High-profile people such as John Reid and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern have been involved, and there have been high-profile addresses and exchanges. Michael Mates plays a part, as does Sinn Féin. The structure includes 25 Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in Westminster; 25 TDs and Senators from the Twenty-six Counties; five from this Assembly and others from Wales, Scotland, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

Surprisingly, in one sense, Unionists are not playing their part in the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, with the exception of people such as Lord Glentoran. Unionists appear to have no confidence in that body, despite all the talk about Britishness, sovereignty, the future security of the Union and about Unionists playing their part. They are certainly not playing their part in the British-Irish Parliamentary Body - another political cat that they seem afraid of.

The steering committee includes two co-chairmen, the outgoing TD Michael O'Kennedy and the MP David Winnick. Sean Neeson has also become a member, and Joe Hendron, who will make a substantive contribution, will soon replace Carmel Hanna. I have attended three plenary sessions, in Galway, Killarney and England, and that has enabled me to make political and social contacts and friendships despite political differences. There is dialogue on an east-west basis, but the Ulster Unionist Party is opposed to its taking place on a North/South basis. That attitude is very unenlightened, and we may read more into it.

Where is the Ulster Unionist Party's political will to realise all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement? The delays are unreasonable and unacceptable. One of the reasons Sinn Féin is in the Assembly is the all-Ireland dimension. I am not afraid to say that, nor do I apologise for it. I am not going to dress that fact up in any way. We bought into the agreement so that that dimension could be realised. Our objective is to see the eventual establishment of a single parliament in Ireland, with jurisdiction over the entire country. We do not bury the fact that that is part of our ideology and philosophy, but we have no confidence in the Unionist will to engage.

Sinn Féin Members will meet party colleagues in the forum when it is established in the near future - and it will be established. We have much in common with TDs and Senators in the rest of the country. I congratulate my colleagues, TDs Caoimhghin Ó Caoláin, Sean Crow, Aenghus Ó Snodaigh, Arthur Morgan and Martin Ferris, on their five-star performance in recent elections.

Every aspect of the North/South dimension of the Good Friday Agreement must be developed across all Government Departments and as outlined in the Alliance motion.

In Northern Ireland, the system of government and administration contains roughly the following: 26 councils, 108 MLAs, a North/South Ministerial Council, an Intergovernmental Conference, 18 MPs, three MEPs, five education and library boards, four health and social service boards and innumerable quangos. The proposal is to add another element to that highly complex system.

I oppose the proposal and will speak about two fundamental issues that must be considered. The first is that that complex system of government is unaccountable.

Its unaccountability breeds incompetence. In particular, once someone is appointed under the d'Hondt system, which is like a lottery, it is impossible for the Assembly to remove that person, no matter how incompetent he or she may be.

The risk of incompetence that the proposal creates is highlighted by the "star performer" in the Executive's league of incompetence. Every MLA will have received correspondence from Health Service professionals who have nothing against the Belfast Agreement per se, but believe that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety lacks policies to deal with the crisis of demand for services and operates no ongoing decision-making on the annual allocation of resources. In other words, there is a core element of incompetence in the Department, which, under the complex arrangements, cannot be removed. To create further complexity would simply obscure the unaccountability of Departments and reinforce the increasing incompetence that is perceived in the Executive.

Within the North/South arrangements established under the Belfast Agreement, economic policy-making in Northern Ireland has an increasingly all-Ireland focus, which is the objective of the institutions. Focus is shifting from the United Kingdom context, the only economic and social structure that is of real relevance to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, as a small area of economic activity, is highly integrated into the UK context, economically and politically.

The significance of that shift of context can be discerned in agricultural policy-making. On the one hand, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development pays enormous attention to the North/South Ministerial Council and makes speeches in Brussels on matters that lie outside her competence, highlighting the more absurd elements of SDLP policy for bringing about a so-called Europe of the regions. On the other hand, two recent expensive, glossy publications, 'Vision for the Future of the Agri-Food Industry in Northern Ireland' and 'Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Business Strategy 2002' have promising titles, but contain no policy that is relevant to Northern Ireland as an agricultural community in the UK. That is highly significant, because a mid-term review will take place in June.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has developed no concrete strategic policy. Therefore, it has not contributed to the UK negotiating position in order to represent the interests of Northern Ireland agriculture in the mid-term review. That is a crucial failure. By adding the significant dimension of another North/South or all-Ireland body, we are simply accelerating the shift away from the only context in which Northern Ireland policy should be made.

I am not the only critic of the absence of strategic policy and the concentration on insignificant all-Ireland aspects of Northern Ireland agriculture. In today's 'News Letter', Dr Brian Scott, the executive director of Oxfam said that

In other words, he says that the so-called vision report is devoid of any real content. The Minister has, in a sense, conceded her incapacity. In a recent statement, she referred to the limited scope of Northern Ireland representatives to shape the eventual outcome of CAP reform. The Minister acknowledged that, but what she is really acknowledging is her inability and failure to contribute real policy towards the UK negotiating position in the crucial area of agriculture. That is happening because of too much nonsensical concentration on a totally irrelevant all-Ireland context.

That type of failure under any normal system of Government would have one outcome for the Minister - she would be sacked. She would be dismissed for being entirely incapable of doing her job, but there is no way that that can be done.

Will the Member give way? He has plenty of time.

No. I am sorry, Mr Maginness, I do not have time. In fact, I need a lot more time.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you rule on the relevance of the remarks? Is Mr Roche remaining within the parameters of the motion?

Order. I remind the Member to remain within the terms of the motion.

The relevance of my remarks is quite simple. We have a North/South dimension to our institutions that distracts from the proper context for policy-making, and that gives rise to vacuous government for Northern Ireland with regard to its real needs. It does not surprise me that the individual who rose to his feet does not understand that simple point. I do not think that there would be any simple point that he could understand.

To put the matter bluntly, the proposal is stupid. That should not be a surprise, given that it has emanated from the Alliance Party. I do not want to be offensive to its Members, but the Alliance Party is the party of political stupidity in Northern Ireland. That has been a core characteristic of that party under all its leaderships, without exception. It is not only the party of - [Interruption].

Order.

It is not only the party of political stupidity in Northern Ireland, it is the party of moral duplicity. What lies behind the proposal is a further attempt by the Alliance Party to accommodate the agenda of terrorism on this island. That is what it is really about. It did so recently, under the self-delusion that by re-designating itself, it could somehow make some massive change in the voting systems of how appointments are made here. Having been kicked in the political anatomy by the British Government, it is still at the same old game. The party is morally duplicitous, and in terms of political know-how or savvy, it is stupid to its very core.

I cannot possibly hope to emulate Mr Roche. I shall simply provide some observations on my experience of North/South co-operation. My first experience of it was with a charming lady, Judge Catherine McGuinness, who is the chairperson of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in the South of Ireland. When I was appointed chairperson of the Forum for Political Dialogue in Northern Ireland I made a point of meeting her. We had a most helpful conversation that bore out the point with which I intended to end my speech, which is "vive la différence". For those who do not speak French, that means, "long live the difference".

That forum was rather ineffective. It enabled political parties to set out their prospectuses, but it did not result in the dialogue that built up in the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue, which I hope played a small part in creating the Assembly and the adversarial system evident in the House.

My second experience, as my friend Mr Alban Maginness reminded me, was meeting our opposite numbers in Dublin to find out how they dealt with the proceeds of serious crime, which is a matter of great concern here, as well as in the Republic of Ireland. We discovered some interesting facts, and I am sure that Members remember some of those. We found that, despite its statements about human rights, the Southern Government had never signed up to the EU's civil rights legislation. When Mr Maginness and I asked them, with genuine mystery in our minds, "How did you get away with that?" They said, "We never signed it."

It is a difference that Members may not think it a good idea to emulate. It was all good-hearted and much more positive than I am now suggesting it was, because it was effective. Never mind the human rights violations, as some might call them; this is a team that includes the Inland Revenue, social services and the taxation authorities. It is headed by a senior officer of the gardaí, and over the past two years it has recovered approximately £45 million from people who had taken money from the public. The dishonesty and fraudulence had, in many ways, resulted in many poor people losing all their money.

My third experience was perhaps even stranger. The Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is chaired by my good friend Donovan McClelland, invited the Southern Government to talk to us about what they did about standards and privileges. Since much of the conversation was privileged, it would be remiss of me to go into detail. However, I can say that Members will soon see a document that will be the product of our Committee on Standards and Privileges. It will fully cover all the possible temptations that may exist to lure MLAs from the straight and narrow path. If we follow that document, we will be all right. The Southern Government would have to agree that it is superior to what appears in the Oireachtas. I end as I began, by saying long live the difference - vive la différence.

It will come as no surprise to the Alliance Party that my Colleagues and I will be vigorously opposing the motion. I am not making a personal attack on Mr Ford. Nevertheless, he will understand that I feel that the motion has overtones ensuring that any Unionist with a sense of Unionism would have to oppose it.

The debate was interesting, and several points that are on the record must be addressed. Mr Alban Maginness said that there was a duty on each one of us - through the Belfast Agreement - to establish a joint parliamentary body. I want to make abundantly clear that the Belfast Agreement has put no duty on me whatsoever. I resent the Belfast Agreement, I oppose the Belfast Agreement, and I hope that the day will come soon when we can bury the Belfast Agreement. I make no apology for the stance that I take.

The debate was interesting because what developed today was a lovers' tiff between the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Féin - the pro-agreement parties. It was interesting that Mr Maginness said that Mr Birnie was delaying the process of establishing the joint parliamentary body. Those words are interesting, because Mr Maginness's interpretation was that it is a delay, not a desire to stop the process of establishment.

There have been several changes recently because of the impending election. Therefore, there may be a delay in setting up the joint parliamentary forum because an election is in the offing. One thing is said before election time, and another is said or done afterwards. That policy is without principle. My DUP Colleagues and I are open and honourable enough to tell the people where and why we stand on a principled policy. We make no apologies whatsoever. The people can make their decision accordingly. At least that is an honourable and principled position.

Since the Member mentioned political honour, the fact that his party is still present in this institution - and that, indeed, some of its members are Executive Ministers - casts doubt on the pristine purity and lack of hypocrisy in his party's position.

I am delighted that the Member mentioned that, because the falsehood and fallacy usually peddled by him and his party Colleagues should be buried.

A short time ago, Members stood for the Westminster election. The people knew where the DUP stood. They knew that DUP Ministers were holding offices in the Assembly, which the people gave them. I remember Dr Birnie's leader waving his hands - as he usually does in excitement - and shouting, "Why do you not get out? Get out." He would love the DUP to get out of the Assembly. He would love DUP Ministers to leave their offices, so that those two ministries could be handed over to pro-agreement "suckers for Dublin".

The DUP is honourable to the electorate. When it runs in elections for councils, Westminster and the Assembly, the people know where it stands. It will not oscillate, as a member of the UUP did in a recent election. If you were pro-agreement, he was pro-agreement; if you were anti-agreement, he was anti-agreement. That was a totally unprincipled position, and it sums up the gobbledygook mindset of Mr Birnie and his Colleagues. I am delighted that he mentioned that, because - I am sure - he will not come back for a second portion after that exposition has been given to him.

Today, Members have been listening to doubletalk - people saying, "Of course we are not against it", while believing that the situation is sufficient. Let us be honest. The current arrangements should be sufficient for them because of the North/South Ministerial Council. I am fed up to the back teeth - and I know that many of my constituents are too - with the Assembly taking up time with ministerial statement after ministerial statement. There are more ministerial statements on cross-border bodies and cross-border meetings than there are on the duties that the Ministers are supposed to carry out. Is that a tenable position? It is nothing but total interference in the affairs of Northern Ireland, which is resented by the majority of people and the Unionist population.

Sir John Gorman posed a good question. He asked how the Dublin Government got away with not signing up to the EU's civil rights legislation. They do it by adopting the policy of "Do as we say, not as we do". They interfere constantly in the activities of the police in Northern Ireland. People who talk about the police's use of batons should see how the gardaí wield them.

The Irish Government interfere in every facet of the lives of people here, and this proposal would give them even greater opportunity to do so. My time is limited because there will be a winding-up speech, but Alban Maginness knows that I would be happy to continue the debate with him. His claim that the Assembly can make a "critical examination" of the North/South Ministerial Council is a joke. There can be no critical examination; I wish that there could be so that we could see exactly what emerges, because I can tell you - [Interruption].

The Member is given the opportunity to do that in the Assembly.

My party is given five minutes to speak in crucial debates. I have been a politician for 29 years, and I do not regard a five-minute speech as a critical examination. It may suit some people who want to cover things up and who do not want a real examination of the nitty-gritty, but I want open government whereby people must stand over exactly what they say and do. As Unionists, we cannot support the motion.

Alban Maginness said that all Committee members have gone to Dublin; that is not true. My Committee has not gone to Dublin. The purpose of Committees is to scrutinise Ministers here. As Chairperson of the Environment Committee, my duty is to scrutinise the work of the Environment Minister, his Department and the proposals that he brings before the Committee.

Other Members may think that it is more important to pay for the Irish language to be printed on a Department's headed paper than it is to fund what really counts, for example, the treatment of people waiting for heart operations. Public finance is being wasted. Do we need another quango or an excuse for another few dinners? Some people would go the length and breadth of the world to get a free lunch. The proposed joint parliamentary body would be merely a talking shop. We do not need more of those; we need democracy in the Province. Unfortunately, we are not getting a democratic institution because the pro-agreement clique that set up and agreed the Belfast Agreement has rigged the situation.

I believe in respect. Alban Maginness said that good neighbourliness with the South should be developed. That is exactly what we want to do, but good neighbourliness is founded on mutual respect.

Hear, hear.

Mutual respect means not claiming what is not yours. For years, however, the South of Ireland has claimed this part of the United Kingdom, and it is interfering daily in our affairs. The Irish Government claim that they have removed articles 2 and 3, but, under the Belfast Agreement, they do not need those provisions. The Belfast Agreement has given them an official, more definite position to interfere in every sector of the lives of ordinary citizens here - our health, education and tourism - and that is 10 times more valuable to them.

Many in this Province are sick to the teeth of institutions, quangos and little meetings here, there and yonder for the sake of it. That is not productive use of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money. We have good neighbourliness with the South of Ireland, but it is interesting to note what they do by comparison to what we are supposed to do. Mr Ahern says that he will not have Sinn Féin in his Government, but he is prepared to put it into ours. He has told us that there will be no settlement between the United Kingdom and the South of Ireland unless terrorist thugs are put into Government. He will not allow them on his patch, but he will make us have them on ours.

Good neighbourliness demands self-respect and mutual respect. If it is not good enough for him, it is not good enough for us. In any case, we should be bosses in our own houses. The majority in Northern Ireland should have control of the institutions and those who administer them. The people have been sold a poisoned pup. Unfortunately for some, but fortunately for this country, they will be able to have their say. They can be bitten once, but not twice. People are waking up and, with all due respect to Mr Ford and his Colleagues, they want no further interference pouring from Dublin. Let us rule honourably and democratically in our Province. For many, the chickens will soon come home to roost.

I am at a loss to reply to the variety of contributions, but I shall try to reply to substantive points.

Mr Roche's points were substantive and helpful. Sir John Gorman mentioned some interesting examples of the benefits of North/South co-operation. However, I am not sure whether Sir John will be voting with or against us. The examples he highlighted were different from the comments of his Colleague, Dr Birnie.

I thank Mr Alban Maginness and Mr McElduff for their support. I particularly thank Mr McElduff for saying that the motion was not strong enough. It will enhance my street cred with the DUP that Sinn Féin was dissatisfied with the motion. I was a little worried that it might agree too much with me, although some of Mr McElduff's points about the operation of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body (BIIPB) were interesting.

Complaints about the operation of the North/South Ministerial Council were made recently by Dr McCrea. The proposal today is to introduce a little informal North/South co-operation on matters of mutual interest and concern in an area which is already covered by an east-west body. I agree with the DUP's comments on the inadequacies of the east-west institutions. It is clearly the fault of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that not enough has been done about them. That does not mean that we should not examine the possibility of North/South links.

I thank Mr Campbell for his words of praise for my bona fides, which will undoubtedly enhance my street cred with Sinn Féin. Mr Campbell and Dr McCrea disagreed in their approach to the issue. My understanding of Mr Campbell's approach is that although the motion, as we proposed it, is acceptable, it cannot pass because Republicans will play games with it. I understand Dr McCrea to have said that the motion was not at all acceptable. I made some notes, and it is clear that Mr Campbell, in several times praising the way in which the motion was introduced, referred to its precise contents. He is, however, unhappy about it.

I refer Mr Campbell to the example of his colleague, the Mayor of Derry, Cllr Mildred Garfield, who took President McAleese around the city of Londonderry. That was a practical example of North/South discussion of matters of mutual interest. The motion concerns such discussion. It does not concern another quango; neither is it a matter of complicating the system of Government. It proposes a forum in which people can meet and hold simple discussions on matters of interest.

For that reason, I find it particularly difficult to accept Dr Birnie's response. He appeared to allege that the motion is incompetent. I assume that I have it on your authority, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on the authority of the Speaker and the Business Committee which accepted it, that the motion is not incompetent. He suggests that the words

contradict "consider developing a joint parliamentary forum." How else could we consider it in any meaningful way? It cannot be done by sitting here. The possible benefits of establishing a joint forum can be considered only by discussion with the other partner.

Therefore it appears to me that Dr Birnie - [Interruption].

I thank the Member for giving way. The motion proposes the establishment of a joint parliamentary forum. It presupposes that the consideration of such a body will reach an affirmative conclusion, whereas the agreement specifies that a joint parliamentary forum will be considered.

The words "with a view to establishing" are clearly used to allow the Members nominated by the Speaker of this House and those of the Oireachtas to consider the potential benefits of such a body and how it might operate.

The UUP, with the possible exception of Sir John Gorman, intends to end all debate. Did the UUP endorse the Belfast Agreement? Is it running scared of the DUP as it frequently does on occasions such as this? I see Dr Birnie jumping in his seat, but I will not give way again.

I was moving my chair.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but Dr Birnie looked so enthusiastic. The UUP is running scared from that to which it agreed. It is running scared of the DUP and the anti-agreement brigade. If the UUP had any sense of what it had agreed to four years ago, it would see the motion as a way in which practical work could be done and matters of mutual interest could be discussed without any constitutional ramifications. It would enthusiastically support the motion as opposed to running fricht. Having failed to outline what Ministers may have been discussing last night, it is clear that the UUP has nothing to contribute to the debate. The motion should be passed regardless of the fear of Ulster Unionist Members.

Wallace Day Centre, Lisburn

TOP

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in the House.

The Down Lisburn Trust area has the highest proportion of children and young adults with learning disabilities of all the trusts in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, and yet it receives the least funding. Yesterday, I spoke to officials from that board, who confirmed that the Down Lisburn Trust receives 6% less funding than any other trust.

People with learning disabilities have specific needs, and they deserve a service that reflects those needs. Identifying and assessing those needs, to assist planning and co-ordination of services, is essential. Many needs are not being met, and the situation will continue to deteriorate if immediate action is not taken. Inadequate funding is the main reason that the situation has been created.

Many people with learning disabilities depend on the service that the Lisburn Assessment and Resource Centre, formerly known as the Wallace day centre, provides. Often it is their only opportunity for social contact and the security of a structured environment that enables them to develop. Current provision is not sufficient to meet demand, and as most clients make the transition from the education system and need adult care support services, this does not bode well for the future.

The centre caters for 99 people. The conditions are absolutely appalling, and it is in need of complete refurbishment and extension. Access via the main entrance is inadeqate, resulting in clients having to negotiate between moving cars and buses to get to it. The front doors are not automatic, making it difficult for access to the building by wheelchair users, and there is no cover to gain access to transport. In bad weather the clients, drivers, and attendants all get soaked. A mobile unit is situated away from the main building, and there is no protection against the weather when getting from there to the centre for meals and therapy. There are too few special needs toilets, which means that clients have to queue. On many occasions, staff have to use hoists to facilitate clients' toilet needs, which is both embarrassing and an insult to their dignity.

There is so much overcrowding that wheelchairs cannot be accommodated in the room catering for people needing intensive support. They have to be placed in chairs, and their wheelchairs stored in the assembly hall. The effect of this is that many people who are wheelchair-bound have no mobility while in the centre. The dining facility is also inadequate for the numbers attending the centre; many have to eat their lunch in the assembly hall. Frozen dinners are sent from Downpatrick, and there have been several reports of dissatisfaction with the quality of these meals. Assembly hall windows are permanently locked resulting in inadequate ventilation.

These dreadful conditions are having a serious effect on the morale of clients, their families and carers, and, above all, the staff. There is no staff room; sickness levels are high; and there is no cover for staff on sick leave, unless it is for long-term illness. This results in further pressure on staff to ensure continuity for these clients by covering the duties of their colleagues on sick leave.

Down Lisburn Trust has been operating a policy of discontinued service for clients aged over 45 to make way for new clients. That has led to much distress, because clients have been denied access to friends and their familiar, regular routines. It also creates much worry for their carers, many of whom are elderly and may be experiencing difficulty in caring for their loved ones. The policy is unfair, and contravenes the principles of equality espoused in the Good Friday Agreement. Under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it amounts to age discrimination in the Down Lisburn Trust equality scheme.

Given the announcement by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister yesterday that Northern Ireland was going ahead of Britain and Europe in extending the protection against discrimination to all disabled people in employment, I believe that Down Lisburn Trust should reconsider its policy and extend the same rights to statutory care for those who are unable to work because of the nature of their disability. These people already suffer considerable social disadvantage, and they rely on others to speak out for them. They deserve a service tailored to their needs, and security in the knowledge that the service will be continuous, if that is their choice. I believe that the right to choose is vital, and that many choices should be available to both the disabled and their carers. Facilitation is needed to enable them to take control of their lives and to achieve independence commensurate with their condition.

The social aspect is also important. Every individual is a part of our community, and as such has the right to the opportunity to develop a social network within that community. We should aim to ensure quality of life for people with disabilities and their carers and families. As many options as possible should therefore be available to them, thus permitting them to take control of their lives rather than being the recipients of what others decide should be best for them.

In February, I asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what improvements, if any, were to be made in the provision of services and facilities at Wallace Avenue day centre. The question was AQW 2033/01. The Minister's reply stated that

I ask the Minister: what is the timescale for the review? When will the report of that evaluation be available, and what type of consultation will be undertaken?

As many public representatives in the Lisburn area have taken a keen interest in the issue, it is possible that there could be repetition, but I will carry on regardless.

Although the issue has only now been brought to the Assembly, many of the area's representatives, including the MP for Lagan Valley, have taken a keen interest in it. I am delighted that the topic has been brought to the Assembly, and I congratulate Ms Lewsley for that.

It is important to understand that the majority of people being cared for at the centre - they are called clients - do not have the ability to make choices in their lives. They are told what to eat and what to wear. They cannot support themselves.

My first point relates to overcrowding at the centre. At a meeting held in 1999, a trust representative said that the centre was suitable for only 80 people. Today, there are approximately 101 people there, and thus the facilities are seriously overstretched. It seems that the trust offers part-time care - for example, one to two days a week in the centre to some clients - in an attempt to get around the problem of overcrowding.

There are too many people of different abilities in the same room. Therefore the behaviour of some clients affects others. As a result of overcrowding, there is a lack of toilet facilities in the centre, which means that a queue system is in operation for people in wheelchairs. Is this really suitable?

It is worth noting that the dining room is too small. The assembly hall must also be used, and there is a ventilation problem in the hall. Ms Lewsley mentioned the windows. The trust claims that the windows cannot be opened for security reasons. I do not see the logic in not having them open for some period during the day.

My second point is about the mobile unit at the centre. At a recent meeting with people involved in the centre, they commented strongly about the condition of that unit. They used the term "Third World" to describe it because it is over 15 years old. I would have thought that such a deplorable environment would not be acceptable today. I suggest that the mobile unit be replaced by a permanent structure, which should be connected directly with the main section of the building. The reason for this is that clients must move between the two separate sections in all weather conditions. Some form of corridor or protection is badly needed.

It has also been suggested to me that it can be quite hazardous moving from one section to the other during the winter, and clients' safety must be taken into consideration. Another safety concern is the main entrance to the building itself. Again, a similar situation exists because there is no covering for clients and staff when getting on and off the bus. Traffic congestion is also an issue because of the size of this area and because no automatic doors are provided for easy access to the main building.

My third point is about the section of land that Down Lisburn Trust wants to sell. The Department has commented that its policy is to sell surplus land, but I would make the strong argument that this is not surplus land, but rather it could be put to good use. For instance, it could be landscaped and developed into a garden for clients to enjoy. If this land is sold, serious consideration should be given to putting the finance obtained into the present accommodation.

Even though most of my speech has been negative, I will finish on a positive note. It would be wrong and highly unfair not to mention the wonderful work of staff at the centre. Families of clients have complained to me about the centre's resources and facilities, but they always mention the commitment and care shown by staff. They work under tremendous pressure and have to deal with the lack of resources. Their hard work must be acknowledged and appreciated.

I would like to know how many people work at the centre. Figures have been provided, but do they accurately reflect the numbers of people who work there? Staff morale must be at an all-time low due to the lack of resources and facilities.

My main concerns are: the overcrowding at the centre; the mobile unit with its safety issues, and the intention of Down Lisburn Trust to sell land at the site.

I hope that the trust and the Minister will pay attention to the debate. Resources are overstretched, and that is why the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must provide extra funds if we are to tackle these serious issues.

I thank Patricia Lewsley for bringing the matter before the House: I know that she has a particular interest in disability issues.

The problems with learning disabled, and the Wallace Avenue day centre in particular have been ongoing in the Lagan Valley constituency for some time. Many of the problems outlined reflect the situation accurately. A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. The learning disabled are among the most vulnerable in our society, and the Down Lisburn area is not coming out too well.

I do not blame the Down Lisburn Trust. It is operating on a budget that does not reflect its needs, and that must be addressed as a matter of priority. Down Lisburn Trust is operating on a budget that - according to the formula of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board - is £9·1 million less than it should be. The learning disabled in Lisburn receive about £1·25 million less than they should. Down Lisburn Trust cannot be expected to deliver the resources required when it is underfunded by £1·25 million. We could do a vast amount of work for the learning disabled in Lisburn if we were given that £1·25 million.

We do not have enough therapists in the area: we cannot get them, and we do not have the resources to get them. Alderman Davis mentioned the mobile unit, and there is talk of replacing it with another mobile unit. That is not satisfactory, and it is not what we need.

We need a total review of the facilities in the Down Lisburn area, and I will deal specifically with the Lagan Valley area. There must be a total review of what is available for the learning disabled. The Wallace Avenue day centre, Seymour Hill, the Hillhall estate and the Beeches Vocational Training Unit should all be reviewed. The review should consider whether what is there will meet the needs of the learning disabled in future.

Lisburn covers a vast area, and it is growing quickly. Learning disability has no boundaries. The more people there are, the more learning disabled there will be. They come from all backgrounds and societies and their problems are no respecters of money, social class or religious denomination.

As Lisburn grows, so the number of people with learning difficulties who require facilities will grow. Mr Davis has already said that the Wallace day centre is overcrowded. Is the centre the right place for those people? Should more money be spent on it, or should a new provision be considered - for example, a new-build, first-class, twenty-first-century centre for people with learning disabilities in the Lisburn area? We must take full account of the needs of those with learning disabilities and decide on the best way to meet those needs.

I will touch briefly on the issue of the Beeches vocational training unit. I would have liked the Minister for Employment and Learning to be present to answer questions on that burning local issue. The European social fund withdrew funding from the unit. The Down Lisburn Trust has stepped in to ensure that funding continues. However, the Department for Employment and Learning has a role to play; it is not simply a matter for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. We must consider the training element -

I remind the Member that the topic of the debate is the Wallace day centre and that he should stick to that topic.

I am conscious of the wording of the subject of the debate. Some young people who attended the Wallace day centre have had to move to the Beeches unit because their families thought that the Wallace day centre was sub-standard. Therefore, the point that I made about the Beeches unit ties in with the subject of the debate because it affects people with learning disabilities in the Down Lisburn Trust area. Nevertheless, I will not dwell on it, other than to say that the Department for Employment and Learning should meet its responsibility and ensure that the unit is kept open.

We must provide the Wallace day centre with the necessary resources to ensure that those with learning disabilities in the Down Lisburn Trust area receive the service that they deserve. We must consider whether the centre is in the right location. If not, we must identify a new site and establish where we will find the resources to develop a purpose-built centre.

It is foolish to suggest that we should sell off land on a site that is already overcrowded. That undermines the work that is being carried out, because any development on the site would be an invasion of the privacy of the young people who attend the centre. It would inhibit them and make life more awkward for them. That is fundamentally wrong.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Patricia Lewsley for introducing this debate. Like Edwin Poots, I am conscious of the wording of the subject of the debate. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, of which I am a member, is aware of the lack of provision for adults with learning difficulties throughout the North. Groups in the Foyle constituency have lobbied the Committee, and it has taken those concerns on board and has also met with other groups. As previous Members have said, the issue has come to the fore at Lisburn Borough Council meetings not only because of the involvement of individuals but because the parent support group have brought it to the attention of councillors.

Members are aware that the Health Service is underfunded by many millions of pounds. Having taken that on board, we discover that the so-called Cinderella services that deal with mental health, learning disabilities or children seem to fall out of the loop. The issue is not emotive; it is specific to Wallace day centre's clients and their families, and therefore it does not attract as much media attention as the underfunded acute sector. That makes it easier for boards and trusts to skew funding from such services.

I accept that Down Lisburn Trust has a funding deficit of some £9·1 million, yet it is not perceived as underfunded. I am a Lisburn borough councillor, but as an MLA for West Belfast, I was more aware of the underfunding of the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust. Before the inadequacy of Down Lisburn Trust's funding was highlighted at a presentation by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, I would never have believed that its shortfall was so large. However, the trust decides how it spends its money, and it is easier to skew funds from the so-called Cinderella services.

Wallace day centre provides a valuable service to its clients and their families. It is sad that decisions are being made without considering the long-term benefits of services. I appreciate the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's attendance today. I hope that she will consider the concerns about Wallace day centre and take account of provision for adults with learning difficulties in general, including the activities of parents in the Foyle Health and Social Services Trust area.

Mr Davis and Ms Lewsley outlined the difficulties faced by the centre's staff and by its clients and their families. It is a shame that people should have to use or work at a centre with facilities more akin to those in developing countries. The poor condition of Wallace day centre, which is just 20 miles up the road, raises the crucial issue of health and safety at work. We are asking clients to use those facilities, their families to leave them there, and staff to work in the centre. Where is the consideration for health and safety?

I commend the commitment of the staff of Wallace day centre, its clients and their families for their patience and for raising the matter.

I shall not repeat Members' excellent points in support of centres for people with learning disabilities, in particular, Wallace day centre. Mr Poots said that a measure of a civilised society was how well it provided and cared for people with learning disabilities. Recently, I was moved by a visit to the Beeches centre, where I saw how the quality of life and self-confidence of those with learning disabilities was improved.

The massive underfunding of Down Lisburn Trust must be dealt with, otherwise the shortfall will accumulate. In rectifying that underfunding, resources should be redeployed to services for adults with learning difficulties. I congratulate Ms Lewsley on tabling the matter, and give her my complete support.

Most points have already been made, but I am pleased to be here to support the debate. I am grateful to Ms Lewsley for raising the issue.

I am concerned about the number of people leaving Parkview Special School in the next five years. According to figures provided by the Minister of Education, 46 pupils will be leaving the school, but only 12 pupils have been identified as attending the day centre. What will happen to the other 34 pupils? For your information, Madam Deputy Speaker, this has a bearing on the Wallace day centre. Will 12 more clients be cared for in the already overstreched Wallace day centre? Will the clients attend the centre daily for the full day? My Lagan Valley Colleague Mr Davis and I are tabling questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on that issue. We hope to meet with her soon on another matter, but we will take the opportunity to raise this issue.

A claim is made in a leaflet outlining the facilities and resources available at the Wallace day centre that a fully equipped intensive support unit is available. However, I know that that is not the case. The intensive support unit is so overcrowded that people cannot gain access to it in their wheelchairs. Very few facilities are available in the room.

I am concerned about the proposed sale of land beside the main building. As Mr Davis stressed, overcrowding is the main problem. How can the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety consider selling such land when there is a serious case of overcrowding? Would it not be sensible to use the land to extend the centre and improve facilities in the future?

I would like to pay tribute to the staff at the centre. They do an excellent job, and they deserve more recognition.

I have no hesitation in supporting the Member for Lagan Valley (Ms Lewsley)'s call for enhanced provision of facilities for adults with learning difficulties at the Wallace day centre in Lisburn. On 7 May I asked the Minister for Employment and Learning if she was aware of undercapacity in adult centres. I was concerned about the provision for adults with learning difficulties in Kilronan Special School in Magherafelt, because young people's parents have been told that they have no guarantee of a place at an adult centre and that their sons or daughters must leave Kilronan when they are 19. I have been granted a meeting with the Minister for Employment and Learning, and I will raise various concerns with her.

There is a problem with insufficient accommodation in adult and day centres. An additional tier should be provided to cater for those people who are between 18 and 35 years of age, and I call for intermediate specialised facilities for that age group. This is an ideal opportunity for Members to represent the interests of those people with learning difficulties who are unable to articulate on their own behalf.

Many young people come from single-parent families, and the removal or non-provision of training can result in parents being disadvantaged, perhaps by having to give up their employment. The therapeutic value of time out of the home environment should not be underestimated, and the advantages for the parent and child are immense and well documented.

Throughout Northern Ireland, groups pay consideration to disadvantaged groups when dealing with funding applications or distribution. There are legal implications, and under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 everyone must be treated equally, regardless of any disability. If those legal implications apply to society, the House must recognise that they also apply to us.

I support the sentiments expressed by the Member for Lagan Valley, Ms Lewsley, and I emphasise the need for immediate action to address the inadequacy of services for adults with learning difficulties.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá mé buíoch de Bhean Lewsley as deis a thabhairt dúinn na seirbhísí a phlé a sholáthraítear ag Ionad Acmhainne agus Measúnaithe Lios na gCearrbhach, ar a dtugtar ionad lae Ascaill Bhailis de ghnáth.

Is príomháis i seirbhís Iontaobhas an Dúin Lios na gCearrbhach do dhaoine faoi mhíchumas foghlama é Ionad Acmhainne agus Measúnaithe Lios na gCearrbhach. Mar gheall ar fheabhas a chaighdeáin seirbhíse, bronnadh Marc Cairte air in 2000.

Faoi láthair, baineann breis agus 100 duine úsáid as an tsaoráid. Cuirtear seirbhísí breise thacaíocht lae ar fáil ag dhá shuíomh eile: seirbhísí lae Dairy Farm ag an Pholl Ghlas agus Ionad Gairneoireachta Chnoc Seymour ag Dún Muirí. Ar na seirbhísí a sholáthraítear ag ionad Ascaill Bhailis tá tacaíocht lae, ealaíona, ceirdeanna, oideachas, áineas agus cúram pearsanta.

I am grateful to Ms Lewsley for the opportunity to discuss the services provided at Lisburn Assessment and Resource Centre, commonly referred to as the Wallace Avenue day centre. The Lisburn Assessment and Resource Centre is a key facility in Down Lisburn Trust's service provision for people with learning disabilities, and its high quality of service was recognised by a Charter Mark award in 2000. Currently over 100 people use the facility, and I wish to join other Members in paying tribute to the staff at the centre.

Additional day support services are provided at two other sites: Dairy Farm in Poleglass and Seymour Hill Horticultural Centre in Dunmurry. Fifty-two staff are employed at the Wallace Avenue, Poleglass and Dunmurry sites. The services provided at the Wallace Avenue facility include day support, arts and crafts, education and personal care. The service has close links with the Lisburn YMCA and with Stepping Stones, a voluntary day support service that can provide greater choice and diversity of day support.

There are pressures on accommodation. New places become available only when the current attendees move to new settings as a result of a change in their care needs. The Beeches vocational training unit in Aghalee is not mentioned in the motion, but the trust and the board have agreed a funding arrangement that will ensure continued service provision there for this financial year. They are also exploring longer-term financial arrangements for that unit with the Department for Employment and Learning.

The trust estimates that, between now and 2006, 40 people will leave local special schools. Of that number, it is estimated that 16 will require places at the Lisburn Assessment and Resource Centre. The remaining 24 people will need a diverse range of placements to meet their individual needs. The trust accepts, as we all do, that facilities at the Wallace Avenue centre require refurbishment, and the trust is committed to getting funding to bring the centre up to standard.

A review of the facilities is under way. Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust is committed to obtaining the necessary funding with which to enhance the physical environment of the centre and to develop service provision. The trust has assured the parents and carers of those who use the centre that there will be full and informed consultation with them in relation to any proposed developments.

There has been regular contact with the Lisburn and district Mencap group in relation to services provided at the Wallace Avenue centre. Mencap has been advised of the setting up of a joint planning group, comprising all relevant stakeholders, to plan future day-support services in the Lisburn area. Arrangements for the inaugural meeting of that group are under way.

The trust advises that the outline planning application that it submitted for the land adjacent to the day centre on Wallace Avenue is intended to ascertain whether permission would be granted. No proposals have been put to the trust board about the sale of the land. That would require full consultation with all stakeholders. Such consultation would include an equality impact assessment. Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust has also clearly stated at meetings with relevant stakeholders and public representatives that there is no threat to the future of the Wallace Avenue centre. That remains the case. It is the refurbishment of the centre - the obtaining of funding to enhance the physical environment of the centre and to develop service provision in the centre - that is being discussed.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is aware of growing demand for statutory day care places, particularly for dependent young people who cannot access any other day activities. The Department's priorities for action state that

Some of the additional funding allocated to the four boards to develop community services will be, therefore, available for that purpose. Since 1999, an additional £4 million has been allocated to the learning disability programme. Expenditure in 2000-01 totalled just over £100 million. I await the health and social services boards' health and welfare investment plans, which will indicate how each board proposes to use additional funding allocated by the Department this year for the development of community services. It will then be for each board to ensure that the funding of learning disability services in its area reflects local need. I will look at the boards' investment plans to see how they set out their spending plans in each of the programmes of care in their trust area. As employers, they are responsible for ensuring that staff work in a safe environment and that facilities comply with the relevant health and safety legislation.

I want to ensure that people with disabilities can be supported to do the same things as their non-disabled peers. As other Members have said, that requires access to education, training and employment. It means pursuing hobbies, leisure activities and sports, and it requires co-operation among the relevant service providers in those fields. It requires statutory and voluntary sector service providers to work in tandem, harnessing their respective expertise for the benefit of the individual.

Those who need more supportive day care must be offered diversity and innovative activities that develop their skills and talents. That is the model that health and social services are pursuing and will be supporting, and which I expect to see reflected in the investment plans that I receive regarding how the extra money that is being made available for services in the community will be spent. Clearly, as with all aspects of the service, there will be pressures. All services provided by boards and trusts will need to be looked at in that respect, but it is with a view to enhancing the services provided to users.

The development of a model that reflects the aspirations of people with learning disabilities, and that promotes the inclusive society that the Assembly supports and that is reflected in the Executive's Programme for Government, will need additional resources, and that will mean difficult choices in the determination of priorities in the 2002-03 spending review. It will also mean drawing on the expertise of service users to develop and implement strategies. Last week, I was pleased to have been asked to launch a report called 'A Fair Chance'. It is no secret that I see promoting equality and tackling social exclusion as the cornerstones of responsive and effective health and social services.

The needs of people with learning disabilities must be seen as a top priority, as they suffer some of the worst forms of exclusion from a quality of life that many of us take for granted. 'A Fair Chance' enables the health and personal social services family to improve arrangements for communicating with and consulting those with learning disabilities. Therefore, the joint planning group that is being established, which will comprise all relevant stakeholders, should assist us greatly in the task ahead.

Adjourned at 6.26 pm.