Supply Resolutions for 2008-09

Speech by David Ford MLA delivered to Assembly on Mon 9th Jun 2008

Mr Ford: I will attempt to look slightly wider than my constituency. I had hoped to congratulate the humble Back-Bencher from Strangford, Mr Simon Hamilton, on his promotion to the Front Bench, but, unfortunately, he managed to escape before I was able to speak. I was wondering whether, by the time this debate was over, Mrs Foster, Mr Donaldson or Mr Hamilton would be responding on behalf of the Executive.

I will take up where my colleague Dr Farry left off, specifically concerning some aspects of health and social services expenditure. Clearly, there is a major funding gap in relation to mental-health services. In Northern Ireland, approximately 8% of the health and social care budget is spent on mental health, whereas, in other regions of the United Kingdom, spending averages 12%. That is a huge shortfall.

Every party in the Chamber refers to the Bamford Report and to the need to ensure that services are adequately funded for people with mental illnesses. Nevertheless, we have a huge gap in services, and we are simply failing to meet the needs of those citizens.

At different times, that can be a substantial part of our population. Indeed, I was told recently by a psychiatrist that of those who are currently economically inactive - [Laughter.] He gave his opinion entirely professionally, although I did not see him in a patient capacity. [Interruption.]

That may be considered a good joke, but the fact that 40% of our economically inactive fellow citizens suffer from a mental illness is an indication of what we are losing economically, as well as socially, by failing to invest in mental-health services.

That loss has a knock-on effect on our overall economy. Consider the number of people who suffer from different stages of mental illness: those people have a wide range of talents and could do all kinds of jobs. They could contribute to society, but we are all losing out on that because we do not provide the mental-health services that enable them to take up employment. That is a clear example of how investment in mental health would pay economic dividends. It is also a clear example of a failure to practise joined-up government. Individual departmental budgets are being considered without account being taken either of the knock-on effect on other areas or of the significant opportunity costs that arise as a result of our failure to address the needs of those who are mentally ill. Let us ask the Executive to take such matters into account when they consider future budgeting. In future, will we hear a DETI or a DEL Minister pointing out the need for money to be invested in mental health if we are to prosper as a society generally?

An issue that is often related to people's mental health is learning disability - although it is, of course, a different matter. It was mentioned alongside mental-health issues in the Bamford Review, and it is similarly underfunded. It might be that many of those who suffer from a learning disability would not make a significant contribution to the economy, but there are undoubtedly those who could. More particularly, if social-care services were better organised to cater for those who suffer from a learning disability, many carers could make a contribution to the economy. In some cases, many patients have been removed from some of the bigger institutions, such as Muckamore Abbey Hospital in my constituency, yet we have failed to ensure that the costs of community care - which, in many cases, are greater than the costs of caring for people in large institutions - are met properly. As a result, some people do not receive all that they ought to in the community, and they - and their families and carers - continue to suffer because of that failure to invest properly. Again, that lack of investment has a knock-on effect on society.

No doubt the Minister who is currently acting on behalf of the Department of Finance and Personnel would be upset if I did not mention environmental matters. What has happened in the past couple of months, since the Budget was finalised, has shown the total inadequacy of the transportation funding in DRD's budget.

Belfast continues to be the only city of its size in Europe that seems to imagine that it can deal with a commuting problem by building more roads. Yet, as Stephen Farry pointed out, 80% of the Department for Regional Development's budget is tilted towards roads and only 20% towards public transport. Certainly, more investment in trains and buses was announced in that budget. The simple reality is that, as far as heavy rail is concerned, half the trains in the current investment package are required to replace redundant stock, principally on the Larne line. Only half the trains will be available to improve the quality of existing services in any way. Moreover, there are continuing problems with the Enterprise service, with the rolling stock now at the point where it is failing to meet the needs of those who wish to travel between the two major cities on this island. A great deal more investment is needed in that service.

DRD tends to make small, piecemeal efforts to provide what it terms "park-and-ride" facilities. It is open to question whether providing a few dozen parking spaces on the Ballyhenry Road, which is a couple of hundred metres from the Sandyknowes roundabout, will encourage anybody to drive through Sandyknowes to make use of them. The Transport Holding Company has invested in land for potential park-and-ride facilities, but further investment has not been forthcoming to enable that land to be used for that purpose. That is a fairly crass example of a lack of joined-up government - short-term budgetary considerations mean that the land has been purchased but is not being put to the use for which it has been designed.

We need to ensure that all those aspects of transport policy show that government is not just joined up but is sustainable. When we see the way that oil prices are rising, continuing to depend on the current level of private car transport is simply unsustainable. Yet we have seen no sign that that aspect of the Budget is being reversed.

The cost of fuel has knock-on effects in areas such as the warm homes scheme, and a wider knock-on effect on social housing. Although there has been some additional investment in those areas, there is a vast amount that still needs to be done if we are to provide decent living conditions for many of our people.

I put again to the Minister the question that Stephen Farry posed as I briefly touch on the environment agency that she is proposing: what is the opportunity cost of not having an independent environmental protection agency compared to the relatively miniscule cost of establishing and running one?

Despite the fact that neither Sammy Wilson nor Peter Weir is in the Chamber, I want to refer to the schools estate, which was discussed earlier, and about which my party received criticism. The Alliance Party fully supports the concept of integrated education being available for those who wish it for their children. There are some cases when that might involve building a new school. The post-primary situation in north Down, for example, where there is a shortage of places, is a clear indication that expansion is needed in that area.

The reality for most cases, however, is that the option to move towards integrated education is an option for transformation, which is becoming increasingly popular and which is the option that my party has said makes sense with regard to public expenditure. To suggest that we have talked only about new-build grant-maintained integrated schools is simply not factual. In that respect, I declare an interest as a governor of Round Tower Integrated Primary School in Antrim, which is an excellent example of a good school that has transformed, which is making full use of the capital that has been invested in its building, and which has an increasing demand for places. That is a good example of how good relations work done by an existing school has resulted in a logical transformation.

Declining school rolls in almost every area of the Province will result in more of what Stephen Farry talked about earlier: the idea of two primary schools in a village finding a way to work together - which might be an amalgamation but might also be something short of that - as the way to ensure the best use of available money. There ought to be a greater incentive from the Department of Education to encourage similar ways for schools to come together. The Alliance Party has made it clear that the public purse needs to see that different type of creativity in what is planned for education.

I was asked earlier by Mr Weir which schools the Alliance Party would propose for closure. The reality is that in his own constituency, when Groomsport Primary School, a couple of years after transformation to integrated status, still had a remarkably low roll and was proposed for closure by the South Eastern Education and Library Board, it was Alliance Party members who said that that was the only realistic way of saving on the public purse. It was DUP members who demanded that a school with approximately 30 pupils was kept open. Therefore, I am not sure that the lectures that were delivered across the Chamber earlier are necessarily entirely right.

The issue has to be: what is the best rational use of the school estate, and not knee jerks. As Stephen Farry made clear earlier, the Alliance Party does not support this Supply resolution. However, having divided the House on the Budget earlier this year, we shall not be dividing the House this afternoon.