Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 13 November 2000 (continued)
Dr O'Hagan:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.
First, I want to turn to the introduction to the section 'Securing a Competitive Economy', which refers to the achievement of a cohesive, inclusive and just society that places communities at its centre. It states that the creation of a vibrant economy, producing employment and wealth for the future, is essential. This is a laudable and worthy objective, yet it appears that it is mere rhetoric. When we turn to the equality aspects in annex B, under section 6 we are told that economic development may not initially benefit all equally. Why? Is this an admission of failure before we even start? [Interruption]
Mr Speaker:
Order. If Members wish to have a conversation, they should do so in the Lobby.
Dr O'Hagan:
Are the Executive and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment telling us that they are not going to meet their statutory equality obligations? This is not good enough. Targeting social need (TSN) has been in place since 1990. It is about time we all started taking it seriously.
Earlier my Colleague John Kelly pointed to the legitimate public concerns about private finance initiatives (PFI) and privatisation. Turning to the plans for the development of the rail system and the proposed Transport Bill, I would also urge caution. Privatisation, whether under PFIs or public-private partnerships (PPPs), of essential public services is a major policy change which will have a long-term and, I would argue, adverse impact on the public sector. It is a case of "Buy now, pay dearly later". It is not acceptable that the Programme for Government should present privatisation as a fait accompli without any debate, consultation or investigation into the efficacy or otherwise of such a drastic policy change. It is time we had a debate about PFI, privatisation, PPPs and so forth.
Section 5.3.2 on the role of inward investment states
"A challenge will be to change international perceptions to ensure that we can be a competitive location for investment and to ensure sufficient investment in areas of disadvantage and high unemployment. We will aim to attract 75% of all first time inward investment projects to such areas."
This has been the stated aim of the IDB for several years, and it has manifestly failed, through lack of political will, poor marketing strategies, a failure to work with people from disadvantaged areas and the failure to plan strategically for inward investment. The Programme for Government fails to acknowledge the important role of agencies such as the IDB in redressing years of religious discrimination. The equality agenda has to be applied to the role of the IDB and an end put to its practice of inflating the numbers of jobs promised and of actual jobs created. In this regard, it is a matter of major concern that the IDB is not subject to statutory equality duties under section 75.
We are also told in annex B, paragraph 6.5, that there is no power to direct investors to specific locations. There has been power here for generations to direct investors and business to specific locations, to the disadvantage and detriment of one community. It is about time we began to take our equality provisions seriously. Instead of paying lip-service to equality, we should be putting these provisions in place to lift areas up that have been disadvantaged through structural discrimination. Therefore I welcome the provisions under paragraph 5.3.1 to re-structure the economic development agencies, because it has been recognised for some time that there were major problems - particularly within the IDB. As an all-Ireland party, our preference is the creation of a single development agency on the island of Ireland.
However, whatever structures are eventually put in place - whether there are single agencies or multi-agencies - it is essential that an ethos of openness, transparency and accountability is put in place. It is time that TSN and our statutory equality duties were taken seriously and placed at the heart of the Department's policy and that a close relationship was built up with the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. In that way we could enjoy economic co-operation on an all-Ireland scale instead of indulging in wasteful competitiveness. Go raibh maith agat.
Dr Birnie:
I welcome this programme for two main reasons. First, there will be an advance in transparency of government which will become more apparent when we get access to the public service agreements for inspection and scrutiny. Secondly, I commend the promotion of cross-cutting interdepartmental co-operation in Government. Thus the key elements of the document run across the 11 Departments. I also welcome the Executive's programme funds, though there are some questions about who will scrutinise their devising and application.
Chapter 4, which deals with investment, education and skills, is a good example of cross-cutting in Government in that it provides for co-operation between the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and also between the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee fully supports the aspirations outlined in chapter 4. Why? This is because human capital, in other words education and training, is now widely recognised as a key component of economic growth.
We must try to address what may be the central problem of the Northern Ireland economy: low pay. Relative to the rest of the United Kingdom and to much of north-west Europe, output and employment have grown impressively here over the last decade, but wages have declined. Low pay is better than no pay, but high pay is better still. Therefore we need to work on these aspirations in chapter 4 of the document.
There is also the question of skill shortages. They may not be evident at the moment in a static sense, but they would probably become very pressing in sectors such as tourism, financial services, and information technology, if the economy were to grow as rapidly as we fervently hope it will.
5.00 pm
In the light of those considerations, I doubt that the targets and aspirations contained in chapter 4 go far enough. I share the reservations of John Simpson, expressed in an article in the 'Business Telegraph' on 7 November 2000:
"Are the further and higher education and vocational training targets high enough given the changing state of the market for skilled people?"
For example, are 200 higher education places enough, given the much higher number of places available in Scotland on a per capita basis, or the thousands of often unwilling student exiles this Province produces every year? The argument that 200 extra places are not enough can still be made, even after the Minister's previous announcement of 4,200 places for 1999-2004. Given this background, the 5,000% increase in attainment levels in further education may also be too modest.
In conclusion, I welcome the outward-looking orientation of the document. Incidentally, the objective on chapter 4, page 40, relating to increased university lecturer exchanges between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should appropriately be widened to include exchanges with the rest of the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.
Commendably, the programme often emphasises accountability. My Committee would like to see more specific mention of the roles of Assembly Committees in this regard, for example, in paragraph 7·1. The Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee has already provided the Finance Committee and the Minister with several dozen detailed comments on the text of this milestone document. It is a document that should help devolution to endure and work to the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr A Maginness:
I welcome the Programme for Government. The production of this substantial document is evidence of the hard work that the Executive have undertaken in order to produce a programme for the good of the whole community in Northern Ireland. It demonstrates the value of having a devolved Administration and the Good Friday Agreement.
I was surprised to hear some Members, particular Ian Paisley Jnr, describe this document as insubstantial flannel. One could not get a more substantial document than this. It really is a great credit to the Administration that they have produced such a substantial document. Mr Paisley Jnr should look at the document again, especially the part relating to infrastructure.
He should look at the section on regional development, because he included all the Departments in his criticism. The regional development section talks about the production, by summer 2001, of a 10-year regional transportation strategy that will consider new funding sources. It provides for a strategy, from the spring of 2001, to tackle the historical underinvestment in Northern Ireland's rail services, and, from 2001, an initiative to assist Translink to replace its buses and coaches after 18 and 12 years of service respectively. By the spring of 2002, the Belfast metropolitan transport plan will be completed.
The first tranche of legislative proposals for trust ports will be put forward in early 2001. Further work on a number of strategic route improvement schemes, a Railways Safety Bill and a Transport Bill are proposed. Fifteen rural community transport partnerships will be put into operation by 2001. These all fall under the remit of the Department for Regional Development - a DUP Department, so to speak. That shows how bankrupt the Member and his party have been in critically assessing this document. This is a substantial document that addresses the historical underfunding and underdevelopment of Northern Ireland's infrastructure, and it places the whole problem of the underdevelopment of infrastructure within the context of creating a competitive economy in Northern Ireland. That is what we all have to do - create a vibrant economy, and by doing that we will create a situation in which the whole community benefits from the progress made.
We cannot develop a modern, competitive economy if we have Victorian infrastructure. Of course, recognising that problem is not sufficient - we have to apply our minds to remedying those deficiencies by developing alternative methods of funding in relation to our public programmes and to our infrastructure in particular.
It is not fair or right for Dara O'Hagan to say that we should have a debate on public-private partnerships and private finance initatives. We have to look at all the options, because we do not have sufficient funds under the Barnett Formula to develop our infrastructure. If we do not develop our infrastructure, we do not develop our economy. Therefore, it is unfair for the Member to come to the House and say that she does not want PPPs or PFIs. We have to look at all the options. We may reject some of them, but, nonetheless, we have to look at them all.
It is essential to develop a modern water system - for our environment, for public health, and for industry. It is also essential for industry and for people generally that we develop a modern transportation system in Northern Ireland. It is also important that we develop our ports to maximum business efficiency, and that is what the document sets out to do.
Mr Wells:
I have listened with interest to the various contributions, and I still cannot help but think that this is a matter of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The Programme for Government does not address who should be in the Government in the first place. The Government are devising a programme with people in power who have tortured this community. We still have two Departments with terrorists in Government. That is still totally unacceptable.
Mr Speaker:
Order. I must advise the Member that he and his Colleagues need to be careful about what they say about other Members. I will be carefully scrutinising Hansard to see what precisely is said and whether there are specific accusations about specific Members, for that would not be in order.
Mr Wells:
Mr Speaker, it is a matter of record that the Minister of Education is a convicted terrorist. I am not saying anything that has not been on the front page of every newspaper in the country.
Mr Speaker:
The Member would be well advised to read what I have said in Hansard and to be more careful about what he says in the rest of his speech, and then to read tomorrow in Hansard what he has said.
Mr Wells:
I will certainly do that, Mr Speaker
Mr Speaker:
You would be well advised to.
Mr Wells:
I suspect that I will not for one moment be withdrawing that last comment.
The programme does not address that fundamental problem. The ordinary, decent people of the Province will never accept, in the Government of their country, an Executive that includes people who are out and out supporters of - and in a previous life were - active terrorists. That is simply unacceptable. That is the rock on which the whole process will ultimately fail.
By all means, it is good to have an academic debate on the Programme for Government, but at the next election the people will clearly destroy this Government, and quite rightly so. As a party, we are dedicated to the overthrow of any system that allows terrorists into the Government of the Province.
However, there are one or two issues that should be highlighted. An issue that I am very concerned about and which, unfortunately, obviously there is going to be no movement on, is the early retirement scheme for farmers. There are 28,000 full-time farmers in the Province. Many of them are trapped in the industry; they cannot get out because they are over 50 years old, but below retirement age. There is no scheme which would enable them to enjoy some form of retirement, to get out of the industry and receive a decent income. Until we address that fundamental problem in the overall structure of the agriculture industry, we will not solve the problems of the Province's farming sector. This is one of the rare occasions on which the Minister cannot say that she is bound by EU regulations. Not only do EU regulations permit such an idea, but it has been successfully implemented in countries such as France. That is a crucial point that should have been, but was not, addressed in the programme.
I am particularly interested in the environment and in regional development. There is some reference to private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships in the Programme for Government. However, more emphasis should have been placed on finding alternative funding for the enormous problems faced by the Department for Regional Development. The Water Service requires £3 billion to be spent on water over the next 30 years. The Roads Service requires £2 billion to be spent over 10 years. Regardless of what Dr O'Hagan or anyone else in Sinn Féin says, the Assembly will never have sufficient money to meet the needs which exist under the present budgetary constraints. It will not happen.
I share the feelings of those who are concerned about privatisation. I am sure that most Members would oppose any moves to privatise the Water Service, for instance. However, between the present budgetary arrangements and privatisation, we have to explore every possible angle and create a funding package with which to overcome the huge lack of investment in infrastructure in the Province.
May I be parochial and say that there are many towns in the Province that are still being strangled by congestion. It would be remiss of me not to mention Ballynahinch, which desperately needs a by-pass. There are one or two towns in every constituency where a relatively small amount of investment would relieve congestion.
I welcome the emphasis on public transport. We have turned the tide on that, and the £102 million package for railway investment is to be welcomed. However, that only takes us up to the end of year three, and many people will be asking what will happen after that with regard to funding.
Therefore, some aspects of the Programme are welcome but, in others, opportunities have been missed. However, that does not solve the ultimate problem facing the Province.
Mr McLaughlin:
Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Programme for Government represents a consensus between parties who do not often agree but quite often disagree on political aspirations and social and economic analysis. It is not a radical document, but a radical departure was not an option, given the limited devolution and severely prescribed control of finance that exists. However, the Programme for Government contains some innovative and creative ideas, which are very welcome. It is churlish not to recognise that.
In some respects, it is an indication of the benefits and effects of bringing local expertise and accountability to bear. However, we cannot ignore the impact of the subsequent actions of the First Minister. Regardless of how reality is presented or dolled-up, the programme was presented on Monday 23 October - and it was generally welcomed by the people of the Six Counties - but by 28 October, five days later, there was a programme for the destruction of government. Both programmes were presented by the same person. That has in many ways affected this lacklustre debate. There is an air of unreality.
Public confidence in the ability of the Executive and the Assembly to rise above party interest has been severely dented.
5.15 pm
At the start of today's debate, David Trimble said that the Draft Programme for Government was arguably the most important business that the Assembly had transacted since it came into existence. He said that that might strike some as a bold assertion - I can think of a more accurate description. He went on to say that the debate represented the beginning of the maturity of the new politics of the agreement. Which agreement is he talking about? He always seems to be referring to a different document from the rest of us. That is at the heart of the difficulties that we have experienced.
In his statement, David Trimble set out his objectives:
"to deliver a new beginning for Government . Government which is responsive to the community that it serves and which is in tune with the people by whom it has been elected".
Those are grand sentiments. He said that it would be a Government that would
"seek to provide new and better public services and new and better opportunities for the community as a whole-Protestant and Catholic and those of other religions and none, Unionist, Nationalist, Republican and those of no particular political conviction, male and female, the young as well as the elderly, those of British or Irish descent and those who have only more recently come to live among us".
It would be encouraging if that were supported with integrity and consistency. We listen to David Trimble and weep, as we reflect on the reality.
We face the most serious crisis yet in the peace process. It has been engineered by David Trimble and the unelected, unrepresentative Ulster Unionist Council. Genuine supporters of the Good Friday Agreement have been disappointed by the British Government's failure to establish clear blue water between their position and the position adopted by the Ulster Unionist Council and the First Minister. It is not good enough for Peter Mandelson to say that he will not endorse what David Trimble says-we did not ask him to endorse it, and, to my knowledge, no one else did. It is not good enough for Peter Mandelson to say that he does not have the power to force David Trimble to sign a piece of paper-nobody asked him to adopt those powers and nobody argued that he had those powers. However, the British Government have a responsibility under the terms of the international treaty that they signed, and under the terms of the agreement, to protect the integrity of the agreement. So far, they have failed to do so.
The agreement stipulates that if the North/South Ministerial Council does not function as prescribed, the Assembly will fall, because of their interdependence. That is the specifically stated, intended result of the UUP's strategy. David Trimble set out his aims in his letter of 26 October - create a crisis, force a suspension and blame Republicans. That is in writing. David Trimble set out a six-point plan to achieve that: disrupting the functioning of the North/South -
Mr Speaker:
Order. Time is up.
Mr Savage:
I broadly welcome the Programme for Government. The fact that we have a Programme for Government at all is testament to the solid and sustained progress that has been made. That progress has not been widely enough realised in the community, and we will have to address that issue. There is much for which to commend the Programme for Government and much to commend in the specific measures relating to the work of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I have a particular interest in those matters and hold a remit from my party on them.
No one can fault the commitment to improve the quality of Northern Ireland's agricultural produce. Northern Ireland already has a good and well-deserved reputation, and any steps to reinforce and maintain those high standards must be welcomed. That reputation for quality underpins the commercial success of the agri- food industry at home and in the export markets.
I welcome the proposals and the targets for the number of clean cattle given E, U and R grades. My concerns about the Programme for Government's measures for agriculture and rural development are not about what it says, but about what it does not say. I am concerned about what is not contained in the programme - the sins of omission, not the sins of commission. To say that agriculture is in crisis is an understatement - every schoolchild knows that. One blow has followed another and there are real and pressing issues to be tackled.
The agriculture department in any country is required to look to producers and consumers. The emphasis in the Programme for Government, while it rightly addresses consumer concerns here and abroad, does not favour producers and its comments in section 5.3.4 relating to producers are rather sparse. I agree that producers cannot thrive if consumers are not happy. I agree that it is in everybody's interests to secure product quality, and I agree that we have a reputation to maintain in that regard, as we have been at the cutting edge in food production and have shown the rest of Europe the way ahead. A case in point would be our tracking system for beef products in the context of the BSE crisis now beginning to ravage our partners in France.
However, the crisis in agriculture does not rest with consumers, either primary consumers in the agri-food industry or secondary consumers, the customers in the shops or supermarkets: it lies with the farmers, as producers. The issues threatening to destroy agriculture are farm incomes and farmgate prices. Destroy the farmers and the whole edifice of the agri-food industry that rests on them will also be destroyed. Yet, I do not see, in the Programme for Government, any direct measures to alleviate the profoundly serious situation in which farmers find themselves.
At best, product quality measures will have only an indirect and long-term impact on the viability of farming as a livelihood. "Rural development" is no afterthought in the title of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development - it is not just something tagged on to the end. Rural development - in this age of declining farm incomes, and when, because of the common agricultural policy, land is being taken out of production - is a critical part of the rural economy. It could be the means by which farmers' heads are kept above the economic welfare waterline. Indeed at section 5.1.3, the Programme for Government specifically states that the Executive will seek to promote other sources of income generation in the rural economy. But that must be more than words, it must be action, and action now. "Rural development" was not an afterthought. Farmers are diversifying into other businesses, such as agri-tourism, but they need time, encouragement, and most of all they need backing.
Mr Dallat:
I support the Programme for Government. This is a very important day for me. It is the first time in my lifetime that there has been an opportunity to debate such a programme. That is, in itself, little short of a miracle given our political instability in the past - when we were governed by absentee landlords, some of whom did their best, some of whom did not care, and all of whom were quite unable to give the attention to detail that is now possible. I make no apology for talking up this Programme for Government. I certainly will not talk it down as others have.
The Good Friday Agreement promised equality above everything else. However, equality is not a solution in itself, especially if inequality is shared by everyone. Many groups desperately hope that the Assembly will recognise their plight, and I make no apology for singling out the 250,000 people who have serious literacy and numeracy problems. There can be no greater injustice than having people who struggle to read and write or cope with simple arithmetic. That must be addressed, and there has to be a concentrated effort to find the additional resources needed to tackle one of the most fundamental rights of any citizen - the right to communicate, to understand and be understood.
There are many pressures on the education sector, but a new start has been made. Lifelong learning is now a reality but it is also inadequately funded. Nevertheless, we will not rule out any sources of funding. Recently, the Minister of Education was involved in a private finance initiative scheme with St Genevieve's school in Belfast, which I support. The additional places at local universities are most welcome, but thousands of our young people will still have to travel to England, Scotland or Wales for their education when it should be their fundamental right to be educated at home. The amount of extra cash for further education is small - will it be enough to train young people in the skills needed to meet the demands of modern industry? The Minister has highlighted that sector, and his efforts are worthy of our support.
Reference has been made to the crisis in the agriculture industry. I want to welcome the 24,000 new training places created for farmers - 12,000 for business training and 12,000 for environmental training. The commitment to developing a rural planning policy statement by 2002 is a major step forward, which demonstrates that a cross-cutting approach will be needed to tackle the real structural problems in the rural community. For the first time in 30 years, these and many other agricultural issues are back on the agenda. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I will ensure that the Chairperson understands the importance of rural proofing to the community that I represent.
Rural development programmes have played their part in the regeneration of small towns and villages, and that will continue through the Programme for Government. It is no mean feat that, during direct rule and some of the worst violence, ordinary people put their ideas together, defied hopelessness and transformed many small towns and villages. The fight to save our towns and villages is not over. The future of our rural post offices is a challenge that must be faced shortly, while we must also address many other aspects of the infrastructure. Rural development is an important part of the Programme for Government, and everything must be done to ensure that our rural culture, heritage and economic well-being are preserved for this and future generations.
The public attaches great importance to accountability. They are only too well aware that, during the dark days of direct rule, Government accountability was minimal. There is now two-way, direct communication with the Comptroller and Auditor General, who has demonstrated a willingness to work with the Assembly for the greater good of the electorate. The Public Accounts Committee has already done excellent work in scrutinising expenditure, and I fully support the moves to include many semi- state bodies and other providers of public services, which currently fall outside the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Value for money, accountability and the elimination of waste are crucial to the success of the Programme for Government. Perhaps the most important factor, which will ensure the successful delivery of the programme, is the ability of all Members to work together. To date, there has been remarkable co-operation across party lines, and the public welcomes that because it knows we are making history together, despite our reservations, concerns and mistrust.
Mr Carrick:
I take part in this debate as someone who is opposed to the Belfast Agreement. In the limited time available to me, I will take a critical look at the Programme for Government. Will the programme, or rather can it, deliver policies of social betterment and equal opportunity for all sections of the community in the fields of the economy, education, and social welfare? I have some concerns about that.
Where does the Programme for Government tackle the problems of those young people trapped in the unemployment blackspots, who can find neither training nor employment opportunities? Since the demise of the ACE scheme, programmes that provided real social support through a range of training opportunities geared to real life have withered. This training included trade skills, household skills and care programmes.
5.30 pm
On 24 October we were told by the Deputy First Minister that our young people are an "important focus of attention" - and so they are - yet all he could promise was an extra 500 training places in areas of skill shortages. What are these areas of skill shortages? Where are these training places going to be provided? I also noted that Mr Mallon promised an extra 200 undergraduate places on top of the 4,200 further and higher education places planned by 2004. Where are these 4,400 places to be located? When will they be available to students? What student support arrangements will be created so that the places can be made available to those who need them most?
The Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has promised that his student finance review will address the needs of part-time and full-time students in further and higher education. I am surprised to see in the draft budget for 2001-02 that despite the promised additional places, no provision has been made for extra funding for students. Is this all to be jam for tomorrow?
I call, yet again, for assurances that the new student finance arrangements will be working for the next academic year. It is a disgrace that every year 35% of all Northern Ireland school leavers who go on to university have to leave Northern Ireland. It is a disgrace that most of those who leave do so unwillingly, because there are simply not enough openings for them in Northern Ireland. It is a further disgrace that most of those who leave are of one religious persuasion - Protestant. How can we allow this to happen when we know that most of those who leave to study will not come back? What a tragic loss at a time when this battered region needs its young people to build a society based on the principles of social justice and opportunity for all.
I was shocked to learn that graduates working in Northern Ireland consistently earn less than others throughout the United Kingdom - only 80% of the UK average. I am saddened to note that earnings in Northern Ireland are only 86% of the UK average. Is this Programme for Government going to be enough, not only to provide the further and higher education places and skills training which existing employers need, but also to encourage industry to invest? Will the programme do enough to tackle the problems of adult literacy and numeracy which have been so well documented?
I am disappointed that the monitoring of evaluation accountability arrangements gets scant mention in the draft programme. The Northern Ireland Assembly, in its plenary activities, has an important scrutiny and consultative role regarding legislation and policy development, and the Assembly's Committees have explicit legal powers with respect to policy development consultation scrutiny. Where are these mentioned?
Finally, what of the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General as an officer of the Assembly with the specific duty to supply propriety, safeguard against fraud and ensure effectiveness and efficiency? This is simply not mentioned.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
Mr M Murphy:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Programme for Government, and I want to detail priorities such as securing a competitive economy within the wider global economy. I recognise the financial constraints put on this Assembly by the British Exchequer as regards proper funding, and I am extremely disappointed that the huge British war machine budget, accounting for hundreds of millions of pounds, has not been redistributed but instead has gone back to the British Exchequer. If we are to focus on environmental issues, we must do so on an all-Ireland basis. We are a small nation, and in respect of environmental issues, no one part of it should be disregarded.
We must also draw a clear line under many of the economic and business developments - the failures of the past, North and South, to bring a cross-section of business potential to the whole of Ireland. We must also bring benefits to those areas and communities throughout the island that are most economically marginalised and disadvantaged. You may ask what this has to do with the Programme for Government. We are supposed to benefit from all-Ireland bodies set up under the Good Friday Agreement, but these are the same bodies that the First Minister is trying to destroy by putting a block on the all-Ireland structures.
There is a need for business on both sides of the border to live up to its wider responsibilities so that it can benefit from the economic growth that has occurred in the rest of Ireland. A number of topics fall into this category - union recognition, profit sharing, adequate wages, better working conditions, as well as ensuring that the business activities are not harmful to the environment. There must be greater co-operation in areas such as roads and rail development, electricity, gas, waste management and recycling, not to mention telephone communications, infrastructures, the harnessing of taxes and a single currency for the whole of the island.
We must capitalise on all-Ireland bodies by forging greater links in economic planning and policy making, driven by bottom-up participation. When building the economy here in the Six Counties, we must look to the future, and that future must recognise cross-border trade. At present, 26% of exports from the Six Counties go South, while only 4% of exports from the Twenty- Six Counties come North. The two Administrations agree that it would be in their mutual interests to exchange information on co-ordination and work on trade and business development and other related matters, with a view to bringing benefit to everyone on the island. This will happen only if everyone is ready to play their part. The Programme for Government must give the lead. Go raibh míle maith agat.
Dr McDonnell:
Mention was made of the rural economy. All too often, I see that rural economy recognised as being agriculture, with maybe a bit of tourism thrown in, and a few people living out there who commute to the towns and cities. However, we may have missed out on a big slice of rural life. There is a large rural economy consisting of perhaps small businesses; some of them may be only metal bashing, for example, but some of that metal bashing turned into major operations such as Powerscreen International Ltd in the Dungannon area. There are small woodworking operations, firms that deal in concrete products and other commodities. For example, Finlays Block Making Equipment in Ballygawley and the Quinn Group do business all over west Fermanagh and west Cavan. There are also equally good opportunities for small-scale food processing.
I do not want to delay unduly, but I want to raise those issues. All too often we look at the rural economy as being purely agriculture-focused, and it does employ a considerable number of people. I get the distinct impression that LEDU and other agencies are perhaps not as favourably disposed towards these small rural companies as they would be if they were in an urban setting.
I welcome the general aspects of investment in public transport, but there is a need for a major overhaul of Translink and its accountability. I am somewhat bemused, if not befuddled, by the prospect of coaches being subsidised, which is a tour-operating rather than a public- transport issue. I would like more information on that.
Briefly, I turn again to the question of overall government. Improvement and greater efficiency in services is mentioned. I emphasise an interest in e-government in the modernisation programme. There is an opportunity, as yet unrecognised by many and an urgent need for early pilot projects across every Department. This was touched on indirectly at Question Time. We should not be passive.
I could spend some time outlining the opportunities in health. It should not take three or four weeks for communication between a GP and a hospital to reach its destination, but in some cases that happens. It is equally difficult to find a patient's hospital discharge letter.
I would welcome the opportunity for a pilot jobfinder project in the Training and Employment Agency. All too often, certainly in the Belfast area, people looking for jobs are herded towards Gloucester House. If they could work on an interactive programme and personal profile themselves, or create a curriculum vitae, the work involved in job placements could be reduced by between 50% and 60%. This is not to criticise the people who currently deal manually with these matters, but I wonder how we can remove some of the more laborious and boring administrative aspects. Every project could be worked at by every Department. I can only imagine the benefits to farmers if some farms were put on an e-government process.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Dr McDonnell, your time is up.
Mr Kane:
I must begin by saying that the elevation of rural issues is a significant feature in the Programme for Government proposals. There is an acceptance of the number of the people who work, are educated and live in the countryside. The implications for the rural communities and the aspirations for how this programme should affect rural life are, in theory, noble. The reality may prove less than a match for expectations. The constraints that have been placed on the budgetary scope of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have created a situation in which we may have missed the point. Measures designed to restructure rural life to provide opportunities to improve the skills and qualifications of the work force are desperately needed and are, therefore, welcome.
However, in one calendar year the number of farm businesses in existence that offer traditional forms of rural employment has shrunk by 4%. To that extent we have missed the point. By training our young people we are in danger of preparing them to move away from rural communities. Our agriculture industry is heading towards retirement, and there is no incentive for young people to go into it.
5.45 pm
The retirement scheme would have actively engaged young people in meeting the challenges of modern farming. Instead, they will drift away from our rural communities in search of employment. To that extent, expenditure targets have failed to address the problem. To put these comments into context, in the Moyle area, where I am a councillor, 25% of the population depends on agriculture for direct and indirect employment. That illustrates the essential need for radical restructuring of individual farm businesses in order to protect employment.
Failure to provide assistance for capital investment on farms would have a twofold effect. First, the farming industry and the rural economy have been so damaged by crisis that it is well-nigh impossible for farm resources to meet the requirements of investment in deadstock, that is, buildings, boundary fences and fields, et cetera. Secondly, the impact of continued rural ruin on tourism will be such that we will have nothing concrete to offer.
There are some positive and constructive proposals in this programme to sustain the life of Northern Ireland's rural communities. However, because of the diversity of their requirements, the implications of the Programme for Government have not been as comprehensive or as far-reaching in some areas as they should be. Therefore, I contend that in some key areas the programme has been remiss and continues to miss the point.
Mr McHugh:
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I would like to address chapter 5, 'Securing a Competitive Economy,' from an agriculture and rural development point of view. The draft Programme for Government is quite a good document; it is extensive, although somewhat vague. The introduction to chapter 5 says
"If we are to achieve a cohesive, inclusive and just society which places people and communities at its centre, it is essential that we create a vibrant economy, to produce employment and wealth for the future."
Two of the action points at the bottom of page 42 are
"Working together to regenerate the rural economy; and ensuring the protection and enhancement of the environment."
At point 5.1.2 it says that creating the right conditions for economic growth depends on
"the promotion of enterprise, innovation and creativity . if local industry is to compete and prosper in the global economy."
Agriculture is one of the main industries in rural areas. I am disappointed that there is no real commitment to farming. There is nothing in the document in relation to an environmental scheme which has broad support from farm organisations and the farming community and which the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee asked for. The Programme for Government makes no mention of a retirement scheme or restructuring, nor is there any installation aid to help young farmers get into the industry.
There is nothing in the document to show that money will be directed to farming to raise prices, ease the debt situation and put money directly into farmers' pockets. In defence of this, the Minister and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development say that the European Union will not allow state aid to be handed down to farmers directly.
In the South this week they are launching a new seven- year plan in which they have given IR£3·9 billion to the farming economy. If they are spending that sort of money in the South and giving that commitment to their agricultural economy for the future, while we have just tinkered around the edges with a few things like training and the upkeep of what is already there, then someone has got it wrong. That is why I am particularly disappointed.
What we asked for is what the farmers are asking for, and the matter will have to be looked at in the future.
On the wider economy, joined-up Government must look at the trade and industry side to allow small business development to help to replace some of the shortfall that will occur in the agriculture industry over the next few years. The IDB and LEDU - or perhaps an amalgamation of the two - should be of some help to the small industries. At present, the IDB does not help small businesses, because it can assist only in much larger job creation ventures.
The North/South structures of the Good Friday Agreement would have been very helpful. I know that there are those who are totally against them for their own political reasons, but it makes sense to work on policies which relate to an all-island structure. We have the same type of geography and farming practices here as they have in the South, yet the British Government policies work directly against us in almost every area.
As far as targeting social need is concerned, nowhere needs money to be directed towards it more than the rural areas generally and the farming industry in particular. I am somewhat disappointed in the part of the programme that relates to the rural economy. There is no real commitment to enhance that economy over the next few years. That has to be changed. Whoever is in charge of the relevant Departments in the future must think about moving forward and putting money into the base industry. The base industry must be strengthened so that we have something there for the future. Go raibh maith agat.
Mr McFarland:
We have listened today to a succession of Sinn Féin Members complaining about David Trimble. The solution to their problem is very simple. Sort out the weapons issue, and politics can return to normal. The people of Northern Ireland did not vote for an armed peace. Also, in listening to the DUP, one could be forgiven for assuming that its Ministers had absolutely no input into the Programme for Government.
I welcome the Programme for Government and, in particular, the Executive's action on a regional development strategy. For the first time we will have a cross- departmental strategic plan for the Province. The plan will spawn a rural development strategy to ensure sustainable development in the countryside, so that farms may diversify and remain viable and small villages may expand with incoming jobs, encouraging young people to remain in the rural areas.
The strategy also proposes the development of our infrastructure. If we are to take full advantage of the expected economic benefits of peace, we will need airports and seaports and a rail and road infrastructure which can cope with that. It is particularly welcome that the programme accepts that the rail network needs to be stabilised and developed. Next year's transport strategy will map out a way forward to start rolling back years of underfunding.
The regional development strategy also paves the way for an urban regeneration strategy to introduce an agreed plan on how our urban areas, particularly Greater Belfast, are to be developed. I particularly welcome the review of planning statement policies. I hope that the review will stop the destruction of old buildings throughout the Province resulting from the construction of flats for financial gain.
At a time when the system of setting a 60% limit on building on brownfield sites in Britain is being revised upwards, I hope that the review will reverse the present proposal to set brownfield development at 40% in Belfast. Such a policy would provide open season for the large developers to destroy the hills around Belfast and most of north Down's green belt.
Overall, the cross-departmental strategy should make Northern Ireland a better place to live in. The real test will come next year when detailed rural, urban and transport strategies will come into being and their resulting costs will become known.
Mr Close:
When the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister introduced this draft programme in a statement to the House on 24 October, they promised that a longer debate would be held in mid-November to receive the Assembly's broad views on the programme
"once the Committees have had an initial opportunity to consider the document."
I have listened today to what I can only refer to as a disorganised farce passing for a debate. It is clear that what we have heard is a collection of individual views. Why? The Committees have not had sufficient time to form a view and present it to the House. Therefore, today's exercise cannot be the last word, the second last word, or the third last word on this programme. The views expressed must be co-ordinated by the respective departmental Committees to preserve the integrity of the House. They must be prioritised before we can contemplate agreeing a final programme.
As I said in October, much of the programme is aspirational, resulting in targets that will be difficult to achieve, for we cannot see them. Perhaps they do not even exist. We are promised public-service agreements (PSAs), but we do not yet know what they are. How can we properly scrutinise and consider what we cannot see? The public-service agreements are extremely important: they will set out the aims, objectives and targets for each of the Departments. How can we offer constructive comment on a programme, particularly when it refers to the longer term and the anticipation of those public-service agreements? This seriously calls into question our whole modus operandi.
Throughout the document we are promised that various strategies will be put in place. On page 45 there is a reference to a strategy to ensure that all of Northern Ireland has a world-class telecommunications infrastructure. That is a wonderful idea, but how is it going to happen? When is it going to happen? How much is it going to cost?
We are told that by next summer a ten-year regional transportation strategy will be produced. I say "Hallelujah" to that, but will it be a rail- or road-orientated strategy? I do not know, because it is not in the draft programme. Until we see these programmes and strategies fleshed out, how can we tell if they meet the expectations of the people and address their priorities? Equally important is whether they are affordable within a reasonable time span.
The public have major concerns about health, education, and administration, yet it is not programmes for action or strategies that we see. It is reviews, and reviews mean more uncertainty. With a devolved Government run by locally elected politicians, the people want to be assured that that their hospital will be secure and that Northern Ireland will have more intensive care beds. They want to see the 11-plus and student fees abolished and an efficient and effective Administration with fewer quangos, less bureaucracy and savings used to finance the type of changes to which I referred earlier.
The draft programme needs strengthening in other areas. For example, there has been much talk about a new multi-sports arena for Northern Ireland. That is not mentioned in the document. There have been many calls at district council level to allow third-party planning appeals. Are these to be ignored? I am unclear as to whether 'Strategy 2010', referred to on pages 12 and 43 to name but two, is going to be speedily implemented. Where are the targets for gross domestic product (GDP), new business start-up, exports, et cetera? What about a single development agency or an economic forum?
While I appreciate that the Budget for 2001-02 deals with the costing for that year, projected costs for future years would have helped. That could help prioritisation, and it would certainly help transparency. A review of public administration will be introduced to reduce the cost of administration. No doubt this will involve looking closely at local authorities, their numbers and their powers, et cetera. However, why is the completion of the review on the calculations of the resources element of the general exchequer grant one of the draft Programme for Government's action plans for 2001? That will involve more legislation and expense.
Mr Speaker:
Your time is up.
Mr Bradley:
I welcome the Programme for Government, and I am pleased that emphasis has been put on agriculture and rural development. Twenty-five years have passed during which we had no printed proposals to debate or anything to contribute. Therefore my welcome is understandable.
6.00 pm
In particular, I welcome the announcement that within the next five months the Assembly will implement final arrangements for formal co-operation between the two Governments on animal health issues on the island of Ireland. I further welcome the announcement of a specific target date of March 2002 for implementation of joint strategies for the improvement of animal health on both sides of the border. If this common-sense approach is properly implemented, we may see the eradication of costly diseases such as BSE, bovine TB and brucellosis within the next decade. The joint exercise makes sound economic sense, as duplication and expenditure will be greatly reduced when the respective research centres unite to address the common goal of good animal health. The subsequent benefits that the marketing of top-quality food will bring to producers and consumers alike is a plus factor to which we can all look forward
I welcome the proposal for free travel for senior citizens. This could be implemented very quickly if the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister for Social Development and the Minister for Regional Development accept that it is within their respective powers to assist financially a free travel programme. Some Members have claimed the free travel proposals to be the policy of their respective parties. In the SDLP we have sought this facility for decades, but just like the other parties, our message was falling on the deaf ears of direct rule Ministers.
I welcome the fact that efforts are being made to secure proposals for the introduction of North/South and north-west gas pipelines. I hope that if they are not introduced simultaneously, the North/South aspect will get priority.
I endorse the comments of those who addressed the positive attention paid to matters such as protecting our villages and hamlets, training for members of the rural community, the importance of infrastructure and transport, the beef quality initiative, et cetera. I ask all Members to adopt as policy the words of the Executive in section 5.4.1 of the Programme for Government:
"We will work together to regenerate the rural economy."
Finally, as party spokesman for agriculture, I welcome the announcement in the rural regeneration section of the programme that the Executive have agreed to establish a ministerial group to proof all Government policies for rural impact. This paragraph alone will offer great assurance to the rural community and those of us concerned with the future of agriculture and rural development.