Before the point of order, I was trying to make a very important point. I will make it again. Had there been proper consultation between the two Departments, Regional Development would have been aware that had it waited until earlier this year before making its decision, the Department of Agriculture could this year have introduced the force majeure regulations that last year secured the grant aid, thereby preventing its loss. Members, therefore - like Mr Wells, who made the point of order - would not have to go around using sleight of hand methods to find some other way round the regulations to restore the situation. They could have been dealing with it frankly, honestly and openly.

As I said, the loss of that grant could have been avoided. There was a lack of consultation. Those who did not embark on consultation are therefore directly responsible for that loss of income. That is where the buck should finally stop.

The loss of subsidies is not the only concern. One of the most serious implications in all of this is that the tradition of sheep farming in the Mournes is likely to become extinct as a result of this ban. The Water Service has decided that the sheep will not be allowed back onto the mountain until the barrier is complete. The estimated date is 2003-04 and this, as we all know from our experience of forward planning, is probably a very optimistic target. Lambs born in that period will not have the chance to learn from their mothers where or how to graze a particular piece of land.

Members should be aware that the grazing tradition in the Mournes is very old indeed. It is probably early, or even pre-Christian, in origin. The practice was known as "booleying", where farmers, their families and their flocks moved entirely from the lowlands in the spring or early summer to graze the higher Mournes. They have done that for generations untold. Evidence can still be seen in the higher Mournes, where there are little round patches. Those were the sites of the booley huts. That has come down to us from that period. If the sheep do not know which area to graze in, and if they are simply put up on the mountain, they will wander all over the place.

They could turn up in Rostrevor, Kilkeel, or anywhere. It is important each year that the lambs go up with their mothers, and graze the same areas that their mothers grazed in the past, so that they know where the grazing is. The circle will be broken if that does not happen, and the old tradition will be lost forever.

If and when the filter-bed is put in place and sheep are allowed to return to the Mournes it will just not be possible to operate that system. In those circumstances, a meagre request might be for the Department to relent on its decision during those months that everyone has established as representing the least hazard - August, September and early October. That might be sufficient to allow the pasturage tradition to continue. The Minister might consider relenting somewhat on that.

I come back to the overall issue of compensation. The farmers themselves are now seeing their livelihoods disappearing before their very eyes. Of the 115-odd farmers involved in farming in the Mournes, not everyone is as dependent on the grazing as others are. However, a large number of those farmers are facing financial ruin because of the sheep grazing being removed. As a direct result of the ban, for example, farmers have to use extra fertiliser -

Order. I draw the proposer's attention to the fact that this is a time-limited debate. There are a number of other Members who wish to contribute, and there is also the Minister's winding-up speech. We are now 20 minutes into the 90-minute debate, so I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

I am glad of the instruction. As a direct result of the ban, farmers are having to use extra fertiliser and are losing out on silage as animals have eaten up their winter feed. To pay for these factors the farmers are selling lambs and cattle at a much reduced rate and will not be able to afford to replace them. One farmer in my constituency can no longer afford to pay for childcare or afford to drive the children to school. These are genuine hardship cases. He has had to take on extra work, and he has even enrolled in an IT course because he is considering giving up farming entirely. That is after a farming tradition of 300 years in his family. That is the reality.

I ask the Minister for Regional Development - who I believe is directly responsible because he issued the ban - to come up with a package of compensation, in consultation with his Colleagues, to redress the situation and help these farmers. They need to be helped through the four or five years before they are able to graze their flocks again on the Mournes. It is also necessary for that pasturage tradition to remain unbroken so that the flocks will know where to go when the filter-bed provision is made.

Given the limited time available, and the number of Members that have put their names down to speak, I shall not permit Members to go on longer than 10 minutes. The Minister responding will have a maximum of 15 minutes, which is the normal rule of thumb for a debate lasting an hour and a half. Whatever time remains can then be returned to the tender mercies of the proposer for his winding-up speech.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee (Mr McFarland): Cryptosporidium poses a very serious threat to humans, especially the elderly, children and the infirm. As many will know, there were two attacks last year. The first, in April and May, laid low a number of people in Lisburn, Belfast and my own constituency of North Down. The second was the famous attack in Lisburn - in the Lagmore conduit.

The first attack was quite clearly tracked back to the water supply from the Silent Valley. It was tracked back, as I understand it, to animal causes. Members will recall that the scientists were able to identify human causes for the Lagmore conduit attack. It is possible to identify where the cryptosporidium has come from. It is clear that the initial attack in April was from animal sources, and it seems to have come from the Silent Valley water supply.

There is clearly a need to devise whatever protection measures we can to stop this happening. As we discovered in the second attack, it is extremely unpleasant and very dangerous. It is understandable that the sheep - one possible source - were removed from the catchment area. I understand the Member for South Down's concern about losing sheep from the Mournes. I was brought up in the Sperrins, and the joy of seeing sheep on the mountains is something that should be experienced by those who have not done so. However, we have to be practical about this. If there is a possibility - indeed a strong possibility - that the cryptosporidium came from that source, then that source should be removed.

It is my understanding that farmers have been permitted to graze their sheep in the Mourne catchment area, although the land belongs to the Department for Regional Development - the Water Service. It is a custom and practice - a tradition that has grown up - that farmers are allowed, between April and October, to graze their sheep on this land. Presumably the farmers have land upon which they keep their sheep between October and the end of March. It is not as if it is the only place where the sheep can be kept. We have a concern, a removal of the possible source of cryptosporidium and somewhere else that the farmers can keep their sheep.

Compensation, however, is a different matter. We have heard an enormous amount, as Mr Wells has already said, about where this all went wrong and who is at fault. However, the compensation issue is a different one. If we all accept that there is a danger and that steps have been taken to nullify that, where possible, for a set period until the new measures to make sure that the water is absolutely pure are put in place, then compensation is a different issue.

We are all concerned. We hear weekly about the plight of the farmers. No one can be left untouched by their problems at the moment. However, the compensation issue is not directly connected to cryptosporidium. There may be a case for the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to look at some form of compensation. As anyone who attends this Chamber at all regularly will know, the Department for Regional Devlopment's work has been underfunded over many years. It is a potential disaster area in terms of cryptosporidium outbreaks. The water piping and water treatment plants need to be renewed. There is an enormous infrastructure cost. I would rather see any spare money that the Minister for Regional Development has going towards fixing these pipes against the possible ingress of cryptosporidium to make sure that this does not happen again. He might encourage the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to see whether she has a few shekels left to help the farmers out.

I will be speaking to the motion, unlike others who, perhaps, will use it as a vehicle to launch attacks on various Departments. One cannot underestimate the devastating effect of this ban on sheep farming in the Mournes. One hundred and fifteen farmers have been affected and, crucially, 9,000 acres of grazing land have been taken out of circulation. It must be emphasised that there is simply no other available land in south Down to which farmers can move.

Mr McFarland asked where farmers keep their sheep in winter. In many cases, they are kept under cover or in enclosures in which they are fed hay, et cetera. This fodder has to be brought in, and farmers simply cannot afford to have their sheep enclosed and fed in this expensive way during the summer. That simply cannot happen.

Landowners have grazed their animals on this area for generations, going as far back as the nineteenth century when the land was owned by current farmers' great-grandfathers. Many farmers still have the original title deeds of this land which state their right to graze animals in the Silent Valley catchment area, but when the Belfast Water Commissioners decided to build the Silent Valley reservoir, those rights were bought out. Nonetheless, a tradition has continued whereby the same farmers rent or lease the land for grazing on an annual basis. They pay a relatively modest amount to a Castlewellan-based estate agent, and at Kilkeel a register is kept of the names of those who have grazed the land and for how long.

Therefore no absolute legal right obliges the Department to allow these farmers to graze. I accept this, but I believe that a very strong, moral right, based on previous practice, still exists. The ban could not have come at a worse time for the farming community of south Down. According to estimates, the income of farmers in the peripheral areas of Northern Ireland is as low as £22 a week. I can confirm Mr ONeill's statement that farmers are in a desperate situation at the moment because of this, and because of the very low price for sheep meat and wool. I know of one farmer who has been forced to get a job delivering 'Yellow Pages' to try to supplement his income, while others are taking jobs in the electoral offices. They are doing anything they can to get round this problem. This terrible blow came at a time when farmers were already suffering tremendous financial stress.

One point that Mr ONeill did not highlight is the conservation implications of this ban. A certain pattern of grazing is required to sustain the high quality environment which exists within the Mourne wall. Too much grazing leads to a loss of vegetation, but no grazing at all leads to the growth of rank vegetation, which destroys the very interesting flora of the area. If there is no grazing over the next three or four years, the conservation value of the Mournes will be irreparably damaged. It must be emphasised that farmers have never been in any way to blame for this crisis - they are the innocent victims of the situation. But, like Mr ONeill and others, I have been leading various delegations to meet with the relevant Ministers. We had a very constructive meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and, only last week, we had a very useful meeting with the Minister for Regional Development.

Mr Kelly from the Water Service explained in very clear terms the precise dilemma faced by the Minister. The law is very clear: it is a criminal offence to allow more than one cryptosporidium oocyst per 10 litres of water. If that were allowed to happen, the Department would be liable in law. Once the scientists tested the water and found the existence of one oocyst per 10 litres, the Department's hands were tied, and it simply had to take action. The Water Service informed us last Wednesday that cryptosporidium can be clearly traced back to the Silent Valley reservoir and to sheep.

I fully accept Mr ONeill's assertion that doubt still exists, but clearly the doubt is such that, in the light of this information, it would have been irresponsible of the Minister to fail to take action - and he would not have been able to deny knowledge of it. Cryptosporidium is so harmful that, as result of a recent outbreak in America, 30 people died and over 100,000 people were infected. Therefore, the effects can be more serious than a mild stomach complaint. This bug, if it takes effect, particularly in the elderly and the infirm, can lead to death.

The Minister found himself in a very difficult dilemma, and I can fully understand why he took the decision that he did. Mr ONeill makes the point that if he had held on a few months, the force majeure regulations would have been invoked allowing the sheep to continue to graze. That is true, but that would have only been for one more year. We would still have been in the same position the following year and would have had to ban sheep from grazing. If the Minister had knowingly sat on this information for four or five months to allow the grazing to continue, and someone had become seriously ill or even died as a result, Mr ONeill would have been the first to hang the Minister out to dry. We have to look at this in a balanced way.

I accept that farmers need to have compensation for this. One of the important points that emerged from a meeting with the Minister is that no matter how high a priority the new treatment plant is given, the very earliest date on which it can physically be opened is March 2004, so farmers are going to be denied the right to graze for another three seasons. That is going to cause enormous hardship. There must be some compromise that can be reached which will at least enable the farmers to claim their subsidies through their Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) forms or provide some form of alternative compensation that will give them restitution for a situation for which they are not to blame.

During our meeting last week we suggested various forms of words that could be used to enable the payments to be made. Something has to be done soon. As Mr ONeill has said, the farmers are not only losing their grazing rights; they are also losing a tradition, and they are going to be put to enormous expense to restore that grazing tradition to the Mournes.

This is not a situation in which the money is not available. The money is there; the budget already provides for subsidy payments for the sheep farmers. Some way has to be found of coming up with a form of words which will allow that money to be transferred to another budget within the Department of Agriculture for payment to farmers. If we do not do that, we will face a tragedy in the Mournes.

I do not believe it useful this afternoon to try to apportion blame. The fundamental reason for the problem is that a deadly bug was found in our water supply, necessitating action and the sooner we find some way of getting money into the hands of farmers, the better. There is no doubt that if we do not find some way of compensating farmers, individual farmers in the Mournes will go to the wall because of this. That is how serious the situation is. The best solution is some form of subsidy adequate to enable the farmers to tick over until grazing is restored in 2004.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is a pity that the proposer should have trivialised the motion so much. The Department for Regional Development is endangering the hill-side farmers of the Silent Valley and the Mourne Mountains, and those near to Belfast. The timescale for putting in place the safe scheme needed for the Silent Valley reservoir is totally inadequate. If the current situation continues for another three years it will put at risk the health of the people in Belfast and present a considerable burden to the hill farmers in the area.

Gregory Campbell must move immediately and allocate farmers priority funding so that work on the filtering scheme can be brought forward. In view of present financial pressures, it is not enough to ask farmers to keep sheep off the grazing land. Farmers must be compensated for the alternative feed. The onus rests entirely on the Department for Regional Development and the Minister, Gregory Campbell, to end the risk to the people of Belfast and to alleviate the burden shouldered by farmers.

What level of communication has been maintained between the Minister for Regional Development, who imposed the ban, the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the farming industry, and the Minister of Health and Social Services, who is responsible for public safety? This is a key question. Or as many people suspect, is this an example of DUP sectarian antics putting people's health and farmers' livelihoods at risk? It is time to stop playing party politics with people's lives.

The Agriculture Committee has also heard that there has been little discussion or negotiation between officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in the North and their counterparts in the South. In Donegal, where there are similar problems, the Southern Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has already said it will compensate the farmers for the duration of the problem. I have repeatedly called for a closer look to be taken at the ban affecting farmers in the Silent Valley, and for the scientific facts to be established on whether the cryptosporidium bug is linked to sheep specifically or to all grazing in general. Is the ban more appropriate on sheep grazing or is there flexibility to allow limited use of cattle for grazing in the Silent Valley to safeguard future area aid payments? The loss of income to farmers of area aid payments could be substantial because of a loss in acreage of the land available for grazing.

It would also seem to be short-sighted of the Department to allow the area to become overgrown with a subsequent deterioration in the physical beauty of an area which has been sustained by sheep grazing. The Environmental Heritage Service is also in the process of designating the area as an area of special scientific interest. Indeed, farmers are suspicious of the real agenda of those placing a lengthy ban on grazing in the area, given the future consequences for local farmers.

I accompanied a Sinn Féin delegation from south Down to meet Bríd Rodgers, and we put a strong case to her for the need to compensate farmers in the Silent Valley who are suffering directly from the ban on grazing. Since May farmers have been contacting Sinn Féin on a regular basis to express their anger at the lack of compensation. One hundred and fourteen farmers have been directly affected by the ban, and it is estimated that the farming community in the area will lose some £1 million this year alone. While the Minister acknowledges that the Silent Valley farmers have been treated unfairly, she has also said that her hands are tied by Europe and by the Executive. It is now time for the Minister to act. Bríd Rodgers should go to the EU and the Executive and make a case for compensating the Silent Valley farmers. The lack of action by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Minister is threatening the continuing viability of sheep farming in the Mournes. No plan seems to be in place, and there is no will for decisive action. There is no guarantee of compensation and no end in sight for the grazing ban for the next three to four years. Farmers are asking: what is the alternative; how will we graze our sheep? Farmers are facing an increase in the price of land for grazing and no great profit in sheep because of poor prices at the farm gate. The farmers and the community are not getting the support they need from the Minister.

As Mr ONeill stated, an important aspect of this ban is that offspring of the sheep are losing the right to the grazing ground where they were reared. In other words, flocks of sheep are separated from their grazing ground year after year, and the offspring are being deprived of the plot of ground that belonged to them. Because of the ban, the offspring are deprived of that, and that causes a major problem for the farmers. Go raibh míle maith agat.

I support the motion in the name of my Colleague Mr ONeill. He and the other Members have covered most of the problems that farmers are experiencing, through no fault of their own, at the Silent Valley.

When the closure came about, both the farmers concerned and representatives from all political parties gave ample warnings on present and future problems. The difficult days ahead were spoken about last summer and in September. In just eight or 10 weeks the sheep and newborn lambs are due to return again to the Silent Valley slopes. The new lambs bring some continuity to the mountain's grazing cycle. They familiarise themselves with the pastures grazed by earlier generations of the flock. If that cycle is allowed to be interrupted, it will present a problem that will never be resolved. To return sheep to former grazing pastures after a break of three or four years is not achievable and would only create bedlam as far as shepherding was concerned.

Last week I asked the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to put in place, through the Executive's programme funds, a support mechanism to alleviate the short- and long-term problems imposed upon Mourne sheep farmers as a result of the Silent Valley grazing ban. We have heard different people blaming others, but the ban came about as a result of a demand from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That was done for health reasons, and nobody can challenge that. The Minister for Regional Development, being the landlord, had to implement it. Subsequently, everybody came knocking on Bríd Rodgers's door as Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Many other doors could have been knocked on. The Executive's programme funds might have been the appropriate place to look for funding.

In their answers, the Ministers stated that they understood that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development had met with a number of deputations on the issue and had obtained additional information for the affected farmers. The Minister stated that she is considering the position in the light of those contacts, with a view to reaching a decision on the way forward and

Regardless of which Department foots the bill, this is something that those of us who campaign on the farmers' behalf are waiting to hear about.

Our anxiety is minor compared to the concerns of farmers who await the lifeline that could save their flocks, which for many would protect a major percentage of their income. I missed the earlier part of the debate, but I would have liked all Ministers to be available to respond. I know there is a ruling on that, but with so many different Departments having responsibility it would only have been right for each Minister to be able to be here. In the future we will have to look at similar situations for which three Departments must carry the can.

I congratulate Mr ONeill for putting the motion on the Order Paper. At that point my congratulations run out, when I consider his contribution to the debate. That was unfortunate, given the excellent speeches made by Mr Bradley and Mr Wells, who between them brought an element of reason and sanity to a difficult issue - one that concerns farmers, the community and the livelihoods of many individuals in the Mournes area.

Mr ONeill did nothing to convince my party to support the motion, which is unfortunate. His speech tended to borrow from that little verse in the Bible

He seemed to stray everywhere with his statements. He strayed with the sheep on their traditional route, and he strayed with the sheep off their traditional route. That is unfortunate because he failed to make a number of key points and address a number of key issues.

He came to the Assembly armed with an allegation - an allegation made previously - that the Minister for Regional Development had misled the House. He had to temper that allegation with an admission during the course of this debate that the Minister for Regional Development had not misled the House. The only thing missing from his speech was an apology to the Minister. He should have retracted his allegation and accepted the ruling by the Speaker a little more graciously than he did.

The spurious point of order at the start of the debate and the ruling by the Speaker betrayed the fact that, if Mr ONeill himself does not know who is responsible - and if the Speaker cannot make a ruling on who is responsible - it ill behoves him to come to this House to try to pour blame on the Minister for Regional Development on a matter that Mr ONeill cannot even say that the Minister is fully responsible for. I hope that after the contribution by the Minister - who has had the decency to be here today - Mr ONeill will be prepared to thank him for his contribution and comments, which I hope will be constructive.

This motion derives from a faux pas - an attempt by Mr ONeill to settle some old scores with the Department for Regional Development. That Department took a quick and necessary decision to protect human and public health. Those are not my words. They are the words of Mr P J Bradley in this debate, and he is absolutely right. The decision was taken on advice received from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Minister, and his predecessor, could do nothing else in that regard.

Unfortunately, through this motion, and during the course of this saga, the SDLP has attempted to ignore the public health issues by claiming that consultation between the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was not as extensive as it might have been. The facts on consultation are very clear. The permanent secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has agreed in writing - in a letter to myself that has been published - that there was consultation. We might not like the decision or the outcome, but the reality is that there was consultation. The SDLP once bitten was not twice shy when it should have been. It then attempted to squeeze compensation from the Minister for Regional Development, who clearly does not bear sole responsibility for the issue of compensation. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development should recognise that she should try to find a mechanism in her own Department to help her pick up the tab on this particular issue - and it will be an expensive issue.

We could continue in this way, playing silly games. My party could blame the SDLP Minister, as, unfortunately, the SDLP, through Mr ONeill in this debate, has tried quite deliberately to blame a DUP Minister. That would be unfortunate, not because of the cheap political point scoring, but for the farmers in the Mournes trying to graze their sheep and maintain a livelihood for themselves and their families. I do not, and will not, go down that road. It is important for people to keep their heads in relation to this issue. They must realise that they cannot come into the Chamber, blame the Minister and think that resolves the issue. They have to go one step further and try to find a process or mechanism to resolve the problem and get agriculture in that part of the Member's constituency out of the doldrums it is in.

We have had a number of suggestions in the House today. Mr Wells made an eminently sensible suggestion about the application forms for farming grants. The integrated administration control system (IACS) forms could be brought forward and additions made to them. That is a reasonable measure. The Agriculture Committee, which I sit on, has made that suggestion to the Department.

Mr M Murphy, with his Victor Meldrew impersonation, made the suggestion, which was not that bright, that we should look to Donegal for the answer. Frankly, "I don't believe it." I do not believe that that is where the answer lies.

Mr Bradley actually came up with quite a good idea; that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development should ask for the Executive's programme funds to be used. I would go one step further and suggest that there should be a joint approach by the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for Executive programme funding on this issue, because that is where the issue rests.

The Minister, or Ministers, responsible have to find a mechanism with which to trigger compensation. I trust that officials - certainly those in the Department for Regional Development - will soon find a legal method that will go some way towards allowing them to trigger that mechanism for compensation. Ultimately, when we get away from all the politics involved, that is really the solution - to achieve compensation.

There is another issue for the House to consider. With all the shouting, berating and hectoring of Ministers for their different political allegiances, it is important that, when we come to consider the Budget in a few weeks' time, the Minister for Regional Development is allocated the resources necessary to upgrade the water treatment works. I hope the SDLP and all parties argue equally strongly for that. That will ensure that any issue to do with sheep grazing on the Mournes can be resolved more speedily.

I hope that the public health issues, which have brought this matter on to the agenda, will also be resolved.

I thank Mr ONeill for the opportunity to participate in the debate.

First, I recognise the importance of the issue for the farming community in south Down. However, it is one that has even greater importance for the public health of the wider community. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to place the issues in their proper and wider context.

Information about cryptosporidium and its effects are in the public domain. I made Members aware of that in my statement of 11 September 2000 on the outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in the Lisburn and south-west Belfast areas. However, given the importance of the subject, I would like to reiterate briefly the nature of cryptosporidium, the cryptosporidium risk assessment at Silent Valley, the reason for the exclusion of sheep from catchment lands, and how I see the compensation issue.

Crytposporidium is a parasitic organism, which can be water-borne, and which is resistant to normal disinfection processes. It can cause acute diarrhoeal illness, lasting two to three weeks. For those whose immune systems are weakened or compromised, it can be much more serious. Some Members have spoken about how serious it can be. In some instances, it can be fatal, as Mr Wells indicated. The organism can be removed by treatment incorporating fine infiltration, but once detected in the water distribution system, it can only be destroyed by boiling the water. There is a proven risk of cryptosporidium contamination of the public water supply from livestock grazing in reservoir catchment areas.

I will now move on to the risk assessment at the Silent Valley. Following outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis in Great Britain, the Government appointed an expert group, under the chairmanship of Prof Ian Bouchier, to advise on measures to protect the public against cryptosporidium in drinking water. The group reported in 1998 and made over 50 recommendations, all of which were adopted by Water Service. One of the recommendations was that water utilities should carry out risk assessments on all their water catchment areas. Early in 1999, the Water Service assessed the risk of cryptosporidium contamination at all 59 of its sources. The assessment used was based on models used in England, Wales and Scotland, and developed in consultation with the Northern Ireland Drinking Water Inspector. The assessment showed that the Silent Valley was particularly at risk due to the lack of a satisfactory level of treatment.

The Silent Valley's water supply serves a substantial part of County Down and south and east Belfast, amounting to approximately 250,000 people in total. Water treatment at the Silent Valley is confined to coarse filtration, pH adjustment and disinfecting. These are not effective in the removal or destruction of cryptosporidium oocysts. The catchment lands at the Silent Valley comprise 9,000 acres owned by the Department for Regional Development in the upper reaches of the Mourne Mountains. Against this background, sheep were excluded on a temporary basis from March of last year. A further review of the management of the Silent Valley catchment area confirmed the need to continue to exclude sheep. I announced that on 6 September.

The ban has the support of the Chief Medical Officer and the Northern Ireland Drinking Water Inspector. I will review the position when the two new water treatment works for the Silent Valley and other reservoirs are provided. The new works, which will provide a barrier to prevent cryptosporidium from entering the distribution system, are programmed for completion in 2004 at a combined cost of £48m. The Mourne conduit, which carries water from the Silent Valley to Belfast, is currently being replaced at a cost of £32m.

There is a time lag between the approval of the replacement of the Mourne conduit and its completion. It is not physically possible for the works to be completed and operational before 2004. If it were possible, I would ensure that it was done. It is physically impossible. In addition, my Department has spent £250,000 on repairs to the Mourne wall to ensure that sheep cannot gain access to the catchment area. Contractors employed by the Mourne Heritage Trust carried out the work. Those significant investments demonstrate my Department's commitment to ensuring that customers receive drinking water of the highest quality.

I regret that I had to take the decision to exclude sheep from the catchment lands, but in the interests of public health it was, and is, unavoidable. To repeat the comments that I made in a previous debate, what if there had been a risk to the drinking water supply of a quarter of a million of people and I had done nothing, or had delayed by a month, a week, or a day? Public representatives inside and outside this House would demand to know why did I not act to put the health of a quarter of a million people above every other consideration relating to the public drinking water supply. I repeat that I regret that I had to take the decision to exclude the sheep, but in the interests of public health, it was, and is, unavoidable. Protecting the public water supply must be my paramount consideration.

I met some of the farmers just over a week ago and heard their concerns at first hand, a fact mentioned by Mr Wells and Mr ONeill. I appreciate the difficulties that the ban has caused for local farmers, and I sympathise with their position. I am minded to give whatever assistance my Department can. However, I cannot go outside the legal constraints on my Department's actions. By tradition, the right to use grazing land in Silent Valley has been renewed annually. The contract confers access to the facility of grazing, not possession of the grazing land itself. The legal advice is that as the practice of making grazing land available was on an annual basis, it can be discontinued.

I recognise the local farmers' concerns, but, regrettably, it will not be possible for my Department to pay compensation. I know that that will be a disappointment to the farmers, but I must have regard to the legal position. I will, however, give careful consideration to any of the suggestions made today that I can discuss with my Colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. I am also willing to consider any scientific evidence that demonstrates conclusively that the presence of sheep would not present any risk to the public water supply. However, current advice from leading experts such as Prof Bouchier's committee on cryptosporidium is that livestock grazing on catchment land is a risk to public health.

My officials have maintained close contact with officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to establish what measures could be taken to assist the farmers. Discussions are continuing on whether any of the suggestions - written and verbal - that have been made to my Department could provide a way forward.

During last week's meeting between the Minister, his officials and a delegation of sheep farmers, several suggestions were put to him about a form of words that could crack the problem. Is the Minister's Department considering those suggestions to see whether any of them offer a solution?

I can confirm, as I had just said before Mr Well's intervention, that we are considering several representations, including some of those that were made by the delegation that the Member led to see me last week. We are also examining other options. I am conscious of what can happen as a result of comments made in the House and how misleading impressions can be created, but I should say that none of the suggestions made so far provides an automatic response to the difficulties that we face. They all present difficulties, and none of them provides the categorical and definitive response that the farmers would like.

I have spoken to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development today, and I want to clarify a point that Mr ONeill raised at the outset. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has asked that I make it clear that she wanted to respond to the motion jointly with me but was prevented from doing so by the Assembly's procedures. She asked me to convey her concern about the plight of the farmers affected by the ban. She has also had meetings with deputations from different parties about the situation and has obtained additional information directly from the farmers themselves. Both of us assure the Assembly that we are keen to work together, through and with our Departments, to examine if there is any practical way of reducing the impact on the local farmers. To progress the issue we have agreed to meet soon, and a mutually convenient time will be arranged by our private offices.

The Silent Valley catchment lands can not be made available for grazing because of the proven risk to public health. That action has the support of the medical authorities and the Drinking Water Inspector. As I said earlier, no one in the House would expect me to do otherwise. My first responsibility is the protection of the public water supply to the 250,000 customers who use the water from the Silent Valley. That does not mean that I am unsympathetic to the plight of farmers. I have demonstrated that I am sympathetic, and I am working with my Colleague in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to try to arrive at a conclusion to their plight. However, it would be irresponsible to allow grazing until the new treatment works are built. They will provide an effective barrier to cryptosporidium entering the water distribution system.

I am sympathetic to the difficulties of the local farmers, but, on legal advice, I cannot justify payment of compensation. However, officials from the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will continue to explore what other steps can be taken to assist those farmers affected. I will be meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development soon to discuss those issues.

I wish to refute - and I hope that I have done so in my remarks - any suggestions of partisanship or sectarianism in the manner in which my Department and I have dealt with this issue. Some of the comments by a few Members mean that I am determined to try to reach a resolution of the problem despite their comments rather than because of them, and I will endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. Alan McFarland emphasised the threat of cryptosporidium and stated that the outbreak in April and May 2000, contrary to the other outbreak, was traced to an animal source. There are two traceable sources for the bug. One is human, and the other can be animal or human. This one was indeterminate.

I am basing that on the report of the investigation that was carried out by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety into the outbreak during April and May 2000. I pressed for the publication of that report, and the Health Minister promised that it would be published in the middle of August. However, it was almost December before we received it. I was greatly concerned that the publication of the report took so long, but the Health Minister did facilitate a meeting with myself and the medical team that was preparing the report, and I went through it in some depth with them. There is no evidence to suggest that the outbreak of cryptosporidium in April and May 2000 originated from the Silent Valley sheep.

People try to construct things about the issue, and that is why I feel aggrieved. Not surprisingly, I feel angry when I hear from my constituents that things that could have been done to help them were not done due to various circumstances. It makes it even more pointed when the source of the infection did not come from where it was supposed to have come from. I would like to divest people of the argument about health slightly in order to take a look at the point about the source of infection. Of course, everyone's first concern is for the public health of our community. However, some sort of understanding should be expressed when it is shown that a particular source is not the cause of infection. That evidence is available in this case.

Jim Wells made several comments and, of course he used the occasion to attack me for attacking the Minister. It is a good old ruse, and I can well understand why he did not want to indulge in apportioning blame because he wants to protect his Colleague and Friend. That is fine. We all understand that, and we will not get excited about it. However, he quoted a statistic about the levels of infection and the number of oocysts per quantity. The public health report stated

In other words, the number was considerably below the action level, yet action was taken. That is a correction to a point that he made.

If I believed that that was true for one minute, I can assure the hon Member that I would be 100% behind him. However, we met the deputy chief executive of the Water Service last week and we put that point to him. He assured us that the level had been breached and when that happened the Department was criminally liable. I will be going back to check that. However, I was given an assurance that at least one oocyst per ten litres had been detected in the water supply.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>