In the near future.

We have tried to prioritise health in several ways. Provision is made in the Budget to begin the introduction of free nursing care in October 2002, assuming that the relevant legislation is passed by the Assembly before that date. The full-year costs would be £9 million. It is not for me, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, to define a precise borderline between personal care and nursing care. We use the terms that are used by Departments.

I am glad that the Member welcomes the fact that we have been able to make that positive move, rectifying a regrettable consequence of the constraints that we faced in the draft Budget. I hope that Members will give what practical support they can, as we try to get the necessary legislation through the Assembly.

I shall be as succinct as possible.

I understand and recognise the hard job that the Minister has had to do, and I also recognise that some of the decisions have not been of his own making due to the lack of investment in the past 30 years. Can the Minister say when he is going to consider reallocating the money that is currently given to the trusts and boards under the health budget, given that we now have a Committee, an Assembly of 108 Members, and a Health Department? The money would be better spent on health than on the administration of health boards.

I thank the Member for his question and his reflection on the historic background to those decisions.

It is not for me, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, to start proposing structures for health and personal social services. The issue of the number of trusts and boards et cetera is touched on in the Hayes report, which is the subject of consultation. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will introduce the relevant proposals on that. The Executive will initiate a review of public administration in a wholesale way next spring, and that has implications for those issues. We are determined to ensure that as much money as possible goes to the services and not to the structures.

The Minister will be aware that the Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee has said publicly on at least two occasions recently that our Health Service is on the brink of disaster. It is also a matter of public record that our waiting lists for acute services - heart, cancer and orthopaedic treatment - are longer than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, elective orthopaedic services have been suspended for lengthy periods in the three major orthopaedic units.

In paragraph 10 of his statement, the Minister says that

However, the money spent to date has not alleviated, but rather increased, our difficulties. In paragraph 38, the Minister says that

There is a hint that spending will be cut back in the next spending review. In those circumstances, does the Minister think that the current provision for health will do anything significant, in the absence of fundamental reform, to increase the quality of the Health Service?

Bed blocking was the subject of the £1 billion payment announced by the Chancellor in England and the allocation of £13 million to community care services. Is the Minister aware that a bed occupied in an acute hospital costs about £1,200 per week and that a bed in a private nursing home could be obtained for less than half that? The beds are not being filled because of the absence of reform in hospital administration and because of the multiplicity of trusts.

The Member has raised several points. In budgetary terms, considerably more money is being spent on health this year than was the case in the year before devolution, and that was reflected in my statement. The Member suggests that that money makes the problem worse. Extra money does not make any problems worse. Yes, it is true that not all the problems are to do with funding; there are issues that relate to planning, management and service structures.

It is for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to deal with those issues. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am dealing with budgetary issues, working with my Executive Colleagues. Many of the points that the Member has raised are for my ministerial Colleagues to answer.

It is clear that the additional money now being allocated to community services should be of assistance in regard to bed blocking. This goes back to the initiative taken by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in December 1999, when there were acute winter pressures. Various reviews were undertaken, and we are now seeing the outworking of some of those considerations in the allocations that we are making.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to the spending review in his statement. I welcome that if it means that we are moving away from the failures of past spending patterns and will be developing more vigorous spending plans that accurately reflect need. Does the Minister agree that, to date, the Executive have failed to prioritise health and to address adequately the needs of a Health Service in crisis? Go raibh maith agat.

I do not accept that the Executive have failed to prioritise health. In circumstances where health spending next year will be 37% higher than it was before the Executive existed, no one can say that we have failed, in budgetary terms, to prioritise health. We have always been honest with the Assembly about the difficulties of getting the room to manoeuvre in order to prioritise effectively.

The Member's comments on the spending review are correct. We must make more of our total allocation available to meet, and to focus more heavily on, our regional priorities. However, making money available in that way is not easy when Members, across all parties and Committees, move defensively to insist that the previous Budget lines of their particular Departments must be protected. Many people work on the assumption that prioritisation is something that is done with new additional money and not by looking at whether all baselines can continue to be justified in the light of pressing priorities. Given what Dr O'Hagan has said, I look forward next year to hearing her and many other Colleagues joining with the Executive to ensure that we look seriously at spending in all Departments so that we can release as much money as possible to the most pressing priorities.

I welcome the allocation, additional to the draft Budget, of £72 million to health and social services, and particularly the 17·3% increase in the allocation to personal social services. In his statement the Minister referred to the extensive work undertaken by the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on an assessment of how health services are managed and organised. Can he tell the House when this analysis will be completed, so that we can have greater confidence in the effectiveness of health expenditure?

Will the Minister also assure the House that in such a review he will address the inequality in the current system of allocating community health and social services funding? It has produced huge variations between different community health and social services trusts and has resulted in the underfunding of the Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust, which serves my constituency.

I want to clarify that £72 million more has been made available than was indicated in the position report. It is £41 million more than was in the draft Budget. Both figures are significant and welcome improvements.

Bearing in mind next year's spending review and considering that many Members have mentioned the Barnett formula, our first concern in the needs and effectiveness evaluation exercise is to come forward with details on needs. We hope to do that early in the new year. The further detailed work on effectiveness will take another couple of months. It is not that that work has not begun, but that we had to ensure, in getting to grips with all the issues, that we had sufficient information on need to commence our discussions on the Treasury spending review. Therefore, the effectiveness evaluation will come forward later in the spring and will be available for the Executive and the Committees to work on.

The allocations within Departments - as between trusts - is not a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel. All Departments have their equality schemes and obligations. All spending should be equality proofed, but the responsibility for that falls to each Department and not to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

I compliment the Minister for the clarity and precision of the revised Budget statement. All Members who have spoken so far have welcomed the substantive additional funding given to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Can the Minister tell us when a report on the joint review set up in February 2001, involving the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Finance and Personnel, will be made. While all Members have welcomed the additional substantive money being added to the health budget in the current year and next year, there is concern about how effectively it is being spent.

The Minister said that he hopes that the needs and effectiveness review will be completed soon. Does he agree that that will set different patterns of expenditure in the future and that it will perhaps do away with, or break, the pre-devolution, predetermined expenditure that Departments currently appear to have as their dogma?

The needs and effectiveness evaluation covers a range of programmes across various Departments - over 70% of the total Budget. The Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety are working together in relation to health and social services. It is hoped that findings on need can be brought forward early in the new year, with findings on effectiveness following in the spring.

It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the precise implications of that, and I do not want to speak out of turn, given the role of a particular Department and another Minister here. However, it is our shared intent that the outcome of the needs and effectiveness evaluation will mean that the Executive are better able to assure themselves and the Assembly that they are matching resources to need and using resources to meet need rather than to sustain inherited patterns.

On 25 September, as Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I asked a question on the justice of the proposal to cut £2 million from the resources grant payable to the poorest district councils. No one at that time could understand the unwarranted intrusion into the poorest district council funds or how the Department could even contemplate it, so it was condemned. The effective working of the Committee for the Environment exposed that iniquity, and the Committee can be proud of its success in bringing the matter to the forefront of debate. However, one issue still concerns the Committee.

Can the Minister assure the House that the allocation necessary for compliance with EU legislation on waste management will be ring-fenced and that none of it will be handed back by the Department, as happened this year? That is causing considerable concern, bearing in mind that we are facing infraction proceedings from Europe on waste management.

The Member is correct on the first point. He drew attention to this matter on 25 September by quoting the Minister of the Environment, who had referred to the point in his press release that day. Various representations have been received since then. It was precisely due to pressures on environmental issues, particularly waste management, that the Department - based on what looked like being the draft Budget allocation - had to concentrate on meeting EU requirements. That led to the squeeze in the resource grant; it was not a question of anyone's deciding to cut the council resource grant. With additional money, we have now been able to reverse that particular implication.

As far as ring-fencing is concerned, money allocated for a particular purpose is used for that purpose. Ring-fencing means that if money cannot be spent for a particular purpose, the money is handed back. Keeping money to do what one wants with it is not ring-fencing. If the Member wants assurance that money is given for a purpose - with a determination that it be spent on that purpose - this is the view of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Finance and Personnel.

If, for whatever reason, spending levels are not able to use all that money in a year, that will declare itself in a monitoring round. That is the right and proper way of maintaining Budget scrutiny and is consistent with many other points that have been made in the Chamber.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I too welcome the Minister's statement. However, with regard to the Budget allocation for the Department for Social Development, if our aim is to tackle disadvantage and build communities, how does the Minister expect to see the achievement of this worthwhile aspiration if he cuts the budget for objective C, Urban Regeneration/ Community Development?

There has been a decrease in the Department for Social Development's budget, and that is made worse in real terms by the increase in spending on administration. Therefore, there is less money to be spent on the ground. I refer the Minister to paragraph 33 of his statement where he stated that money should go where it is really needed. It is needed for housing and community development and for the improvement of the social well-being of the most disadvantaged in our society, and not necessarily for administration fees.

I refer Ms Gildernew to the answer I gave to Fred Cobain. What is being identified here as a cut is a technical change in the treatment of Laganside expenditure and was brought forward by the Department for Social Development. Members must remember that Laganside spending comes under objective C. Some of that spending would not necessarily be what many of us might regard as frontline community development and community regeneration expenditure. People assume that only particular types of services and spend are being hit in this way.

The Executive have tried to address the prevailing concern of prioritisation and targeting need in health that has been expressed in the House.

Considerable spending continues on housing through the Housing Executive and housing associations. My statement also reflected the fact that, due to some technical issues regarding the Housing Executive, we anticipate that there will be further in-year bids for housing, as has been the case previously. The Executive will continue to make good their commitments to meet housing need. Obviously, housing is one of the programmes subject to the needs and effectiveness evaluation. We will give further consideration to the longer-term housing issues when we receive the benefit of that evaluation.

The Minister hinted that there would be some form of accountability in spending the money. What systems of accountability will he put in place to ensure that these allocations finance the services for which they have been allocated and do not become confetti currency in the boards?

None of these moneys will be treated as confetti currency. If any Committee has reason to believe that a Department is treating money in that way, I rely on that Committee to bring the problem to light.

As I said in reply to Dr McCrea, moneys are allocated for specific purposes, and where Departments diverge significantly from that because they are not able to spend in a particular area, that should be declared. When variations are disclosed, Members should not make it a big issue. It is good financial management for Departments to make such savings known, and the Executive are then able to redirect available money to other programme areas. Members may feel more reassured that spending management is in line with stated plans when the needs and effectiveness evaluation results feed into the spending review.

I add my voice of welcome to the Minister's statement, considering that this is his second Budget and, probably, his last.

There should be no doubt about the Minister's commitment to health and education. Can he summarise how much additional money has been given to these Departments since devolution?

I do not have precise figures at my fingertips. It depends whether we are considering two Budgets or three, as I provided a carry-over Budget in December 1999. We will make the figures available to the Member. There has been a significant increase in health spending.

Those two Departments are dealing with serious pressures, and the additional money that we have made available will not alleviate all those pressures. Rising costs in existing services and demands for new services have been factors, and acute pressures express themselves in different areas. I will not imply that we have done enough for those services and priorities, just as I recognise that there are many services in other Departments for which Members would like to see more funding.

The Minister has made a lengthy statement about the Health Service, and many people have concerns about the funding of that Department. The Minister said that the Barnett formula would give some £27 million extra. Can he advise whether the money given to the Health Service will be sufficient to bring it into line with the UK mainland? My information is that our health budget is already 9% shy of the UK average. Does the announced increase bring us into line with the national average?

In paragraph 17 of his statement the Minister referred to £13 million for community services and the provision of care places for older people. This year, the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust needs £3 million simply to cover costs. It is playing catch up. Does the Minister believe that £13 million is a sufficient allocation for 19 trusts and four board areas? What funding will be made available for winter provision? The Health Service has increased problems at this time of the year, relating to flu and other such ailments. What funding will be made available to provide extra nursing homes, beds, and step-down packages?

As I have pointed out to other Members, much of the detail of Mr Shannon's questions are for another Minister. It is not for me, therefore, to explain how that money will be spent, particularly with regard to boards and trusts. The relevant Minister and Department make those allocations through the appropriate structures.

No one is pretending that any allocation is adequate to cover every need that arises. The draft Budget allocation for health did not allow for service development. A further allocation now allows for that development. However, I do not pretend that all service needs will be met. There were other bids from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that could not be met. The further allocation for community care is aimed at supporting additional residential placements and domiciliary care packages. The effectiveness and extent of the impact of those services depends on how they are delivered.

I am delighted that the Budget allocation for fuel poverty has increased from £4 million to £8 million. That is a wonderful example of how the Assembly can correct a problem that is particular to the Province, which has high fuel costs and a high level of fuel poverty.

I do not suggest that the Minister resign, as so many have tried that already. However, I am concerned about the discrepancy between figures that he gave to the Assembly previously and those that appear in the Budget - Laganside, for example, and the Housing Executive. I wish to make a special plea about the Housing Executive. I do not have the figures, but I do recall that in the last year's Budget statement the revenue created by the sale of Housing Executive houses was over £100 million. Departments other than the Department for Social Development benefited from about 50% of that money. The technical bid in the monitoring rounds will be for housing. I hope that more than 50% of the proceeds of house sales will go towards the Department for Social Development.

I thank the Member for a nice try.

That point has been discussed before on the housing programme and the moneys raised from house sales. In setting a Budget, the Executive must make an assumption about the amount of revenue raised from the sale of Housing Executive houses, just as an amount of money is assumed from Housing Executive rents. When the Budget is examined, it should be realised that it is a public expenditure commitment. Other moneys will go into the total housing programme. I do not believe that I can give a commitment about a specific percentage or fixed proportion of any additional revenue from house sales that should go towards the housing programme.

It is well known that not every Department or service generates revenue as the housing programme does through house sales. Underinvestment in many other services is often said to have occurred when the Government's investment priority was, rightly, to invest in housing. Now that some of that investment is resulting in house sales and is generating revenue, it could be said that services which lost out before have a right to call on the additional revenue. The Executive will make those decisions in the light of prevailing pressures, patterns of need in housing and the needs of other Departments.

I welcome the Minister's statement, particularly the restoration of £2 million from the Department of the Environment to the district councils and the significant extra allocation for health. I congratulate the Minister for providing the resources to implement free nursing care for the elderly. Can he confirm that he and his Colleagues in the Executive will encourage the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to move on the legislation that is required to bring this policy to life?

On the last point, I understand that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety intends to bring forward the necessary legislation. I hope that all Members who support the extension of free nursing care to the elderly will give every support and facility to expedite the legislation through the House so that the money that the Executive are allocating can be used.

The allocation is intended to allow free nursing care to begin in October 2002. I make that point in case anyone should claim that I promised it earlier. It will take some time to get the legislation through.

I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development - sorry, the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, Mr Poots.

I will not take Alban's job just yet, Mr Speaker.

We all welcome the funding that has been put into health. We cannot sniff at 37% over three years. We need to see that being delivered; we need to see the waiting lists being cut and bed blocking eradicated. Social funds must be freed to deliver better health care than we have at present.

I would like the Minister to ensure that there is equality in the distribution of moneys for health and that the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust, in my constituency, receives the money that it is due under its capitation formula. At present, its funding is £2 million short.

What is the state of the Minister's forward planning in relation to the children's commissioner and the review of public administration? The review of public administration is due to commence in March or April 2002, but it has not been provided for in the Budget. The children's commissioner is due to be appointed in June, yet there is no provision in the Budget for that. I am concerned that there has been no forward planning for those matters.

The Member's last two points were dealt with previously. I have said, on the record, that the cost of the review of public administration will be covered by an in-year monitoring bid rather than by the Budget. That does not mean that there is no pre-planning, rather that the Executive are not taxing the Budget plans with the cost of the review of public administration at this stage. If anything, the amount of money from the Budget that is wasted on such reviews would be remarked on. Therefore, we are making the call for the review of public administration in that way.

Similarly, I have dealt with the question about the children's commissioner previously. I am getting repeat questions on some issues. I welcome the Member's recognition of the fact that since devolution we have been able to increase significantly our spending on health.

The precise distribution of that is not a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel, but for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Reference was made to the increase over the period of devolution. To return to Ms Lewsley's point on health and education, if the cash budget for health and personal social services and the cash budget for schools in 1999-2000, are compared with the resource budgets for 2002-03, it will be seen that there are rises of 31% and 27% respectively.

I welcome the increased allocation of 14·8% for the Department for Regional Development. That recognises the underinvestment in infrastructure that has occurred over the years, especially in roads and transport. I also welcome the Minister's announcement that the Department for Regional Development will have a cost saving through the Chancellor's decision to phase in the aggregates tax. I congratulate the Executive on persuading the Chancellor to do that. Will that cost saving be retained within the Department to help address other departmental pressures?

The 14·8% increase was provided for in the draft Budget. That is a significant commitment, which reflects, as the Committee Chairperson rightly pointed out, the historic underinvestment that we are trying to overcome.

As I said, there will now be some easement for the Department for Regional Development as a result of the Chancellor's decision to phase in the aggregates tax. The benefits of that easement will fall entirely to that Department's programme. There will be no attempt to move those benefits to another Department. That, of itself, is a further benefit. It should mean that, for the same significant 14·8% increase, people will see more programme outcome.

I too welcome the Minister's statement on health care, money for the homeless and housing, but I shall not comment on those issues. I am concerned about paragraph 40 of the Minister's statement, dealing with agriculture, which reads:

That would be all very well if we were living in normal times, but the agriculture industry has come through a difficult period in recent years. I have read the vision group's report, and I do not believe that its recommendations will resolve the problems.

The vision group will have to report back to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I hope that the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, will take account of the Agriculture Committee's views and that the vision group's views will not overrule those of the Committee. The vision group is fine in its place, but it is employed by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to do a job. The members of the Agriculture Committee also have a job to do. The important aspect of that job is to ensure a viable agriculture industry in Northern Ireland. That must be the end result.

The vision group's report is now under consultation. The Executive anticipate that they will give the group's work further consideration in the future; consideration of resources will also feature in that. I understand why people criticise the Executive for trying to pre-empt the vision group's recommendations by fixing an allocation.

Therefore, what is happening with the Budget in the vision group is no different from what will happen with, for example, the Hayes review or the Burns report. Because consultation and consideration are still taking place, we cannot begin to specify what the resource implications of such reviews will be. When the Executive take decisions, Ministers usually reflect the views and priorities of the Committees, and the Executive as a whole try to pay attention to them. None of us can pledge that everything advocated by every Committee will form part of the outcome. We could not afford to do that financially, never mind in respect of administration or legislation.

I welcome the Minister's lengthy and detailed statement and congratulate him and his staff for all the hard work that has gone into it.

I draw attention to the Minister's extra expenditure in the past two years on health and education. Is it possible to have scrutiny of that expenditure, especially in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, to ensure that there is no waste or overspending? I refer particularly to some subsections -

The Member has expressed so much effusive thanks and congratulations to the Minister that he was unable to complete his question. I must ask the Minister to respond in writing to the question because time is up.

TOP

North/South Ministerial Council: Food Safety and Health Sector

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is mian liom tuairisc a thabhairt don Tionól faoin Chomhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas a tháinig le chéile i bhformáid earnáileach i mBéal Feirste Dé hAoine 16 Samhain. Bhí gnóthaí a bhain le sábháilteacht bia agus le comhoibriú i gcúrsaí sláinte faoi chaibidil ag an chruinniú.

I ndiaidh domh féin agus don Uasal Dermot Nesbitt, CTR, Aire in Oifig an Chéad-Aire agus an LeasChéad- Aire, a bheith ainmnithe ag an Chéad-Aire agus ag an LeasChéad-Aire, d'freastail muid an tríú cruinniú den Chomhairle sna hearnálacha shábhailteacht bia agus sláinte. Bhí an tUasal Micheál Martin, an tAire a bhfuil cúram na Roinne Sláinte agus Leanaí air agus a chomhghleacaí, an Dr Thomas Moffatt, Aire Stáit, a bhfuil cúram Sábháilteacht Bia agus Daoine Scothaosta air, ag feidhmiú ar son Rialtas na hÉireann.

Cheadaigh an tUasal Dermot Nesbitt an ráiteas seo, agus tá sé á dhéanamh ar a shon fosta.

Fuair an Chomhairle tuairisc ar an dul chun cinn atá déanta ag an Bhord um Chur Chun Cinn Sábháilteachta Bia sna nithe seo leanas: caiteachas don bhliain 2000, cóiríocht, fostú foirne, forbairt suímh ghréasáin, feachtais feasachta, na conarthaí taighde a bronnadh agus fóram ar chúrsaí cothaithe. Cheadaigh an Chomhairle straitéis chorporáideach agus plean eatramhach an bhoird don bhliain 2001 agus thug dá haire an moladh go gceapfar plean ilbhliantúil trí bliana, rud a chuirfear faoi bhráid na Comhairle nuair a bheas sé réidh. Cheadaigh an Chomhairle an grádú agus na tuarastail a bheas ag an chéad ghrúpa de 20 ball foirne atá le fostú agus thug dá haire moltaí go ndéanfar measúnú ar na riachtanais foirne i gcomhthéacs an phlean trí bliana. Sa reachtaíocht faoina rialtaítear an bord, déantar socrú do choiste comhairleach atá le ceapadh ag an Chomhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas, coiste ar a mbeidh saineolaithe eolaíocha agus ionadaithe ó réimse leathan de pháirtithe leasmhara a bhaineann le sábháilteacht bia.

Ag an chruinniú dheireannach a bhí aici, phléigh an Chomhairle an ról agus an déanamh a d'fhéadfadh a bheith ag coiste comhairleach de chuid an Bhoird um Chur Chun Cinn Sábhailteachta Bia; coiste a chuirfidh comhairle eolaíoch agus theicniúil ar fáil don bhord. Ag an chruinniú seo d'aontaigh an Chomhairle gur cheart go mbeadh 16 ball ar an choiste arb ionadaithe iad ó éagsúlacht mhór de pháirtithe leasmhara agus de dhisciplíní, lena n-áirítear tomhaltóirí agus an tionscal bia. D'aontaigh an Chomhairle ansin ar na baill a cheapfaí ar an choiste agus gurbh é an tOllamh Seán Strain a cheapfaí mar chathaoirleach. Cheadaigh an Chomhairle go gcuirfí dréachtscéim chomhionannais an bhoird agus an plean gníomhaíochta nua-aimsiú riachtanas sóisialta faoi chomhairliúchán poiblí. Ag an deireadh, d'aontaigh an Chomhairle i bprionsabal go raibh an t-iarrthóir a moladh mar phríomhfheidhmeannach, i ndiaidh phróiseas roghnúcháin don phost, inghlactha.

Fuair an Chomhairle tuairiscí breise faoin dul chun cinn a rinneadh san obair a bhain le feidhmiú an chláir oibre a cheadaigh sí ag na cruinnithe a bhí ann roimhe; clár oibre do gach ceann de na cúig réimsí a aimsíodh mar chinn a bheadh oiriúnach do chomhoibriú. Ba iad na tosaíochtaí a aimsíoidh le haghaidh comhoibriú: seirbhísí taismí agus éigeandálaí, pleanáil le haghaidh olléigeandálaí, comhoibriú ar threalamh ardteicneolaíochta, taighde ar ailse agus cur chun cinn sláinte.

I réimse na seirbhísí taismí agus éigeandálaí, thug an Chomhairle dá haire na moltaí go gcuirfí le ballraíocht an ghrúpa um sheirbhísí ospidéal réigiúnach. D'iarr an Chomhairle ar an ghrúpa fosta tuarascáil an ghrúpa athbhreithnithe ar ospidéil ghéarmhíochaine sa Tuaisceart a bhreithniú.

Thug an Chomhairle dá haire an moladh gur cheart iarracht a dhéanamh réimsí seirbhíse/speisialtachtaí a aimsiú ina dtiocfadh le comhoibriú trasteorann nó uile-oileáin bheith le leas frithpháirteach na seirbhísí a bheadh i gceist agus le leas na n-othar.

Thacaigh an Chomhairle leis an obair a rinneadh go dtí seo agus leis na pleananna i gcomhair obair bhreise i réimse na pleanála le haghaidh olléigeandálaí. I dtaca le comhoibriú i gcúrsaí ardteicneolaíochta, thacaigh an Chomhairle le ceapachán na mball chuig grúpa comhpháirteach um theicneolaíocht sláinte. Thacaigh an Chomhairle fosta le clár oibre don ghrúpa.

Thug an Chomhairle dá haire an comhoibriú atá ann faoi láthair sa taighde ar ailse, go háirithe an comhoibriú i seoladh na tuarascála ar an líon daoine a bhfuil ailse orthu ar fud na hÉireann.

I dtaca le cur chun cinn na sláinte, thug an Chomhairle dá haire go bhfuil an dá Roinn ag obair i bpáirt le chéile le comhchlár do chur chun cinn na sláinte, a phleanáilfear go straitéiseach, agus acmhainn oiliúna a cheapadh.

D'aontaigh an Chomhairle go mbeadh an chéad chruinniú eile sna formáidí earnáileacha seo sa Deisceart i mí Feabhra 2002.

D'aontaigh an Chomhairle ar théacs na teachtaireachta a eisíodh i ndiaidh an chruinnithe. Cuireadh cóip den teachtaireacht i Leabharlann an Tionóil.

I wish to report to the Assembly on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council that was held in sectoral format in Belfast on Friday 16 November. Issues relating to food safety and co-operation on health matters were considered at the meeting.

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, junior Minister, Mr Nesbitt, and I attended the third meeting of the Council in the food safety and health sectors. Mr Micheál Martin, the Minister for Health and Children, and his departmental colleague Dr Thomas Moffatt, Minister of State with responsibility for food safety and older people, represented the Irish Government.

The following statement was approved by Mr Dermot Nesbitt and is made on his behalf.

The Council received a progress report on the work of the Food Safety Promotion Board on issues covering the financial out-turn for 2000, accommodation, the employment of staff, development of the web site, awareness campaigns, the award of research contracts and a forum on nutrition. The Council approved the board's corporate strategy and interim plan for 2001 and noted a proposal to develop a three-year, multi-annual plan, which will be submitted to the Council when complete. The Council approved the grading and remuneration of an initial tranche of 20 staff and noted proposals to assess the overall staffing needs in the context of the three-year plan. The legislation covering and governing the board provides for an advisory committee that will include scientific experts and representatives of broader food safety interests who will be appointed by the North/South Ministerial Council.

At its last meeting, the Council discussed the possible role and composition of the Food Safety Promotion Board's advisory committee, which will provide scientific and technical advice to that body. The Council agreed that the committee should have a membership of 16, representing a wide variety of interests and disciplines, including the consumer and the food industry. The Council agreed the membership of the committee and that Prof Seán Strain should be its chairperson. It approved the board's draft equality scheme and the New TSN action plan for public consultation. Finally, the Council accepted, in principle, the candidate who was recommended following a selection process for the post of chief executive to the Food Safety Promotion Board.

The Council received further reports on the progress made in implementing the programme of work that it had approved at the earlier meetings for each of the five areas identified as suitable for co-operation. Those areas are: accident and emergency services; planning for major emergencies; co-operation on high-technology equipment; cancer research; and health promotion.

With regard to accident and emergency services, the North/South Ministerial Council noted the proposal to expand the membership of the regional hospitals services group. The Council requested that the group consider the report of the group reviewing acute hospital services in the North. It also noted the proposal to identify additional service areas or specialities in which cross-border or all-island co-operation could be of mutual benefit to the respective services and would help patients.

The North/South Ministerial Council endorsed the work that had been done so far and the plans for further work on planning for major emergencies. The Council endorsed the membership of a joint health technology group and agreed a work programme for it. It noted the present co-operation on cancer research and, in particular, the launch of the all-Ireland cancer incidence report. The Council also noted that the two Health Departments were working together to develop a joint, strategically- planned health promotion programme and training resource.

The North/South Ministerial Council agreed that its next meeting in those sectoral formats would take place in the South in February 2002. The text of the communiqué that was issued following the meeting was agreed, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>