The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment is essentially about developing the skills of our people so that the labour market, and the economy generally, can obtain capable and skilled workers. Further and higher education and skills training are vital areas for meeting the challenge for all of us in Northern Ireland. Employers need more people who have adaptable and competent skills to meet the needs of modern industry and commerce.

There is a need for a radical shake up of our skills training provision so that there will be good training opportunities that young people feel are worthwhile and which employers feel are of consistent quality. Skills training - as provided over the past ten years or more - is too short-term. It is less than good for our young people and, in particular, the long-term unemployed.

It is essential that the Department and the Training and Employment Agency grasp the nettle of training and insist on a quality, relevant assessment approach to the range and type of training courses available. Skills shortages are becoming quite apparent in construction, engineering, electronics and computing. They are also apparent in the catering and hospitality industries.

Employers in those industries want to see real quality training schemes, not short-term training courses. Practical skills training must be appreciated and provided. New Deal, modern apprenticeships and Jobskills must be adjusted and revamped to meet our needs in Northern Ireland.

There must be more places in higher and further education so that our young people can make a real choice, and so that they do not have to go outside Northern Ireland at the age of 18 to be educated. I welcome the intention to have 850 more higher education places here and, in particular, the intention to have 2,500 further education places for skills needs areas. The student support package, aimed at the less well off, is sensible and helpful given the limit of public finance resources. The waiving of further education tuition fees for students aged over 19 in vocational areas is particularly welcome.

The Department for Regional Development is primarily involved with the provision and maintenance of our physical infrastructure - roads, railways, public transport and water and sewage services. The stark reality for all of us in Northern Ireland is that there has been severe neglect of capital investment in our physical infrastructure for almost 30 years. Indeed, our infrastructure is almost as weak as that in parts of Eastern Europe.

The biggest problem that we now have in regional development is the shortage of public finance to fund the major investment capital needs. It is an unfortunate fact that our economy is being prevented from growing and developing because of the bottlenecks that result from having inadequate roads and transport facilities. Too many of our roads are sub-standard. Even our short stretches of motorway and dual carriageway are unable to cope with road traffic congestion.

I want to see a special capital finance unit, within the Executive, tasked with addressing the finance needs of our capital investment requirements. I agree that there needs to be radical and resourceful thinking on how finance should be provided for those capital needs. Our economy needs expenditure on infrastructure sooner rather than later.

The Executive programme funds are a very welcome feature of the Programme for Government. These funds can help to redirect public sector performance to enable the private sector of the economy to perform more effectively and efficiently.

The public service agreements are vital to improving the performance of Departments. I am glad that all the Departments are facing up to the challenge of drawing up and implementing their own public service agreements. The public want to see Departments working better under devolved accountability and control.

Because Northern Ireland has such a large public sector, it is imperative that there be the best possible delivery of all our public services. The public service agreements are a bold attempt to get a handle on how the Civil Service - the permanent Government - carries out its functions under political control.

The primary challenge now is how we, through Government policy, can achieve a better regional economic performance and meet the public service needs of the people - be it through healthcare, education or the Water Service.

The Programme for Government is a good attempt to set parameters and to outline, from the start, necessary targets and objectives. This region, which is very public- sector dependent, must become more economically productive through the development of a more energetic and dynamic private-enterprise sector. We need more business activity - whether that be through more small and medium-sized enterprises or more inward investment projects.

The population is growing so it is imperative that more jobs be created to meet the employment needs of young people. On an economic level, the challenge is to create a more responsive and productive private sector and to create more businesses with more value-added production. This can only be done by stimulating and promoting a better spirit of enterprise and by valuing those attempting to set up businesses and, therefore, create jobs.

I will not be supporting the Programme for Government. This is an attempt to deceive - joined-up government does not exist. First, DUP Ministers did not participate in the Executive and are not part of the Government. Secondly, the IRA/Sinn Féin Ministers are taking the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to court, and, thirdly, the Ulster Unionists are refusing to nominate Ministers to the North/South Ministerial Council. The perception of joined-up government that the Programme of Government is trying to create is, therefore, deceitful. There are 11 Departments which operate individual fiefdoms and, to a great extent, those Departments operate independently within the Government.

The public service agreement of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is lightweight. It does not go into much depth on any subject. I draw Members' attention to the fact that, although victims' needs are mentioned on page 186 of the programme, there is no indication of a budget for support for them. Other Departments have indicated the amount of money allocated to fund the actions set out in each section. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has made no such indication of the budget for services for victims.

The modernisation of the Government is dealt with on page 183. Again, there is an empty box - the amount of money to be spent on this action is not indicated. How can we take action if we do not have the money to do so? These are not proposed actions; they are, in reality, mere aspirations.

The more I have heard about equality issues through the Committee, the less impressed I have been by the people who are delivering this service. Often, all we get is rhetoric - there is no delivery. We have a gender policy unit but when I asked representatives from it what they were doing about maternity leave, and whether they thought that it was fair that women should get just nine weeks' full pay for maternity leave, they did not have an opinion. We have, therefore, a gender policy unit which is not looking at those issues. Many of the Departments that are supposed to deal with equality issues are not tackling them at all.

The proposal for a children's commissioner is to be welcomed but it should be delivered soon and the issue should not be dragged out by a long process. There were a number of interesting elements in the chapter of the Programme for Government entitled "Working for a Healthier People". Among the priorities listed are

"modernising and improving hospital and primary care services to ensure more timely and effective care and treatment for patients".

That is a wonderful statement, but if you need a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, you will have to wait for two years. The waiting list for treatment in the renal unit is longer than it was this time last year. If you need thoracic surgery for cancer, you will find that your appointments for treatment will be cancelled again and again because there are not enough available post-surgery, intensive-care beds.

The document refers to the workforce shortage, yet fewer nurses in Northern Ireland are recognised for their work than in the rest of the United Kingdom. They work at lower grades than their counterparts in the rest of the UK, and they are not paid as much as they should be. Junior doctors are working excessive hours - the length of time they work is beyond the legal limit.

Page 146 features targets to increase the uptake rate for breast and cervical screening, yet there are no targets for the screening for cancers which affect men. The serious issues of prostate and testicular cancer have not been dealt with in the Programme for Government.

Strokes and smoking are mentioned on page 147. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety set the ludicrous target of March 2001 for reducing the number of strokes from 34 in every 100,000 to 27 in every 100,000. It is March 2001, and I wonder if the target has been met. Perhaps we could be told.

The Department wants to reduce the number of people who smoke and who take illicit drugs, but people who drink too much alcohol are not dealt with. It is not trendy to criticise the consumption of alcohol, but alcohol is the third largest killer in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety mentions the word "alcohol" once in its contribution to the Programme for Government; the misuse of drugs and smoking are mentioned several times.

The Minister of Education spoke about equal access. My constituency does not have equal access to nursery school places. We do not have as many nursery places as other areas. Why is that? It is because we are a Unionist constituency. We are discriminated against because the children happen to come from Protestant homes. The Minister of Education does not ensure that there is equal access for Protestant schoolchildren.

On page 42 the Minister addresses better GCSE results. GCSE results are better in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. Rather than put money into the resources that we have, the Minister wants to pull all that down and replace it with a new education structure, probably based on the English structure. We should not destroy the good elements of our education system because of the Minister's aspirations. The Review Body on Post-Primary Education is due to report in June. That timescale is too short. The review body is not looking at the real issues. It is dealing with the 11-plus, which pupils sit in primary schools not post-primary schools. The review body is focusing on the wrong issues and it should be paying more attention to vocational skills.

Bullying and disruptive behaviour are dealt with on page 43. What about the Minister of Education? Bullying and disruptive behaviour have got him where he is today. It is a disgrace and is not a good example for our children.

I oppose the Programme for Government.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Today's debate is reasonably historic. We are at the start of a journey that will address the democratic deficit that has existed since partition.

Sílim féin go bhfuil muid ag pointe stairiúil eile agus sinn ag plé an Chláir seo do Rialtas. Bhí easpa daonlathais sna sé chontae ó bunaíodh an stát agus tá easpa daonlathais sa stát seo go fóill. Tá súil agam, áfach, go bhfuil muid ar a laghad ag tús an bhóthair - nó b'fhéidir i lár an bhóthair fiú féin.

I welcome the Programme for Government and give it qualified support. Members, including that great advocate of equality, Edwin Poots, have said that the success of the programme will be measured by its impact on local communities. I have a number of questions about the Programme for Government. Will it help to redress the historical legacy of underinvestment in areas west of the Bann? I want a cross-departmental public service agreement from the Executive to redress that underinvestment. Does the programme facilitate growing North/South harmonisation as legislated for in the Good Friday Agreement? I agree with Esmond Birnie when he says that the document is insular in that regard. Does the Programme for Government treat all our children equally? Does it address the significant unemployment rate, particularly among Catholics? Last Thursday the Government's Statistics and Research Agency report said that 8·8% of Catholics and 5% of Protestants are unemployed.

Of course, we want to eradicate unemployment, but there is still an alarming differential, which is institutionalised. Does it enable Irish-national citizens in the Six Counties to see a reflection of our Irishness in institutions, symbols and emblems, or does it seek to foist a Six-Counties identity on people who view the nine counties of Ulster as the Province and the thirty-two counties as the country?

Does it set out to put right the under-representation of Catholics in the Senior Civil Service? On page 16 we see that a review will be completed by autumn 2001 of the appointment and promotion procedures of the Senior Civil Service, with a view to tackling under-representation as quickly and effectively as possible. We look forward to that. Does it eradicate unfit housing and fuel poverty? Does it renew and extend the roads and rail infrastructure to the greater north-west - Tyrone, Fermanagh and Donegal? Does it equalise economic and social opportunities, and, crucially, health provision for rural areas? I have concerns about each and every one of these questions and will revisit them accordingly.

Generally, does the Programme for Government set out clear and measurable targets for the delivery of these objectives? Does it set out detailed implementation plans with specific timetables? Is it specific enough? Take, for example, the promise by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, on page 26, point 2.5.2, to make key information available by May 2001 in languages other than English. With the greatest of respect, the corporate plan did not do that - surely that is key information. The Minister does not respond in Irish to correspondence or queries that he receives in Irish. These things must be addressed. How is key information defined? I would like an answer. The Irish language section of the Programme for Government does not go anywhere near fulfilling the part of the Good Friday Agreement dedicated to this theme.

I am pleased to note specific targets for reducing the number of mobile classrooms within a certain timeframe. There could perhaps be a tighter timeframe and even more challenging targets. They are there as targets to be reached and judged accordingly. Targets for improving standards of literacy and numeracy could be greater in percentage terms, with more challenging timetables. However, we are moving in the right direction. I also welcome the cross-departmental consultation on the harm caused by smoking - by October 2001 a consultation exercise is to be undertaken and worked towards.

With regard to the day on the question "Does it make a difference?" raised in the introduction, only time will tell. Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir. The Executive needs the will to deliver equality, east-west, in the Six Counties. It needs to pour resources into areas of greatest social need and to have the relevant focus. To remind people of obligations to the all-Ireland dimension and equality in every aspect of public and private life, will anyone here object if I urge the Executive to go forward with the Programme for Government in one hand and the Good Friday Agreement in the other. Go raibh maith agat.

I give a broad welcome to the Programme for Government and endorse its provisions. It is evidence of the real, solid work that has taken place here at Stormont, something I feel the public does not adequately appreciate.

Having said that, I have certain concerns about the Programme for Government. The ideas that underpin the thinking about agriculture are essentially consumer driven. This is understandable and sensible. The agri-food industry will only thrive if it takes proper account of the consumer.

However, the crisis in agriculture today - following all the disasters which have befallen that industry - lies in the area of farm incomes. It does not primarily lie in the consumer area, where our reputation is already high. I know that this reputation needs to be maintained, but farm incomes are the real priority issue, and I am disappointed that the Programme for Government does not take proper account of that.

Measures on product quality, which are written large in the Programme for Government, have only the most indirect of impacts on the real point of crisis - farm incomes - which stand at only 20% of their 1995 level. The Programme for Government would have been a good opportunity for the Executive to signal its support for the agriculture industry - an industry which employs over 85,000 people and impacts on the lives of many more.

I cannot help but feel that in the light of subsequent events - particularly the current foot-and-mouth disease situation - the Executive could have readjusted its priorities away from the consumer towards the real crisis facing the producer in agriculture.

The Programme for Government, in paragraph 5.1.3, indicates that the Executive will seek

"to promote other sources of income generation in the rural economy".

However, this must be more specific. Rural development, as I have said before, is no bolt-on to the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture; it is a very real lifeline to many farmers who are struggling to make ends meet. Supplementing farm incomes is not a marginal activity; it is a pressing necessity requiring immediate action.

I also ask for a clear definition of the process known as rural proofing. I want to know exactly what procedures are undertaken in that process. They should be transparent and detailed, not just simply a form of words. It is disappointing that there is to be no movement on a natural resource tourist programme until the end of 2001. I do not want to seem impatient, but there is a sense of urgency about this.

I cannot see how failure to move in this area and how the effective freeze on rural development spending is consistent with the objective of the Programme for Government, which is that there is a need to assist and to promote other sources of income for this generation, especially in the rural economy.

It also sits uneasily within the Annex C, paragraph 6.8, which is about the need to diversify local farming. Despite these reservations, I believe that the Ministers have done a reasonably good job in a short time. They have put in place a coherent and well thought out proposal to place before this House. I ask, however, that the concerns I have expressed as regards agriculture are taken on board for the next round of Executive spending.

Environmental issues are important and wide-ranging and cover many issues concerning the well-being and pollution-free environment we all desire. This big task must be addressed, and schemes must come forward with the ultimate aim of moving and protecting our rural way of life and developing an environment in which we can all be proud to play an important part.

Many areas have been missed out in the Programme for Government. I would like to draw Members' attention to one aspect that we all miss from time to time - the horse-breeding industry in Northern Ireland. Looking back over the last year, all the top racehorses, showjumpers, flat-racing horses were all bred in Northern Ireland. Many of them were bred in my own constituency in Upper Bann. I do not want to name any of them just in case I leave somebody out, but that is a fact.

There is a real crisis at the moment with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Sheikh Mohammed, one of the world's top racehorse owners, currently has some mares in Northern Ireland. Some of the world's top stallions are in stud farms in the Province. This is a niche market for a niche product. Members can laugh, but it is a big part of the agriculture industry.

Several Members mentioned state aid yesterday. The untapped benefits that are available in Brussels are unbelievable. Mind you, the Junior Minister Mr Nesbitt should not think that a Back-Bencher such as myself knows nothing about state aid. I have studied state aid for the past three years. One of these days I am going to take you to task about it.

Order. I must intervene on two counts. First, and most importantly, the Member's time is up. Secondly, I remind the Member and other Members to address the House through the Speaker.

I forgive him.

I have no doubt that you do, for you are a generous man. However, the procedures of the House must be adhered to.

You are not a generous man, Mr Speaker.

I will make a note of that remark. [Laughter]

The Programme for Government is an amazing document. It is aspirational, but it is also inspirational. It is an affirmation that the Executive and Assembly are keeping faith with the people of Northern Ireland who strongly supported the Good Friday Agreement in the referendum.

The Programme for Government is the Good Friday Agreement in action. Therefore, it would be a betrayal and a tragedy if the actions of those who begrudge and wreck - inside and outside the Assembly - created a situation where the programme might be aborted or removed from the hands of those elected in Northern Ireland to serve Northern Ireland's people. It would be equally disgraceful if the programme were to be put in jeopardy by the actions of certain Members who pay lip- service to the agreement, but whose agendas seem directed towards either self-preservation or self-promotion.

Having begun by praising the programme for the clarity of its vision and direction as expressed in paragraph 1.13 and elsewhere, I query its lack of detail in some areas. I will limit my input mainly to matters in the competence of the Department of the Environment, while acknowledging that there are many cross-cutting themes. If I do have some criticisms, I will try to be neither cross nor cutting.

In general, I warmly welcome the proposals relating to Department of the Environment matters. However, there are some questions of the "who, what, where, when and how" variety which need examination. I refer to just one - the future of local government. We are told that there will be a review of local government. There is going to be a comprehensive review of public administration, and as the song says "You can't have one without the other".

I have been involved in local government for over 30 years - 24 of those years as a district councillor. I have never known such high levels of uncertainty regarding the future integrity of local government. There is widespread unhappiness. Councils are being bombarded with requirements to fulfil and deadlines to meet on a raft of complex and important issues, including best value, waste management strategies, Peace II programmes, equality and more - with local elections thrown in for good measure.

However, the most precise reference that I can find to the review of public administration is in paragraph 7.4:

"establish the Review of Public Administration in the coming months".

Some deadline: "in the coming months".

Local government needs a review, and the sooner the better. I hope the most significant outcome will not be the removal of the word "local", for if it is not that, it is not anything. I also hope most Members will agree that presumptions - particularly by some Members - that local government reform will entail a significant reduction in the number of local government districts is an unfortunate, if not irresponsible, pre-emption of the results of the local government review.

I will resist the temptation to quote at length from the more poetic statements about local government and will rely on the dry but true last sentence of paragraph 7.1.1:

"Local authorities have a knowledge of the needs of their areas and a capacity to ensure effective co-ordination and leadership."

The Good Friday Agreement was a beacon of hope to the long-suffering people of our country. The Programme for Government is the fuel that will keep that hope alive.

In the short time allotted I will present my remarks in the context of "Making a Difference". Will the Programme for Government make a difference? In some cases it will; in others the jury is still out; in yet others, despite the fine words, the Programme for Government will not make a difference.

I refer particularly to chapter 3 entitled "Working for a Healthier People", which states the Executive's aims to improve public health, paragraph 3.1.3, entitled "Providing timely and effective treatment", and paragraph 3.1.4, entitled "Caring in the Community".

The Programme for Government says that there must be major improvements in the health of Northern Ireland's people. If there is to be a timely and effective acute hospital service, resources must be available to support the delivery of such a service.

In Upper Bann, Craigavon Area Hospital has been expected to absorb an increased patient load. That was due firstly to the downgrading of Banbridge Hospital and recently because of the transfer of services from South Tyrone Hospital in Dungannon.

As a result, Craigavon Area Hospital is under intense pressure because there appears to have been a deliberate attempt to transfer goods and services without transferring the commensurate funding. The outcome of such a policy is an adverse impact upon the delivery of services. Not only does it affect patients' health, it also has a knock-on effect on the care regime in the community. On one extreme, it is claimed that patients are being pushed out of one hospital more quickly than they would be from another hospital. All too frequently staff in the community care sector are notified on a Friday afternoon of patient discharges and thus are given little opportunity to arrange appropriate care packages.

On the other hand, there are instances in which patients are being kept in hospital beds awaiting placement in residential or nursing homes because of a lack of funding by the community health trust. The community health trusts, due to lack of funding, are unable to purchase bed placements and that causes the bed blocking of acute beds further exacerbating the growing waiting lists.

The stress and strain on patients, carers, and on hospital and health trust staff is evidenced by the number of people on sick leave due to work-related stress. This situation is intolerable. If the Programme for Government is really going to make a difference, healthcare provision must be tackled in a meaningful way and must be adequately resourced by the Department of Finance and Personnel. It needs to be turned into a reality and should not be merely an aspiration.

I refer now to equity in service provision. Health and social care is a lottery. There is no uniformity in the same trust, never mind between trusts. Older people always lose out. They are exploited in that they are the least likely to complain and will normally make do with whatever inadequate support they receive. The service provided by the Craigavon and Banbridge Community Health and Social Services Trust is an example of that. If you are under 75 years of age and in the elderly programme of care you will be financially assessed for services. In contrast, if you are in the physically disabled programme of care the likelihood is that you will not be financially assessed. Where is the equity in the provision of service there?

There are also discrepancies in care-managed cases - for example, under the home-help service many older people have no weekend service suggesting, in some ridiculous way, that the needs of the elderly change on Saturday and Sunday compared with Monday to Friday. Making a difference for the elderly and the infirm now is an imperative, not an aspiration. Will the Programme for Government make a difference to the occupational therapy assessment waiting lists? Waiting lists of 18 to 24 months are totally unacceptable. Even in my constituency of Upper Bann, with a transfer of approximately 200 cases of heating assessment to the Housing Executive, there are still over 1,000 cases on the occupational therapy waiting list in the Craigavon and Banbridge Community Health and Social Services Trust area.

In spite of the fine words, the Programme for Government, with the associated budget resources, will not make the difference to the socially disadvantaged people to whom I have been referring - the infirm, the disabled and the elderly. In many instances those people will not have the time to wait on the realisation of aspirational objectives in the Programme for Government. My constituents and those across Northern Ireland expect and, indeed, demand immediate action to ensure that the inequalities of health and health care provision are tackled now and not by some visionary promise which may be realised some years down the line.

Go raibh maith agat. I support the Programme for Government as a vision for the future, but I have some concerns about public service agreements. Recently the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety submitted a document to the Health Committee - of which I am a member - called 'Priorities for Action'. It seems to cut across into the public service agreements. In that document the need to consolidate services and financial stability is stated throughout the chapter entitled "Service Investment and Delivery Plans".

While I agree that there is a need to sustain existing services, there also needs to be a focus on the years of underfunding and mismanagement of the Health Service. There needs to be a focus on the years of no long-term strategic overview and the impact on other services. Several Members have mentioned the neglect or closure of hospitals and the impact that that has had on others. We have heard about the lack of proper funding for care in the community, which results in beds being held up, and about the years of inequality in the Health Service as a whole.

Recently we all witnessed the scandal of chief executives' pay. In the public service agreement I welcome accountability for all expenditure in the Health Service. However, we are told that it will need legislation to tackle chief executives' pay.

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which also looked at that matter. The permanent secretary told the Committee that legislation is needed before the matter can be tackled properly. I call on the Minister to bring such legislation forward as soon as possible. We can all raise issues, but unless the legislation is put in place we can do nothing about them.

I welcome objective 1 in the public service agreement, which states that the Health Department is going to maximise the level of resources going into front-line care. I think that everyone is fed up with the level of administration in the health service and the number of different channels that elected representatives and patients have to go through before the service reaches the community and gets into the front line. I welcome the maximising of money to patient care and the minimising of money to administration.

The ministerial grouping on public health was mentioned earlier. It is a welcome feature. It was said that over 70% of health problems are not necessarily connected with the health Department. Other Ministers need to take that on board. The issues include the building and maintenance of proper housing that the Minister touched on earlier, educating people, especially our young on the issue of public health, providing play facilities, gritting roads and footpaths, and tackling the level of unemployment and low incomes. That is why I welcome the ministerial grouping on health.

I am concerned about the three-year period in which we have to implement the recommendations of the capitation formula, which has been included in the public service agreement. The period is too long. I agree that the present formula is flawed, but it must be changed now. I do not see why we should wait three years to implement the new formula. Once it is implemented it will go a long way towards tackling inequalities within the health service. Mr Carrick mentioned the level of different needs within each board - the elderly, for example.

While I welcome the target to increase the number of children being breastfed during the first three days of life, I am concerned that the target for numbers breastfed at six weeks is too small. We need to tackle that issue, and we can talk about ministerial groupings on public health, but unless we tackle the issue at an early age we are going to face problems. We should invest in community midwives and health visitors. Once mothers leave hospitals there is no follow-up on the need for them to continue breastfeeding.

We are informed that there will be an increase in the Sure Start Programme. While that programme covers children, I want to know if there will be additional money, or is this being used as a smokescreen because it is going into the family and childcare budget? We need to have one definition for children in need, because this seems to change across trust and board areas.

I welcome the proposal to issue new child protection guidelines and to introduce a Bill for the protection of children and vulnerable adults. It is an issue that comes up time and time again. I believe September is the deadline, and I welcome that.

I have a concern about something in the public service agreement concerning mental health. There is a target, which Ms McWilliams mentioned, to increase the number of child and adolescent psychiatric beds from six to 16 by December 2001. Recent figures, which I received from the Department in response to questions about children being admitted to adult psychiatric wards, showed that 103 children were admitted in the last 12 months, all under 17 years of age. The statistics are there for everyone to see. The increase of 10 beds will not make an impact when we are talking about 103 children this year.

I welcome the proposal to appoint a commissioner for children, but we need to take seriously these issues.

I am concerned that money allocated to boards and trusts will be attributed to the family and childcare budget. Will that be the case, or will it be allocated under mental health? The money would normally be allocated under family and childcare, but the document is telling us that it will be allocated under mental health. Including this additional money only hides the lack of investment in mental health programmes.

On page 151 we are informed that there is a target to take forward work in the North/South Ministerial Council giving priority to cancer research and health promotion. What is the present situation on that work due to David Trimble's refusal to nominate the Minister for Health? What work or research has been put on hold due to this?

Where is that work at present, given the refusal of David Trimble to nominate the Minister for Health? What work or research has had to be put on hold because of that? What impact will his refusal to nominate have on our communities? Go raibh maith agat.

It has been interesting to hear Members who have party colleagues in the Executive ask in-depth questions about many aspects of the Programme for Government - indeed, some are totally against it.

The Belfast Agreement states:

"The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all."

That is what we in the Alliance Party have been fighting for - a fresh start, with reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust for everyone. The biggest problem facing Northern Ireland is the persistence of bitter sectarian division. Unless and until we begin to address that, we will not have the new beginning that the agreement identifies. Sadly, the Programme for Government fails to address the deep divisions in our society. The Deputy First Minister briefly mentioned our concerns, and I welcome that.

I shall identify some of the major deficiencies. Most of our people live in areas in which over 90% of the population is from one section of the community. Such segregation epitomises and reinforces division. If anything, the problems are getting worse, but there is no mention in the document of plans to promote mixed housing throughout Northern Ireland. To begin with, we must tackle the blight of paramilitary flags, sectarian emblems and graffiti. Such flags and clabbers of paint disfigure our neighbourhoods. Most people do not want them outside their door. Such things create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. They reinforce segregation and ought to be removed immediately.

The people who deface our environment should be encouraged to put their efforts into something more constructive. The Roads Service, the Housing Executive and other bodies wash their hands of the problem, despite their duty, under equality legislation, to provide a neutral environment. Such problems would not be tolerated in Great Britain or any other modern society. We expect the Executive to act. We need a cross-departmental response, which will help us to avoid the buck-passing that has so often characterised responses to the problem. We must not allow people to break the law and increase fear and tension. We must act. I am bitterly disappointed that the Executive have chosen not even to mention the problem in the Programme for Government.

Thirteen months ago, I asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what he was doing to combat sectarianism in our football grounds. The Minister assured me that he was considering legislation to stop indecent, sectarian or racist chanting. Unfortunately, the issue was brought to prominence once again last week by the disgraceful abuse of footballer Neil Lennon at Windsor Park.

Will the Member give way?

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>