a real social problem. It deals with large numbers of young people who, often through no fault of their own, have had to spend their childhoods in care. Those children are young and vulnerable, and many are forced to fend for themselves when they are only 16 years old. They must find themselves somewhere to live and a job, which can be difficult even for a young person who is brought up in a loving family. Young people who are in care must do without the support of a stable family background, and often without any educational qualifications.

The Minister explained that the Bill seeks to improve the life chances of young people who are looked after by the health and social services trusts as they leave care to live independently. It will place new duties on social services to assess and to meet their care and support needs until they are at least 21 years old. It also seeks to simplify the arrangements for their financial support.

Helping young care leavers to become responsible adults can only benefit them and society. Although I welcome the aims of the Bill, I am sure that the members of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety will wish to examine its detail to ensure that it will do exactly what it says it will do. For example, there are questions to be asked about the ability of trusts to provide the assessments and to meet the identified needs, and we must examine how the financial support arrangements will work in practice. Members want assurance that it will be an effective Bill that will make a real and positive difference to the lives of young people who live in care. I look forward to considering the Bill during its Committee Stage.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the Bill. Members will agree that young people in that age group need the support that is outlined in the Bill, because it is a difficult age at which to be thrown out into the world, with all its problems and temptations. What format will the training for advisers take? Who will agree the best way to implement a pathway plan? Will each adviser formulate his or her own plan, or will a standard pathway be set?

I am glad that the issue of financial support has been dealt with in the Bill. It will remove many of the concerns that young people have about finding employment while they are keen to continue with education. Having worked in the education field with people of this age for nearly 20 years, I understand their concerns.

The Committee Chairperson mentioned the responsibilities of trusts. Where will trusts that are already strapped for cash find the extra finance? What arrangements will be made to ensure that trusts are held accountable for their duties, as set out in the Bill? What arrangements are being made to ensure that uniformity of approach will be achieved in all trust areas?

I will support the Chairperson in examining all aspects of the Bill at Committee Stage. However, I am glad to support the Bill as it stands.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like the Committee Chairperson and Bob Coulter, I welcome the ethos of the Bill. I place on record the commitment of the Minister to ensure that children who fall under her remit top the agenda in the Assembly and in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

The Chairperson said that young people leaving care are among the most vulnerable in society, and the Minister also mentioned that. We are aware that young people leaving care are disadvantaged in several areas, including education, training, jobs and housing. The purpose of the Bill, as both the Bill and the memorandum state, is to improve the life chances of young people who are looked after by trusts as they move to independent living.

The Bill places a duty of care on the trust that last looked after the young person, rather than on the trust for the area that they live in. That will ensure that services follow the young person to ensure that he or she does not fall out of the loop. This measure provides continuous care.

The new arrangements will have implications for trusts, which — dare I say it — will need extra resources to implement the new arrangements. The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 was seen as a forward-thinking piece of legislation and was welcomed by most, if not all, children’s organisations. However, the additional money was not always made available to implement the provisions of the 1995 Order, and that had a knock-on effect on some boards and trusts.

I welcome the additional £400,000 a year for the pilot projects. We are always calling for additional money, and we should commend the Minister in this case, even though it is only a small sum for pilot projects.

We are aware that children in care and those leaving care have special needs and problems. Like the Committee Chairperson and Rev Robert Coulter, I look forward to dealing with the Bill in more detail at the Committee Stage. Go raibh maith agat.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the Bill because it addresses a commitment in the Programme for Government and because the need for such measures has been clearly identified. I hope that the Minister, the Department and the Committee will rigorously examine the legislation in order to determine its practical outworkings. The Bill provides an opportunity to eradicate one of the most distressing areas of the homelessness problem.

Members have already expressed concern about certain issues. For example, the proposed new article 34C of the 1995 Order contains the phrase "shall take reasonable steps". Who will decide that the steps are reasonable? What criteria will be used, and how will the matter be judged?

The phrase "keep in touch" is used. I hope that those words are not used in the way that some of my family members use them, when they promise to keep in touch and subsequently nothing is heard from them for a long time. It is a loose phrase, and I would like the Committee and the Department to examine further its meaning in order to ensure that it is used to a good end.

The pathway plan and the personal adviser proposals are sensible and laudable, but those powers must be exercised somewhat more rigorously if they are to be effective. As the Minister said, the legislation deals not only with 16- and 17-year-olds but also with the 17- to 21-year-old bracket. That area could be fudged, because it leaves it up to the relevant authority to decide when to cease its duty — any time before the individual turns 21. That will lead to differing performance levels. That aspect of the legislation must be examined and clarified.

In general, the attempt to avoid repeat homelessness — which has become a real phenomenon in this sector — could be helped by such proposals. I would like the problem of repeat homelessness to be eradicated because it causes great distress, especially to young people.

I welcome the approach to financial assistance suggested in the legislation. However, we must ensure that it is effective. I hope that through Committee procedures and the outworkings of the legislation, there is an opportunity to examine in detail the rent issues, especially in the private sector. What structures are in place to help individuals who, unfortunately, cannot cope with the financial constraints that have been placed on them? Quite often, those people drop out of the system altogether. More clarity is needed in that area.

Finance is an issue that rightly concerns everyone. I welcome the additional funds that will be made available, but we should consider the full effect on the public purse should that issue not be addressed. Is it possible to find out what the cost will be to the Health Service and other services, and to the public purse in general, if the many problems created by homelessness manifest themselves later in people’s lives? A few pounds spent wisely on insuring that those problems are dealt with now could mean major savings to the public purse in the future.

I hope that at the various stages of the Bill, particularly at Committee Stage, an undertaking will be given to consult with the homelessness agencies that have worked so hard to try to deal with these problems. We can benefit from their experience and ensure that this legislation is as effective as possible.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank Members for their interest and for the points that they have made. My officials and I wish to ensure that the Bill is effective, and I look forward to working with the Committee on the later stages of the Bill. The new arrangements will be supported by resources already deployed in this area of work, and by resources transferred from the Department for Social Development in relation to benefits.

We anticipate providing around an additional £500,000 in the coming financial year in preparation for the legislation. Further resources are likely to be needed as more young people become eligible for the new arrangements.

Under the Executive’s programme and the social inclusion community regeneration fund, to which Ms Ramsey referred, some £1·2 million is being provided to develop leaving and aftercare schemes over three years, including the current year. Although not directly connected, this will include befriending and mentoring schemes and supported board and lodging schemes to provide young care leavers with a greater choice of accommodation and support and advice on health matters, to develop drop-in centres and to engage volunteers, including former care leavers, to raise awareness of leaving and aftercare services.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

We will be consulting on regulations and guidance, and I assure Members that we want to include organisations connected with and working on behalf of the homeless as part of the consultation. The personal adviser will provide a key link between a young person, social services and other agencies and will have an important role in preparing the pathway plan. The detailed functions of the advisers will be addressed in the regulations and guidance that we will consult on. The pathway plan will be agreed between the personal adviser and the young person, and the Department will provide detailed guidance on how this will be conducted. Training for personal advisers will be part of the implementation process and the overall strategy for implementation, and will be drawn up by the interdepartmental group that I referred to earlier.

We intend to establish monitoring arrangements through the regional implementation group involved in the development of regulations and guidance, and it is envisaged that the voluntary sector will have a role in monitoring the operation of the new legislation. We recognise the concerns about variation between trusts, and the new legislation will be an opportunity to ensure a much higher degree of uniformity, so that the same level of support will be available in all areas.

I hope I have addressed the points raised by Members — I am not clear if others had issues that they wished to raise. My officials will also study this and provide any outstanding answers.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Children Leaving Care Bill (NIA 5/01) be agreed.

Capital of Culture

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement on Belfast’s bid to be named European Capital of Culture.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I want to explain why it is so important that we do everything in our power to help Belfast to win the title of European Capital of Culture in 2008. First, I firmly believe that we have an excellent chance of winning the nomination. I do not see Belfast as somewhere in the middle of the field or at the periphery of the competition. I see Belfast as a front-runner, well placed to lift the prize. I continue occasionally to meet people who do not take our bid seriously, and they include not only the naysayers and those who wear their cynicism as a badge of pride, but those who simply cannot imagine Belfast as a capital of culture. Therefore, I want to talk a little about why Belfast has the potential to be a capital of culture and why it should be formally recognised as such.

There has been some misunderstanding about the term "culture". When we refer to our bid — and this applies equally to the other cities — we are being inclusive, and we include all strands of life that have shaped this city over the years. I am talking about the warp and the weft that have made up the fabric of our city and shaped the character of its inhabitants. We are not taking an exclusive approach. We are not trying to exclude everything that does not obviously encompass art, literature and music. I do not mean to diminish those things in any way — as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, I would not allow that to happen. However, I recognise that culture is much more than high art. As I have said before, if we allowed ourselves to be corralled by those constraints then the same cities would be competing for the title year after year. It would end up as Buggins’s turn and the concept would become meaningless.

When I say that all of us have contributed to the culture of the city and have been shaped by our collective experiences in it, am I being all things to all men? I am not. I am saying that every man, woman and child can be enriched by living here. Not to take advantage of the possibilities this could bring would be to betray the potential of Belfast.

I want to turn to the huge potential of the bid. We will not be campaigning to win the title for the sake of it. That will not be the objective. As I have said before, we have no intention of investing money and effort to admire a gong that might hang in the city hall. Belfast City Council recognises that and is working with my Department to ensure that the process is inclusive and that maximum benefit comes our way. The Lord Mayor of Belfast and I agree that at the heart of the bid lies the fact that the total benefits add up to more than simply the sum of the parts. The capture of this award will be a catalyst and will drive a process that will bring the people of Northern Ireland together, not just the people of Belfast. It will bring Ministers in the Executive together to work for tangible benefits for all our people. I will return to that point in a moment.

I have mentioned spending money, and there is no getting away from that. Winning the title involves investing resources. There is much talk nowadays about strategy. Everyone seems to have a strategy for something or other. It is a pity that the word is so overused, because it then becomes devalued and meaningless. Our investment in the push to win the title is a true strategic effort because, if we win, there will be real benefits for everyone in years to come.

Our bid has three themes, and there are objectives associated with each theme. I will not take up time by giving a line-by-line rundown on all of them; however, I want to give a few examples of how this undertaking has tremendous potential to profit us all. One of the themes is titled ‘Made in Belfast’. This theme aims to establish a vibrant creative economy and make Belfast a centre for investment as a global cultural destination. It will celebrate the best of Belfast’s cultural and creative expression at home and abroad and safeguard its heritage and traditions on which to create new common ground.

‘Through the Eyes of a Child’ will involve the development of policies and projects that put the city’s concept of creativity to the forefront of formal and informal education. It will enable children to play a full role as citizens and enhance the personal skills and job prospects of young people by developing their creativity and cultural awareness. By focusing on children it will create new audiences for cultural activities.

‘Life Without Walls’ will make reconnection and inclusion core principles in the physical development of Belfast. Through our artists, opportunities will be created for dialogue and expression that will build understanding and trust. The capacity of under-represented groups to become fully engaged in the European Capital of Culture process will be developed. We will engage in relationships and dialogue with Europe and with the wider world and explore our common cultural heritage.

There will be specific projects under these themes, and I wish to give a few examples. ‘Through the Eyes of a Child’ will associate the home of C S Lewis in east Belfast with a centre called ‘Jack’s House.’ This will take the form of a pavilion designed by an internationally renowned architect with a gallery space, a woodland area, simulated weather and many other features that will be inspired by the imaginative landscapes in the writer’s ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’.

The ‘Made in Belfast’ theme will include, among other things, the redevelopment of the Cathedral Quarter. This will go a long way to putting the heart back into the city by creating a nucleus of creative activity in an area that comprises some of the most fascinating cultural heritage of the city, as well as encompassing some of our best architecture. That area of Belfast should be striving artistically and economically.

Among the projects associated with the ‘Life Without Walls’ theme will be a series of initiatives that will culminate in the removal of the 23 peace walls in Belfast. That will involve many parties working closely together, including Government agencies, community organisations and, most important of all, residents. The wall between the Shankill and the Falls areas has stood for 33 years and is, in places, 30 feet high. Those walls make people feel safer, but they are negative measures. They cut across and destroy the urban fabric; they reinforce a culture of separation, and they must come down eventually.

First, local residents must regard the walls as having no purpose. That daunting task will require people’s belief and confidence in our need to live in a connected city. Under the aegis of the European Capital of Culture bid we will work with the people who live in the shadow of the walls to create secure and sustainable communities.

That is a sample of the projects that will be tackled under the European Capital of Culture banner. They are large in concept, in execution and in the scale of their long-term benefits. Some initiatives will involve capital works, many will involve communities, and all will involve courage and creativity. However, the projects will not overwhelm us, and we will rise to their challenge.

All that work will cost money. Our bid to become European Capital of Culture has come together only in recent weeks, following intensive widespread consultation on its content. That has meant that only now can we refine the projected costings. Further work remains to be done in that regard. Preliminary analysis of the costs by Imagine Belfast 2008, covering the period up to and including 2008, is around £147·5 million, split between £90 million in project spend and £57·5 million in capital.

Based on the experiences of previous Capitals of Culture, those costs could be met from such sources as Northern Ireland public expenditure, the private sector, European structural funds, local government and, potentially, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. An estimated £100 million of Executive funding will be required over the period to 2008 to meet the aspirations of the bid. Some of those costs are already contained in Departments’ allocated resources, and some of the activities will require additional specified funding, which could be sought through the normal supply and Executive programme funds procedures.

My Department will liase closely with other Departments, including the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, over the next few months to identify the costs of the tasks. When that is done, the overall proposal will be subject to a full economic appraisal in the usual way. That will identify a range of options and associated costs for consideration by the Executive.

The public expenditure implications of our bid, if successful, will need to be considered along with the Executive’s other public spending priorities in the 2002 Budget and beyond. The Executive’s endorsement at this stage of the Capital of Culture bid does not imply that they will allocate additional resources to every activity identified in the bid. The final public expenditure costs will have to be considered and specifically approved by the Executive later. Proposals that are not already provided for in existing plans will have to be considered in the usual way, against other competing bids.

In summary, I emphasise that the rewards inherent in the process are enormous. The essence of our bid lies in its strategic potential, and there will be tangible and intangible long-term gains in return for money invested. Some of the developments under the Capital of Culture banner would happen anyway, but the title will increase their focus and impact. All the proposed schemes contained in the bid will be of international standard, imaginative and daring. Each scheme will have the potential to make at least as great a difference to Belfast as Glasgow’s title made to it. Crucially, when we progress this initiative, the Executive will be seen to be effective, because it will be seen to be working together for everyone.

This undertaking goes far beyond art, culture and leisure and will touch almost every facet of our lives. The title itself will do little for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will gain through the things that it will do to win the award and the things that will happen after it has won it. The bid is not about Belfast’s winning a piece of parchment or a brass plaque. It is about winning recognition as a city of culture in a region of culture. The benefits will permeate across the Province. This is a huge opportunity for us, and I urge the Assembly to seize it and support the bid.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I join the Minister in welcoming the programme for the bid. It contains some of the most imaginative and innovative ideas that I have come across, and Members who read it carefully and think about what it involves will see its potential to do remarkable things. Clearly, it has the potential to increase cultural tourism and promote community morale and understanding. Interestingly, it also has the potential to create self-confidence for the community and the Assembly — in what we are, who we are and where we all come from. That is as important as any other work that is done here, and Members should give their full support to the bid.

However, there are a few questions that I want to ask the Minister — and, through him, the Department — that I hope will reflect some concerns that have arisen in the Committee’s deliberations and that will surely arise again. Forgive me if they are mundane. For example, it is important that the House knows what steps the Minister has taken to ensure that budgetary arrangements are in place to provide for the bid. We have known for some time that we would be involved in this. In practical terms, it will not be possible to do much until the bid has been successful or until we know how much money is available, but I hope that some preparation has been made to ensure that work on the bid will not require a fresh start. The Minister said that some elements in the Department’s budgetary arrangements are available and could be used. In that respect it will be interesting to know whether a financial plan has been prepared.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

This is an opportunity for the Member to question the Minister; it is not an opportunity to talk. Will the Member ask the question that he wants to ask the Minister?

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I have just completed the second question, and I would like to ask two more — if Madam Deputy Speaker will permit me to do so.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Yes, if you will be more concise.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Indeed. Can the Minister confirm that each element of the bid will be subject to a case-by-case financial assessment, and will the Department of Finance and Personnel and other Departments be involved in those assessments? Does the Minister have any details of the long-term financial benefits that other cities have enjoyed as a result of becoming the European Capital of Culture? Those are important issues. We want to make as effective an approach as possible from all sides. There is great potential in Northern Ireland, and Belfast in particular, to make a successful bid.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank Mr ONeill for his full support. I appreciate and understand the need for discipline in the process. In the next part of the bidding process, Belfast will put its name into the competition. That must happen by the end of March.

The Department’s specific role is to support Belfast City Council, as it is making the bid. Indeed, I welcome the Lord Mayor, who is in the Gallery. His office is the focal point of the bid. The Department believes the bid to be well worth supporting, and we are here to reinforce and sustain it as best we can. The council has set up a company called Imagine Belfast 2008. Officers from the company are also in the Gallery. Imagine Belfast 2008 has brought together the details of the bid and is taking it forward one step at a time.

As I said, the next step will be the first formal stage in the process. Bids must be submitted by the end of March. Several other cities will be competing for the title. Shortlisting will occur in the autumn. By spring 2003, roughly 12 months from now, one city will be declared the winner. That decision will be made by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in London and the Prime Minister, and will eventually be ratified in Europe in the summer of 2003.

Even if Belfast were to be successful at every stage of the process, it would still be 18 months before it could be declared Capital of Culture. It is a step-by-step process, and Members must understand that it is not possible to detail every facet of the bid, particularly the financial aspects. However, the Member is correct in that there has been some preparatory work.

The Member mentioned the experience of other cities. That is an important point, and the experiences of other cities are being considered. As I said, each element of the bid will be subject to a full economic appraisal, which will be carried out this summer by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Each element and bid that may arise from the process will be scrutinised by the Department of Finance and Personnel under the normal processes, and there will also be a case-by-case assessment.

Glasgow is the best example as far as financial benefits that other cities have experienced are concerned, because it is the only other UK city that has been a City of Culture, as it was called in 1990. Belfast has much in common with Glasgow in 1990. It was in a post-industrial age. Glasgow had a reputation as a tough, no-nonsense, straight-talking city. It was not a city that many people visited at that time. In 1990, Glasgow had 1,200 tourist beds in hotels and guest houses. There are now 12,000 such beds.

Glasgow is now the third most visited city in the UK. It has managed to attract large investments in the creative industries and is one of the country’s leaders in that field. Glasgow is an example of what can happen when a city is designated European Capital of Culture. The city has seen very real benefits.

Dublin is another close neighbour that was a European City of Culture. It too saw tremendous benefits. However, Dublin did not face the same challenges or difficulties as Glasgow. Glasgow is one city that has demonstrated the real, tangible and long-term benefits that can come out of an effort to be designated in this way. Belfast can gain at least as much as Glasgow, not least because it gives us an opportunity to alter completely the perception of Belfast throughout the world. Over the next six years and beyond we can totally alter the somewhat negative image of Belfast through this process. For "Belfast", also read "Northern Ireland". This is a city of culture in a region of culture, but, because of the rules, the application has to be centred on Belfast. However, given the size of the city and the size of the country, things will spill over. There will be tangible benefits for the whole of Northern Ireland, and one of the biggest of those is that we can change our image.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement and commend the visionary approach of Imagine Belfast 2008. I was particularly pleased to see that there will be a C S Lewis centre in east Belfast. Can the Minister ensure, given that the east Ulster area was the cradle of the earliest vernacular literature in Western Europe, that the Ulster and Norse sagas which inspired ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ will be given a proper place in Jack’s House?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As I said during Question Time — and I did not realise this until I looked into the matter — ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ are the best-selling children’s books in the world. As Dr Adamson said, there is a connection between C S Lewis and east Belfast. One of the major themes of the Belfast bid is ‘Through the Eyes of a Child’, and one of that theme’s two projects is Jack’s House, which is about unlocking the imagination and creativity of our children.

‘Vernacular City’ is part of the ‘Made In Belfast’ theme, and it celebrates Ulster, Irish and ethnic languages. Imagine Belfast 2008 has consulted widely, and this has resulted in ideas coming from the community, from the bottom up and not from the top down, across the city. ‘Vernacular City’ and ‘Through the Eyes of a Child’ are two of the themes that have emerged.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement, together with his commitment, and that of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, to the project. It is important that we congratulate the organisers for their vision and join with other Members in wishing them success and expedition.

The Minister identified three themes about Belfast and, taking Belfast as an acrostic, I hope that they lead to something which is beautiful, energetic, lasting, festive, about everyone, strong and telling. I am glad that the capital of Northern Ireland is not Lisnagunogue, because an acrostic on it would be even longer.

Does the Minister intend to prioritise the three identified themes — given that some projects will require more resources than others for implementation — or will resources be spent evenly across the board?

With regard to the ‘Life Without Walls’ theme, the Minister will be aware that people with genuine fears live behind those walls in Belfast. Where people have good cause to have such fears, can the Minister assure us that nothing will be done to treat those people in a way that is not sensitive to the reality of their fears?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am grateful for Mr Paisley Jnr’s comments and expressions of support. City Hall officials and imagine Belfast 2008 are responsible for the detail and progression of the bid. They are taking a holistic rather than a priority approach. They see that each aspect of the bid is dependent on the other aspects and that the overall benefit will be greater than the sum of the benefits of the individual parts.

It is important to note that the bid is aspirational. However, one emerging theme coming through Imagine Belfast 2008 is the concern about the peace walls. People are saying "Imagine Belfast without peace walls: would it not be wonderful if Belfast were reintegrated and reconnected?" The Member is right to say that this project may be the biggest of all. It also impacts strongly on the fears of local communities, and nothing must be done to lessen their confidence. Therefore plans to remove the peace walls are aspirational. They must be worked on. Peace walls will remain in place until the communities living either side of them decide that they are of no value and are no longer wanted. The Department accepts and supports that reality.

The walls must come down one day — we want to take them down, and we want to reconnect the city. People from the Shankill and the Falls say that they remember being able to go back and forth between the areas. It is a myth to say that there was never a connection because as recently as one generation ago there were strong physical connections between the areas.

The removal of the walls is a theme that is coming across strongly. However, I repeat that it is an aspiration, and it is dependent on the communities that rely on the peace walls for their security. It will be for those communities to determine when the walls will come down, and that will happen only when they decide that the walls are no longer of value.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Minister’s leading the campaign for Belfast’s bid to be the Capital of Culture in 2008. At this point, I should declare an interest. Shona McCarthy, the chief executive of Imagine Belfast 2008, is my niece, which suggests that it is highly likely that the bid will be successful. I am sure that the Assembly wishes Shona, Tom Collins, Michelle Rusk and their colleagues every success in their work with Imagine Belfast 2008.

The Minister’s statement is wide-ranging and justifies the effort that everyone is making to ensure success. Members are aware of how much Belfast has progressed in recent years, and we hope that more progress can be made to make it a modern, dynamic and cultural city that no longer needs peace walls.

The watchwords of Imagine Belfast 2008 are "innovation" and "creativity". Is the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure content that everything is being done to fulfil those important aspects of the bid? Are as many people as possible contributing to the effort?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I thank the Member for declaring his interest.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank Mr McCarthy for his declaration of support and his comments.

Mr McCarthy and I share the view that creativity and innovation should be at the centre of the bid. To illustrate that, the watchwords of the bid document are "inclusiveness", "creativity" and "innovation". For example, ‘Jack’s House’, where children will be able to hear stories in their original languages, will be a sanctuary for stories, myths and legends. The ‘Giant’s House’ will be a creativity centre for children under five years of age. It will demonstrate the value that is placed on children’s creativity, recognising that the years nought to five are fundamental to children’s development, and helping them from an early age is a strong theme of the bid document.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I declare an interest as a member of Belfast City Council and of the development committee that has direct responsibility for the bid. I congratulate Marie-Thérèse McGivern from the development department at city hall for her leadership and direction in getting us this far. I also congratulate Shona McCarthy from Imagine Belfast 2008 for her imagination and organisation.

Does the Minister plan to encourage the private sector to understand the relevance of the bid? For many years, in Belfast, it has been difficult to get the private sector to take an interest in any project from which it will not make money. It is important that the private sector become involved in this project. Has the Minister discussed the matter with any other Departments to help them to understand the importance of the bid?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I agree that it has been difficult to secure private sector finance for projects. Companies and organisations have tended to allow the public purse to pick up the cost. We can all think of several instances where that happened. However, in this case, private sector finance is not simply a possibility — it is essential. If we cannot secure private sector finance, the bid cannot be carried completely using other types of funding, such as public funds, lottery money and European money. I hope that there will be a budget line from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The public sector is a key factor. Although Budget money to date is only a fraction of what we will need, that support is encouraging because it shows that the public sector is prepared to put its money where its mouth is. It recognises that the project has great business potential and that there are major gains to be made from supporting it.

The Imagine Belfast 2008 budget so far has consisted of £500,000 from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, £300,000 from Belfast City Council and £250,000 from the private sector. The private sector is an important source of the funding received to date. That can be seen as recognition by the private sector of the importance of the bid. Considering the experience of other cities, such as Glasgow, and the work that must be done to prepare the ground, we envisage substantial private sector investment, comprising 10% of the entire budget. Imagine Belfast 2008 estimates that figure to be £14·75 million. I have no doubt that the people involved with the project will be successful. For example, Dennis Licence of First Trust Bank is acting as part of the Imagine Belfast 2008 board and has taken on the responsibility for sourcing private sector finance. He has been successful to date, and I trust that he will continue to be so. However, until the bid is in, we must take one step at a time. It is right to focus on the private sector, because it has been disappointing in the past. However, given the experience of other cities, that will not be the case in this instance.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement and support the bid by Belfast to become the European Capital City of Culture in 2008. Will sporting organisations such as the GAA be included in the events of the year if the bid is successful? I acknowledge the Minister’s and the Lord Mayor of Belfast’s recognition of the importance of Gaelic sport to Belfast. Is the Minister aware that the Ballinderry Shamrocks won the all-Ireland Club Championship in Thurles on Sunday?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am aware that the Ballinderry Shamrocks won on Sunday, and, like Mr Byrne, I congratulate them on their victory. One of the themes underpinning Imagine Belfast 2008 is "One Belfast", a key part of which is sport. The Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) is a key sporting organisation and one of the biggest in Northern Ireland, so I do see it playing an important role in this.

Our bid is to be a Capital of Culture in a region of culture. Participation will not stop at Glengormley or before we reach Lisburn. The bid will affect all of Northern Ireland. People who live in or represent areas outside Belfast should take comfort from the fact that when people come to Belfast it will be to visit a capital of culture in a region of culture — everyone can benefit.

The reason it is a one-city bid and not one joining with other cities is that that is what is laid down in the rules from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We must deal with the situation as it stands, and the rule is one city per bid. I am sure that the GAA will want to play a major part in this as will the governing bodies of other sports.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I fully support Belfast’s bid to be European Capital of Culture and hope it will be successful. The Minister has touched on the subject of my question. How do he and the Department propose to convince those who believe that many think that Northern Ireland ends at Glengormley that their areas will benefit from Belfast’s success too?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Many of Northern Ireland’s attractions lie outside Belfast. Although Belfast is the catalyst for this bid, many benefits will ensue, including increased tourism. I have mentioned the benefits that Glasgow accrued as a result of gaining the title — the number of beds in the city for tourists increased from 1,200 to 12,000 over 10 years.

We must focus on a total change of image. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Belfast and Northern Ireland to counter the negative image that has been gained and, to an extent, earned over the past generation. It is an opportunity for all of us to rise above that and create a new image for Northern Ireland and the city — an image of self-esteem and civic pride that can put the heart back into the Province.

Areas such as Armagh, Londonderry, the north coast and the Giant’s Causeway, Fermanagh and the lakes will benefit from this. A package can be offered that will include all of Northern Ireland. People will not simply stay in Belfast; they will visit all of Northern Ireland. As this issue is progressed and the bid evolves, all of Northern Ireland will become involved, and all areas will examine how they can benefit from the campaign and how they can support it.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

In support of the bid, can the Minister further develop Mr Byrne’s angle? Is there a niche within the three identified themes to highlight the city’s deep and rich sporting culture that brought our communities through the darkest days of more than three decades of troubles? Indeed, sport sometimes broke down the community barriers.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I agree with Mr Hilditch that sport is not simply sport, and the sporting tradition is not simply a niche. Sport will play an important part in the process by helping to create a successful bid and the conditions and environment in which the city, and Northern Ireland in general, will thrive. Self-esteem, civic pride and changing attitudes are intrinsic parts of the campaign, and sport, as a deliverer of those aspects, has played an important role in the past, and will continue to do so.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I welcome the Minister’s creative and imaginative statement. In particular, I welcome the theme of Life Without Walls. In my part of the city, which is divided by many peace walls, it is to be truly welcomed. I appreciate the Minister’s response to Mr Paisley Jnr about the aspirational nature of Imagine Belfast 2008. I hope that aspiration will ultimately be translated into the demolition of those peace walls, and that people will be able to live in safety and security without those walls.

I congratulate the Minister for highlighting that theme. It is the first time that I have heard from the Despatch Box — from either side of the Chamber — that objective of bringing down the walls of division in Belfast. What steps will be taken to demolish the peace walls?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Life Without Walls is probably the most challenging of all the themes. As I said to Mr Paisley Jnr, demolition cannot be undertaken without the agreement of the communities who live on either side of those walls.

As far as a first step is concerned — making that physical connection in the city — we have probably already taken it. We have it here, we are discussing it, and we will continue to discuss it. We are aware that the peace walls are in the most disadvantaged areas, areas that have suffered the most in the troubles in Belfast. Reconnection and inclusion are core principles of the bid and the physical development of Belfast. That requires a discussion, a conversation and a debate among the communities on either side of the peace walls.

That is a challenge. However, we accept that some day those walls must come down and that some day those communities must reconnect. Through this bid we are taking the first step, but we are very much guided by the communities. The walls will come down when the communities living on either side of them have decided that the walls are of no further value to them. That is the objective we seek, and I have no doubt that Mr Alban Maginness and Mr Billy Hutchinson, and others who represent those areas with the most peace walls, will play an important role, along with the communities that they represent.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister’s statement is important. Coming from the new city of Lisburn, I want to assure him, Belfast City Council and Imagine Belfast 2008 that they will have the support of their new neighbouring city. However, out of 19 people in the Chamber this afternoon 15 come from constituencies outside Belfast. The other four represent constituencies in Belfast, and I sincerely hope that as time goes on more and more voices will be raised to ensure that Belfast obtains the bid.

As a member of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure I was impressed by the presentation given by the Imagine Belfast 2008 team. As time goes on, the pressure must be stepped up to ensure that all of Northern Ireland supports the bid.

Does the Minister intend to keep the Assembly informed of the financial situation as we approach 2008?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank Mr Davis for his pledge of support from the city of Lisburn. It is very welcome. It is important to continue to stress that it is not simply about Belfast but about a European Capital of Culture in a region of cultures and that all of Northern Ireland will benefit.

Keeping the Assembly and the Committees apprised of the situation is a key part of the process. I will make regular reports to the Executive Committee, and a full economic appraisal of the bid will be carried out during the summer. I also intend to report regularly to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, and I undertake to do the same to the House to ensure that everybody is fully informed of each step.

Belfast City Council will lodge the bid before the end of March, and then the process will have properly begun. My Department’s role and my role will be to support the city fully and to ensure that all parts of Northern Ireland mesh into it, become part of it and appreciate the benefits and advantages.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I too support the bid for European Capital of Culture. I must declare two interests, since Glengormley has been mentioned twice, and I am a Newtownabbey councillor. I declare that interest, and I also declare an interest as someone who was born and bred in Belfast and who is proud of that.

I listened to the Minister talk about innovation and creativity. I am glad that he did not mention expansion in his deliberation. I would like an undertaking from him that, in this bid to become the Capital of Culture, Belfast will not attempt to expand into neighbouring boroughs such as Newtownabbey, or even as far as Glengormley.

Secondly, sport has been mentioned on several occasions. I hope that the Minister will ensure that an invitation is issued to Benfica this time, so that when they return to Belfast the "Glens" can beat them, instead of drawing with them.

Glasgow has been mentioned several times. The city was, to quote Rab C Nesbitt, "sartorially sandblasted" and looks the better for it. ‘Glasgow Smiles Better’ was the catchphrase used. I would like to think that the Minister and the Lord Mayor will bring that enthusiasm and expertise to the city of Belfast and expand not only the culture in the city but right across Northern Ireland. I congratulate them for presenting this programme this afternoon.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Mr Ken Robinson is right to focus on Glasgow and on the benefits that Glasgow has enjoyed. As far as Benfica coming back to play the "Glens" is concerned, the Lord Mayor, Jim Rodgers, is a strong supporter of the "Glens". I have no doubt that he would support that project.

I am not sure where Belfast will end up as far as the review of local government is concerned. That is a different topic. If Belfast manages to take in Glengormley, it will be acquiring a priceless asset.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I want to congratulate our Minister for presenting this project today. As I listen to him — he is such a persuasive man — I realise that no one could vote against these proposals. It is interesting to note the heavy squad that he has brought with him today. Our Lord Mayor is in the Gallery, and he is also a persuasive gentleman.

I agree with everything that they say, and I wish them all the best in their endeavours. I support the Minister in everything that he is trying to do, and I will support him in every way in furthering Belfast’s bid to become European Capital of Culture.

However, I want to fire a shot across their bows. One of the things that is always thrown at me when I go back to my constituency is the impression that as long as everything is all right in Belfast, to pot with everybody else. Many other projects are being developed in Northern Ireland. I hope that they start to spread their wings a bit. Northern Ireland is a big place. We must involve many of its locales if we want Northern Ireland to regain its rightful way of life. There have been many tragedies over the years. We hope that we have seen the back of them; we are looking forward. One of the big issues is that this venture is going to succeed; I am concerned about the next one. I wish Belfast and our Minister all the best, and I hope that the next ventures will extend across the Province.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I repeat that this is something that will benefit all of Northern Ireland. I also take on board Mr Savage’s remarks about spreading ventures across the Province in successive initiatives. My Department is making progress. We have a limited budget, but we are making progress in supporting this bid and several other initiatives that impact positively — not simply in Belfast but outside the city.

Most Members who have taken part and have attended have been Members from outside Belfast and the response has been universally positive. That says much for Colleagues’ understanding of the aims of this bid and of our aims for Northern Ireland society.

Railway Safety Bill: Committee Stage

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 24 May 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Railway Safety Bill (NIA Bill 3/01).

The Railway Safety Bill had its Second Stage on 26 February and was referred to the Committee for Regional Development on 6 March. Although the Bill is primarily technical in nature, it is, nevertheless, an important piece of legislation. The Committee is anxious to ensure that it carries out its responsibilities and conducts a rigorous scrutiny of the legislation. To that end, the Committee agreed that it needed to call several witnesses, some of whom are railway safety experts. It is therefore important that the Committee has sufficient time to consider its evidence.

Other Committee work pressures, such as the regional transportation strategy, have been building up. That has added to the difficulty of considering the Railway Safety Bill within the prescribed 30 calendar days. On behalf of the Committee, I am seeking an extension to 24 May to allow sufficient time for the Committee to consider the Bill and report its findings. I ask Members for their support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 24 May 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Railway Safety Bill (NIA Bill 3/01).

Towards Supporting People Fund

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly expresses serious concern about the implications of introducing a new system for funding housing support costs and

I apologise for Mr Fred Cobain’s enforced absence. The Committee has been seeking to have this debate for some weeks. I am glad that the Business Committee has recognised the importance of this debate.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Health and, to a lesser extent, education have dominated the political headlines recently, and justifiably so. They are the key to the well-being of people and deserve resource allocation priority. However, social issues go beyond health and education. If we are to tackle ill health we must adopt cross-departmental approaches to poverty, unemployment, housing and fuel poverty.

When Mr Maurice Morrow was the Minister for Social Development he said that supported housing was a very effective and valuable service for many people in the north of Ireland. Housing-related support services are essential to enable people to live stably and independently in their own communities. As a result of court rulings, there are plans to change the way those services are funded. It is our job to ensure that those services are not diminished in any way.

The Minister has announced his intention to introduce a housing support Bill in the Assembly later this year. The law is to be changed so that housing benefit, or the transitional housing benefit scheme, will only deal with bricks and mortar in future. A fund is to be established to provide what are known as housing support services.

Members will know that the Committee for Social Development has just finished taking oral evidence for its inquiry into homelessness. Many witnesses expressed concern about the move away from demand-led and guaranteed funding to what is essentially a bidding situation for the fund. Some of those who gave evidence said that they disputed the formula for calculating housing costs, as distinct from support costs. The split between rent and support is critical, as that will be the basis for determining the size of the fund.

The Housing Executive is reviewing the position in relation to the formula that is currently applied, and I welcome that. However, housing support is an essential service and, as such, it must be properly and fully funded. The people who rely on those services are among the most vulnerable in our society. The Assembly will be judged on how it protects their needs.

Those needs may be of a short-term or long-term nature. Those in need may be elderly, or women fleeing domestic violence. They may have learning disabilities or mental health problems. They may be young, or leaving care or an abusive home. They may suffer from alcohol or drug addiction. We might recognise them in the street, or we might not. However, they are all individuals with different needs.

We must ensure that services are provided efficiently and effectively. Housing support has a variety of funding streams. I do not deny that it makes sense to rationalise how money is delivered. I agree with moves towards consistency of provision and high-quality services. To bring funding streams together seems to be sensible. However, development moneys have been made available elsewhere for new and remodelled services. Some £138 million has been ring-fenced in England for the implementation of the Towards Supporting People fund. We have no such ring-fenced budget, and, to date, no funding has been allocated for the implementation of the Towards Supporting People fund in the Six Counties. We lag behind in plans to implement the new system, in which funding is no longer guaranteed. Some cynics might suggest that that is an attempt to save money. What is certain is that the most vulnerable and needy people in our society will be affected.

Who speaks for the vulnerable and the needy? Who in the Chamber has a social conscience? My Colleagues on the Committee for Social Development represent a range of different political persuasions, but they all have a social conscience. The Committee has presented the motion to the Assembly today. The issue is a serious one, and I hope that all Members present will support the motion. To do otherwise would be to turn our backs on the most vulnerable people in our society.

People who rely on housing support services need to be reassured. Providers of services must understand what funding will be available in order to plan those services. The voluntary sector already offers practical advice, guidance and support to those providers. Indeed, a common theme for the majority of respondents to the consultation was that the voluntary and community sector provides a valuable service in that area and must be supported accordingly. That sector needs and deserves adequate funding to deliver that help.

Money must be made available urgently in order to plan the introduction of the new system. It is vital that the size of the fund be calculated, and it is critical that it be got right. Needs in the housing sector are growing, and we must increase provision. Sadly, we must also improve standards, and it is our collective responsibility to do so.

The terms of the motion are clear. It affirms that the Assembly is concerned about the implications of the new system, especially with regard to the need to plan and introduce the system, which requires investment for development purposes. Money has not yet been allocated for that purpose.

The motion also calls on the Minister for Social Development to secure commitments from the Executive to ensure that financial allocations for the fund are guaranteed and will be maintained at levels not less than those currently provided through housing benefit. I suggest that the Minister work with his Colleagues on the Executive in order to bring that vital area of concern to the fore, and to secure funding for this critical need. I quote from a Council for the Homeless briefing paper that was issued in response to today’s motion:

"In order to deliver Supporting People we need to be supporting people."

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I commend the motion to the House. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I support the motion, and I support the comments of the Deputy Chairperson. The Committee has serious concerns about several aspects of the proposal. We have continuous concerns about funding and its implementation, and nowhere more so than in the Assembly.

The most particular concern is the proposal to ring-fence the funding that groups bid for annually. As the Deputy Chairperson said, this puts the most vulnerable groups in an invidious position — in a ring together, fighting for their share — and that is not the way to approach this sort of problem. The only realistic way to deal with those groups is to have demand-led funding, which we had in the past. We all want devolution to make a difference. We are responsible, and this is an opportunity to make a difference here by installing an equitable support system. Some of the most vulnerable people will lose out if the funding is not adequately structured.

There are groups that currently lack adequate funding, most noticeably those bodies caring for the homeless. We do not need to go over this again — the startling figures for homelessness are enough to convince everyone that this is not a diminishing problem, but a growing one. If the problem were in any other sphere it would be regarded as out of control. Reducing resources will not solve the problems; we must ensure that resources are there to support the people who are working to solve the problems. Ideally, funding support should go hand in hand with a holistic approach towards dealing with vulnerable people.

There is a need for interdepartmental bodies to deal with young people leaving care; those with direct responsibility especially need to be involved. This morning we discussed young people leaving care and the need for a holistic and interdepartmental approach to ensure that no one falls out of the net. We must support people with a wide range of difficult social problems or physical and mental disabilities, those who are affected by domestic violence, ex-offenders and young people in care.

I am also concerned about the timescale. The Department has just over a year to make the transition. The supply has not yet been mapped, and the gaps in the current system have not been identified. We cannot possibly meet demand without a realistic picture of what is required and how it can be met, so we need this quickly. We talk about parity for various reasons when it suits us, but I am concerned that in Britain a three-year period was laid down for introducing the system. We will not allow that to happen here. We must pay attention to that and handle matters in a more structured way so that if we have to face these changes, we do it in a way that will not affect those who are most vulnerable. While an assessment of support services is welcome, it is no good if money is not there to sustain the service.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I want to make some remarks on the motion, which I broadly support, as Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. While this is an area primarily for the Department for Social Development, and we are pleased to see the Minister here, there are overlapping concerns with a number of other Departments, including the Department for Employment and Learning.

The principles of the fund are probably good, though the devil is in the detail, and that concern is reflected in the motion. Success in this area requires interdepartmental and inter-agency work, and that will involve the Department for Social Development, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Department of Education, to a degree, and the Department of Health. The aim should be to enable individuals to live a settled life, and I hope that that is what the Towards Supporting People fund is about.

In many cases, this means training in the broadest sense. Some of the training in living a settled residential life may be delivered through the Department for Employment and Learning, though some will come through the Department for Social Development, the Department of Health or the Department of Education. For example, basic adult education such as learning to read, write and count must be developed into learning how to budget and handle debt and so on, in order to avoid problems which can easily lead to chronic homelessness.

Everyone wishes to see the impact of the so-called benefit and poverty traps reduced. The Committee for Employment and Learning is aware of that impact, especially with regard to long-term unemployment. Some long-term unemployed become homeless — there is a relationship between those two severe social problems.

In the past the Department for Employment and Learning and its predecessor, the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, had a direct relationship with some charities and worked well in many cases to alleviate homelessness, for example through ACE schemes. ACE is no longer there. Instead we have New Deal for the long-term unemployed, and some participants in New Deal are homeless. No New Deal scheme is dedicated specifically to the homeless in the way that other New Deal schemes are dedicated to other categories of socially excluded individuals. That is a question that should be considered in future by the Department for Employment and Learning.

Looking at the motion from the perspective of the Committee for Employment and Learning, it seems that the role of that Department is to prevent homelessness by enabling individuals, through their participation in the training system and the labour market, to handle a settled, residential life and to earn a reasonable living. The Committee is anxious that the Department for Employment and Learning, in co-operation with the other Departments that have a role in this, continues, as far as possible, to prevent this problem from growing. I support the motion.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support the motion. However, I want to begin with a question. Can the Minister clarify whether a ring-fenced budget can deliver the service necessary? How will it deliver the benefits to people in Northern Ireland who need it most?

Society is changing every day, and the pressures on the young and the not so young grow greater as each day passes. We have all seen the homeless and the needy on our streets and in our constituency offices. Many of those people have underlying problems, such as drug and alcohol addiction. Some have been abused mentally and physically and are trying to restart their lives. Those people all deserve the best help available to provide them with a standard of life that many of us take for granted.

The Council for the Homeless has released figures from a survey that asked 7,500 young homeless people in the United Kingdom about their housing problems. It found that 86% of them had been forced to leave home. Family conflict is the underlying reason for more than half of youth homelessness, with 40% of young homeless women leaving home because of abuse. Those figures put the situation into perspective. Those youngsters may have problems with alcohol, drugs or solvent abuse and will find it difficult to hold down jobs. Tenancy agreements will, therefore, be hard to keep up. As a result of abuse, young women survivors’ lives often revolve around aimless drift and periodic crises that propel them from flats to refuges and hostels, and even to psychiatric wards. They are not in one place long enough to be assessed for proper support and training that could, and would, help to stop the cycle.

The Towards Supporting People scheme will enable those young women to gain help for their problems. That scheme — a Government-funded programme to help the most vulnerable in society, such as those who make up the figures in the survey by the Council for the Homeless — is a good idea on paper, but it requires practical support, and that means money. England has set aside £138 million for the implementation of the Towards Supporting People fund. As usual, however, the Government at Westminster are not funding the outcomes of parity legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom. It does not make sense to legislate to bring the entire United Kingdom into line to protect its most vulnerable citizens, and then not provide the scheme with adequate funding. What other Department or programme is going to suffer because the Treasury would like our tax money to be spent on people on the mainland?

I fully support the programme, but where is the money going to come from to support it? Will Westminster provide money for the programme in Northern Ireland at a later date, and will we hear about it at a later date?

The programme will support people of all ages and prevent the overlapping of funding systems, which will take out the red tape and help more efficiently the people that it is supposed to help. The Towards Supporting People fund will also ensure that decisions are made in partnership, among the various organisations, such as the health trusts, probation boards and social workers, in order to place people in appropriate accommodation that will protect them and give them the independence that everyone is entitled to.

In just over one year, a programme will be implemented that promises to reform, restructure and produce the services that many homeless, and those in need, crave. It is a programme that everyone in the Assembly will back and support. However, as with the arrangements to follow the ending of GP fundholding in less than a month’s time, it is a programme that needs to be refined and defined for those who will be working along with it. As we discussed last week, the GPs are not happy with the handover and the information that they have been given to facilitate it. That situation must not be repeated with the Towards Supporting People fund. The instigation of that process must start now to provide a durable, transparent, user-friendly and equitable arrangement for transition from housing benefit.

There are issues, such as the prevention of homelessness and support services for the homeless, that need to be addressed now. Equality issues when allocating housing, and quality assurance in housing, need to be considered. Has a framework for support been put in place? Has a comprehensive map of local services been drawn up? The gaps that are not met by those services must be charted and identified in order for action to be taken. Has a strategy for the users of the fund been set up, and have the providers been informed of changes to the service? Are the providers acquainted with the benefits of the new system?

We return, of course, to the issue of funding. Can Westminster guarantee the funding of this programme? That is a most important issue.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. I know that my Colleague Michelle Gildernew has been a driving force in the Committee for Social Development in relation to the motion.

Why has the Minister not demanded parity of esteem for the Towards Supporting People fund, when England has set aside and ring-fenced £138 million for the implementation of the scheme?

The first portion of that money was paid out in 2001. Has the Minister made a bid for an allocation to finance the scheme? If he has, what was the bid? Out of that bid, how much money was allocated to the Department for Social Development for the Towards Supporting People fund? Furthermore, is the Department required to enable local authorities and their partners to implement and deliver the programme?

Many people with a wide range of problems need this support — those with mental health problems, women who are escaping domestic violence, people with physical disabilities, people with learning difficulties, care leavers and young homeless people who may find it difficult to hold down a tenancy or to stay in one place long enough to access proper support and training because of mental health or drug problems. By supporting people, the fund will provide the means to enable those young people to settle in a new home and a new life.

Old people also need the support of the fund. Lest we forget, they were the providers from whom we benefit today. It should be payback time for them.

I support the motion.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

Members must realise that responsibility does not lie solely with the Minister for Social Development. The House must make a plea to the Executive to help the Minister for Social Development to find the commitment and the money with which to do this.

Several Members have highlighted the cross-cutting nature of the Towards Supporting People fund. It is important that Members remember that. The objectives of the Towards Supporting People fund are to develop higher-quality services and to increase the provision of housing support. The services that are in place in Northern Ireland are some distance behind those in the rest of the UK. Prior to the introduction of the Towards Supporting People fund, it is vital to have the funding to develop those services. The size of the pot is important, and we must allow for growth.

If the Assembly considers what funding the Department for Social Development thought that the SPED (special purchase of evacuated dwellings) scheme would require — and even what was needed pre-devolution when direct rule Ministers were in place — nobody could have predicted that the Assembly would be spending more money now on people who had been intimidated out of their homes than was spent prior to the 1994 ceasefires. Members must remember such issues because they will arise through supporting people, and they have not been allowed for.

The Assembly also needs to increase standards of provision and to allow for new policy changes. Those are the type of issues that the Assembly must try to predict. Today, the House heard from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that, because of the changes in resource budgeting, an additional £23·9 million was found for the health budget. When policies change, the Assembly must be ready and it must have the money to deal with those changes.

Members must also remember the number of young people who leave care each year. The Committee for Social Development took evidence from several organisations. All those organisations discussed young people in care and the problems that they have in trying to ensure that those young people are rehoused and that they remain housed.

Those are four issues that the Assembly must take into consideration. If it considers those issues, it will see the implications that they will have for the size of the pot. There is also the issue of charging and means testing, which has not even been undertaken.

If we have not set a policy of charging and means-testing, how will we ever know the required size of the pot? That is a critical issue that must be resolved early on so that we can ensure that we know the implications and the size of the pot.

The most vulnerable in society must be given confidence. Members should bear in mind that that is what is meant when we talk about the Towards Supporting People fund. It is about groups such as the Northern Ireland Women’s Aid Federation. It is about older people in sheltered accommodation and homeless people in hostels. They are the most vulnerable people in society. They do not have the necessary will to lobby politicians to deal with the issue. We must look out for those people, ensure that they are heard and ensure that the Assembly affords them their rights. We must reassure those who need support and those who provide the services that we shall not only continue to help them, but that the level of support will get better and not worse.

There are also concerns about the split between rent and support. It has been argued that the service providers have not correctly identified the split. If we do not know the true breakdown of the split between rent and support, the size of the pot will be inaccurate. It has already been highlighted that the Towards Supporting People fund cuts across several Departments. Although I reiterate that the Assembly should throw its weight behind the Minister for Social Development, we should also call on all other Departments to play their part in ensuring that the Minister has the necessary resources and money to deal with the problem.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I support the motion. I am not a member of the Committee for Social Development, but I have a particular interest in the issue because of the overlap between the motion’s content and the remit of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, of which I am a member.

I am concerned that, to date, we still do not have a ring-fenced budget for a policy that I support. How can a policy be supported if the resources are not attached to it to ensure that every part of the policy’s commitments will be fulfilled? In England, £138 million was set aside and ring-fenced, and a strategy was laid down. In Northern Ireland, the groups that await the Minister’s answers do not know the size of the budget, when it will be ring-fenced or when it will filter down to people working on the ground. The Minister must provide those answers today.

I am glad that the debate is taking place because the phone calls that I have received from the groups have mainly been about their concerns over the effective implementation of the policy by the end of the transition period, which is April 2003. That gives us exactly one year.

I submitted a question for written answer by the Minister. In his answer, he said that he hoped that no group would suffer under the new system. However, a little more detail is needed on that today because that is not a good enough answer. We are going to effect a huge change in policy that will affect 350 voluntary groups in Northern Ireland. It will affect those who provide hostels, refuges and sheltered accommodation.

As the chairperson of the all-party Assembly group on mental health, I know of the vulnerabilities of those who suffer from the effects of drug, substance and alcohol abuse, those leaving care and those with severe mental health problems. They must be supported and cared for. What we have asked those groups to do in the past two years is nothing short of phenomenal. We have asked them to rethink the way in which housing benefit has been provided in the past, how their sectors have been managed in the past —

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

I am sorry to interrupt you, Ms McWilliams. I remind Members that when they are on their feet later they might not expect to be heard by a silent House, but they might expect to be heard with a little less background noise.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

It shows how passionate I am about the subject that I did not hear anybody making any noise, but you obviously did, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your interjection.

The groups are also being asked to look at housing support for their sector. The groups tell me that they have to break down the cost of bricks and mortar, roofs and walls. They then had to break down the support and the care elements. I have been involved with Women’s Aid for many years. It would be difficult to break down the cost of a refuge’s bricks and mortar, of care before and after entering the refuge and aftercare — all the work to ensure an individual’s freedom from the violence and abuse that she has experienced. We want to build such a community, not one that sends women back into such dreadful relationships.

Those groups have worked that out. Again, organisations have told me that they have done that without any resources. They funded all the extra administrative work themselves. In England, however, the pressure on some voluntary groups was foreseen with voluntary management. All those years ago, Margaret Thatcher screamed and pleaded for that very thing: for groups to set up self-help organisations that would return a contribution to the community.

It is a marvel that many organisations have been able to do that work, and some have probably had huge problems in doing so. The Northern Ireland Women’s Aid Federation now has so many refuges that it is big enough to have a federation and a co-ordination of management. It is unfortunate that we should be proud of the fact that we have many more refuges now than when we started in 1975. Compare that to single groups, such as Sydenham House in east Belfast, which is asked to carry out that work without any support. The organisations in Northern Ireland have continued despite their lack of funding, while in England support of £750,000 per annum was given to the voluntary organisations to enable them to work through the transition.

As a result of their underfunding, many organisations submitted proposals and packages to the Housing Executive for floating support. To date they have not received a penny. I am told that that is not necessarily the fault of the Housing Executive, because it in turn relied on the Department, through the Minister, to bring the money down. If those funds had been provided, the Housing Executive could have accepted some of the groups’ proposals and provided funding. Since that did not happen, those groups have had to make their workers redundant.

I, and other Members, have worked for many years with community and voluntary organisations concerned with the homeless, children in need of care and people with learning and physical disabilities. That takes much hard work and, because a little information given badly is dangerous, the last thing that we want is to have centres staffed by people without the necessary expertise and experience. We want to build up and retain that expertise and experience. We do not want to have to make workers redundant. For example, Members may have been approached about the closure of centres in North Down and Ards.

I pay tribute to the Minister, who, for different reasons, met a group from advice centres whose funding was running out because of changes to European funding. I appreciate the Minister’s undertaking to lend his support to a further meeting with a delegation this week to sort out that problem. I say to the Minister that those groups are being squeezed in all directions, because criteria for the European funding packages have been changed, and because floating support has not been put in place as intended.

I would appreciate it if at the end of today’s debate the Minister could give us a commitment, so that Members could tell the groups that support will be given and that they may not have to lunge from crisis to crisis, or make more of their workers redundant. People in the voluntary sector do not want to have to tell people who have worked for a low wage over the years that they no longer have a job. Other employees who predicted that situation have left already, taking with them their experience and expertise.

Finally, this policy is an opportunity, not a threat. For the first time in my 20 years of work in that field, it is useful that instead of all the ad hoc provision between the statutory and voluntary sectors we now have an opportunity to strategise, review, evaluate and improve the quality of the provision. Quality assurance from those groups gives them back dignity, confidence and tells them that the Executive, the Assembly and the community respect them. There is also an opportunity to improve the quantity of service, should that be necessary. Over the years, new groups have come forward and problems that had not been identified now have a name; child abuse, for example.

With those opportunities in place, it is time to tell the voluntary sector that it is valued, and I hope that the Minister will say that at the end of the debate. Will the Minister assure Members that at the end of the transition period the funding will be secured, the necessary floating support will be in place, and the Housing Executive will be able to do an effective job? I hope that the programme goes from strength to strength. I strongly support the motion and the Committee for Social Development in tabling it today.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I support the motion. The programme being developed is the result of court decisions in England and changes to the legislation there. The topic is before the Assembly because of parity legislation. It has been suggested that the Assembly should look at this issue differently, but it has no option other than to go down this route. Having said that, there are certain safeguards in doing so. Some safeguards mentioned earlier in the debate are either not realistic or may not be adopted by the Assembly, and I wish to deal with some of them.

Most Members have outlined the importance of the Towards Supporting People fund. There are approximately 800 schemes in which people who require extra help towards their living expenses are supported. These schemes help almost 13,500 people. Therefore many people are being affected by the changes that have separated the supporting element from the housing benefit element of the funding.

Many people who present themselves as homeless are in that position for reasons other than difficulty with accommodation: they often need additional support. During the Committee for Social Development’s inquiry into homelessness it was significant that some groups said that up to 25% of the people they placed in accommodation would present themselves again as homeless within a year because the problem was not simply a housing one. Many people also require social support because of learning difficulties or other problems. Therefore the supporting element of housing costs is important, and the Assembly must address it seriously.

It is pointless to pretend that we can continue with the current demand-led system, because the courts have ruled against that. The system is changing in the rest of the UK, and it must change in Northern Ireland as well. Therefore the Assembly and the Department for Social Development must ensure that when the budgetary arrangements are changed, they have done sufficient work to determine the cost of the supporting element to allow for an adequate transfer of funding to the Northern Ireland Budget, and to ensure that the element currently paid in the housing benefit block is split sufficiently to ensure that there is money to maintain the supporting services.

I have no doubt that the Minister will assure the House that that work is being done and that money will be made available. If we get the baseline right, the problems that people envisage for the future should not arise. If too little money is transferred from the start to the block grant for support services, it will be a struggle throughout to ensure that there is enough money for them.

Some people have suggested that money for support services should be ring-fenced. Some ask why money cannot be ring-fenced here when it is ring-fenced in England. There may not be a parallel between the situation here and that in England. The difficulty is that if money is ring-fenced for one area, we will be pressed to ring-fence money for other, equally important, areas. People can make very good cases for protecting the services that they provide.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Social service workers appeared before the Committee to make the same point about funding for community care. Does the Member agree that they said that health resources were being drained into acute care? Because money for children’s services and community care was not protected year after year, it was simply taken from the Cinderella services to pay for the ever-increasing cost of acute care. With hindsight, it might have made sense to ensure provision for community care. Surely the same argument applies to supporting people.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I accept the Member’s point. However, we must remember that we can have an input through Committee meetings when Members can consult on budgets. We also have an input in the Budget through debates in the House, and we vote on the Budget every year. Members who feel, as Ms McWilliams does, that the Cinderella services are being squeezed, have ample opportunity to raise those concerns and put pressure on Ministers through the Committees or by amendments to the Budget.

There are problems with ring-fencing funds of any sort. First, if certain funds are ring-fenced, other groups will ask why they are not deemed important enough to have their funding protected. As Members, we face particular difficulties if we take that route. Secondly, demand may increase or decrease at any time, and flexibility is lost by ring-fencing money. I would prefer an annual debate on prioritising resources. Through Committee meetings and debates in the House we can respond to the needs of the various services. Raising such concerns and scrutinising money every year could lead to real debate about budgetary considerations and allocations.

I take on board Ms McWilliams’s earlier point about dividing the housing costs from the support costs. That may not be as difficult to do as people imagine. We know the rental costs for certain types of accommodation across Northern Ireland. The cost of providing and maintaining the bricks and mortar will be covered by housing benefit — and it should not be difficult to cover that cost. The supporting element gives us the opportunity to examine and put a value on the services being provided.

I have visited some hostels and have seen the excellent work being carried out. People are often at the end of their tether when they come to hostels, having perhaps lost their home through unfortunate circumstances or due to violence in the home. I remember talking to people in a hostel on the Cliftonville Road who had gone through horrific experiences. Thanks to the support work being carried out, I was amazed at their optimism for the future. They told me how they were trying to get jobs, move into rented accommodation, and about how things would be different once they had a house of their own. Their self-esteem must have been built up as a result of the support work of those running the hostel. That work is invaluable. The Towards Supporting People fund will give us an opportunity to value such work.

Likewise, we can examine the service provided by organisations — and I can think of some examples in Belfast — that are not offering the support they should. The changeover presents us with many opportunities.

The Assembly must ensure that the transfer of funding to the block grant is at the right level so that we are not struggling to find the finance each year. Undoubtedly, the Department and the organisations providing much of the care will put in their bids and do their costings to ensure that the budget is appropriate. The Assembly must ensure that vital support services are provided for people whose problem is often social and not just lack of accommodation.

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

Supporting people is a most far-reaching and comprehensive change to the funding of support services. Come April 2003, housing benefit will no longer cover the cost of support and will only finance the basic costs of bricks and mortar. It is vital that the Government ensure that voluntary agencies, such as the Simon Community, are confident in terms of the appropriate levels of funding and do not have to face an uncertain future by having to bid for funding on a project by project basis.

At present, rent from residents requiring supported housing is mainly covered by housing benefit, and, once again, taking the Simon Community as an example, this makes up for just under 50% of their total income. With the proposed changes to the housing benefit scheme, the Government must therefore ensure that the Towards Supporting People Scheme, due to replace the current system, has sufficient level of finance in place in order to sustain valuable support services such as that offered by those agencies I have already referred to.

Supporting people goes much further than housing by looking at, and dealing with, the specific needs of the individual. The supporting people proposals have signalled the Government’s response to developing a more coherent funding framework for supported housing. Supported housing is delivered to tens of thousands of vulnerable people in Northern Ireland. In fact, there are 13,500 people living under 800 supported housing schemes in Northern Ireland. These include elderly people living in sheltered accommodation, people with learning and physical disabilities, those with mental health problems and homeless people. These people all have very diverse circumstances, and, through supporting people, voluntary agencies will be able to meet the very different support packages which are required.

Unfortunately the tens of thousands of people who require such support services will lose out if adequate finance is not directed into support schemes. Already many support agencies are unwilling to initiate new long-term projects due to the climate of uncertainty that exists.

The consultation paper on the supporting people fund sets out new proposals to develop a new funding framework. The results will produce greater transparency in funding, and the provision of housing support will no longer be tied to types of accommodation, but, instead, to the needs of the clients, and will also facilitate access to financial assistance for housing support services. These proposals will go a long way in raising the priority of support services.

I think we are all aware that the Department for Social Development is under severe pressure in terms of its own budget. In 2000-01 the Department had a budget cut, and its bids for additional funds were not met. The Department has to deal with the most marginalised and vulnerable in our society, which is why funding is paramount to the success of projects launched by the Department.

We must not underestimate the role of the voluntary sector in providing support for the most vulnerable in our society. Those agencies, such as the Simon Community and Shelter, are working together for a common goal. They are providing support for people in different and very often difficult circumstances. I must also congratulate the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which has initiated its own homelessness strategy and review of its services. The Housing Executive has stated that working alongside other agencies, both statutory and voluntary, is

"crucial to achieving success in planning and developing accommodation, advice and support services, with the overall aim of finding flexible efficient solutions to homelessness".

As has already been mentioned, in the United Kingdom adequate funding has been provided in order to finance support schemes; £138 million has been allocated over three years for England, £15 million over three years for Scotland and £1·125 million in Wales for this financial year alone. The Government in Northern Ireland need to follow these examples if our voluntary sector is to continue to deliver support services effectively. There is no point whatsoever in introducing legislation if sufficient finance is not provided to make it a reality. Unfortunately, the reality at the moment is that without a supporting people fund thousands of vulnerable people will be unable to access the necessary support, therefore becoming further disadvantaged.

People’s future should not be dependent on funding and balance sheets, but, unfortunately, finance is crucial to the success of the voluntary sector, although I would like at this stage to point out and to emphasise that the Minister has shown a commitment to the various agencies operating within the voluntary sector. In fact, only recently he launched a £250,000 initiative to help smaller community and voluntary groups.

I therefore call on the Executive to ensure that this Towards Supporting People legislation is supported with finance, at levels not less than currently available through housing benefit. The Government in Northern Ireland must ensure continuity of support for the voluntary sector, and they can do this through a long-term commitment on funding. I am the first to admit that there is no magic wand; there is only commitment, consultation, careful planning, and, as a result, continuing progress. I hope that through this debate today positive action can be taken with regard to funding in order to underpin the implementation process and, in the longer term, the actual programme delivery.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Committee for Social Development for highlighting this important issue, and I welcome the opportunity to speak.

As almost everyone has said, supported housing is an effective and valuable service for many people in Northern Ireland. Of that there is no doubt. It helps people to live independently in the community, and it often complements community care provision. Many people depend on it: elderly people and those with learning difficulties are two obvious examples. Others have also been mentioned: victims of domestic violence, vulnerable young people, including those who are homeless, and people who suffer from alcohol or drug addiction.

Support comes in many different forms. It might be something practical such as helping a person to set up and maintain a home, helping someone to develop personal and practical skills or simply giving them advice on issues such as financial management. It might be more personal support, such as helping to develop social skills, giving emotional support and advice or simply befriending someone who is lonely or isolated. It might aim to ensure that vulnerable people feel safe in their homes by giving them help to establish personal safety and security or providing things like community alarms.

It is clear that many different groups depend on housing support services, and equally there is a wide range of support services. Not everybody has the same needs, and, therefore, support must be tailored to take account of individuals’ needs and their circumstances.

In many cases, supported housing provision has been driven by an imaginative response from voluntary sector agencies to that wide range of needs. Many excellent schemes throughout the Province are run by hard-working, dedicated staff, often in difficult situations. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the people in the voluntary and community sectors who are involved in that important and vital work.

Needless to say, it costs a lot of money to provide these support services. One difficulty mentioned by the Member for South Belfast, Ms McWilliams, is that the current revenue funding arrangements are complex and fragmented. Many supported housing schemes are dependent on several different funding streams for a variety of different budgets, and in some cases the type of service provided has been driven more by the availability of a funding source than by the actual need of the resident.

Of course, the funding situation has been further complicated by the forthcoming changes to the housing benefit scheme. As has been mentioned in every speech, housing support services will no longer be an eligible charge under housing benefit. That is the main issue, because housing benefit is an important — though not the only — source of income for providers of supported housing schemes, and without it many schemes would be forced either to close completely or to significantly reduce the level of service to their vulnerable residents.

The Department and I were not prepared to see that happen; hence the move towards the creation of a Towards Supporting People fund. The increase in supported housing provision in recent years has given rise to an effective resource that provides valuable assistance to vulnerable people. Many of the schemes have been provided through funding from my Department in the form of housing association grants. Therefore, I have a vested interest, and I certainly do not want to see a situation develop whereby that investment might be jeopardised in any way through a lack of appropriate revenue funding. More importantly, I do not want to see a reduction in the level of service that is currently provided to the vulnerable and needy in society. For those reasons, I decided that Northern Ireland should establish a Towards Supporting People fund.

The creation of such a fund will provide many advantages. I agree with Ms McWilliams that this should be viewed as an opportunity rather than a threat. It will provide a replacement for the amount of housing benefit that is presently funding housing support services. That amount is now being identified and quantified by the Department as part of the transitional housing benefit process, and will be transferred from the social security budget to the Towards Supporting People fund in April 2003 as part of the Northern Ireland block.

Another advantage of the creation of such a fund is that it will eliminate fragmentation, removing the problems that stem from the current complex funding arrangements by combining all other existing funding streams into a new, single budget to be administered by the Housing Executive.

While changes to the funding arrangements are the main feature of the new proposal, they are by no means the only feature. The new arrangements will allow us to place a greater emphasis on the quality of the service provided. If we place all funding sources into a single budget, we will be able to progress from a situation where the service provided is tailored to meet the requirements of the funding source to one where the needs of the individual are the determining factor.

It will also mean that the Housing Executive can more closely monitor the service provided, and will therefore ensure that vulnerable residents receive the level of service that best meets their needs. In the next few weeks I propose to issue a consultation document that will set out the details of the proposed arrangements for monitoring.

An interdepartmental working group comprising representatives from the Department for Social Development, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public safety, and health and social services boards, chaired by the Housing Executive, has developed our proposals. They have been endorsed by an external reference group including representatives of the various interested bodies. They have also been subject to wide consultation. While concerns have been raised about details, the broad concept of the proposals has been welcomed.

This motion concerns the implications of introducing a new system for funding housing support costs and the need to secure commitments from the Executive so that financial allocations for the Towards Supporting People fund are guaranteed and will be maintained at levels not lower than those currently provided through housing benefit. The motion emanates from the concerns of Committee members. They have already expressed concerns to me about the move from a demand-led fund to one that will have to be bid for year-on-year.

Concerns about funding were a recurrent theme during the consultation period and in the responses. I acknowledge those concerns. As has been acknowledged by some Members — but not by Mr ONeill, who suggested that we do something different in Northern Ireland — we have no option in the matter. The decision to remove support costs as an eligible charge for housing benefit was not made by this Department; nor would this Department have made it. The decision has not been made by the Assembly or by any MLA.

The decision has been made as a result of a court challenge, and it applies throughout the United Kingdom. Either we react to that fact and establish a Towards Supporting People fund, or we turn a blind eye to reality and risk jeopardising the viability of many important and worthwhile schemes. I am not prepared to do that. We do not have the luxury of wishing it could be different or of reverting to the previous situation. Things have moved forward, for reasons that I have explained.

The changes to the housing benefit system are being introduced because the courts decided that support costs are not an eligible charge for housing benefit. Whether we like it or not, housing benefit will not pay for housing support services from April 2003.

The housing benefit portion of the new Towards Supporting People fund, which is the amount that will transfer from demand-led to annual bidding, accounts for only half of the funding. The remainder will come from within the housing budget in the form of a special needs management allowance, which my Department pays to housing associations that operate supported housing schemes, and several other smaller funds operated by the Housing Executive. In terms of the motion as it is worded, there is no difficulty in agreeing that the financial allocations "will be maintained at levels not less than currently provided through housing benefit" because a substantial portion of the money allocated comes above and beyond housing benefit. Housing benefit is only a proportion of it.

I know that there are some concerns about matters of detail, not least about the method for calculating the amount of housing benefit funding that is considered to cover support services and that should, therefore, move from the social security budget to the Towards Supporting People fund. I give a guarantee to Mr Sammy Wilson, who raised the point, that there will be no underestimation of the amount to be transferred. Mr Billy Hutchinson said that the baseline figure in the first year will be critical. I am determined to ensure that the maximum amount of money is transferred to meet the costs of the Towards Supporting People programme.

Members have also expressed concerns about appropriate funding being made available to enable the Housing Executive to carry out its responsibilities, and that is where the £138 million comes in. Mr Shannon, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, and other Members, raised that point. That figure is the money given to some 400 local authorities in Great Britain to implement the scheme. Northern Ireland has only one organisation, the Housing Executive, and until now the Housing Executive has managed to meets its responsibility within existing budgets. However, I realise, and I share the concerns of Members, that this is a situation that cannot continue. That is why I have bid, and will continue to bid very strongly, to the Department of Finance and Personnel to secure the necessary funding that the Housing Executive will require to allow it to meet all its additional commitments.

Therefore, I welcome the plea that was issued for all Members to ensure, when it comes to backing up the strong arguments made today on the need to ensure that appropriate funding is put in place, that those arguments are also put to the Department of Finance and Personnel. It is to the credit of the Housing Executive that it has been able to carry out the preparatory work to date within existing resources. Much important work has already been done in calculating the size of the fund and developing an implementation plan that sets out the timetable for tackling issues such as needs and supply mapping.

Funding for the Housing Executive is, of course, not the only issue. Members have raised the issue of the impact that the Towards Supporting People fund will have on the voluntary agencies that provide housing support services. It is important that they receive the necessary assistance to allow them to prepare for the new arrangements. The House will acknowledge the fact that some £120,000 has been provided in that regard, and the money has been used to create three posts specifically aimed at assisting voluntary organisations to prepare for the new arrangements.

The issue of Sydenham House was raised. The Housing Executive’s Towards Supporting People project team has several secondees whose aim is to provide specific aid to small organisations such as that.

I also accept that communication is important. I assure Members that every effort will be made to keep all interests fully informed of developments.

The introduction of a Towards Supporting People policy and funding framework in Northern Ireland will allow us to place the future of the supported housing sector on a more secure and co-ordinated basis. It will eliminate fragmentation of funding and improve the quality and effectiveness of housing-related services.

The issue of ring-fencing has been mentioned in relation to the situation in the rest of Great Britain, where money has been allocated to local authorities and ring-fenced to ensure that they do not spend it on other requirements. Under the new arrangements the money in the Towards Supporting People fund will be part of the housing budget. The Minister for Social Development will be responsible for it and will be in a position to ensure that that money is not raided to meet other priorities. The Assembly will be in a position — through the votes at Budget stage — to ensure that the necessary resources are available to meet the priority that we have spoken about so strongly today. Let no one be in any doubt as far as that matter is concerned.

I value the debate. It has been an important debate on an important issue. I commend the Committee for Social Development, and I assure the House on behalf of my Department that we are fully committed to the introduction of the Towards Supporting People fund, which will meet the needs of the most vulnerable and needy people in our society.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I shall make a few additional remarks, given the importance of the debate and the concerns surrounding it.

Several common themes arose from the consultation process and the consultation paper ‘Supporting People: A New Policy and Funding Framework for Support Services’. Several seminars took place about the Towards Supporting People fund. The key message from those seminars was that the housing support element was too low, resulting in an underestimation of the budget.

The budget for the Towards Supporting People fund should be ring-fenced so that it is not diverted to other priorities. That is essential, as funding may be split between the Housing Executive and health trusts. We must ensure that resources can only be used for this specific purpose or we will have difficulties in years to come in providing funding for this essential service.

Providers have difficulty in determining the split between rent — meaning bricks and mortar — and care and support costs. That will no doubt result in the underfunding of certain projects. Small providers and some voluntary groups will need training, support and the necessary resources to implement the scheme. There is a danger that some of the smaller housing providers for the homeless will not be able to survive within the parameters of Towards Supporting People policy, and may have to close. That will inevitably lead to gaps in provision.

The consultation also highlighted the fact that further details were needed in order to evaluate the extent of partnership required, and that links with local strategic partnerships and communities were essential. Consultation with the voluntary and community sector should continue on this issue.

One can tell from comments made in today’s debate that there is a great deal of concern about the inadequacy of funding for maintaining existing services and meeting new responsibilities. If finances are to be based on existing levels of support, then an increase in needs may not be met.

Another theme arising from the consultation was that domestic violence should be explicitly included, particularly in matters of confidentiality. The issue of asylum seekers must also be addressed.

People also wonder how the Children (Leaving Care) Bill will fit in with the Towards Supporting People proposal.

Mr ONeill rightly identified the issues of timescales and the finance needed to deal with the increasing problem of homelessness, particularly for young people leaving care. My party Colleague the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety recently introduced the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, the Second Stage of which was passed today. She understands the needs of young people leaving care and the many and varied challenges that they face. We must play our part in implementing provisions that will make it easier for young people at that difficult time. We must ensure that the provisions in that Bill, when taken alongside the housing support Bill, provide the proper legislative basis to give young people the security and help that they need. Mr ONeill is right that bids should not have to be made. It is a demand-led service, and the money must be guaranteed.

Dr Birnie and Mr ONeill promoted an integrated and holistic approach to the issue. They are right that the issue is not the responsibility of the Department for Social Development alone. The Bill includes an educational component, and its connection with health is obvious. Dr Birnie made an interesting association between the needs of the long-term unemployed and their vulnerability to homelessness. I agree that we need preventative strategies, but we need money for support services as well.

I congratulate Mr Shannon on drawing attention to the plight of women. Vulnerable women affected by domestic violence need to know that there are safe places that will meet their needs in times of trauma. Mick Murphy asked whether the Minister has bid for funding to pave the way for the scheme. I am unsure whether the Minister responded properly by stating that the needs were met through the existing Housing Executive resource funding. Perhaps he could give us further detail on that.

Billy Hutchinson made a measured and valuable contribution. We are lagging behind, and we need more integration. He used the special purchase of evacuated dwellings (SPED) scheme as an example of funding difficulties. In addition, he mentioned charging and means testing, which must be taken on board. Mr Hutchinson also said that it is incumbent on all Members to make pleas to the Executive to provide that money. The Minister is the key person in that respect.

Ms McWilliams made the critical point that legislation is all very well, but resources are needed to give effect to it. She drew attention to the difficulty of breaking down the costs. That common theme emerged from the consultation, and all the service providers made a similar point. Resources are needed urgently to help the service providers to deal with the changes. Ms McWilliams said that that was an opportunity to value the voluntary sector providers.

I was glad that the Minister paid tribute to the voluntary and community sectors. Often they are not recognised for their work to meet certain needs in society. I too pay tribute to them, but the greatest tribute that the Assembly could pay would be to ensure that the work of those sectors is funded.

Sammy Wilson outlined the scale of the problem and the variety of reasons for it. He said that we need to get the baselines right, and I agree. It is important to help service providers to get their calculations right so that underfunding does not occur. Mr Wilson also acknowledged the importance of support work, and other Members highlighted the need for prevention. Perhaps more outreach work is needed to ensure that the situation does not become critical. I trust that the Minister will not overlook the need to include that requirement in his calculation of figures based on necessary provision.

Mark Robinson rightly highlighted the need for certainty among providers. There is a great deal of uncertainty and concern among the service providers as to how they will be affected by the Towards Supporting People initiative. In addition, he raised concerns about the Department’s budget levels and drew attention to the fact that England, Scotland and Wales have set aside funding for the introduction of the new scheme and are well advanced in their plans for it. Like Ms McWilliams, Mr Robinson said that legislation on its own is never enough and that funding is critical.

My first observation is that the debate has served at least one purpose. It has drawn attention to the fact that there are important social issues beyond health and education — housing must be third on our list of priorities.

It is unfortunate that more Members were not in the Chamber. However, the Members who attended have made a valuable contribution, and the standard of debate was excellent. I hope that the other Members’ absence is not a reflection of how they feel about this issue, because it is something that affects all of us in every constituency in the North. I hope that those absent will read about the proceedings in Hansard. The Members who participated in the debate spoke about people — people who come from different political, social and religious backgrounds. However, as I have said, they come from every constituency. I do not deny that health and education deserve to be at the forefront of the Assembly’s policies. However, they must not overshadow all other matters, and they must not be addressed at the expense of the most marginalised in our community.

It is worth noting that when the idea for the Towards Supporting People fund was put out for public consultation, almost all of the 20 or so organisations that responded were either providers of housing support services or agencies from the health sector. In accepting the need for changes to the existing system, many respondents welcomed the principle of a more flexible scheme. However, they registered deep concern about issues such as means-testing, quality improvements and the practicalities of introducing and delivering the new system. We must pay attention to those concerns. Those organisations have vast amounts of experience — they know what they are talking about, and if they are concerned, so should we be. As I have said, tributes have been paid to the work carried out by those agencies, and, although I cannot mention individuals, they have my appreciation and respect for the work that they do.

I hope that the Executive get the message loud and clear. Health and education are important, but so is housing. We are talking about legislation to provide for the poor, the elderly, those with addictions, those who have had to endure family breakdown or domestic violence, and young people. Some of those young people will be leaving care and will rely on our support as they seek to rejoin and re-establish themselves in our community. We need to support them properly, and we must ensure that adequate funding is available. I hope that this debate is not a one-day wonder, in which we all pledge to work for the marginalised and then retreat from that pledge.

I shall comment on some of the Minister for Social Development’s pledges. He talked about how the Towards Supporting People fund will allow us to place the future of the supported housing sector on a more secure and co-ordinated footing. He mentioned eliminating fragmentation of funding, and approving the quality and effectiveness of housing-related support services. It is imperative that we do that, and I hope that he is right. The Minister said that the increase in supported housing provision in recent years has given rise to effective and valuable resources. That is true, and many of the schemes have come from housing association grants. I would like the Minister to keep this issue at the forefront and to ensure that proper resources are put in place. Although he says that money should not be ring-fenced, many Members said that the money should be ring-fenced. It is a worthwhile cause, so we should ensure that the money is available to enable the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society to have a better quality of life. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly expresses serious concern about the implications of introducing a new system for funding housing support costs and

Adjourned at 6.30 pm.