northern ireland assembly Monday 18 February 2008 Ministerial Statement: Executive Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Private Members’ Business: Ministerial Statement: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Reorganisation of Health and Social Care Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that he wishes to make a statement regarding proposals for the reorganisation of the health and social care system in Northern Ireland and set out his plans for public health and the creation of a public health improvement agency for Northern Ireland. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): This year, the National Health Service is celebrating its sixtieth birthday. It was another unionist, William Grant, the Minister of Health and Local Government, who introduced the Health Services Bill to Northern Ireland, saying: “the time is ripe for a complete overhaul of our health services and the adoption of an ambitious and bold new design.” I believe that the time is ripe again for a “bold new design”. The major challenges facing health and social care warrant new thinking and new approaches. My proposals for the reorganisation of health and social care services in Northern Ireland are, therefore, a “bold new design”. On 4 February, I outlined to the Assembly my proposals for the reorganisation of health and social care: today, I am formally launching a 12-week consultation, which marks the start of a unique opportunity for the public, representatives, health and social care staff, patients, clients, carers and all other key stakeholders to have their say. I thank all the people who work in health and social care in Northern Ireland for their day-to-day dedication. It takes special skills to work in what is often a challenging environment, and it takes a special person, with strong personal values in caring and compassion for others. My proposals are intended to make it easier for those staff to do their work and, through their commitment, expertise and professionalism, bring about real improvements in health for everyone in Northern Ireland. William Grant was Minister of Health and Local Government. My proposals are intended to strengthen, renew and reinvigorate the role of local government in improving the health of the population. I am a councillor and an MLA, and I hear at first hand the concerns of my constituents and of colleagues on local councils and in the Assembly. Those concerns include healthcare infections such as MRSA and clostridium difficile, the worries of people struggling to care for elderly parents or children with disabilities, suicide rates, binge drinking, drug misuse and antisocial behaviour, and the stress of living in poor housing, with a fear of crime and, perhaps, little hope for the future. Local government is already working with communities, helping to develop and shape services to achieve a better quality of life for people. Councillors know the importance of social and economic stability in creating vibrant, thriving, healthy communities. Most importantly, they know the needs of their populations. I want to harness the knowledge that they have gained from their communities. My proposals, therefore, reflect my desire to see local councils working closely with the new structures and playing a pivotal role in developing plans to improve public health. What do I mean by “public health”? As William Grant said when he introduced his Health Services Bill in 1947, people: “feel that they are sharing in a great adventure … to serve the health and happiness of all our people.” More than 60 years later, those words are still apt. Instead of “happiness”, we now talk about “well-being”. Public health, therefore, is what we do as a society to protect and improve the health and well-being of the population. It is much more than just treating or caring for people when they are sick. It is about working upstream, across a broad agenda, to tackle the underlying causes of ill health, improve people’s life skills and, therefore, life choices, prevent disease, and add years to life and life to years. In 1974, only 16 of the people who died in Northern Ireland were over the age of 100, for example. By 2004, that figure had risen to 69. We have added years to life, and we now renew our efforts to add life to years. Of course, we have seen major improvements in public health. In 1900, life expectancy at birth was 47 — lower than the age of many Members here today. In 1947, when the Health Service began, life expectancy was 63 for men and 66 for women. By 2002, it had increased to 76 and 81, respectively. Deaths from TB have decreased from 932 in 1948 to seven in 2006. Infant mortality has fallen from 53 deaths per 1,000 in 1947 to five per 1,000 in 2004. That is a remarkable improvement. The past 20 years have seen further significant improvements. Measles used to be commonplace — there were 655 cases in 1984. Now a GP is unlikely to see measles during his or her career; there were only 52 cases in 2006. The awful effects of rubella in pregnancy have been virtually eradicated. Whooping cough has almost disappeared; there were 1,244 cases in 1989 and only 28 in 2006. However, major public-health challenges remain — some old, such as health inequalities, and some new, relating to lifestyles. Health inequalities are still rife. It is a fact that people in deprived areas, living in poor housing, who are unemployed and have lower education attainment, are more likely to suffer ill health and an early death than the rest of the population. It is simply not acceptable that in Northern Ireland today, life expectancy is determined by where you were born and where you live. From my constituency office in Sandy Row, a walk across the constituency reveals a stark picture of the health inequalities that are endemic in many communities. The facts speak for themselves: in the most deprived areas of South Belfast, life expectancy for men is 5% less than for the area as a whole, and, for women, the gap is over three years; the teenage birth rate is 36, compared with 11 for the area as a whole; the average suicide rate is around 24 deaths per 100,000 of population, compared with 13 in the constituency as a whole. The picture is similar in all Members’ constituencies. Therefore, the lifestyle challenges are stark. Around 20% of primary 1 children and 60% of adults are overweight. Smoking-related deaths account for around 15% of all deaths in Northern Ireland, and smoking rates among manual workers are still around 33% compared with 25% for Northern Ireland as a whole. Forty-three per cent of men and 33% of women binge drink. Northern Ireland rates of teenage pregnancy are among the highest in Europe. Suicide rates, particularly among young people, are rising. However, it is not only our lifestyles that are damaging our health and placing heavy demands on the Health Service. There are other challenges, including the management of chronic conditions, such as heart disease and strokes, and the need to find new ways to help older people to live full, independent lives for as long as possible. I am pleased to say that we are already seeing a shift towards a more health-promoting service, with a greater emphasis on prevention and better management of long-term conditions. The quality and outcomes framework in the new contract for GPs is a clear example of that, and I congratulate the GPs and all the primary-care teams in Northern Ireland, who outperformed all other parts of the United Kingdom to achieve the highest levels of good-quality care. Those challenges mean that we must be bold in designing our health and social care structures. I want a future where children born today in any part of Northern Ireland will have the same opportunities to survive their first year of life, play in a safe environment, make the most of their education and schooling, enjoy good mental and physical health, form supportive and positive relationships, secure satisfying and productive jobs, and live long, healthy and fulfilled lives. That is why I propose to put the public-health agenda at the heart of the health and social care system. We will use the yardsticks of improved health and well-being, and reduced health inequalities, to measure its success. Key elements of the proposals that I announced on 4 February 2008 included a new regional health and social care board to replace the four health and social services boards; five local commissioning groups; a smaller, more sharply focused Department; a common services organisation that will provide a range of support functions for the Health Service; and strengthening the role of health and social services councils with representatives from local government. Today, I want to talk in detail about the elements of those proposals to transform our ability to address the major public-health challenges that face Northern Ireland. The key public-health elements of my proposals are public health to be placed at the centre of policy and strategy, at ministerial and departmental level, and across Government, through the ministerial group on public health; better co-ordination and delivery of public-health services on the ground through a new multi-professional regional public health agency; a stronger role for local government in shaping health-improvement programmes and in tackling the underlying causes of ill health; robust arrangements to provide public-health support to the regional health and social care board and its local commissioning groups in developing their commissioning plans; and a continued role for health and social care trusts in developing and delivering health-improvement and health-protection programmes to meet key priorities. The new regional public health agency will be an integral part of the health and social care system. It will drive the public-health agenda in a way that is not possible under current arrangements. It will bring together the wide range of existing public-health functions and provide a renewed and sustained focus on achieving key public-health goals. 12.15 pm I propose three key functions for the agency, the first of which is health improvement. We need a co-ordinated and consistent approach to tackling the key public health challenges. The new agency, therefore, will build on the work of existing partnerships between health and other sectors to achieve demonstrable improvement in priority public health measures; for example, better mental health, lower rates of suicide, lower levels of obesity, drug and alcohol misuse and, ultimately, better life chances for all. Health improvement staff from the new agency will provide public-health support to the new regional board and its local commissioning groups as they develop their health improvement commissioning plans. The agency will be commissioned directly by me, or through the regional health and social care board, to provide public-health programmes at a regional and a local level. The new agency will work closely with local government to assist and support councils in their role of improving the health and well-being of local communities. That enhanced support to local councils will be particularly important, as they will soon assume a lead role in community planning. To facilitate further links with local government, elected representatives will be appointed to the board of the new agency. To deliver this health improvement agenda, the new agency will incorporate the functions of the Health Promotion Agency; the health and well-being improvement functions of the existing health boards, including community development and Investing for Health; the health action zone functions of trusts and boards; and the function of specialist improvement staff working with the trusts. However, to ensure an appropriate local presence, many health improvement staff from the new agency will be based locally, to enable them to work closely with colleagues in local commissioning groups, in the trusts and with local government. The second function is health protection. The statutory health protection functions of the existing health and social services boards, the communicable disease surveillance centre and the healthcare-associated infection surveillance centre will transfer to a new health protection unit in the agency. Those transfers will ensure that there are clear lines of accountability for surveillance, prevention and control of infection, and for emergency planning. Above all, the new unit will improve the capacity to react quickly, and that will be vital. The recent outbreak of clostridium difficile, and the ongoing need to reduce all healthcare infections, reinforced the importance of being able to respond quickly and effectively. The health protection unit will provide a clear focus and strong, continued leadership in the battle against infection. Therefore, the health protection unit will, furthermore, be an important regional resource, providing expert health-protection advice to the regional board, the trusts and the Department on prevention and control of infection, emergency planning, immunisation programmes, and other health-protection issues. The agency’s third function is in the provision of public-health support to commissioning and policy development. That is a key role of the agency, as public-health support to the board will ensure a strong, commissioning function and, therefore, the development of services that are credible to front-line staff and consistent with good practice. The consultation paper sets out a range of proposals to ensure that public-health support to commissioning is fully embedded in the work of the board. Legislation will require the board to seek public-health advice and commissioning; contracted sessional commitments from public-health staff in the new agency to the regional board and its local commissioning groups; co-location of public-health commissioning staff from the agency with staff from the regional board and local groups; and representation from the agency on the board of the regional board. Those measures are designed to ensure that the regional board is fully able to reflect the public-health agenda and its commissioning plans, so that we achieve our goals for improved health and well-being. The establishment of the regional public health agency, therefore, provides an important new centre of public-health expertise, drawing together existing resources to create a focused, co-ordinated and sustained effort to tackle the challenges I outlined earlier: health inequalities, lifestyle choices, and the prevention and control of infection. I have put particular emphasis on the important role that public health will play in the new arrangements for health and social care. However, I have proposed other important arrangements for the new structures, and those are described in more detail in the consultation paper. Consultation on those proposals starts today, and I encourage all those who have an interest to participate in that consultation process. I look forward to hearing as many views as possible and to implementing the important reforms that I have announced. I need the knowledge and experience of health and social care staff, patients, carers, local councillors and the many staff who work in the other sectors that contribute to the public-health agenda. That knowledge and experience will inform the consultation and contribute ultimately to my goal of establishing a world-class Health Service that is fit for the twenty-first century. I have laid out my proposals for the future of health and social care in Northern Ireland. We now need the courage to seize the opportunity that we have been given and to dare to make changes in order that we may be radical and ambitious in our goals and can lay the foundations for a more healthy, more productive and more confident Northern Ireland. I, therefore, commend the proposals, and I look forward to the debate that will follow my announcement. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mrs I Robinson): I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Committee welcomed his original statement on 4 February that set out his proposals for the reorganisation of the health and social care system as putting an end to the uncertainty felt by staff who work in the sector. I am pleased that the Minister has moved quickly since then and that his proposals — in the form of the consultation document that was launched today — provide us with more detail. I assure the Minister that the Health Committee will examine and scrutinise the proposals in detail, during both the consultation period and the passage through the House of any subsequent legislation. As part of the proposed reorganisation, the Minister has spelled out his plans for a new regional public-health agency that will drive forward the public-health agenda. The Minister has gone into some detail in highlighting the issues that he wants to see tackled under the new structures, particularly by the new regional public-health agency. Many of those issues also concern the Health Committee. He mentioned anxieties about suicide rates and efforts that have been made to reduce them. He put great emphasis on the new agency’s working closely with local government. At last week’s meeting, the Committee had planned to hear from the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) about how local government can work with the Health Service to tackle suicide rates. Unfortunately, however, that session had to be postponed, given that the Committee discussed another pressing issue and one that the Minister has mentioned — the outbreak of clostridium difficile. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) At Thursday’s meeting, the Committee passed a resolution calling for the Minister to order a public inquiry into the outbreak of clostridium difficile. I welcome the indication that he gave in his weekend statement that he is now minded to order such an inquiry from the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). Tackling the public-health issues that face our society is not, of course, a task that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) can undertake on its own. That task must involve every Department and many other agencies in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to elaborate on how he intends to ensure that every Department takes its role in the task seriously and plays its part to the full. Mrs O’Neill: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement, and I commend him on presenting it so quickly after his original statement of 4 February. I welcome the detail that the Minister has given on the public-health agency. As he said, that agency will take on — among other things — the role of the Health Promotion Agency, community development, work on the Investing for Health strategy, and the trusts’ and boards’ health action zone functions. On 4 February, I asked the Minister about the role of the Investing for Health strategy in what will now be known as the regional public-health agency. I am glad to see that the Investing for Health strategy is one of the key functions of the new agency. Will the Minister confirm that the current good work that Investing for Health partnerships and health action zones carry out can only be harnessed, rather than eroded, under the remit of the proposed new public-health agency? Go raibh maith agat. Mr McGimpsey: First, I am grateful to Mrs Robinson for her expressions of support. I understand the need for cross-departmental working and support that fully. There is a ministerial group, which I chair, that promotes health. The key strategy within that is Investing for Health. I see that group continuing to play a vital role, because, as I said, cold, damp houses, poor educational attainment, unemployment, and so on all equal ill health. That is a matter that affects all Departments; no single Department can tackle the challenge on its own. On Mrs O’Neill’s point about Investing for Health and the health action zones, those are key partnerships and instruments for the future of public health. I should point out that the health action zones are managed by Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. There is a health action zone for north and west Belfast, and there is an argument to be made for having one for south and east Belfast. Disparity in provision exists, and one of the key ways forward through the new agency is a regional application of policy, with equity across the Province. Health action zones and the Healthy Cities initiative play an important part in that; however, local government will have a key role as well. Local councillors know their areas best. As I have said repeatedly, Departments are very good at making policies and writing plans, but when it comes to delivery and implementation, the people on the ground do it best. Therefore, I see a big role for local government and an important role for local communities. Mrs Hanna: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I hope that he will ensure that there is high degree of participation, particularly from front-line staff. They must be best informed, especially the nurses on the wards, the people who work in the community with the elderly, with children at risk and with those who have mental-health illness. I look forward to more detail on the functions of the new regional — I am trying to remember the name of it — public-health agency and the role of the Health Promotion Agency and other bodies within it. With regard to the control of the outbreak of clostridium difficile in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust area and the action plan for hospitals, those measures demonstrate to the public that there is a new culture that enforces hand washing and educates people about what they must do. That is probably the best statement of the new regime. Mr McGimpsey: I am grateful for Mrs Hanna’s remarks. The multi-agency, partnership approach is one of the key areas in the proposals. The new agency’s central drive will be to implement strategies on health improvement, health protection and support for commissioning. Health promotion is also very important. I have initiated an immediate investigation into the clostridium difficile outbreak. We need answers quickly. I have also announced packages to tackle the outbreak, and I anticipate that people will notice a difference on the ground. They need to see the improvements rather than simply being told that they have been made. Mr McCarthy: It will take some time for Members and the general public to get their heads round all those new names — Carmel Hanna struggled this morning, and I am sure that I will, too. 12.30 pm Up until now, organisations such as healthy living centres and the Health Promotion Agency have excelled in providing leadership in health in local areas, and I would be grateful if the Minister could assure the House that they will continue to receive the support of his Department. The consultation document states that there will be: “a stronger voice for local government in shaping health improvement programmes, and in tackling the underlying causes of ill-health”. It is easy to say that, but can the Minister give more detail on how it will be delivered and achieved? Mr McGimpsey: The new agency will subsume the Health Promotion Agency, the healthy living centres and the health improvement staff in boards and trusts, including health promotion, Investing for Health, community development and health action zones. The health protection staff in boards that work in the communicable disease surveillance centre and the healthcare-associated infection centre and the public health commissioning staff on boards will also be brought together as part of the new agency. Lots of good practice currently takes place, but it is being practised by a number of bodies. The new agency is the best way to ensure a critical mass and joined-in thinking. Local government will play an important role throughout the structures. As I announced last week, the regional health and care board will have five local commissioning groups, one roughly coterminous with each trust. Local government representatives will be on that board, and those groups will be there to commission for the health needs of their own area. The original proposal that came from direct rule was that the four patient and client councils should be abolished and replaced by one. That would be a missed opportunity; I want their role to be much wider. I have set out two options in the consultation document: either one body with five local patient and client councils, or just five of the councils. There is a need for a regional as well as a local voice. However, local government and local councillors will also play an important role on those groups. I also see local councils or local government representatives being on the board of the Health Promotion Agency to influence the work of the agency. I also see the agency having a strong influence through representation into the board that includes commissioning. Local government will be properly harnessed in considering and having a vital role in planning and delivery. The expertise and knowledge of their communities and areas that local elected representatives can bring will no longer be ignored. Mr Buchanan: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I commend him on moving so quickly into consultation. I hope that the opportunity will be opened up for front-line nursing staff to have a good input into the consultation. The Minister outlined the vital role that local government will have, and that is a good development. What estimates has the Minister made of the efficiency costs that will result from a new regional health body, and how many staff does he anticipate that the body will require? Mr McGimpsey: Between 250 and 350 staff will be needed. Those are not new jobs; people will come from existing agencies, councils and trusts, and they will be brigaded together under the new agency. That does not mean that they have to move under one roof; they do not. They will work together under a new organisation, and that will be the complement. As they will not be new staff, the efficiencies that were initially set out of reducing 1,700 administrative jobs, saving £53 million, remain the same and will be achieved. My proposals represent real value for money, which is one of the key issues. The public-health agenda focuses on the demands placed on our Health Service due to the ill health of the population. We can reduce those demands through protection, prevention, and so on. That is the best value for money that we can plan for. There is a staff complement for the agency, but no new jobs will be created; therefore, the efficiencies will remain the same. I do not envisage any extra costs for the creation of the agency. Mr Easton: I too welcome the Minister’s announcement, and I look forward to putting more meat on the bones when the issue comes before the Committee. Is the Minister creating another level of bureaucracy with the creation of the regional public health agency? If he is not creating another level of bureaucracy, how will the creation of such an agency reduce bureaucracy? Mr McGimpsey: The original proposal under direct rule was for the creation of a large authority of around 2,000 staff. A few weeks ago, I announced a proposal of 350 to 400 staff. I am examining the public-health agenda and the complements in the public-health sector, and I am simply bringing them together under one agency. Those 250 to 350 members of staff will achieve better outcomes by working together cohesively. The creation of the regional public health agency will not add another level of bureaucracy. Those people are already there doing their jobs in the trusts, boards and so on — I am merely bringing them together to work as one. That does not mean geographically bringing them together, but bringing them together in one board to give it the cohesion, drive and prominence that public health deserves. The agency will have an influence by statute on the new board’s commissioning plans. I am seeking to reduce bureaucracy, not increase it. The new body will be part of the delivery mechanism. In no way, shape or form will it create another level of bureaucracy. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his positive statement, which goes some way to further colouring in the outline that he gave us a couple of weeks ago. How will the new agency, by virtue of having people rightly embedded in the work of the regional care board and in the work of the different commissioning groups, not be embedded in such a way that it becomes disparately enmeshed in the bureaucracy in those different agencies? How will we ensure that its advocacy, challenging and championing role in health promotion and health protection is distinctive? The Minister and the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety will always be able to find out the agency’s recommendations and arguments in the various decision-making processes, because if there is transparency, openness and accountability, the agency really will make a difference in influencing, informing and inspiring our health performance in the future. Mr McGimpsey: I thank Mr Durkan for his comments. Openness, transparency and accountability are vital. The Health Service belongs to the people of Northern Ireland. They pay for it, and they have a right for clarity, transparency, openness and accountability. I keep that very much in mind. The agency will have a board, which will be appointed properly through the Minister and the Department. It will be answerable to the Minister and, therefore, to the Executive, to the Committee and to the Assembly. The board will have an advocacy role in which it will champion the agency’s cause. Furthermore, a statute will ensure that the board’s views are taken into account when the local commissioning groups are commissioning the health needs of their communities and during the consideration of the recommendations contained in the public-health agenda. Mr Shannon: The Minister’s clear statement on the way forward is welcome. Many people feel that powers relating to health should be devolved to councils. Such a move would mean maximum accountability, and local knowledge, needs and interests could be catered for. Furthermore, councils could respond directly to the communities that they look after. I know that the Minister commented on that earlier, but has he — or will he — consider that point of view? Mr McGimpsey: I have considered that option. I have been involved in local government for many years — as Mr Shannon knows, and as he has been — and I understand the importance of the local government function. I want to enhance that function. Throughout my political career, I have seen examples during direct rule of areas in which local government should have been involved properly, but were not. That shortfall has been particularly pertinent in the implementation and delivery of health services, and in instances where the local communities should have been involved in the tackling of such issues as health inequalities. For instance, it is unacceptable that a person’s lifespan can be influenced by where he or she was born. Such issues are important, and that is why I see local government embedded firmly in the structures. I have also democratised the layers; that is important, and it is different from the previous proposals. Many of the measures that I have introduced are different from the previous direct rule proposals, but one of the most radical differences is that direct rule Ministers refused to consult with the people. However, I have introduced a 12-week consultation process that will allow everyone to bring forward their views. That is also important. Mr McCallister: I welcome the statement and congratulate the Minister on his vision. During the Budget debates, it became obvious how critical it is that the population engages positively with their health. Therefore I agree with the Minister’s comments about the importance of local councils being involved in the delivery and implementation of the new policy. How will the Minister manage his new policy in the new council model? Is there a risk that his proposals are moving ahead and that other Departments are holding him back? Mr McGimpsey: The engagement of the local population in their health is part of the over-arching strategy. I referred to the report by Dererk Wanless who was commissioned many years ago by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to ascertain whether the country could afford a Health Service that offered free healthcare “from cradle to grave”, as envisaged by Aneurin Bevan. The Wanless Report concluded that the country could afford such a Health Service, but that it would depend on three factors. First, investment would have to be made in staff and training and in modern premises and modern equipment rather than in the maintenance of old equipment and old premises. Secondly, there had to be efficiencies in the service with no more duplication or waste. Thirdly — and most importantly — the Wanless Report stated that the local population had to be engaged in a responsibility for their own health. That is covered in my public-health agenda, which is the key part of the proposals that I made this morning. I am following that general outline, because — in common with Members — I believe that a Health Service as envisaged by Bevan is one of the keys to citizenship and one of the most important attributes of citizenship to this country. That is the pathway that I am following. 12.45 pm Concerning the review of public administration (RPA), it would be beneficial if I knew how many councils there will be. Currently, there are 26 councils and, under direct rule, it was proposed that there would be seven, which is an arbitrary figure set by the Secretary of State. It is fair to say that there will not be seven or 26, but some figure in the middle. I sit on the subgroup responsible for the review of public administration, and I am no wiser about those plans. However, the necessity to reach a decision is becoming critical. That lack of agreement is beginning to, and will increasingly, hamstring health proposals and, consequently, affect the population’s health and well-being. Having said that, regardless of whether the final number is 11 or 15, the Health Service will easily adapt to the agreed number of councils. However, it is important that such a decision is made, not least in relation to commissioning and today’s subject of the public-health agenda. Mr Gallagher: I give the Minister’s statement a guarded welcome. With respect to the Minister, for people outside, this is an entirely different matter. Such proposals are likely to be perceived as an added layer of bureaucracy. Therefore, it is important that the new body’s role is clarified at an early stage, and that it proves that it has the teeth to tackle crucial health issues, such as health inequalities. Such bodies are often considered, particularly by people on the margins, to be evidence of greater centralisation. When many people who work in health action zones or healthy-living centres hear today’s news, they will feel that it threatens their funding and roles. Much of their power developed at ground level, and they will be concerned that that power will be taken from them and given to the centre. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that. In addition, considering the development of cross-border initiatives, particularly those being advanced under the Cooperation and Working Together (CAWT)umbrella, what role in the new structures does the Minister envisage for such organisations? Mr McGimpsey: The Member is concerned that people will consider the proposals to be another layer of bureaucracy, which they are not. I will rely on people such as Mr Gallagher to be advocates for the new body. As the proposals work their way through the Committee and consultation processes, Mr Gallagher will begin to appreciate their merits, and that will be a way to reassure the population and those who work in the various relevant bodies. These proposals will allow the job to be done better. There are some shining examples of public-health services working well; however, there are also examples in which they are less effective. One must only consider the list of health inequalities, such as life expectancy for populations in areas of disadvantage, in order to appreciate that our successes have been, to put it mildly, patchy. Therefore, something must be done. We must make progress in certain areas. Many years ago, the Department produced the Investing for Health strategy, which was described as the best public-health strategy document in Europe, and, ever since, it has been producing successful results. The smoking cessation strategy, which was launched just over a year ago, is a shining example. There are many other such examples; however, the results are patchy and we must improve and up our game, not least because, if we want to keep a Health Service such as that which we have now, we will have to consider demand, and that will be about helping the population to take better care of themselves. Consultation will play a key role in all of that. We have a cross-border food safety body, as well as other initiatives, which I am examining. My approach is simple: my responsibility is to the people of Northern Ireland. Where I see benefits to the people of Northern Ireland, I will support them. Cooperation and Working Together is one of those mechanisms: my counterpart, the Minister for Health and Children in the Irish Republic, Mary Harney, uses a similar approach. UK Energy Bill: Legislative Consent Motion The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr Dodds): I beg to move That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provision of the Energy Bill dealing with gas storage which is contained in clause 35 of, and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to, that Bill as introduced in the House of Commons. This legislative consent motion is solely concerned with the one transferred issue in the Energy Bill from Northern Ireland’s perspective: that is, the restriction of the extent of the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. It is a somewhat complicated matter, so I will take a few minutes to explain it further. The United Kingdom Government can legislate at Westminster for gas and carbon dioxide storage in Northern Ireland waters, even without a legislative consent motion, because the seabed is a reserved matter. Even though energy policy is transferred, the clear legal advice is that that reservation on the seabed gives Westminster enough reason to legislate. If the UK Minister of State for Energy, Malcolm Wicks, legislates for gas storage in Northern Ireland territorial waters, the 1996 Order is effectively repealed; as lawyers would say, impliably repealed. Of course, in order to achieve clarity, it is important that we include the provision in the UK Energy Bill, which is the purpose of this legislative consent motion. It is undesirable to simply have two pieces of legislation that appear to conflict with each other. It is better that the postion is clarified with a small amendment to the 1996 Order. The amendment to the Energy Bill amends the definition of gas storage facility in article 3 of the 1996 Order, to ensure that it is clear that offshore gas storage facilities in Northern Ireland territorial waters are excluded. That makes it clear that there is no conflict between the two regimes. Having a legislative consent motion is, therefore, necessary, because Northern Ireland legislation is being amended. It also respects the position of the Assembly. The UK Government could legislate without a legislative consent motion, but in my view, that would be the wrong thing to do. They have agreed that the legislative consent motion is required. Assenting to a legislative consent motion gives Northern Ireland its place. If we do not agree to it, the UK Government will legislate anyway, without the amendment to the 1996 Order. In those circumstances it would be less clear which regime would apply, resulting in mixed signals to the industry. Nevertheless, the advice is clear about the actual legal position. No meaningful powers will be sacrificed. The Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 was never designed to deal with the offshore environment in any case. There is a case to be made that the UK Government may already have powers to license gas storage under our waters under the Petroleum Act 1998. It is also unlikely that there would ever be more than one or two such facilities in Northern Ireland waters, so the exercise of those powers by the UK Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) would only happen extremely infrequently. My aim throughout the entire process has been to consider what is best for Northern Ireland. I believe that there are practical advantages for Northern Ireland in joining the United Kingdom-wide regime for offshore gas storage and unloading and carbon capture in storage. It is a tried and tested regime, which works well for oil and gas production. It makes full use of BERR’s expertise in those areas. It gives Northern Ireland value for money by not having to replicate a regime that exists elsewhere. As I said a moment ago, it does not materially dilute or constrain our powers. The Northern Ireland dimension will be well represented in the decision-making process on any project within our waters. I have secured from the Energy Minister a commitment to a memorandum of understanding that will set out how the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will work with relevant Northern Ireland authorities in the event of any proposal for a gas storage or unloading facility in Northern Ireland territorial waters. We have ensured that the Northern Ireland perspective will be taken into account. In conclusion, I believe that that outcome is the best available outcome for Northern Ireland. The best way to respect the devolved settlement would be for the Assembly to assert its devolved position and actively consent to the restriction on the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 via the legislative consent motion. I therefore ask honourable Members to assent to the legislative consent motion. I beg to move. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr P Maskey): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will outline the Committee’s response on this matter, after which I will say a few words from a personal point of view. On 13 December 2007, the Committee considered a paper, and received a briefing, from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) energy division on the UK Energy Bill. The Committee was invited to note the various elements of the Bill and their implications for the North, and to agree that a legislative consent motion should be sought to respect the devolution settlement and make a limited restriction to the extent of the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 offshore. The Committee agreed with that recommendation, following which DETI secured the Executive’s agreement to the legislative consent motion. Further to that, the Minister wrote to the Committee to inform it of the introduction of the Energy Bill and to set out the terms of the legislative consent motion. On 14 February, the Committee approved the terms of the legislative consent motion. On behalf of the Committee, I want to emphasize that the motion is restricted to that sole transferred provision, which makes a limited restriction on the extent of the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 offshore. It is one very little window that deals with the singular issue of offshore gas storage and does not deal with the detail and wide range of the UK Energy Bill. In particular, the nuclear power issue has been raised in different quarters, and I again emphasise that the legislative consent motion is in no way connected to the nuclear provisions of the UK Energy Bill. Agreeing to the motion does not imply agreement or assent to the other elements of the Bill. It is important to note that refusal to assent to the legislative consent motion will not change the position in respect of nuclear power in the North — those clauses will come into operation if Parliament agrees them. I will now make some personal comments. Recently, the nuclear energy issue has been, for want of a better phrase, blown up in some of the press coverage. [Interruption.] Mr S Wilson: There would be some fallout when that happened. Mr P Maskey: Another fall-out, Sammy. That is right. I take this opportunity to call on the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister and the Environment Minister to adopt an approach similar to that of John Gormley, the Minister with responsibility for nuclear energy in the South. Mr S Wilson: And for putting his waste over the border. Mr P Maskey: The all-island approach could, and should, be taken, because the issue is too important for us not to take it seriously. Alex Salmond made it very clear that there is no chance of more nuclear power stations being built in Scotland. That is a very welcome statement, and, as a close neighbour of Scotland, we can feel safe. The DOE has responsibility for planning, and Minister Dodds has the responsibility for energy solutions. I hope that the Ministers in the Executive can take the same approach as has been taken in other areas on these islands. Just to clear up any confusion: I believe that investment in renewable energy is the best way forward. However, more research and work must go into that sector, because it is of the utmost importance that we make those decisions properly and make them well. It has been mentioned that nuclear power plants could be handed over to the private sector. Again, I want to put on record Sinn Féin’s concern that profit could be put ahead of health and safety issues. We are all too aware of the disasters that nuclear energy has created on these islands in the past. I thank the Minister for his statement today. Mr S Wilson: I welcome the motion that the Minister has brought to the House. It is nice to see that even Sinn Féin is quite happy to integrate with the United Kingdom on this issue. When it comes to wider energy issues, it is clear that despite Sinn Féin’s separatist claims and aims, it recognises that the fortunes of Northern Ireland are inextricably linked in many ways to the rest of the United Kingdom. 1.00 pm It is important to ensure that Northern Ireland does not get caught out by fluctuations in the energy market. As Northern Ireland is dependent on gas, oil and coal, a way must be found to ensure that there is some means of storing fuel in order that, in the event of short-term fluctuations in supply, the power stations can continue to operate. I have a particular interest in the issue, because one site that may be considered for storing gas is off the East Antrim coast. Will the Minister detail what powers the Assembly, his Department and other Departments will have in relation to the planning applications for such sites? Will the applications be handled outwith Northern Ireland? Will it be his Department, or a Department located in another part of the United Kingdom, that deals with any safety concerns that people may express? People are concerned that if it is the latter, they may not have the same opportunities for direct representation. Perhaps the Minister will spell out to the Assembly the implications for planning, health and safety and other associated works. Mr Durkan: I welcome the points made by the Member, and I am glad that he is sensitive to the fact that people may have health and safety concerns about storing gas under the seabed. I wish that he would also accept that people have legitimate health-and-safety concerns about the proposals — which he supports — to introduce nuclear power. Mr S Wilson: There is a difference between the two subjects: any proposals to generate nuclear power in Northern Ireland will, of course, be subject to the scrutiny of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I was simply asking whether there would be some local input. Let us talk about nuclear power. I am the sole Member of the Assembly to have received a prestigious award from the Green Party — at least, I think that it is prestigious, but perhaps it is not — in recognition of the views that I have expressed on the subject. I digress a little, but then the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee was allowed to talk about the nuclear power element of the UK Energy Bill. It strikes me as odd that those who jump up and down about nuclear energy are the same people who jump up and down about CO2 emissions — I see that the Member for North Down Brian Wilson is nodding in agreement — and about wind farms, because they spoil the environment, and about the tidal generation of power, because it disturbs marine life. People who object to nuclear power cannot have it every way. They do not want fossil fuels, renewable energy or nuclear power. Do they want people to live in the dark? That seems to be their only alternative. Dr McDonnell: Does the Member accept that the emissions from nuclear fission are slightly more toxic than carbon dioxide? Mr S Wilson: I do not know what science journals the Member opposite reads. Maybe he gets his information from ‘The Beano’ and ‘The Dandy’. Wherever it comes from, it is certainly not the view of the experts. A proper debate about this issue is required. Members want economic growth and better standards of living for people. To achieve that, more energy will have to be consumed, whether we like it or not. If the Green Party does not want that energy to come from fossil fuels or renewable fuels — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not the subject of this debate, Mr Wilson. If you wish to table a motion about that issue, please do so. In the meantime, please return to the motion that is under debate. Mr S Wilson: I apologise. I was waylaid by the remarks of the Members opposite. Maybe I have gone down a cul-de-sac. Perhaps we will debate that issue in the future. The Minister’s proposals will ensure that we are able to have storage facilities for the kind of fuels that we currently use. Members need to be made aware of what planning and health and safety safeguards there will be. Subject to that, I welcome the motion. Dr McDonnell: I notice that my learned friend opposite did not answer the question about the nuclear particles. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr McDonnell, you are straying off the subject. Please stick to the motion in hand. Dr McDonnell: I recognise that the Minister has indicated that the motion is a mere technicality. For reassurance, particularly for members of the public who may not always read between the lines, will the Minister state whether his proposal weakens the control of offshore gas storage? Will there be any difference in the regulation — have we conceded all control of offshore gas storage to become part of a uniform UK package, leaving us responsible only for onshore storage? Does this affect the gas interconnector, and will it affect the building of another gas interconnector? Will the gas that flows across the Irish Sea be affected? Without straying too far off the subject, I ask the Minister to agree to a review of general energy supplies. Energy-supply companies have used instability and the rising prices of energy to rip off the public. The issue of nuclear energy and renewable energy needs to be considered seriously. Motions on that issue may be tabled in the future, but it would be useful if there were also a clear steer coming from the Department. Mr Neeson: I support the motion. This is an important issue, of significance to East Antrim. As Sammy Wilson said, plans are already being made to identify sites in that area. It is important that greater security of supply be confirmed. That is really what the motion is about. Prior to the suspension of the Assembly, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment was the driving force behind the extension of natural gas supplies, not only to the north-west, but to all other parts of Northern Ireland. The South/North natural gas pipeline provides facilities to develop the network throughout Northern Ireland. Times have certainly changed. I remember ploughing a lonely furrow in the 1982 Assembly when I supported the linking of the Kinsale natural gas pipeline to Northern Ireland. At that time, I was lambasted by members of the DUP. I welcome the changing times. Mr Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement. The Energy Bill could affect the fishing industry, and some fishing organisations have put their concerns to me. The Minister said that the gas-storage facility will extend to 12 nautical miles from the shore. If that is so, fishing organisations need to know how, or whether, that will affect them. As we all know — and those who do not know should know — Northern Ireland’s fishing industry is under pressure due to job losses, restriction on the number of days on which boats can go to sea, smaller quotas and over-policing by the Royal Navy and the fisheries division of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). The fishing industry is concerned that it will be directly affected by the Energy Bill and that the bureaucracy from it could, in theory, and perhaps reality, destroy the industry. Mr Dodds: I thank the Members who participated in the short, but interesting, debate, which managed to encompass some major issues in the short time allocated to it I reiterate what the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Mr Paul Maskey, and other Members said — the legislative consent motion refers to only a specific part of the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Department is clarifying and asserting the devolved position of the Assembly. Agreeing to the legislative consent motion does not mean agreeing with the policy content of the reserved matters in the Energy Bill, the most prominent of which are the nuclear decommissioning clauses. Similarly, agreeing with the legislative consent motion does not mean that Northern Ireland is being lined up for nuclear power. In the debate, there was a brief exchange about nuclear power, and although it is an important issue that many people are concerned about, it is not relevant to this debate. Interestingly, when the Department of Trade and Industry carried out its consultation on nuclear power, attendances at the meetings were not very high. In that sense, the public did not seem concerned about nuclear power; although some may feel that there is no prospect of it happening anyway. The Assembly can rest assured that, as Mr Sammy Wilson stated, two key consents are required for nuclear power in Northern Ireland. Although nuclear power is an excepted matter and will never be devolved to Northern Ireland, any proposal to build a nuclear power station in Northern Ireland would require consent for planning permission and permission for electricity generation. Responsibility for those rests with the Minister of the Environment and me, respectively. Without our consent, no nuclear power station could be built here. To clarify, the Energy Bill is making it clear that operators are fully responsible for the costs of the decommissioning of any new nuclear power station as well as waste management and disposal in the lifetime of the station. No one will disagree that, in those circumstances, the burden of cost should lie with the operators of the station instead of the taxpayer. 1.15 pm The provision relating to nuclear energy in the UK Energy Bill is sensible, but it is not the main issue before the House. However, since the matter has been raised, I hope that what I have said has allayed concerns. I welcome the constructive approach being taken by Members. I will deal briefly with several points that have been raised. I agree that the focus should be on renewable energy. That is the main focus for Northern Ireland in relation to energy generation, and it is what the recently announced grid study is concerned with. Mr Sammy Wilson referred to the situation offshore at East Antrim. The most likely location will be in inland waters, and the Energy Bill will not cover that. My Department intends to legislate separately for inland waters, with full consultation with the Assembly, which should take care of those concerns. Planning considerations do not apply offshore. Therefore, the memorandum of understanding, which I referred to, will ensure that all projects are subject to full consultation with Northern Ireland authorities and should include health and safety issues. Dr McDonnell raised several issues, including renewable sources of energy. As I said in my opening remarks, there are practical advantages for Northern Ireland in joining the UK regime for offshore gas and storage, primarily because it has the expertise. We would have to set up infrastructure and backup systems for situations that might never happen, or only happen once in a blue moon. It would not make sense not to make full use of BERR’s expertise in those areas. It is a value-for-money issue — we would not be replicating a regime that exists elsewhere. The focus should be on renewable sources of energy. It is imperative for Northern Ireland, not only to comply with EU directives, including the recent proposal for a directive on renewable energy and other measures aimed at tackling climate change, but to reduce its dependency on imports of finite fossil fuels. There is an imperative to do that, and we are committed to mainstreaming renewable energy sources as part of the future energy mix of Northern Ireland. We must recognise that there will be an energy mix. Northern Ireland is deriving electricity as a result of nuclear generation. Therefore, it is a case of finding the appropriate mix. It is imperative, because of EU directives and other reasons, to do more on renewable energy, while recognising that it is a matter of balance. Dr McDonnell mentioned the electricity interconnector. However, that has no impact on the Energy Bill. Mr Neeson referred to gas pipelines and the interconnector. My principle, and that of my DUP colleagues, has always been that we should co-operate with the Irish Republic on matters of mutual best interest. If it is in our mutual best interest to do so, and if they will benefit us economically, and in other ways, then we should support such projects. We have no difficulty with that. The DUP takes issue with Mr Neeson and some of his colleagues over the drive towards North/South co-operation for purely political reasons. My party will not support that. The North/South electricity connector and other energy connections provide greater security of supply, reduce costs, and link into the greater UK/Irish Republic/European energy market. Therefore, those are very much east-west issues as well as value-for-money issues, and they are in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. For that reason, the DUP will support the interconnector. I listened carefully to what Mr Shannon said about the impact on fishing. A memorandum of understanding will be drawn up, and I welcome suggestions on what that should contain. I will be happy to liaise further with him on that matter. I hope that I have provided reassurance on the various issues that that have been raised. It is important that Northern Ireland shows that it is open for business on key energy security of supply infrastructure. The Energy Bill gives clear signals to industry on investment; it is about encouraging and supporting long-term investment in a wide range of energy infrastructure. Assenting to the motion will make it clear which regime will apply in Northern Ireland’s waters. Nothing discourages investment faster than a lack of clarity. I took the view that it was important for Northern Ireland to be in on this Bill. Every Government is likely to be concerned about the security of their energy supplies over the coming decades. The Energy Bill is one step towards ensuring that Northern Ireland will be able to keep the lights on. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provision of the Energy Bill dealing with gas storage which is contained in clause 35 of, and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to, that Bill as introduced in the House of Commons. Mr Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that media outlets are confirming that junior Minister Ian Paisley has tendered his resignation. Given that the post of junior Minister is an appointment of the Assembly, will you confirm whether and when there will be a ministerial statement from the First Minister, or a personal statement from Mr Paisley Jnr, informing the House of today’s important developments? Mr Deputy Speaker: At this very moment, the Speaker is considering the issue, and I have no doubt that he will report to the House later. Roads Maintenance Funding Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for a winding-up speech. Mr Cobain: I beg to move That this Assembly calls on the Minister for Regional Development to review roads maintenance funding and to ensure that sufficient funding will be made available in line with the Roads Service structural maintenance funding plan. This is, perhaps, a more boring subject than the last one. However, the motion is important and significant for a variety of reasons. Roads maintenance is not an optional extra or an unnecessary add-on. It is intrinsic to the operation of a modern highway system that is fit for purpose and delivers the sort of basic infrastructure that this Province needs in order to attract inward investment and create jobs and wealth for our people. There are provable links between infrastructure development and economic expansion. Forty years ago, France had the worst roads in Europe. The French tackled the problem and created a roads system that is the envy of many countries. The French attribute the growth of their economy, in part, to the development of their country’s infrastructure. The quality of road-building and road-finishing in France is far in advance of that in this country. The French system is so well developed that it provides alternative routes for heavy traffic, especially in urban locations, and that has worked wonders for the economy and in easing traffic congestion in towns. The French roads network is designed on a grid system, which has been the driving force behind a regional distribution of industry that is far healthier than that in this Province. The point is that roads design and maintenance are critical to economic success. That is why one can see so much highway development in the newly emergent countries of eastern Europe. For example, Bulgaria is constructing a new superhighway into Romania, which involves some major engineering works and bridge construction. That country has not missed the point about the link between the development and maintenance of good roads and economic development. The Irish Republic has also developed its roads infrastructure by leaps and bounds. The quality of roads in the South is commonly contrasted with the state of those in Northern Ireland. That is a reversal of the situation of 40 years ago. Maintaining roads is as important as building them. We need to learn what will happen if we do not maintain our infrastructure properly. Underinvestment in the railways has taught us that lesson already. Such underinvestment leads to deterioration, which in turn creates the need for massive investment at a later stage. After 30 years of neglect under direct rule, one would have thought that we would have recognised the consequences of underinvestment. Planned expenditure on structural roads maintenance for this year — 2007-08 — stands at only £3,800 a mile. That is only 70% of what the figure was four years ago. This year, it is planned that £59 million will be spent on roads maintenance overall, compared with the £82 million that was spent in 2003-04. That represents a 28% cut. The story of that decline can be traced, year-on-year, back to 2003. In that year, the Department for Regional Development spent £82 million on structural roads maintenance; by 2004, the figure had declined to £73 million; in 2005, it had declined further to £70 million; in 2006, it fell to £65 million; and in 2007, it declined, yet again, to £59 million. Worse than that, the amount that is currently spent on structural roads maintenance is a small fraction of what is spent elsewhere in the United Kingdom. In England, £13,000 a kilometre is spent, which equals £20,000 a mile; in Wales, spend is £7,600 a kilometre, or £12,000 a mile. Those figures compare with the £3,800 that is spent on each mile in Northern Ireland. Therefore, Northern Ireland spends just 18% of what is spent in England and 31% of what is spent in Wales. Those figures mean that, by English standards, Northern Ireland should be spending £331 million a year on roads maintenance, instead of the £59 million that we propose to spend in this financial year. Ring-fencing a roads budget of £110 million a year for three years would enable us to spend in three years what the English spend in one. By any standards, that is a pitiful figure. An explanation for that is required from the Minister. By “explanation”, I do not want him to say that he does not have the money, which is the usual mantra that many Ministers recite. I ask the Minister where the money is spent and how exactly he arrived at the current set of priorities for the Department, which has pushed structural roads maintenance so far down the pecking order of necessary works. We are all concerned at the apparent complacencies of the Department on the issue. A first-rate roads infrastructure is a critical factor in attracting inward investment and jobs. It is bad enough that Northern Ireland cannot compete on a level playing field with the Irish Republic on corporation tax; it is even worse when the amount that the Minister spends to maintain the Province’s roads is only 18% of what is spent on each mile in England. One has to wonder at the Department’s priorities. The lack of proper investment will have immediate consequences. In 2006, the Department for Regional Development (DRD) spent over £100,000 in settling claims, and a further 136 claims were still outstanding. In 2007, it spent £73,000 on claims. Since 2005, the Department for Regional Development has paid out almost £333,333 in personal injury and vehicle claims. We hope that the Department has not made the appalling calculation that, in order to justify its inaction over structural roads maintenance, an acceptable amount of public money can be paid in damage claims. That is why I proposed the motion. Unless a ring-fenced, dedicated budget is applied to structural roads maintenance, the Province will soon resemble a Third World country. How will that resonate with the investment conference that is to be held here in May? Mr Dallat: I beg to move the following amendment: Insert at end: “; and further calls for an urgent review of end of year management of funds to ensure that a more strategic approach is applied to the way in which maintenance schemes are undertaken immediately before the end of the financial year.” I thank Mr Cobain and his colleagues for bringing this timely motion before the Assembly. I hope that the SDLP’s amendment is accepted. 1.30 pm The lack of roads maintenance and the failure to operate early intervention are two of the more frequent issues that elected representatives must deal with daily. A lack of funding to tackle serious roads maintenance is costing millions of pounds every year because damage that is left unattended leads to costly repairs, if they are eventually carried out. Indeed, recently, the Department gave a presentation to my local council that illustrated the seriousness of the problem. It has got to the stage where the Department would dearly love to abandon many of the roads that are under its control. Of course, a price cannot be put on the cost in road deaths and serious injuries. It is not possible to measure in monetary terms the grief, the physical and emotional pain, the days lost from work, the pressures on the emergency services, the horrendous cost to hospitals, and, of course, as Mr Cobain mentioned, the high cost of insurance. It cannot be said for certain how much of that is attributable to the less-than-satisfactory roads maintenance programme. However, I doubt whether anyone will take exception to the argument that the risk of road-traffic incidents is significantly higher when roads have lost most of their adhesive properties as a direct result of neglect, damage by exceptional hot or cold weather and the haphazard approach in which money is spent on their repair. The SDLP put forward its amendment because it is particularly concerned about the mad scramble at the end of the financial year to spend money with a less-than-satisfactory approach as to how that is done. How can any industry cope with the demands of a customer, which is the Department for Regional Development in this case, when its purchasing strategy is reduced to impulse buying if a windfall of money becomes available at the end of the financial year? Not only are lives and money on the line; so, too, are jobs in the roads industry. The under-usage of plant and machinery costs millions of pounds. They are used little because of the stop/start approach to road maintenance, particularly at the end of the financial year. The road maintenance programme is also the victim of lack of co-operation between utilities, which adds greatly to the cost of roads maintenance, the horrendous damage to roads and, dare I say it, to death and serious injury. The Minister will be aware of several Public Accounts Committee reports on the seriousness of the damage that is caused to roads as a direct result of failure to enforce that utilities stick to their undertakings to reinstate roads. The Minister must look seriously at end-of-year management of funds. Given that all Departments operate resource accounting, surely it is possible to carry forward unspent money into a new financial year when there are good arguments for doing so and it is short term. I hope that the Assembly has moved beyond the old receipts-and-payments method of controlling finances; that it has progressed from Mr Micawber’s financial philosophy of measuring income and expenditure. The SDLP supports the motion and hopes that the amendment is accepted by the Ulster Unionist Party. My party believes that, for all of the reasons that I have explained, there is an urgent need to take a strategic approach to how money is spent on road maintenance, not only for the sake of the people who use roads but for the contracting firms that employ many hundreds of people to carry out that work. Bad practices must be left behind and progress made towards a more strategic and intelligent approach. Mr Bresland: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. There is a serious need to invest in improvement of the roads infrastructure, especially in the west of the Province. The Programme for Government sets out a clear commitment to improve the roads infrastructure. Roads remain a major issue in my constituency. I welcome the considerable investment that has been made in upgrading the A5, which links Ballygawley and Omagh and carries on to Strabane and Londonderry. That will provide a considerable opportunity for my constituency of West Tyrone, alongside further investment and the recently commenced improvement of the road from Dungannon to Ballygawley. In 1965, the west lost its rail network, and the commitment was given to improve the roads infrastructure there. It has taken more than 40 years to honour that commitment. Although I welcome the investment in the A5, I am concerned about lack of investment in road and bridge maintenance. That lack of investment will have a serious negative impact on a number of areas in West Tyrone, such as Newtownstewart, which is a historic town at the very heart of my constituency. The town has three main entrances from the recently constructed A5 bypass, and two have been converted into single-lane carriageways due to structural problems with the Abercorn Bridge and Moyle Road. The Minister for Regional Development advised me that improvements were five years away and would cost £1·3 million. The single carriageways have created an extremely negative impact for Newtownstewart, especially in the business community. It is intolerable that the Department for Regional Development cannot find £1·3 million to solve those problems. Newtownstewart, like many towns in West Tyrone, is struggling to attract investment and faces major challenges from larger towns such as Omagh, Strabane, Enniskillen and Londonderry. I urge the Minister to find the necessary funding to address the problems facing Newtownstewart and the many other issues relating to roads infrastructure and road maintenance in West Tyrone. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Members for bringing the motion to the Chamber. I welcome the opportunity to speak on funding for road resurfacing across the North. I have every confidence that my party colleague Conor Murphy is determined to use his ministerial position to address the failures of successive direct rule Administrations. Mr Wells: Did the Minister write that for you? Mr W Clarke: What was that, Jim? As I said, direct rule Ministers failed to invest properly in our roads network. I am from South Down, which is mainly a rural constituency. The workforce commutes daily to Belfast and other large urban centres such as Newry and Lisburn. I realise that our inadequate roads network is a significant factor that is stifling local economic growth. The Mournes is an area of outstanding natural beauty, and there is a massive potential for tourism in South Down. However, that can be achieved only through a joined-up approach to spatial development. There needs to be significant investment in the roads infrastructure to ensure that visitors across the island can make the journey to the north-east coast without having to endure a bad roads infrastructure. It is important that the Department for Regional Development, with the Assembly’s support, takes the necessary progressive and innovative steps in planning for the future. That means implementing policies that make use of cross-border initiatives which can have significant benefits for our economy. I welcome, for example, the recent announcement of almost €400,000 for a feasibility study for a bridge at Narrow Water in Warrenpoint, a signature project, which Sinn Féin has been to the fore in lobbying for. Were it to be realised, the project would have major benefits for South Down and for the east border region. We also need to secure capital funding for a relief road around the southern side of Newry — I just thought I would get that in — to ensure the continuing expansion of a city that has grown significantly in the past 10 years. The Department’s priority must be to maintain existing services and the underlying structure of roads and footways that is essential for the social and economic well-being of the North. I welcome that this is a high priority for the Minister who has proven his commitment to that goal by his willingness to address a number of local issues in my constituency — I thought that I would get that in as well. However, clearly all of the Department’s programmes are under-resourced, and there is no ideal or painless solution to be found to meet the improvements that are necessary to our less-than-adequate roads network. I commend the Minister for putting in place measures that should ensure an equitable distribution of road maintenance funding across the North. DRD must be more proactive in its approach to highlighting the importance of networking to other Ministers, the business community and, of course, the general public. Furthermore, the road construction industry must have certainty in workflow and factual budgets in order to ensure the delivery of quality work programmes. Go raibh maith agat. Mr McCarthy: I support both the motion and the amendment, and congratulate John McCallister on giving us the chance to debate this important subject. I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber. In my constituency, road maintenance is the number one complaint, after health. The Minister was due to visit my locality a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, for health — [Interruption.] Pardon? Mrs I Robinson: Our locality. Mr McCarthy: Yes. The Minister was due to visit our locality a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the Minister, for health reasons, was unable to fulfil that important engagement. However, he has assured me that he will visit my constituency — Mr Elliott: Will the Member give way? Mr McCarthy: I have only started, but I will give way. Mr Elliott: I am just looking for clarification. Was it the Health Minister who could not attend your constituency because of roads issues, or the roads Minister because of health issues? Mr McCarthy: It was the Minister who is in our presence at the moment. I hope that he is now back to full health, because I want to see him in my constituency as soon as possible. The starting point is that the roads in Strangford, and particularly the Ards Peninsula, were built many years ago — for horses and carts. Because of the lack of even minimal maintenance over those years, that is all they are good for now. We are crying out for immediate help to get the roads back up to a reasonable standard. As has already been said, Roads Service is paying out a huge amount of cash in compensation claims. Surely that money would be better spent, in the first instance, on providing the rate- and taxpayer with the improved road surface, to which we are all entitled? The Minister and his Department must know that bad roads create the danger of road accidents. God knows that Northern Ireland has had far too many road deaths and serious injuries. Maintenance could help to prevent further fatalities on many roads. The A20 is the main road from Portaferry to Newtownards. That is the only road on which we can travel to get to work. The A2 runs from Portaferry to Donaghadee via the Irish Sea coast. I am going to mention a few names, and I have three minutes in which to do it. These are the roads in my constituency that are crying out for help. [Interruption.] Yes. Rubane Road; Gransha Road; Lisbane Road; Loughdoo Road; Cloughey Road; Portaferry Road, Cloughey; Abbacy Road; Ardminnan Road; Deer Park Road — if anyone in the Chamber feels that these roads are not ready for maintenance, please interrupt me. Drumardan Road; Dunevly Road; Inishargy Road; Manse Road; Glastry Road; Parsonage Road; Tullycross Road; Bar Hall Road; Kearney Road; Lough Shore Road; Tullymally Road; Tubber Road — I have a picture of Tubber Road, although I am sure that the Minister cannot see it. It is an absolute disgrace, with water three-quarters of the way across. My colleagues will know exactly what I am talking about. I will give the Minister this picture before I leave. It is unbelievable, and it is continuously like that. Ballygalget Road; Ballyblack Road; Ballyrussley Road; Ballyhemlin Road; Ballyegan Road; Ballygelagh Road; Blackstaff Road; Ballyeasborough Road; Upper Ballygelagh Road. I have run out of roads. I can assure the Minister that almost every road in my constituency needs a lot of maintenance. 1.45 pm Mr Shannon: The Member left out two roads: the Mountain Road and the Tullynagardy Road, which are equally as bad as the roads that he mentioned. Mr McCarthy: I apologise to the Member and to any constituents whose areas have not been included on my list. I assure the Minister that the vast majority of roads not only on the Ards Peninsula but in the Strangford constituency as a whole need much maintenance. I appeal to the Minister to make every effort to ensure that our roads are suitable for modern-day traffic rather than the horse and cart. Mr Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the Member’s friends are delighted that he does not have “one for the road”. Mrs I Robinson: Kieran McCarthy, once again, thinks that the world beings and ends in the lower Ards Peninsula. We represent a vast constituency, but the Member mentions only Kircubbin and the lower Ards Peninsula. However, I like to battle for the entire Strangford constituency. I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly on one of the most commonly raised matters in my constituency office — the condition of the roads network across Northern Ireland. Given the overwhelming rural nature of Northern Ireland and the lack of a comprehensive rail network, our roads are the veins and arteries that facilitate day-to-day life. There is, therefore, a greater emphasis and importance placed on the quality and condition of our roads compared with some other regions of the United Kingdom. Our roads network facilitates the maintenance and growth of our local economy as produce and services are taken to, and brought from, every corner of Northern Ireland. The majority of complaints that I receive, however, are from local residents who express frustration that they pay their taxes in return for roads whose maintenance is either inadequate or non-existent. I understand that it would be fantastic for Government to have bottomless pockets of funding to complete all the work that Members would like to see done. However, I appreciate that, as for any Department, the Department for Regional Development and Roads Service must prioritise their work, given the finite budgets that they are allocated. There is also a focus on Belfast and its main arterial network; that is understandable, given the city’s central role in the administration and economy of the entire country. It is crucial, however, that roads maintenance receives due attention in order to ensure the ongoing quality of the entire roads network. Given the place that tourism is to play in the future of our economy, road quality in rural areas is essential. Another factor that must be taken into account is the increased prevalence of heavy rainfall and the impact of flooding on our roads. No one can legislate for the weather nor for that heavy rainfall. Mr McCarthy: It is incomprehensible that there should be flooding on the A20, which runs parallel to Strangford Lough. Does the Member agree that that should not happen? Mrs I Robinson: As the Member knows, I travel the A20 frequently and am aware of the flooding. I agree that it is crucial that that pocket of flooding is dealt with expeditiously because it can result in tailbacks from the lower Ards Peninsula. On the whole, the roads network and associated drainage provision cope fairly successfully with the demands made on them. However, there are certain locations that seem to flood persistently and could present a danger to road users. In the Ards Peninsula, we are only too familiar with the problems of flooding along stretches of road, not least on the road from Portaferry to Newtownards, which is a major problem. I am also concerned about the amount of flooding at the roundabouts at the Ards shopping centre and at the bottom of Frederick Street. Those are two of the busiest roundabouts in the district; they cater for almost all the traffic that travels through Newtownards, yet, on a number of recent occasions, they experienced considerable flooding. It is important that measures are taken to ensure that adequate drainage provision is in place, especially on the busy roads right across the peninsula and in Newtownards. Furthermore, tourism will be crucial to Strangford. I boast honestly that Strangford is one of the most beautiful scenic areas of Northern Ireland and, if we are to attract tourism, the coastal roads infrastructure must be addressed. We have Mount Stewart; we have Portaferry; and we have scenery right through to Killyleagh along Strangford Lough; but the road is only potholes and a bit of tarmac. If we are to do anything of benefit to tourism, particularly for Strangford, we must see improvements to our coastal roads. The tourism that is attracted will bring much-needed economic benefits. Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá. At the outset, poverty is a legacy of past administrations and, under direct rule, the roads were left to get into bad condition. Members mentioned the roads in Belfast; however, rural roads also lack maintenance. As a member of the Committee for Regional Development, I am aware — as are all of the Committee members — of the need for further funding for road maintenance. However, where do we get that money? Do we take it from some other project? Surely that decision lies at the door of the Minister of Finance and Personnel. The Committee has noted that, whatever its budget, the Department for Regional Development has always made road maintenance a significant priority. It is expected that, over the next three years, funding for structural maintenance will be in the region of £200 million. Bearing in mind that budget allocations over the last three years totalled £165 million, that increase is welcome; however, it is still below the recommended level for the budget period. I am sure that all Ministers would like unlimited resources; unfortunately, such is political life. The funding allocation for road services is done by district councils and on a district council basis. As a former councillor, I am aware that — regardless of perception — that is done on an equal footing. I cannot go beyond this point without being parochial and mentioning the areas of Newry and Armagh that I represent. They contain a vast, rural road network. Resources are allocated on a basis of need. Resurfacing and maintenance are, of course, an important aspect of road safety; therefore, priority is given to issues of that nature. The Department for Regional Development’s budget has to cover many other issues, and other key priorities are challenged. When everything is taken into account and analysed, it is disappointing that more funding is not available; however, the amount set aside for road maintenance from the available budget is quite generous. Moreover, £15 million was secured in the December monitoring round, and I am sure that, where possible, the Minister will seek further funding in any future monitoring rounds. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the motion. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Irwin: The issue of road maintenance in such rural areas as my constituency of Newry and Armagh is something of concern to those who live and travel throughout that region. The majority of roads are classed as minor roads, and are, therefore, not subject to the continuous maintenance that is received by other routes. However, it is apparent that the quality of minor roads in my constituency has lessened over the years. Many of them are a patchwork of quick repairs, and I can show Members others that, in years, have seen no reasonable maintenance. They urgently need resurfacing, and, in some cases, are likely to damage vehicles or are a danger to drivers. The supply of funding available to the Department is not unlimited, and I understand that there is a lengthy list of priorities in respect of the roads network. Several priority schemes have been planned for Newry and Armagh; those are welcome, and will assist with the flow of traffic on our busy roads. However, minor roads still receive much less attention. Although it could be argued that those roads are used much less than are main roads, they are nevertheless the only routes available to those who live in the countryside. It is vital that our minor roads receive more maintenance. The longer that those routes are neglected, the worse the situation will become, and more money will then be required to address the problems properly. Winter gritting is another issue that is of great concern. The daily threshold for gritting is currently set at 1,500 or more vehicles on a road, and, although that may seem reasonable, it disadvantages rural dwellers who use roads that carry fewer vehicles. There is an argument that it is impossible to grit every single thoroughfare in the Province, and I accept that that would be extremely difficult to do. However, improvements could be made by lowering the vehicle threshold and by giving special consideration to the more dangerous minor routes. Indeed, one such route could be taken by a school bus. Conditions on some of the minor roads that I have travelled in the past few weeks have been treacherous. Those poor conditions must be addressed. Our vast network of rural roads must receive the maintenance that is necessary to ensure that rural dwellers have a good-quality and safe road network. I support the motion. Mr Elliott: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. If we are not maintaining the asset that is our roads infrastructure, we are devaluing it. Although the Government are attempting to maintain parts of the asset, their contribution is less than one fifth of 1% of its overall value. The Budget allocation for road maintenance over the next three years is £200 million. However, that is totally inadequate, given that it adds £125 million to the already immense shortfall in the road maintenance spend, which is some £450 million. Before I rose to speak, I thought of Mr McCarthy, who read out the list of roads in his constituency. I was thinking of doing the same, but I realised that five minutes would not have been long enough for me to get through my list. If those are the only roads in Strangford that badly need repairing, they are in a much better state than those in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I am sure that most Members will not mind me talking about the problems with the roads in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I was pleased that the Minister was in my constituency last week for the cutting of the first sod of the new A4 dual carriageway between Dungannon and Ballygawley. That road will make a huge difference to the area. However, although 9% of the roads in the entire network are in County Fermanagh, the county receives only 6% of the maintenance budget. Given that, and given the lack of a good public transport system, a rail network, and the fact that people in the county lack the same choices as others in the Province, 6% of the budget is clearly nowhere near enough. Although I agree with the sentiments of the SDLP amendment, I am concerned about the call for a “strategic approach” to the end-of-year financing for roads. There is a difficulty with that approach. If we take into account the overall end-of-year allocations, I assume that money can be spent on roads quite quickly. It is sometimes difficult in the last six weeks of the financial year to build in such a strategic approach perfectly, or in as exact a manner as one would like. I appreciate and accept where the SDLP is coming from, but we should not throw the baby out with the bath water by making the funding so strategic that our roads receive no allocation at the end of the year. Mr Boylan and Mr Willie Clarke commented on the allocations. Perhaps when he is on his feet, the Minister can tell the House whether he was happy with the allocations that he received over three years for road maintenance under the comprehensive spending review. I know that I was not happy when I examined the figures, and, indeed, I raised that issue in the Chamber when we debated the Budget. That overall financial package was certainly not high enough or strong enough. The majority of the communities in my constituency suffer from poor access to services, and that is, of course, highlighted by the poor and inadequate road infrastructure. 2.00 pm Mr Boylan: Surely the Member must recognise that we are fighting an uphill battle from the start. The roads have been neglected for years, and we have to deal now with that legacy. Will the Member not agree with that? Mr Elliott: I have no difficulty agreeing with the assertion that the roads have been neglected for years. However, does that mean that we carry on with that process and continue to neglect them? I am afraid that with the current allocations that is exactly what will happen — the neglect will continue. To return to the point that I was making, the increased number of people travelling throughout Fermanagh and South Tyrone are, because of its rurality, totally dependent on the roads infrastructure. There is no other means of getting goods in and out, and it costs the community and businesses a significant amount of money, more so than is the case in the east of the Province or in GB. That is the difficulty; we are so reliant on the export market. We export many products, particularly from rural areas, and that adds to the expense. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr P J Bradley: I welcome the motion and also the amendment, which, in my view, complements the motion. I ask Mr Elliott to read it carefully, as it is a good amendment. I want to speak briefly about the complete breakdown in the rural infrastructure, both seen and unseen. I welcome the fact that I address a local Minister, who unlike the previous direct rule Ministers, at least knows and understands the problems that are out there. That should be helpful to all of us. I referred to the problems that exist, both seen and unseen. Anyone driving along a minor or unclassified road will see and often experience at first hand the collapsed verges, the blocked gullies, the potholes — some with a little yellow mark around them, noting that they will be attended to one day — the flooding and damage caused by flooding, and the overhanging hedges. The problems faced by rural road users, whether in a vehicle, on a bicycle or on foot, are endless and deserving of better attention. Unseen dangers also exist out of sight of the public view but present nevertheless a threat to rural road users. I refer to the ditches and banks that were originally put in place to retain the roads. Many of those have now collapsed, and only if they are identified will the danger be indicated by being marked, until repaired, with coloured ribbons. Unlike Kieran McCarthy, I do not have my canvassing list with me, but I want to draw attention to one road in my area — Derryleckagh Road — as an example. That road is used by more than 1,000 motorists a day, and I doubt if many of them are aware of the dangers lurking over long tracts of it. Many ditches have collapsed into the adjoining fields, and there is nothing but a small hedge or little soil bank between the motorist and a 10- to 12-foot drop into the field. Many under-road culverts and small bridges are also in disrepair. The longer they await attention, the more expensive it will be to repair or replace them. I know that it is the role of the Minister to listen to the debate and to take away some of the recommendations for consideration by him and his Department. With that in mind, I have only two recommendations to make, but I make them with all the confidence of a rural dweller and a regular road user. First, I remember the era of the roadman, when an individual was responsible for a defined mileage of road. That was his patch, his pride and joy. Hedges were neatly trimmed, all roadside verges were kept neatly lined and blocked gullies were cleared regularly. Then along came modernisation, and the machine and the office computer took over. That has led to the unacceptable conditions that we must endure today. Perhaps the return of the roadman would be the key to the upkeep of our minor and unclassified roads. Secondly, I wish the Minister to consider introducing two-year hedge-cutting and roadside-trimming programmes, rather than the half measures contained in the annual trims that the roads receive now. A full and proper job carried out every two years would achieve greater results and offer rural road users some level of equality with their urban counterparts, who know nothing of the rural problems. Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I speak in support of the motion, and I also pay tribute to Roads Service personnel in the area with which I am most familiar, the western division and west Tyrone, in particular Omagh and Strabane districts. Roads Service does the best with the limited amount of funding that tends to be available. I would be a rich man if I had £5 for every time that I was told by a senior Roads Service official that every project competes on a priority basis for a limited pool of funding. When drawing the attention of senior road engineers to the needs of an area, it is frustrating that the stock answer tends to be that they need a greater budget, because I could say the same about countless numbers of roads in the west Tyrone area. I pay tribute to the Roads Service personnel because they do the best that they can with the limited amount of resources that are available to them, and I support the call for greater funding for roads maintenance. Recently, in my area, we have been lobbying for an upgrade of the A5/N2 route, which is a strategic corridor. Only last week, the Minister was at the sod-turning for major road improvements on the A4. All of those major, strategic-corridor type of works are important. However, the voice of the rural citizen beyond the A-class roads must be heard. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know how you spent Valentine’s evening, but I was summoned to a public meeting in Altamuskin Community Centre. At that meeting, 50 people were present at 8.00 pm, when you might think that they would be otherwise engaged in going out for meals. It was a very animated community meeting. Such a crowd had never before shown up in the local community centre in Altamuskin, which is between Sixmilecross and Ballygawley. The subject under discussion was the state of the Altamuskin Road, which is an important route but it has a series of dangerous bends and it is in poor surface condition. A number of local businesses, including quarries, use the road but it does not qualify for inclusion on the winter gritting schedule. Recently, I wrote to the divisional roads manager and I was told that a recent traffic count showed that the volume of traffic using the Altamuskin Road is below the threshold of 1,500 vehicles a day that is required for inclusion in the winter gritting schedule. I call on the Minister to visit the Altamuskin Road and the nearby Whitebridge Road, which runs from Carrickmore to Ballygawley. I deliberately prioritise those roads; I could mention the Omagh-to-Fintona road and the Omagh-to-Drumquinn road. I know that the Minister is aware of the concerns of local communities about the condition of those roads, and I specifically invite him to come to the Altamuskin Road, to meet people at Altamuskin Community Centre and to drive on the road for five or six miles to view its current condition. Mrs M Bradley: I would like Barry to include the road from Omagh to Derry in his list. Mr McElduff: I am happy to include the road from Omagh to Derry. Of course, Mary Bradley often travels on that road, and she is aware of the difficulties that arise on the Omagh-to-Derry road. I will put forward an idea that I previously put forward, and which has not been taken up. I understand that Roads Service is content for gritting to reach 80% of the traffic by covering 20% of the roads. If that rule is applied, it leaves out the rural community and the isolated rural community. I would like the Minister for Regional Development to engage in discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to explore further the viability of deploying local farmers who have much of the machinery to assist, on occasion, with gritting the rural roads network. Mr Deputy Speaker: Had I known about the meeting in Altamuskin, I would have saved myself the cost of dinner. Mr G Robinson: It will be no surprise to the Minister that I am contributing to this debate, as I am a member of the Committee for Regional Development. I hope that he appreciates that I also have a genuine interest in seeing that the roads maintenance budget is spent in as useful and meaningful a way as possible. My concern is to ensure that the main traffic corridors in Northern Ireland are kept at a standard that is worthy of the twenty-first century, especially as we try to develop a new, strong economic future. To successfully achieve that future, potential investors must view the roads infrastructure as an asset rather than a liability. Our main roads are often referred to as arterial routes, and there is a simple reason for that. As the arteries carry the blood around the body, the roads carry the vast majority of Northern Ireland’s financial lifeblood, be it tourists, construction materials, commuters or the food on our supermarket shelves. Just as we are advised to stay healthy and to maintain our body’s blood circulation, we must maintain the routes that carry our economy. Many arterial routes in the Province need funding — from counties Fermanagh to Londonderry. To aid that funding, the Minister of Finance and Personnel allocated an additional £15 million in the December monitoring round, which represents a substantial increase. No amount of money to maintain the roads network would ever be enough; such is the demand for funding due to many years of underinvestment. Therefore, it is essential to prioritise projects, especially for the maintenance and upgrading of our main traffic thoroughfares. However, we cannot forget that, in order to reach those main routes, many miles of other roads will require a slice of the financial cake. It is a no-brainer — a minimum fund should be put in place to ensure that projects can be assured of funding in the short to medium term. Members will be able to identify projects in need of funding all over Northern Ireland, but the Minister will not be surprised if I mention the A26 and A37 again. I use those roads as examples of where ring-fenced funding over a minimum of three years could improve the condition of roads, while projects that I have raised with him on so many occasions are kept on the long finger. I support the motion in so many ways, but I must sound a note of caution: I do not want worthy projects, such as the road improvement works in Dungannon and those on the Larne to Belfast corridor, to suffer. Northern Ireland does not have a bottomless pit of money. There are no rainbows with pots of gold hiding underneath the Finance Minister’s desk. We must take a long-term view of how we wish to invest the money available to us to ensure that not only the main traffic corridors are maintained and upgraded, but the rest of the road network — especially in rural areas — receives its fair share of funding. The ‘Belfast Telegraph’ reported that there were gaps of 104 years between resurfacing of rural roads, but that should not be tolerated. That is unacceptable in any area. Ring-fenced funding would enable work to be planned on a medium- to long-term basis. However, our arterial traffic corridor must be upgraded so that investment is not restricted by poor road conditions. I support the motion, but I hope that my notes of caution will be taken on board. Mr Wells: I support the motion and the amendment — as much as it grieves me to do so — in the name of the honourable Member for East Londonderry Mr Dallat. It is an interesting indication of how far Northern Ireland has moved on. 2.15 pm The motion deals with Northern Ireland’s biggest publicly-owned asset. The valuation on the entire roads network in Northern Ireland is £30 billion — a hugely important aspect of our economy. As Mr Elliott stated, we are spending one fifth of 1% of the value of that asset in maintaining it. There can be few situations in western Europe where the maintenance of an asset is less than one fifth of 1% of its total value. That will show Members how far behind we have fallen with regard to roads maintenance. In Northern Ireland, £2,800 per kilometre is spent on roads maintenance, and the equivalent figure in England is £12,000. However, in Wales — a more relevant comparator due to its many rural roads — the spend is £7,500 per kilometre. We, therefore, spend less than one third of an equivalent area in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is a matter for real concern. Over the next three years, we have set aside £200 million for roads maintenance, and that will add over £100 million to the present shortfall of at least £450 million. Northern Ireland, therefore, is in a serious situation. I accept that much of the underinvestment is due to the mismanagement under direct rule, and we must be reasonable and accept that it is a huge tanker for the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Minister for Regional Development to turn in a short time. One must accept that these issues are part of the problems that we faced for many years. It is worth quoting from the Roads Service’s 2006-07 annual report in which its chief executive stated that: “An area of risk about which I am concerned is that I believe the level of funding made available to Roads Service for structural maintenance is insufficient to maintain the road network in a satisfactory condition”. He continued: “on the non trunk road network we continue to ‘paper over the cracks’ on too many occasions. The relatively low level of funding means that the good practice resurfacing frequency of once in 25 or 30 years is not achieved.” The frequency of resurfacing is often only once every 68 years. There is a chance that some Members will see their local C-class road resurfaced only once in a lifetime. If anyone does see that, take a picture, because it is unlikely that it will happen again. The chief executive also stated that the infrequent resurfacing will mean that: “significant lengths of the non-trunk road network will be of irregular profile and/or below the desirable skid resistance level”. That cannot be allowed to continue. Similarly, we cannot continue to fund the resurfacing and maintenance of our rural roads on the basis of occasional good luck through the monitoring round. The Department for Regional Development does well on the monitoring rounds, because it is usual for it to have projects that are ready to take up money that is returned from other Departments every quarter. However, that is no way to run and maintain a £30 billion infrastructure. Neither is it an appropriate way to treat one of Northern Ireland’s most important industries — the quarrying and aggregates industry. It is important to remember that that industry employs 5,000 people in Northern Ireland and has an annual turnover of £750 million. In many rural areas, the quarrying and aggregates industry is the only form of non-agricultural steady employment. Other Members have been parochial, so I will be and give a few examples from my constituency of South Down. The most important local industry in such areas as Mayobride, Cranfield and Atticall — which are not bustling industrial centres — is quarrying and aggregates. However, they are bound by a system of stop-go. They do not know where they stand, because they do not know what money will come through in the monitoring round. They have to have contracts ready to run, but it is difficult to plan ahead, buy equipment and maintain staffing levels when they do not know where they stand from one quarter to the next. The Department for Regional Development, therefore, must be weaned off its dependence on the monitoring rounds. Our spending must be planned more effectively, so that — at the start of the year — Roads Service is given the equivalent of what it receives in the monitoring rounds, so that they associated industries know exactly where they stand, and are able to plan ahead. The lack of an assured long-term, guaranteed pot of money for the resurfacing and maintenance of roads is the most fundamental of Roads Service’s problems. Mr Shannon: I support the amendment tabled by Members from the SDLP. The Minister for Regional Development is well aware of Strangford’s needs, and Members will be glad to hear that I do not intend to deliver a road-by-road list. However, I can say that all roads in my constituency require attention and, every day of the week, someone from my office is in touch with the Minister’s Department’s offices in Jubilee Road, Newtownards, in relation to such matters. Some of the girls in my office phone simply to have a wee chat with the admirable staff in the Minister’s office. Nonetheless, every week another problem with the roads in Strangford is highlighted; another car is ruined by a pothole; another claim is made by someone who falls; and another accident is caused by slippery roads. Strangford is not alone in having problems with roads. Throughout the Province, roads are suffering from varying degrees of decay, which, as my colleague said, is little wonder if one considers the amount of money that we spend compared to England or Wales. It is no surprise to discover that we have the worst roads in the United Kingdom — you get what you pay for. DRD must come to terms with the fact that, in the long term, the outlay of the required spend will actually save it money, and that is not new information to the Minister. In 2007, the acting chief executive of the Roads Service said that the cost of reconstructing a road compared to maintaining it can be up to four times greater. Surely that fact alone would behove setting aside money for works maintenance, rather than holding off until maintenance cannot make a difference and work must be started again from scratch. That is what has happened throughout the Province. The Roads Service acting chief executive’s annual report informs us that road resurfacing should happen once every 25 to 30 years, yet there are some roads in my constituency — and others will reiterate this point — which have not been resurfaced for 68 years. Cosmetic tar and loose-stone spreading is said to seal a road; however, before doing that the Roads Service would do better by filling in the potholes. The figures for cars ruined by uneven roads and accidents caused by slippery surfaces are easier to understand if one realises that our roads must last for twice as long as they were built to. Terrorism attacks are over; tourism increases month by month and, considering that more people are moving to, and living in, the Province, our roads are under more pressure than ever. Nevertheless, the Department is not investing enough money in maintenance. Money is not the issue. In response to my written question, at the beginning of February, the Minister replied that, in 2004-05, the Department spent £272,500,000 on roads maintenance, and, in 2005-06, £269,300,000. In 2006-07, that figure rose to £302,400,000. Those figures are self-explanatory and illustrate the Minister’s commitment; however, I urge the Minister to support the amendment and answer the questions that it raises. I believe that £110 million could be rin |