Many Members share the view that the Health Service here is underfunded given its needs. I agree that unless the Department for Health, Social Services and Public Safety receives more money through the Barnett formula it will be difficult to generate the sort of improvements that the health and personal social services and the public are crying out for.

Mr McGrady and Dr Paisley criticised the level of community care provision. I have stated publicly that community care has been underfunded, and that continues to create difficulties. However, it is hoped that the allocations for next year and the targets in the Programme for Government will make some improvements.

Robert McCartney asked about my decision on maternity services. In making that decision my sole focus was on the welfare of women, including mothers, and babies. I well understand the importance of getting that decision right. I refer the Member to my remarks in the House on 30 January.

Patricia Lewsley asked about child protection and co-operation with the Department of Health and Children. Some of the work being done in that regard will be done on the North/South Ministerial Council in which we work with our colleagues in education. It is important that nothing interferes with the activity of the North/South Ministerial Council or its work.

The new social care council to be established in October will, for the first time, regulate the strong social care workforce. It will also help to achieve the child protection aims of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

The problem that the Alliance Party has with the Programme for Government lies not so much with what it says but rather with what it does not say. In many respects the Programme for Government suffers from one large capital sin - the sin of omission.

It is essential that any programme, structure or plan is based on a solid foundation. It must have that strength and demonstrate that strength. If the foundation to that structure, plan or programme is weak, that weakness will permeate throughout it and weaken its implementation and application.

The Alliance Party is a fervent supporter of the Good Friday Agreement. It believes in devolution and its members were delighted to share in the joy of the many people in Northern Ireland who voted by an overwhelming majority in support of it.

The Alliance Party wants to see the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. That can only be done by a firm, strong and cohesive Executive whose leadership permeates the Assembly. The people of Northern Ireland voted for a new beginning. They wanted to see change.

They wanted to see changes in health, education, infrastructure and in how farmers are treated, et cetera. However, more fundamentally than that the people wanted to see changes in society.

This is a divided society. The people did not want a change that simply plastered over those divisions, but one that dealt with them at root and branch. They wanted to see an end to tribalism. They wanted to see an end to sectarianism, to bigotry and to the hatred that has riven this society. They wanted an end to the violence, the bombing, the destruction, the gangsterism and the thuggery. Do they have that? They wanted to see the new beginning, and they wanted to see the new day dawning. They wanted to see action taken to eradicate the ills of the past.

The people have been disappointed. They do not see this operating through their Executive. People tell me that they are getting a bad example from their Executive, because they are still riven by this tribalism. The Executive, to a large degree, are still putting party before country. They are fighting the battles of yesterday rather than acting as a cohesive group to try to eradicate the problems of Northern Ireland, namely sectarianism and tribalism. The parties in the Executive, with one exception, promised to work in good faith to resolve their political difficulties, but all we see is bad faith and political point scoring. That bad example rubs off onto the Floor of the House, and it also rubs off onto society in general, which the Executive claim to lead.

The Programme for Government does very little to try to deal with the real problems, because they are rooted in the Executive. In many respects the parties in the Executive have a vested interest in maintaining that type of tribalism. To attempt, Pilate-like, to wash our hands of those real problems which confront society and say that they are security-orientated is to try to bury one's head in the sand. We must confront these problems and deal with them. The Executive should take the lead in that.

The political parties make up the Executive have a duty to resolve the policing issue. They have a duty to resolve the arms issue. They have a duty to demonstrate their preparedness to move forward that extra inch, that extra centimetre, to enable us to have the new beginning that the people seek. It appears that some, if not all, the parties in the Executive are prepared to sacrifice all that is in the Programme for Government rather than move another inch. As for the other party that is not in the Executive, or that is in the Executive but wants to remain semi-detached -

Make up your mind.

My mind is made up; my mind is crystal clear.

The party to my left claims all the advantages of having Ministers. In fact, just a few minutes ago they were pronouncing what they were doing with their respective portfolios, but at the same time they act like the real Judases in betraying their fellow Members of the Executive -

Settle yourself. Calm yourself down.

I am not angry. I am glad that the Member prefers a lower tone.

At every turn they betray their fellow Members. Are they Judases, or are they Januses? They look both ways at the same time. They want to claim the benefits but deny any part of it. This is extremely strange, but it is also rubbing off onto this society.

This society must deal with the tribalism. Is there anything in the Programme for Government that deals with the plastering of our kerb stones and our gable walls with sectarian murals? Is there anything about the roadsides being painted red, white and blue or green, white and gold? Is there anything about flags flying with disrespect to both the Union Jack and the tricolour? Where does the Programme for Government deal with that? The Executive omit to include these issues in the Programme for Government, because they cannot deal with them. That very tribalism rives the Executive - that is the fundamental flaw.

I have some concern about today's debate on the Programme for Government. I am amazed to find that the Ministers are making statements at this stage. When the draft programme was introduced, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could have introduced some of these points on behalf of all of the Executive and left more time for Members to debate today what is or is not in this programme. Having said that, and in relation to the three themes of justice, inclusion and cohesion, it would be good if politicians and parties in Government could lead from the front - I concur with the Member from the Alliance Party, Mr Close, on that.

I do not think that it is enough, in the Programme for Government, to ask trade unions, employers and schools to combat sectarianism and challenge exclusion if they do not see that examplebeing set by the Government. It is disappointing to see that, to date, they have not pulled together in a cohesive and inclusive fashion.

On that point, is it the intention of the Executive to make a submission on the Bill of Rights consultation based on the principles of justice, inclusion and cohesion, because the current Programme for Government does not cover that point?

I have some reservations about the Deputy First Minister's comments this morning on his reservations about everybody else's reservations. I would like to see what he intends to do in relation to the principle that was applied when people signed the agreement. I believe that authorship is ownership, and that principle, to date, has fallen apart.

I welcome the programme's objectives, although I find that the delivery mechanisms need much greater clarification. It is not enough for us to read that the Government will attempt to progressively eliminate the backlog of EC Directives to be implemented, or, indeed, the backlog of planning applications. I note that a date has been set for planning applications of 2002, but that is cold comfort for those who are waiting to hear the outcome of many of these planning applications. However, I suggest to the Government that it is illegal to make such a statement - that they will work to eliminate the backlog of EC Directives to be implemented. It is a statutory obligation to implement EC Directives, not to work progressively to eliminate any backlog.

I am concerned about the compartmentalised approach to some of the policy issues in this document. There has been a missed opportunity here to have a regional anti-poverty strategy. Perhaps the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will respond by saying that the entire programme is an anti-poverty strategy. However, here was an occasion where we in Northern Ireland could have highlighted how far behind we have fallen in issues such as illiteracy and other issues of social exclusion, such as basic education principles and child poverty.

I have asked the Minister for Social Development if he knows how many children are living below the poverty line in Northern Ireland, and his answer was that he does not. We do not have the basic research data to combat some of these poverty issues, yet we have that information in respect of Scotland, England and Wales. How can we base a Programme for Government on something for which we have no data? We do not know what we are trying to challenge and combat in the future?

Because of the lack of resources, too many of our policy initiatives and pieces of legislation have had to focus on child protection rather than on the prevention of many of the problems that we should have been dealing with. All of that could have been incorporated into a Government strategy on anti-poverty.

I also have concerns about the number of strategies. I hope that we meet our deadlines, but I wonder what will happen if the public service agreement deadlines are not met. I know that we will not meet the December deadline on the 10 new beds for adolescent and mental healthcare. With the best will in the world, the Minister will not meet that deadline, because the nurses have not been trained and there are no places in which to put those beds. That is just one example of a target that will not be met. I could mention more, but I do not have enough time.

Will there be sanctions, or do the Government intend to have an annual review? Will they be honest enough to return in a year's time and say that they have had to tear up some of the strategies, as happened with the health strategy for 1997-2002? The Minister was honest enough to say that that was no longer relevant. Will the Government come back next year and tell us that they have not been able to meet the targets and let us know what they intend to do to address that inadequacy?

I am still concerned about the private finance initiatives. When we debated the draft Programme, I asked whether it was the intention of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to seek private finance if they did not have the resources in house. If that is the case, it is only fair that the Assembly should have an honest and transparent answer. Which initiatives will be sponsored by private finance? What are the dates of those initiatives? I hope that we never again have the Audit Office reporting that £450,000 went down the drain because a project went out to tender for private finance, even though planning permission had not been sought.

It is time that we had decent policy outcomes, timetables and targets that we can debate properly. We have fallen far short of that. I am pleased to see that, since the draft programme was published, there are initiatives such as the Civil Service review of senior positions and legislation on disability and housing. I would like to have seen the resources for those initiatives; they were not in any Budget figures that I saw. I would like to see how much money it will take to produce those Bills.

I am still concerned about one principle that we fought for in the Belfast Agreement - the advancement of women in public life. I see no resources attached to that and every Department continues to pay lip-service to it. People in Northern Ireland should be able to share in some of the fruits of our move from conflict to democracy. I commend the Government for their attempt to produce our first Programme for Government, although it falls far short of the principles set out in its introduction.

I support the Programme for Government, but I draw Members' attention to some important issues that are either not included or are not specifically referred to.

I welcome the grants that will be made available for 7,500 houses in the next year. However, there is no indication from the Department for Social Development or the Minister that anything will be done about the invidious use of closing orders. I have asked for that issue to be tackled before. Closing orders are part of a petty exercise engaged in by the Housing Executive when some applicants apply for replacement grants. People are informed that their application has been refused and that they are barred from reapplying. Then they are informed that they are occupying their home illegally, even though the situation has come about through no fault of their own.

This is an absurdity, especially in a county such as Fermanagh, where there is a 17.5% housing unfitness rate. I call on the Minister for that Department to tackle this serious issue rather than to shy away from it and to have all cases affected by closing orders reviewed. If the Minister does not do this, I will expect the Executive to take overall responsibility and do something about it. In this paper they tell us

"We will work to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to access decent, affordable housing in the tenure of their choice".

That aim, worthy as it is, will not be realised for those people unless and until the closing orders are urgently reviewed.

I want to move on to the subject of the Department of Education. The Executive expressed the sentiment that they aim to promote the concept of citizenship amongst children and young people, yet under the Department of Education's public service agreement, there is little indication as to how this will be achieved. There has been much discussion about how knowledge and skills are to be imparted to our young people, however there has been little mention about how the important values in education are to be transmitted. The promotion of citizenship is - as the Executive claim - a worthy ideal, especially for this society, which is emerging from a conflict situation into a stable and peaceful one. The promotion of citizenship amongst our young people will be essential if peace is to become firmly embedded in this society. We all yearn for a just, cohesive and inclusive society, but for this to be realised, there will have to be a great deal of work done on a long-term basis. Nevertheless, all children need to be prepared for it from an early age.

Education must play a central role in the concept of citizenship if our young people are to develop their capacity to be active citizens and participators in society throughout their lives. Therefore, a firm commitment in the Programme for Government is needed by the Department responsible to introducing education for citizenship as a compulsory part of the curriculum in all of our schools.

The instability that dogged this society for far too long produced an environment where human rights on all sides were constantly violated. In future, we hope that we will resolve our differences through democratic means. However, if democracy is to be real and meaningful for society in the future, our education system should lead the way in educating our children about their rights, their responsibilities and the rights of others. So far, the curriculum has been underpinned by values through the delivery of cross-curricular themes and programmes of study. We must now place values such as equality, justice and human rights at the centre of the curriculum. That is the best way to strengthen the capacity for all of our citizens to resolve conflicts in the future by democratic means. This will ensure that a just and peaceful society, for which we all yearn, becomes a reality.

Regarding the issue of jobs, I welcome the measures aimed at improving local businesses and attracting inward investment. One measure to achieve economic improvement in the more deprived areas could be the decentralisation of government jobs. I am glad to see that this is now recognised in the Programme for Government, and I hope that that initiative will progress. I look forward to the day when a constituency such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone will benefit from the decentralization of Civil Service jobs.

That constituency and others have been affected by the differences between sterling and the Irish punt. It is one of those that will be hardest hit if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's aggregate tax is implemented after 2002. One thousand jobs in that sector will be threatened, and there is concern in the quarrying industry. Everyone in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency and beyond - and, I am sure, everyone here - will want the Executive to mount a strenuous effort to resist the implementation of the aggregate tax in Northern Ireland.

I want to use my ration, as it were, of seven minutes to concentrate on the public service agreements (PSAs) and to welcome those as an attempt to make Government more measurable. The Civic Forum commended that aim in its recent report on the Programme for Government.

My welcome is qualified by four points. The first relates to my own Committee's response to the PSAs in the area of the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. We were pleased to see that in most cases the Department incorporated some of our concerns. Those perhaps were not so much to do with the content of the PSAs, but rather with the clarity of their presentation.

A second point relates to the number of PSAs, and particularly PSA targets, in the programme. There is a fine balance here - on one hand there is a need to avoid having too many targets, and on the other, there is a risk of having too few for good government. It is of note that when PSAs were introduced in Whitehall there were some 600 targets. In 2000 that number was reduced to only 200. It is perhaps significant that in the Programme for Government there are 249. Are we going over the top in respect of numerical targets?

A third point is the crucial question of the level at which those targets are set. Once again there is a basic dilemma. It might be possible to set them far too high; in other words, at an unrealistic level. That would be a case of putting the Government on the track of "mission impossible". Let me illustrate this point by one historical example, concerning someone who perhaps would not be much loved in some quarters of this House. In 1963 no less a person than Terence O'Neill stated that he thought that in 46 years Northern Ireland would achieve the same level of economic output and social standard of living as Great Britain; in other words, that that would be achieved by the year 2009. That is only eight years away, and currently our level of gross domestic product per capita is only approximately 80% of the UK average. The recent Strategy 2010 document sets a target of 90% for the year 2010. Most experts feel that that level is unrealistically high. There is a sense that the target set by O'Neill in the 1960s was far too high.

However, if targets are set at too low a level, we are in danger of becoming complacent. We might fall into the same trap that affected planning in the old Soviet Union. Under Stalin's five-year plans targets were often set in such a way that the goals had already been achieved. There was a very good reason for that. The labour camps in Siberia, or perhaps worse, threatened those perceived as failures. However, I really doubt if our two junior Ministers are the Berias of this Executive. Time will tell.

Does the Member agree that under the Belfast Agreement the labour camps have all been closed down, so we cannot have any?

That was a very amusing comment, as always, from Mr Wilson.

Time will tell if the levels at which the PSAs have been set are correct. That would be easier to judge if the document contained more information about the UK average performance and, indeed, what was happening in the rest of the world. In some respects this is an insular document. We are not being told what is going on in other parts of the UK, the European Union or the United States.

I am pleased that the document puts emphasis on cross-cutting at its heart. That is very valuable. As time is short I will give one example. I would like to see more on the crucial issue of research and development. We have already had speeches about how we must grow our economy. Ultimately, we must create resources rather than run to the Treasury in London, constantly appealing for more money.

I would like to see a target in either section, or in both, relating to the Departments of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and Enterprise, Trade and Investment, on raising the percentage level of research and development relative to the gross domestic product. That was focused on in a recent Northern Ireland Economic Council report.

I am attempting to bring some constructive criticism to the matter so I am supporting the motion and rejecting the amendment. The PSA concept is good even if, inevitably, it has been somewhat flawed in its first application in the Province.

Let me respond to Dr Paisley's criticism of the quality of paper in the document. As a teacher, I noted that sometimes it was the weakest students who put the greatest care into the quality of their presentation, to cover up poor content. If it is so in this case, that is a good sign, not a bad one.

I commend some of the targets mentioned earlier - raising school standards, pushing Northern Ireland ahead in e-commerce, and reducing the terrible toll of casualties on our roads.

To sum up, the Programme for Government is not a return to the past. It is only superficially similar to the type of planning popular in Northern Ireland 35 years ago - for example, the Wilson report and others of the mid-1960s. Today, we have more realistic targets, because they are more attainable.

For too long, Northern Ireland has languished at the bottom of so many league tables, be it public health or in aspects of the environment. We should aim to change that situation and put Northern Ireland at the top of performance league tables, not just within the UK but in some cases in the rest of the world.

It is a good start. The PSAs can and should be improved as they have been in Whitehall.

We have had an interesting debate. It has been toing and froing. Some people think they are in, some think they are out; and some are not sure whether they are in or out.

A few moments ago we listened to remarks about the quality of paper in the Programme for Government document. The quality of the paper probably sums up what is on the paper and therefore the quality would be sufficient for the contents.

The debate has been strong in rhetoric. Rhetoric has been substituted for content because the content is not very good. We have listened to homilies and generalities, many of which came from members of the Executive.

We had the introduction by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but sadly, after they had made their comments, they were so concerned about what the Assembly had to say that they left the Chamber and have not returned. Actually, the First Minister did come in to speak to someone from his party on the back Benches for about two minutes and then went out through the door again. His return was not for the content of the debate.

No one from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister who is also from the SDLP has been here. The Deputy First Minister's junior Minister is not here. With the greatest respect, Mr Nesbitt has been sitting in on the debate, and Mr Haughey is usually evident at his side, but to the best of my knowledge Mr Haughey is not in his place nor has he been during the debate. Again, this epitomises their interest in what Members have to say. What we had earlier was simply a homily, and when that homily was given -

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The request was made that Mr Haughey and I both be present to speak in the debate. The ruling from the Business Committee was that only one of us was to speak. I am here to respond on the Programme for Government.

Therefore, because the Member's Colleague did not have the opportunity to speak, he does not bother coming here. It shows exactly what they really believe and want to hear from Members. I thank the hon Member - it was not a point of order, but his information was very helpful. It proves that unless they have the opportunity of standing at a little dispatch box looking important, they do not want to come, because they are not interested in any part of the debate. I thank Mr Nesbitt for his very helpful and useful intervention.

We listened very carefully to Mr Neeson and Mr Close, who spoke on behalf of the Alliance Party. We noticed the tenor of Mr Close's voice when he was trying to smack the various parties of the Executive over the knuckles. He was speaking to the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. He tried his best to rap them nicely over the knuckles, but you saw the hump appear on his back when it came to the DUP. Somehow it seems that this little moderate party loses its moderate and liberal image when it comes to the Democratic Unionist Party.

However, what he said was interesting. He said that the Executive, which is made up of the three parties which he was rapping over the knuckles, was riven with sectarianism. Was he referring to Mr Trimble, his party representative, the SDLP or Sinn Féin?

Ms McWilliams said that she had reservations about the Deputy First Minister's reservations about everybody else's reservations. I must be honest and say that after listening to Ms McWilliams's speech, I have reservations about what she said also. We are having a wonderful party time here today. It is really disgraceful when we get to such a situation in such an important debate. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should have treated the Assembly properly and with the dignity it deserves.

There are very important issues, which ought to be placed on the record. In relation to the Department of the Environment, we have this statement about protecting the environment:

"We also appreciate the importance of protecting and, where possible, enhancing the environment. A good quality built and natural environment is also the key to our economy, helping for example to attract investors and visitors as well as being integral to the future of agriculture."

That is lovely verbiage. To find out what it really means you would have to call on Mr Ervine who usually explains such words. You have to ask what the real importance of it is. Does it mean that investors and visitors are the most important concerns in relation to the environment? I suggest that the environment is important to the people who live here - the ordinary people in this society. In this document there is nothing about third-party appeals for people who are aggrieved and feel that the Department of the Environment is forcing its will upon a local community. This was mentioned in relation to Kircubbin. I genuinely feel that this is very important. We must think of the people, whether they are citizens in Antrim concerned about the Deerpark Hotel, or those concerned about the overdevelopment of a site at Manse Road. These are important issues to individual people. The rights of the individual are of equal importance to those of the investor.

Waste management and council support are mentioned. It would be better if the Department had worked in partnership with the councils from the outset rather than sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how they develop their plans. It is essential to work with councils to achieve the best possible waste management strategy for particular areas. Whether it is Cottonmount, Green Road in Ballyclare or Ladyhill, we need transparency. People have a right to know what is happening.

What is going on in our hospitals? They are full to capacity and patients are lying on trolleys. The Health Service is in chaos.

This document is plenteous in verbiage but offers nothing that will truly affect the lives of my constituents.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I speak on behalf of myself and my party. In moving forward and recognising a new beginning, I am hopeful that the Programme for Government will give us the best opportunity to open up avenues that this part of the island has been deprived of for years.

I would like to see further resources being provided by the Programme for Government. My concern is that not enough focus has been placed on the delivery of a waste management strategy. I would like to put on record that in the debate on zero waste which we had in this Chamber I was disappointed, but not surprised, that there was no support from the parties in the House. Support would have meant that the Minister of the Environment and the Executive are giving more attention to zero waste in their Programme for Government. After all, this is a key issue that should have been better addressed in order to improve the lives of all the people of this island. It is crucial to deal with the issue of waste management on an all-Ireland basis. I am disappointed that the Programme for Government does not reflect the views of my party on this.

I recognise the funding increases that the Budget allocates to the environment, testimony to the priority that it has been given by the Executive. It is now up to the Minister, Sam Foster, to control this funding increase and to spend it wisely. Matters of great concern are: planning; waste; roads; water pollution; delivery of a waste management strategy; completion of the all-area plan by 2006; a reduction in road casualties by 2010; a review of the equality scheme in 2005; and a review of the work on time, change and sustainability of the diversification strategy.

I am disappointed that the Minister has not paid attention to the problem of school buses. There will be a serious tragedy. In rural areas in particular, the Department does not look after the roads properly in winter under conditions of ice, snow and frost. It ignores the fact that children have to travel along these roads in cars and overcrowded buses. No provision is made for the safety of children travelling to and from schools. Yet targets are set for driving improvement courses and practical child pedestrian safety training, et cetera, which do not deal with the problems I have highlighted that are crying out to be addressed.

On the completion of the area plan to provide land use planning, which balanced the development needs of the region with environmental protection and targeted the elimination of the planning applications backlog, I have to agree with Ms McWilliams's statement that it should be an obligation to review the scheme of planning policy development and development control.

On development control, I would like to have seen priority given to the telephone masts that litter our countryside. Given concerns over public health, with masts near homes, schools and hospitals, the Minister must get together with other Departments to alleviate the problems telephone masts present, and they must work together to promote the health of our people. Go raibh maith agat.

I commend the Programme for Government and its commitment to human rights, linguistic rights and cultural diversity. One has only to trawl the local press to see how Ulster-Scots bashing has become perhaps the only respectable form of racism left in western Europe.

So that the Assembly is under no misapprehension about the means by which its commitment to equality is measured, I wish to reiterate the standards, expectations and aspirations that Ulster-Scots people have for our cultural rights.

The Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities considers that

" a pluralist and genuinely democratic society should not only respect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of each person belonging to a national minority, but also create appropriate conditions enabling them to express, preserve and develop this identity."

Further to that, the objective and standard laid down for any society defining itself as pluralistic and democratic, as we do, is exemplified in section II, article 4(2) of the convention. That commits those who subscribe to it to

"undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority."

Article 5(1) of the same protocol commits signatories

"to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity, namely their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage."

One of the key elements of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities concerns freedom from the threat of enforced assimilation. Under article 5(2), it is stated that those subscribing to the convention

"shall refrain from policies or practices aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such assimilation."

That is an important element in the convention, which has special relevance to the circumstances in Ulster.

Frae oot o aw this, A maun hae it pitten doun in the skreived raicord sae as the Assemlie is in nae dout o the staundart that maun be uised for gaugin hou weill it haes wrocht for jonik anent oor fowk richts.

The Council o Europe's Protocol Girdwark for the Beildin o Fowk Minorities hauds that a free an apen kintra, carefu o the richts o aw, maun tak respekfu tent o the fowk, kirk-gangin, heirskip an leid richts o awbodie that belangs an unner-leid o the kintra. An mair, the Govrenment maun mak strecht an aisie the pads o fendin an forderin, sae as thaim as wad can kythe apenlie thair ain hert's fowk leid. For winnin ti siccan heich grund, indyte 2 o the protocol girdwark, airticle 4, pairt 2 gars thaim as unnerskreives the protocol ti

"tak on haund the daein o aw that is needit in ilka pairt o leevin, siller haundlin, fowk oncum an residenter haundlin, politics an fowkgates, for fu an wrocht-oot jonik aqueisht thaim as belangs the hert leid o a minoritie o fowk, an thaim belangin the maist fek."

Airticle 5 o thon protocol gars aw unnerskreivars

"forder the grund needit for thaim belangin a kintra's minoritie fowk leid ti fend an forder thair ain fowkgates an gie beild til the things as bes at the founds o thair hert leid, ti pit a name on it, thair kirk, thair leid, thair heirskip an thair fowkgates."

Yin o the main things in the Protocol Girdwark for the Beildin o Fowk Minorities is adae wi freedom frae be-in gart faw in wi the leid o the maist fek. Unner airticle 5, indyte 2, ye hae it that thaim as unnerskreives

"ti the protocol maunna dae ocht or ettil at ocht that gars thaim belangin minoritie leids faw in wi the leid o the maist fek agin thair wull an maun beild sic yins frae onie daeins ettlin at siccan tak-ower".

This bes aye pairt o the protocol, that haes a guid whein ti say anent oor daeins here in Ulster.

I commend the study of the European Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities (1994) to the Assembly. The Ulster-Scots community is not engaged in making excessive demands. We ask only that the principles of equality and fairness be applied to those indigenous inhabitants of Ulster, and that the requirement for equality extends beyond the broad principles and protocols that I have briefly set before the House. The requirement calls for an end to discriminatory practices and to unfairness and extends to all other areas of human life and experience, including the educational environment, where the Ulster-Scots language has been deeply discriminated against and marginalised.

The area of education is one in which the Ulster Scots community, particularly the Ulster-Scots language movement, calls for significant improvement. Historically, the Ulster-Scots language has suffered much greater discrimination and marginalisation than Irish Gaelic. That situation is no longer tenable or acceptable.

In particular, we are calling for a rapid expansion of facilities for Ulster-Scots in the field of education. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Oslo recommendations regarding the linguistic rights of national minorities, and the Hague recommendations requiring the educational rights of national minorities, together with the relevant United Nations documents, set out the standards of treatment and of development to which the Ulster-Scots community and the language lobby aspire. We recommend that a more culturally supportive environment should be developed in schools located in core Ulster-Scots areas, including specific recognition of the Ulster-Scots language. However, this Programme of Government has gone a long way in providing this for us.

I welcome the Programme for Government document, and I pay tribute to those officials and Ministers who have worked on it. Making a difference is the challenge faced by the Assembly in making devolved government a better system of managing our affairs on behalf of the people. The people across our entire community, whether Unionist or Nationalist, want to see real improvement and progress. They expect the Assembly to bring about tangible improvements. The people, rightly, want the devolved Administration to face up to its responsibilities and implement change. Obviously there is a major challenge for the Executive and the Assembly in this regard. Northern Ireland is a small region within the British Isles, and it is an even smaller region within the European Union.

I will endeavour to limit my contribution in this debate to the activities of the two Committees on which I serve - the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee, with regard to education and training, and the Regional Development Committee, primarily concerned with physical infrastructure.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>