The Minister will be aware of the threat posed to many historic buildings by speculative developers, particularly in the north of County Down, including east Belfast. What steps might he take to help to protect this built heritage and, specifically, to avert the disastrous proposal to build a block of apartments at the very gates of Stormont itself?

The proposed development at the gates of Stormont is a matter for the Department of the Environment. That Department would not normally consult the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure on its statutory responsibilities unless we had a particular interest. With regard to north Down and east Belfast, the Department has some influence. For example, in the Titanic Quarter, a great deal of the industrial landscape has been lost, but the major sites, such as the Thompson dry dock and the Harland & Wolff drawing office, have been retained. My Department has an interest in that and would expect to be consulted on development there. The main part of the question should properly be addressed to the Minister of the Environment.

TOP

4.

asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what plans he has to encourage Omagh to become an arts and culture centre for the west.

(AQO 1628/01)

The development of Omagh as an arts and cultural centre for the west is primarily a matter for Omagh District Council in conjunction, as appropriate, with neighbouring district councils. However, my Department is working with district councils through the cultural forum to develop local cultural strategies. Furthermore, the Ulster American Folk Park is a fundamental element of the cultural infrastructure in the west, and the development of the arts centre, for which £4 million has been allocated by the Arts Council, will create a new strategic focal point for the region.

I thank the Minister for the details in his reply. As the proposed new arts centre reaches the stage where it can be described as a contractual project, £1 million is still outstanding. Can the Minister ensure that that money is found? It will make the project successful, viable and sustainable and ensure that Omagh is a proper arts and cultural centre for the west of the Province.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure supports the arts centre fully. The Arts Council set aside £4 million in 1999. That represented 50% of the dedicated arts content of the arts centre. I understand that the council needs a further £6·1 million for the partnership funding and that it is looking to sources such as the Department for Social Development and the Irish Government. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will give as much support as it can, but £4 million for the arts is as much as our resources allow. We are prepared to give whatever other support we can because the arts centre in Omagh is crucial, not least because of the vision for regeneration and the Omagh 2010 strategy.

I welcome the Minister's support for the Omagh arts project. Will his Department work with the Department for Social Development and Omagh District Council to realise the project as soon as possible?

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is working with all 26 councils, through the cultural forum, to develop local cultural strategies in each area and to ensure that local authorities dovetail with each other and with Departments. We will give all possible support to Omagh District Council as it pursues partnership funding through, for example, the Department for Social Development.

I welcome the detail of the Minister's original answer. Mr Gibson identified the serious problem of several Departments' involvement in the arts centre project and other proposals by the Strategy 2010 group in Omagh. Quite often, the total can be greater than the individual parts. If the programme were developed as a single scheme, its sum would be greater than the individual parts applied. Could the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure co-ordinate a cross-cutting bid to the Executive programme fund, which is intended to attract such bids?

The Department for Social Development is already bidding for Executive programme funds for the Omagh riverside regeneration project. That Department is alive to the challenges in Omagh, and it appears to be making progress. We will give that Department and any other potential partner funders all the support that we can.

As regards the arts centre, my Department is prepared to fund 50% of the arts element by providing some £4 million. That money was set aside in 1999, and Omagh District Council has yet to take it up. In that respect, the Department is doing its share.

I do not see Ms Armitage in the Chamber.

TOP

6.

asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline his policy on the provision of library services for blind and partially sighted persons.

(AQO 1640/01)

As set out in my Department's corporate strategy, our aim is to ensure the widest possible access to all culture, arts and leisure activities, including public library services. In recognition of their obligations under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the education and library boards are committed to ensuring that blind and partially sighted people are afforded the same opportunity of access and quality of facilities and services as other members of the community.

What are the Minister's plans to increase libraries' provision of books in a suitable format for the visually impaired? Will he recognise that need in an official mission statement to direct the overall provision of library services?

The library service already makes provision, including magnifiers and a talking books service, for partially sighted and blind people. The electronic libraries for Northern Ireland (ELFNI) project, which is being introduced at all libraries, will ensure the provision of adaptive technology to support the service. It is expected that that will be completed by July 2003, and 13 large libraries have already gone live. In addition, we have 110 specifically trained staff to support partially sighted and blind users, and more training is planned.

The ELFNI project will greatly reinforce current provision. For example, it provides adaptive technology such as large keyboards, tracker balls, touch screen monitors, and speech and magnification software. It also provides Braille readers, embossers and translation software.

It seems that we are already doing much. We will by no means be complacent; much more can be done. This shows that the library service is facing up to the access rights of those who are blind and partially sighted.

I thank the Minister for a comprehensive and positive answer. What has been done to ensure that as many blind or partially sighted people as possible are aware of the new enhanced library service? What use has been made of information and communication technology (ICT) to achieve that?

ICT has been used primarily in the electronic libraries for Northern Ireland (ELFNI) project, which aims to put computer technology into every library. That project is under way.

With regard to the dissemination of information, the library service has an information service, and libraries are being developed as information hubs for the future. We are examining how they provide that information. I am unclear what percentage of people would regard themselves as not having this information, but I imagine that it would be reasonably small.

Libraries are not simply static buildings, and there are several mobile libraries in the service. Those mobile libraries take the service to users, and they visit about 670 nursing and residential homes throughout Northern Ireland. The mobile service is in need of serious reinvestment. Only one third of the mobile libraries have wheelchair access, and none have adaptive or new technologies. The Department is bidding to replace approximately two thirds of those mobiles. That would help not only the blind and partially sighted but also other sections of society who have access barriers to static libraries.

Why has the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure been instrumental in providing £400,000 of software to libraries that now lies unused, primarily because staff are not being trained to use it? What steps will the Minister take to train staff, and when will the software be available to blind and partially sighted people?

As far I am aware, the information that I have already given to Mr Armstrong answers that question. The ELFNI project aims to put computer technology into every library in Northern Ireland. That will be completed by July 2003. Each of those computer suites will have adaptive technologies. There are already 110 trained staff in the service. Further training is planned, which will roll out until 2003. That is by no means the end of the process; training will continue to be provided.

I am not aware of the £400,000 of software that Mr Shannon mentioned. If the Member would like to write to me about it, I will ask the question and get him the answer. Through the ELFNI project, some £35 million of new technologies and software will be placed in libraries. That is the main focus of libraries and the library service as far as computerisation, new technologies and adaptive technologies are concerned.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister detail the plans that he or the Department have, in the spirit of social inclusion, to consult proactively with blind and partially sighted people to determine their needs in relation to the library service?

The library service does that regularly, and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure responds to consultation and questions. A major strategic review of the library service is under way, and that will look at services provided for members of society who suffer disabilities, including those who are partially sighted or blind. That process will do a great deal to address concerns and determine needs, and it will set out how we address those needs.

As there are no further questions to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, the sitting will be suspended until 3.30 pm.

TOP

Question 9, in the name of Mr Kane, has been withdrawn and will receive a written reply.

TOP

1.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in the light of the recent Ulster Farmers' Union report 'Stress in Ulster Farmers' highlighting "suicide" as a particular hazard to those farmers working in relative isolation, what plans she has to ensure that this particular problem will be given an added urgency to prevent such tragedies occurring.

(AQO 1644/01)

5.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she is taking to alleviate pressures upon members of the farming industry, particularly in the light of the Ulster Farmers' Union report, 'Stress in Ulster Farmers'.

(AQO 1642/01)

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission I will take questions 1 and 5 together. I am well aware of the problem of stress in rural areas. In response to my concern about that problem, I allocated funds during November 2000 to establish a rural stress fund. Various projects have been implemented with local groups under that fund, including the establishment of the rural support line - a listening and signposting helpline for the farming and rural community - and events and courses to make farm families and those closely associated with them more aware of the problems of stress and how to address them.

Building on that work, the rural support organisation has been established to give a strategic framework of support to future developments. Initial funding is being provided jointly by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Queen's University report on stress and hopelessness in Northern Ireland adds to the body of information on the well-being of farm families.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development recently completed a major social survey of farm families, part of which examines health and safety issues. That survey is due for publication over the summer. I will carefully consider the results from both studies to better focus resources on areas of greatest need in the rural community.

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I was aware of the establishment of the rural stress fund, but will the Minister tell the House how that fund has benefited the rural community?

The rural stress fund has provided information, guidance and counselling for farmers and farm families who experience high levels of stress arising from the financial difficulties that farmers encounter. A video, 'Change for the Better' has been produced to show how some farm families are addressing the changes they face. A signposting and help service was provided by Family Farm Development prior to the establishment of the rural support organisation, and local groups have also been funded to carry out projects that aim to address and reduce stress in farming families.

A rural support line was launched on 17 March 2001 in response to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. The establishment of a rural stress web site and an information directory during 2001, and a rural stress conference during March 2002, also took place with Armagh and Dungannon Health Action Zone.

The Minister is aware of the stress that farmers are under, but apart from the Department's rural stress fund, does she agree that there has been a distinct absence of rural proofing in key Executive decisions, particularly with regard to the centralisation of hospitals, schools and agriculture colleges away from rural areas? Does the Minister agree that this report serves only to highlight the sense of isolation and hopelessness felt in rural communities?

The Member's question does not relate to rural stress, and I am surprised that Mr Armstrong is talking about taking colleges away from rural areas. I am not aware of any proposal to do that, though I am aware of a report that makes recommendations.

TOP

Ceist uimhir a dó.

2.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline (a) the cost of running her Department for 2001-02; (b) the costs of administration per farm; and (c) the number of staff employed in her Department.

(AQO 1659/01)

Ar mhaith leis an Chomhalta go dtabharfainn freagra air i nGaedhilg? I just wondered whether the Member wanted the answer in Irish. OK, I will answer in English, then.

The central corporate administration cost of the Department in 2001-02 was £27·6 million. In the June 2001 census, 29,818 active farms were recorded for Northern Ireland.

Therefore the central administration cost of £27·6 million equates to an average cost of £926 a farm. The average number of staff employed by the Department in 2001-02 was 3,621. Some 2,966 of those were non-industrial staff, and 655 were industrial staff.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I hope that the Minister does not mind Members using whatever Irish they have to preface their questions.

Recent Agriculture Committee papers stated that the departmental running costs were £116 million, and given that there are about 2,900 farms, that equates to £4,000 a farm. With farm incomes averaging £1,700 a year and declining, how can the Minister justify such high departmental running costs?

It was unclear from the question what costs were being sought. I quoted the administration costs of the Department, but the departmental running costs amount to £101·5 million. That figure relates to all the Department's advisory services to the farming community and also veterinary services, which are expensive because of the salary costs of many high-level professional staff. The £27·6 million relates to the administration of the Department. They are costs incurred by the Department for policy development, personnel, the finance office, estate management, co-ordination and so forth.

The Minister was clearly having some difficulty in hearing the question - as was I. There was some chit-chat in the Chamber when the question was asked. That has now subsided, and I hope that it remains that way.

Has the Minister considered restricting imports of animals from the mainland to one port in order to improve security, in view of foot-and-mouth disease and reduced staffing costs?

We are dealing with the question on departmental running costs.

I did not think that the supplementary question was in relation to question 2.

The Minister answered my question in her reply to John Kelly.

TOP

3.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline (a) the number of jobs created by (i) LEADER+ and (ii) the rural development programme during the last year of funding; and (b) the respective budgets for each of the programmes.

(AQO 1649/01)

In their last year of funding, January to December 2001, the LEADER II programme created approximately 145 full-time job equivalents, and the rural development programme, including LEADER II, created approximately 256 full-time job equivalents. The total budget for the LEADER II programme for 1994 to 1999 was approximately £13 million. The total budget for the rural development programme for 1994 to 1999, including LEADER II, was £46·5 million. Although applications to both programmes closed in December 1999, spend was allowed until December 2001.

Does the Minister agree that the creation of 145 and 256 jobs under the rural development programme, with a total budget of £46 million, does not represent value for money? Does she also agree that the money could have been better spent in helping hard-pressed farmers?

Although this would represent value for money, the rural development programme also has a socio-economic dimension. It is not simply about pure economics. The cost of the programme includes the important capacity-building work of the Rural Development Council and the rural community network. Although the Northern Ireland Audit Office report on the rural development programme stated that not every aspect of the programme represented good value for money, it recognised its positive impact in creating and safeguarding employment in rural areas.

The report also noted the high level and value of voluntary and community input to local projects, and I place a high value on those aspects of the programmes. It is too simplistic to divide the total programme costs by a number of jobs and conclude that that arbitrary figure represents the cost per job. There is more to rural development than pure economics - it also has an important social aspect.

I thank the Minister for her answer, and I congratulate her and her Department on their efforts to preserve rural communities and to ensure that real regeneration takes place. Will she go further and explain how the programme is addressing rural disadvantage?

I thank Mr Dallat for his remarks. The programme is addressing rural disadvantage by concentrating on building capacity and helping rural communities that require regeneration - particularly looking at deprived areas and sectors, such as young people, the long-term unemployed and farm families, to help them to regenerate themselves economically. My advisory staff throughout the North are working with community groups and all those sectors to ensure that they get access to and build up viable projects. They will ensure that they can get the help available through LEADER II or the rural development programme, so that all possible help is given to rural communities, farming families and other rural dwellers to build a strong rural economy. That will ensure that people will be able to make a livelihood in their own areas and will not be forced to move into towns or away altogether.

TOP

4.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what measures she is implementing to raise farmers' incomes to 1996 levels.

(AQO 1629/01)

A large part of the rise in income in the years up to 1996 was due to a weakening of sterling and a strengthening of international commodity markets. Currency and market movements in the opposite direction have caused most of the fall since 1996, with the BSE crisis adding to the downturn.

Controlling the ebb and flow of national and international markets and economies is beyond the control of any Government - much less any regional Administration - and to attempt to do so would be pointless. Ultimately, the only factor that we can control is how we respond to such external influences, and it is there that we must direct our efforts and resources. The vision project was initiated with that in mind, and that offers the best chance we have of meeting the challenges and grasping the opportunities that lie ahead. We will underpin our future through ability and raise the prosperity of the agrifood industry and rural economy.

I thank the Minister for her answer to that question and, particularly, for her answers to questions 1 and 5. I remind the Minister that most farmers in West Tyrone have been struggling financially for some years. The inclement weather over the past six weeks has left many in a state of almost catastrophic peril; therefore is the Minister considering any inclement weather aid package that could assist the farming community at this time of almost desperation?

I am aware of the problems being caused by the current unseasonal weather. I raised that with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mrs Beckett, at the ministerial meeting in London last week and said that if things get worse, if that is possible, I would like to see weather aid being applied for in Europe.

I have asked for that to be kept under consideration. In the meantime, I have asked my officials to give advice to farmers on how to cope with the severe situation. That has all been published in the papers, and I ask farmers to take that advice and contact local advisers.

One hopes that because it is early in the season and if the forecast that I listened to carefully this morning is to be believed - the weather is supposed to improve before the weekend - all is not lost. A dry spell would mean that the hay could be saved and the situation would improve. However, I am doing all that I can to give advice to farmers, and, as I have said, I have asked the UK Minister to consider seeking weather aid from Europe if the situation deteriorates too much.

I hope that that bright note from the Minister on the forecast comes true. As other Members have said, the climate has never been worse in living memory.

Will the Minister say what steps are being taken to ensure that farmers receive their subsidy payments in time? Cash flow remains important to them.

The Department has a good track record for making subsidy payments on time. Advance and balance payments for the 2001 scheme year have been completed within the time limit set by the EU. The vast majority issued within the challenging targets published by the Department in October 2001. More than 99% of beef special premium payments and 98% of slaughter premium balances have been completed. The majority of extensification payments and suckler cow premiums will be paid by the end of the month.

The Department will strive to build on the experiences of this year to achieve a high level of performance for 2002. Free details of the timetable for 2002-03 will be published around September 2002. When I talk about 98% or 99%, the Member will appreciate that there are always a few cases in which queries cause payments to be delayed.

The Minister will be aware that the average farm income is still only about £7,000 per annum. Will she progress the farmers' early retirement and loan scheme, which was first proposed in the House by my Colleague Mr Savage in December 2000? It is the only means of restructuring the agriculture sector in an ordered way and without any further suffering.

I previously said to the House that I have an open mind on early retirement and new entrants. The vision report did not recommend an early retirement scheme, though it did recommend new entrants. I have commissioned research from University College, Dublin, and Queen's University on the effectiveness and feasibility of either of those schemes. I expect to have the results of that research by the end of July, and I will be able to make a decision then.

However, if early retirement is a good way of achieving necessary restructuring in farming, and if that emerges from the research, I will consider it carefully. Of course, I will also have to get the necessary funding. When I have the facts on which to make a decision in the best interests of the industry, I will make it, and I hope that I will have made it when I announce my action plan in the autumn.

TOP

6.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she has taken to ensure regional status regarding agrimonetary compensation.

(AQO 1648/01)

7.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she has taken to obtain outstanding agrimonetary compensation for farmers in Northern Ireland.

(AQO 1638/01)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall take questions 6 and 7 together.

Under EU regulations, decisions on the payment of optional agrimonetary compensation could be taken only at member state level. There was no discretion for regions in member states to make compensation payments unilaterally that were not available throughout the member state. The agrimonetary compensation mechanism expired at the end of December 2001. The recent debate on the availability of agrimonetary compensation to the livestock sector related to the second and third tranches of compensation, which had originally been triggered in earlier years.

In line with my consistent approach on that issue, I, together with my ministerial counterparts in Wales and Scotland, pressed the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to seek Treasury agreement to avail ourselves of that compensation. I pointed out the difficulties that the industry continues to face, especially in the dairy sector. Mrs Beckett recognised those difficulties, but refused our request because of other competing demands on the UK public purse. That disappointing decision on the residual elements of agrimonetary compensation also means that the system has come to a complete end.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for pressing Mrs Beckett on that issue. Has Minister Beckett been pressured on that issue at recent meetings with Ms Rodgers? Given the positive impact that that would have on farming here, is the Minister prepared to renounce UK policy and, indeed, Margaret Beckett's position regarding agrimonetary compensation? How much has the decision cost farmers in the North?

It has cost farmers whatever they would have been due in agrimonetary compensation. Of course, that can only be decided on the basis of the currency at any particular time. However, I repeat that, along with the other regional Ministers, I put it to Mrs Beckett that we wanted her to get an agreement from the Treasury to pay the agrimonetary compensation. She refused to do so because of competing demands on the Treasury.

I do not know what the effect would be were I to renounce Mrs Beckett's policy in this House. However, I disagree with her decision. I explained the difficult position in which our farmers find themselves and very much regret that Mrs Beckett did not accede to the request.

Although the Minister cannot legally renounce Westminster agricultural policies, she is well able, with the rest of the House, to denounce those policies and their effect on the farming community in Northern Ireland. My figures, which may assist the Minister, suggest that the UK farming community has been denied some £79 million because of Treasury policy.

Will the Minister assure us that she will convey our denunciation of the British Government's attitude towards agrimonetary compensation in view of the virtual death throes that the farming community in Northern Ireland is experiencing? Perhaps she will, through the Northern Ireland Office, make strong representations to the European Commission that we are suffering because of that disadvantage.

The agricultural lobby in Westminster is extremely weak, and Sinn Féin must involve itself in this matter, as we shall have to help ourselves on this occasion.

Minister, there is a question in there somewhere.

Mr McGrady's question was in there somewhere, and I cannot disagree with anything that he has said. I am particularly disappointed that the UK decided not to pay tranches 2 and 3, approximately £79 million of which would be for the UK, depending on the strength of sterling at the time. I cannot be certain what our portion of that would have been, but I thank Mr McGrady for the information. He has an advantage in that he is a Member of Parliament and has the figures to hand.

I have argued consistently for the payment of agrimonetary compensation. Moreover, I suggested to Mrs Beckett that she ought to persuade the UK Treasury to seek an extension of the agrimonetary compensation beyond 2001. However, such a decision would have had to be taken at EU level, and, with 12 member states already using the euro, I think that the chances of success would have been nil. The UK Government, therefore, decided not to pursue that line.

That said, an early decision by the UK Government to hold a referendum on our membership of the European Monetary Union would make the greatest difference, particularly to the Northern Ireland farmer. Mr McGrady will agree with me, and I know that he would join me on the doorsteps if a campaign were to take place to persuade people that it would be in our best interests, particularly those of our farmers, if we were to join the euro. That would solve many of our problems.

Several Members touched on the financial difficulties in the agriculture sector. Does the Minister agree that those difficulties result from the failure of the UK Government to pay millions of pounds in agrimonetary compensation during the past three years?

I have already answered that question. Yes, many of our problems stem from the strength of sterling and the fact that the agrimonetary compensation, particularly now, is not being paid. It comes down to the failure of the UK Government to join the euro.

TOP

8.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she has taken to ensure all rural constituencies benefit from rural development funding.

(AQO 1646/01)

To respond to the widest possible range of opportunity and need in rural areas my Department created a flexible and comprehensive rural development programme. It draws on a broad framework of measures from the Northern Ireland programme for building sustainable prosperity, the Peace II programme, the LEADER+ initiative and INTERREG III.

Although the programme will have a focus on disadvantage, its benefits are open to all rural people throughout Northern Ireland, and all members of the rural community have been encouraged to become involved. When I launched the programme on 13 November 2001, I urged all rural people to bring forward ideas, plans and projects. I also announced the publication of a user-friendly signposting document and a video to guide potential applicants through the programme. The launch was followed by a series of roadshows throughout Northern Ireland, which were attended by my Department's rural area co-ordinators, the Rural Enterprise Division and the Rural Development Council. Moreover, my Department has held various workshops to further publicise the programme.

I declare a relevant interest in this, although not a pecuniary one. I am sure that the Minister is aware that Lisburn Council failed in its bid to achieve LEADER funding and is, therefore, the only area in Northern Ireland that will not benefit from it. How does the Minister propose to assist the 1,000 farm holdings and the rural community in the Lisburn Council area? What assistance has her Department given to Laganside Rural Development, a self-help group set up by the council and the local rural community, in drawing down European funding that other areas will receive?

I totally understand the Member's interest in the question, and I thank him for it. Lisburn and Lagan Valley were not excluded. As I stated, the selection of LEADER action groups was by competition, and, unfortunately, the Lisburn application did not score as highly as the other 12, and it could not, therefore, be selected.

However, it does not mean that the Lisburn Borough Council area is excluded from the programme. Apart from the natural resource rural tourism initiative, which is located in specific rural areas to meet the requirements of the EU Commission for the allocation of Peace II funds, all other elements of the rural development programme are open to rural groups and bodies in Northern Ireland -

The time for questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is up.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: 
Consideration Stage

TOP

Debate resumed

Members are concerned that nursing care and personal care were not dealt with together. The Alliance Party is not represented on the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Therefore, it is understandable that Mr McCarthy has tabled amendments to include personal care in the Bill. If he had been a member of the Committee, he might have found the evidence sessions as difficult to follow as I did.

More people who live in residential homes in Northern Ireland need personal care than nursing care. Approximately 2,000 people require nursing care, while many more thousands require personal care. I am committed to the Bill on the understanding that it is the first phase of a development process in nursing care and, eventually, personal care.

During the Committee Stage of the Bill, I was concerned that the Committee received the assessment tool rather late in the day. Organisations such as the Alzheimer's Association asked many questions about what constituted nursing care and how one would make the distinction between nursing care and personal care. Mr McCarthy's amendments suggest that the administration of oxygen or assistance with a catheter should come under the remit of nursing.

All Committee members were concerned that the Committee received the assessment tool so late. I ask Departments to make consultation documents and research findings available to Committees when legislation is first being introduced. Departments, including the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, know that Committees scrutinise the legislation and that it is important for them to have the relevant information so that they can decide whether amendments are necessary. If researchers are commissioned, they should know the deadlines by which reports must be with the Committees.

I remember being critical about the fact that the nursing care issue was not brought to the Assembly last spring. It will probably be autumn before the Bill finally goes through. Anyone working in this field would have known that the finance was withdrawn at that stage. I assumed that because the legislation was not ready, work was ongoing in parallel, in the knowledge that the Bill would come before the Assembly. Therefore, I was critical at Committee meetings, and I will repeat my criticism here, that although work was commissioned, it was not passed to the Committee. At this late stage, as the Assembly is finalising the legislation, Members still have only the draft assessment tool, not the final assessment tool.

At Further Consideration Stage, I will table a further amendment, because I disagree with the title of the Bill. I have been very critical of that. Indeed, in the Committee, I asked that the Department should stop sending us Bill after Bill with generic titles. Those titles do not suggest for a moment that we are taking action on important matters such as introducing payments for nursing care. Indeed, this Bill is about payments and not free nursing care. It establishes a council, and it would be easy to get that across in a short title. I remain concerned that, at this late stage, we still have such a generic title.

Having said that, I want to talk about clause 1, which deals with free nursing care. I mentioned payments because that care is not free; it involves payments. The title of the Bill should reflect that, and the clause should also say it. Although we have adopted the Welsh system, I am concerned that it is still under review. There has been an enormous outcry from residential-home owners in the independent sector - who I have always said were a great example of the partnership between the public and private sectors - saying that they have insufficient funds to cover their current level of nursing care provision. We all remain concerned that we should not go down the road that was taken in England, with our nursing care fund being swallowed up by the residential homes themselves, ultimately making little difference.

On nursing care, we were pleased that the right of appeal was accepted in this part of the Bill, and that we did not go down the normal "complaints" road associated with health and personal social services. It is good that departmental officials and the Minister have accepted that it is important to have a speedier complaints procedure, and that that will be in the Regulations.

Those were our major concerns, and, although I sympathise with Mr McCarthy's amendments, had he sat on the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, he would undoubtedly have taken the view of other Committee members that this is phase one and that there will be a phase two. In that case, his amendments may not be needed, and I will scrutinise matters to ensure that they are not needed in the longer term.

I concur with Ms Monica McWilliams. I realise where Mr Kieran McCarthy is coming from in seeking provision for free personal care for our elderly population in clause 1 of the Bill. I am confident that there is not a single party represented in the Assembly today that would not like to have that element included in the clause.

However, it would be unforgivable if we did not proceed to deal with financial assistance for nursing care provision, as it would mean that up to 2,000 people who pay their nursing care element in full would continue to be disadvantaged. The Committee reluctantly understands that financial restraints on the health budget dictate that the Bill, and clause 1 in particular, does not include provision of personal care for the elderly. That does not for one minute suggest that that particular goal is dead in the water; rather, it means that pragmatism must win the day for the time being.

We must then turn our attention to securing the additional moneys to provide personal care for the elderly. The interdepartmental group that was established to examine the costs involved in, and the implications of, introducing free personal care here will report at the end of the month. I look forward to seeing that report.

We should think back to the unfair anomaly that existed in relation to nursing care provision in Northern Ireland. Members are undoubtedly aware that the cost of nursing care is included in the overall cost of a nursing home placement and may be borne by the residents whose means are such that they fund, or partly fund, their own care. The anomaly comes in relation to nursing care, in that it is supplied free as a health service to a person in their own home, or indeed, to a resident in a residential care home if supplied externally by a trust through the community nursing service.

Under current means-testing, if you need care in a nursing home and have more than £16,000, you have to pay for everything. If the figure is between £10,000 and £16,000, a person has to fork out everything except a miserly £15·45 each week for personal expenses. Only if a person has less than £10,000 will the state cover all expenses.

In so many cases I have found that elderly people who have worked for years and have paid their taxes to ensure a satisfactory standard of life in their later years find their savings disappear and often have to sell their home in order to meet the financial demands of living in a nursing home. Nationally, it is thought that over 40,000 homes are sold every year because of these circumstances. It is amazing that the National Health Service provides free care for everyone except those who deservedly need it most - the elderly, who must pay out of their own pocket.

The Health and Social Care Act 2001 splits care into two parts - nursing care and personal care. In England, residents do not receive funding for personal care but receive up to £35, £70 or £110 a week - three bands - for nursing care, depending on individual circumstances. In Wales, all residents qualify for £90 a week in a single band - similar to nursing care proposals for Northern Ireland - and do not receive assistance for personal care. In Scotland, residents receive up to £65 a week for nursing care and up to £90 a week for personal care, while all personal care for those living at home is free.

At this stage it is important to point out that the use of language in the Bill, such as "free nursing", is slightly misleading. Elderly people should not think that their nursing care will automatically be paid in full. That might turn out to be the case; we believe that £85 is the amount to be set. At least the Bill provides for a contribution towards their nursing care, and money may still need to be paid by the individual. It is estimated that around 2,000 elderly people in Northern Ireland will benefit from that provision, and it is hoped that they will be treated in a similar manner to those who receive care at home.

I support the aims of the Bill and appreciate the hard work and long hours that the Committee and its staff have devoted to it in order to meet the deadline for the Consideration Stage. The Committee has spent a great deal of time seeking assurances from the Department and others on important issues such as the right of speedy appeal against decisions; the assessment tool to be used on the elderly person and whether it includes or excludes diseases such as Alzheimer's or dementia; and making all nursing home residents fully aware of their rights under the legislation.

We have had our concerns addressed by the Department, and assurances were given on these important issues. Many will feel that the Bill is only half a step in the right direction. Personal care must be provided free. This at least is movement.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>