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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Railway Safety Bill: 
Committee Stage

TOP

The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development (Mr A Maginness):

I beg to move

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

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

Towards Supporting People Fund

TOP

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Ms Gildernew):

I beg to move

That this Assembly expresses serious concern about the implications of introducing a new system for funding housing support costs andcalls on the Minister for Social Development to secure commitments from the Executive to ensure that financial allocations for the "Towards Supporting People Fund", due to be introduced in April 2003, are guaranteed and will be maintained at levels not less than currently provided through housing benefit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support the motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>