The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which some like to malign, is helping the farming industry through one of the most difficult periods in its history. The Minister for that Department has won the respect and admiration of people from diverse quarters for the way in which she is handling the foot-and-mouth disease crisis. In the Programme for Government there are, for the first time, new proposals and opportunities that should restore our farming industry to profitability in a way that it has not experienced in the past. Agriculture and rural development are no longer in competition but working as a partnership, helping to preserve the countryside and protect the environment. Under direct rule it was a horror story with many rural communities in danger of extinction. Now there is hope.

Over the past 30 years I watched helplessly as various British Governments treated this part of Ireland with contempt and scorn. I watched their antics as they jetted in and enjoyed the perks of high office but contributed little or nothing to our people or to their quality of life. The programme marks a new beginning and a new future that leaves that unfortunate period of history behind. It addresses the issues that created injustice and inequality and prevented any opportunity to address social need. I grew up experiencing all those injustices. I want to see an end to them, and so do the vast majority of people on this island.

The programme sets the targets to achieve that - targets that we can measure and improve upon as time goes by. Surely it is better to light a single candle than to sit and curse the darkness? Of course, the programme is not a single candle. As my Colleague Arthur Doherty said earlier today, it is a beacon of light offering much more than a ray of hope to so many people badly affected by the darkness and sterility of the politics in this land in the past. It threatens no one except those who have preached doom and gloom in the past. I know that, and so do the people of Northern Ireland.

I support the motion.

Mr Depute Convener, A'm for tawkin maistlie anent the Govrenment's plicht ti mak the Heftin o Unnerdocht Fowk (TSN) a heich maitter. A maun lofe the Govrenment for pittin TSN as the steid o the Daein for Govrenment. A pensie Govrenment maun heft the unnerdocht fowk o wir kintra bi helpin thaim get back ti wirkin an get awa frae puirtith. The Govrenment wad hae plicht ti luik haird at thaim wi nae wark an thaim athoot. The Govrenment plans wad be luikin ti seek oot the fowk an quarters as needs hae the maist an mak siccar Govrenment daeins wrocht ti heft thaim.

I am going to concentrate my discussion on the Government's promise to making the targeting of social needs a priority. They have included this promise in the new TSN to underpin and inform the Programme for Government. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of government to help the most disadvantaged people in our communities by helping them to get jobs and escape the cycle of deprivation. The Government have promised to focus on unemployment and social deprivation. The plans put forward aim to do this by identifying the people and the areas in greatest need, then trying to ensure that Government programmes are more effective in helping them. However, there are large sections of the community in TSN areas whose needs will not be met by this Programme for Government.

Without question, there are major inequalities in our society: in health, in education, and in the numbers of long-term unemployed in the Province. Northern Ireland is one of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. It consistently displays the highest levels of unemployment and comparison shows an even greater disparity in the rates of long-term unemployment.

The average gross weekly earnings per household and per person are among the lowest of any of the four home nations, and a much greater proportion of the population here relies on social security benefits. It grieves me to listen to Mr Dallat talk about the deprivation that he experienced in his area. Deprivation is not exclusive to one side of the community; it occurs in the Protestant and Unionist areas too. I come from a poor background, as did many other Members in this Chamber. Poverty is not exclusive to one side or the other.

The Government have promised to target long-term unemployment and social deprivation. I would like to use my constituency of Strangford as a case study. The borough of Ards has extremely high levels of deprivation. It is comparable to the very worst areas of the Province. As we speak, the industries of agriculture, fishing and textiles are under enormous pressure. The situation seems to be spiralling out of control. As a Unionist area, it is having great problems; that is not exclusive to one side or the other. We are in the midst of a crisis that will have an immense negative impact upon the economy in my area.

At this point, I should mention the high unemployment levels in the Ards borough. As has already been emphasised and illustrated with figures, many industries which formed the backbone of the local economy have recently closed or are facing meltdown. The textile industry has seen over 2,000 job losses. Farming, which is a core industry in our council area, is under great pressure, as is the fishing industry in the village of Portavogie. The Ards borough is having problems on all three fronts.

Unemployment levels among the male workforce are among the highest in the Province. The Northern Ireland average stands at 7·3%, whereas the figure for Newtownards is 8·5%. Overall, unemployment figures are also well above the Northern Ireland average. Deprivation is a vicious circle which needs to be broken to allow people any real chance of life. The people of Strangford and of the Ards borough deserve that opportunity in the same way as everyone else. Will new TSN achieve that goal?

I question aspects of the Government's existing TSN policy, as the results do not appear to produce a true or accurate indication of social deprivation within any given area. There must be parity of social recognition between a disadvantaged person living in an area perceived to be affluent, and a disadvantaged person in an area that is perceived to be disadvantaged. Although areas such as Ards and Strangford are perceived to be affluent areas, one only has to look at one of the local housing estates to see a different story. Take, for example, the Glen estate or the Westwinds estate in Newtownards, or the villages on the Ards Peninsula. These communities have higher rates of unemployment, more people on social security benefits, a lower rate of car ownership, and more people on the poverty level than in many other parts of the Province. That is the reality in the Ards borough - an area perceived to be affluent.

There must be flexibility in Government policy, or else this system of TSN will continue to punish the people of Ards borough and the Ards peninsula. The Government and this Programme for Government must ensure that deprived areas are not ignored but are targeted for assistance. Can that be done within the new TSN? Many believe that it cannot. I have a problem with the Programme for Government for that reason.

I support the Programme for Government. I have listened to the debate intently, both in the Chamber and on television. I would like to speak about social development.

"We will combat social exclusion and poverty, with a particular emphasis on children."

That should be music to the ears of us all. Mr Shannon is correct to say that poverty knows no boundaries. Poverty is the same whether it is Larne, Carrickfergus or Newtownards.

We have a collective here, with Departments cutting across issues to deliver a service that targets social need and combats poverty - something we all want to see.

Mr Cobain spoke about child support and social security. Some of those benefits are very difficult to administer. I welcome the £3 million capital investment to administer those benefits through new computer systems. However, we need to ensure that we do not have the same kind of problems that were encountered with the computer system to administer child benefit. Like Mr Cobain, I have reservations about trying to administer different systems simultaneously.

In the Social Security Agency we see people on benefit, people from low-income families, people who live in poor housing, who are more likely to smoke, drink and have an unhealthy lifestyle. There must be a collective approach to targeting social need within those groups.

Education is a way out for many people and more needs to be done in this area. Although we have the top A level results in the United Kingdom, we also have major problems with people leaving school unable to read and write. These issues must be tackled over the next few years, and in the context of this programme. I believe this will happen because there is Executive authority behind it. Individual Departments can do certain things on their own.

I welcome some of the measures introduced by the Minister for Social Development. The new domestic energy efficiency scheme will go a long way towards trying to eliminate fuel poverty. Houses will be better heated so people will spend less money. However, we also need cheaper electricity for people who are wholly dependent on this source of energy.

Where I live not everyone claims all that he or she is entitled to. I deal with constituents who should have been receiving benefits some five or six years ago. Why has society let those people down for so long? I was particularly pleased to hear the Deputy First Minister say that he would look at benefit outreach programmes to try to ensure that people who are in real need receive every single penny to which they are entitled. In that context, we must make it easier for those people to claim benefits. The forms must be simplified; the whole social security package could be a one-stop shop - I hope that that is what is meant by the references to one system.

There is a need to reduce electricity prices. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment made a statement yesterday. However, it is extremely perverse that electricity is 9% more expensive here than it is in the Republic of Ireland. We export electricity to the Republic, where it is provided to consumers at a price that is 9% lower than the price at which Northern Ireland Electricity provides it to us. Such things must be looked at in order to help those most in need. People need to be protected; there must be a safety net.

Some aspects that fall within the remit of the Department for Social Development that could be improved. Just before Christmas, the Child Support Agency produced a report that contained a number of glaring inaccuracies. I welcome the fact that the Minister has brought forward new legislation to simplify the administration of that benefit simpler. Unfortunately, it will not take effect until next year.

I want to thank the Executive for bringing forward the Programme for Government. It is a major first step towards combating poverty in our society.

I want to make it clear, as other Members from this party have done already, that we do not support the document. It is presented as a Programme for Government, and the implication is that it is based on agreement and common action and that it is a collective piece of work. That, of course, is far from the case.

The background to our discussion is that the two main parties, which have supposedly signed up to the Programme for Government, are at loggerheads. They have been to the courts to fight each other, and more court actions are pending. One party has now withdrawn from the North/South Ministerial Council, in support, no doubt, of the long-standing DUP position.

The Deputy First Minister criticised Members from my party for their irresponsibility in not participating in the Executive that supposedly drew up this collective document. Members from all parties have criticised the document. Some have done it constructively, and some of their criticisms have been acceptable; others have not been constructive. The best example of that was Mrs Nelis, who in her own distinctive way has carried on the Republican tradition of whingeing about everything. After whingeing about it, she told us that the way forward was to have the Programme for Government in one hand and equality legislation in the other. I do not know whether Sinn Féin intend to recruit octopuses, but they will have to, for they have Armalites, ballot boxes, the Programme for Government, equality agendas and Lord knows what else in their hands.

The Programme for Government is meant to be a collective piece of work, but those who were supposedly involved in it are criticising each other. All the parties in the Assembly have criticised it, although some have defended it stoutly. This morning, we heard Sir Reg Empey claim all sorts of things for the Programme for Government: unemployment was down, house prices were up, and confidence was up. He did not say that that was happening in the economy a long time before the Programme for Government was even dreamt up, let alone drawn up.

It was an example of greater co-operation between parties than ever before. There was no rivalry between the parties involved in the Executive. Mr ONeill echoed that this afternoon when he said that the document had been drawn up from scratch - a remarkable document. It was as if there had never been any ongoing programmes in Departments before the document was drawn up. It seemed that Government in Northern Ireland suddenly started when the document was drawn up. That is not true.

We do not have the ability to make decisions collectively and operate together. There is rivalry. There is evidence that individual Ministers are using their Departments to further their own aims.

I will draw attention to the Minister of Education, whom my colleague described as "the sinister Minister". He tells us on page 107 of the Programme for Government that he intends to undertake 12 major works projects that will reduce the backlog of work across the schools estate. However, he has used the budget available to him like his own Sinn Féin election fund.

Half of the money has gone to schools in Londonderry - where he lives - or to Mid Ulster and West Tyrone, constituencies in which his party will contend for seats at the next election. Half of the private finance initiative funds have been spent in those areas. That is blatantly for electoral purposes. Has he directed those funds across the schools estate? No. The money has been directed at the Republican community. Thirty-four million pounds of private finance initiative money and £25·2 million of departmental money - half of the money from both funds - has been directed at a Sinn Féin election drive in three constituencies where they either hold seats or wish to hold seats after the next Westminster election.

We are told that the Programme for Government shows that the parties are not rivals and that they are working together towards a common programme. Reg Empey made that claim. Is he saying that the Ulster Unionist Party is so far down the road with Sinn Féin that he is endorsing their electoral campaign and the use of the schools budget to further it. Is that what he is saying? That is the reality. That is what lies behind the softened words of the Programme for Government. A Minister who is not accountable to the Executive, the Assembly or the Committees will direct money; he can do his own thing. That is not a programme for collective action; it is a programme for narrow party political action. Unfortunately our set-up that allows people such as Martin McGuinness to get away with it.

In the debate on the draft Programme for Government on 13 November 2000 I said that the test of the programme would be how well it would deal with all society's problems. I said that it had made a good start on socio-economic policies, and I would give it 7 out of 10 if we were in Scotland or Wales. There have been some improvements in the final programme. Areas such as equality, which were highlighted by the Deputy First Minister, have been improved considerably.

Jane Morrice highlighted references to sustainable development, which now seems to have become a little more apparent - although it was supposed to have been UK policy for some years.

There also has been some slippage in the programme. It is remarkable how often an aspiration for June has become October, or spring has become summer. Perhaps the permanent secretaries have nobbled the politicians, or they have made it more realistic - that may be a more charitable way to express it. Certainly it is doubtful whether in many cases the public service agreements could be described as excessively overambitious. However, since I am a charitable man, maybe I should now increase the mark to 7·5 or 8 out of 10 - if we were Scotland or Wales. Of course, we are not Scotland or Wales. We are a unique society with a distinct set of problems.

As I said in November, our fundamental problem is the deep division in our society. In that respect, the Programme for Government is sadly lacking. This remains my concern today, even after having listened to the contributions from all those Ministers who took time to speak in the debate. The programme has much fine rhetoric but very little substance. The thinness of the public service agreements that have been added illustrate that. Indeed, Alex Maskey of Sinn Féin, speaking in support of the programme, said the linkage between aspirations, firm targets and specific actions was lacking.

Opening the debate yesterday, the First Minister said he was disappointed with our amendment. He said that we had five months to consider the programme and that in many areas our ideas were close to those of the parties involved in drafting it. We have had a little over a week to consider the final report, and I agree that many of our ideas are close to those in the programme - which is why I have just given it 8 out of 10 in certain circumstances. However, many of the points raised by Sean Neeson in proposing our amendment were made by us last November, have since been made by us in questions to Ministers in this Assembly, and they have not been taken on board.

I want to look at some of those points. In November I highlighted the issue of sharing over separation as being a fundamental primary objective. That should not have come as any great surprise to the First Minster. In September 1998 he sat on a platform in Brighton while I made a speech on that topic, yet it does not seem to have made any difference. What about those who do not fall within the two main streams? We are all minorities in this place. However, two minorities appear to be more significant than all the others. Looking at the current version - the final version, we are told - there is almost nothing about promoting a shared society.

Back in November Kieran McCarthy highlighted the problems of graffiti, illegal flags and paramilitary murals. They intimidate the average person in Northern Ireland and make areas unwelcoming to visitors, but the subject is not mentioned. In fact, the Programme for Government has a section on promoting tourism. Paragraph 5.3.3 is headed:

"We will work to increase Northern Ireland's attractiveness to visitors".

However, there is not a single word about graffiti or painted kerbstones.

In the debate on the draft programme Eileen Bell said that the title of the introduction, "Making a Difference", would be more credible if there had been any attempt whatsoever to get away from this dangerously traditional "two nations" concept. There is no sign that this concern has been taken on board. Today she highlighted aspects of community relations, where the Programme for Government still falls short. Similarly, I highlighted the vagueness of section 2.5 in that debate in November, and there has been no change of substance. There is nothing at all on our call for measures to promote integrated housing.

I really wonder where the First Minister has been - of course, he is not in the Chamber to hear a response to his speech - if he is surprised by our amendment. On the other hand, the Deputy First Minister acknowledged the sincerity of Sean Neeson's motion. Mr Mallon, unlike his Colleague Mr McGrady, who accused us of opportunism, accepts our sincerity and our right to put forward proposals. He claims that Alliance's seven priorities are inherent in the Programme for Government and referred us to section 3.7 of annex C. He said that his vision was for a peaceful, inclusive society. Of course we share that, but section 3.7 is remarkably vague, with no specific targets or actions whatsoever.

We are not the only Members who have commented on the vagueness of the programme. Mr McCartney said that Sinn Féin and the NIUP both agree on the view we expressed in November about its vagueness. That is possibly some achievement for us. Many commentators, notably the Civic Forum in its response, which we received yesterday, have made the same point. Dr Paisley took time to criticise the presentation, the printing and the quality of the paper - I took time to read the contents. I must ask the Deputy First Minister, who, like most Ministers, is not present in the House - one hopes that one of his deputies will answer for him - what will actually get noticed out of this programme.

Will people notice a specific aspiration, regardless of how vague its target is, or will they notice what he describes as an "inherent aspiration", which has neither a target nor a specific action? If there is nothing specific in the programme, it will not be taken seriously - that is the crucial gap. We highlighted this problem during the debate on the draft programme last November. That gap still exists and our concerns have not been addressed.

This morning Mr McCartney and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment debated at length the role and structure of the programme. Mr McCartney said that the Alliance Party, the Women's Coalition and the PUP support the agreement and the Executive. The Women's Coalition and the PUP can speak for themselves, but I wish to make our position quite clear. As Mr Close said, we endorse the Good Friday Agreement and we support it. It is not perfect, and there are many threads of petty sectarianism that we do not like. However, it is a massive step forward towards the kind of society that we want.

Nevertheless, support for the agreement does not constitute support for the Executive. Mr McCartney would have us believe that the only possible kind of opposition is a strident attempt to tear down the institutions of the agreement and to oppose everything that they stand for. The Alliance Party's aim is to provide constructive opposition. It will support the agreement but it will also represent the views of those who are neither Unionist nor Nationalist, and who are not easily pigeon-holed by those traditional politicians who wish to categorise people in this way. The Alliance Party will seek to promote an inclusive society.

I was saddened, but not particularly surprised, by the fact that only Ms McWilliams supported Mr Close's call for the Executive to lead from the front to promote inclusion. There was no support from any of the Executive parties. The Civic Forum also noted the importance of this issue in its response to the programme. In referring to citizenship, it called for the Executive to lead by example and to demonstrate the potential of consensual politics. Would it not be an interesting example if the Executive followed this recommendation?

In proposing the motion, Mr Neeson highlighted the issue of sectarianism in sport. The Deputy First Minister acknowledged that there was a problem, as did the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, who attempted to defend the Executive's record. However, as Mr McCarthy said, it is over a year since we called for legislation similar to the Football (Offences) Act 1991. A year ago the Minister agreed to look at what was happening, yet there is absolutely nothing in the Programme for Government to address this fundamental, crucial problem. Even in the light of the scenes in Windsor Park last week, the best we can get is condemnation.

But the Executive have power in this place. We are no longer opposition politicians who have to call on direct rule Ministers. The Executive should have done something rather than simply making pious platitudes that had no substance. That was a completely inadequate response.

The Civic Forum also commented on the section in the Programme for Government that deals with community relations. It called for greater recognition of our wider cultural diversity than appears in the programme. It pointed out that there is a surprising lack of detail on how to improve community relations. It stated that there is insufficient detail on the cross-departmental strategy for community relations.

Is it not clear that when we object to the inadequacies of the Programme for Government we are speaking in concert with a much wider group of civic society? We are speaking along with those who seek more from this Executive than we have, and received who seek the full implementation of the vision with those of the agreement, which is not being fulfilled at the moment.

Mr Arthur Doherty - yet another Member who is not present - suggested that the Programme for Government was the Good Friday Agreement in action. This was followed by that lovely little interchange between Mr McElduff and Mrs Nelis, neither of whom is present, which included a description of people marching along with the Programme for Government in one hand and the Good Friday Agreement in the other. If people did this, they would discover that the Programme for Government has considerably more bulk but not necessarily more weight or gravitas.

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close.

They would also discover that it fails to live up to the promise of the agreement. The Programme for Government is a step forward but it is not a big enough step. We need to begin the journey towards a more equal society today, not in next year's Programme for Government. That is why the amendment should be supported.

This has been a very broad debate. As Mr Ford said, we learned about the quality of paper, and we even learned about whose daughter is an artist, and whose daughter is not. It has been broad, and I trust that it has also been valuable. Of course, there were some Members on my right who despaired, who viewed the work as futile. Nonetheless, I trust that there are enough of us in the Executive, the Committees and the Assembly to move forward and prove that we have something in this motion and to carry it through to its conclusion.

We represent the first politicians in 28 years to consider how we govern ourselves, and the decisions that we take affect the citizens who elected us. Of course, this document is aspirational; it lasts for three years. However, it also indicates actions that must be taken. Over 50 Members of the Assembly debated this motion. Some of my ministerial Colleagues also mentioned aspects of the agreement. I will try to answer some of the questions raised and others will receive written answers.

Much was said about public service agreements, which were added to the draft programme after it was introduced in October. Dr Birnie asked whether we had too many targets and whether there was a balance between too high and too low an expectation. We spoke to the Treasury, and we took its comments on board. The issue of public service agreements is a learning experience not only for us but also for those in Government in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff.

Ms McWilliams asked how far behind we were with regard to poverty. She said that we have the answers. Yes, for Scotland and for Wales. I agree that we have to make more progress.

While Mr Maskey supported the Programme for Government and said that it was a very important document, he felt that it fell short and that some work remained to be done. We recognise that.

We were first charged with drawing up public service agreements in October 2000 within a short time frame. To date, the way in which we have developed public service agreements has met with the broad support of those we consulted throughout Northern Ireland. Having drawn up these public service agreements, we would be the first to say that they are not ideal and that further work is required. Indeed, the Programme for Government recognises that a start has been made but that there is still work to do.

There are aims and objectives in the public service agreements that are relatively easy to identify, but there are actions and targets that are more difficult to devise. Through the Departments we are trying to demonstrate that we are making a difference by fulfilling the Programme for Government.

These actions must be precise enough to be linked to spending allocations, which is a difficult exercise because some priorities may require no cash at all. However, the cash spend for 2000 and 2001 will be enough to deliver the targets set for other priorities. The Treasury recognises that this is not an easy exercise. There are pitfalls and actions may be nebulous and difficult to define. Some people might say that they are time-consuming to construct. Everyone involved found it difficult to match the resources to the actions.

Ms McWilliams and other Members said that we need decent policy outcomes, timetables and targets. I agree that targets are important. They are, in essence, performance measures for this Administration. We are in the process of developing a very simple four-part scheme: baselines as to where we are; targets that we wish to achieve; a timescale to achieve those targets; and, above all, a benchmark to indicate what is best standard. Members referred to those today. We are aware of those dynamics and dimensions to targets, and we are in the process of developing them.

Indeed, the overall aim of the PSAs is that targets should be affected by actions. We are trying to make them testable, deliverable, achievable and meaningful. We wish to do that, and we hope to make that difference.

I want to quote Monica McWilliams again. This is the third time that I have made reference to her, so I will give her her first name.

We are home and dry.

Who said that? It was Jane Morrice - she is here as well.

Monica said that we will not meet some of the targets, and she asked whether we will come back and be honest, upright and open and say why we did not. That is also an important element. This is a process that will be monitored. All those involved in this process will be accountable. Indeed, in monitoring the targets, it may not be such a bad thing if we do not make a target because the process will allow us to ask questions of the Government as to where, why and what we did not achieve. The intrinsic value of the process itself is, therefore, beneficial. That is another reason why I commend this.

Finally, PSAs are about identifying clear actions, the resources associated with those actions, the expected outcomes and the time period in which they are expected. At 4.30 pm - that seems a long time ago - Jane Morrice referred to excellent accountability. We are about trying to deliver excellent accountability.

Let me move to the amendment that was proposed yesterday by the Alliance Party. It "declines to approve". That is a lovely way of saying "No". The Alliance Party, of course, does not like to say "No", but by declining to approve, it is saying "No" to this motion. Why? Because

"it does not properly address the deep divisions and inequalities in this society".

Mr Neeson, in making his proposition yesterday, said that there has never been a greater need for reconciliation. I agree entirely with that. There has never been a greater need for reconciliation than there is now. However, he went on to say that there are only seven measures for dealing with division.

I had some sympathy with Mr McGrady when he said that the Alliance Party has been slightly opportunistic. I recognise and share his concerns to make progress - I genuinely do. However, it is naïve to think that we can make that progress some very quick fix by producing a document.

A central element of the Programme for Government deals with equality, investing in education and skills, securing a competitive economy, and ensuring better health. Those will represent the core components of tackling division. Dr Farren, who has just entered the Chamber, made reference to that aspect. He referred to the taskforce that was being set up, which he would be chairing. My Colleague Danny Kennedy also referred to that. He said that education is a vibrant aspect necessary for the economy and well-being of Northern Ireland. All of those represent a package that will, it is to be hoped, heal the divisions.

I shall refer quickly to some of Mr Neeson's comments. He said that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 needs to be dealt with. We must not overlook the fact that the responsibility for justice in Northern Ireland resides with the Northern Ireland Office. It makes no sense to call for the rejection of a Programme for Government on the basis of something for which we have no responsibility.

Mr Neeson mentioned flags and graffiti. It is important that both communities are able to celebrate their culture and identity. There is a Northern Ireland community that has many facets and which can recognise culture, identity and diversity - as was seen very clearly at the Odyssey complex two months ago when many thousands witnessed a very enjoyable event. The Council of Europe defines those aspects very clearly, and Dr Adamson referred to it earlier. We are about reflecting that in the business of government.

Mr Neeson also said that more resources should be available for community relations. I assure the Member that £5·5 million, out of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister's budget of £28 million, is allocated for community relations. There is also £3·4 million from the Department of Education and more money from Peace II.

Northern Ireland has had 30 years of violence. The fact that the Assembly is debating the Programme for Government represents a healing of the divisions and a coming together of the community that no Programme for Government can show. Words are not enough. Action is here today.

When you peel away the rhetoric of some of my Colleagues on the right, the pledge of office states that all must partake in the Programme for Government and that all must act within it. What better example of healing community division is there than the Democratic Unionist Party's Social Development Minister, Mr Morrow, saying "I will target areas most deprived. My Department will do this"? Those are the very aspects that Members opposite have been calling for. And that is from a DUP Minister. [Interruption]

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>