Northern Ireland Assembly Monday 7 April 2008 Executive Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Private Notice Questions: Private Members’ Business: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Public Health (Amendment) Bill Further Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: I remind Members that, under Standing Order 35(2), the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill is restricted to the debating of any amendments that have been tabled. As no amendments have been tabled, there will be no opportunity today to discuss the Bill. However, Members will be able to have a full debate during the Bill’s Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Forkhill Military Site Mr Speaker: Members will recall that this motion was on the Order Paper on Monday 31 March but could not be disposed of before the House adjourned. 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 to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. A valid petition of concern in respect of amendment No 2 was presented on 31 March. The effect of the petition of concern is that any vote on amendment No 2 will be decided on a cross-community basis. Lord Morrow: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with concern the role of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in the redevelopment of the Forkhill Military Site, and believes that the Department for Social Development should consider taking the lead role in the matter. I am pleased to have the opportunity to move the motion, which, as you said, Mr Speaker, has been carried over from a previous day as there was insufficient time to debate it then. I, therefore, welcome the opportunity to move the motion that stands in my name and in those of William McCrea and Trevor Clarke. The motion does not state that nothing should happen at the Forkhill site; that is not what we are saying. However, we are mystified as to why the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) or its Minister should think that it is their duty or responsibility to develop military sites across Northern Ireland. The listed responsibilities and functions of DARD tell a different story — that Department does not have responsibility for developing military sites in Northern Ireland. The DARD website states: “DARD has responsibility for food, farming, and environmental policy and the development of the rural sector in Northern Ireland. It provides a business development service for farmers and growers, and a veterinary service with administration of animal health and welfare.” It is difficult to reconcile those responsibilities with the development of a former army base or military site. I see that the Minister is in her place, and I look forward to hearing her outline, in graphic detail, her plans for the site and how they will enhance the agriculture sector and bring confidence to it. Some Members are of the strong opinion that the Minister’s remit, energies and resources would be better channelled towards the agriculture industry, some sectors of which are having difficulty surviving. I have no doubt that, in a short time, she will come to the House with all the answers and put us all at ease by informing us about how she proposes to redevelop the site using her budget, among other resources. However, I will not pre-empt what she intends to say. As I said at the outset, the motion does not state that there should be no redevelopment of the Forkhill army base. There are several former military sites across the Province, and they provide significant housing and employment opportunities for local people. Those opportunities must not be missed. However — and I will continue to emphasise this point — the remit of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development does not cover the provision of housing or the creation of jobs in the industry sector. The Minister will, therefore, find it difficult to justify her interference in those areas. The Minister might contend that she has an interest in all things rural, but if that point were brought to its logical conclusion, she could claim responsibility for every area of Government that affects those who live in rural areas. The proof that the development of the site should not lie within the responsibility of DARD is shown by the method by which the site was to be purchased. The public purse would not have had to pay once for the site; it would have been forced to pay twice for the pleasure of having DARD take the lead role in its development. The responsibility for every other similar development has lain with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) and the Department for Social Development (DSD). Given that those are the Departments that have statutory responsibility for that type of work, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development should focus her attention on the problems that the agriculture industry faces. The proper advice for the Minister — and, perhaps, her officials might whisper this in her ear sometime — is to let OFMDFM and the Department for Social Development get on with what they are supposed to be doing. Indeed, she should be reminded that the role and function of the Agriculture Minister is to look after the agriculture industry. It is hoped that, as a result of today’s debate, that message will come out loud and clear and that the Minister will follow the advice of the Assembly. DARD is in a rush to fast-track the development, regardless of its failings. One proposal seeks to establish business units on the site, despite the fact that Invest NI has not identified a need in that area. Other provisions would be developed on the site, regardless of need or whether they replicate similar services in other local villages or rural areas. A list of problems and failings has been identified. However, the Minister, in her mad rush to progress the development, has not taken those problems on board. Many of my colleagues are members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and are mystified by the Minister’s headlong charge towards development, regardless of the problems or cost. I am sure that the Minister and her party could not be attempting to score brownie points in the south Armagh area at the expense of another Minister and another political party. However, on examination of the handling of the development, many reasonable people may reach that conclusion. Millions of pounds from DARD’s budget will be invested in a project that may benefit the Forkhill area. However, the agriculture industry is struggling to survive. Several million pounds could have a great impact if they were ploughed into the Department’s response to the Red Meat Industry Task Force. That would have an impact right across Northern Ireland rather than in only one village. Therefore, we ask the Minister to concentrate her efforts on the agriculture industry and leave those issues to others. Similarly, pig farmers are hanging on to production by a thin thread. They lose money on every pig that they produce, yet their plight is met with stubborn inaction by DARD, compared with the “can’t wait, won’t wait” approach taken to the development of the Forkhill army base. Although the development, undoubtedly, has merits, the Minister must prioritise to ensure that the greatest good is delivered by her Department. If the Minister considers the plight of the pig industry, perhaps she will conclude that the millions of pounds allocated to this project — which is none of her business or concern — would be better deployed in that sector. The construction of a strategy to secure the future of beef farmers and sheep farmers must surely be a greater priority. Similarly, the future of pig farmers in the Province might have been considered a more important use of several million pounds of public money. The establishment of a few industrial units in south Armagh may help farmers to leave the agriculture industry — a measure on which the Minister is keen — but it will not help a farming industry in crisis. The core of the debate is about the specific responsibilities of DARD. Seemingly, the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development does not believe in farmers actually farming. Every policy tries to put farmers out to pasture and to move away from agriculture. Rural development must be a core aspect of DARD’s activities, but it must not be the only activity. I urge the Minister to consider carefully the content of this debate, which I hope will encourage her to return to her roots and responsibilities and pour the Department’s resources, funding and energy into the agriculture industry — something for which she is directly responsible. 12.15 pm Mr D Bradley: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “notes” and insert “the role of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in the redevelopment of the Forkhill Military Site, and believes the department should continue to work with the Department for Social Development on it; and calls on the Department of Finance and Personnel to reconsider its position on this project to ensure that the best possible project is delivered for the people of Forkhill and the surrounding district.” Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Éirím leis an chéad leasú ar an rún a mholadh. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has an obvious lead role in, and a main responsibility for, what is clearly a rural development project, which will have benefits for the rural hinterland of south Armagh. The Department for Social Development also has a role to play, particularly in acquiring the land and providing social housing. The Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie, has expressed her full support for the project and her willingness to work in co-operation with DARD to bring the project to fruition. DARD’s primary role in the initiative is to provide the finance for the purchase of the site and to develop the business plan to present to the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). I note the unfounded allegations in the media that DSD had a role in frustrating the Forkhill project. According to my information, nothing could be further from the truth. DSD has been fully supportive of the project and has co-operated fully with DARD on the issue. Those who suggest otherwise are being mischievous and engaging in petty political point-scoring, which is of no benefit whatsoever to the future of the project. DSD and its Minister have a role in acquiring the site, the resources for which are to be provided by DARD, subject to the approval of DFP. The motion has, to some extent, been overtaken by events, as, in the interim, the project has not received approval from DFP. However, that is not a reason why this innovative project should be allowed to sink into oblivion. DARD should re-examine the business case for the project and submit a revised plan to DFP, to ensure that the project becomes a reality. The proposal is a worthy one, which deserves the support of the Executive. It is aimed at developing community facilities in Forkhill and the surrounding district, and will include business units, sporting and family recreational facilities, a community centre and much-needed social housing for the area. The joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments of April 2003 promised vacated military sites to local people who have endured decades dominated by the Troubles: “Many of the vacated military and police … sites might be made available … to ensure that the process of normalisation generates a new public asset base for those communities most directly affected by the security arrangements to date.” There is no doubt that Forkhill is one such place. I note also the First Minister’s answer to a question about the Lisanelly site during Question Time on 3 March: “OFMDFM continues to press the British Government strongly about the transfer of Lisanelly and other military sites to the Executive. We are waiting for a response from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We recently met the Secretary of State to discuss that important issue, and we clearly set out our view that an MOD requirement for the Executive to purchase such sites at market value is a retraction from the joint declaration position. Furthermore, we pointed out the substantial impact that such an approach will have on our investment capacity, and we asked for the Secretary of State’s urgent personal intervention and support. Clearly, we want to see whether the Secretary of State is able to persuade his colleagues that the sites can be purchased at market value … We will press the issue again shortly — directly with the Prime Minister”. — [Official Report, Vol 28, No 3, p137, col 1]. That is the response from the First Minister, the leader of Lord Morrow’s party. In response to my question on the Forkhill military site during the same Question Time, the First Minister said: “The principle must first be established that we will benefit, and we must put our hearts and minds to that. The promise that was made by the British Government must be fulfilled, and the people of Northern Ireland must benefit from what happens to those sites.” — [Official Report, Vol 28, No 3, p137, col 2]. I welcome the commitment of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to the acquisition of those sites, and I urge them to redouble their efforts to ensure that those sites are available to our people without further delay. I also commend the Forkhill community for the work that it has done in developing the proposal. As public representatives, the least that we can do is provide the resources to ensure that the community’s vision becomes a reality. If devolution is to be meaningful to our citizens, we must be seen to deliver on projects such as the one that is under discussion today. We have heard much talk about a peace dividend, but, to date, we have seen little evidence of it. Communities that have suffered through decades of conflict deserve recognition, and the project proposed for Forkhill fits the bill perfectly in that respect. Finally, I call on the Departments concerned — DARD and DFP, in co-operation with DSD — to work together to ensure that our people benefit from devolution and that the best possible project is delivered for the people of Forkhill and the surrounding district. Go raibh míle maith agat. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) Mr Elliott: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after “Site” and insert “and, inter alia, for the purposes of paragraph 1.4(f) of the Northern Ireland Ministerial Code, determines that the site shall not be acquired by, or on behalf of, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.” I thank the Members who secured this debate today. I have never made any secret of my opposition to DARD’s taking the lead role in the project. That is not to say that I am against the development of Forkhill army base. As Dominic Bradley said, the project should be developed for the community. However, I am concerned about the prospect of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development taking the lead role in the project. I base my opinion on several factors that I have aired and highlighted in the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, and I will reiterate them again. The development of any former military base in the Province must be handled with care. Across Northern Ireland, the public would like redundant sites — whether they are army bases, former army bases or any other sites — to be developed so that they can deliver for local communities. In fact, the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie, announced recently that a new eco-village will be built in my constituency — Fermanagh and South Tyrone — which is also the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, on the site of the former Grosvenor army base in Enniskillen. That decision was broadly welcomed by all members of the community, and it is my sincere hope that the new homes will help to bring increased revenue into Enniskillen and release the ever-growing pressure on the Housing Executive to provide social and affordable housing in the area. I should be delighted to see something similar, with broader community support and development, on the Forkhill site. However, I do not believe that the Agriculture Minister or her Department are best placed to deliver on that. The proposals for the development of the Forkhill barracks site include social housing, business units and community facilities, and are largely supported by members of my party and of other parties. However, my concern is that DARD will be the lead funder and administrator of the project: that should be the responsibility of other Departments. Where are the Departments of Social Development, Enterprise Trade and Investment, Education and Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the development? Surely bodies in those Departments should take the lead role. I, and others, ask the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and her Department why they feel it necessary to branch into the development of buildings and dwellings, and other programmes that are clearly outside the remit of that Department. The building of social homes and community facilities is not the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The essence of the project is social, and that brings it outside the agriculture and rural development context. I know that departmental bodies work together throughout Northern Ireland, with a view to providing cohesive and efficient benefits for all the people of this Province. However we set a precedent if the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development takes the lead in such a project. Will that mean that every village and town with a population of under 4,500 will expect the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to spend its money on projects in that area, and that the Department for Social Development and others will not have to do that? What does that say for other sites that are, at the moment, redundant? Will it mean that sites in the Minister’s constituency and mine, such as the old Duke of Westminster High School sites in Ballinamallard and Kesh — Mr Hilditch: If the Member has had the opportunity to read the Department’s response to the question, he will, perhaps, have seen a section referring to the Department’s concern that the site will fall to a private developer to turn into a housing development, which would take the population of Forkhill to well over 4,500. Is it a concern of the Department that a private developer wishes to develop the site into housing? Mr Elliott: Clearly the Department will have a view on that. If DARD is going to develop a site such as Forkhill, other sites should also be examined, including those old school sites that I mentioned, and one even closer to the Minister’s own home, in Granville. An old school there could be developed into something else, such as housing or business units. Is that under the remit of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development? Those issues must be examined, because we could set a very dangerous precedent for the Department. It will cause almost a leeching of money by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to fund issues that are no concern whatsoever of that Department. The agricultural community in Northern Ireland — as Lord Morrow said earlier — wants to see more proactive work taking place regarding situations of countrywide importance, such as the promotion of local produce, addressing the continuing consolidation of farm land, and the huge crisis facing the pig industry. Some people say that agriculturally based families and workers want to be greedy, but that is not the case. They want to see rural development progress — and I want to make that absolutely clear. We want to see rural development go forward in Northern Ireland. The difficulty is that large sections of the rural-development funding come from farmers; the farming community helps to support the rural communities and the rural development projects, because modulation funding has taken that money from farmers through their single farm payment. It is not fair for people to say that the whole farming community is interested only in farming. That is not the case. Furthermore, I am concerned that, if DARD continues to lead and fund the project in the future, millions of pounds will be poured into it, but who will actually administer and run it? Will it be sustainable? The business case that I saw provides no such guarantees, nor did it fill me with confidence that the project will be run and developed positively for Northern Ireland or for the area in which it is to be located. 12.30 pm. The Northern Ireland agriculture industry requires investment, stimulation and general support, and the fundamental provider of such support is DARD, which is also responsible for rural development. As a rural citizen, and as a man with the agriculture industry at heart — and given the knowledge that so many ventures are going to the wall — how could I support DARD’s leadership role in the Forkhill project? Undoubtedly, the project is much needed in the area, and, as we heard, it has the local community’s backing. I wish it success, but I do not wish DARD to be used in such a way. If the Department continues along that path, it will be making a huge mistake. My concern is that the proposal is political rather than departmental. Rural development is a matter for everyone in Northern Ireland, and it must not be used as a conduit to build social housing and industrial units. Money for that could be better processed using other mechanisms. I ask Members to support the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment. Do not allow DARD to be dragged into areas that are not its business. Mr Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Thus far, the message from the other side of the Chamber is that those Members simply do not want money to be spent on that project or in that area, and they are seeking every possible device to frustrate and prevent that happening. In many ways, the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment is more honest than the DUP’s motion, which, in effect, seeks to do the same thing. The project in that village is very much about rural development. For more than 30 years, those barracks — a huge, imposing structure covering more than 14 acres — dominated the small village from a height and were right smack in the centre of it. The movement in and out of that site impacted negatively on lives in the community to such an extent that the primary school found it necessary to develop plans to relocate away from the barracks. When the military and the police decided to pull out of the site, there was much relief in the area, and the case has been made that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) should, in good faith, have handed over the site for development by the community. However, of course, the MOD has sought to generate every last shilling from the site for its war efforts elsewhere in the world. The regeneration group — which has a proven track record in stimulating economic redevelopment projects in the village — came forward with a plan that includes social housing, childcare provision, retail and industrial units and open space comprising protected walking and lit walkways, and, in doing so, secured the support of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department for Social Development, the local council and Invest NI, and involved community, sporting and cultural groups. Most importantly, the project also received an overwhelming mandate from the entire village, who wanted the site to be developed in such a fashion. The case for the project was presented to the Departments in order to gain support. Mr Elliott and Maurice Morrow inferred that the current Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development’s decision was political; however, the interest expressed by both Departments predates the Assembly’s restoration; both were on board for the Forkhill project and both were working with the community and the local council long before last May, and I took community representatives to meet direct rule Ministers and officials from the relevant Departments and agencies. The attempt by some, particularly the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and several other Committee colleagues from his party and the Ulster Unionist Party, to portray the project as a politically motivated initiative by the Minister, betrays the hostility that the project has faced. Their assertion is untrue, and had those Committee members investigated the history of the project, they would know that. Both Departments, as well as all the agencies, supported the project long before the current Minister took office. The Minister has simply delivered what those Departments were in the process of doing. Mr Elliott: Given the Member’s ministerial role, this may be a difficult question for him to answer, but has he read the business case for the project and seen the hypocrisy therein? Mr Murphy: The Member’s use of the word hypocrisy betrays his political attitude towards the project and the area in which it is based. Not only have I have read the business case, I was part of the group that worked on it at the start, as were all the elected representatives from the area. That includes all members of the parties that held seats on Newry and Mourne District Council; indeed, the entire council supported the project. I believe that the business case stacks up, and it has the support of many agencies, not just the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Member’s description of the business case betrays what is at the root of the motion. The irony is that the remote direct rule Ministers, who were not in touch with the feelings of the people and who were not reflecting the views on the ground, supported the project. Yet, when the institutions are returned, we find political hostility, not from Departments or the Civil Service, but from MLAs, including those who chair Committees. Those people have generated political hostility to the project. The project will succeed. Maurice Morrow mentioned missed opportunities, and the opportunities presented by this project should not be missed. The irony was not lost that, in the same week that it was revealed that DFP had not offered funding for the project, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the MP for East Belfast visited a community project in that area that was funded by Government agencies. If the funding is not found, the project will be lost, and that would be a missed opportunity. Someone will build on the site, and cram — A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Murphy: I will not; I have only seconds left. Someone will cram houses on to that site, and that will be detrimental for the population and that area. Political hostility is the real intention behind the Unionist motion and the Unionist amendment. Mr Bresland: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion. The role of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is twofold: first, to offer support to the agriculture industry; and secondly, to support sustainable rural development. The European Union recognises rural development as the second pillar of the common agricultural policy, and, over several years, DARD has engaged in programmes that support rural development in NorthernIreland. DARD has engaged with stakeholders, including other Departments, strategic bodies, funding bodies, and, most importantly, the local community, to develop sustainable rural development projects. DARD’s proposal to purchase the former military base from the Ministry of Defence and the PSNI takes the Department in a different direction in its promotion of sustainable rural development. Indeed, that fact was noted in the economic appraisal for the acquisition of the former Forkhill military base. That appraisal suggests that the proposals for Forkhill should be considered as a pilot scheme, given that a well-established community development infrastructure exists. The economic appraisal leaves several simple questions unanswered. I am concerned about the process of purchasing the property from the MOD and the PSNI. There is no legal provision for DARD to purchase property; therefore, it proposes to ask the Department for Social Development to purchase the former military base and transfer the property back to DARD. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development tell us how much the process to transfer the property between the various Departments will cost, in addition to the cost of the land? When the economic appraisal was submitted to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, it became clear that it did not explain how the complex transfer process would work. The economic appraisal also failed to show value for money, the number of jobs that would be created, how the project would address deprivation, and many other basic principles with which an economic appraisal should deal. The economic appraisal also mentions DARD’s plans for a community capital grant scheme, and suggests that the community group will apply to DARD for some £2,895,000. What is the community capital grant scheme? Can other community groups in Northern Ireland apply to that scheme? For a number of years, the Department for Social Development has been involved in capital-development programmes, and has, in that time, developed considerable expertise in that process. Such expertise should be compared to that of DARD. The economic appraisal recognises that the proposal is a pilot scheme for DARD. DARD has a valuable role to play in supporting rural development and assisting local communities to improve society. However, this proposal is flawed and will create a precedent that will offer nothing to help to create sustainable rural development. The first principle of rural development is to put people first. Rural-development projects must also develop capacity, skills and confidence and must offer economic opportunities for future generations. These proposals will potentially offer such opportunities. However, they will be best achieved through the well-tested methods that have been used by the Department for Social Development. I support the motion. Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I commend the group in Forkhill for identifying that the best use of the land is for a multifaceted development and for submitting a comprehensive business plan. That business plan considers the whole idea of rural development, including business opportunities, housing and childcare. It will ensure sustainable development and sustainable communities, which will result in a vibrant way of life. It has been suggested that this project does not offer value for money. However, funding has been granted to schemes that have had much smaller numbers of beneficiaries. Some 70% of people in rural areas are not farmers. Although they support farmers and will continue to do so, it is important to acknowledge that if rural communities are to survive, development outside the agriculture industry is required. Forkhill has suffered at the hands of the British military establishment for the past 30 years. It appears that some Members would prefer to have a continued military presence. However, they have gone away, you know. The people of south Armagh, and specifically Forkhill in this instance, have the right to local sustainable development. I commend the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for embracing all aspects of her brief. This project is about joined-up Government, and it is for the Executive to decide on which Department or Departments are best qualified to deliver it. It is encouraging to hear that DSD is fully supportive of the project. Go raibh maith agat. Mr T Clarke: I am more than disappointed that the project is still being discussed and led by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Although one can see the merits of the redevelopment of a disused site, I am amazed that it is being led by DARD. Members have heard about the childcare facilities, the social housing and the various aspects of the project — much of which I still do not believe should be led by DARD. If it were not for the recent Budget, one would almost believe that DARD has too much money and is looking for ways to spend it. If that is the case, maybe DARD officials should consider the recent Red Meat Industry Task Force report — the Department has given no help to the farmers who were discussed in that report. There are also issues for the pig industry: farmers are producing and selling pigs for £27 less than they cost to produce. Perhaps DARD will help them. However, I do not think so. The farmer from north Antrim — on whose farm the first outbreak of bluetongue in the Province occurred — had his entire herd culled by the Department. Perhaps that farming family expected to receive help. However, it did not. In an answer to a question, the Minister said that she was not compelled to pay compensation. However, she now sees fit to provide industrial units in south Armagh. What about the increasing prices of grain? Help should be made available to people affected by that. However, it is not. What about the ageing fleet of fishing boats in Northern Ireland? Perhaps DARD will help those in that industry. However, they have received no help either. All of them come under the remit of the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development. Perhaps the Minister would prefer agriculture to be dropped from her remit. Perhaps she wants to be the Minister for rural development only. That will not be the case, and I will not be part of it. 12.45 pm Farming is a key part of business in Northern Ireland, and it should not be forgotten that farming is a way of life for many people. Instead of interfering with the remits of other Departments, I suggest that the Minister should focus on her own remit and let others look after theirs. Mr Savage: I support amendment No 2. Before talking about that, I will mention the background to the matter. Forkhill military site became available following the announcement in July 2005 that, due to the improving security situation, a number of army posts would be demolished. Following consultations with the local community and sporting representatives, local politicians and various agencies decided to develop a practical vision for the use of the vacant site, Bernard Boyle of Forkhill and District Development Association outlined proposals in February 2007. He stated that the site would be used for retail and business units, an all day childcare facility, a playing field, a recreation area and an illuminated walkway. At a meeting of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on 9 October 2007, the Deputy Chairperson — my colleague Tom Elliott — proposed that, although the Committee supported the development of the Forkhill army site, DARD should not be the lead Department in the development or financing of it or any other military site. That motion was carried, because we want to see the Forkhill site developed for the benefit of the people of the area. That can best be achieved under the auspices of the Department for Social Development. However, that is not to say that DARD will not have any input. I have read about this matter and heard a number of Members in the Chamber saying that the number of Departments should be cut. Having done so, I have concluded that DARD should take over the Department for Social Development because we could do an equally good job. However, that is another matter for another day. [Laughter.] Due to the geographical and demographical area on which the site exists, common sense dictates that DARD is well placed to have a consultative role on matters of rural poverty, and some input into DSD’s plans to ensure that rural development takes place. DETI would be involved in attracting businesses to new retail and business units. It must be ensured that the job is not only done but done right. The Department for Social Development is best placed to carry the scheme forward. That Department has the necessary in-house experience, knowledge and past experience of delivering projects such as this. DARD ought to be focusing on a number of other issues in order to protect and promote the farming community in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister is fed up listening to Members but I want to reinforce to her my feelings about the other issues in need of address. We must maintain our vigilance about bluetongue, especially coming into the summer, when the midge population is at its highest. We must continue to be mindful of the plight of pig farmers. Indeed, there are many pig farmers in the Forkhill area. We must help, in any way that we can, to raise the price of pig meat in the short, medium and long term to ensure that the pig industry stays afloat. Regarding the price of wheat, we must continue to ensure that our farmers have a more than adequate supply of feed for their animals between now and the next harvest. According to the BBC, there are only about 35 day’s supply of grain with which to feed the world. That figure is falling week by week and that fact must be taken in to account. Those are three major issues but, rest assured, there are many more. I am confused regarding the Forkhill military site. On 23 January 2008, in reply to a question for written answer from Tom Elliott, the Finance Minister stated: “DARD intends to make a bid in the February Monitoring Round for the £4.5 million required for the purchase by DSD of the former Forkhill Military Base.” The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development seems to be doing all the running on behalf of the Department for Social Development, which is why DARD should have a bigger role. Surely the Department for Social Development is better placed to acquire the site, take ownership of it and develop it as it sees fit. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up. Mr P J Bradley: I support my colleague Dominic Bradley’s amendment, and I compliment him for including the key words: “to ensure that the best possible project is delivered for the people of Forkhill and the surrounding district.” I repeat the words of the Member for Newry and Armagh so that Members can give them serious consideration. We are here not only in the interests of those who voted us in but in the interest of the common good and the broader community. A responsible development committee is in situ in Forkhill. The members of the Forkhill and District Development Association are waiting for a bureaucratic wrangle to be sorted out so that they can proceed with their plans for the site, which can be activated right away. I question the size of the site; Conor Murphy said that it might be 14 acres, but I do not know whether it is as large as that. The site was vacated in 2005, and it is easy to understand the frustration of the project’s supporters at the lack of progress. The Forkhill and District Development Association has the full support of Newry and Mourne District Council. Mr Tom Elliott expressed concern about the sustainability of the project. It should be noted that the Newry and Mourne Enterprise Agency also supports the proposal. The agency is interested in becoming involved in the Forkhill project. For the benefit of those Members who do not know that agency, it has an excellent track record in providing business units, of which I will name four: WIN Business Park in Newry; Warrenpoint Enterprise Centre; Kilkeel Enterprise Centre; and Flurrybridge Enterprise Centre. The interests of the agency should not be underestimated in any way. It is a key player in getting that area of Newry and Mourne back on its feet. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is interested in the assembly of lands within the site for the development of social and affordable housing, although the provision of residential dwellings is the responsibility of the designated Fold Housing Association. It is also worth noting that the Forkhill site has been identified in the draft Banbridge, Newry and Mourne area plan for 2015 for mixed-use development. If the people of Forkhill and the surrounding district are to be allowed to benefit from the potential of the site in the near future, it is important — as the amendment states — for the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department for Social Development, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and, perhaps, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to reach an agreement urgently that will benefit all the people. That could not happen soon enough. Mr Doherty: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support Mr Bradley’s amendment. The best that can be said about the negative motion, and the equally negative amendment No 2, is that they give us an opportunity to highlight some of the issues and to expose the wrong-headed thinking behind the motion and amendment No 2. In April 2003, a joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments stated that all vacated military barracks should be gifted to a working Executive; it is critical that that is mentioned as many times as possible. That joint declaration has been cited several times in the Chamber, not least by the First Minister, the Rev Ian Paisley, and other Ministers as a key component in dealing with those vacated barracks sites. DARD’s name and remit cover both agriculture and rural development. It is no wonder that Maurice Morrow is mystified. When referring to the Minister, he called her the Minister of Agriculture two or three times. Let me clear that up for you, Maurice: she is the very able Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. There are four axes by which moneys can be drawn down from the rural development budget. All of those are open to farmers as well as to other rural dwellers, and I point out — [Interruption.] It is quite clear that that is what you want, but the remit is agriculture and rural development. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Members should make their remarks through the Chair. Mr Doherty: Of those people living in rural areas, 70% are not farmers, and they have as much right as farmers to access funding for their various projects. There is a big challenge for the DUP and the UUP to get their thinking right on that issue. The remit of the Department covers rural development as well as agriculture, and there is nothing that those parties can do to change that. Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for giving way. He is keen to quote me, and I do not retract anything that I said. Perhaps he will recall that I said that this motion does not oppose the development of the Forkhill site. The redevelopment of that site is essential, and we hope that similar sites will also be redeveloped. However, that project should not be funded from the budget of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. That is the task of another Department. Mr Doherty: If Maurice Morrow is anxious that the Forkhill site be redeveloped, he should support amendment No 1, and not the ridiculous motion that he has tabled. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am glad that Pat Doherty cleared up that last issue. I was going to offer Maurice Morrow a competition: what do the letters “R” and “D” stand for in the title of the Department? The Member should send his answers on a postcard. I welcome the opportunity to debate the redevelopment of the former military site in Forkhill. This issue has been raised by Dr William McCrea through the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on a number of occasions. It is something that he and his colleagues believe requires further clarification and discussion, particularly the matter of why my Department, rather than the Department for Social Development, takes the lead. It is not a question of which Department leads the project. Acting on behalf of the Executive, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is helping the various community groups to achieve their ambitions, and has taken ownership of the project to that extent. To provide that help effectively, it is required that I create a capital grants scheme. It requires DSD to provide the finance for and to build both social and affordable housing. While it is not the role of DARD to build houses, we are working with DSD on that matter. We are all required to prepare a business case that stands up to scrutiny. Therefore, this is not solely a DARD issue, but it is one that I am prepared to champion. I feel that it would be helpful to set out my Department’s involvement in Forkhill, to date. As has been mentioned by the MP for the area, Conor Murphy, under the former direct rule Administration, several approaches were made to Ministers in respect of the redevelopment opportunities presented by redundant military sites. Those sites are owned by the Ministry of Defence, and its programme of disposals is based on the desire to realise receipts from the disposal of the bases as quickly as possible. In urban areas, the Department for Social Development is developing a number of those sites. My Department became involved in the Forkhill project following an approach, over two years ago, by the local MP, MLAs and councillors for the Forkhill area, to David Hanson, the then Social Development Minister. That process has been ongoing for over two years — it is not a quick fix. Time has been taken to ensure that the project was viable and had the full support of the community. 1.00 pm DARD has been working towards the creation of sustainable communities through its innovative rural development programmes of job creation, farm diversification, business opportunities and social enhancement projects. The Department became convinced that former military sites or abandoned public spaces in rural areas presented an additional excellent opportunity to help to bring about more holistic redevelopment, especially in areas in which social and economic progress had stagnated. Forkhill was considered particularly suitable to be taken forward as a pilot project because of its location, condition and the work that had already been undertaken by the local community group, the Forkhill and District Development Association. I add my comments to those of other Members in commending and congratulating that group for the work that it has done to date, which has produced, through widespread community consultation, a blueprint of suitable social and economic actions for the site. An inter-agency steering group was formed to bring forward the proposals for the site, and a business case for its acquisition and development was prepared. The site covers a large area of ground in the centre of the village. The proposals have been cleared by the Ministry of Defence. It is proposed that the site will accommodate a mixed development to include social and affordable housing, which will be led by DSD. It will also include a number of business and workspace units, for which there is a demand. A range of community facilities will be included, such as a community hall, a crèche, changing rooms, a multi-purpose games area and an illuminated walkway for health-and-safety and visual-amenity reasons, along with the associated infrastructure. Although it is not its core business, Invest NI supports the business units that are proposed for Forkhill, under the management of local economic development units. The rural development programme has created, and will continue to create, business units and jobs under the Department’s rural development programme. DARD does not have the necessary legal powers to purchase the site, but, under the Social Need Order 1986, DSD has the power to do so. It has agreed to purchase the site on DARD’s behalf. It is intended that the acres that are set aside for housing will be acquired and developed by a housing association, with the approval and support of DSD. The remaining acres will be acquired and developed by the Forkhill and District Development Association, using a capital grant from my Department of around £2·9 million. Financial support will also come from Newry and Mourne District Council, along with other funding. DARD’s involvement in the project fits clearly with the overall theme of its rural strategy for 2007 to 2013. That strategy aims to diversify the rural economy, protect the rural environment and sustain rural communities. It meets one of the key aims of that document and the Department’s strategic plan for 2006 to 2011, which is to strengthen the social and economic infrastructure of rural areas. The Department’s involvement also fits well with the Programme for Government, which was agreed by the Executive in January 2008. The Programme for Government charges DARD with helping rural communities to improve the physical, economic and social infrastructure of their areas. The development of former military sites and/or abandoned spaces fits squarely within that remit. Forkhill has a population of fewer than 3,000 people, so it is clearly a rural area. The Forkhill project, and similar projects, also sits comfortably alongside the new rural development programme, which runs from 2007 to 2013. Axis 3 of that programme aims to improve the quality of life in rural areas and the diversification of the rural economy. A number of Members referred to the challenges that face the agriculture sector; I am aware of those challenges. Under the rural development programme, a number of opportunities exist to help the beef and sheep sector. It has set aside £20 million for diversification, £65 million for farmers and farm families and over £300 million for agrienvironment schemes. Over 70% of the rural development programme’s money will go directly to farmers and farm families, so farmers will do extremely well out of the programme. The rural development programme clearly identifies the challenges of the agricultural community. From a strategic point of view, it is important that the Department is already involved in some redevelopment of rural areas through the rural development programme. It should also seek to complement those activities when specific unique opportunities are presented. As I said earlier, it is incumbent on all of us to progress the opportunity, utilising my Department’s capital grant, which will be a relatively modest, although important, contribution and DSD’s provision of housing. Local government is also firmly committed to the scheme and will provide financial support. The business case that I mentioned earlier was submitted, as requested, to the Department of Finance and Personnel, but, regrettably, it was rejected last week. I am hugely disappointed at that decision, as are the people of Forkhill and their local representatives, all of whom have worked extremely hard to provide solid evidence to demonstrate the benefits that that exciting initiative would bring. I have instructed my officials to continue to explore with DFP ways in which this development opportunity can be exploited, and those discussions are urgent and ongoing. It remains my clear belief that there is a strong case for the public sector to intervene in an area of deprivation such as Forkhill, which has had a particularly difficult history because of the major military base that was strategically placed in the centre of the village. That has impacted greatly on every aspect of local life in past years, as many of the local elected representatives have said. The proposal that my Department supports would send out a strong signal — not only to the local community, but across the North as a whole and to the private sector — that this Administration are prepared to commit themselves financially to a unique rural-development opportunity that will bring significant benefits to the local people and, I hope, attract some private investment too. It would help to bring back pride to the area, and it would help to create business opportunities and jobs. It would provide leisure facilities for young people, create opportunities for young mothers and fathers, reduce antisocial behaviour and encourage children to participate in healthy outdoor pursuits and sports. I wish that the Executive had more such projects, which can create real benefits for communities. If it is allowed to proceed, the Forkhill project will help to create a new revitalised village centre for the people of Forkhill and the surrounding area. Of course, it will be evaluated and the benefits assessed so as to allow consideration of other projects in the future. This is a project on which my Department can take the lead, and I believe that it will be successful and make a genuine difference to the lives of the people in the area. I am very concerned at the efforts being made to prevent the Executive from supporting robustly the development of specific programmes that will help to achieve our objective of sustaining rural communities. I hope that my response has given Members an assurance about the very positive steps that DARD and DSD have taken in taking forward the redevelopment of the former military site at Forkhill. It is my belief that the proposed project for Forkhill sits squarely within my Department’s remit, and it is my intention that the Department should continue to work to achieve approval for the business case from DFP so that it can move forward with this project with the co-operation of the Department for Social Development. The people of Forkhill deserve the support of the Assembly. I hope that we can bring about the economic and social enhancement for which the area is crying out and for which it has asked. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Kennedy: Some Members, including the Member of Parliament for Newry and Armagh, an MLA for Newry and Armagh and a Minister of the Executive, have suggested that unionists are somehow opposed to the regeneration of the Forkhill site. I want to make it clear at the outset that nothing could be further from the truth. Through our amendment, my party and I have sought to clarify something that it appears even the SDLP has missed in the debate. In my view, this issue has started a turf war between DARD and DSD. It is not only a battle between two Departments, two political parties and two women; it is also a case of the SDLP having its eye wiped. If its members are not prepared to realise that, that is up to them. I want to outline my unequivocal support for the future regeneration of the former army base at Forkhill. Its regeneration will be a significant milestone in the normalisation of society in Northern Ireland and will potentially bring great benefits to the people of south Armagh. However, as a local representative, I believe that the current situation — whereby the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is taking the lead on this issue — has the potential to create a less than optimum project. It is clear that DARD is not the correct vehicle through which to deliver this particular project. Therefore, I strongly support my party’s amendment, which lays out a commonsense opinion that for a more efficient and effective project, more rationalised Government, and the correct use of expertise and resources. In a recent answer to an Assembly question, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development stated that: “It is intended that the site will be regenerated into a rural economic and social hub. It will provide a range of integrated services such as local enterprise units; light industrial units; community space; and childcare facilities”. — [Official Report, Vol 24, No 5, p225, col 2]. The Minister went on to outline that: “Some social housing has also been provided for, and my Department is working with the Housing Executive on that aspect.” — [Official Report, Vol 24, No 5, p225, col 2]. Those are all extremely welcome elements. However, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is not the best-placed Minister to deliver them. Nor should the Department for Social Development have to spend £4.5 million of taxpayers’ money to allow a maverick Minister to stray from her rural development remit. DARD does not have on overly-impressive record when it comes to leading projects in south Armagh and other places. The Department for Social Development is responsible for, and has extensive experience and expertise in, social housing, enterprise development, urban regeneration and community development. This project, as outlined, clearly encompasses all of those aspects. Although the Minister’s responsibility for rural development is recognised, she will have to admit — and should admit — that that responsibility does not cover those areas in any meaningful way and is geared more towards agricultural diversification and development. That will mean the potential waste of all the expertise and relationships that have built up between the Department for Social Development, the Housing Executive, developers and communities. At a time when we are asked to encourage the Executive to increase efficiency, rationalise procedures and review public administration, the decision by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to seek the lead role in this project seems contradictory. There is no doubt that what is proposed for the Forkhill site does not fall under the immediate remit of DARD. Yes, DARD will have a role; other Departments will have a role; but the lead role should not be undertaken by DARD. Therefore, to get the best for the people of Forkhill and south Armagh, and to get the best use of taxpayers’ money, Government expertise and efficiency, it makes basic common sense for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to step aside on this project, yet to assist, wherever possible, the Department for Social Development in the development of that site. I commend the second amendment. Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. One of the main points made during this debate was that the sole responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is that of farming. There is no doubt that farming is one of the main responsibilities of that Department. However, it is not the only one. The Department’s very title clearly shows the range of its responsibilities. The project in Forkhill falls clearly into the Department’s remit under rural development. The project at the old military site is one that will serve not only the rural village of Forkhill but, in addition, its rural hinterland. If we wish to maintain a rural population, then we must provide the facilities and services needed by rural dwellers in rural hubs such as Forkhill. We have heard, clearly and properly, voices raised in unison from all sides of the House against the closure of rural post offices. We all agree that rural communities require rural services and rural facilities. 1.15 pm The redevelopment project is about providing services and facilities to a local, rural community. Let me outline those services once again. They include: sporting and recreational facilities; support facilities for rural families; industrial units, which will help provide employment in the local rural and farming community; and social housing, which is greatly needed because, under stringent planning regulations, people in the rural area around Forkhill cannot build much-needed homes. Forkhill is a small village, not a large town, as some Members on the opposite Benches seem to suggest. It is part of the rural community in which it is located — it is a hub for the surrounding rural community, and it makes good sense to provide much-needed services from such a hub. As I said earlier, Members from all sides of the House have told the public that devolution is good and that it is better than direct rule or rule by civil servants. However, anyone listening to Members from the Benches opposite would doubt that argument very much. Instead of facilitating the plans of local communities, those Members seem to be hell-bent on frustrating rural development. People will ask themselves where the benefits of devolution are for them. Rural dwellers will wonder why members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, led by its Chairperson, are frustrating a rural development project. The debate may be about Forkhill today, but it could be about their communities tomorrow. It is clear that the role of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is to promote rural development. It is also the role of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to promote such development, not to attempt to frustrate it. Amendment No 1 contains the sensible approach to the issue, which is that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should continue to co-operate with the Department for Social Development on the project and that the Department of Finance and Personnel should reconsider its position and ensure that the best possible project is delivered for the people of Forkhill and the surrounding district, who are the most important people at the heart of the debate. Go raibh maith agat arís, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Dr W McCrea: I have listened to the debate with interest. Some Members raised substantive issues, and others waffled as usual. I suppose that they are allowed to do that in the name of debate. The issue is an important one that deserves debate, and it has been raised on several occasions in my Committee. The Committee made a decision on the matter, and it has reiterated that decision several times. The substance of the motion arose from the general tenor of the Committee’s decision and would be accepted, substantially, by members of that Committee. We have listened to some of the issues that have been raised. Let me make it abundantly clear that many Members have tried to turn the debate into a political football by making it a sectarian issue. The truth is that there was absolutely no issue about the need to regenerate the site of the former Army base. However, there was a clear issue, and a clear challenge to be made, about which Department should be responsible for that regeneration. Mr Kennedy said that there was a turf war going on between DARD and DSD. I doubt that somehow, because DSD is sitting back and allowing DARD to do all the work. Indeed, DSD is happy that DARD is spending all the money. Why should DSD spend any of its money when DARD believes that it has all that money to offer to the community? DSD is sitting pretty, and Minister Ritchie is rubbing her hands and saying, “we have a fool a day in the midst of the field.” Someone just wants to project himself or herself, as it were, and spend the money. It would be different if the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had plenty of money to spend. However, DARD has a limited budget, and Members must carefully consider the origin of some of the money for the redevelopment. Speaking in support of the Minister’s position, Mr Brady said that the agriculture community makes up only a small part of the rural community. However, I remind Members that the money gained through the modulation of the single farm payment comes out of farmers’ pockets. It was acknowledged in Europe that that money should go into farmers’ pockets, but voluntary modulation removed it. Although the money belonged to the farmers, the modulation was not voluntary on their part: the Department is responsible for the voluntary modulation that results in that money going to others. It is easy and nice to give away other people’s money, but it must be acknowledged that Northern Ireland’s premier industry is farming. Whether some Members in the House like it or not, over the years farming has been the backbone of Northern Ireland, and we should give the industry credit for what it has achieved under harsh and difficult circumstances and in all types of weather. Even when times were bad for farming, the industry kept going and was the backbone of the Northern Ireland community. During times of economic difficulty and the Troubles, the farming industry held out and was regarded as the backbone of Northern Ireland’s prosperity. Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry faces a crisis. Mr Doherty: Will the Member give way? Dr W McCrea: I am speaking. When the Member had the opportunity, he spoke for only a few moments, and, therefore, he should sit down. Mr Doherty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Member clarify whether he is speaking on his own behalf or as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development? Dr W McCrea: The Member has the opportunity to go to another place, but he does not bother. Therefore, he knows little about democracy, and that must be taken into consideration. However, he knows that had I intended to speak as Chairman, Mr Deputy Speaker would have called me as such. I am not speaking as Chairman of the Committee, but as a proposer of the motion. Let me make it abundantly clear: I will defend the motion because it is right for the people of Forkhill and Northern Ireland. The Minister wants to be known as more of a rural champion, but she wants to forget about agriculture and does more to destroy than to aid the industry. What is she doing about the crisis in the pig industry? Nothing. What was she willing to do about the crisis in the red meat industry? She wanted to do nothing. All she had to offer was an exodus from the industry: she suggested either diversification or getting out of the industry altogether, instead of keeping the — Ms Gildernew: Will the Member give way? Dr W McCrea: No, the Minister muffed her opportunity to speak. Her speech was useless, and, therefore, she will not take up any of my time. Let me make it abundantly clear that the Minister’s handling of the crisis in the red meat industry was absolutely useless; she had nothing to offer. The Minister has forgotten that the fishing industry is part of her remit, and she did little to defend it when she went to Europe. She relied on the Irish Republic, and it put a knife into the back of the fishing industry. Ageing fleets and rising fuel costs have been mentioned, but the Minister has done nothing. What does she want to do now? She wants to offer money to someone else. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Please stick to the motion. Dr W McCrea: With the greatest respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you check the Hansard report, you will find that everyone else who took part, including the Minister, was allowed to cover all the agriculture industries. This is important: in the light of all the issues about which the Minister seems able to do nothing, what did she select to form part of the Programme for Government? She chose the development at Forkhill as an inescapable bid. Why did she do that? Remember that that was an inescapable bid, which means that the Minister prioritised it above any other matter. Therefore, the red-meat, pig and the fishing industries can just go to the wall — instead, her inescapable bid is for redevelopment of the Forkhill Army base. One must ask why that is the case. I can tell Members that it has nothing to do with saving Forkhill; it has more to do with the Minister’s political ideology and party interest than any effort to bring benefits to the community. Let us test the Minister’s claim that redevelopment of the Forkhill Army base will benefit the community through the development of housing and industry. Housing is not the Agriculture Minister’s responsibility. Is the Minister suggesting that DSD is no longer necessary because she will take over responsibility for housing? If that is the case, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) is not necessary either, because she will also take over responsibility for industry. She is not able to do her own job, never mind that of any other Department. Let her get on with the job for which she is paid — to defend the farming industry and the rural community of Northern Ireland. The Committee has asked 57 questions, some of which, perhaps, Mr Doherty might be interested. Has he read the answers? With respect to housing, the Committee has still not received answers to the enquiries that it continues to make on the number of units that are required. The Committee has been told that that is because the Department is unable to provide them. A departmental paper dated 4 April states that the documentary evidence and information required to answer the Committee’s query will take a little more time to obtain and that the information will be passed to the Committee. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Dr W McCrea: The Members opposite do not like to hear the truth, because it hurts. The Department’s response on the matter of jobs is that the jobs created and the cost per job have not currently been addressed in the business case. The Minister says that she is surprised that the Department of Finance and Personnel has not agreed with her. She has not even provided DFP with the necessary information. That is a total and absolute disgrace. The Minister has the idea — which Sinn Féin has held throughout the years — that if she makes demands, we will give her what she wants. However, she has discovered that the unionist Members are not willing to bow to Sinn Féin’s every whim and demand. We are prepared to stand up to the Minister and to scrutinise the business case, which has been rejected twice because it does not stand up to scrutiny. That is why I ask the House to turn down the SDLP’s amendment. I ask my friends in the Ulster Unionist Party to consider their amendment. I ask the House to give its wholehearted support to the proposal that I have put forward with Lord Morrow and Mr Trevor Clarke. Mr Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I advise Members that if amendment No 1 is made, amendment No 2 will fall and I will proceed to put the Question on the motion as amended. Question put,That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 41; Noes 44. AYES Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Doherty, Mr Durkan, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ruane. Tellers for the Ayes: Mr P J Bradley and Mr Burns NOES Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Burnside, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mrs Foster, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells. Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Clarke and Mr Irwin Question accordingly negatived. Mr Deputy Speaker: Before I put the question on amendment No 2, I remind Members that a valid petition of concern has been received in respect of this amendment and that the Question must be decided on a cross-community basis. Question put, That amendment No 2 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 46; Noes 42. AYES UNIONIST: Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Burnside, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Cobain, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mrs Foster, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson. Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Kennedy and Mr McCallister. NOES NATIONALIST: Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Doherty, Mr Durkan, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane. OTHER: Mr Ford, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr McCarthy. Tellers for the Noes: Mr Boylan and Ms S Ramsey. Total votes 88 Total Ayes 46 [52.3%] Nationalist Votes 38 Nationalist Ayes 0 [0.0%] Unionist Votes 46 Unionist Ayes 46 [100.0%] Other Votes 4 Other Ayes 0 [0.0%] Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote). Main Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 46; Noes 43. AYES Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Burnside, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Cobain, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mrs Foster, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson. Tellers for the Ayes: Mr T Clarke and Mr Irwin. NOES Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Doherty, Mr Durkan, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Mr Neeson, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane. Tellers for the Noes: Mr Burns and Mr McElduff. Main Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes with concern the role of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in the redevelopment of the Forkhill Military Site, and believes that the Department for Social Development should consider taking the lead role in the matter. Further Education Provision for Young People with Disabilities 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 the 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 the winding-up speech. Mrs O’Neill: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses concern at the lack of further education courses specifically targeted at young people with learning and physical disabilities; recognises the lack of provision for disabled young people over the age of 19; and calls on the Minister for Employment and Learning to provide sufficient further educational opportunities to ensure that these young people achieve their full potential. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am delighted that the motion has been selected for debate, and I commend the Business Committee for choosing it. Since the motion was selected last week, I have been contacted by a number of families who relayed personal accounts of their experiences due to the lack of provision of further education for young people with disabilities, and I wish to place on the record my thanks for their support and advice in preparing for the debate. I hope that much-needed changes will take place as a consequence of the debate. I am proposing the motion because provision throughout the North is piecemeal. Some colleges proactively address the needs of people with a disability; however, others offer only limited or low-quality provision. Vulnerable individuals, such as those with a disability, are already marginalised and face further barriers in their attempts to access further education opportunities. In October 2007, my colleague proposed a similar motion and, as a consequence, we were promised that there would be a review of the services offered. However, six months on, there has been no response as regards that review. That is why I am concerned about the UUP amendment, which strikes me as being a fudge on the issue. When will we see real changes that affect the lives of young, disabled people? The amendment calls on Members to await the outcome of the review. However, the motion in October called for immediate, urgent action. I am not interested in paying lip service to this matter or in protecting the Minister, which, I suspect, is the UUP’s motive in tabling the amendment. Six months for the review’s outcome is far too long to wait. Nevertheless, I await with interest the UUP’s contributions to the debate. Although the motion refers only to further education opportunities, I must point out that there is also a requirement for more supported employment opportunities for young, disabled people. Any provision of supported employment and/or further education must be based on the principles of equality and inclusion. That is because disabled children and adults have the same rights to equality of access to all services, including education, training and employment. Whenever I meet disabled young people, their families and representative groups, the issue of transition is raised consistently. That is the process by which a young person moves from childhood into young adulthood. It is a time of many changes for all young people and their families, and it involves making many important decisions, including life decisions and life choices on further education, training or employment, citizenship, and independent living. However, research has shown that that period is more difficult for a young disabled person. At the age of 16, young disabled people have the same career hopes and aspirations as their non-disabled peers. However, in early adulthood, the experiences of the disabled and non-disabled young people diverge with regard to education, training and employment. That inequality must be addressed. Services must be developed for young people that will support their transition into adult life and that will actively promote social inclusion, challenge discrimination, promote personal control and choice, and encourage inter-agency partnership and collaboration. It is important to take a holistic approach to that transition period. Disabled young adults are entitled to the same educational opportunities as their peers. However, that does not seem to be happening at present. I have spoken to many families who have been left without support and direction and who have felt that there were no opportunities for them when their children reached a certain age. Given that several agencies have a remit for dealing with young people in transition, I accept that this is a cross-departmental issue, not one just for the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL). Therefore, a multi-disciplinary approach to supporting young people during the transition period is needed. Parents are being left in limbo about what is next for their children when those children reach the age of either 16 or 19. Children with a moderate learning disability will be offered compulsory education only up to the age of 16, and those with a severe learning disability will be offered it until the age of 19. After that, the young person and their family face a minefield. Children who have attended schools in mainstream education, perhaps with the aid of a classroom assistant, are expected to leave school at 16 years of age. No provision is made for those who are unable to participate in further education or cope in the real world by finding employment. Those attending special-education schools are expected to leave at the age of 19, and no provision is made for suitable follow-up services that promote life skills and independent living. Those young adults are expected to go to day-care facilities that have been established for the elderly, stroke patients and dementia sufferers, even though those facilities are not age appropriate or conducive to an individual’s continued development. Parents have told me that that situation often leads to their children losing their spark for life, forcing them to become old and withdrawn before their time. One parent has told me that most parents of children with disabilities are heartbroken. That lady has battled continually for access to services across the board ever since she had her son, who is 19 years old and who has a severe learning disability. She feels that as the Government have not made the education and training of young disabled people a compulsory provision, they do not value it. She suggested that, if provision were more suitable, were regarded as an automatic follow-up to special education and were considered to be a right, more people would avail themselves of it. The Department for Employment and Learning wrote to that parent explaining that it was keen to ensure that its colleges play a full role in developing the skills of people with a learning disability but that it is the responsibility of colleges to determine what courses are offered, subject to the level of demand. The Department may state its policy — that it is committed to ensuring access to education — but if that is not followed through by making such access compulsory, I believe that the Department’s policy is contradictory. As I said in my opening remarks, young disabled adults must be encouraged into supported employment, as many of them want to move into such employment and become economically active in their own community. The Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment and several other voluntary agencies do a lot of good work in that field by promoting employment for people with disabilities. In a recent launch in the Long Gallery, the union reported its findings on a cost-benefit analysis of employment for people with disabilities. One of the key findings was that people with disabilities who have engaged with supported-employment programmes have reported that they are not just financially better off, they also have an improved quality of life. Another key finding was that, for every £1 that is invested in supported employment, there was a return of £6·17 over a five-year period, thus proving that that investment is also economically good. I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on what his Department is doing, and I expect him to talk about the additional support fund, among other elements. However, I hope that he will take on board my concerns and those that I hope others will make when contributing to the debate. 2.15 pm More needs to be done immediately to address those inequalities. On the face of it, it appears that all further education courses are accessible and open to all. However, the Further Education Means Business strategy results in funding being directed towards courses that are pitched at level 2. The majority of young people with disabilities are entering education at pre-entry level or at level 1. Community education courses would have been a crucial starting place for many young people with disabilities through recreational courses and pre-entry courses. However, the budget for such courses is all but gone, which means that those who are already experiencing difficulty with learning will end up being further marginalised because they need more time and support. Reasonable adjustment and a greater degree of flexibility is required to allow people with disabilities to access the appropriate provisions. That would provide them with positive outcomes, but it would not necessarily provide them with recognised qualifications in all cases. I call on all Members to support this important motion. I want to see an improved provision and more support, as of right, for those young people with disabilities. Go raibh maith agat. Mr B McCrea: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after “expresses” and insert “its continued commitment to securing training and employment opportunities where appropriate for young people with disabilities; and awaits the outcome of the review of such provision undertaken by the Minister for Employment and Learning.” In proposing the amendment, the Ulster Unionist Party is not in defensive mode. In fact, I ask Members to consider how we can find a responsible way in which to deal with this important issue. The proposer of the motion outlined her concerns. I will also outline my concerns and make suggestions as to how they can be addressed. I recently had the privilege of meeting people in Aghalee and Dunmurry who have severe learning disabilities. I also attended a fund-raising event at Musgrave Park Hospital for young people with disabilities that raised £70,000 for new equipment. By meeting such people, it is possible to understand the challenges that they face in their everyday lives. Through the Assembly’s excellent Education Service, I have also been fortunate in being able to speak to Mencap and the young people whom its representatives brought to the Assembly. Those young people explained eloquently and in great detail why they want jobs and what they want to do. Due to the success of that meeting, I invited them back to the Assembly, and they visited again last week. We talked about the difficulties that they face and about employers’ attitudes. I said that I am willing to provide an opportunity for someone with learning disabilities to work in my two offices in an attempt to set an example in progressing this issue. Such matters must be addressed, and it is important to understand that there is always more that can be done. It is almost like trying to boil an ocean. During my meetings, I became aware that people did not appreciate that those with learning disabilities are not a burden; rather, they provide an opportunity. If people with learning disabilities are given the right skills and support, they can contribute not only to the enrichment of their own lives but to society as a whole. I am keen to find out how those skills and that support can be provided. Why is it necessary to table the motion at this time? Other channels exist through which the issue can be addressed. The Member who proposed the motion, and, I assume, the Member who will make the winding-up speech serve on the Committee for Employment and Learning. That provides ample opportunities to discuss the issue with departmental officials and with the Minister. Regardless of that, it is right that questions are asked. Mrs O’Neill: For clarification, I am not a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning. Furthermore, I have taken the opportunity to table a number of questions to the Minister, as have other Members. Mr B McCrea: I stand corrected. Someone who looks awfully like Mrs O’Neill was a member of that Committee at one stage. Ms S Ramsey: The Member to whom Mr McCrea is referring is older. Mr B McCrea: I get confused. Mrs O’Neill serves with me on the Committee for Education. My point is that it is possible to discuss such issues with the Minister or departmental officials in Committee in order to find out what is going on. Had that happened, the Members would be aware that the position is positive. Although no one is denying that there is a difficulty with the number of people with learning or other disabilities who are in full-time education, the situation is improving. This Minister for Employment and Learning will be unable to address the issue alone. He will be able to give us the facts. However, to my knowledge, he is fully committed to resolving the issue. The last time that we held a similar debate, the Minister announced that there would be a review. That review is ongoing and the Minister will, no doubt, inform us of the details shortly. Rather than pre-empting that review and having the discussion now, it might have been better to wait for its outcome. There is concern that other Ministers’ Departments take a long time to take decisions and get things done. That has been apparent in discussions on the Maze and other matters. The Minister for Employment and Learning cannot be accused of that, and certainly not on this issue. The Minister is producing the goods. I hope that the House will unite on this subject, rather than turn it into a political football. We should gather the relevant information and make progress on implementation. I hope that that is taken in the manner in which it was intended and that we can secure the necessary support. The range of further education courses that is offered is extensive. More can always be done, but good provision is available. Records for the latest academic year show that there were 1,338 enrolments. Of those, 650 were on discrete courses, an increase on the figure from a couple of years ago. The situation is vibrant, with all the figures heading in the right direction. Adult day centres account for 11% of further education provision for young people with disabilities. As has been discussed in relation to respite care, etc, we must examine the placing together of people of different ages in adult day centres. That is one of the issues that will the review will address. Funding for the sector has increased, and was a major part of the Programme for Government and the Budget. That financial commitment will be met. Significantly, the relationship with the voluntary sector is strong. We must all work together. Nobody has all of the answers and it is incumbent on all of us to listen carefully to those who have to care for young people with disabilities for the whole of their life, not just during the working day. We want to help parents, children and young people, and ensure that those people have access to gainful employment. Helping young people with disabilities is not restricted to the provision of further education. The Department can also help by providing vocational training and supported employment. Along with other Members, I witnessed the making of bedspreads, and was very encouraged to see how people dealt with that. It is important to recognise that one size does not fit all — a range of challenges and a range of support can be provided. We must try to offer all of the right support to all of the right people, in the most appropriate way possible. The most important measure that the Department can take is to engender a positive attitude. The Department has an advisory service and an action plan to help to do that. After talking to my friends and colleagues in Mencap, I have been struck by their feeling that the biggest issue that they face is that many people do not properly understand the position. One side of Mencap is the fundraising and campaigning that they do so well. Another side to their work is the quest to find companies to take young people with disabilities on board. Some of the bigger companies, such as Tesco, have taken people on board. However, there are many opportunities in other areas, and often people are simply unaware of the very positive role that people with a learning disability can play. There is a danger of appearing trite in respect of young people with disabilities. However, I was completely bowled over by the young people who told me about what they wanted to do. The challenge for us all is to get those young people into the appropriate level of training or education. Surely, that is one of the useful things that the House can achieve. I intend to bring those young people back to the Long Gallery and I hope that other Members will join me in talking to them. Mr S Wilson: I thank the Member for giving way. He will get an extra minute, so he is using my intervention strategically. One group of people has not been mentioned and has almost been silent. It is the people who leave school — sometimes special-needs schools — and have no further education provision made for them. Does the Member agree that the needs of that group of young people should be addressed urgently? Further education colleges wash their hands of them, and no provision is made for them in the special needs sector. Mr B McCrea: The Deputy Speaker will, no doubt, clarify that I do not have an extra minute. However, it was still worth Mr Wilson putting his point forward. I am coming to the conclusion of my speech. I look forward to the Member’s contribution, and he will have my support. I urge all Members to take a holistic view of the issue. The Minister is delivering results, and we will see a proper review, be able to scrutinise it and ensure that it is right. I thank the Members on the Benches opposite for tabling the motion. However, I ask them to consider accepting the amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker: As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time. This debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Mr Jimmy Spratt. The debate stood suspended. 2.30 pm (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) Health, Social Services And Public Safety Impact of the Internet on Suicide Prevention 1. Mr K Robinson asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail the discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues throughout the United Kingdom on the impact of the Internet in the area of suicide prevention, and whether he plans to meet with Internet providers again. (AQO 2734/08) The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): In July 2007, I met Home Office Minister Vernon Coker and key Internet providers to outline my concerns regarding the damaging impact that harmful Internet content can have on vulnerable people. I have also raised the issue at North/South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council meetings, and, more recently, with my ministerial colleagues in Scotland and Wales. In addition, I met Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Ivan Lewis to discuss the impact that the Internet can have on health-related issues such as suicide and self-harm. We agreed to host a further joint meeting with key Internet providers following the publication of the Byron Report on harmful material on the Internet and in video games. Mr K Robinson: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and encouraging response. I commend him for the work that he has done in this area and his proactive approach to this very serious problem. Does the Minister agree that the social networking and chat room providers need to take this issue much more seriously than they have done up to now? That industry is potentially profitable, but its social responsibility must be looked at seriously. To that end, does the Minister agree that the Byron Report is a useful publication? Will the Minister take all steps to ensure that the measures contained in the report are implemented in Northern Ireland as soon as possible? Mr McGimpsey: I met Dr Byron while she was preparing her report. It was specially commissioned by the Prime Minister, and I agree with much of what I have seen of the report. Certain websites and chat rooms undoubtedly encourage people to take their own lives. Those websites can have undue influence over vulnerable people, particularly the young. It is not sufficient for Internet providers to say that they are merely conduits and that the content of those websites is not their responsibility. This issue is a reserved matter because of the law. Therefore, more robust legislation is needed to ensure that Internet providers take responsibility for the information that is provided. Mr Adams: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s remarks. In January, he wrote to me about these issues, and I thank him for his letter. Will the Minister propose that suicide prevention become an area of priority under the tutelage of the North/South Ministerial Council? What arrangements have been made to provide dedicated resources for west Belfast, particularly the Shankill area? The Reaching Across to Reduce your Risk of Suicide and Self-Harm (RAYS) project is in considerable financial difficulty, and I raised that with the Minister some time ago. Go raibh maith agat. Mr McGimpsey: Suicide prevention is an area of priority. I have had discussions with my counterpart in the Republic, Mary Harney, and I have raised it at North/South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council meetings. Other Health Ministers agreed that the issue was important. That was the tenor of my discussion in Edinburgh last week with Ministers from Scotland and Wales. Funding streams have been set aside for this issue. Provision has been made for community groups and others who are active in this area. I cannot be specific regarding the breakdown of funding in west Belfast, nor can I be specific as far as the RAYS project is concerned. The Member knows well that north and west Belfast are areas of great pressure regarding the incidence of suicide. They, therefore, receive support and funding. Mr A Maginness: I thank the Minister for his reply to the various questions, and I welcome what he said. Does he agree that it is essential that Internet providers should be made to restrict access to potentially harmful websites, especially social-networking sites, which are a great source of potential harm, particularly to young people? Will the Minister make progress on restricting access to those sites? Mr McGimpsey: I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Maginness on the need for restricted access to social-networking websites, and robust legislation is needed. The responsibility for that legislation lies, in the first instance, with the Home Office. I have had discussions with the Home Office, and I will have further discussions. The substance of the Byron Report is about harmful content on the Internet and in video games. I anticipate that it will produce a response from the Government, and I look forward to seeing that response. One of the responses will be to set up a council for the UK. I anticipate that all the regions will be represented on that council to take the matter forward. Internet providers are international, multi-billion-dollar organisations that are mostly based outside the UK, and the ability to reach them from regional Administrations in Belfast, Wales, Dublin or Scotland is limited because of our critical mass. Working together, particularly given the interest that the Prime Minister has shown, will give us the critical mass to allow us to influence Internet providers to ensure that they take their responsibilities seriously. However, robust legislation is needed. Regional Public Health Authority 2. Mr Bresland asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the role a future regional public health authority will have as part of the review of public administration. (AQO 2730/08) Mr McGimpsey: The new multi-professional regional public health agency will give renewed and enhanced focus to achieving public health goals and will ensure better co-ordination and delivery of interventions to protect and improve health. It will also ensure public health input to the commissioning and design of services. In addition, it will offer support to, and work in partnership with, local government, the education sector and others in achieving improved health and well-being across Northern Ireland. Mr Bresland: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he outline his plans regarding the location of the original public health authority and the various other health bodies that are to be established under the review of public administration? Does he intend to locate any of those bodies in the west of the Province? Mr McGimpsey: Although it is early days for me to start to give assurances, I can tell Mr Bresland and other Members that there is potential to locate bodies throughout the Province. There is a need for strong local representation and influence in public health, particularly around commissioning. Therefore, it follows that there is a need for locations across Northern Ireland. That will also apply to the common services organisation, which will create an organisation to deal with the back office jobs that are not necessarily particular to health but without which the Health Service could not function. The Bain Report, which is due in July, has been especially commissioned on the location of Government jobs, and the Department will also bear that in mind. Mr Gardiner: I thank the Minister for his insistence that public health is at the centre of reform — that is much appreciated. Will he tell me whether the public health authority will work closely with local government in the future? If so, will local government be represented on the authority? Mr McGimpsey: I see a very strong correlation between the work that local government does and the work that the regional public health agency will do. I plan for the agency to have representation from local government. I plan for the commissioning groups in the regional health and social care boards to have such representation, too. The agency will play a key role in the provision of healthcare in Northern Ireland, and it will be involved in public-health matters, health improvement, health protection and service development. It will deal with health inequalities, promote positive health and well-being and provide the local population with the ability to take responsibility for its own health. Local government will play a vital role in all that delivery. Dr Deeny: I would like the Minister to provide some more detail about the regional public health agency. How many people will it employ, and what will be the ratio of health professionals to civil servants? Will GPs be involved? Finally, will the new regional public health agency work along the same lines as the Health Promotion Agency? Mr McGimpsey: Dr Deeny is aware that, under the old direct rule model of a single health authority, the Health Promotion Agency was to be abolished and its functions were to disappear into that giant body. I saw that as being a retrograde step; it would have moved the service in exactly the opposite direction to which I wanted it to go. I have, therefore, proposed the creation of a regional public health agency, which will have much greater powers than the current Health Promotion Agency. I envisage it not only taking on the functions of the Health Promotion Agency, but those public-health functions that are held by boards and trusts. I anticipate that around 300 staff will be employed in the new agency, and that they will have expertise in public-health medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing, infectious disease specialisms, health promotion, partnership working, community development and health education. Thus, a whole range of expertise will come together in that key area. As Members are aware, I have said that the future of the Health Service depends on three elements: it requires investment, it must be efficient and it must engage with the local population. Each one of those elements is of equal value and importance. The Health Promotion Agency will deal with the third element. Mental-Health Facility: Craigavon Area Hospital 3. Mr Molloy asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to confirm if the new mental-health facility at Craigavon Area Hospital will cater for the entire Southern Health and Social Care Trust area. (AQO 2698/08) Mr McGimpsey: The new psychiatric unit at Craigavon Area Hospital, which is scheduled to open in May, will provide 74 inpatient beds, an outpatient unit and a day hospital. Of those 74 beds, 20 will accommodate patients from across the Southern Trust area and will cater for older people experiencing functional mental illness. The remaining 54 beds will be for general adult psychiatry, providing for the Newry and Mourne, Banbridge and Craigavon districts. Mr Molloy: I thank the Minister for his answer. I emphasise the importance of maintaining and properly resourcing the service. The disruption in mental-health services in the Southern Trust area over the past years has caused tremendous trauma for patients at different times, and they need some certainty about the future of the service. We do not want patients to arrive at Craigavon Area Hospital only to find that the services are not available, like the patients who arrived at the accident and emergency department of the Mid Ulster Hospital on Friday. Will the Minister give an assurance that services will be maintained and resourced properly? Mr McGimpsey: That is exactly the type of assurance that I am happy to give. I have just mentioned the new psychiatric unit that will open in Craigavon, and a similar facility will play a key role in the new enhanced hospital in Omagh. In addition, a new day centre will open in Dungannon, and St Luke’s Hospital in Armagh will continue to provide general adult psychiatric beds, intensive care beds, dementia assessment beds and addiction unit beds. 2.45 pm We are aware that, as far as mental health is concerned, the direction of travel is very much in accordance with the recommendations of the Bamford Review. The key principle of the review was for treatment to be carried out, as far as possible, in the community, rather than in institutions. Such an approach leads to enhanced quality of care, shorter hospital admission times, more rapid discharge and access to home treatment packages. We are taking that direction, and, as a result of the final Budget settlement, extra moneys have been earmarked and ring-fenced for mental health. Mrs I Robinson: The Minister may be aware that the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety visited Craigavon and Altnagelvin hospitals to look at the new facilities. One of those is open, and the other is due to open in May 2008. The Committee felt that the facilities were excellent, and that much thought had gone into their layout and user-friendly design. Will the Minister, therefore, agree that it is an equality issue of much importance that we should see those models replicated at all acute hospital sites? I speak especially of the Ulster Hospital, given the dire conditions that exist at Ards psychiatric nursing unit, which we both visited some time ago, and certainly not the planned model of beds located in the main hospital? Does the Minister agree that that is not the best use of money or the best location and the beds should be on site? Mr McGimpsey: As far as provision is concerned, I repeat that we are moving in the direction of the Bamford Review, whose recommendations will take 10 to 15 years to roll out and will require considerable investment. The basic principle of the Bamford Review is that community placement is preferable to hospital placement; nevertheless, we will never get away from the need for hospitals. Mrs Robinson illustrated an issue in Newtownards, and I agree with her on the matter of provision. However, the difficulty surrounding the Ulster Hospital rests with the capital provision. For example, Ulster phase B of the hospital’s redevelopment programme requires about £340 million. That money is not in the capital budget at present. `However, I am looking hard to find that money because, as an equality issue, people in north Down who attend the Ulster Hospital are entitled to the same provision as they would receive were they visiting Omagh or Craigavon. Mrs D Kelly: I, too, took the opportunity to visit the new hospital in Craigavon; it is exciting and of the future. The Minister spoke of the need to keep patients at home as much as possible and not to have admissions to hospitals. What additional resources will, therefore, be put into community care? The Minister spoke of a day centre but preventative treatment and care require much more than that. Mr McGimpsey: The Bamford Review estimated that the level of additional investment needed over the next 10 to 15 years will be £300-£400 million. We have made a good start as far as the Budget is concerned with a 12.5% increase. Over the next three years, the allocation will be £12.3 million, £14.2 million and £26.6 million. That provides us with a good start and allows us to move the recommendations of the Bamford Review, particularly in and around community placement, and treatment and away from institutionalising those who have mental-health needs. Mr Deputy Speaker: Questions 4 and 5 have been withdrawn. Reallocation of Finance Staff 6. Mr Storey asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail the implications of the reallocation of finance staff of the Northern Health and Social Care Trust from Ballymoney to Ballymena. (AQO 2704/08) |