Many health and social care professionals come into contact with people with diabetes and those who could go on to develop the condition. The need for increased awareness applies particularly to primary care staff, community healthcare staff and hospital staff. Other professionals such as pharmacists, optometrists, dentists and podiatrists have a role to play. Residential and nursing home staff who care for the elderly also have a vital part to play in detecting the condition in elderly residents.

I am pleased that the UK National Screening Committee has proposed detailed research that will examine the feasibility of screening individuals perceived to be at risk of developing diabetes. In such matters, as Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I need to be guided by expert medical advice. I await the results of the research and the outcome of the committee's deliberations before deciding whether a screening programme for high-risk adults is appropriate and, if so, what form it should take.

With regard to the immediate future, I am also aware of the excellent work of the joint task force here. The entire range of interested health professionals and patients are represented in the group, which is in the process of completing a framework for diabetes care that will set standards for the detection and management of the condition. I understand that it will also specifically consider any gaps in service provision and that workforce issues are of great importance. We must examine all disciplines, including doctors, nurses, dieticians and podiatrists to name but a few, to ensure adequate provision in all areas. My officials and I will consider carefully their recommendations to see how the proposals can be used to enhance services for people with diabetes.

A significant degree of psychological morbidity, including depression and anxiety, is linked to diabetes.

Minister, time has run out.

This is one of the more important debates that we have had in the Assembly. I congratulate Ivan Davis for bringing this important motion before us and thank him for accepting the amendment in my name and that of my Colleague Annie Courtney.

Taking in the extended family, there is hardly a family in Northern Ireland that does not have somebody or somebody close to it who has diabetes. Mention has already been made of the genetic aspects, and diabetes tends to run in families. We know about obesity, about inactivity and, of course, about eating rubbish - the recommendation that people eat five portions of fruit and vegetables daily was referred to earlier. It is so important to prevent diabetes, cancer and heart disease in children and young people that that message is taken on board. I appreciate that many areas of the Health Service, including the Health Promotion Agency, have done so. However, it cannot be overemphasised.

I appreciate the Minister's being present. In her remarks she said that diabetes can often be prevented, and that is a key point. Also, rigorous control of diabetes can prevent complications. Apart from prevention, the most important thing is early diagnosis. Diabetes is increasing worldwide, and it can have a major impact on the physical, psychological and material well-being of individuals and their families. Everyone is aware of heart disease, stroke and renal failure, but diabetics are more than twice as likely to die prematurely as a result of their condition. I will not go over the statistics. Somebody said that £1 in every £7 spent by the National Health Service goes on diabetes. It is interesting that in the United States $1 in every $7 spent on health goes on diabetes.

There is evidence that type 2 diabetes, which is where insulin is required, can be delayed or even prevented. Effective management of the condition increases life expectancy and reduces the chances of complications. Type 2 diabetes is more common among poor people. The most deprived, one fifth of the population, are one and a half times more likely to have it. We require more investment in structured education, as many studies now show that poor people need to be informed.

Much has been said about the health action zones in Northern Ireland, which do great work in disseminating good practice. Those who are physically inactive or overweight are at increased risk of developing diabetes, and there is considerable scope across different Departments in this regard.

I also want to praise the work of the voluntary bodies, especially Diabetes UK. Kate Fleck and Stephen McGowan were mentioned earlier, and I pay tribute to them. I was not at the presentation in the Long Gallery, through no fault of mine, but I believe it was excellent.

As the prevalence of diabetes rises steeply with age, it is inevitable that this will become an increasing problem, given the demographic trends. One in five people over the age of 85 has diabetes, and older people need well co-ordinated, multidisciplinary care across primary, secondary and residential care and social services. They require information, education and support to help them manage diabetes, and staff need proper training to recognise their healthcare needs. With diabetes more common in the elderly, it has been said by one medical researcher that if people lived long enough, they would all get it. I am not sure if that is correct, but there is a point there. We require a strategic approach to address the whole system; otherwise there will be inefficiency in the allocation and use of existing resources.

The regional task force on diabetes should closely consider the second part of the diabetes national service framework due for publication this summer. This will set out the action required by local health and social care systems - milestones, performance management and programmes to support local delivery. I am aware that the Minister has some of the top experts in Northern Ireland on the task force. Both Prof Brew Atkinson, whom some of us have met here in the Assembly, and Prof David Hadden are on it. It is chaired by Dr Philip McClements, who is a former deputy chief medical officer, and the vice chairperson is Kate Fleck of Diabetes UK. The findings of this task force will be most important.

Diabetes is the epidemic of the twenty-first century. We have some recommendations from the task force in draft form, and failure to implement them will result in the cost of diabetes, both the human and the financial cost, spiralling out of control. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about screening. However, I would take a positive attitude towards a screening programme for adults who fall into high-risk groups.

I thank Members for taking part in this good, constructive debate. Both of the debates this afternoon are important. They are a credit to the Assembly - debating issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland is what the Assembly is about.

Two years ago, I put a question to the Minister about setting up a screening programme. We are still waiting for that. I welcome the fact that the Minister is here this afternoon. However, as Dr Hendron said, this is not an issue that can wait. Every Member who spoke this afternoon made the point that this must be done. The Minister talked about the cost. We must get on with this, because more and more children are being born with diabetes, and more and more children are affected.

When I go to my GP, he tells me that diabetes is vastly on the increase. He gave me a video to watch when I was first diagnosed. After watching that video for 19 minutes, I became an entirely different person, because it scared the life out of me. If nothing else, if people could even be given some kind of information by way of videos and so forth, it might alert them and wake them up to what this illness is all about.

I thank those who took part in the debate and sincerely hope that the Minister will keep a close eye on the situation.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Future Planning Development in Downpatrick

TOP

I thank the Business Committee for the opportunity to discuss this important and urgent matter affecting the town and people of Downpatrick. At the outset, I want to say a word of appreciation to the Minister of the Environment for attending and taking part in the debate, although he has said that ultimately it is the Department for Regional Development's responsibility to determine what action must be taken. That is why it is doubly beneficial that the Minister of the Environment is sitting here for the debate and that he will respond.

Perhaps the heading of this Adjournment debate - "Future planning development in Downpatrick" - is slightly misleading. It should be "future development in Downpatrick", because planning will take place, except in certain restricted areas. Downpatrick is a growth town and part of that regional plan development that is so often referred to for the expansion of the population and, therefore, for the necessary attributes to accommodate that population, be it houses, recreation, water, roads or sewerage.

Since March 2002, a moratorium has been placed on the Planning Service, preventing it from granting any planning permission for developments that may be connected to the main sewage disposal system in Downpatrick. There is a dispute about whether that moratorium constitutes a directive or advice; however, its effect is that no planning permission will be granted for dwellings or other buildings that would connect to the sewerage system.

The growth and development of Downpatrick has been jeopardised because of the apparent inability of the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development to resolve the crisis. I say "apparent" because I do not know what is going on behind the scenes. All planning applications, individual or composite, that involve the sewerage system are prohibited.

A ministerial reply from the Department of the Environment, dated 15 May, stated that the water management unit of the Environment and Heritage Service, which pulled the plug on planning permissions, had not issued a directive. If that is the case, I do not know what it did issue. I found out about the problem because of my interest in an application by Habitat for Humanity, the charitable housing organisation for low-income families, to build 14 residences in the Colmcille Road area of Downpatrick. That was the first time that I heard that the water management unit had imposed a directive or made an input to the planning process. It advised Habitat for Humanity not to proceed with the planning application. Immediately afterwards, a moratorium was placed on all other developments. That may not have been official policy, but it is the situation.

Whether other directives have been, or will be, issued will be revealed during the debate. The moratorium affects not only those applying for planning permission for a new house and charities such as Habitat for Humanity, but any commercial or industrial enterprise that would need to connect to the sewerage system. It has wide-ranging implications for the immediate development of the town, because all planning permission has been stopped. One would have expected a warning that the danger point was being reached, or at least an amber light between the green and the red. However, permission was given on one day, and on the next it was not.

I embarked on a series of Assembly questions, including written priority questions, to the Ministers involved. The Department for Regional Development deals with the sewerage system, and the Department of the Environment deals with water and quality control and the Planning Service. It is an interdepartmental problem. I was amazed by the first response of the Minister for Regional Development when he said that there was abundant space and capacity in the sewage treatment works in Downpatrick and that there was no problem.

I then got information that the Department of the Environment's water management unit had advised that permission should not be granted for a particular plan. The Departments should have handled those matters. They have discovered that the problem was not caused by the output, but by the input from the sewage treatment works. There is, apparently, a subtle difference. Waste that is not treated at all remains raw sewage, and the quality of treated sewage varies. The inlet to the treatment works was defective, and at certain times blocked, causing a run-off of raw sewage into the Quoile estuary and basin, which is unpleasant for the local population, land and riparian residences.

According to the Minister of the Environment, his officials and those from the Department for Regional Development will discuss what short- and long-term measures the latter should take to address the problem. In his written answer of 17 May to my question AQW 3548/01, the Minister stated that ultimately

Because of the urgency of the matter, I had to elicit further information from the Minister for Regional Development in the form of a priority written answer to question AQW 3472/01. In that answer, the Minister said:

It is understandable why a layperson such as I could be confused. The Department for Regional Development states that there is no overloading, that there is sufficient capacity for the future and that the quality of the output meets required standards. Meanwhile, its Water Service tells us not to connect any more houses in the area and to stop all future planning and development.

The Minister for Regional Development further stated that:

That response was given two months ago. I know that some action is being taken, and I have no doubt that the Minister for Regional Development will be able to give us an update on the results of that action. In his reply of 17 May to question AQW 3508/01, the Minister said:

One would think that completing that fairly minor work in four or five weeks would not have meant that it was necessary to stop all planning for that part of Downpatrick. The worst that could have happened is that a planning application, which in all other aspects was permissible, could have been given permission subject to a connection to the sewerage system in four or five weeks' time.

Building takes a couple of months, so there should not have been any problem. I do not know why there was no practical management of these applications. The broader issue of great concern is why this was allowed to happen. Inspections regularly take place, and several Government Departments and agencies carried out their little pigeonholed operations against all the checks and standards.

I had the foresight, if I may say so modestly, to table a question on 10 December 2001 before the matter arose. In reply I was informed that construction work on the new sewage works in Downpatrick would commence in 2005 at a cost of £2·3 million - no panic, no worry, no problem. The original target for the larger scheme was 2000, which has now passed. Is someone, somewhere not giving us the correct information? Has someone allowed a five-year fallout from the capital programme of £2·3 million knowing, or not knowing, that there was a deficiency in the system? We would like to have answers to those questions, if possible.

Many questions arise from that incident. People who do not live in the area may wonder what this is all about, and the Minister may say that there are other areas in Northern Ireland with similar problems. If I lived in those other areas I would still be agitated, because, as I have said repeatedly - and possibly ad nauseam - it means a moratorium on all new building work in the centre of Downpatrick.

I have thanked the Minister of the Environment for being present, but he has said that he thinks that the Minister for Regional Development is responsible. If that is the case, the Minister for Regional Development should be here to answer the question. As a layperson in this area, I am totally confused by what has happened. The authorities appear to be divided, but in that division there must be maximum co-operation.

The salient questions are - is this a serious situation? If so, why has the main programme of £2·3 million for a new sewage works been postponed from 2000 to 2005? That information was elicited last December. In March 2002 there was a moratorium on planning, but was that necessary? What is the nature of the Environment and Heritage Service's authority compared with that of another branch of the same Department? The Minister of the Environment, in answer to my written question (AQW 3548/01), stated:

Is that a directive? Do the planning officials have to take that on board whether they like it or not, or is it their decision? Where does the authority lie; where does the expertise lie; and where does the remedy lie? He went on to say:

I ask, tongue in cheek, who is creating the authorised discharge? The Department of the Environment, apparently. If it is creating an unauthorised discharge, does it not have an immediate civic responsibility as the polluter to pay and sort out the pollution? I am confused by the final part of the answer, which states that it is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development's Water Service to determine what will happen.

I hope that clarification is given on where responsibility lies. There may be a joint responsibility, and, if so, it must be made clear who is carrying out the work, when it will be done and where the authority for planning permission lies. Is it with a sub-agency or is it with the Planning Service? It must be made clear whether it is possible to have a sensible attitude to planning management. If the construction is a four- to five-week wonder - as we are told officially - why can planning permission not be granted conditional on connection to the sewage works not being made for four to five weeks or until further authorisation is given? The developers or the individual could then go ahead with the work and build the main construction, by which time the connection could be made. However, nothing has been done; permission has not been given; no starts have been made; the construction firms carrying out the work cannot keep workers on; and people who have arranged house sales and mortgages do not know where they are going. This is a serious community matter, and the current situation flies in the face of the regional development proposals for Downpatrick.

I thank the Minister for being present, and I look forward to his response. I do not have to go into details about the geography, because as a co-representative of the area, he is familiar with the problem. I would not like to think that his interest was inhibited because he represents the area. There is an inverted idea that because one represents an area, one has to be especially careful. The same care must be exercised as with any other area. I expect a fulsome, favourable and open reply from the Minister.

I share some of Mr McGrady's confusion. However, what we face today exposes a major weakness in the procedures of the House. Two Ministers are involved directly: the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Peter Robinson, and the Minister of the Environment, Mr Nesbitt. Why do we not have procedures that allow both Ministers to respond to Adjournment debates when there is a clear cross-cutting of responsibilities for the issue being discussed? I have raised this matter several times. I raised it during the debate on sheep grazing in the Mournes, where half the responsibility lay with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and the other half lay with the Minister for Regional Development. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development stated that she could not answer some of my questions because they were not her responsibility, and she referred them to the Minister for Regional Development. That is not good enough. Flexibility is necessary if we are to have joined-up government in this Province. When there is a division of responsibility, both Ministers should be present.

The wording of Mr McGrady's motion is unhelpful. I read the local papers, and I read every word of Mr McGrady's that is published - that takes quite some time. I hope that he reads the small, succinct paragraphs that I write occasionally.

I was fully aware of what he was getting at when he tabled the subject for this Adjournment debate. However, the heading "Future planning development in Downpatrick" could have referred to the delay in the publication of the Down/Ards area plan. It could have referred to the implementation of the regional development strategy, or it could have related to a specific planning issue. Unless one lived or worked in the area, one would not know what the debate was intended to be about purely from the wording of the title. Perhaps that is why the Minister of the Environment is present rather than the Minister for Regional Development. I do not know. Certainly, only those on the ground could have been fully aware of what Mr McGrady was referring to in the title. I have a policy: I will always give way at any stage if a Member wishes to challenge me on this or any other issue.

For many years in Northern Ireland we complained about the gamekeeper-and-poacher problem with the Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment was huge. It was the "Department of Everything". It was a vast empire, ranging from roads to planning to housing, and so on. The permanent secretary had vast influence throughout the Province, because the Department of the Environment had an input into practically everything that happened in Northern Ireland. It was, therefore, perfectly correct that the functions of the Department were separated and that its size was divided.

That achieved a division in the gamekeeper-and-poacher problem. Now, responsibility for water quality monitoring is entirely in the hands of the Department of the Environment's Environment and Heritage Service, while the provision of water services, sewerage systems and water supply is in the hands of the Department for Regional Development. When a problem with water quality arises, the Department of the Environment can now, at least, take action - because it is not worried that its permanent secretary will be breathing down its neck, saying that it cannot take action because it is responsible for the pollution. I welcome that, but the problem is that it leads to a situation in which one Department blames the other.

I attended Down District Council's meeting last night. The Minister of the Environment addressed the meeting. Many councillors were hopping mad about this problem, and they were venting forth about it. On several occasions the Minister rightly pointed out that particular aspects of the issue were not his Department's responsibility and that they were the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. The Minister for Regional Development was not present, and, of course, only one Minister is present this evening.

We are, however, agreed that the Environment and Heritage Service's perception of water quality in relation to the sewage works is having a dramatic impact on development in Downpatrick. Development in areas such as Scotch Street, Folly Lane, Model Farm, Quoile Road, Mallard Road and a large swathe of Ardglass Road and Saul Street has been stopped as a result of the problem. One of those applications is for no fewer than 214 dwellings. Another is for 26 dwellings, and a further one is for 12 semi-detached and two detached houses.

I feel particularly sorry for Habitat for Humanity - a charitable-based organisation that encourages co-operative work throughout the world. It encourages communities to have a stake in their area and to work as volunteers in building houses. It has achieved funding for its development in Model Farm, but that funding depends on planning permission's being granted. If permission is not granted soon, the funding could be lost and the entire scheme cast into doubt.

If that happened in any other part of Northern Ireland, people would raise a stink, and rightly so. It is unfortunate that it is happening in Downpatrick, which has had other problems in recent years, such as traffic congestion in the town. It is the last thing that Downpatrick needs. Until the problem is sorted out, development cannot take place there. The companies involved cannot continue to keep staff doing nothing on their books. We are rapidly approaching the stage where there could be redundancies or lay-offs. Action must, therefore, be taken.

I read with interest the response given to Mr McGrady's questions by the Minister for Regional Development. Somebody has clearly got it wrong. Either there has been a small hiccup in the provision of sewage facilities in Downpatrick that will be overcome in six or seven weeks or there is a major problem, identified by Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), that could hold things up for years.

The Department for Regional Development has said that the Water Service has already arranged for manual screens to be replaced at the inlet to the sewage works. It says that that work will be completed in the next six weeks and will satisfy EHS's concerns, enabling development restrictions to be lifted. If that is true, it is an inconvenience that causes some difficulty, but it is an inconvenience that will be completely sorted out within a few weeks. The builders will be able to continue building, the green forms will start flowing from Mr Clarke's office in Rathkeltair House and everyone will be happy.

At last night's council meeting, I suggested to Mr Nesbitt that a negative condition could be attached to planning approvals. In other words, planning approvals would continue to be given on condition that the housing development was not connected to Downpatrick sewage works until the problem had been resolved.

As Mr McGrady said, there are many examples of houses taking six or seven months to be built, and connection to the sewage works can be left to the last. When the problem is sorted out, all houses will have been connected, the negative condition will have been adhered to and everyone will be happy. At last night's council meeting, Mr Nesbitt replied that that would set a dangerous precedent because of what could happen were the problem not resolved in the next six to eight weeks. He said that it sets a dangerous precedent to give planning permission, only to find that houses cannot be connected to the sewage works.

If there is the remotest possibility that the problem cannot be solved in six to eight weeks, we shall face big problems in Downpatrick. It will be a major headache, to which I do not know the solution.

It was suggested that the developers could contribute their own money towards providing an alternative sewage works, or that they could even give money to the Department to help bring the existing sewage works up to standard. The difficulty is that the developers have purchased land, applied for planning permission and done their costings on the basis that houses will be directly connected to the sewage works. None of them would be in a position to develop an alternative solution to what is a difficult problem. As taxpayers and ratepayers, they would rightly expect the Department to complete the work and pick up the bill.

Is the problem simply a breakdown in communication between the two Departments? Have the two Departments not worked out what is wrong and when it will be fixed? If the first scenario is correct, the problem will have blown over by the end of June. If the second scenario is correct, Downpatrick will be completely blighted for planning approvals for many months and years to come. Therefore, there must be clarity. However, that is difficult to achieve in the absence of both Ministers. The reason that they are not present is not their fault, but the fault of the procedures of the House.

I want Mr Nesbitt to clarify whether EHS's representations to Planning Service suggested that the service was not happy with the situation and wanted something done about it, or whether EHS said that under no circumstances should any planning permission be given if it would lead to further problems at Downpatrick sewage works. The planners seem to indicate that the recommendation was extremely strong, but other material that I have seen indicates that it was more of an aspiration about the preferred way for business to be conducted. We need clarification on that point.

Urgency is essential. Planning development is one of the biggest difficulties facing Planning Service in south Down and must be given absolute priority. I am concerned when I am told that the matter will be sorted out in four weeks, and then six weeks, only to be told two weeks later that it will be another four weeks. Down district has been allocated 7,750 new homes under the regional development strategy. To ensure that Downpatrick has the critical mass, and to address its underperformance as the main town in the district, it is absolutely vital that the bulk of those new houses are sited in the Downpatrick area. The problem calls into question whether the new houses can be built in the area. Clarity and urgency are necessary. The Committee on Procedures must examine the matter so that we do not face a similar problem in several months' time, blaming someone else because only one Minister can be on the Floor of the House at a time.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Adjournment debate has been a little misleading. Although I live some distance from Downpatrick, I represent the area. I wish to see its sewerage scheme being sorted out, but we must be wary that planning permission is not pushed through without proper water and sewerage systems in place to provide acceptable living conditions.

Downpatrick is a growing town with a growing population. Proper facilities are necessary - as are the systems to back them up. All systems must operate properly. Houses should not be built without an adequate sewerage system. That has happened in other towns in my South Down constituency. My own town, Rostrevor, has had such problems for years. We should focus on providing housing in Downpatrick, but there is no point in building 700 or 800 houses where there is no proper sewerage system and water service. All Departments should co-operate to resolve the matter once and for all.

Planners should be given every encouragement to develop new housing, and their improvement of Downpatrick should not be hindered by poor water and sewerage services. Were funding in place to provide that housing it would be up to Departments to get their act together to push the Executive for the £2·3 million for the proposed sewerage system. It should not be left until 2005; it should be brought forward so that proper development of the town can take place.

Under the rural development programme for 2001 to 2006, the Departments did not facilitate the sustainable improvement of the economic environment and the social conditions in Downpatrick and the Down district. Although I do not call upon those Departments and agencies to begin a rural development programme for Downpatrick district, it is necessary to tackle social needs and inequalities in health, housing and education. Downpatrick needs those things: for years the town has been a wilderness. We must acknowledge that it has been ignored under 30 years of misrule. As local representatives, we can voice our opinion, involve our local communities and highlight Downpatrick's problems. Go raibh maith agat.

I have noted some interesting comments to answer. I am sorry that Mr McGrady is confused; it is rarely the case, so I shall try to ensure that his confusion passes. Mr Wells referred to critical mass. The regional development strategy identified Downpatrick as a main town, and aimed to realise the potential growth there. As Mr McGrady rightly said, the strategy recognises that growth is not simply about planning. Growth of recreation facilities, business, administration and housing must be balanced. The town's population drives that growth, and the strategy recognises that adequate housing is central to it.

Because the regional development strategy has identified Downpatrick as a main town, the developments in it must be consistent with the plan's aims. We must conform to the strategy. The Department has not been negative about the development potential in Downpatrick.

The Department fully accepts the opinions of Down District Council. Last night, in an example of accountability and democracy at work for the people of South Down and Northern Ireland, I was happy to answer the council's questions for an hour and a half. I am bullish and positive about what I am trying to do, not just for Downpatrick, but for everywhere else.

A pertinent point was raised. It is always good to have my written answers read back to me, which is why it is useful for me to read them before they are issued. At last night's council meeting, Mr Wells stated that there is no problem with the capacity of the sewerage system in Downpatrick. I told him that I agree. Mr McGrady seemed slightly annoyed that the Department for Regional Development advised that there is abundant space and capacity.

The capacity of the sewerage system is not the issue. There is sewerage capacity to service 16,000 houses, of which only 13,000 have been built. As Mr McGrady argued, the Department for Regional Development also confirmed that there is spare capacity and that the level of discharge that leaves the sewage treatment works complies with recognised standards.

The real problem lies with the inlet to the sewerage system, and last night, Mr McGrady's party colleague, Councillor John Doris accepted that. That is good because, if we agree that there is a problem, we can find a solution. The Water Service agrees that there is a problem and it has suggested a solution to the Department. As I assured the council last night, necessary steps will be taken to resolve the problem as soon as possible.

Mr McGrady sought clarification about whether the situation was serious, or the moratorium necessary, and he asked which body had authority for the matter. The Environment and Heritage Service's water management unit gave advice to the Planning Service, on the basis of which the Planning Service recommended that planning should not proceed. Therefore, the decision to prohibit planning was made by the Department of the Environment's Planning Service. As Minister, I could de jure exercise authority over the matter, but de facto it is left to other bodies.

The Environment and Heritage Service has the regulatory responsibility to ensure that water quality standards are met. The required standards have been increasing and will continue to do so as a result of European legislation such as the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive; therefore, the need to raise standards is more urgent. The water management unit of the Environment and Heritage Service knows when water quality standards have been breached or when there is pollution, as took place in Downpatrick. As the regulatory authority, the Environment and Heritage Service is obliged to provide advice on such matters to the Planning Service, which then makes a recommendation or a decision. If, or when, the problem is identified, the Department for Regional Development is responsible for implementing measures.

I was so delighted by Mr Wells's statement on the matter that I wrote it down:

I welcome Mr Wells's commendation of joined-up government in the Province. I thank the Member for that point.

As Minister of the Environment, I am often asked to account to the Assembly as the Minister with responsibility for the regulatory authority. In other debates, such as that on the safety of school transport, I was asked about actions that are the responsibility of the Department of Education or the Department for Regional Development. I do not have the money to implement the actions that were requested, nor is it my responsibility to do so. In this case, responsibility lies with the Department for Regional Development, which is charged with delivering the service. However, the Department of the Environment has a regulatory authority to ensure that appropriate standards are met, therefore that is why we are in this position. It could be argued that it is good that the regulatory authority and the implementing body are in separate Departments. I am not making a case in favour of that, but their separateness clearly delineates responsibility. I hope that I have allayed Members' fears.

The Planning Service makes decisions on the basis of advice from the Environment and Heritage Service and other bodies. The Environment and Heritage Service was concerned about pollution and the increase in required standards imposed by European Directives. The Department of the Environment is the regulatory body, and it is up to the Department for Regional Development to implement measures. The best way to ensure progress is for officials at the highest level in the Department for Regional Development and in the Department of the Environment to identify and solve the problem as quickly as possible.

Mr Wells said that somebody has got it wrong: the Department for Regional Development says that it will take weeks; the Department of the Environment says years. Neither need be wrong. We know that there is a problem, so we must identify it. The Department for Regional Development believes that the problem will be solved once vents have been installed.

The Minister says that officials from the two Departments will take action in future. The Department for Regional Development said that arrangements had been made to install new screening equipment at the inlet to the works; equipment that is expected to be operational in the next two months and which will enhance the reliability of the works. Has that happened or not?

Vents would enhance the reliability of the works, as the sewage coming through them would be slightly purer. However, there would still be a problem. Discussions have taken place, but the problem has yet to be resolved fully. The Department for Regional Development believes that its solution can be implemented in a matter of weeks. We are less certain. However, I wish both Departments to agree a solution as soon as possible.

Pollution will occur where there are no legal constraints to prevent it. Pollution and its control are important; pollution affects not merely local people but the image of Northern Ireland.

We are obliged to meet increasingly rigorous European Commission standards. I would not be discharging my responsibility as Minister of the Environment if I did not ensure closer scrutiny of planning applications, especially if there are problems. This is not the only investigation in Northern Ireland; there are, I believe, eight such investigations under way - we must bear that in mind.

I hope that this matter will be resolved speedily to deliver the regional development strategy's recommendation that Downpatrick be a hub for development.

Adjourned at 5.33 pm